Defence to Submarine Club

[paulg]

One English pair, members of the EBU team in the Camrose on March 6-8, are playing Submarine Club. We played them last year in the Spring Foursomes, when they were in Frances' team, but we are still uncertain of how best to defend their major suit openers. Namely,

 

1♥=4+ spades, 11-16 pts, may be canape

1♠=5+ hearts, 11-16 pts

 

Neither opening bid is forcing.

 

Defending the 1♥ opener is not too difficult, but still unsure what the best use for double, 1♠ and 1NT are.

 

Defending the 1♠ is trickier as they have stolen your natural 1♠ overcall.

 

Suggestions welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[straube]

dbl-takeout of hearts

1N-natural

2m-natural

2H-spade overcall

2S-preempt

 

after 1H

 

1S-heart overcall

1N-natural

2m-natural

2H-preempt

2S-michaels

[PrecisionL]

One English pair, members of the EBU team in the Camrose on March 6-8, are playing Submarine Club. We played them last year in the Spring Foursomes, when they were in Frances' team,

 

Paul

Submarine Club: What are the rest of the Opening Bids and responses to 1♣?

[shevek]

I suppose the practioners can call this method whatever they want. To me, "submarine" is synonymous with one-under transfers, so 1♣ = hearts & 1♦ = spades, as in most of the Antipodean strong pass systems, where the term originated in early 80s.

 

Anyway, the "defence" is to do whatever you do when somebody pokes a strange bid under your nose. Our default method is to bid their artificial 4-carder naturally at the 1 and 2 level, while double is tko of the shown suit. No need to lose sleep preparing something specific. Sit back and enjoy.

[paulg]

The mild concern is the hand where you'd overcall a normal 1♥ opener with 1♠, given that the auction (1♠=hearts) - something - (4♥) can be made with various strength hands in a strong club system.

 

Now you can lose the spade fit unless double shows spades. Otoh losing the takeout double is quite a problem too, and using the 1NT as something other than a strong notrump has downsides.

 

The convention card is available on the BGB website (PDF).

[akhare]

How about the following following over 1♠:

 

X = Power X (15+), including hands that would overcall 1N

1N: Takeout of ♥s (NTO)

2♣/2♦: Natural, but limited

2♥: 4♠ and a longer minor

2♠: ♠

[straube]

The mild concern is the hand where you'd overcall a normal 1♥ opener with 1♠, given that the auction (1♠=hearts) - something - (4♥) can be made with various strength hands in a strong club system.

 

Now you can lose the spade fit unless double shows spades. Otoh losing the takeout double is quite a problem too, and using the 1NT as something other than a strong notrump has downsides.

 

The convention card is available on the BGB website (PDF).

In a sense, this is a wash. They've disadvantaged themselves opening 1S when they have hearts so that they can't play 1H. So you ought not regret that they've thusly forced you to show spades at the 2-level.

[awm]

Perhaps something like:

 

X = 5+♠ normal spade overcall, or a "takeout double" with sound values and 4+♠

1NT-2♦ = as if 1♥ opened

2♥ = artificial; strong hand with a long minor

2♠ = two suiter ♠ + minor (NF)

2NT+ = again as if 1♥ opened

 

After 1♠-X, opponents usually are not going to stick this contract out. Subsequent doubles are takeout oriented. If opener bids a suit it doesn't cancel the message of "spades" -- for example something like 1♠!-X-2♥-P-P-3♣ is just a nice ♠+♣ two-suiter. While there is a bit of ambiguity about opener's spade length, you aren't really going to miss many spade fits in auctions like 1♠-X-4♥ (okay maybe you lose a 5-3 spade fit or play a 4-3 occasionally).

 

You lose the spade preempt in order to handle the "power double with a minor" hands; this is necessary since it's best for double to guarantee spades (allowing advancer to pass it if opponents try passing 1♠X). On the other hand, the spade preempt over 1♥ is not necessarily the most effective call, since opponents already have exchanged a lot of information.

