Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - OliverC

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
The IAC Café / Re: How about challenging the Acol club to a teams match?
« on: February 12, 2022, 11:09:52 PM »
Hi All,


Sanya, as discussed earlier, Brian and I are cobbling at one one additional OCP team together. We'll post the details in here and send the email to iac.at.bbo@gmail.com as well.


I may well not be able to play myself on 26th as I will be finishing work on the stroke of 8pm that day, but I'd be quite happy to conduct or help with a hand discussion afterwards.


Oliver


*
Edit from Curls:  We got 2 more OCP teams registered, GL you all!!!

Team 1, yet to be named
brian_m (captain) & podlecii
oliverc & servetd
iamadeus & p0stm0rtem

Team 2, yet to be named
epee9 (captain) & eszter5
bfortune & sjaldan
soko52 & arda85

Way to go OCP!!!

2
IAC Teaching Sessions / New OCP Teaching Sessions
« on: March 28, 2021, 07:59:35 PM »
Hi All!!


I'm BAAACK!!!

After my year-long sabbatical (without leaving my flat apart from essential shopping) I'm back in the business of playing and teaching Bridge. Apologies for my long absence, but I was getting a bit too frustrated with BBO, not being able to announce lessons and the BBO V3 software not working properly. I realise things are hardly better (and probably worse) now, but after a break of a year, I feel I can face the trials and tribulations of BBO once again.


I'll be starting a new OCP Series on Saturday 17th April at 9pm UK time (8pm UTC).
The sessions will always be at that time up till the end of October when European Daylight Savings ends, when they will move to 9pm UTC/UK.


Hope to see old and new faces in the [public] LESSON Club rather than in the Private IAC Club, as we can no longer[/size] do any kinds of announcements to IAC Members only. The silver lining to that cloud is that anyone can attend, including those who are not IAC Members. If, therefore, any of your mates might be interested, please tell them to come along.

[/size]Best Wishes,
[/size]Oliver

3
IAC Teaching Sessions / OCP Session on Saturday 6th July
« on: June 30, 2019, 10:42:08 PM »
Hi All,


Just a quick reminder for anyone who might be interested that I will be restarting the course on OCP Super-Precision this coming Saturday in IAC at 8pm UTC (9pm UK, 4pm EDT). The times of the sessions will be changing from week to week, but the times are accurately shown in the IAC Diary and on the OCP website.

4
IAC Teaching Sessions / Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« on: May 27, 2019, 07:36:59 PM »
I'm not remotely suggesting it as a method. It's not something I've ever seriously considered including in the OCP methodology for competitive bidding.


Like Transfer Lebensohl, however, it does give you a relatively easy method of allowing Advancer to distinguish between competitive and invitational/forcing bids. No doubt they have some way to sort out Clubs, or maybe it's only in certain sequences. Someone else may have spotted the whole method.


OCP does use something similar (MOTOR), but only in sequences such as 1M - (X) - ?? where bids from 1NT through to the suit below Opener's Major are all transfers, but now it's easy to "use" 1NT as a transfer to Clubs, because we never aim to play in 1NT when Opener has bid a 5-card Major.

5
IAC Teaching Sessions / Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« on: May 27, 2019, 08:04:27 AM »
If you watch Vugraph a lot you will have noticed some pairs adopting yet another approach that has a bearing on this (and which, to some extent avoids this issue) by making Advancer's bid a transfer, so (1 !H ) - 1 !S - (No) - 2 !C would be a transfer to Diamonds.

I've never really investigated the ins and outs of those methods, but it does potentially avoid the problem of whether it's forcing or not, depending on Advancer's action in the next round of bidding.

On another note, someone mentioned good/bad 2NT. That is simply an extension of the Lebensohl concept, as is the use of Leb over a reverse. OCP uses the Lebensohl concept in a wide variety of ways. For simplicity's sake we refer to most of them as Lebensohl even if the circumstances are wildly different than the situation where classic Lebensohl is used. ie: any action that forces a relay from Partner in order to create 2 different sets of sequences.

