cherdano modifications to Woolsey

[han]

Cherdano modifications to Woolsey defense:

 

Double = penalty vs weak or 3rd seat opening, 5-4 minor-major vs strong.

2C = majors.

2D = Major+Minor, at least 5-5.

2H/2S = natural.

 

After (1NT)-2D-(pass):

 

2H = pass/correct. If partner bids 2S then we can pass, bid 2NT with game interest in spades or 3C as P/C.

2S = pass/correct. If partner bids 3C/3D then we can pass or bid 3H with game interest in hearts.

2NT = Either any gametry or a gametry in hearts, drop in minor if spades.

3C, 3D = spades+minor.

3H = minimum with hearts.

3S, 3NT = hearts+ clubs/diamonds, extras.

3C = gametry in spades, drop in minor opposite hearts.

pass/3D = hearts+minor.

3S = minimum with spades.

3H, 3NT = spades+clubs/diamonds, extras.

 

The drawback of these follow-ups is that we cannot choose to drop in the minor. Our idea is that if responder passes, we'll always have at least 3 cards in at least one of the majors, unless we are quite strong. After all, if advancer is short in both majors then the opponents have a very big major suit fit.

 

If 2D gets doubled then we play:

 

Pass = pass with diamonds, else bid your major. (if overcaller pulls then 2NT is a gt in clubs, 3C is to play and 3D is a gt in the major)

Rdbl = bid your major. (may bid 3C or 3D next to play)

2M = natural.

2NT = game interest, asks for minor.

3C = pass/correct.

3D = to play.

[hrothgar]

Regretfully, I don't believe that the 2♦ bid is legal in North America

[han]

It is not? I thought it was as long as we give a pre-alert. Doesn't the same rule as 2D showing an unspecified major apply?

[han]

Perhaps you refer to the GCC which is not relevant for us.

[cherdano]

Regretfully, I don't believe that the 2♦ bid is legal in North America

Yup it is very regretful that you are misinformed :)

[hrothgar]

Regretfully, I don't believe that the 2♦ bid is legal in North America

Yup it is very regretful that you are misinformed :)

Sorry:

 

Let me be more specific. The 2♦ response is not legal at the GCC level...

It is allowed at the Midchart level and above.

 

Good luck finding Midchart games

[han]

Unfortunately we live so far apart that we only play on BBO and during nationals where it isn't hard to find midchart games at all.

[Echognome]

I like the shuffle. It makes competing on the major/minor hands a bit murkier, but I suppose you will be able to work it out.

 

For example, how will you play: (1NT) - 2♦ - (2♠) - ? Dbl/2NT/3♣

 

or (1NT) - 2♦ - (2NT*) - ? Dbl/3♣/3♦ etc

* Lebensohl of some sort

 

Of course the flip side is that you do better with your immediate 2♥ and 2♠ bids.

[han]

We found competition after the opponents bid a suit not so hard, we did a lot of practice bidding with this. We play that double is pass/correct, and so is 3C if available. 2NT shows game interest if available.

 

For example, after

 

(1NT) - 2D - (2H) - Dbl

(p) - 2S - (p),

 

3C is still p/c while 2NT shows game interest (not necessarily with spade support), 3H and 3S are gametries in spades.

[awm]

Do you really mean 2♦ to be 5-5 only?

 

The major advantage of woolsey over other methods is that you can intervene with 5-4 hands and partner knows you have two suits and can get to your longer suit when holding equal length. The suggested method has no bid available with 5M-4m hands (nor does it have a two level bid with a minor single-suited).

 

In general I agree that when you're going to have a bid which shows an unspecified suit or suits, you are better off to have an unspecified two suits than an unspecified one suit. Generally the "bad situation" for this type of bid is when opponents take another call and partner is left to guess whether to compete or not -- partner is more likely to have a fit for two of the three remaining (guaranteeing a fit for the two-suited hand and safety in partner competing further) than he is to have a fit for all three of the remaining (necessary for safety in competing when you promise only one).

[han]

I mean it.

[MickyB]

Do you really mean 2♦ to be 5-5 only?

 

The major advantage of woolsey over other methods is that you can intervene with 5-4 hands and partner knows you have two suits and can get to your longer suit when holding equal length. The suggested method has no bid available with 5M-4m hands

Interesting. 5M4m normally belongs in 2M - the vast majority of hands with a doubleton in the major will pass, and even with a stiff there's no guarantee that being a level higher is an improvement. Do you rate to make, on average, more than a trick more in a 4-3 than a 5-1?

 

5-5s, on the other hand, are often happy to go a level higher to play a 5-3 rather than a 5-2 - being forced is a big issue. This won't happen if the 5-5s are bundled in with the 5-4s. Not sure which comes out better, guess it depends on conditions and style - basically, how often you want to overcall with 5M4m.

