deaing with interference over J2N

[mikeh]

I'm working on a new partnership and want to find out current expert treatments for dealing with interference over our J2N. We play a non-standard response scheme absent interference, such that using, say, double of a 3-level bid as saying they stole the call I was going to make, doesn't seem very attractive.

 

In the past, I have played that double by opener shows shortness in the bid suit, while pass promises at least 2 cards in the suit and lack of the ability to do something more descriptive. I've never been very happy with that style. I'm sure there are good methods out there, but I don't travel to tornaments so am a bit out of touch.

 

Anyone have ideas?

[quiddity]

In the past, I have played that double by opener shows shortness in the bid suit, while pass promises at least 2 cards in the suit and lack of the ability to do something more descriptive. I've never been very happy with that style.

 

Why don't you like that style? I'm curious because I play something similar.

[whereagles]

I play a thing which I call "PODI" which applies whenever a constructive relay gets interfered. It goes like

 

1 step stolen: pass = step 1 min, dbl = step 1 extras, else = normal response

2 steps stolen: pass = step 1, dbl = step 2, else = normal response

-2 steps stolen (i.e. RHO dbls): pass = nothing special to say, rdbl = penalties, else = normal response

 

For 3+ steps stolen you need a meta-scheme. Which is, I guess, what you're asking for.

 

Mine is just dbl = defensive hand suggesting penalties, pass = nothing special to say, else = normal response

[mikeh]

Why don't you like that style? I'm curious because I play something similar.

 

I wouldn't say that the style is bad....my experience is that we rarely encounter interference...probably nowhere as frequently as we should....but using double to announce shortness will, it seems to me, occur most often on hands on which LHO may well be able to bounce the auction, and we will then, if defending against a save, have drawn a roadmap for declarer.

 

In addition, this style makes it very difficult to penalize the opps on precisely those hands on which we most want to double them: hands where we are 3-3 or 3-2/2-3 in their suit and lacking a control....now LHO leads, and they cash 2 or even 3 winners..or 2 and a 3rd one through to promote a defensive trump trick.

 

Having said that, I haven't been able to come up with an alternative scheme that deals with these issues, hence my post.

[quiddity]

In addition, this style makes it very difficult to penalize the opps on precisely those hands on which we most want to double them: hands where we are 3-3 or 3-2/2-3 in their suit and lacking a control....now LHO leads, and they cash 2 or even 3 winners..or 2 and a 3rd one through to promote a defensive trump trick.

 

I would have thought that double by opener shows shortness but double by responder is for business. So opener passes with 2 or 3 in the suit and responder whacks it.

[kenrexford]

There have been discussions about this on BBF at some point. Maybe check there.

 

FWIW, my personal opinion is that doubling for penalty is a good idea. The methods I use are generally that a double is penalty, pass shows no control, and any other call is a control/cue with control in the newly shown suit.

[Finch]

There's obviously a value-for-methods-investment calculation here, because you probably want to play something slightly different depending on exactly what the interference is (what level, and whether it is natural or artificial e.g. a 3NT bid). If they overcall 3C you could play pass = I would have bid 3C; if they overcall 3D pass = I would have bid 3C, double = I would have bid 3D. But if you are playing artificial methods anyway, that may not be sensible.

 

I also play an artificial rebid scheme by opener in an uncontested auction. I used to play that after an overcall we played double as penalties. This was recently changed to double shows a singleton at the 3-level, penalties at the 4-level. I can't comment on which is better, but at least the latter comes up and the penalty double never seemed to. So now if they bid at the 3-level we play

 

Double = singleton

Cue = void

Non-jump Suit bids = natural (including at the 4-level), extras

3NT = contract suggestion

3 trumps suit = 6-card suit, not a superminimum

4 trump suit = to play, not interested in defending or playing 3NT (not many hands satisfy this)

pass = balanced, not afraid to defend

 

At the 4-level double is penalties, pass is forcing: the boring approach to life.

 

We have more detailed agreements after a lead-directing double of one of our artificial relays.

 

It depends if it is the asker or the answerer who is doubled

After, say,

 

1S - 2NT

3C (no shortage) - 3D (shape relay) - (dbl)

 

redble = suggests playing there

bids = as without the dbl, but promising at least second round diamond control

pass = no diamond control

 

if the dbl is passed round to responder, then

rdbl = I have a diamond control, please respond to the relay

3-level suit bids = We are in trouble in diamonds, do you fancy playing in 3NT?