For example in an OCP Asking Bid sequence, if there is pre-emptive interference in front of the strong hand (that's asking the questions), a Pass by the strong hand forces a double by Partner (which can. of course, be passed for penalties). If that sequence is used, any further bid by the strong hand is a sign-off and ends the Asking sequence, but an immediate bid (without the Pass-Double sequence) is still an Asking Bid. Yes, it's not remotely Lebensohl as you know it, but it's using the same idea.

6
IAC Teaching Sessions / Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« on: May 25, 2019, 09:54:35 AM »
I hesitate to inject yet another layer of complexity into this, but here's a little plug for using Lebensohl in any natural competitive sequence sequence that has reached the 2-level (as OCP does). This is not an easy usage to learn and get straight with a partner as it does create multiple new nuances in these kinds of sequences:


(1 !D ) - 2 !C - (No) - ??


Now:
  • 2 !D is a UCB, forcing for one round, but any subsequent bid of a new suit is forcing.
  • 2 !S is just competitive. The 2 !S bidder probably has a tolerance for Clubs but it does depend on the length and quality of their Spades.
  • 3 !C is a decent constructive raise but short of the requirements of a UCB). If advancer simply wanted to compete in Clubs, they could bid 2NT Leb and pass the 3 !C bid from Partner.
  • 3 !S is a decent Spade suit, but this is not forcing (because no UCB) and not invitational (See the Leb sequence below). They will almost certainly have a decent tolerance for Clubs.
  • 2NT - 3 !C - 3 !S is genuinely invitational in Spades with a decent 5+-card Spade suit
  • 2NT - 3 !C - 3 !D OCP would play as GF in Clubs with some kind of first or second-round control in Diamonds, but that's a completely different discussion. You could also agree to play this as GF and Staymanic with a Diamond stop, but you're more likely to start off with a UCB with that hand in the hope that the 2 !C bidder can show a 4-card Major at the 2-level.

Competitive Leb is not for the faint-hearted and it does take a while for you to get your head around all of the different permutations and combinations, but a lot of this starts from the assumption that any forcing sequence will start with a UCB.

7
IAC Teaching Sessions / Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« on: May 24, 2019, 06:42:21 AM »
If you're playing Unassuming Cue Bids, the whole issue becomes moot:


(1 !C) - 1 !H - (No) - ??


If Advancer wants to set up any kind of forcing sequence they would start with a UCB of 2 !C, which is showing either at least a decent 3-level raise in Hearts or any strong hand that wants to set up a forcing sequence. Which of the two Advancer has is clarified with their rebid. By definition any sequence that doesn't proceed via a UCB is non-forcing.


In response to a UCB, the overcaller assumes the 3-level raise (which advancer will automatically have if they're a passed hand) and clarifies their hand accordingly.


You may call UCBs something different where you live, of course.

8
Sleight of Hand / Re: Ethics in the local club
« on: May 20, 2019, 09:41:16 AM »
On a practical level, why not have all of the hands dealt "at the table" on the opening round by the players themselves. Alternatively ensure that you have a non-playing TD. I ran a Bridge Club in the late 1970's and 1980's (Bury Athenaeum) and we would never have arranged things any other way. The hands were never pre-dealt and we always had a non-playing TD.


For the record, I'd not have found a Heart lead on this hand in a million years. !C 7 would be my choice every time.

9
IAC Teaching Sessions / Re: OCP Simple Series Sessions
« on: May 19, 2019, 09:26:13 PM »
IAC Diary now updated with my sessions for the coming series. All the times are accurate for each date.

10
IAC Teaching Sessions / OCP Simple Series Sessions
« on: May 10, 2019, 09:23:15 PM »
Apologies, but it's not going to be worthwhile my starting the OCP Simple Series until July because of commitments that have cropped up in June (I'd now have to miss 3 of the Saturdays in June). Accordingly the first session in the new "Simple" series will be on Saturday 6th July at 9pm UK time (8pm UTC, 4pm EDT).

