Interference after 1C

[serapuff]

Hi,

 

I'm trying a strong club system and am wondering what are some methods people use after interference.

 

Here are some of the common cases:

 

1) Natural interference at 1 level

2) Natural interference at 2 level

3) 2 suiter interference, one suit known

4) 2 suiter interference, both suits unknown

 

Playing with my partner strong club, I opened 1C-(1S)-X (showing 6-9 any).

Holding Ax,AKxxx,AKxx, Ax what would be your agreements on how to bid?

 

Thanks for any advice on this topic!

 

Gideon

[cloa513]

You mean a strong 1C system like Precision

[Siegmund]

I'm sure you'll get several opinions from the Precisionists on the board.

 

I never played a straight strong club (either standard or Polish-family systems for me, thank you)... but I can tell you that when my opponents opened a strong club, I could and did get away with murder when they used the "pass 0-4, double 5-8, bid 9+" approach that's in the old Precision books.

 

The opening-side system I had the most respect for were the pairs that showed controls at responder's first bid (1D 0-1, 1H 2, 1S 3 when we didn't overcall, pass 0-1, X 2, cheapest bid 3 when we did)... because often the 1C opener was able to judge immediately that his side had no game, in which case they went all-out to nail me for 200 or 300. I pulled in my horns about half a trick against those pairs.

 

That's really just a condemnation of playing HCP-steps in any system.

Those methods and variations on them (reversing the meanings of pass and double, or using double for 9+ and the immediate bids for semipositives) are all I've played against much. I can't speak to how effective transfers or high-powered gadgetry are for the opening side.

[bluecalm]

People play various stuff. I like simple way based on how Meckwell play:

 

After the interference:

 

-All bids without a jump are natural and game forcing (including NT)

-All suits with jump are natural, inviting but not game forcing (1♣ - 1♥ - 2♠ = KJTxxx xx xx xxx fits the bill perfectly)

-Opponent's suit is game forcing without 5card suit and stopper in their suit

-Double:

at 1 and 2 level it's 6-7hcp any hand (good 5 possible)

at 3 level and higher it's game forcing

 

-opener's double is always for takeout

-3rd double is always for penalty

-pass is forcing if:

we made game forcing call

we made semipositive call and they jump to 4 level

we opened 1♣ and they jump to 5 level

 

If pass is forcing then pass/double inversion applies (here you can play several ways you need to discuss those situations with your partner).

 

After double:

-pass = 0-5 any hand

-1♦ = 6-7 any hand

-rdbl/other depends on what version of precision you play but it makes sense to put all balanced hands in rdbl and made other bids game forcing and natural.

 

I don't know what to play after non natural overcalls which doesn't show any specific suit. I suspect playing dbl as game forcing balanced and other bids as natural and game forcing is the way to go.

 

 

I believe this system is not perfect as for example playing transfers makes a lot of sense. The advantage of this system is that:

-you can quickly establish gf and show 5card suits

-you have simple agreements which apply to almost all situations

[PrecisionL]

I play after direct interference of a strong 1♣ opening:

 

Pass = 0-5 hcp or would welcome a penalty X.

Double = 6+ hcp and no long suit (except the suit called, maybe)

Suit = 6+ hcp and 5+ cards, one round force

Cue Bid = 6+ hcp and 2 or 3-suited

2NT and higher bids by responder are transfers.

 

The probability of game after interference is less and it is important to show distribution.

[nigel_k]

I never played a straight strong club (either standard or Polish-family systems for me, thank you)... but I can tell you that when my opponents opened a strong club, I could and did get away with murder when they used the "pass 0-4, double 5-8, bid 9+" approach that's in the old Precision books.

 

The opening-side system I had the most respect for were the pairs that showed controls at responder's first bid (1D 0-1, 1H 2, 1S 3 when we didn't overcall, pass 0-1, X 2, cheapest bid 3 when we did)... because often the 1C opener was able to judge immediately that his side had no game, in which case they went all-out to nail me for 200 or 300. I pulled in my horns about half a trick against those pairs.

