Defence Against Strong Club Systems

[32519]

Strong Club Systems are frequently encountered at all levels of bridge in my home country. In a lot of different threads in these forums one often reads that Strong Club Systems are prone to pre-emption.

 

What methods do others use / recommend for good defensive strategies against Strong Club Systems? How do your defensive agreements change when –

1. Partner as yet is an unpassed hand?

2. Partner is already a passed hand?

 

Once we know what others are doing, partner and I can choose something that best fits in with our bidding style. At the moment we don’t really have anything more specialised. Overcalls tend to be natural showing a playable suit.

 

Thanking you all in advance.

[the hog]

X for the Majors, 1NT for the minors. Bids like Wonder bids etc are amusing as the overcallers get them wrong so frequently.

[Statto]

Most popular defence I'm aware of is Truscott:

X = ♣ + ♥

1NT = ♦ + ♠

1♦/♥/♠/2♣ = that suit and the next suit up

 

Can be bid on very weak hands at appropriate vulnerability for the interference factor, particularly when partner can preemptively raise one of your suits, cutting out opps bidding space before they've discovered a fit, or even disclosed a suit. With a single-suited hand that wants to bid, obviously you bid it at 2♦ or higher.

[frank0]

Complicated method(crash or something like that) against weak player who has no discussion on how to defend it, and cannot properly drawing inference from your bidding when they play the hand.

 

Simple method(X=Ms NT=ms) against strong player, overcall unknown 2-suiter light is not as destructive as it sounds and may receive big penalty at low level under the trump lead and accurate defense by opp.

[Statto]

X = ♣ + ♥

1NT = ♦ + ♠

I think it makes sense to reverse the meaning of these bids, because when you don't have ♠ you'd like to remove the opportunity for responder to show them at the 1 level.

[32519]

Guys, I just want to test some other ideas with you.

 

I’ve just run another simulation through BBO’s deal generator. These are the numbers I got:

1. The probability of being dealt 16-19 HCP any distribution = 8.31%

2. The probability of being dealt 20+ HCP any distribution = 1.45%

 

The likelihood is therefore greater that the 1♣ opener has 16-19 HCP. With these sorts of odds I want to “get-in-the-face” of the 1♣ opener more aggressively. I hate the 5-5 minor showing hands with 5-10 HCP, but what about this as a more aggressive “in-your-face” interference after 1♣?

 

1. 1NT showing 5-5 in the majors and 8+ HCP

2. 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors and 8+ HCP

3. 1 level overcalls are natural, 5-card suit

4. 2 level overcalls are natural, 6-card suit

5. X could still show both majors, but now only 4-4 or 5-4. What does the continuation bidding structure look like after this?

 

In both instances 1 + 2 above you are placing more pressure on the 1♣ opener. Can this work? Or is it just a stupid idea?

 

Thanks

[frank0]

The likelihood is therefore greater that the 1♣ opener has 16-19 HCP. With these sorts of odds I want to “get-in-the-face” of the 1♣ opener more aggressively.

The simulation result and idea seems OK but I don't understand the logical connection between these 2 arguments.

[32519]

The simulation result and idea seams OK but I don't understand the logical connection between these 2 arguments.

 

I like my defensive agreements to be both competitive and game invitational when distributional fits are uncovered. I ran 20 random hands through BBOs deal generator fulfilling the constraints of a 1♣ opener 16-19 HCP and a 1NT overcall showing 8+ and 5-5 in the majors to see what sort of hands came up.

 

The 2 game invitational hands that occurred amongst the 20 random hands dealt are posted below for further analyses.

