Author Topic: An issue that came up in Donna's session  (Read 8065 times)

OliverC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • OCP Super-Precision
Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 08:19:30 AM by OliverC »
Oliver (OliverC)
IAC Website Obergruppenfuhrer

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2019, 12:44:24 PM »
After (1 !H ) - 1 !S - (No) -? I can imagine a hand where I would like to bid 2 !C as natural and passable. If it is a transfer to !D, I can't. But we could use !H ) - 1 !S - (No) - 1NT as a transfer to !C. Hover, after (1 !H ) - 1 !S - (No) -? I can imagine a hand where I would like to bid 1 NT natural and passable.

It would take more expertise than I have to argue convincingly one way or the other on the merits, rather I take an overall view that if someone wants me to replace a natural sequence with an artificial sequence then I will, perhaps, keep an open mind but my leanings are toward natural.  There are so many simple natural sequences that I have not discussed with a partner that I am cautious about introducing artificial sequences.

Here is something that came up yesterday in a competitive auction. The opponents were the overcallers not us, but still it might be relevant.

The auction begins with 1 !H by pard and 2 !C on your right. You hold:

!S: KT92
!H: AJT6
!D: A
!C: KT84

As it happens, you are playing in one of these Bot Daylongs, your pard and your opponents are bots. You can see what your bid will mean to your pard, by hovering over it with the mouse,  before you make it if you so wish. I try to avoid that on general principle, I think we are supposed to know what our system is w/o peeking, but occasionally I give in. At a real game, the opposing bot would surely call the director if I said "I am thinking of bidding such and such but let me first look up what it means".

At any rate, this looked like a 3 !C bid to me and that's what I did. Checking the scores later, I found that some decided to "splinter" with 4 !D. The trouble with that is that the bots, in a competitive auction, play 4 !D as natural. Oops.

It's another of these "what means what?" situations. The bots are not the only ones who play this way. After the 2 !C call, it is sometimes played that 4 !C is a splinter, it's their suit, but 4 !D as well as 3 !S are natural calls. That's apparently what the bots do, at least they definitely play 4 !D s natural and passable, since that's what happened. I was in 4 !H making 6 (it's cold for exactly 5, no more, no less, except for extreme double dummy play) on bizarre mis-defence.  It sometimes helps to be playing against bots.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 12:59:19 PM by kenberg »
Ken

OliverC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • OCP Super-Precision
Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« Reply #17 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.
Oliver (OliverC)
IAC Website Obergruppenfuhrer

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Hand 5 Dare to declare, 11 June
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2019, 10:25:54 AM »
Congrats to Tislafi on such excellent technique to gain 17 imps.  His play foresaw that to make the contract the K !H has to be onside.  Then I think that his play succeeds: (i) When hearts split 3-3. (ii) If 4-2 the hand with the 4th heart has the Q  !D, (iii) !D Qx in either hand.  One other player also ducked a heart early but didn't time the play correctly. 

I incorrectly didn't discard my Q  !D in the 3 card ending when there was a slight chance that partner had the J  !D and not declarer.  Instead I came down to  !D Q ,  !H KJ and of course declarer finessed, dropped my J and the 4  !H became a winner.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue that came up in Donna's session
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2019, 11:38:39 AM »
Board 5 had several interesting features. As the cards lie, nothing can be done on defense as long as declarer takes the right route.

Some squeezes pretty much play themselves, declarer just has to run hi winners and voila, someone is squeezed. Others don't. Here, ducking a heart to rectify the count is essential, and hardly an obvious play unless you are thinking of the squeeze,  and declarer must assume the heart K is onside. And, ducking before taking the finesse is critical. After the duck, and the assumption, the squeeze  does now  play itself, he just has to cash all of is side suit winners and you are squeezed.

Yes, tossing the diamond Q would have given you a chance, but alas, declarer has the J.  Interchange the diamond J and T and tossing the J leads to a set.

So if declarer does it right, nothing can be done.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 10:50:49 PM by kenberg »
Ken