System on over (1C)

[EricK]

Let's assume opps are playing a "standard" system (Strong NT, 5 card majors) so that 1♣ is often a minimum balanced hand. Let's also assume we play a similar system (5 card majors, Strong NT, forcing NT).

 

It seems to me that it might be a good idea to play "systems on" when opponent's open 1♣. In other words, 1 level bids show opening strength (where this can be interpreted as maybe rule of 19), and responses are forcing as usual. Hands which are too weak for a one level overcall must make a WJO or pass.

 

One of the gains is after the auction (1♣) 1♦ (P) where partner can bid any 4 or 5 card major on any hand he would have repsonded to an opening bid so there is less danger of missing a fit. Another gain is in auctions like (1♣) 1♠ (P) where responder can bid a forcing NT on a reasonable but misfitting or partially fitting hand (eg 2542 distribution).

 

The losses would appear to come mainly on hands which are too weak to make a one level overcall and not right for a WJO. But it is not clear to me how much of a loss this will turn out to be and whether the constructive gains will outweigh them.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Eric

[awm]

While this kind of thing can be fun to play, I'm not convinced it's all that effective. I think the main reason is that overcalls and competitive auctions are based on trying to push the opponents up, direct a lead, or find a making partscore. The light overcall (of 1M especially) is a valuable weapon for this purpose that I wouldn't want to give up.

 

Sure, it would be easier to bid our own games and slams if we kept to our "normal" agreements, but when opponents open 1♣ your chances of having 3NT or a slam contract go down substantially. Perhaps this is not true if opponents frequently open 1♣ on junk... but really I see a lot more junky 1M openings than 1m openings these days.

 

-- Adam

[Guest Jlall]

as Richard would say...conditional probability <_<

[inquiry]

Not sure I understand, but I will say this...

 

For me, where 1♣ is natural (and not precision or polish, etc)

 

(1♣)-1♦ is always a sound overcall. There is just too little to be gained from a weak 1♦ overcall.

 

And for me, I like the ability to bid 1♠ on this auction

(1♣)-1♠ because it "excludes" two of their suits. I want to bid 1♠ frequently, especially if I ahve a suit I wouldn't mind partner leading. I also like it because if we ahve a fit, we can often jostle the opponents around.

 

I don't believe I am too wildly interested in giving up either of these bids. I also like Raptor for the same reasoning, over 1♣ it steals more room than 1♦ or 1♠ and adds some spice to the auction.

 

I don't think the gain from always using 1C-new suit as sound (if that is what I am hearing you suggest) is worth giving up these bids... especially 1♠.

 

Ben

[pclayton]

There's some logic to this.

 

A long time ago, Jeff Rubens suggested a forcing 1N response to a major suit overcall for much the same reasons.

 

However, it seems unneccarily restrictive however to limit overcalls to rule of 19. When they open, we are in a defensive posture, not an offensive posture.

 

If the opening bid was some sort of fert, then I can see 1 level overcalls being as you suggested.

[kenrexford]

I agree with the principle that this might work. I disagree that we are in a defensive posture, especially at IMP's. Here's why.

 

Normally, we expect the hands to be 10-10-10-10 as a base, right? With 13 points, we expect 13-9-9-9. In any event, things are balanced.

 

Once an opening hits to our immediate right, we could assume as a base something like 13-13-7-7. However, this creates a world where the opponents have 2/3 of their points in front of 2/3 of our points. This is great news for us.

 

As a result of this general rule, hand after hand has shown me that this layout "creates" about 4 points worth of value for us. This is roughly equivalent to the original expectation for an opening, creating perhaps 9-15-7-9.

 

Thus, it is my belief, somewhat tested as effective, that an opening to the immediate right actually places a stronger hand into the offensive.

 

As an easy summarization, would you "like" KJx-AQ10xx-Kxx-xx better in first seat, or better in second seat after a 1S opening to your right?

[Kalvan14]

There are quite a lot of hand which are best played in 1NT (in particular when NT declarer is before the opener, who's on lead and with his honors submitted).

 

When one line opens the bidding, the chances for the other line to get to game (much less to slam) are substantially lower than in an uncontested auction.

