[straube]

Looking for recommendations after our 2M opening (7-11, usually 6-cd suit) has been overcalled. Transfers? Fit-showing Non Jumps? Negative Free bids?

[the hog]

Have you considered natural and forcing? The rest of your recommendations are quite silly after a weak 2 opening. Why transfers? The stronger hand should declare if possible.

[wank]

natural 1RFs and penalty doubles. easy game

[gnasher]

I think new suits are best used as fit-bids: I've never wanted to make a natural forcing bid here. 2NT, if available, is useful as a constructive raise.

[the hog]

gnasher, on 2013-August-25, 01:34, said:

I think new suits are best used as fit-bids: I've never wanted to make a natural forcing bid here. 2NT, if available, is useful as a constructive raise.

Reall Andy?
So you open 2H on
x
AQxxxx
xxxx
xx
Next hand overcalls 2Sand you don't want to bid a natural 3D on Axx K AKQxxx Axx
Thats ok 7D is down the drain!

[MickyB]

the hog, on 2013-August-24, 21:48, said:

Why transfers? The stronger hand should declare if possible.

Transfers give you both forcing and non-forcing bids in the other suits. Putting the overcaller on lead is often advantageous so I'd be happy for opener to declare here.

[straube]

the hog, on 2013-August-25, 04:44, said:

Reall Andy?
So you open 2H on
x
AQxxxx
xxxx
xx
Next hand overcalls 2Sand you don't want to bid a natural 3D on Axx K AKQxxx Axx
Thats ok 7D is down the drain!

I wonder if you are trying to feel better about yourself by putting others down. I appreciate your point of view but not the dismissive tone that comes with it.

[awm]

I think this is one case where the natural penalty double is quite valuable. Opener's hand is very well-described. He is rarely going to have much to say to a "takeout" double except to rebid his suit, and expecting him to balance with a double to "protect" is probably too dangerous on such weak hands at the three-level.

There is not much gap between fit bids and natural forcing bids here. Presumably opener will rebid his suit at the cheapest level without a fit (or pass if the opponents raise), and otherwise do anything else. This gets you basically the effect you want (i.e. if opener raises responder's suit he can always correct back to opener's major on the fit hand, but if responder had a good hand fishing for a fit in his own suit for a better game/slam contract he gets the information he wants as well). Anyway I think you can successfully combine the two.

Natural non-forcing bids might be useful if you open a lot of bad five-card majors or whatever, but since it sounds like you don't it's probably quite a bit better to play forcing and get the combination effect above.

There is some benefit to transfers in some sequences, and you could perhaps play some form of "switch." For example if the auction starts 2♠-(3♣) you could use 3♦ as hearts and 3♥ as diamonds, on the reasoning that this might allow you to stop in 3♥ on some hands, and you don't really lose much because opener is scarcely using 3♥ for anything after 2♠-(3♣)-3♦ natural. However, I think you want 2♠-(3♦)-3♥ as natural and forcing because hearts outrank diamonds and provide a cheaper game. The approach I've used in other sequences (but not currently here) is to rotate the new suits that can be bid at the next level, so over 2♥-(2♠) we'd have 3♣=diams 3♦=hearts 3♥=clubs but over 2♠-(3♦) we're just playing natural (only hearts can be bid as a new suit at the three-level).

I've seen an approach of playing some call as an invite in opener's suit (sometimes double, sometimes 3M-1) but especially given you play a fairly tight range I think this is overrated. Of course if 2NT is available it's fine to use it for this meaning (I'd just play "systems on").

[straube]

Thanks. Regarding the penalty double though, I've wondered if it could be used to either 1) show a suit (so we have transfers now) or 2) show a hand inviting game in opener's major...such that a raise is merely competitive.
This question just goes to experience and though the penalty double seems invaluable on the one hand, I just can't remember the last time I swung the ax. How often do folks remember making a penalty double?

[awm]

I remember lots of penalty doubles on this auction. I'm sure that my most frequent actions here are, in order: (1) Pass (2) Raise opener's suit to some level (3) Penalty double (4) Bid/show a new suit. This is despite the fact that I bid new suits on a lot of "fit showing" hands where much of the field just raises.

[straube]

ok. I think I'll talk to pd about 1) penalty doubles and 2) forcing 2-way new suit bids (fit showing or independent suit).

[the hog]

straube, on 2013-August-25, 09:09, said:

I wonder if you are trying to feel better about yourself by putting others down. I appreciate your point of view but not the dismissive tone that comes with it.

No, just commenting on a surprisingly poor post from someone who should, and nearly always does, know better.

[fromageGB]

I've given up on the penalty double, not because it never happens, but because it is a trade-off for having new suits both weak and stronger, with both a preemptive and an invitational major raise. So X and all suits up to the major as transfers.

It's also simpler for us as we do the same a level lower, not playing a takeout double.

[rbforster]

fromageGB, on 2013-August-27, 05:15, said:

I've given up on the penalty double, not because it never happens, but because it is a trade-off for having new suits both weak and stronger, with both a preemptive and an invitational major raise. So X and all suits up to the major as transfers.

It's also simpler for us as we do the same a level lower, not playing a takeout double.

