Fixed?

[jdonn]

Completely agree, double says very little about shape. It just shows the values to game force, which could be a stretch under this much pressure, and any hand that can't bid 3NT or a suit. I have seen Meckwell double here with a hand like xxx xxx K KJxxxx (not pointing out because it is light, just pointing out that shape is not a huge issue.)

[hrothgar]

Word of Warning to those that want to bid =too= randomly here.

 

Bids that are too far "out to lunch" could be ruled as attempts to purposefully invalidate the board...

 

...and that is a violation of The Laws.

This attitude would be laughable if it weren't so common...

 

The Laws of Bridge require me to accurately describe my agreements to the opponents. The Laws also allow Sponsoring Organizations to regulate certain types of agreements. However, the Laws are quite quiet about "random" bids. I can apply mixed strategies to my hearts content so long as I provide adequate disclosure.

 

Rules against purposely invalidating a board are designed to stop players from opening 7N on a Yarlborough because they are bored and out of contention. (Alternatively, some people like to pull this sort of crap to punish partner for a bad bid) Any one who applies these types of regulations against a pair that is genuinely attempting to score well should have their license to direct yanked.

 

Some sponsoring organization have passed regulations that limit players ability to use mixed strategies. The most obvious example of this is the EBU Orange Book which currently explicitly bans random overcalls. (As I understand matters, the new version which goes into effect in August has relaxed this restriction). In a similar fashion, the ACBL currently permits players to use anything they damn well please over the opponent's strong club opening.

[foo]

Come Now, Richard. As an exteme example, even you have to admit that if it goes 1C!-(6N) on a hand that has nothing close to the shape/values for the 6N bid, that it's obviously Not Bridge.

 

Nor is it properly called "a mixed strategy". Such bids are effectively an attempt to mess the board's score so badly as to invalidate the board.

 

Such bidding is illegal for good reason.

 

If the only thing your Pard can tell the opponents about the meanings of your bids is that you have 13 cards, there is A Problem. Both ethically and legally.

[hrothgar]

Come Now, Richard.  As an exteme example, even you have to admit that if it goes 1C!-(6N) on a hand that has nothing close to the shape/values for the 6N bid, that it's obviously Not Bridge.

 

Nor is it properly called "a mixed strategy".  Such bids are effectively an attempt to mess the board's score so badly as to invalidate the board.

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand. I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

 

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid. I argued that it isn't. You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

 

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

[whereagles]

Partner has to act, usually by doubling, with any hand approaching a game force and he should in fact stretch to do so. He has something like 0-6, making pass an obvious favorite.

Indeed. This hand is actually very instructive for people starting to play precision, and what you said summarizes the situation quite well..

[joshs]

In my usual methods, this is a pass. Partner would have taken some action with 5 points (and maybe even stretched with just an ace) and a singleton spade or with 7 and a doubleton spade (and even with some nice 6's), hence, except for the rare times that partner has 3 spades and 6-8ish, the best hand he can have is 2 spades and a 6 count. Hence you are not making 3N on power. If partner has a 5 count and a 5 card suit you might be able to make a light 3N if 3S was a classic pre-empt, but if instead the 3 spade bidder has entries, he might be able to afford to give up 2 spade tricks and still win the race to 5 tricks...

[foo]

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand. I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

 

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid. I argued that it isn't. You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

 

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

The point is you are posting like the 1C!-(3S) is "anything goes" in terms of both shape and strength, and even claiming that it is optimal strategy and proper behavior for it to be so.

 

That simply is not so.

 

If the bid comes too close to being random, then you run the risk of both ethical and legal issues. For instance, I can see you having a problem in front of a Commitee if you did this on a =4333 yarborough. Particularly if this is a "manuever" you have done a few times in the past and the opponents are not made aware of that fact.

 

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

[foo]

...I'm reminded of the The Italians psyching a S overall in the World Championships back in the 1950's because the Americans had no way to expose or field the psyche.

 

If no X is ever penalty, you are painting yourself into a corner.

