Idiotic defense against strong club

[whereagles]

Look.. whatever. I gave my definition of 1♠ above, which is 100% correct and consistent with my actual agreement, and I don't really CARE what you think of it.

 

If authorities let me play it as I defined it, fine. Otherwise I won't play it. It is as simple as that. What is also very simple is I won't stop playing it just because you (and some others) disagree with the way I play it.

[mycroft]

Whereagles, one more try, then I'll stop.

 

"If authorities let me play it as I defined it, fine. Otherwise I won't play it."

 

In response, "If you play it as you define it, fine. Otherwise, you have a concealed partnership understanding and the authorities will eventually punish you for it." What's worse, is that they may decide to avoid the problem by banning the method, so that those who do fully disclose still can't play it.

 

As I said, the one time I played against it - illegal or no - the 1S bidder was a Junior Internationalist, his partner to become one (and an NABC+ champion). They said "interested in playing somewhere at the 2 level." When asked for a description of the rest of their system, they said "well, 2S would be interested in playing somewhere at the 3 level." They wanted to play a screw-em-up system, fine by us (we also allowed a Polish pair to play Wilkosz at GCC, calling the TD afterward simply to have it pointed out that it wasn't legal normally, before they did it against a pair that blew up at them). But I believed them that they had told us their complete agreement, including inferences.

 

The problem is that there are a lot of players - and I don't include you in this, although not wanting to "explain common sense" seems to imply it - that want to play a difficult to defend against convention, and then make it more difficult to defend against by explaining as little as they can get away with (see my earlier response with 1C Precision - 1D "Waiting"). The former, when legal, is legal - the latter is not. People who play unfamiliar or difficult-to-defend-against and unfamiliar conventions have an extra responsibility to fully disclose their inferences, as their "common sense" isn't common - in fact, the lack of full explanations, and not the inherent difficulty of the convention, was in my reading of the stories what got HUM and BSC rules invented.

 

And as a lover of weird tech, it annoys me that the actions of those who don't disclose fully make it hard to impossible for me to play the weird tech. So I rail on it.

 

Michael.

(side note, the auction referenced above continued: 1C!-1S!-2S-p; 3S-p-4S. "What was 2S?" they asked before the lead. I can still remember my exact words: "I have no idea. We have no agreement over 1S showing 13 cards." Because my partner was playing it, 4S made an overtrick for a clear top.)

[whereagles]

Michael, I don't have any concealed agreement. It's really a random overcall, which is usually done with a hand which has some sort of 'excuse' to bid, whatever that excuse may be.

 

I do have follow-up agreements that allow overcaller to clear up what kind of stuff he actually butt-in with. Those agreements cover every kind of hand I could think of, from 4333s to 1/2/3-suiters, so overcaller can really have whatever he wants.

 

So, if you're telling me I should disclose inferences (which I agree one should), the answer is there's really no inference to make because overcaller can bid it on a 4333 or a 5440 or a 6322 or something els... I can however say something like "could be anything from a 4333 to a 6322 with a broken suit. If the suit were any good, pard would have overcalled at the 2 level in that suit". Now, instead of 6322 I could put up any other distribution and infer something from it, but it would take like 5 mins to fully describe the bid. You sure that's what's indended? :unsure:

 

The 1♠ bid is actually very easy to defend. See for instance the competitive bidding appendix of Rigal's precision book.

[mycroft]

That's good - much better than "13 cards". "could be any hand - with a good suit we would overcall it at the 2 level". Now I can work with it, and I'm almost as much in the game as your partner.

 

"So, what hands do you pass on? What does a 1-level overcall mean?"

 

You don't have to go for two minutes, unless that really is your agreement. And you don't have to "have a defined meaning" - I don't mind playing against random overcalls provided I have the same chance of working it out as your partner does. After all, the main reason I play Precision is so that I can bid 1S-p-4S.

 

The whole argument is that I don't then explain 4S as "Spade support, wants to play 4S"; I say "To play. He either has a Standard preemptive raise, or he has a minimum game force that sees no chance of slam opposite my limited opener." (in fact, I usually add that its lower end is a little stronger than what they would expect for a "minimum game force", as we open crappy 11s and good 10s).

 

Do you see the difference? The fact that the bid's hard to defend against because it's so variable is part of the game. The fact that the bid's harder to defend against because we don't have the information your partner does to judge what to do, isn't.

 

I don't say this about you, because I truly think you are trying to be open; but I am glad I don't have to face this 13-card 1S overcall in the ACBL, because many people who do play it *are* trying to get the extra advantage of "forgetting" the inferences.

 

Michael.

[whereagles]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm directing a game at the local club and frequently have to deal with some guys who open a weak 2♥ at 'red' and say "could be an opening". To which opps wonder what the heck does he mean by that (which actually is "given the vulnerability, it's not really 6-11 but more into the 9-13 region"). Further questions are, of course, answered evasively. I had to tell off those guys a couple of times.

 

As to "So, what hands do you pass on? What does a 1-level overcall mean?", the answer would be:

 

1. "We pass on any 16+ hand or any weaker hand unsuitable for an overcall or a 1♠ bid. Unsuitable for 1♠ means a defensive hand that prefers to defend opps contract instead of butting-in; will usually be balanced or a broken 1/2-suiter. That same hand with an offensive character could have bid 1♠."

 

2. "A 1-lev overcall would be [insert whatever I agreed with this specific pard]"

[mycroft]

Great! I have no problem with this - and neither would, I believe, most strong clubbers. In fact, I have a defence to *that* "random 1S" call already in my arsenal.

 

You can see the difference, I hope, between that and "1S is totally random." Please note that as I said the last time, I and all the others believe that most people who are playing "random 1S" actually are playing something closer to what you describe: "automatic 1S, but we could pass with a defensive-oriented or very good hand, we'd bid 2x with a solid-ish suit, ...", and if they're not deliberately adding to the "randomness" of 1S by trying to get away with the least description they can, at least aren't actively trying to describe their *real* agreement. That's why we gripe about it, because that's illegal, and unethical if they're deliberately shading their replies.

 

And while, as I said, I am firmly convinced that you aren't trying one on, look how long it took to drag your real agreement out. Now think about what it's like at the table with opponents who actually are trying not to provide full disclosure.

 

Thanks for putting up with the conversation, by the way; I realize it was aggressive at times.

 

Michael.

[whereagles]

Well, some people (not you, ofc) were more interested in bashing stuff than in a serious discussion. But hey, as I say: the internet without flames is like a jungle without bananas.. it's not funny :P