 

I like the responses, btw - nearly made a critical response without reading them first, would have made a fool of myself :rolleyes:

[han]

I like the responses, btw - nearly made a critical response without reading them first, would have made a fool of myself :D

Hehe, thanks. We toyed with it for a while, they are more complicated than I hoped for but I do think that they are better the other responses that we tried.

 

For example, advancer could have a 3-1-6-3 shape. When weak advancer would like to play in the minor unless overcaller has spades, so advancer bids 2S. When stronger advancer would like to make a gametry if overcaller has spades but play in the minor when overcaller has hearts: 3C does this. 2NT and 3C are arbitrary and could be switched, lower for hearts seemed easiest to remember.

 

We first allowed for 5-4 hands but Arend felt strongly that insisting on 5-5 was worth it. Otherwise it gets too hard for advancer to judge. Indeed, when overcaller is 5-4 with a good 5-card suit we can bid 2M. When the 5-card suit is weak we are probably happy to pass. When the 5-card suit is ok and the 4-card suit is really strong I might fake a 5-5, don't tell Arend.

[Guest Jlall]

We first allowed for 5-4 hands but Arend felt strongly that insisting on 5-5 was worth it.

This loss would be way too big for me to choose to play this method over regular woolsey. It's not even clear you are gaining anything at all by playing it. In fact I suspect you are losing in competitive auctions rather than gaining in them by playing this method, but even if you were gaining something losing the ability to show a 2 suited hand with 5-4 is too much.

[han]

I don't think the decision not to bid with 5-4 hands has much to do with the method. Maybe we'll have to discuss it again ;).

[Guest Jlall]

I don't think the decision not to bid with 5-4 hands has much to do with the method. Maybe we'll have to discuss it again ;).

OK, but this sentence:

 

We first allowed for 5-4 hands but Arend felt strongly that insisting on 5-5 was worth it. Otherwise it gets too hard for advancer to judge.

 

strongly implied to me that it would become unplayable if 2D could be 5-4 so you were forced to play it 5-5 to make it work (which is not the case with woolsey).

 

I guess I should ask this, what do you feel the advantages are of this method over normal woolsey?

[han]

To my mind the advantage is the ability to bid the natural 2M.

 

I don't think that it is the difference in method that makes it tougher for advancer, I didn't intend the comment as such.

[Guest Jlall]

To my mind the advantage is the ability to bid the natural 2M.

 

I don't think that it is the difference in method that makes it tougher for advancer, I didn't intend the comment as such.

OK, I misinterpretted sorry.

 

What is the advantage of a natural 2M rather than 2D showing 1M?

[han]

It seems to me that in competitive auctions (e.g. 3rd hand bidding 2NT lebensohl) it is advantageous to know for sure what major partner has.

 

It also gives the opponents fewer options. For example, if you bid 2D with spades then the opponents can bid 2H which they would not be able to do over 2S. They can also double and double or pass and double, and bid 2NT directly as lebensohl, double followed by 2NT as invitational and pass followed by 2NT as scrambling.

 

It is of course a trade-off because compared to standard woolsey the opponents now gain these options when we have the major-minor 2-suiters. It is not 100% clear what is more frequent and what is more important. Any specific 2-suiter is less frequent than any specific single-suiter but we are trading four 2-suiters for two 1-suiters.

[pclayton]

I don't want to give up on 5M4m hands. They are fairly common and you want to get in a NT with shape.

 

However I also like the idea of 2M as natural here, for the same reason I like playing Meckwell. The hand type is fairly common, and the call is simple and preemptive.

 

But I love 2♣ as the majors too.

 

Handano agrees that this is a sensible starting place and foundation.

 

Here's another way you could switch around the bids:

 

Double = Several hand types. Can be clubs and a 4 card major, or a Major and a 4 or 5 card minor (clubs only?)

 

2♣ = majors

 

2♦ = like DONT - Diamonds and a 4 card major (5?)

 

2M / 3 minor = natural.

 

Responding to double:

 

2♣ - pass with clubs, 2M with 5-4

2♦ - no tolerance for clubs; tell me your 4 or 5 card major

2M = natural; 6+

2N = strong hand and a game try in a major

 

I'm not saying this is ideal, but I don't like the idea of giving up a 5M-4m hand because the hands are so frequent. Perhaps this will lead to another concept.

 

This is GCC compliant as well. Not a big deal, but its nice to be able to practice in less important games.

[cherdano]

To my mind the advantage is the ability to bid the natural 2M.

 

I don't think that it is the difference in method that makes it tougher for advancer, I didn't intend the comment as such.

OK, I misinterpretted sorry.

 

What is the advantage of a natural 2M rather than 2D showing 1M?