[JanM]

Whenever they take space away with a bid you have to give up something. So over 1♠ you have to give up either the TO DBL of hearts or the natural 1♠ overcall or the natural strong 1NT overcall. I tend to lean towards doing what feels most natural to the individual player. Personally, I'd play that DBL is TO of hearts and 1NT is natural, losing the 1♠ overcall. That's because I like to get back to what's "natural" to me as quickly as possible. Of course, that means that the DBL will include hands that I would have overcalled 1♠ over 1♥. People who are less concerned with "comfort level" might judge that it's more important to be able to show the spade hands, and it's surely right to do that by having DBL show spades and 1NT be takeout or natural (depending which one you've decided to give up), so that if responder passes the bid showing spades, advancer can pass also and make the opener tell us more. There's a lot to be said for playing 2♥ or 2♠ as an Astro type cue bid if you give up the Takeout DBL.

 

I had to smile when I looked through this thread and saw that the first suggested defense over 1♥ didn't have a meaning for 1♠. That's the sort of defense the people playing this bid would like you to use, of course - you don't make any use of the extra space they've given you. I don't know what the best use of 1♠ is, but I'm sure that it should be used! I think the best choices are:

DBL is TO of spades

1♠ is natural

 

DBL is TO of spades

1♠ is an Astro-type cue bid (4 hearts, longer minor)

 

DBL is hearts

1♠ is TO of spades

 

I'd probably opt for the Astro cue bid, but I don't have any strong feelings.

[paulg]

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

 

My views generally mirror Jan's, but we can see how everyone copes in the vugraph presentation of the Camrose on March 6-8.

 

As we'll have a full record of every board they play those who are interested will be able to analyse how specific defences would, or would not, have succeeded.

 

Paul

[straube]

I had to smile when I looked through this thread and saw that the first suggested defense over 1♥ didn't have a meaning for 1♠. That's the sort of defense the people playing this bid would like you to use, of course - you don't make any use of the extra space they've given you.

 

No. I replied first to his main question which was what to do over their 1S bid.

 

Over their 1H opening, I used 1S to show hearts.

[JanM]

I had to smile when I looked through this thread and saw that the first suggested defense over 1♥ didn't have a meaning for 1♠. That's the sort of defense the people playing this bid would like you to use, of course - you don't make any use of the extra space they've given you.

 

No. I replied first to his main question which was what to do over their 1S bid.

 

Over their 1H opening, I used 1S to show hearts.

I'm sorry, I knew there weren't enough bids there, and I thought that it was 1♠ that was missing - I now see that it is DBL that is missing.

[straube]

Thanks for pointing that out. Dbl is a takeout of spades.

[JanM]

Thanks for pointing that out. Dbl is a takeout of spades.

I think that using DBL to show hearts and 1♠ as a Takeout of spades is clearly better (it leaves your side flexible after the bid that shows hearts, since if responder passes, advancer can too). I don't know whether the most useful "extra" thing to show over 1♥ showing 4+ spades is hearts, though. There's nothing wrong with using 2♥ for hearts (and some good things, certainly compared to using 1♠ for hearts - 1♠ doesn't take up any space and leaves the opponents with an easy way to show different spade hands). On the other hand, we might have spades (opponents only promised 4 remember) and we certainly might have 4 hearts and a longer minor, which is normally an awkward hand to show at a reasonable level over 1♠. So I think using the "extra" bid for one of those hands makes more sense than using it for a hand that is comfortable shown by "normal" bidding over a bid that shows spades.

[dake50]

Toss in Amsbury Jump overcalls: 2H: 6+H (to sit X), or 3-suits not H (to Red if X), or 2-unbids (new suit if X) with ParaDox advances: jump says 4+fit somewhere, correct if X.

[straube]

I think I like dbl to show hearts and 1S as a takeout. As you say, this leaves pass as a more frequent action. Partner can pass (with nothing better to do) and let opener guess.

 

It also leaves 2H available as a weaker way to show hearts (presumably with more length)

 

Of course dbl (as hearts) will also leave plenty of room for the opponents to show spade raises but it also leaves room for us.

