New Year, new convention?

[P_Marlowe]

- It lets you get in on 4-4 shapes. I consider this desirable because a 4-4 fit cannot be worth more than 4 tricks against NT, but can be worth a couple more as a trump suit.

4-4 can be worth a lot of -1100s :)

As they say in english, it is the the driver who kills not

the car, if you go in with 4-4-3-2 being red vs. green,

well ... hopefully you find opponents to teach you better.

 

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

When you double for S + another, pard can either place the contract in spades or ask for the other suit by bidding 2C? If he has an "interesting" hand, can he describe or investigate?

2NT is the ask, at least to a certain point,

it promises a certain tolerance for spade,

... you need to know, where to run, if they

start x-ing.

 

Add. you have 3C, 3D as splinter raises

for the known mayor suit, 3S as preemptive

raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

My pet theory (which I have posted numerous times before so you're probably all tired of it) is that with a passed hand, your structure does not need to enable you to show shapes that you can't have since you didn't open. For example, I see many Dutch pairs playing the popular Multi/Muiderberg both as opening and as defense against 1NT. This doesn't make sense since it means that they can't interfere over 1NT with a passed hand.

 

Therefore, there will probably have to be some diference between the structure played by passed and unpassed hands:

 

With an unpassed hand, emphasize should be on the majors.

 

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

[Echognome]

In response to Helene's post, what about having the requisite shape, but not the requisite strength? As an example, I played a very aggressive opening preempt style with one partner. However, we did not play them wide ranging. For example, first NV we played 2-level preempts as 0-5. So if you had the same preempting shape, but were say 6 to a bad 10, you had to pass. (I am not a believer in the 'no gap' theory!) So if you passed and then bid over say a 1NT, with the same method as our weak 2s, our bids are better defined. I don't see the problem with this. Of course, Vul we would be showing 6-10 with a preempt, so if we began with a pass, we would not want to show the same hand with less than 6 if we were vulnerable. But then again, why are we bidding at all over 1NT in that case?

[Al_U_Card]

Both of the previous posts raise interesting issues. Having the "same" method in several instances surely decreases the load on the brain cells. It may not provide the ideal method in all cases but as we all know, any agreement is better than no agreement.

 

The point about ranges for preemptive (shape) openings and passed hand NT overcalls is also important as you get to keep the same structure but improve on the accuracy (even if frequency tends to fall and one of the aspects of interference is to get in there as often as possible).

 

If a system is to be wide-ranging content wise, can asking bids be incorporated into the "responses" or is that "too much to chew" as Richard said?

[MickyB]

Agreed Matt, in your style it is fine to come back in later there NV, but arguably vul you should reconsider the meanings of a bid by a passed hand - "natural" maybe :P

 

Al - Lionel Wright suggested

 

After (1N)-X-(P)

 

Pass = at least 18 HCP between the sides if no spade fit, at least 22 if 4 card spade support

2♣ = pass or correct

2♦/♥ = suggestion to play

2♠ = to play

2N = invitational raise of spades

3X = splinter for ♠

3♠ = preemptive

 

After (1N)-2m-(P)

 

2N, 3m, 3H all invitational

[david_c]

My pet theory (which I have posted numerous times before so you're probably all tired of it) is that with a passed hand, your structure does not need to enable you to show shapes that you can't have since you didn't open. For example, I see many Dutch pairs playing the popular Multi/Muiderberg both as opening and as defense against 1NT. This doesn't make sense since it means that they can't interfere over 1NT with a passed hand.

Hmm, it seems I've been doing that. You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Must remember to speak to partner ...

 

Matt also makes a good point, but it's only relevant to people who play that particular style of pre-empting. i.e. hardly anyone :P

[Finch]

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

 

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

[Al_U_Card]

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

 

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

I guess almost any passed hand with 5+5+ in the minors after hearing p-p-1NT would want to bid some number of NT to pre-empt past the comfort zone of the opps.....NT for the minors seems to be applicable to all systems in all seats to get past the major suit fit they might have.

[Al_U_Card]

I realize that constructive auctions after NT interference are pretty rare but can a response structure to interference also incorporate obstructive inquiries other than a jump raise (splinters always seem to me to point the opps to their biggest fits in these cases so I prefer to avoid them with a good hand and if things develop (how likely is that?) then q-bids might be more appropriate.

[MickyB]

My view is that it is usually wrong to compete with a minor or the minors over a 1NT opening unless you are prepared to go to the 3 level. Obviously you are with a 2NT bid showing 5-5 - unfortunately that gives the opps a lot of options, 3C for the minors makes things a good bit tougher for them (but gives them an easier time when you have whatever you would otherwise show with a 3♣ bid :P )

[Al_U_Card]

A next step (like using your weak 2 bid structure to overcall NT) is to keep the system the same for the initial call and the responses, if possible. (obviously some kind of "to play" or pass or correct options should be incorporated.