I don't agree with this at all. The best pairs to preempt against are the ones who cannot show their suit when they have a good hand. If you can get the bidding up to three of a major or something before they have shown a suit it is very hard for them. Doubling a partscore with no info about partner's shape is a lottery unless you have a trump stack.

 

The only thing I would say for certain is that an unbalanced positive must be able to show a suit immediately, either by playing suit bids natural and forcing or by using transfers.

[bluecalm]

The only thing I would say for certain is that an unbalanced positive must be able to show a suit immediately, either by playing suit bids natural and forcing or by using transfers.

 

I agree with it. I don't like playing semipositives for this reason.

As to transfers I am sure they can be good solution. From what I know Sabine Auken with her partner were coached by Martens and they play some kind of transfers over 1♣ (as Martens loves transfers). I think it require a lot of work and gains are relatively small and risk of disaster high though.

 

but I can tell you that when my opponents opened a strong club, I could and did get away with murder when they used the "pass 0-4, double 5-8, bid 9+" approach that's in the old Precision books.

 

Either you discovered some new ways of "murdering" or your opponents, to put it mildly, don't have much clue. I love when people jump around with nothing against our strong club (one of the main reasons to play prec for me).

Also Meckwell won 5 world championship and tons of other major tournament during 20+years of international career and no one knows how to "murder them".

Meanwhile no pair playing semi positives or some kind of control system had major international achievements in last 10 years.

[Siegmund]

It is true that I've run across many more mediocre players who think switching to Precision is the key to improving their game than I have good players who actually believe in it (and it was a few of the good players who were using the control bids.) It's quite interesting how precision has made a comeback, after the era of "everybody except Hamman-Wolff plays 2/1". I wonder what has changed to make people embrace it again.

[glen]

... I wonder what has changed to make people embrace it again.

"Meckwell won 5 world championship" didn't hurt, and Meckwell Lite provided a fast install version.

[shaztaz]

I really dislike control steps as a first response. Colours first! I want to be able to show suits and hear about partner's, especially when they're interfereing. It makes me rather nervous not having shown any suits at all with the bidding being suddenly uncomfortably high at the three level... Not that it's directly related, but I also disapprove of ctron/HCP steps in response to a strong 2C.

[mycroft]

Anything works against people who think that when they open 1/2C strong that they're going to have a non-competitive auction. Anything works, in general (you know, except when it doesn't), better than letting them have a free run all the time. But the goal is to get to three of a fit (even two of a fit is frequently good enough, but it gives them the all-important 3x notrump probe), before they get a chance to know either where or how high.

 

So I will play anything that promises suits. Yes, it gives them cuebids, and those that know how to use them can, but partner doesn't have to play paradox, or make the cheapest bid amongst three suits, in order to get to the magic "three of a fit".

 

Actually, responders' bids showing GF strength (whatever they are), help the overcallers' side as well, as if the problem they're going to set is "can you find your best game, maybe slam, or whether we're going for 500 against NV/800 against V, or whether any plus is going to be a good score because you can't *make* game" and does not include "are we going for 200 or 300 into a partscore", it's easier to make that 3 of a fit call.

 

I actually like the semi-positive calls (though whether semi-positive bids and positive doubles are better than semi-positive doubles and positive bids I don't know; the double is always less informative than the bid, but "find your game starting at 3NT" vs "if I'd known we had a fit, my hand would have grown up to GF" is for me an open question) because it flags the minimum 1C opener to "consider defending rather than shaky at best game".

 

The one downside I tell my Strong Club students about that they may not immediately realize from logic is that they have to know *three* systems:

- what they do after non-club openers

- what they do after 1C-p

- what they do after 1C and interference.

 

- and they're each about 1/3 of the memory/system load. Bidding over interference is not fun, it's not memorable, but it's critical to have well-developed and practised systems against all the standard types of defences (it shows a suit/two suits/one of two suits or pairs of suits/one suit or the other three/...) And, of course, that's why my first statement is true; most Precision pairs don't put anywhere near 1/3 of the time into this unglamorous part of the system.