 

The other way round (less likely, as it is the hand on lead doubling)

 

1S - 2NT

3C (dbl) -

 

this is similar:

redbl = suggests playing there

pass = no club control, continuations as above (opener's redouble shows a control and invites responder to do what they were going to do anyway)

3D+ = as without the double but promises a control

 

This isn't symmetrical, because you can only suggest playing there when redouble is in the direct position (over the doubler), but the other meanings are more useful, and we can remember them.

[lamford]

I am sure that Frances's methods will be technically better, but I find that it is less of a strain on memory to play DOPI and ROPI whenever any artifical enquiry or artificial raise is either doubled or bid over.

 

So 1H - (Pass) - 2S [raise to game in hearts] - (3D) - Double says that I would have bid 2NT (balanced non-minimum in our methods) Pass says I would have bid 3C (shortage), 3H says I would have bid 3D (shortage) and 3S now shows the singleton club. If they were to bid at the four level, then I think this would not work, as the auction would get too high, so perhaps Pass forcing and double penalties there, as I see Frances suggests.

[mikeh]

There's obviously a value-for-methods-investment calculation here, because you probably want to play something slightly different depending on exactly what the interference is (what level, and whether it is natural or artificial e.g. a 3NT bid). If they overcall 3C you could play pass = I would have bid 3C; if they overcall 3D pass = I would have bid 3C, double = I would have bid 3D. But if you are playing artificial methods anyway, that may not be sensible.

 

I also play an artificial rebid scheme by opener in an uncontested auction. I used to play that after an overcall we played double as penalties. This was recently changed to double shows a singleton at the 3-level, penalties at the 4-level. I can't comment on which is better, but at least the latter comes up and the penalty double never seemed to. So now if they bid at the 3-level we play

 

Double = singleton

Cue = void

Non-jump Suit bids = natural (including at the 4-level), extras

3NT = contract suggestion

3 trumps suit = 6-card suit, not a superminimum

4 trump suit = to play, not interested in defending or playing 3NT (not many hands satisfy this)

pass = balanced, not afraid to defend

 

At the 4-level double is penalties, pass is forcing: the boring approach to life.

 

We have more detailed agreements after a lead-directing double of one of our artificial relays.

 

It depends if it is the asker or the answerer who is doubled

After, say,

 

1S - 2NT

3C (no shortage) - 3D (shape relay) - (dbl)

 

redble = suggests playing there

bids = as without the dbl, but promising at least second round diamond control

pass = no diamond control

 

if the dbl is passed round to responder, then

rdbl = I have a diamond control, please respond to the relay

3-level suit bids = We are in trouble in diamonds, do you fancy playing in 3NT?

 

The other way round (less likely, as it is the hand on lead doubling)

 

1S - 2NT

3C (dbl) -

 

this is similar:

redbl = suggests playing there

pass = no club control, continuations as above (opener's redouble shows a control and invites responder to do what they were going to do anyway)

3D+ = as without the double but promises a control

 

This isn't symmetrical, because you can only suggest playing there when redouble is in the direct position (over the doubler), but the other meanings are more useful, and we can remember them.

 

 

thanks, Frances

[whereagles]

Frances, why would you want to play redbl as suggestion to play there, when you have known a 9 card fit and someone has like KQJT in the redoubled suit? That desire iludes me :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

Anyone have ideas?

I've been told that it is important to ALWAYS show SHORTNESS.

 

You can do this at the expense of the penalty DBL ( which some may not like ).

But you do gain the ability to show stiff or void as well as a 2nd 5-card suit.

 

Let's take one example:

 

1S - ( p ) - 2NT! - ( 3D )

??

.. DBL! = Diam stiff ( stole-my-bid )

.. 4D! = Diam void

 

.. 3H! = Ht stiff or void ( 3S! = asks >> 3NT!, next step = stiff Ht; 4C!, 2nd step = Ht void )

 

..pass! ( shortness in lower rank suit ) = Cl stiff or void ( DBL! = asks >> 3H! = stiff Cl; 3S! = Cl void )

 

.. all other bids remain the same as if no interference: 3S, 3NT, 4S, 4C/4H = 2nd 5-card suits ( ergo shortness somewhere else )

[Echognome]

If you are not memory constrained, then why not take a page out of most relay systems? You can bid according to your usual scheme and decide what "track" you are willing to continue your constructive relay with. I would think bidding up to "2 UP" should be ok. Since you have a forcing pass available, you can decide whether you want to use it for one extra step in your constructive bidding or save it for the occasional penalty. At least you will no additional memory load except for the translation of bids.

 

By the way, if you are not familiar with the terminology I'm using, please let me know and I can clarify.