 

I think 1S as an Astro bid has merit. I guess I think that a takeout dbl will sometimes serve as well (e.g. 1-4-3-5) but at other times I would prefer to have the canape bid (e.g. 3-4-1-5). It seems like it's a tradeoff between showing the Astro hands and having a way to show a weaker hand with hearts. I think I prefer the latter, but both will have wins.

 

I don't care for 1S showing spades. It seems that I would only then want to overcall 1S with a pretty decent spade suit and I think this will be low frequency and of marginal benefit compared to other uses of 1S.

[mike777]

One English pair, members of the EBU team in the Camrose on March 6-8, are playing Submarine Club. We played them last year in the Spring Foursomes, when they were in Frances' team, but we are still uncertain of how best to defend their major suit openers. Namely,

 

1♥=4+ spades, 11-16 pts, may be canape

1♠=5+ hearts, 11-16 pts

 

Neither opening bid is forcing.

 

Defending the 1♥ opener is not too difficult, but still unsure what the best use for double, 1♠ and 1NT are.

 

Defending the 1♠ is trickier as they have stolen your natural 1♠ overcall.

 

Suggestions welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

Side question, are they required to have a suggested written defense in the UK that you are free to refer to at the table and discuss before the match?

 

As a nonexpert two options to consider:

1) Play suggested written defense

2) play normal....over 1h=x=takeout of h.....1s=spades....1nt=standard; over 1s=x=takeout of s.....1nt=standard.......2 c or 2d level bids natural.

[paulg]

Side question, are they required to have a suggested written defense in the UK that you are free to refer to at the table and discuss before the match?

This method is not permitted in any event in Scotland but is permitted in almost all tournaments in England and Wales. In the UK the concept of written defences to conventional calls is non-existent - a method is either legal or not and tournament players are expected to cope with the legal ones.

 

The Camrose uses the WBF system classification. This system is not a HUM and not a Brown Sticker Convention, so it can be played without a problem. If it were a HUM or BSC, then written defences would be permitted but it's not close to meeting the criteria for this.

 

Paul

[mike777]

Side question, are they required to have a suggested written defense in the UK that you are free to refer to at the table and discuss before the match?

This method is not permitted in any event in Scotland but is permitted in almost all tournaments in England and Wales. In the UK the concept of written defences to conventional calls is non-existent - a method is either legal or not and tournament players are expected to cope with the legal ones.

 

The Camrose uses the WBF system classification. This system is not a HUM and not a Brown Sticker Convention, so it can be played without a problem. If it were a HUM or BSC, then written defences would be permitted but it's not close to meeting the criteria for this.

 

Paul

1) ok.....no suggested defense.....I fall back on my option two.......KISS

 

2) Whatever Mrs. Martel says.....I agree!

[mike777]

"If it were a HUM or BSC, then written defences would be permitted but it's not close to meeting the criteria for this."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side note I will let you tell me what is "close" to HUM or BSC. Please note close does not mean...HUM or BSC ...it means close.......

 

I trust you when you say this is not "close"

 

 

given that you basically tell us nonexeperts this is far from HUM or BSC we got an issue.

[Gerben42]

I have a strong opinion about the sequence where they give you exactly one step, as here.

 

1♥ showing ♠:

 

Dbl = I have a TO Dbl of 1♠, can be quite light.

1♠ = 4♥ and longer minor (1NT asks minor)

1NT = Natural

2 of new suit = Natural

2♠ = ♥ and a minor

 

Reasoning: You want to be in the same position as often as possible compared to the other table. The other table cannot overcall 1♥, so we don't either.

 

I also agree with "get back to natural ASAP". I discussed this with my partner when playing a pair who did the same thing to OVERCALLS:

 

(1m) 1♥ = ♠

(1m) 1♠ = ♥

 

I don't think it's that a great idea, but we had to deal with it.

[paulg]

"If it were a HUM or BSC, then written defences would be permitted but it's not close to meeting the criteria for this."

 

Side note I will let you tell me what is "close" to HUM or BSC.  Please note close does not mean...HUM or BSC ...it means close.......