[hrothgar]

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand.  I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

 

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid.  I argued that it isn't.  You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

 

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

The point is you are posting like the 1C!-(3S) is "anything goes" in terms of both shape and strength, and even claiming that it is optimal strategy and proper behavior for it to be so.

 

That simply is not so.

 

If the bid comes too close to being random, then you run the risk of both ethical and legal issues. For instance, I can see you having a problem in front of a Commitee if you did this on a =4333 yarborough. Particularly if this is a "manuever" you have done a few times in the past and the opponents are not made aware of that fact.

 

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

In what way, shape or form did I ever suggest that players don't have an obligation to disclose their methods. (If you take a look at the "Poll: How Many" thread, you'll see that I sharply criticized one of partners on exactly this same ground.)

 

I understand your desire to change the subject:

 

There's not a single person who agrees with you that the balancing double is for penalties.

 

Its clear that there is no basis in the Laws banning random bids.

 

However, trying to lecture me regarding disclosure standards ain't gonna cut it.

 

You might get some better traction if you start boviating about spellings errors or hand diagrams with 12 or 14 cards (I'm notorious for both)

[jdonn]

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

Can you please quote the law which says, or even suggests that?

 

Here, I'll help

 

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html

[hrothgar]

...I'm reminded of the The Italians psyching a S overall in the World Championships back in the 1950's because the Americans had no way to expose or field the psyche.

 

If no X is ever penalty, you are painting yourself into a corner.

As I recall, it was the American's psyching a 1♠ overcall against the Italians...

[awm]

Well there are rules against:

 

(1) Methods that are purely destructive. Of course, this is subject to a lot of interpretation. Bidding 7NT on a yarborough for no reason certainly falls into this category. A lot of times "purely destructive" is a judgement call though.

 

(2) "Random" methods. The concern is not actually about truly random methods, but about the use of terms like "random" and "no agreement" to conceal an agreement. For example, I know in the US it's not allowed to have "no carding agreements" since this is often used as a way to conceal the actual carding agreements from declaring side. Similarly a statement that "we play all two-over-one bids as artificial and game forcing and just pick one to bid arbitrarily" would be self-serving and probably inaccurate, and likely deemed an illegal agreement.

 

On the other hand, I don't think people are suggesting that 3♠ is a "purely random" bid or that the opponents have a concealed agreement. The idea is more that the opponents agreement is that 3♠ is a natural preempt. However:

 

(1) People often preempt quite aggressively opposite a strong 1♣ at favorable colors. The requisite "spade length" for a natural 3-level preempt in this situation might be five cards, and is certainly no more than six cards.

 

(2) People sometimes preempt with good hands, especially on auctions where partner seems unlikely to have many of the remaining values. This is such an auction, so it's quite possible the "preempt" is on a full opener, counting on the strength of opener's hand to avoid missing a game.

 

(3) The 3♠ bid could be lead directional or an outright psych. This is obviously not without risk (again assuming no secret agreements) but we've seen people suggest psyching on various hands with a long suit to run to, especially at favorable after a strong club opening.

 

None of the above really constitute an "agreement" much less a hidden agreement. Certainly if advancer routinely passes 3♠ with four-card support there is evidence of something fishy, but nothing like that has been suggested here. Perhaps a full description of 3♠ might be:

 

"Partner has a hand where he feels that bidding 3♠ is likely to lead to a good result for our side, assuming that I will normally raise with three or more spades and pass otherwise. Most often this is a fairly weak hand with six decent spades, but it is possible that partner would bid a strong five card suit here. Occasionally the 3♠ call may include substantial values, if in partner's judgement his hand and the auction make game for our side unlikely without a fit in spades. On very rare occasions partner may bid 3♠ with a seemingly unsuitable hand, particularly if a slam seems likely for the opposing side, but he does this at his own risk and I am expected to act as though he has the normal weak hand with six decent spades until subsequent bidding makes clear that this is not the case."