 

If you want to include memory constraints in your optimization, then I'd rather use pass and double to be more quantitative in nature. Why do I want to give more shape information if we are only going towards game. I would think a scheme such as:

 

Pass - No slam interest (in context), but more offensive hand

Dbl - No slam interest (in context), but more defensive hand

Others - Various slam interest

[Finch]

Frances, why would you want to play redbl as suggestion to play there, when you have known a 9 card fit and someone has like KQJT in the redoubled suit? That desire iludes me :)

 

Because (i) one of our meta-rules is that redouble is always natural if it can be, (ii) we don't have an obvious alternative meaning for it, and (iii) people seem to double a lot without their call. In our methods, after 1S - 2NT - 3C - (dbl) responder could have 6 clubs (less likely after the double) and opener has promised at least 2.

 

The alternative, as echnognome suggests (and I mentioned) is that for low-level interference you keep to your original scheme, using pass and double/redouble for the first two steps. We decided not to do this, because originally we were bidding out shape and then strength with some relays, but after they intervene that changes. The exact timing of the intervention affects things because it then matters how much of his shape opener has shown. In a (much) later round double we might have got to the point of showing key cards when now we use the 'classic' meaning of pass/redouble to show control in the suit doubled.

[han]

Have you ever played in an alternative strain, redoubled, after 1M - 2NT?

[gnasher]

Once the opponents get into the auction, I think that the priorty switches from slam-bidding to deciding how high to compete. In any competitive auction it's dangerous to have bids that cover a range of shapes, because you may not get a chance to show your shape. I would give up all those nice relays, and play:

 

If the intervention was below three of our suit:

- New suits are natural, showing a good suit and not promising extras

- A cue-bid shows shortage

- Pass, 3M and 3NT show different ranges of hands without any of the above features.

- Double is penalties

 

If the intervention is at the four-level or 3♠, I think that either double or pass should show shortage in their suit. It's worth giving up a penalty double to be able to show such a key feature.

 

If they double an artificial bid, I'd like to (but don't) play different methods depending on whether the double invites bidding or merely suggests a lead.

[whereagles]

Because (i) one of our meta-rules is that redouble is always natural if it can be, (ii) we don't have an obvious alternative meaning for it, and (iii) people seem to double a lot without their call. (...)

 

True, but my scheme applies to many situations, not only to J2NT. And while people sometimes dbl without their bid, it's not common for them to have less than a hand that is bound to set you :)

 

Note also that in auctions such as

 

1M (pass) 2NT (pass)

3x (dbl)

 

3x = singleton

 

rdbl as 1st round control is very useful, as it allows you to dig out those Axx opposite singleton thin slams. In fact, I would advise to use rdbl as "no wastage opposite singleton", i.e. responder has either Axx or xxx.

 

Now, whaddayaknow... that sounds like a jolly good use for it B-)

[Lurpoa]

whatever the agreements you make, one advice:

 

keep the double or the pass for penalties.

 

You must be able to punish light interference, else the opponents will fool you around.

[Ant590]

I'm with whereagles and the gnome; and play a P0DI/relay-type auction after Jacoby interference. This is unless you really feel doubling the opps is the way forward (then my gut says a pass/double inversion is sound).

 

If you go the whole hog and play some kind of relay when there is no interference too, it makes the 1-UP, 2-Up, etc easier to remember, and calculate on the spot.

 

E.g. if you played natural shortage responses before, consider "defining" them as Low/Middle/High shortage "steps", then it's easier to think when there is interference.

[Finch]

True, but my scheme applies to many situations, not only to J2NT. And while people sometimes dbl without their bid, it's not common for them to have less than a hand that is bound to set you :)

 

Note also that in auctions such as

 

1M (pass) 2NT (pass)

3x (dbl)

 

3x = singleton

 

rdbl as 1st round control is very useful, as it allows you to dig out those Axx opposite singleton thin slams. In fact, I would advise to use rdbl as "no wastage opposite singleton", i.e. responder has either Axx or xxx.

 

Now, whaddayaknow... that sounds like a jolly good use for it B-)

 

I agree that if they double a bid showing a shortage in that suit, there's little value in playing redouble as natural.

We play more artificial methods (and I got the impression that mikeh does as well).

[Finch]

Have you ever played in an alternative strain, redoubled, after 1M - 2NT?

 

Not yet, though we should have done once (it was before we'd discussed what redouble meant, and it was against a pair playing anti-lead-directional doubles, which is an insane method at low levels).

 

But I've not yet missed out from another possible meaning for the redouble. Basically this is a very, very rare sequence. Opponents usually bid rather than double at the 3-level, and as I said we play redouble as a control at the 4-level.