I think this is one of those things where game theory comes into play. If opponents need a 15 count or equivalent to butt in at the 2 level over your preempt, a pure penalty double will be more rare (but still useful). However, if your opps knew you didn't have a penalty double (and whatever X was, it was super unlikely to ever be passed by opener), they might start over calling on 12-13 counts (or equiv), at which point the penalty double would probably be worth having/keeping.

I mentioned elsewhere, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could clarify what one is entitled to know about opponents defenses in this regard in order to chose what method/style to play yourself. The example I gave was whether you could know opps agreement on the meaning of 1m-X-1M-X, so you could psych 1M or not depending on if the latter X was penalty. In this 2M context, you might have two methods (naturalish with penalty X, or full transfers no penalty X) where you choose which one based on the min values that opps explain their 2M overcall to promise (similar to how people have two different methods vs weak/strong NT openers).

[akhare]

rbforster, on 2013-August-27, 06:24, said:

I think this is one of those things where game theory comes into play. If opponents need a 15 count or equivalent to butt in at the 2 level over your preempt, a pure penalty double will be more rare (but still useful). However, if your opps knew you didn't have a penalty double (and whatever X was, it was super unlikely to ever be passed by opener), they might start over calling on 12-13 counts (or equiv), at which point the penalty double would probably be worth having/keeping.

This is tangential to the OP, but IIRC, Michael Rosenberg once commented upon (and used) knowledge about the lack of penalty double over an opening 1N to his advantage.

[gnasher]

rbforster, on 2013-August-27, 06:24, said:

I mentioned elsewhere, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could clarify what one is entitled to know about opponents defenses in this regard in order to chose what method/style to play yourself. The example I gave was whether you could know opps agreement on the meaning of 1m-X-1M-X, so you could psych 1M or not depending on if the latter X was penalty. In this 2M context, you might have two methods (naturalish with penalty X, or full transfers no penalty X) where you choose which one based on the min values that opps explain their 2M overcall to promise (similar to how people have two different methods vs weak/strong NT openers).

You're allowed to play methods that vary according to the meaning of the auction that has already occurred. Most authorities say that your methods can't depend on what the opponents' subsequent actions would mean.

For example, you're allowed to play penalty doubles against aggressive overcallers and takeout doubles against sound overcallers. They're not allowed to play sound overcalls against penalty doublers, but aggressive overcalls against takeout doublers.

This is necessary to avoid a situation where neither side can determine what its methods are. This is mainly a theoretical problem, which is just as well as the solution seems hard to enforce.

[rbforster]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 16:00, said:

You're allowed to play methods that vary according to the meaning of the auction that has already occurred. Most authorities say that your methods can't depend on what the opponents' subsequent actions would mean.

For example, you're allowed to play penalty doubles against aggressive overcallers and takeout doubles against sound overcallers. They're not allowed to play sound overcalls against penalty doublers, but aggressive overcalls against takeout doublers.

This is necessary to avoid a situation where neither side can determine what its methods are. This is mainly a theoretical problem, which is just as well as the solution seems hard to enforce.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree you need to avoid the recursive problem, so basically whoever bids earlier in the auction has to pick his methods based only on what has gone before. However, there is still the question as to whether you can ask your opps for what their future actions might mean, such as asking them if double of a natural 1M in 1m-X-1M would be penalty or something else. If so, you can still potentially psych with that information since you're not changing your agreement as to what 1M was.

There are some situations, like NT defenses, which are shown the convention card and so you can see this before deciding to open 1N on some marginal hand / shape. I guess asking them for what their defensive agreements are in some other auction seems the same to me (just that it might not be covered by the standard card), but someone had said you can't ask about auctions that didnt occur even afterwards.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 16:00, said:

You're allowed to play methods that vary according to the meaning of the auction that has already occurred. Most authorities say that your methods can't depend on what the opponents' subsequent actions would mean.

For example, you're allowed to play penalty doubles against aggressive overcallers and takeout doubles against sound overcallers. They're not allowed to play sound overcalls against penalty doublers, but aggressive overcalls against takeout doublers.

This is necessary to avoid a situation where neither side can determine what its methods are. This is mainly a theoretical problem, which is just as well as the solution seems hard to enforce.

I've always wondered about this problem. Thanks for the explanation.

[fromageGB]

Still on the tangent ...

This seems somewhat inconsistent. So you can base your bids you are about to make only on what has already happened, not what might happen. Fair enough. In the course of bidding you can ask what alternative bids mean for something that has already occurred, but you cannot ask what future bids might be. This is consistent, perfect. By the same logic, though, we should not have a convention card at all, as these bids have not happened. You should not be allowed to know what they may be about to do in future circumstances.

So something needs changing, somewhere. But who said the laws were logical?

[fromageGB]

What we need this day and age is convention cards on (electronic) tablets. At the beginning of the hand it is completely blank other than your names. When the opening bid is made the section of the card appears that describes the opening bid. You overcall, and your tablet then shows your actions after opponents open. They reply and on their tablet appears their actions after opponents overcall.

All beautiful and logical, but then we need a way to blank out memories, so we start afresh and unknowing with the next hand.