[Shugart23]

 hrothgar, on 2017-August-11, 10:15, said:

What does the appropriate line in the chart say?
its not at all unclear...

You DON'T promise average strength
You DON'T promise a three suited hand
You DON'T promise 4+ cards in a known suit
You DON'T promise 5+ 4 distribution in two known suits

Why would you ever think that this was legal?

I will go back and re-read...I was under the impression that as long as I hold at least one of these holdings, it is not a destructive bid......this is not correct ?

(the 5+4+ requirement doesn't require either suit to be known under the definition of destructive bid, as an aside)


so, say I am 4-4-4-1 with 3 points and a singleton Heart....bidding goes Pass -1C -3H by me and is alerted and explained....The explanation is accurate....My bid in not destructive because I meet one of the requirements.
What am I missing ?

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2017-August-10, 11:11, said:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DESTRUCTIVE PSYCHE

Or to put it another way, there's no such thing as a non-destructive psych. Psychs by their very nature are intended to be destructive.

The reason they're allowed is because they're expected to be just as surprising to partner. If you have a destructive agreement, partner knows not to raise it with normal support, so it's hard for the opponents to punish you. But if you psych the same thing, partner should take it at face value, and it can easily backfire.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2017-August-11, 10:11, said:

Note: The chart does not define purely destructive overcall. It does define purely destructive opening.
I am assuming that they are the same.

The chart defines "purely artificial initial action", and then says this is an opening bid or overcall.

[Shugart23]

 barmar, on 2017-August-11, 11:01, said:

Or to put it another way, there's no such thing as a non-destructive psych. Psychs by their very nature are intended to be destructive.

The reason they're allowed is because they're expected to be just as surprising to partner. If you have a destructive agreement, partner knows not to raise it with normal support, so it's hard for the opponents to punish you. But if you psych the same thing, partner should take it at face value, and it can easily backfire.

Yes, I agree that there is no such thing as a destructive psyche; we beat that horse to death.......I have moved along on that..forget about the word psyche.....I am trying to understand the meaning of destructive bid now.

So now I am just strictly interested in an artificial overcall....I am inquiring if I can make an 3 level artificial overcall that is alerted and explained as having a number of different possibilities. The answer appears to be yes.....

So what rule is being violated in my example ? Is the claim that a bid of 3X is destructive ? If it is destructive, tell me why/how when my holding is specifically one of the non-destructive hand types ?

Maybe I should back up a bit....Is this true : If I hold a 4-4-4-1 distribution with any HCP count, can I make absolutely ANY bid I want at the 3-level or higher, as long as partner alerts and explains it?

[barmar]

 Shugart23, on 2017-August-11, 11:16, said:

Yes, I agree that there is no such thing as a destructive psyche; we beat that horse to death.......I have moved along on that..forget about the word psyche.....I am trying to understand the meaning of destructive bid now.

So now I am just strictly interested in an artificial overcall....I am inquiring if I can make an 3 level artificial overcall that is alerted and explained as having a number of different possibilities. The answer appears to be yes.....

So what rule is being violated in my example ? Is the claim that a bid of 3X is destructive ? If it is destructive, tell me why/how when my holding is specifically one of the non-destructive hand types ?

Maybe I should back up a bit....Is this true : If I hold a 4-4-4-1 distribution with any HCP count, can I make absolutely ANY bid I want at the 3-level or higher, as long as partner alerts and explains it?

First of all, which level chart are you asking about? The Green and White charts allow any artificial defense to strong and very strong openings.

The Yellow and Red charts don't have this, but I suspect they intended them to be allowed by the "methods are allowed unless specifically disallowed" general rule. But the clause that disallows purely destructive overcalls omitted saying that this only applies to overcalls of natural openings.

Your question about whether that multi-way 3X bid is destructive is a good one. The definition lists a number of criteria, and your bid meets each of them. But since it's a multi-way bid, no one knows which of the criteria the hand actually meets. The chart needs to be clarified to fix this. You should write to the charts address to point this out.

[hrothgar]

 Shugart23, on 2017-August-11, 10:39, said:

I will go back and re-read...I was under the impression that as long as I hold at least one of these holdings, it is not a destructive bid......this is not correct ?

The bid that you describe does NOT promise one of those holdings

Promising Either (A or B) is not the same as promising A.
Nor is promising Either (A or B) the same as promising B

[Shugart23]

 barmar, on 2017-August-11, 11:36, said:

First of all, which level chart are you asking about? The Green and White charts allow any artificial defense to strong and very strong openings.

The Yellow and Red charts don't have this, but I suspect they intended them to be allowed by the "methods are allowed unless specifically disallowed" general rule. But the clause that disallows purely destructive overcalls omitted saying that this only applies to overcalls of natural openings.

Your question about whether that multi-way 3X bid is destructive is a good one. The definition lists a number of criteria, and your bid meets each of them. But since it's a multi-way bid, no one knows which of the criteria the hand actually meets. The chart needs to be clarified to fix this. You should write to the charts address to point this out.

I am strictly interested in Yellow ( or Red, I suppose)...

yes...you get what I have asked....it is a 'multi-3X defense' where care is made by the 3-level bidder to make sure he/she has a non-destructive hand holding........If opponents pass you out, you go down a bunch undoubled and who cares...If they double you, hopefully you made your 3-level bid anticipating an escape

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2017-August-11, 11:36, said:

The bid that you describe does NOT promise one of those holdings

Promising Either (A or B) is not the same as promising A.
Nor is promising Either (A or B) the same as promising B

The problem is that the definition doesn't say it has to promise A. It says it has to promise A or B, and it promises "either A or B". That seems to meet the letter of the requirement, but it's likely that they didn't intend this.

Luckily it's still just a draft.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2017-August-11, 11:46, said:

The problem is that the definition doesn't say it has to promise A. It says it has to promise A or B, and it promises "either A or B". That seems to meet the letter of the requirement, but it's likely that they didn't intend this.

Luckily it's still just a draft.

Here is the actual definition (Which doesn't seem to bear any relation to whatever you are talking about):

17. “Purely Destructive Initial Action”​: An opening bid or an overcall that does not satisfy
at least one of the following:
a. 4+ cards in a known suit.
b. 5+ cards in one of two possible suits.
c. 5+-4+ distribution in any two suits.
d. An either/or combination of any two of a, b, or c (which may be the same option
twice).
e. A Three-suited hand.
f. At least Average strength

Note that item D specifically allows a combination of A, B, or C.

There is not such language allowing any of (A, B, C, D) OR E OR F

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2017-August-11, 03:31, said:

please don't quote a person you are not replying to.

What? Where did I quote you?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-11, 14:13, said:

What? Where did I quote you?

I guess you didn't. Sorry.