Strong Club Defense

[olien]

I was surfing the forums the other day looking at strong ♣ defenses for ideas to possibly develop a defensive structure over the opponents strong ♣ opening. I saw several ideas I liked, and combining some of those with some of my own, I came up with the structure below and desire input. This defense is only to be used when NV (I have not started thinking about what to do over 1♣-1♦ until I am happy with what I have here, but ideas are welcome):

 

X = 5+♥

1♦ = 5+♠

1M = 3/4M and 5+m

1NT = 5+/4+ Majors

2♣ = natural or 5+♥ 5+m

2♦ = natural

2♥ = ♥ or ♠

2♠ = 5+♠ 5+m

2NT = 5+♦ 5+♣

3x = natural

 

I am happy with most of the structure, but I'm not sure about the 2♣ and 2♦ bids. The other idea I have for those bids is to play:

 

2♣ = ♣ or ♦

2♦ = 5+♥ 5+m

 

In the first structure, the 2♣ bid has ♣ 2/3 of the time and 5+♥ 5+♦ 1/3 of the time which may help partner in preempting the opponents, while the alternate structure its purely 50/50. The listed structure gives a definite cue bid over 2♦ with 3♦, but no worthwhile cue bid over 2♣. The alternate structure has a definite cue bid over 2♦ showing 5+♥ 5+m with 2♥ but allows partner to preempt more aggressively when he has a ♥ fit without knowledge of a minor suit fit; however, when we have a ♥ fit, the opponents may be able to just out-bid us in ♠. So, I'm not sure which is better, but I'm happy with the overall structure so far. Input and fresh ideas are welcome.

[Free]

- If you want to use Dbl and 1♦ as a 5 card M, I would swap the meanings of Dbl and 1♦. Dbl gives away more space than 1♦, but your partner can compensate this by taking more space away by raising ♠ instead of ♥.

 

- If you put your minor suit overcalls in 1NT (so 1NT = Majors or 1 minor), you can use 1♣-2m as 5+♥&5+m.

[chasetb]

Owen, for my two cents that isn't too bad. I know my partner and I use a Modified Woolsey over 1NT because of the GCC and just use the same structure for simplicity's sake (we have never actually defended against a 16+ 1♣ opening) - I admit Woolsey might be better. I put both down, as Modified Woolsey / Woolsey ; you probably already know Woolsey, but it's for other people. All other bids are natural.

 

1NT = either 5+ ♣ + 4M (or bad 5M) or 6♥ or 6♠ / minor-Major 2 suiter.

2♣ = Majors (both)

2♦ = 5+ ♦ + 4M (or bad 5M) / 6♥ or 6♠

2♥ = ♥ + a minor (both)

2♠ = ♠ + a minor (both)

2NT = minors (both)

[Zelandakh]

Or you might play 1NT as the 5H+5m and 2D as both majors in combination with your 2C = either minor. I prefer the less psycho version with 1NT = either minor, 2C = M+m, 2D = either major and 2H = both majors. The only cheap cue bid available here would be 2S over 2H.

[mycroft]

One thing that isn't clear is what's the difference between (X or 1♦) and 2♥. i.e. under what circumstances would you pick one over the other. I know that as the strong club pair, that would be the first question I ask...

 

Similarly, does your "one minor" call deny 3M?

 

It's fine to have two calls for one hand type, but it's not fine to have two calls for one hand type and not have a specific way of resolving it (it is *possible* to say "we do it at random" - if you can prove it, but not "we do whichever we feel like with that hand", because very quickly, the partnership is going to get a feel for what hands partner "feels like" one or the other; at that point if that is not disclosed, it becomes a concealed partnership understanding).

 

Yes, I know you understand that at least as well as I, Owen, but especially in disruptive conventions, that "added disruption" is very easy to develop, so carefully avoiding it should be explicitly mentioned immediately.

[olien]

One thing that isn't clear is what's the difference between (X or 1♦) and 2♥. i.e. under what circumstances would you pick one over the other. I know that as the strong club pair, that would be the first question I ask...

 

Well, it would be like asking the opponents what hand they overcall 1M vs 2M with over your strong club. 2M is more preemptive, i.e. 6M or very good 5, starting with X or 1♦ is either more constructive or only wants to bid above the one level with a fit.

 

Similarly, does your "one minor" call deny 3M?

 

No, 2m is a very good 5-card suit or a 6-card suit...overcalling 1M either wants partner to lead the M, or your minor isn't so hot.

[gwnn]

Looks like a fun defence to me the way it is. Definitely don't play 2D=5♥+5m.

[dake50]

Are you playing in an anchor suit required

by the sanctioning body?

I rather like an Amsbury adaptation.

2S is 6+S OR 1S444 OR 5-5 touching.