 

I'm not sure how this level of disclosure helps declarer any, and I think most of this would be implied by a decent partnership when they describe 3♠ as a natural preempt.

[foo]

I'm not changing the subject at all. I'm making a point that all of Ethics, Laws, and Logic limit bids ATT.

 

Using awm's post as a reference, we've gone from "anything goes" to a hand w/ 5-6 S's and enough values that Overcaller expects this to be a good bid for Us if We end up playing it, and we've thrown in the =possibility= of =occasional= =non systemic= psyches.

 

The bounds on this bid just got a whole lot tighter.

...and that refutes Richard's "1C!-(3S) could show anything" POV.

 

As for Opener being able to X for penalties, That should be common sense. After all, if

2C-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be for penalty, certainly 1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be as well.

 

Maybe if people penalty X'd more often, opponents would learn to be more careful about having their bid.

 

Certainly I expect Richard is going to ram into a barrage of penalty X's if he actually bids the way he seems to be advocating.

...and if he is bidding too far outside the expected norms for his bids w/o =extensive= disclosure he is very likely to have lot's of Recorder forms submitted on him and possibly have commitee action to deal with as well.

[jdonn]

If my opponents played penalty doubles on this auction, then quite contrary to what you say I would bid 3♠ as much as humanly possible on any hand with spade length. They will pay dearly the far greater proportion of the time that opener is short in spades rather than long. It would be completely silly to play this double as penalty. There is a reason Fishbein and anything similar has all but faded into oblivion.

 

You really have shifted the discussion, whether conciously or not. It somehow went from what 3♠ can show ("So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.") to disclosure ("The concern is not actually about truly random methods, but about the use of terms like "random" and "no agreement" to conceal an agreement.") Is your position that 3♠ can show anything as long as the agreement is accurately disclosed? If yes, then we are all in agreement. If no, then you are on your own as far as I can tell and I'm not sure what you are claiming anyway.

 

EDIT (5:15): My apologies, I saw an AWM post and thought it was a FOO post. I'll leave this as written, but feel free to ignore the direct quotes.

[joshs]

I'm not changing the subject at all. I'm making a point that all of Ethics, Laws, and Logic limit bids ATT.

 

Using awm's post as a reference, we've gone from "anything goes" to a hand w/ 5-6 S's and enough values that Overcaller expects this to be a good bid for Us if We end up playing it, and we've thrown in the =possibility= of =occasional= =non systemic= psyches.

 

The bounds on this bid just got a whole lot tighter.

...and that refutes Richard's "1C!-(3S) could show anything" POV.

 

As for Opener being able to X for penalties, That should be common sense. After all, if

2C-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be for penalty, certainly 1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be as well.

 

Maybe if people penalty X'd more often, opponents would learn to be more careful about having their bid.

 

Certainly I expect Richard is going to ram into a barrage of penalty X's if he actually bids the way he is claiming.

...and if he is bidding too far outside the expected norms for his bids w/o =extensive= disclosure he is very likely to have lot's of Recorder forms submitted on him and possibly have commitee action to deal with as well.

In one partnership I used to play penalty x's after a 2 level or higher interference over our strong club. I think it was an unmitigated disaster.

 

The following "hand" came up very frequently

 

Opener:

Axx Axxxx AKJx x

 

Responder:

x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

 

6H is excellent. And its hard to get a better score than +100 playing penalty x's.

 

On the other hand when one of the hands actually had a penalty x, the other player was usually short and could make a takeout x... Yes if opener has 22 and responder has only 2 you can't get your penalty, but that mesh doesn't occur very often.

[hrothgar]

I'm not changing the subject at all.  I'm making a point that all of Ethics, Laws, and Logic limit bids ATT.

 

Using awm's post as a reference, we've gone from "anything goes" to a hand w/ 5-6 S's and enough values that Overcaller expects this to be a good bid for Us if We end up playing it, and we've thrown in the =possibility= of =occasional= =non systemic= psyches.

 

The bounds on this bid just got a whole lot tighter.

