pbleighton

There have been a few threads on the pros and cons of overcalling with 4 cards at the 1 level. I'm asking for people's opinions on how to respond to 1 level overcalls when in a significant minority of the time an overcall will be 4. I'm not concerned about raising to 2 with 3 cards. My concerns are with: 1) Preemptive raises to the 3 and 4 level - how many cards, at what vulnerbility, and 2) Inviting/going to game with 3 card support, and distinguishing it from 4 card support. Pd and I had been overcalling with 4, but pretty selectively (like to have KQJx or AKxx, or so), and so the frequency of 4 card overcalls was low enough so we just assumed 5, with little ill effect. Our suit quality standards have been slipping a bit lately, but we still assume 5. This thread was prompted by the current "Feelin' Frisky" thread in Interesting Bridge Hands, where Ben advocated ovecalling at the 1 level with K108x in hearts (favorable, pd a passed hand). I kind of agreed, which made me realize how far my standards have been slipping. What are the advancing practices of those who overcall fairly freely with 4? Peter

Agree with Ben - 1H the first time - now you are too late to the party. Like to have a better heart suit, though. Peter

"yeah yeah not very politically correct or diplomatic whatever. Take offense if u like, or just consider facts." Then "Now perhaps you dont realize the opposite is true, you are very anti-american (i know this from the e2025 forums), and do not like to acknowledge that perhaps we had a team better than other non-italian teams. You may not realize but on average europeans are much more anti-american than americans are anti-european. Im done with this thread, its a joke." Exit the Ugly American, who took offense. Peter (U.S.A.)

"The team we sent included some of the best players in the world. Gerben, if USA had beaten italy would they not be the overwhelming favorites to win the whole thing? I think most people realized early on it was between USA and Italy." That is insulting to the rest of the world. Are you campaigning for a job in the State Department B) Peter (U.S.A.)

2S is marginal - OK at MPs or NV at teams, but not good vul at teams. Not terrible, though. 3S is crazy, especially vul. Peter

3NT (but no bid really appeals). Given West's hearts, pd has to have something in the minors. My hand screams slow-developing tricks. My SK is golden. I want West on lead. 3NT is probably unsound (as is 4S), but I'm not going to leave this one in part score, even at MPs. Peter

You have a good 5 card side suit. Bid 4D. Some play this as showing extras, but unless you have that agreement, this is the correct bid. Peter

Playing with a "sound" bidder, I might double - a tough call. Playing with my regular pd, I pass - if he had 5 spades and a decent 10 hcp he would have opened. Peter

Thanks. Peter

When watching the Vugraph, is it possible to see all of the hands during the bidding and play? Peter

A standard reverse, 5+H, 4+S, and probably just 5-4. 5-4 is going to occur far more frequently than 6-4 or 6-5, and you need to show it. How do you do that if you don't reverse? With 6-4s, rebid 3H or 4H, depending on hand strength. With 6-5s, bid 2S followed by 3S, or 4S if pd jumps to 3NT. Not elegant, but you bid more hands more accurately. Peter

"A basic law of human behavior I have observed: the higher the stakes, the worse some people act. Perhaps your experience is different?" "Obviously my experience has been different or else we would not be having this discussion" I wish I could live in your universe. It sounds so much nicer than this one :) Peter

"Are there less jerks on BBO just because there is no rating of players?" I doubt it, but if there were ratings, many jerks would act worse than they do now, having "more to lose". A basic law of human behavior I have observed: the higher the stakes, the worse some people act. Perhaps your experience is different? Peter

"Peter, I'd be curious to find out if the existence of appeal committees indeed increases the 'jerk' behavior." Well, I don't think you can run a simulation :blink: But perform this mental exercise: would 'jerk' behavior go down if clubs stopped awarding masterpoints? Peter

doofik writes: "The appeals committees are not there to reprimand jerks. They're there to ensure fairness. I don't understand why you'd say "thank goodness". The appeals committees deal with bidding and play, not behavior. Once you distinguish the two, the light will shine again" More than a bit condescending, don't you think? You apparently didn't read my post carefully. I understand the function of appeals committees, and I am not concerned about their competence or fairness. My point was that their very presence would encourage poorly behaving, overcompetitive players to become more so, if they knew the director's word wasn't final, as I said: "In theory, this wouldn't happen. In practice, it would, at least at my club. It would encourage the jerks, which would then have a ripple effect. The small increase in "bridge justice" wouldn't be worth it." If I get a bad ruling once in a while in a friendly club game, I could care less. I play in club games to relax and have fun. Not all players have this attitude, and this makes some of them unpleasant to play against (or to listen to at the next table). I don't want ANYTHING done which would increase this. That's why I say "thank goodness". Peter

