Precison defence

[sceptic]

Hi all

 

I really need to learn how to defend against precision type systems

 

any advice where to start please

[keylime]

A good base defense that seems to be popular is Mathe:

 

double = majors

1NT = minors

rest of the bids = natural

 

I'd also discuss with pard what the meaning of these 2 sequences mean:

 

1C - 2H versus 1C - 1X - 1Y - 2H. Normally in expert standard, a pass then bid, shows a good playing hand versus a freebid that shows a preempt.

[helene_t]

Against 1♣: Dbl shows clubs, notrump shows whatever two-suiters you agree on, other calls are natural and not constructive. Strong hands pass and bid in next round. After

(1♣)-p-(1♦)-p

(1N)-?

you play whatever structure you play against a 1N opening. Dbl on the 1♦ negative relay shows diamonds.

 

Against 1♦(if 2+ or shorter): x is t/o for the majors, might be short in clubs. 1N tends to (should?) show a diamond stopper. Diamonds by us is always natural.

 

Against 2♣: WJO. X on the 2♦ relay shows diamonds. 3♣ is michaels.

 

Against 2♦ (short ♦): x is a (semi)-balanced hand outside your 2N range, which is probably 17-19 or such, or a very strong flexible hand. 2M is sound and shows a very good suit. 3♣ is a good ♦ overcall, 3♦ a weak ♦ overcall.

[hrothgar]

Here’s a few quick thoughts about competing against a Precision pairs. (All of this assumes that you have the luxury of playing in a regular partnership)

 

Your top priority should be developing effective methods to disturb the opponent’s nebulous openings. You definitely want quick in / quick out methods over the opponent’s Strong Club opening. I prefer methods that allow me make non-forcing calls at the two level. For example, I play a 2C overcall that shows a two suited hand with Clubs and Hearts. I play a 2D overcall that shows a two suited hand with Diamonds and Hearts. I use a 2M overcall that shows a single suited hand with that major. For what its worth, I think that Mathe is a dreadfuul defense. I'm happy to see folks use it against me.

 

You may very well want to play a modified version of the same method over the auction (1C) – P – (1D). In particular, if the opponents are using a light 1C opening and use 1D to deny a game forcing hand, the 1D response is probably overloaded. You also want to look at the opponent’s 1D opening. If they’re using a nebulous 1D opening that promises 1+ Diamonds or 0+ Diamonds this is another opportunity to jam their auctions.

 

The next thing that you’ll need to worry about is your competitive judgment. If you play a lot versus a Precision pair, you’re going to need to worry about lots of auctions like the following: (1H) – P – (4H). The 4H bid could show anything from a strong balanced GF hand that doesn’t feel like exploring slam to a preempt. Worse yet, an auction like (1H) – P – (3N) could show a hand that thinks they have a really good chance of making 3N or (alternatively) it could show a preemptive heart raise. The strength of a Precision type system is the limited opening bids. Good Precision pairs are going to have lots of ways to exploit this. Judgment is your best defense. Also, make damn sure you know if/when the opponents have established a forcing pass.

 

Probably the last thing you need to worry about are the specialized 2C and 2D opening bids. Its not too difficult defending against either of these. You just need to make sure you and your partner are on the same page.

[glen]

If your defense to 1NT includes a strength showing double, one can play the same methods over the strong 1♣ and 2♣ openings. For example, Karen and I play Astro two-bids over 1NT. So over 1♣ we play:

Double = ♥s and a minor

1♦ = ♠s and another suit

1NT=minors

rest natural

 

Say one plays CAPP. It they open 2♣ then:

Double=one suited

2♦=majors

2♥/♠=major+minor

2NT=minors

 

If they open a strong 1♣ the same thing but one level lower.

[MickyB]

Over 1♣ - aggressive jump overcalls, especially when NV, when it is unlikely you have game.

 

X, 1NT and possibly 1♦ show some kind of two-suiters. X = majors, 1NT = minors is fine; or you could try CRASH or similar (X = two suits of the same Colour, 1♦ = two suits of the same RAnk, 1NT = two suits of the same SHape). I like these to show 5-5 shape, as I think you should pass with 4-4 and I like to just bid my five-card suit at the two-level when I'm 5-4.

