If players aren’t willing to invest any time or effort to learn how to deal with conventional overcalls then they shouldn’t be participating in competitive endeavors.

No one promised you an uncontested auction, nor do you have the right to insist that players adopt defenses methods that you’re comfortable with.

Hello Richard,

Your comments seem a tad harsh! There are conventional overcalls, and then there are conventional overcalls. The ACBL Convention Chart specifcally disallows conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
opponents’ methods. Can you make any constructive case for the 2D overcall here? Is it an offer to play 2H, which would surely be doubled, with the long heart hand exposed as dummy? Is it lead-directing? What is the point of telling the 2C opener where the heart values are? Does the 2D bidder really think that his LHO will be declarer? Additionally, the 2C opener in this particular case is a relative beginner with about 50 MPs, who has done well to learn as much as he has thus far. To picture him as as not being “willing to invest any time or effort to learn how to deal with conventional overcalls’ is, IMHO, undeservedly censorious.

I’m not the author of the 2D bid in questions, so I am probably the wrong person to comment on its constructive merit. I will however note that there is a school of though that advocates playing transfers over the opponent’s strong openings. The primary goal is to gain a potential tempo by forcing the strong hand to make the initial lead. As a secondary benefit, the “known” hand is tabled while the concealed hand is declaring.

I should note that I don’t personally play such methods because I think that transfer oriented methods are too easy to defend against. If I bid a suit where I hold length advancer is able to pass much more often, which places a lot more pressure on the opponents.

With respect to the clause regarding conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents agreements; I think that we’d all be a lot better off if this clause were dropped entirely from the GCC. I play strong club. I have never seen any defensive bidding structure over a strong club opening banned using this clause (and I have been looking for an example for a long time). FWIW, I run into stuff a lot more complicated than the 2D opening that you describe. In my experience, the primary purpose of that clause is to ban preempts that the powers than be don’t like.

Hello Richard,

For better or worse, the ACBL General Convention Chart does try to impose some order on the small number of bridge “scientists” who seem to devote the majority of their efforts to cooking up new “defences” to baffle and thwart their opponents. These “inventions” would cause many problems, and much hard feeling, at the club level, as most players there would be entirely unfamilar with them. Accordingly, the ACBL GCC allows clubs to dictate what “conventions” will or will not be allowed at games held within a club. Additional conventions, but not others, may be allowed at Sectionals. More will be allowed at Regionals, and even more at NABCs. All this makes sense, as it is reasonable to expect that players at higher levels of competition will be more familar with more conventions than players at lower levels. The important question is “How familiar will players at some given level of competition be with some given “convention” – not how familiar, in your opinion, they should be. Comfort level means a lot to the ongoing success of bridge! Conversely, let the “scientists” do whatever they like at levels where pre-filing of the convention card is called for, because then opponents have the opportinity to become familiar with others’ methods before the games begin. And whether we like it or not, the ACBL GCC does include some “conventions” which are never allowed -namely conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods. To have it otherwise would be chaos! Imagine the following – a given pair is known to employ transfer overcalls over a strong 2C opening. When you see them coming to your table, you and your partner agrree to reverse the meanings of 2C and 2D openings so that 2C = a weak 2D opening, and 2D = a strong 2C opening. Your opponents sit down, you pick up your hand, and find you have a strong 2C opening. You therefore open 2D, your partner alerts, and the opponents (a) smile, and tell you how brilliant you are for thwarting their methods, or (b) complain bitterly that they were unprepared to handle something like this. There are so many good, constructive conventions that have withstood the test of time – and so many bad, destructive “conventions” that are here one week and gone the next. There’s a lot to be said for just playing bridge!

> And whether we like it or not, the ACBL GCC does include some
> “conventions” which are never allowed -namely conventions and/or
> agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

As I mentioned before, the prototypical example of conventions / agreements designed to destroy the opponents methods would appear to be the various overcall systems that are trotted out over strong club openings. As far as I am aware, in this arena anything goes. I have never heard of an overcall structure being banned.

I don’t go around pissing a moaning when the opponent’s overcall my strong club opening. Instead, my partnerships prepare to deal with these types of issues. However, don’t expect me to have much sympathy when you claim that your conventional 2C opening opening gets overcalled with whatever and you don’t want to bother putting in the effort to prepare effective defenses.

The EBU Orange Book states (In Section 11)

“Defensive Bidding
· You can play whatever you like after an artificial one-level opening (not promising at least three cards in the suit opened), or any forcing or two-level or higher opening. You can also play any methods after an artificial response to a one-level opening bid,
or after opener’s suit is raised by responder.”

This instruction is given for EBU Level 2 events (novice, no fear etc) and, I assume, is based on the principle that if players are strong enough to consider sequences after conventional bids then they are strong enough to consider how to handle intervention. Of course in novice events a 2C (conventionally strong) bid essentially tells the opponents to shut up!

Of more interest is the ethics given in the situation 2C : 2D (alerted as transfer to hearts, intended as natural): P: 2H etc Assuming that the strong hand doubles for takeout then there is a case that 3D must now be bid as showing good values and decent heart support (after all partner could hold 6 hearts and the diamond king – as there could be a double fit) and partner can then sign off in 3H if the hand warrants it (passing 3D is NOT an option). No doubt it will be doubled.

I am not a TD but I would support a ruling that the most damaging possible LA sequence should be implemented 100%. This way would discourage pairs from forgetting their system.

>Imagine the following – a given pair is known to employ transfer >overcalls over a strong 2C opening. When you see them coming to your >table, you and your partner agrree to reverse the meanings of 2C and >2D openings so that 2C = a weak 2D opening, and 2D = a strong 2C >opening. Your opponents sit down, you pick up your hand, and find you >have a strong 2C opening. You therefore open 2D, your partner alerts, >and the opponents (a) smile, and tell you how brilliant you are for >thwarting their methods, or (b) complain bitterly that they were >unprepared to handle something like this.

Comment 1: The 2C opening is not legal at the GCC level. I don’t believe that there is a recommended defense available at the Midchart level. The example is moot.

Comment 2: Assume for the moment that the 2C opening were legal. You aren’t allow to change your opening structure based on the opponents choice of defense. Once again, your example was moot

Comment 3: If you want to start discussing the legality of methods, you probably should familiarize yourself with the regulations.

Richard – will have to make this the end of our discussion, as am very much taken aback by the hostility and aggression in your comments, and want this blog to be strictly an area of constructive conversation.