 

Any thoughts?

[helene_t]

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

 

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

True, but then let me rephrase: emphasize whatever hands you can have and with which you want to bid. If you play multi/muiderberg, it could be 5m+4M, and both majors. And maybe three-suited hands.

[lowerline]

Against strong NT (14+)

 

dbl = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2c = diamonds OR hearts+spades

2d = hearts OR spades+clubs

2h = spades OR clubs+diamonds

2s = spades+diamonds

2nt = hearts+clubs

 

Against weak NT (max 15)

 

dbl = natural

2c, 2d and 2h same as above

2s = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2nt = spades+diamonds OR hearts+clubs

 

The 2suiters can be 54 if the 4crd suit can be played in at the 2level not vulnerable, otherwise 55.

 

Answers are P/C, 2nt and 3 of the overcalled suit can be used as gametry.

[MickyB]

Remind me to play a 13-16 NT against you and see what happens :P

[Free]

Against strong NT (14+)

 

dbl = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2c = diamonds OR hearts+spades

2d = hearts OR spades+clubs

2h = spades OR clubs+diamonds

2s = spades+diamonds

2nt = hearts+clubs

 

Against weak NT (max 15)

 

dbl = natural

2c, 2d and 2h same as above

2s = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2nt = spades+diamonds OR hearts+clubs

 

The 2suiters can be 54 if the 4crd suit can be played in at the 2level not vulnerable, otherwise 55.

 

Answers are P/C, 2nt and 3 of the overcalled suit can be used as gametry.

Don't like this actually... What's the difficulty for opps? You intervene, they just wait a round to know what you have, and then continue like you bid naturally immediatly.

[MickyB]

I want to give Inverted Psycho Suction a try at some point - 2♣ is either minors or hearts, 2♦ either reds or spades, etc. Makes everyone guess lots, which increases the chance that the contract will be ridiculous, which reduces the chance that my cardplay will matter :P

[mikeh]

Against strong NT (14+)

 

dbl = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2c = diamonds OR hearts+spades

2d = hearts OR spades+clubs

2h = spades OR clubs+diamonds

2s = spades+diamonds

2nt = hearts+clubs

 

Against weak NT (max 15)

 

dbl = natural

2c, 2d and 2h same as above

2s = clubs OR diamonds+hearts

2nt = spades+diamonds OR hearts+clubs

 

The 2suiters can be 54 if the 4crd suit can be played in at the 2level not vulnerable, otherwise 55.

 

Answers are P/C, 2nt and 3 of the overcalled suit can be used as gametry.

Don't like this actually... What's the difficulty for opps? You intervene, they just wait a round to know what you have, and then continue like you bid naturally immediatly.

The scheme is similar to suction, and I assure you that against suction, you cannot safely pass and see what the overcaller has :P

 

On some hands, that tactic works, but on others the bidding will be significantly higher by your next turn. The effectiveness of suction lies not in the ambiguity inherent in ovecaller's bid but in the opportunity for advancer to bounce the auction anytime he fits both of the possibilities.

 

Overcaller shows ♥ or the blacks and I, as advancer, hold 3 or 4 ♥ and a long(ish) black suit: I bounce the auction as high as I can afford to: and if we are at favourable, that may be quite high. Or advancer passes with length in the bid suit.

 

I have played suction and had it played against me in tough competition: there are defences to it, but it is one of the most effective methods against (strong) 1N yet invented.

[Gerben42]

The scheme is similar to suction, and I assure you that against suction, you cannot safely pass and see what the overcaller has 

 

But you can safely double to show values, the bid suit has not been shown! Psycho Suction, inverted or not, is the way to play this stuff.

 

Against a strong NT there are different kinds of strategies:

 

* KISS: Play natural :P

* Interfere: Bid bid bid... If you like a defence of this type, play Lionel.

* Confuse: Put in Multi-meaning bids to make the auction a mess. If you like this type, play Psycho Suction (inverted or normal)

* Build: Try to find a good contract, not just any. If you like a defence of this type, play Woolsey / Jassem (2 names for same thing).

[Al_U_Card]

I want to give Inverted Psycho Suction a try at some point - 2♣ is either minors or hearts, 2♦ either reds or spades, etc. Makes everyone guess lots, which increases the chance that the contract will be ridiculous, which reduces the chance that my cardplay will matter :P

At last, something that I can relate to.... :P

[MickyB]

Against a strong NT there are different kinds of strategies:

 

* KISS: Play natural :P

* Interfere: Bid bid bid... If you like a defence of this type, play Lionel.