 

I trust you when you say this is not "close"

 

 

given that you basically tell us nonexeperts this is far from HUM or BSC we got an issue.

The criteria for HUM and BSC are provided in the WBF's System Policy.

 

The WBF is very liberal when it comes to opening bids that have (standard) opening values and show a specific suit. So switching the meaning of 1♥ and 1♠ openers does not make this something that the WBF believes that its competitors should be protected from.

 

How this creates an issue for you is unclear to me. Players in WBF tournaments are assumed to be of a standard that you can cope with such methods.

 

The EBU agrees with the WBF and almost all its tournaments permit this method. Naturally most of the competitors will be non-experts and they are expected to cope. Seems a sensible view to me.

 

The Scottish Bridge Union disagrees and it is not permitted. But this is perhaps because no-one has ever applied to use it.

 

The ACBL would not permit this method at GCC or Mid Chart. It is probably acceptable at Superchart (with written defence) given that Jan, wearing her unofficial hat, seems fairly relaxed about it.

 

Paul

[mike777]

"How this creates an issue for you is unclear to me. Players in WBF tournaments are assumed to be of a standard that you can cope with such methods."

 

 

I agree that this assumption is key. Reading books by World champions I think this assumption may be wrong but at the very least open to wide debate.

 

If I understand your post in ACBL land this requires alot more than UK land.

 

If so in UK land as a nonexpert I would go with my option two.

 

All I can add is that your assumed WBF standard may or may not be true: I do not debate it is assumed.

[JanM]

The EBU agrees with the WBF and almost all its tournaments permit this method. Naturally most of the competitors will be non-experts and they are expected to cope. Seems a sensible view to me.

 

The Scottish Bridge Union disagrees and it is not permitted. But this is perhaps because no-one has ever applied to use it.

 

The ACBL would not permit this method at GCC or Mid Chart. It is probably acceptable at Superchart (with written defence) given that Jan, wearing her unofficial hat, seems fairly relaxed about it.

I agree that this is clearly allowed under WBF rules and is neither BS nor HUM so written defenses would not be allowed. That's one of my reasons for wanting to get "back to normal" as much as possible (although even when written defenses are allowed, we usually try to get back to normal if we can - a lot of bridge judgment has been developed over the years based on the sorts of hands and situations we've seen before, so players will usually have better judgment in familiar situations).

 

To be classified as BS by the WBF, essentially, the bid has to be weak and have no known suit. Since both of these bids are opening bids that have a known 4+ card suit, they are indeed not "close."

 

This would clearly be allowed under the ACBL Super Chart (essentially anything except "destructive only" methods are allowed, and although we can argue about what is "destructive only," I don't think anyone would claim this is), where the proponents would have to provide a recommended defense and the defenders could consult that defense or one of their choosing during the auction.

 

At the moment, this isn't allowed under the Midchart, because no one has asked for it to be approved and submitted an adequate description and defense. If it were approved, written defenses (either the approved one or one chosen by the opponents) would be allowed.

[straube]

I have a strong opinion about the sequence where they give you exactly one step, as here.

 

1♥ showing ♠:

 

Dbl = I have a TO Dbl of 1♠, can be quite light.

1♠ = 4♥ and longer minor (1NT asks minor)

1NT = Natural

2 of new suit = Natural

2♠ = ♥ and a minor

 

Reasoning: You want to be in the same position as often as possible compared to the other table. The other table cannot overcall 1♥, so we don't either.

 

Were we talking matchpoints or teams here? I'm assuming matchpoints for sake of discussion.

 

It's hard to know what will happen at other tables. Our opponents' 1H can show 4 or 5 spades. If the other tables are playing 5-card majors, they will sometimes be opening 1m...or possibly even 1H natural (if at our table the opponents open 1H (spades) with 4S/5H).

 

If the other tables open 1m (in the instances where they have only four spades), then other people sitting our direction can overcall 1H. For us then, trying to be in the same position would mean showing hearts at the 1-level and using 2H as a weak two.

 

Now if we're playing teams, I don't understand as much the desire to try to get back into position. I think I'd just hope that our opening and defensive methods are better than the other teams'.