Mathe defense vs strong C revised

[Zelandakh]

Why not reverse the meanings of Dbl and 1NT?

Your comparison is flawed. After Double, if we could raise to 3m when it showed minors then why can we not raise to 3M when it showed majors? Now we took away even more space. Similarly after 1NT = majors they can still play UvU if they want to. Of course 1NT showing C or D or H+S does make sense if combined into something cohesive. The main reason Mathe is suggested often is because it is one of the simplest defences (and thus very suitable for B/Is) and because it is used at the highest level - Meckwell play it for example.

 

On the subject of using X and 1D as something sound, this is a perfectly good philosophy. The idea of using these as major suit overcalls, usually combined with 1M/1NT as CRASH calls, is quite popular. It is also quite possible to use these bids to show lots of shape. I think either of these approaches is fine. An example of the latter method is

 

X = both majors, at least 5-5

1D = 6+ in unspecified major

1M = canape major + longer unspecified minor

1N = 6+ in unspecified minor

2C = both minors, usually 4-4 or 5-4

2D = both majors, 4-4 or 5-4

2M = major + unspecified minor

2N = both minors, at least 5-5

 

This suffers from the normal drawback for 2-suited schemes of not getting into the action easily with 5332 shape, as well as (probably) giving away too much information. But it illustrates the option of using X and 1D for quite distributional hands to offset the extra space potential.

 

Like Ben I am yet to be fully convinced that any of these schemes are actually better than fairly natural methods where you bid with a decent suit as high as you dare as quickly as you can.

[dake50]

Agree benlessard.

Why stop playing bridge just because they start artificial 1C=16+? Not even sure they have game, nor sure slam they find is making.

Sure you want to get to 3-level often --take space and close to safe. But why does the weaker side want to tell "I have 5-5 minors weak. Does that help you 1C bidders judge this hand better?" I have often ranted against weak blabbing bids for that very reason --they judge well, NOW.

Most 1C forcers have seen this foolish "not-playing-bridge-just bidding" and have agreed how to handle that. Do you think your interference is special they haven't seen? Do you think your bids work this time? "Well, do ya, punk?" --Insp Callahan

[nige1]

Over strong 1♣, I like:

_X = ♠ and another.

1N = ♥ and a minor.

2N = Minors.

1 level suit bids = Lead directing.

2 level suit bids = Intermediate.

3 level suit bids = Weak.