Because my lesson times are now dictated by my shift pattern (which takes no notice whatever of Daylight Savings), I have to keep my lesson times in the same pattern UK time rather than UTC, as previously. Consequently the session times will appear to become an hour earlier between April and the end of October.
Starting on 6th July, the repeating 5-week pattern will start:

  • 6th July 2019: 8pm UTC (9pm UK, 4pm EDT)
  • 13th July 2019: 8pm UTC (9pm UK, 4pm EDT)
  • 20th July 2019: 7pm UTC (8pm UK, 3pm EDT)
  • 27th July 2019: 9pm UTC (10pm UK, 6pm EDT)
  • 3rd August 2019: 8pm UTC (9pm UK, 4pm EDT)
My apologies in advance to anyone who is effectively excluded by some of those times but my only alternative is only to teach on 3 Saturdays out of every 5. The Sessions Calendar and Index page on the OCP site and the Diary on the IAC site will always show the correct times for each week (once I set things up).

11
The IAC Café / Re: Leb over a weak 2.
« on: April 04, 2019, 10:39:22 PM »
One of the main points about Leb (and this applies as much to Transfer Leb as "Normal" Leb) is that the slow and fast cue-bids of Opps' suit show 4-card interest in any unbid Major (slow promising a stop in their suit a fast denying it. Similarly, the slow and fast bids of 3NT shown or deny a stop in Opps' suit but DENY 4-card interest in any unbid Major.

The above applies as much after (2 !H) - X - (No) - ?? as it does over 1NT - (2 !H) - ??. The only issue is that you need to have a hand worth a game-force in order to use those. So...

Standard Lebensohl
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3 !H shows game values, no !H Stop and 4-card Spades
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 2NT - 3 !C - 3 !H shows a !H stop, 4-card Spades and game values.
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3NT shows game values, no !H stop and no 4-card Spades
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3NT - 3 !C - 3NT shows game values, a !H stop, but no 4-card Spades.

Transfer Lebensohl
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3 !D shows game values, no !H Stop and 4-card Spades
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 2NT - 3 !C - 3 !H shows a !H stop, 4-card Spades and game values.
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3NT shows game values, no !H stop and no 4-card Spades
(2 !H) - X - (No) - 3NT - 3 !C - 3NT shows game values, a !H stop, but no 4-card Spades.

In both types of Lebensohl, the fast 3NT is most often based on a long Minor.

So only one of the above is different in Transfer Lebensohl. One additional advantage of Transfer Lebensohl is that after (2 !H) - X - (No) - 3 !D, the Doubler can bid 3 !H to show exactly a half stop in Hearts (eg: Jxx or Qx) and deny 4-card Spades, inviting Partner to bid 3NT with a half stop themselves.

Alternatively, you can play that (2 !H) - X - (No) - 3 !D - 3 !H shows no 4-card Spades but 4-4 in the Minors, whereas (2 !H) - X - (No) - 3 !D - 4m shows a 5-card suit. Of the two methods I prefer the first.