 

I've no problems in accepting that there are hands where it would be nice and useful to have "systems on" when pard overcalls. But, as usual, it is a matter of probabilities.

[AthosINT]

Once an opening hits to our immediate right, we could assume as a base something like 13-13-7-7

I disagree, you do not assume 13-13-7-7 because in average an opening bidder does not have 13.

He can have 12 to 22, and even if he will have 12 more often that 22, on average he will have more than 13.

so, the number of points hold by opener being stronger, that changes the balance, increasing the chances his side is attacking

[Guest Jlall]

Once an opening hits to our immediate right, we could assume as a base something like 13-13-7-7

I disagree, you do not assume 13-13-7-7 because in average an opening bidder does not have 13.

He can have 12 to 22, and even if he will have 12 more often that 22, on average he will have more than 13.

so, the number of points hold by opener being stronger, that changes the balance, increasing the chances his side is attacking

agree with this.

[kenrexford]

You miss the "as a base."

 

Take simple laws of averages. Assume you have 13 HCP's. This leaves an average expectation of 9-9-9 around the table, right?

 

So, if RHO is known to have at least 13-ish as a normal minimum (11-15 perhaps), this is only about four points more than normally expected.

 

Sure, the opening removes the percentages of 0-10 hands, but your strength also removes the percentages of massive hands by making them less likely. His 13 point average would represent 32.5% of the deck without your strength. With your strength, it represents about 48% of the remaining deck (not yours). Moving him out of 11-15, to a simple 16, requires him to have about 60% of the deck.

 

In any event, what does each player need as a contribution to have a majority position?

 

If I have a partner-advancer with 8 points, we not only have the majority of the deck, but we end up with at worst 19-13-0-8 layout, which makes OUR honors on average better placed.

 

Give RHO a responder with all missing points. 13-13-14-0. This is bad for us. But, split the baby of remaining points, and you get something like 19-13-8-0, which is BAD for them.

 

In other words, my 13-count, reducing the opponents to a max HCP count of 27, seriously reduces the opponents' chances of game, as their finesses fail. However, I only need about 8 of the missing 14 points to have a fair shot, as our finesses will work.

 

I challenge the nay-sayers to run the sample through. Assume first hand has a minimum modern standard for an opening. Give him a spread of hands from say 11 to 20, with the actual likelihood of each count in the context of a known 13-count to his immediate left reflected. Then, bounce around the remaining HCP's between responder and advancer. The end will be (I have done this years ago) that the side overcalling makes game more often than the side opening.

 

I grant that the chances of a 13-count behind an opener might also be a factor in style. However, from my personal experience, having once been a 0+ overcaller, sound overcalls pays at IMP's, when advancer can rely upon this to seek "marginal" games.

[EricK]

Not sure I understand, but I will say this...

 

For me, where 1♣ is natural (and not precision or polish, etc)

 

(1♣)-1♦ is always a sound overcall. There is just too little to be gained from a weak 1♦ overcall.

 

And for me, I like the ability to bid 1♠ on this auction

(1♣)-1♠ because it "excludes" two of their suits. I want to bid 1♠ frequently, especially if I ahve a suit I wouldn't mind partner leading. I also like it because if we ahve a fit, we can often jostle the opponents around.

 

I don't believe I am too wildly interested in giving up either of these bids. I also like Raptor for the same reasoning, over 1♣ it steals more room than 1♦ or 1♠ and adds some spice to the auction.

 

I don't think the gain from always using 1C-new suit as sound (if that is what I am hearing you suggest) is worth giving up these bids... especially 1♠.

 

Ben

I am not suggesting overcalls as sound. More like the same minimum as somebody who plays a very light opening bid strcuture. So one avoids it on hands like ♠KQJTx and out (either make a WJO or pass) but would definitely do it if there is an Ace outside.

 

You say you play 1♦ as sound. But do you play partner's bids as forcing or not forcing? If you overcall with eg a 1462 distribution and partner has a 5413 distribution without much strength can you find the 4-4 fit (assuming you are not playing Raptor, in this instance)?

[bigmax]

Pairs that play Polish Club often use

(1♣) - dbl = our own 1♣ opening, all normal continuations apply