 

1M overcall shows a reasonable hand, interested in bidding constructively to 4M. Now 1NT = good raise

 

Over 1♦, treat it as natural, including 2♦ = majors. In any event, (1♦)-X-(P)-2♦ should definitely be artificial, even if you play other diamond bids as natural (you can pass 1♦ X with diamonds).

 

Treat 2♣ as you would a weak two.

 

Over a 2♦ opening showing a three-suiter short in diamonds, I use the popular defence to a multi, the "Dixon double" - X = 13-15 bal or any strong hand. This only works because it's unlikely that they'll decide to play in 2♦, so you can double on hands that it would normally be too dangerous to bid on.

[cherdano]

You don't need a special defense. Just don't be afraid to overcall, pick a meaning for X/1N/2N, and maybe preempt a bit more aggressively than usual.

Some think overcalling 1M is not worth it without a good hand, since it gives them space etc., but I don't buy that, partner may be able to raise to 3M or 4M.

[hrothgar]

You don't need a special defense. Just don't be afraid to overcall, pick a meaning for X/1N/2N, and maybe preempt a bit more aggressively than usual.

Some think overcalling 1M is not worth it without a good hand, since it gives them space etc., but I don't buy that, partner may be able to raise to 3M or 4M.

I'll echo what Arend says here: You don't need to play suction or psycho suction or whatever over thier strong club. (Simple natural bidding will work fine). The important point is to make sure that

 

1. You and your partner are on the same wavelength regaridng style

2. You and your partner can accurately describe your methods to the opponents

 

For anyone who cares, I posted my preferred overcall structure over the opponent's strong club opening a little more than a year ago. I think that its fairly well designed.

 

If anyone can find it, please post a link. (If folks are feeling lazy, I have it bookmarked on my home PC and might repost it tonight)

[jdonn]

My advice is preempting when you can works well to kill their bidding space. Random overcalling on low levels completely hurts the overcalling side a lot more than the strong club side, who can usually judge very well at the low level. So my feelings are exactly like the first part of cherdano's post, and exactly opposite of the second part.

[skjaeran]

I prefer to bid as often as possible over a big club.

 

At the 1-level i prefer "CRASH":

x=Colour, blacks or reds

1♦=RAnk, majors or minors

1NT=SHape, pointed or rounded

 

1M=natural, good hand, might be our hand

 

 

At the 2-level I use "Amundsen":

2♣=♦ OR majors

2♦=♥ OR 4♠-6+m

2♥=4♥-6+m

2♠=natural

 

After 2-way bids, we use the multi principle; partner bids as high as he can and is ready for correction.

Passing first and entering later (natural overcall or t/o double) shows a strong hand.

[cherdano]

My advice is preempting when you can works well to kill their bidding space. Random overcalling on low levels completely hurts the overcalling side a lot more than the strong club side, who can usually judge very well at the low level. So my feelings are exactly like the first part of cherdano's post, and exactly opposite of the second part.

I am not sure how much we disagree, I wouldn't make anything that I consider a "random overcall" over 1♣. But if I had a clear 1♠ overcall over a natural 1♣, I would still make the overcall over a strong club opener. Do you disagree with that?

[Apollo81]

You really hurt them when you can raise the auction to the three level or higher before opener gets a chance to bid again.

 

To me, this means overcalling and advancing normally, but relaxing your suit quality requirements for jump overcalling. The style a lot of people seem to like of frequent 4-card suit overcalls and 2-level 5 card suit overcalls is exactly the opposite of the right thing IMO since it doesn't allow advancer much liberty in jacking it up.

[keylime]

I agree wholeheartedly with Noble.

 

Just getting the opps to have to start guessing at 2♠ is going to cause them problems unless they have discussed how to handle it in detail.

 

A surefire way to test their agreements is to float a trial balloon of sorts; i.e. come in on a relatively safe hand and make an aggressive call. If they struggle to their spot or miss it, attacking play is warranted. If tho they bid as if it never happened and get to where they need to be....you might want to have a rethink.

[hrothgar]

You really hurt them when you can raise the auction to the three level or higher before opener gets a chance to bid again.

