[gwnn]

aguahombre, on May 29 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

Is this a joke or what is it? The word 'random' exists and is quite the opposite to 'deterministic'. In the thread you allude to hrothgar said about a method where you overcall a strong club according to a well disclosed procedure (I.e. not random).

[aguahombre]

Yes it was a joke. But I doubt that seeing a call from righty, then attempting --rightly or wrongly -- to convey information with an overcall is random use of that overcall. You might not agree with the NT overcall, but it aint even close to random.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on May 29 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

I completely disagree with your assessment of the hand, this is an easy 1N overcall if 15-17 or similar, the diamonds might almost as well be AKJx or AKQx, so this is a comfortable 15 with 2 10s as well.

I would bid 4S either directly or via a transfer if I had one available.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on May 29 2010, 11:08 PM, said:

I completely disagree with your assessment of the hand, this is an easy 1N overcall if 15-17 or similar, the diamonds might almost as well be AKJx or AKQx, so this is a comfortable 15 with 2 10s as well.

That seems to presuppose the availability of entries to take finesses.

In any case, AKQx in the suit bid on the right is hardly a good holding for offensive purposes. The function of high cards is to turn smaller cards into tricks; a high card that is just a trick isn't pulling it's weight.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on May 29 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

Yes it was a joke.  But I doubt that seeing a call from righty, then attempting --rightly or wrongly -- to convey information with an overcall is random use of that overcall.  You might not agree with the NT overcall, but it aint even close to random.

I didn't say the 1NT overcall was random. Neither did I say that bidding 1NT is random or conveying information with a 1NT overcall is random. When did I ever say anything like that?? I said, and I quote,

gwnn said:

random 14 count

I said this hand is a random 14 count. You may not be familiar with this usage but 'random' is often used these days as a surrogate for 'nondescript'. The idea being that if you picked one hand out of all possible balanced 14 counts that have a heart stopper, the hand picked would likely be similar in strength to this one.