If responder signs off in 3m (e.g. via Lebensohl), advancer knows when to raise, and opponents don't get a chance to make a penalty double. If responder jumps to 3N, partner knows which suit to lead. This all seems so obvious, why are you asking?

 

As for the 5-4 vs 5-5: When you bid Woolsey 2M with 5-4, then you usually play the major anyway. Making the two-suited call 5-5 means advancer can actually to go the minor with a 4243 hand etc. Obviously, since our two-suited bid is less defined than the Woolsey 2M, there is a somewhat stronger case to make it 5-5 (mostly for competitive auctions), tipping the scale slightly in favor of 5-5. If you feel strongly you need to be able to bid 5-4 hands as 2-suiters, then obviously you would still play 2♦ as promising 5-4 only.

[Guest Jlall]

If responder jumps to 3N, partner knows which suit to lead. This all seems so obvious, why are you asking?

If you're going to call the answers to my questions obvious you should at least avoid saying things like this! (hint, if responder jumps to 3N we will be on lead).

 

If responder signs off in 3m (e.g. via Lebensohl), advancer knows when to raise...

 

Yes, but he doesn't when you have a major/minor 2 suiter (because he doesn't know your major). It is much easier to compete effectively when partner has an unknown 1 suited major (which is usually 6+) than when partner has an unknown 2 suiter with a major.

 

For instance, take the auction:

 

1N 2D 2N X

3C

 

If 2D showed 1 major, opener will often just be able to bid his 6 card major at this point if his hand is not crappy (and if he passes, advancer can reopen anyways). If 2D showed 1 major and 1 minor then responder can bid 3D with diamonds and a major, and you still don't know about your major suit fit (potentially this could cause you to miss a game, and play in diamonds, etc).

[karlson]

If Phil's criteria (2c=majors, 2M=nat) are a starting point, I should mention that I've been very happy with Meyerson (dbl=M+m either way, 2d=nat) for the last couple of years that I've played it.

[awm]

Yes, I should second karlson's plug for my own convention, Meyerson. This is:

 

X = Major + minor two suiter, at least 5-4, either suit can be longer

2♣ = majors

2♦-2♠ = natural

 

Followups to X:

 

If responder passes, then 2♣ is "bid your five card suit", 2♦ is "bid your major" and 2M is natural.

 

If responder makes some artificial suit bid (like a transfer) then double shows length in the suit responder named, willingness to compete in that suit if opener holds 4+ there.

 

If responder bids a natural suit, or opener bids a suit and it's passed around, then double is takeout.

 

Comparing this method to normal Woolsey:

 

(1) If opponents pass after the opening, we will reach the same contract as Woolsey on the two suited hands (note that over 2♣, overcaller bids a 5cM even if the four-card minor is clubs).

 

(2) We have a way to bid a diamond one-suiter, which woolsey does not (some people include diamond one-suiter in the woolsey double but this can create other issues).

 

(3) We greatly increase the frequency of the double (probably more than a factor of two counting 5-5 hands); while the double is not penalty by any means, it can be converted on occasion. When this happens it's a big win.

 

(4) We enable advancer to introduce his own long major suit opposite the two-suited option; this is important because when overcaller has a single suit playing in overcaller's suit is almost always okay, but there are definitely hands where overcaller has a 5-4 two-suiter and it is far better to play in advancer's six-card suit (basically, 6-card suit plays fine opposite singleton or even void but 5134 opposite 1633 and it is quite clear that 2♥ is better than 2♠ or 3m).

 

(5) Most people play transfers over double, which gives us a lot of opportunities to find our fits opposite the two-suited options (i.e. double the transfer bid, double for takeout when opener accepts the transfer). There are also sequences like 1NT-2♦(one major)-2NT(clubs) and advancer has a mediocre 2434 hand. Do we want to commit to the three-level opposite what is probably a spade one-suiter? Doubtful. But opposite a heart one-suiter passing out 3♣ could be embarrassing. In fact I even had a hand in the LM pairs a few years back where the opponents had a nine card spade fit and I was 1-4 in the majors on this very auction. Assuming partner had spades I allowed the opponents to play in 3m. While this might've been a loss for them (they were cold for 3♠ and could only make eight tricks in their minor) they ended up winning the board substantially -- a combination of the fact that we were cold for 4♥ and that partner misdefended the hand (well double dummy, his duck of my spade lead seemed normal at the time) because he couldn't visualize the weird distributions around the table.

 

(6) Unlike Woolsey, Meyerson is general chart and is allowed in all ACBL events.

 

(7) Most opponents simply can't believe that we play a natural 2♦ overcall, especially when the rest of our methods include a lot of conventions. We get a lot of disbelieving stares and questions about it. This might make playing the convention worthwhile even if it wasn't good on technical merits. :)

[han]

What we do with 5-4's is not so much a matter of what gadget we play but rather how we use the bids. The comments are greatly appreciated though.