On a double sit with 6+S,

Redouble with 3-other suits,

Bid the lower of touching with 5-5.

Other 2-bids are similar.

Pick what you want 1-bids to be.

They disrupt near zero so need to be competing.

[mycroft]

One thing that isn't clear is what's the difference between (X or 1♦) and 2♥. i.e. under what circumstances would you pick one over the other.

Well, it would be like asking the opponents what hand they overcall 1M vs 2M with over your strong club. 2M is more preemptive, i.e. 6M or very good 5, starting with X or 1♦ is either more constructive or only wants to bid above the one level with a fit.

Similarly, does your "one minor" call deny 3M?

No, 2m is a very good 5-card suit or a 6-card suit...overcalling 1M either wants partner to lead the M, or your minor isn't so hot.

That makes perfect sense, and thanks for knowing.

 

Edit to add response to dake: In the environment Owen and I are in, a defence to a strong club need not have an anchor suit (unlike defences to NT openers) - as long as the convention isn't "primarily destructive" it can be anything. Case law has put the bar for primarily destructive somewhere between Psycho Suction (the suit bid *or* the next two up) or Wonder bids (this suit *or* takeout of this suit) - legal - and "1 spade shows 13 cards" - primarily destructive.

[JmBrPotter]

I was surfing the forums the other day looking at strong ♣ defenses for ideas to possibly develop a defensive structure over the opponents strong ♣ opening. I saw several ideas I liked, and combining some of those with some of my own, I came up with the structure below and desire input. This defense is only to be used when NV (I have not started thinking about what to do over 1♣-1♦ until I am happy with what I have here, but ideas are welcome):

 

X = 5+♥

1♦ = 5+♠

1M = 3/4M and 5+m

1NT = 5+/4+ Majors

2♣ = natural or 5+♥ 5+m

2♦ = natural

2♥ = ♥ or ♠

2♠ = 5+♠ 5+m

2NT = 5+♦ 5+♣

3x = natural

 

I am happy with most of the structure, but I'm not sure about the 2♣ and 2♦ bids. The other idea I have for those bids is to play:

 

2♣ = ♣ or ♦

2♦ = 5+♥ 5+m

 

In the first structure, the 2♣ bid has ♣ 2/3 of the time and 5+♥ 5+♦ 1/3 of the time which may help partner in preempting the opponents, while the alternate structure its purely 50/50. The listed structure gives a definite cue bid over 2♦ with 3♦, but no worthwhile cue bid over 2♣. The alternate structure has a definite cue bid over 2♦ showing 5+♥ 5+m with 2♥ but allows partner to preempt more aggressively when he has a ♥ fit without knowledge of a minor suit fit; however, when we have a ♥ fit, the opponents may be able to just out-bid us in ♠. So, I'm not sure which is better, but I'm happy with the overall structure so far. Input and fresh ideas are welcome.

 

There may be bidding theory evidence that those are excellent methods, but I’m not smart enough to add that much complexity to defend against one bid that will not come up all that often. Partner and I play DONT against all natural 1NT and 2NT openings. Since a Big Club is often a balanced hand somewhere in the 14-20 range, using DONT against a Big Club often gets the defensive bid in before the 1NT bid. Our complete defense against artificial forcing 1♣, 1♦, and 1♥ openings (and conventional 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ initial responses to same) is as follows:

 

Double: Sound (13-15 HCP or stronger) takeout for the doubled suit or a lower ranking suit.

 

1♦, 1♥, or 1♠ overcall: Sound opening bid with five or more cards in the overcalled suit.

 

1NT: Relay to 2♣ (same as a DONT double of 1NT) with an unspecified 6-card or longer suit.

 

All bids above 1NT: The same meaning, responses and rebids as with the partnership’s DONT variant.

 

 

If your partnership uses a different defense to 1NT where the double is takeout of some sort, you can play the same system using your preferred defense to 1NT rather than DONT. Obviously, you cannot use a 1NT overcall as a substitute for a penalty double of a 1NT bid the opening side has not yet made.

 

This defense probably has significant theoretical flaws. It's principal virtues are (1) simplicity, (2) light memory load (adding only three calls to things already being remembered), and (3) it seems to actually work fairly well much of the time. The two-level two-suited overcalls are especially good at (a) competing for a partscore, (b) wrecking the 1♣ response and rebid structure, © stopping at a low level (where penalty doubles probably may not stick too much), (d) getting out of the auction before penalty doubles start flying around, and (e) offering a hint at an opening lead (the better to defend).

