[amre_man]

RHO is dealer and opens 1C.

I have 4 4 3 2 distribution and overcall 1D looking for a major response from my partner. A bidding scenario I have used successfully and without comment from partner, opps or kibbers for quite a few years.

Last night I got comments claiming the 1D bid requires a 5 card D suit. The claim being that the only bid I can make with that distribution is a TOD.

What say you?

[helene_t]

Yes, 1♦ doesn't really encourage partner to bid a 4-card major suit although of course he might do so. Worse, partner will think that you have five diamonds and he will raise your diamonds if he has support. You could easily be playing 3♦ doubled in a 4-2 fit, on a bad day in a 3-2 fit.

On the other hand, if partner get's used to you using the 1♦ overcall this way you will have no way of telling him when you actually do have diamonds, short of overcalling 2♦.

What is wrong with a take-out double? Your hand is perfect for that.

If you make the agreement with partner to use 1♦ for this kind of hands (so you use double for something else, maybe dbl shows diamonds?) then you must be aware that partner needs to alert it. And depending on where you play it could be an illegal agreement.

[amre_man]

My surprise stems from the fact that I have been bidding this way ever since I first learned to play the game, 20 years ago. And last night was the first and only time anyone has ever mentioned it to me. And I play regularly (10 hours weekly) with and against a rather small group of players.

Apparently the only reason it came to light last night was that opps bid NT contract and my partner kept leading me diamonds every chance she got.

[TylerE]

I can't say I love your ethics on this. Seems awfully close to the big C word if not disclosed. In the ACBL this would not be a legal agreement if disclosed at either the GCC or Midchart levels - possibly even superchart.

[amre_man]

I was, and remain, unaware of any rule I've broken. Certainly unintentionally if I have. Ethics was never a part of my concern, until now.....

Of the 1,000+ logins at BBO, each covering 10 and usually significantly more hands, not one partner or opponent has ever mentioned my 1♦ bid as having been misleading or incorrect. Imagine my surprise after 15,000+/- hands to find out that I created a potentially illegal bidding system out of whole cloth.

[straube]

amre_man, on 2013-February-26, 11:59, said:

I was, and remain, unaware of any rule I've broken. Certainly unintentionally if I have. Ethics was never a part of my concern, until now.....

Of the 1,000+ logins at BBO, each covering 10 and usually significantly more hands, not one partner or opponent has ever mentioned my 1♦ bid as having been misleading or incorrect. Imagine my surprise after 15,000+/- hands to find out that I created a potentially illegal bidding system out of whole cloth.

You might look through here (if you play in the ACBL)...

http://www.acbl.org/...nvchart2005.pdf

It's illegal to overcall suits that are shorter than 4-cds. You can amend what you're doing a bit and only overcall 4-cd or longer diamond suits. I'm not really sure if you would have to alert a style in which partner tended to ignore your suit in favor of introducing 4-cd majors. I would think not since everything is natural.

You also might look for expert opinions about when it does and doesn't make sense to introduce a 4-cd suit. Generally...extra values, chunky (good) 4-cd suit, awkward hand (not suitable for takeout double) with length in opener's suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the 1D overcall sounds like a variation of the Fishbein Convention.
http://en.wikipedia....bein_convention

Fishbein was developed for dealing with high level preempts, but if you
like it, for what ever reason, you can also use it after a 1C opening bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Vampyr]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-February-27, 06:44, said:

Fishbein was developed for dealing with high level preempts, but if you
like it, for what ever reason, you can also use it after a 1C opening bid.

Apparently not in the ACBL though. I would imagine that most other jurisdictions allow artificial overcalls; this one is a sort of mini-Michaels cue bid. The important thing is that the bid has to be alerted and properly disclosed.

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2013-February-26, 10:41, said:

I can't say I love your ethics on this. Seems awfully close to the big C word if not disclosed. In the ACBL this would not be a legal agreement if disclosed at either the GCC or Midchart levels - possibly even superchart.