...and that refutes Richard's "1C!-(3S) could show anything" POV.

It does nothing of the sort:

 

Assume for the moment that I chose to define a white on red 3♠ overcall of the opponent's strong club opening as follows:

 

1. Natural, single suited with 6+ Spades OR

2. A single suited hand with (7+ ♣, ♦, or ♥) and 0-1 Spades OR

4. Lead directing with 4 Spades (concentrated honors) and a 5+ card side suit

 

Furthermore, assume that I follow the appropriate rules of disclosure.

 

I assert that there is nothing in the Laws of Bridge the prevent me from using this method.

Furthermore, I assert that this method is legal at the GCC level in North America.

 

Back to you Foo

[hrothgar]

As for Opener being able to X for penalties, That should be common sense.  After all, if

2C-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be for penalty, certainly 1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be as well.

There are some very big difference between strong club openings and strong 2♣ openings.

 

From my perspective, the most significant deals with the level of experience with overcalls. Any successful strong club pair has LOTS of experience with players overcalling their 1♣ opening. Most have fairly decent agreements about their continuations.

 

In my experience, very few pairs playing standard have a clue what they're playing after the auction 2♣ - (3♠). Even if they discuss system, they haven't bothered to spend much time worrying about it. There are much more important things to focus on.

 

If there is a significant difference between the two sets of methods AND

this difference doesn't related to the dramatic difference in the minimum strength promised by the two openings, THEN

 

I suspect that the strong club pairs are more likely to be doing it "right"

[foo]

In one partnership I used to play penalty x's after a 2 level or higher interference over our strong club. I think it was an unmitigated disaster.

 

The following "hand" came up very frequently

 

Opener:

Axx Axxxx AKJx x

 

Responder:

x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

 

6H is excellent. And its hard to get a better score than +100 playing penalty x's.

 

On the other hand when one of the hands actually had a penalty X, the other player was usually short and could make a takeout X... Yes if opener has 22 and responder has only 2 you can't get your penalty, but that mesh doesn't occur very often.

Opener:

Axx Axxxx AKJx x

 

Responder:

x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

 

1C!-(3S)-X showing 4+H and values. WTP?

 

Of course I am not advocating that all X's in these auctions are penalty! That would be foolish.

Where I'm advocating penalty X's is by the hand most likely to be flat and strong in auctions where Responder has =denied= being able to show shape/strength and the Opponent's already rate to be too high:

 

1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;?? when holding

 

♠AJ62♥AT♦AK43♣K32

 

If there ever was a hand with convertible values and enough power tricks to know the 3S does not rate to make, this is it.

 

I'll give another example in a different auction:

1N-pa-pa-balance;

some bidding by Overcaller and Advancer;

X by Responder.

THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE PENALTY.

Responder knows They have too few HCP and/or shape to rate to make Their contract.

 

If no X is ever penalty systemically in these sorts of situations, you are going to get robbed blind.

 

...and jdonn, Fishbein was specifically designed to deal with a frequent psycher (Adam Meredith IIRC). It worked for that purpose.

[foo]

Assume for the moment that I chose to define a white on red 3♠ overcall of the opponent's strong club opening as follows:

 

1. Natural, single suited with 6+ Spades OR

2. A single suited hand with 7+ ♣, ♦, or ♥ and 0-1 Spades OR

4. Lead directing with 4 Spades (concentrated honors) and a 5+ card side suit

 

Furthermore, assume that I follow the appropriate rules of disclosure.

 

I assert that there is nothing in the Laws of Bridge the prevent me from using this method.

Furthermore, I assert that this method is legal at the GCC level in North America.

 

Back to you Foo

Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

 

Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here> approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round begins.

 

Good luck writing it, and good luck getting it approved.

 

In ACBL land, rightly or wrongly, I suspect you would have trouble making this explicit treatment GCC legal...

[jdonn]

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!

 

Do you pass and tell partner he was supposed to bid with xxx ATxxx xx xxx?