[the hog]

I was surfing the forums the other day looking at strong ♣ defenses for ideas to possibly develop a defensive structure over the opponents strong ♣ opening. I saw several ideas I liked, and combining some of those with some of my own, I came up with the structure below and desire input. This defense is only to be used when NV (I have not started thinking about what to do over 1♣-1♦ until I am happy with what I have here, but ideas are welcome):

 

X = 5+♥

1♦ = 5+♠

1M = 3/4M and 5+m

1NT = 5+/4+ Majors

2♣ = natural or 5+♥ 5+m

2♦ = natural

2♥ = ♥ or ♠

2♠ = 5+♠ 5+m

2NT = 5+♦ 5+♣

3x = natural

 

I am happy with most of the structure, but I'm not sure about the 2♣ and 2♦ bids. The other idea I have for those bids is to play:

 

2♣ = ♣ or ♦

2♦ = 5+♥ 5+m

 

In the first structure, the 2♣ bid has ♣ 2/3 of the time and 5+♥ 5+♦ 1/3 of the time which may help partner in preempting the opponents, while the alternate structure its purely 50/50. The listed structure gives a definite cue bid over 2♦ with 3♦, but no worthwhile cue bid over 2♣. The alternate structure has a definite cue bid over 2♦ showing 5+♥ 5+m with 2♥ but allows partner to preempt more aggressively when he has a ♥ fit without knowledge of a minor suit fit; however, when we have a ♥ fit, the opponents may be able to just out-bid us in ♠. So, I'm not sure which is better, but I'm happy with the overall structure so far. Input and fresh ideas are welcome.

 

X = 5+♥

1♦ = 5+♠

I am sorry but this is terrible. You are giving the big clubbesr so many more options. I loved it when I played Moscito and opps used methods like this.

Why not keep it simple, x = Majors, 1NT = minors, every thing else natural. Toss in a Wilkosz 2D overcall if you want, but that's it imo.

[mycroft]

I actually don't think that transfer overcalls are that bad against a strong club - because to me, what's important is where the auction is at opener's rebid. There is some extra that responder can do with X and 1♦, but not all that much difference between 1♣-1♥-(whatever)-2♥ and 1♣-X-(whatever)-2♥. And even less if the bump is to the three level.

 

I'd much rather see (from the strong club side) ambiguous defences, where fourth-hand needs two suits to get to the 3 level before I get a chance to come in. But if 1♥ and 1♠ are useless overcalls from a disruption perspective, yeah, switch back to 1♥ shows ♥...

[the hog]

"There is some extra that responder can do with X and 1♦"

And also with pass, Mike. In fact you can penalise the opponents far more easily.

The concept is similar to that very silly idea of transfer pre empts which had some fleeting, (very), popularity until people realised what a poor method this really was.

 

Consider:

(3D) now I have x and 3H for different hands as well as this auction - (3D) P (3H) P (P) x as a penalty double.

However I guess we should be encouraging, not discouraging players to use inferior methods.

 

[Free]

"There is some extra that responder can do with X and 1♦"

And also with pass, Mike. In fact you can penalise the opponents far more easily.

The concept is similar to that very silly idea of transfer pre empts which had some fleeting, (very), popularity until people realised what a poor method this really was.

 

Consider:

(3D) now I have x and 3H for different hands as well as this auction - (3D) P (3H) P (P) x as a penalty double.

However I guess we should be encouraging, not discouraging players to use inferior methods.

Out of curiosity, what do you use Dbl and 1♦ for after a strong 1♣ opening?

[Zelandakh]

I personally think there are only 2 sound options for X and 1D over a strong 1 club opening, either a sound overcall (whether that be for hearts and spades or clubs and diamonds is just a matter of fitting the rest of the defence) or something specific that partner can raise the preempt level on immediately (majors is good, odd suits not so good). I have toyed some with the idea of using double to show at least 5-5 in the majors and 2H for 5-4/4-4. Where double can be only 4 card suits then it is sometimes not so easy for partner to raise sufficiently high to cause difficulties.

[mycroft]

"There is some extra that responder can do with X and 1♦"

And also with pass, Michael. In fact you can penalise the opponents far more easily.

The concept is similar to that very silly idea of transfer pre empts which had some fleeting, (very), popularity until people realised what a poor method this really was.

Hey, I play a strong club, I know.

 

And I meant "options for responder after an overcall of X or 1♦". Yes, that includes a forcing pass. I know all of that. But when fourth-hand's bid is 2♥ or 3♥, it doesn't much matter if partner's shown 0-7 or 5-bad 8 or 0-4, it's still ugly (yes, you get the "we have no game, let's just take our plus", but I have that over 1♥, too). It also (if you do it differently) isn't a big deal if partner's shown clubs or diamonds, when they have to start the 3NT investigation at the 3 level.