Ron writes: "(I agree with richard here, why "thank goodness", Peter?)" Club games, as least the ones I go to, are more relaxed, less competitive, and consequently have less bad behavior than the tournaments I've gone to. I like this, though I like going to tournaments once in a while, too. A different experience. Leave appeals for tournaments, where they belong. Treating club games as if they were tournaments would degrade behavior, which is in some cases bad enough. In theory, this wouldn't happen. In practice, it would, at least at my club. It would encourage the jerks, which would then have a ripple effect. The small increase in "bridge justice" wouldn't be worth it. I see this issue as comparable to that of ratings on BBO. In theory, how could it hurt? In practice... On a more general note, I took up bridge about two years ago, and love it, but some of the behavior is appalling. The lack of sportsmanship in a game played by adults for no money is remarkable, worse than anything I experienced playing sports in school. Too bad. A lot of experienced bridge players who behave well themselves have apparently developed callouses with regard to bad behavior by others, and that's fine for them. But this behavior drives beginners away from club bridge in droves. I expected people to disagree with my post. I hope I've made the reasons for my position clear. Peter

No. And thank goodness. Peter

"This system is designed exlusively for MPs. I wouldn't want to try it at IMPs. At MPs, getting -50 when they could get 120 is a top, and getting -1400 when they could get 120 is a bottom, and they cancel out. At IMPs, those phone numbers get to you quickly." Well, OK :D As I said in my earlier post (which wasn't meant to anger you), I might play it NV at matchpoints. Vul at matchpoints, here's my problem (apart from reduced preemptiveness) - down two (and sometimes one) undoubled. As you say, the doubled contracts are infrequent enough that they can be mostly ignored at matchpoints, but not at IMPs. You do go down a fair amount opening a weak NT, as you know from playing it. You go down more frequently in an overcall than in an opening, given that, in an overcall, at least one opponent will always have an opening bid. -200 and -100 score quite differently at matchpoints than -100 and -50. It's frustrating for me to open a hand vul, go down, get a bottom, and realize that if we had been NV, we would have got a top. This will be more frequent as an overcall than as an opening. I am considering abandoning the 12-14 NT vul (going to 14-16) because of the non doubled penalties (keep the 10-13 NV though). I probably won't in the short term, because my partner likes it, the opps make very silly bids over it sometimes, and I'm not quite ready for the complications of a weak/strong NT system, different inverted minor responses in particular. Consider playing this only NV. Peter

jt- As to your specific question, if you are playing 12-15, and not 12+-15, then overcall. This is hardly the worst balanced 12 count you will be dealt. As to the 12-15 1NT overcall: I play 10-13 NT NV and 12-14 Vul, and love it (well, actually really love it NV and it's decent vul). I play 1NT overcall 15-18 standard, however. The beauty of weak NT as opener is that is: 1) a reasonable, if somewhat flawed, constructive bid 2) a fairly effective and fairly safe preempt 3) very common 2 is really the key. As an overcall, 1NT is both less effective and less safe than as an opener, because the opponents have made an opening bid. I'm sure that you are right, that it has worked for you so far, but have you played it regularly against decent players who have bothered to put together a defense against it? I think you would get creamed eventually, especially at IMPs. Ron, in his tender way, obviously agrees B) I think this could work NV at matchpoints, with a runout structure. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it. Peter (who loves unsound preempts)

I hope no hard feelings, Jimmy. The thread was developing an rgb flavor :unsure: Back on topic... pclayton writes: "I still prefer 1♦ - 1x - 2♣ to be at least 5-4; lengths undetermined. If your system forces you to open a very short diamond; you will be in a position to either raise partner's major on 4315 or 3415 or rebid 1N on 3325's." When you are 1435 and you open 1D and it goes 1D-P-1S-P-? and your hand is insside the NT range, what do you do? I think the choices are 1NT, lying about your strength, or 2C, with 3 D and 5 C. whereeagles writes: "I hate the 2C opener anyway. The reason why I prefer precision with 4-card majors is that in such context you can BIN the 2C opener (dump everything into the 1D)." With 4M and 6+ m, do you open 1M? If so, do you use relays after 1M? How do you sort things out after 1D-P-1x-P-?. Peter

"Sorry didn't mean to piss anyone off. Being irreverent towards politicians regardless of whose, is very much an Aussie trait. Don't lets start a flame war over this." Well, Ron, as the election is Tuesday, your timing was exquisite :unsure: Peter

In search of ways to beef up our defense, we asked our club manager for advice. He recommended Lavinthal discards. He says you are stuck less often than with standard discards. What do you think of them? Peter

"i doubt i could graduate from yale and i'm pretty damn sure i couldn't land a jet on a carrier... i imagine he'd be a whole lot smarter if he'd called our vietnam vets (me included) baby killers, village burners, and genghis khan disciples?" You could certainly have graduated from Yale when he did. The "Gentleman C" was in full bloom back then - my father got through Yale without learning much sociology (a close choice between that and industrial psychology - the two easiest majors), but he did learn how to play hearts and drink beer at the same time :unsure: With regard to Vietnam, Bush's attitude towards it at the time was neither dovish nor hawkish. He just "couldn't understand what the fuss was about". George Bush would be a "whole lot smarter" if he ever bothered to try to think. He wasn't born stupid, he is stupid by choice. He "doesn't do nuance". He is proud of his stupidity. He thinks it makes him genuine, and demonstrates his moral superiority. He's a dry drunk, and religion is his new booze. There are lots of smart conservatives in the U.S. If we must have a conservative president, why can't we have a smart one? <end rant> Peter

5D for me. It should probably make if partner has been telling the truth. Peter

"i don't think either hand is worth 26 zars tho, eh?" The site says it is :D Peter