 

I just learned in Reno that we had to find a bid to say "it's our hand, pard" after (1C)-1NT. We had 1440, and X would have only given us 1400 (and if I had had a slightly different hand, 1430 would still have been on, and we would only have pulled 800 from 1NTx)...and that's after years of playing Precision.

[bluecalm]

Btw, by semipositives I meant bid which are 6-9pc or 6+ or 5-9pc ie. bids which doesn't establish gf but contain gf.

[shevek]

We play suit transfers after they overcall 1♥/♠ or 2♥/♠, whatever the meaning. Notrumps are natural.

As a corollary, double is never 1-suited, so

 

After 1♣  (1♠ naturalish)

 

X   unlimited tko but not 1-suited, ELC applies

1N  5-8 bal & stopper

2♣  5+ ♦s

2♦  5+ ♥s

2♥  bal GF, no stopper

2♠  5+ ♣s

2N  bal GF & stopper

3♣  & higher can be specific 2-suiters if you wish

 

♠Ax  ♥Jxxx  ♦Qxxxx  ♣xx

 

can double 1♠ planning 2♦ non-forcing over 2♣ to show this.

[Mbodell]

There's a wide variety of interference to consider over the strong club. I find that I play different things over interference at the 1 level and 2 level and 3 level. Also, it is quite a bit difference between if the interference is 2nd hand or 4th hand.

 

1♣ - foo is actually usually easier to deal with than 1♣ - P - 1♦ - foo.

 

My partner and I agreed that when we open 1♣ we are forcing through 1nt. So for most 1 level direct overcalls we can pass with garbage and/or penalty, double with a semi-positive that is "takeout oriented", and make some natural positive gf response otherwise. (We treat interference of X and 1♦ differently as these bids take away none of our space, so really the 1 level is just 1♥-1nt).

 

We treat direct bids at the 2 level as if partner had opened a strongish nt. So we play penalty oriented X and some sort of lebensohl.

 

After 1♣ - P - positive - foo we either continue relaying (if they haven't eaten too much space) or else bid mostly natural but know we are in a forcing auction.

 

After 1♣ - P - 1♦ - foo then if we are at the 1 level we are forcing and natural and at the 2+ level we are not forcing and natural.

 

I'm certainly not sure that these argeements are technically superior (especially since we don't really differentiate formally based on what the opponents have shown other than by logic) but they are easy enough to figure out and remember and usually work out OK. Sometimes they don't, but preempts work sometimes.

[CamHenry]

I play a strong diamond system, with 1H as a negative.

 

After 1♦ - 1x or 1♦ - 2x, we play X by responder as positive, GF (thus creating a forcing pass/penalty double situation). Responder's pass is weak, while bidding shows a semi-positive (and NT shows a balanced/semibalanced hand with a stop). With a semi-positive without a stop, we cue.

 

The disadvantage of this is that we sometimes end up trying to decide whether to double 3♠, bid 3NT, or bid game in a suit - we know we've got values for game but not whether we've got a fit. Fortunately, the frequency with which people have a spade fit AND bid it AND we haven't got a clear decision is low enough that we don't lose much here.

 

After 1♦-P-1♥-foo, we play as if the foo-bidder has opened foo, except that jump overcalls are strong. Double is takeout, overcalls are natural (and could have somewhere else to play), NT is natural. With a good balanced hand and no stop, we double. Pass from opener shows a minimum balanced hand, usually without a stop: Lebensohl is on if 2NT is sufficient at responder's turn. An example:

 

1♦ - P - 1♥ - 2♥

P - P - 2NT*

*: Lebensohl, as if it's gone 1NT-(2♥)-2NT

[dake50]

Partition strong hands into 1C/1D.

Eg. Spades or Spades + 2nd into 1C;

Hearts or Hearts + minor into 1D.

This immensely eases the cases to untangle when opponents obstruct.

Even to the point of 1C <interfere> X* = *no S-fit (the assumed major of partner).

Certainly decide when are forcing passes ON. Try below 2S ON --we can make something, I bet. Above 3S ON --they are over the hcp-likely making, I bet.

I play immediate xfers are GF --generously. Delayed xfers to get into this suit if cheap enough --partner is warned I didn't see game but he may.