 

Sure, 1♥ NAT is better than X = hearts. But, like the multi 2♦, if the combination of "lose on the single-suited hearts" and "win when I bid 1♥ on hands that have no descriptive bid in the other system" is plus over natural, then it's plus over natural. And the "3/4M, 5+lower" is a very useful tool for a partscore battle, indeed (especially when you pick off the major).

 

Having said all of that, I play double as "clubs, able to be led to" and 1♦ as "diamonds, able to be led to". A real danger of a strong club opening is that standard bidders get to 3NT and it's a blind lead, whereas the clubbers allow the danger suit to be pinpointed.

[mycroft]

argh, hit reply, when I meant to edit. Deleted.

[the hog]

Out of curiosity, what do you use Dbl and 1♦ for after a strong 1♣ opening?

 

x = Majors, 1D = nat, lead directing, 1NT = minors.

[blackshoe]

X for majors and 1NT for minors is Mathé. I use that, and lead directors at the one level (as above). Also Hello at the two level:

 

2♣ = diamonds or Mm two suiter

2♦ = hearts

2♥ = both M

2♠ = spades

2NT = clubs

3♣ = both minors

 

The duplicative bids at the two level have more playing strength.

 

I don't have enough experience with this yet to decide whether it's worth keeping.

[the hog]

X for majors and 1NT for minors is Mathé.

Maybe in the US. Not here.

[whereagles]

Do we really need that many 1-2-3 suiter bids vs a strong club? Isn't natural + good judgement enough? I mean..

 

1♣ ..??

 

1x = natural, good 4 card or better suit

2/3/4x = wide-range jump overcall (2-14 HCP or so)

pass = nothing to say or any 15+ HCP

 

The idea is to overcall loosely. Advancer, in turn, raises very conservatively. Loose overcalls are ok because chances are our side has no game on.

 

And you still have dbl and 1/2/3NT free for good 2-suited hands (5-5s), which you can define in any way you like.

[gwnn]

whereagles, I think you're underestimating how hard it is to deal with 2♥=hearts or spades. :) but obviously your scheme is quite good, and better than most artificial defences.

[whereagles]

Oh, I agree 2H as multi can be quite annoying :) And while you're on it, you could try one for the minors as well, i.e. 2C or 3C = clubs or diamonds LOL.

[32519]

For any defence against a strong club system to be effective, frequency of occurrence needs to be your primary objective. 5/5 holdings in the 6-24 HCP range (opener has the remaining 16 HCP) have a low frequency of occurrence (0.86%). Even multiplying that by 3 for different 5/5 holdings only get you to a 2.58% probability of occurring.

 

Make your defence simple, no ambiguity as to the meaning of any bid, high frequency of occurrence, something partner can jump raise immediately with a fit, no unnecessary memory load.

 

Try something like this –

1. X = both majors, if you want you can say 5/4 when vulnerable, 4/4 is good enough when not vulnerable. 5/4 has a 3.17% probability of occurring in the 6-24 HCP range. Times that by 2 for the reverse 4/5 holding you get 6.34%. Not too shabby.

2. 1♦/1♥/1♠ = all natural and at least a 5-card suit. Give partner something to work with immediately if a fit is found.

3. Use 1NT for something useful but a low frequency of occurrence, something to let the 1♣ opener know he is in for a fight. I suggest 5/5 in the majors. The frequency of occurrence is low at only 0.86% in the 6-24 HCP range.

4. 2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit. You’ve taken away the whole of the 1-level for the opponents and partner has something to work with. The frequency of occurrence is quite high, standing at 4.49% in the 6-24 HCP range.

5. If you want to be fancy, allow the 2♣ and 2♦ bids to double up as, either

a. 6-card suit, or (4.49% probability)

b. 5-cards and a 4-card major (Precision style) (6.34% probability)

c. Combined probability = 10.83%

6. Use 2NT for 5/5 in the minors. I hate the bid myself as I consider it pretty useless and easy to defend, but at least you’ve taken away the entire 1 and 2 level from the opponents

7. 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit.

[hrothgar]

I've attached a link to my preferred defense

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/20626-precison-defence/page__p__212059#entry212059

 

Along with a brief description of the design goals:

 

1. Whenever possible, bids should be natural. If I am showing Diamonds, I want to be bidding Diamonds. If I am showing Hearts, I want to be bidding hearts.

Bidding suits naturally means that partner can pass the suit much of the time. In turn, this places a lot more pressure on the opponents.

 

2. It's more important to get to an adequate contract as quickly as possible than risking a long involved auction looking for an optimal contract.

 

3. 1D and 1H overcalls really won't inconvenience a good pair. I use these for canape overalls which typically show concentrated honors in the bid suit and a "real" suit that I don't necessarily want lead.

 

4. Double gives the opponents significantly more bidding space. Use this to show both majors where you (hopefully) can outbid the opponent's who hold the minors.