Yes it is:

From the GCC list of allowed conventions:

Quote

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.

The important thing is that the bid not be two-way -- ie the above OR diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

As an addition to this, before someone at your table brings it up, it is also not generally accepted to overcall at the 2 level with a 4 card suit. It sounds to me like you have been taught some sort of "simple systems" version of competitive bidding which involves some degree of ignoring the opponents. You need to be aware that this is not a standard method and that your partner and opponents will have different expectations. I would recommend learning the standard methods even if you eventually decide that you prefer what you currently play (with a regular partner) since you need this to understand the opponents' bidding as well as with pick-up partners.

[amre_man]

Thank you all for your comments.

I was told at the table that the bid required a 5 card ♦ suit. Under the GCC Definitions (2) a 4 card suit is sufficient. Thank you Straub for including that document. One that I have never read before.

While others refer to that same document claiming I can use the bid if part of a defined convention, it was never part of a convention in my mind other than, erroneously, convenient minors. My intent was only to show sufficient points to overcall looking for a fit with partner if s/he had sufficient points to respond, hopefully in a major.

I reviewed my last 100 hands at BBO and found that no instance where I had used my improper bid. Frankly, I was surprised.

In any case I am off to expand my definitions of TOD's.

Thank you all again.

[TylerE]

Vampyr: Note that requires a promise of 5-4. OP strongly implies that he's doming this with 4-4 type hands, maybe even 4-3. Basically a takeout X that doesn't promise ♦.


And of course, again, must be alerted and disclosed.

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2013-February-27, 13:07, said:

Vampyr: Note that requires a promise of 5-4. OP strongly implies that he's doing this with 4-4 type hands, maybe even 4-3. Basically a takeout X that doesn't promise ♦.

Yes, you are correct.

Perhaps none of this is relevant, though, because the OP is playing online. If he is not playing in online ACBL games, then the BBO systems regulations are what he needs. Can someone link to those?

[TylerE]

There are no such rules.

That said, now that OP has been informed of the unusual nature of this bid, and proper alert procedures, if he continues to bid this with no alert I stand by my comments about his ethics.

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2013-February-27, 13:52, said:

There are no such rules.

That said, now that OP has been informed of the unusual nature of this bid, and proper alert procedures, if he continues to bid this with no alert I stand by my comments about his ethics.

Don't be so harsh. He thought it was normal. Now he knows that it is very unusual and must be alerted and correctly disclosed.

[straube]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-27, 13:58, said:

Don't be so harsh. He thought it was normal. Now he knows that it is very unusual and must be alerted and correctly disclosed.

I agree. It's outrageous for TylerE to question his ethics...even with his if/then way of doing so.

[TylerE]

I don't see it as outrageous. What is knowingly violating both the spirit of the game and the letter of the law, otherwise?

[mr1303]

This is the Novice/Beginner forum...

[TylerE]

Yes. Did y'all even read what I said. I said if, having been thus informed, the poster continues to do this without alerting, etc.

[straube]

TylerE, on 2013-February-27, 17:19, said:

I don't see it as outrageous. What is knowingly violating both the spirit of the game and the letter of the law, otherwise?

I can't tell whether you are playing dumb. The OP asked our opinion...in the novice forum...pertaining to the rules of the game. If he weren't a conscientious player or if he were in fact a cheat, he wouldn't have bothered to ask what the rules say about overcalling 3-cd suits. In fact, one could go further and say that his asking what the rules are suggests that he cares about following them. He seemed rather appreciative of the link I posted to the GCC.

So I don't see any reason to question his ethics...even to say "If he continues to overcall 3-cd suits in this way, then I question his ethics".

Understand yet?

Suppose you are a new golfer and you ask a more experienced player about whether you had to count strokes that missed the ball and that player said "If you don't count them you're a cheat." Would you feel that statement very necessary? Couldn't he have just said 'yes' and presumed you to be an honest fellow?