 

Or do you make your penalty double and watch partner sit there with xx xx xxxx QJxxx as you take your 3 or 4 tricks?

 

Or do you pass after all, and rack up the undoubled undertricks as partner has QJTx xxx xxx xxx?

 

Or do you bid 4♣ and play there opposite xxx JTxx Txxx xx?

 

You are advocating a method with a duplication of ways to collect a penalty if opener has spade length (responder doubles for takeout and opener passes, or responder passes and opener doubles for penalty) but no ways at all to get a penalty if responder has spade length. I can't wait to hear why that makes sense.

 

Oh, and the imaginary method Richard stated for 3♠ is GCC legal, with no defense required, your suspicions notwithstanding.

[joshs]

In one partnership I used to play penalty x's after a 2 level or higher interference over our strong club. I think it was an unmitigated disaster.

 

The following "hand" came up very frequently

 

Opener:

Axx Axxxx AKJx x

 

Responder:

x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

 

6H is excellent. And its hard to get a better score than +100 playing penalty x's.

 

On the other hand when one of the hands actually had a penalty X, the other player was usually short and could make a takeout X... Yes if opener has 22 and responder has only 2 you can't get your penalty, but that mesh doesn't occur very often.

Opener:

Axx Axxxx AKJx x

 

Responder:

x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

 

1C!-(3S)-X showing 4+H and values. WTP?

 

Of course I am not advocating that all X's in these auctions are penalty! That would be foolish.

Where I'm advocating penalty X's is by the hand most likely to be flat and strong in auctions where Responder has =denied= being able to show shape/strength and the Opponent's already rate to be too high:

 

1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;?? when holding

 

♠AJ62♥AT♦AK43♣K32

 

If there ever was a hand with convertible values and enough power tricks to know the 3S does not rate to make, this is it.

 

I'll give another example in a different auction:

1N-pa-pa-balance;

some bidding by Overcaller and Advancer;

X by Responder.

THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE PENALTY.

Responder knows They have too few HCP and/or shape to rate to make Their contract.

 

If no X is ever penalty systemically in these sorts of situations, you are going to get robbed blind.

 

...and jdonn, Fishbein was specifcally designed to deal with a frequent psycher (Adam Meredith IIRC). It worked for that purpose.

Oh so you magically play penalty x's by opener and takeout x's by responder.

 

Thus when responder has length you do not get the penalty. Those are the 800-1400's. Instead you get +150 against your game.

 

And when opener has moderate extra strength and shortness he has to pass, and with a moose and shortness:

 

x AKxx AKQx AKxx

 

1C-3S-P-P

let me guess, you bid 4S on this and go down at the 5 level when

a. you had 800 in 3S-x

or

b. you can make 4H

or

c you can make 3N

or

d. multiple of these

 

Are these your methods???

[hrothgar]

Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

 

Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here> approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round begins.

 

Good luck writing it, and good luck getting it approved.

 

In ACBL land, rightly or wrongly, I suspect you would have trouble making this explicit treatment GCC legal...

Opinionated ignorance is always so amusing

 

>Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

 

Don't take my word for it. The GCC explicitly sanctions

 

"Defense to Conventional Calls (Except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDs above and #7 under DISALLOWED below"

 

>Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate

>rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here>

>approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round >begins.

 

Interesting theory. Sadly, it bears no relation to reality. While the ACBL requires players to get defenses approved to Midchart methods, this one is completely legal at the GCC level.

 

Quick word of advice. If you are going to make these sorts of sweeping definitive statements, you really want to avoid simple factual errors.

 

Being arrogant is one thing.

But being arrogant and so very very wrong is just sad.

[foo]

 

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!

4S! My ODR is Enormous and I do not have convertible values.

 

Do you pass and tell partner he was supposed to bid with xxx ATxxx xx xxx?

Nope.

 

Or do you make your penalty double and watch partner sit there with xx xx xxxx QJxxx as you take your 3 or 4 tricks?