12
The IAC Café / Re: Leb over a weak 2.
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:16:09 PM »
Hi All,


I'm not sure I'd claim to be an "expert" on Lebensohl, but I've been playing, teaching and championing it since the early 1980's and OCP (the system I built and that I teach) uses it in a wide variety of situations. Clearly there are enough variations of the Lebensohl concept to keep us going for a long time, but several things are (or should be) absolutely fairly fundamental:
  • Lebensohl was never designed to be a suicide pact, from which it follows that (2 !H ) - X - (No) - 2 !S is always a weak sign-off. To play it any other way is utter lunacy.
  • I had to laugh at the idea that (2 !H ) - X - (No) - 2NT - (No) - 3 !C - (No) - 3 !S shows Spades and a Heart stop. In the lessons I give each year someone almost always gets confused between Slow and Fast cue-bids of their suit and Slow and Fast bids of 3NT, all of which are either promising or denying a stop in Opps' suit, and Slow or Fast bids of a new suit, which are never saying anything about your ability to stop Opps' suit (certainly not in any mainstream version of Lebensohl that I've ever seen).
  • In "Standard" Lebensohl, a slow bid of a new suit that could not have been bid at the 2-level competitively is normally merely competitive. If the suit could have been bid competitively at the 2-level (ie: the suit is higher-ranking than Opps' suit), then the slow introduction of it at the next level is invitational.
  • I seem to remember that one of the differences between "Transfer Lebensohl" and "Rubensohl" is that Transfer Leb adheres to (4) above, but Rubensohl does not. I've never been a big fan of Rubensohl for a number of reasons, that being one of them.
Transfer Lebensohl (and Rubensohl, for that matter) does have some significant advantages over "Standard" Leb in sequences such as 1NT - (2x) - ?? and (2x) - X - (No) - ??. The main one is that you can always invite in any suit. That includes in Clubs, but you do have to go past 3NT to do it. In Standard Leb, you can only issue an invitation is a suit that is higher-ranking than Opps' suit. In Transfer Lebensohl, you even have the luxury of being able to distinguish between a mild invitation and a strong invitation if your suit is higher than theirs.

13
2/1 Talk / Re: And what shows what?
« on: June 21, 2018, 09:38:19 AM »
Dealing in practicalities, the situations where a 4-4 or 4-3 Minor fit actually is better than a 5-3+ Major fit are very hard to diagnose for almost any system. Witness the penultimate Board of the last BB where I think only one pair in the entire field got to 7 !D on a 4-3 fit and loads got to a failing 7 !S on the 5-4 fit there. The Pair that got to the right Grand were playing relatively stone-age Acol. If the best Pairs in the World consistently get it wrong in that kind of situation, I don't think you should beat yourself up for not getting it right.

In your sequence once the bidding gets to 1 !S - 2 !C - 3 !C - 3 !S, it's a really hard thing to do diagnose that Clubs is a better contract and end up there rather than Spades. Give South a 5th Club and one less Heart and it's more likely 2/1 might get there because they're perhaps more likely to go after the Club fit given their relatively poor Spade support. Even on your first hand, though, is North's hand really worth a splinter over 2 !C in 2/1 (effective 13-count and poor controls outside Spades)?

As an irrelevant aside, OCP might get it right, but on the hand you give (Case 1) it's doubtful because it would be a fairly expensive sequence (1 !S - 1NT - 2 !C - 2 !D(Ask !S) - 2NT - 3 !S(Ask !S) - 4 !H(!SAKQ) - 5 !C(Ask !C) - 5 !H(3rd Rnd Ctrl) - 6 !C(Ask !C) - 7 !C(!C QJxx(x)) - Pass) and it would need a leap of faith to visualise the possibility of !C QJxx opposite and ask again in Clubs rather than signing off in 6 !S.

14
IAC Matters / Re: 'Play' problem
« on: April 29, 2018, 04:16:00 PM »
Don't forget that Cookies for Chrome and Cookies for Firefox (or any other browser) are totally independent of each other, AFAIK. ie: you have to do the business of saving your site profile with each browser (and not have your browsers set to delete browsing data when you close it, and not delete cookies as a matter of course) before any of my sites that have functionality dependent on you being logged in will work "normally" for you.

As I've said before, your choice of Browser will potentially make a difference to the appearance of the site (because not all browsers follows CSS standards as closely as Chrome), but they shouldn't make much difference to the functionality of the site.

15
IAC Matters / Re: 'Play' problem
« on: April 29, 2018, 11:04:47 AM »
LOL. IMHO Firefox is a piece of junk :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17