 

To me, this means overcalling and advancing normally, but relaxing your suit quality requirements for jump overcalling. The style a lot of people seem to like of frequent 4-card suit overcalls and 2-level 5 card suit overcalls is exactly the opposite of the right thing IMO since it doesn't allow advancer much liberty in jacking it up.

Apollo81 has raised a good point: You can’t really evaluate whether a set of methods is “good” until you agree upon your goals. Its crucial to understand what your overcall system is hoping to accomplish. I also agree that if your goal is to precisely identify a nine card fit and use this knowledge to permit advancer to jack the bidding up to the three level then a fairly stodgy overcall structure where you overcall at the one level with 5 card suits and jump overcall with six card suits will work fairly well.

 

Personally, my design goals for an overcall structure are somewhat different:

 

1. I prefer methods that maximize our chance of forcing the auction to 2M or 3m. Furthermore, I prefer a structure in which the opposing side is unsure whether our 2S contract is based on a seven or an eight card fit.

2. I like two suited overcalls where advancer immediately knows both of my suits. Being the first one to discover a double fit is incredibly powerful in these types of auctions.

3. Where ever possible, I like our methods to be based on natural and non-forcing overcalls. I want to make sure that the partner of the strong club opener is under as much pressure as possible. I want him to worry that the auction is going to go 1C – (2D) – Float… and be forced to open up the range of his doubles and advances.

 

No system is perfect. Almost by definition, whatever meaning I chose for a 1NT or a 2NT overcall is going to violate some of these principles. Even so, I’m fairly happy with my choice of methods.

[mr1303]

I like these to show 5-5 shape, as I think you should pass with 4-4 and I like to just bid my five-card suit at the two-level when I'm 5-4.

 

1M overcall shows a reasonable hand, interested in bidding constructively to 4M.

Mike, I've never seen you pass holding 4-4 in any 2 suits when I'm playing a strong club.

[MickyB]

I like these to show 5-5 shape, as I think you should pass with 4-4 and I like to just bid my five-card suit at the two-level when I'm 5-4.

 

1M overcall shows a reasonable hand, interested in bidding constructively to 4M.

Mike, I've never seen you pass holding 4-4 in any 2 suits when I'm playing a strong club.

That's just a vote of confidence in your constructive bidding, I'm sure :)

[MickyB]

3. Where ever possible, I like our methods to be based on natural and non-forcing overcalls.  I want to make sure that the partner of the strong club opener is under as much pressure as possible.  I want him to worry that the auction is going to go 1C – (2D) – Float… and be forced to open up the range of his doubles and advances.

Agreed. Recently David_C and myself played six boards against a strong club pair who play internationally. We had three boards commence (1♣)-2♦, on

 

Jx xx KJxxxx xxx (this was at love all)

Q97x K ATxxx KJx (this one was at favourable opposite a passed hand)

Q AQx QJT9x QJ9x (likewise)

 

We seemed to score fairly well out of them.

 

My aims over a strong club are to get the auction to the two-level immediately or to make it likely that advancer can raise a one-level call to the three level.

[hrothgar]

Here are my preferred methods. Personally, i think that this type of structure will allow you to inflict a fair amount of damage on strong club pairs

 

Pass = Strong or weak

 

X = Both majors

 

Typical example hands (minimum/maximum)

 

♠ KJT2 ♥QT98 ♦73 ♣762

♠ AJ763 ♥ KT52 ♦ 9 ♣ 763

 

1♦ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

 

♠ 92 ♥ 874 ♦ KQ3 ♣QT983

♠ 54 ♥ T87432 ♦ AQJ ♣ 63

 

1♥ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

 

1♠ = Spades

 

♠ AJ72 ♥ 52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 763

♠ AQJ73 ♥ 74 ♦ 843 ♣ K5

♠ AJ843 ♥ K74 ♦ 672 ♣ 42

 

1N = 2 suited with Spades and a minor

 

♠ AQ52 ♥ 673 ♦ QT632 ♣ 3

♠ AJT62 ♥ 4 ♦ 52 ♣ KJ942

 

2♣ = Clubs and Hearts

 