Not in this case. There are hands where either pass or X will occur.

 

Or do you pass after all, and rack up the undoubled undertricks as partner has QJTx xxx xxx xxx?

Nothing works 100% of the time, and I have never claimed otherwise.

 

Or do you bid 4♣ and play there opposite xxx JTxx Txxx xx?

You have given me the wrong hand to bid 4C.

 

You are advocating a method with a duplication of ways to collect a penalty if opener has spade length (responder doubles for takeout and opener passes, or responder passes and opener doubles for penalty) but no ways at all to get a penalty if responder has spade length. I can't wait to hear why that makes sense.

You have misunderstood me. Convertible values by Opener means just that.

Responder's pass puts a serious doubt as to Our ability to make a game. Therefore playing X's by Opener here as pure T/O rates to not work very well.

 

Oh, and the imaginary method Richard stated for 3♠ is GCC legal, with no defense required, your suspicions notwithstanding.

Sorry, I'll be checking with Blaze and Co before I take your word for it. This 3S bid can show any single suiter as well as any two suited hand with S's.

That is =not= a Standard or even close to Standard suit preempt.

 

Defending against this thing is a mess because even a T/O X may not be available since Overcaller's suit may not be S's or Overcaller may be two suited w/ Spades.

 

Also, I defy Richard to demonstrate how Overcaller and Advancer can have a constructive auction to the right spot after said preempt.

 

...and we haven't even gotten into what trick taking potential or HCP range said preempt promises.

 

Let's see the defense that gives the opponents a chance to achieve parity as well as some constructive sequences that start with said preempt. =Then= we'll talk about how GCC legal this potential chaos hydra is.

[foo]

Opinionated ignorace is always so amusing.

Insulting insufferable arrogance presented via grammar and spelling errors is not even close to amusing.

 

Being arrogant is one thing. But being arrogant and so very very wrong is just sad.

Attempting to attack the person rather than the argument does not make you right

either in point of fact or ethically.

 

Don't take my word for it. The GCC explicitly sanctions

Let's do that, shall we?

 

**ALLOWED **

**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed **

So if your pet method is not =expressly= allowed, it is disallowed.

now let's see if we can find it on the GCC.

 

COMPETITIVE

1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.

 

2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto.

 

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either

a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution and at least one known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have a known suit.) or

b ) three-suit takeout ( at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

 

4. a)JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.

b )SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a minimum of 10 HCP, at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.

 

5. CUEBID of an opponent's suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit.

 

6. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),

b ) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and 2 must have at least one known suit.

c) opening bids of 2 or higher.

 

7. Numbers 4 through 8 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS above APPLY TO BOTH PAIRS.

 

DISALLOWED

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

 

3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

 

4. Forcing pass systems.

 

5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

 

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

 

7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit.

There is =NO= mention made of a call that can show any single suiter as well being able to contain a two suiter with S's.

 

I want to double check w/ Mr's Bye & Blaze, but ATM my read is since a bid that can show any unspecified single suiter is not expressly allowed, it is disallowed.

Thus you can play 3S Jump Overcall as

a= showing S's or

b= showing any one known suit or

c= showing at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits.

You can not play 3S as showing an unspecified single suiter; and

you can not play 3S as showing an unspecified single suiter or a two suited hand w/ S's

 

Quick word of advice. If you are going to make these sorts of sweeping definitive statements, you really want to avoid simple factual errors.

Good advice. Perhaps you should take it. And tone down the arrogance and the attempt at disguising it by accusing others of it as well.

[Free]

Too bad Foo, but I think you're wrong!

 

6. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),

b ) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and 2 must have at least one known suit.

c) opening bids of 2 or higher.

 

DISALLOWED

7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit.

Can you read 6a? Defense to conventional calls is allowed, except 7: after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP.

 

Basicly, it would be very clear if they statet that "any defense against strong ♣ is allowed", but indirectly they say the same thing. Strong 1♣ is a conventional call, which is no natural NT opening nor an overcall...