* Confuse: Put in Multi-meaning bids to make the auction a mess. If you like this type, play Psycho Suction (inverted or normal)

* Build: Try to find a good contract, not just any. If you like a defence of this type, play Woolsey / Jassem (2 names for same thing).

Inverted Psycho Suction is an improvement IMO - quite often you will have a reasonable choice between passing partner's bid or correcting it to the suit above. With Psycho Suction you sometimes just have to pass and hope! Although it is possible that this works out fine in practice.

 

I think Meckwell is much more suitable for interfering a lot - Lionel is designed for competing for the part-score while reserving the possibility of doubling 1NT, if you use the double on few values you will get redoubled and then smacked when you run.

[Free]

I know all kinds of suction, but I don't like it against NT. Against strong ♣ openings it's quite good, but a NT opener has specified his hand a lot better!

 

It indeed depends on what you want to do.

- If you want to intervene a lot, play agressive DONT: any 4-4, any 5+ card. You don't care how much bidding space you take away or if you find the best partscore, you just intervene and get them out of their NT contracts. Meckwell is a good alternative: a little less frequent, but with a natural 2♥ overcall.

- If you want to fight and win partscore battles, then Brozel and Lionel seem fine because the suits are known.

- If you want to find games (usefull after weak and mini NT), I prefer Multi-Landy or ASPTRO (I guess this is the correct spelling, but you get the picture right?).

- If you want to confuse 2 or 3 opponents, play some sort of suction and jump like hell. ;)

- ...

[Al_U_Card]

I know all kinds of suction, but I don't like it against NT. Against strong ♣ openings it's quite good, but a NT opener has specified his hand a lot better!

 

It indeed depends on what you want to do.

- If you want to intervene a lot, play agressive DONT: any 4-4, any 5+ card. You don't care how much bidding space you take away or if you find the best partscore, you just intervene and get them out of their NT contracts. Meckwell is a good alternative: a little less frequent, but with a natural 2♥ overcall.

- If you want to fight and win partscore battles, then Brozel and Lionel seem fine because the suits are known.

- If you want to find games (usefull after weak and mini NT), I prefer Multi-Landy or ASPTRO (I guess this is the correct spelling, but you get the picture right?).

- If you want to confuse 2 or 3 opponents, play some sort of suction and jump like hell. ;)

- ...

Food for thought. Does each method have a particularity that makes it more suitable for the purpose/NT type? In particular, I don't see transfer or jump transfer bids where (despite the obvious lack of bidding space) there is more certainty and more opportunity to accurately describe your defensive hands.

[joshs]

Well your goals do vary with form of scoring and Vul and seat:

For instance, white vs white at mps: your goal is to play any plausable spot. Playing in your second best strain is fine.

 

In most other situations, I think its important to:

a. find your best strain

b. have some hope of bidding distributional major suit games, but its not the most important thing

c. obstruct the opponents INV auctions

d. put the NT bidder on lead

 

Because of d, things like the woolsey 2D bid, or x-fers are much better in the direct seat than in the balancing seat.

 

But in the balancing seat it is much more important to find your best strain than it is in direct seat (no obstructive value if you come in in the balancing seat), hence the obstuctive value you might get from a don't 2H (majors) is lost in 3'rd seat and you are much better off playing 2C for majors there.

 

Anyway, the two treatments that I am most fond of vs a strong NT are woolsey, and Lynn Deas's don't woolsey hybrid:

 

Woolsey:

2C Majors (then 2D asks preference)

2D 1 major (this sides the major well in direct seat, and its much easier to compete when partner has 1 of 2 suits than if he has 1 of 4)

2M 5M, 4+in some m

x a minor, some play this guarantee's a 4 card major on the side, some don't

 

Note: In years of experience playing this method the sequence:

1N-x-P-2D(asking for a 4 card major) is very rare whether you guarantee a 4 card major or not.

 

Deas's Dont:

2m 4+in that suit, 5+ in some major (stays low like don't, but tells you that the major is longer)

2H Majors

2S Spades

x 4M and 5+ in a minor OR 6+D or 6+H or 6+C and a very good hand (rare) or both majors and a great hand (very rare)

 

You initially treat it like the woolsey x except over 1N-x-P-2D(asking for the major)

a. pass with diamonds

b. Bid 3H with 6 hearts since partner should be at least 4-3 in the majors for the 2D bid

 

The main advantage of Deas's method is that it is GCC :)

 

Josh