♠ 7632 ♥ QJ73 ♦ 4 ♣ KQ42

♠ 5 ♥ AQJ9 ♦ Q42 ♣ KQ8742

 

2♦ = Diamonds and Hearts

 

♠ Q52 ♥ KT52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 62

♠ 42 ♥ KJT82 ♦ AQ932 ♣ 3

 

2♥ = Hearts

 

♠ 73 ♥ QJT642 ♦ K72 ♣ 732

♠ K4 ♥ AQT9732 ♦ 73 ♣ 82

 

2♠ = Spades

 

2N = Clubs or Diamonds and a major

 

3C = Minors

 

♠ 4 ♥ 863 ♦ KJ762 ♣ KQ73

♠ 2 ♥ 63 ♦ AT572 ♣ AKT73

 

3♦ = Diamonds

3♥ = Majors

[glen]

...

1♣ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

 

Typical example hands

 

♠ 92 ♥ 874 ♦ QT853 ♣KQ3

♠ 54 ♥ T87432 ♦ 63 ♣ AQJ

Can you only "overcall" 1♣ over a big pass?

[hrothgar]

...

1♣ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

 

Typical example hands

 

♠ 92 ♥ 874 ♦ QT853 ♣KQ3

♠ 54 ♥ T87432 ♦ 63 ♣ AQJ

Can you only "overcall" 1♣ over a big pass?

Sorry about that

 

New restaurant opened up in Boston called sushiteq. Evil mixture of sushi, tequila, and sake.

Good quality fish, though not enough variety. the bif problem is that sake and tequila are my two main downfalls on the liquor front

[glen]

Evil mixture of sushi, tequila, and sake.

That's some mixture! Aside from 1♣ excellent defense.

[helene_t]

Oops, I said that diamonds by us is always natural after they open 1♦. That is obviously not the case in the passout seat:

(1♦)-p-(p)-2♦*

is whatever 2♦ would mean over a natural 1♦. Also, if you bid something else than 2♦ in the passout seat, diamonds by us is always a cuebid. The reasoning is that opener's partner tends to have some diamonds for his pass, that the one of us in direct seat could have overcalled a natural 2♦, and that the one of us who's in the passout seat would tend to pass with diamonds length.

 

Btw, weak jump overcalls must be diciplined against 1M and 2♣ but undiciplined against 1♦ (and against 1♣, of course). If opps play 4-card majors, use undiciplined preempts against those as well, but diciplined preempts against 1♦ if it tends to deny a 4-card major as in the Auken/vonArnim system.

 

Against the 3-suited 2♦, natural jump overcalls in the majors don't make much sense I think. Maybe they should be used for two-suited hands with diamonds + the bid suit.

[Gerben42]

At the 1-level i prefer "CRASH":

x=Colour, blacks or reds

1♦=RAnk, majors or minors

1NT=SHape, pointed or rounded

 

This method and other either-or methods work only if you understand them. If you don't, stay away! Since I ♥ these kinds of methods in many situations, I talk from experience trying to play them with partners who were not ready, or being copied by whole pairs who were not ready.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi all

 

I really need to learn how to defend against precision type systems

 

any advice where to start please

Hi,

 

Assuming precision type means strong club:

Use the same convention you play against strong 1NT.

In case X has a conventional meaning, use the 1NT

overcall to show this option.

 

This approach works reasonable well.

 

#1 a large part of the hand, which go through

1C are bal. (slighlty less than 50%)

=> Quite often you face a strong NT

#2 You kill the 1 level, very important aspect

for a defence angainst 1C openers

#3 You avoid X, which provides an additional

step

#4 the add. memory load is not to huge

#5 one level overcalls get stronger and more constructive

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Against Polish Club you can use a similar approach, just

use the defence you play against weak NT.

[han]

Apollo81 has raised a good point: You can’t really evaluate whether a set of methods is “good” until you agree upon your goals.

Yes you can. The best way to evaluate a method is to play a lot of bridge and see how you do with the given method. This theoretical "my goals are different from yours" talk may be useful to come up with a method that seems good, but in the end it is irrelevant.

 

Bridge is not about philosophy, it is about winning. :)