 

Hand 1

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6hak4djt65cak62&w=saqjt4hqjt72dq7c7&n=s8732hd9832cqt854&e=s95h98653dak4cj93&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(16+%20HCP)1n(5-5%20Majors%208+%20HCP)p3h(Big%20fit%2C%20game%20invite)p4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Hand 2

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3ha3daj2cakj974&w=sak874hqj962dk86c&n=sjt95hk5d753cq852&e=s62ht874dqt94ct63&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(16+%20HCP)1n(5-5%20Majors%208+%20HCP)d(Artificial%205-7%20HCP)2h(Preference)3cd(Club%20void-game%20invite)r4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Im hoping you guys can help me to unlock a more effective defence against Strong Club Systems. I am hamstrung at the moment with a new partner who hasnt got a clue on how to work out these sort of defensive agreements. If somebody else does the leg work, she will happily agree to play it. I dont want to chop and change something every week. I will rather delay implementation of any new ideas, only implementing them if they have any merit.

 

For the record:

1. The probability of being dealt 5-5 in the majors and 8-21 HCP = 0.67%

2. Obviously the same ratio is applicable to the minors with the same constraints.

3. Lifting the minor suit 5-5 holding to 10-21 HCP, the probability drops to 0.50%. I may well end up lifting the minor suit requirement to this in order to give partner something to work with over a strong ♣ opening.

4. The probability of being dealt 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP = 0.45%.

[the hog]

I think it makes sense to reverse the meaning of these bids, because when you don't have ♠ you'd like to remove the opportunity for responder to show them at the 1 level.

 

Who cares? The system is crap. Simple is by far the most effective, and I know this from years of playing a big club system. Ask big clubbers what they love to play against and it is silly stuff like Truscott or Crash etc.

 

If you want to play something weird, (not that I recommend it, but it is fun), play the old English defence nv.

Jump bids = that suit, weak, or the suit above weak, or 4441 with a s/ton in that suit.

[hrothgar]

Here's my preferred defense

 

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

[manudude03]

For better or worse, I usually just play CRASH (at least 5-4 vul, often 4-4 nv). Having said that, the vast majority of precision pairs I play against are very weak. I much prefer interference to be frequent rather than looking for games. I also play that advancer's NT bids are enquiries for when game may make.

 

If opener has a good hand, I do the old pass first and bid later trick.

[hrothgar]

 

I ran 20 random hands through BBO’s deal generator fulfilling the constraints of a 1♣ opener 16-19 HCP and a 1NT overcall showing 8+ and 5-5 in the majors to see what sort of hands came up.

 

 

If possible, please provide code so folks can check your assumptions.

 

Just to be clear, you are stating that (following a strong club opening)

 

"The probability of being dealt 5-5 in the majors and 8-21 HCP = 0.67%"

 

And

 

"2 out of the 20 hands that you looked at had some chance of making game"

 

So, why precisely are you trying to optimize a bidding structure sequence that applies on less than one in a thousand hands?

[mgoetze]

Complicated method(crash or something like that) against weak player who has no discussion on how to defend it, and cannot properly drawing inference from your bidding when they play the hand.

 

Simple method(X=Ms NT=ms) against strong player,

(a) What exactly do you consider complicated about CRASH?

(b) Did you really just state that it is easier to draw inferences from a CRASH bid than from X=Ms or NT=ms?

 

The simulation result and idea seems OK but I don't understand the logical connection between these 2 arguments.

You must not have read many of 32519's threads yet if you are still looking for logical connections in his arguments.

[kenrexford]

I played in a midnight game where the opponents opened 1♣ on three out of the only four hands we finished before the end of the round. On all three, our defense utterly decimated them.

 

 

We played that a non-jump call showed either a one suiter with that suit or a three-suiter with the other three suits. Advancer could raise the potential one suit by bidding his favorite of the three other suits. Advancer could super-accept one of the three other suits by raising the one suit, even with a stiff if he wanted to.

 

Jumps showed two-suiters.

 

1NT showed balanced and weak, typically 4333, as with 4432 you might bid the doubleton instead.

 

Double showed values.

 

 

 

It was more funny than anything else.

[Ant590]

I like the following:

x=majors

NT=minors

2♦+ = weak

1♦/♥/♠/2♣ = 3+ cards and two better suits. Typically it's 4441, 5431, 5530, but I've seen it done on 4432 and even 4333 favorable.

 

Partner can pass with 5 or 4 card support, and if he doesn't have support he knows there are two places to run to. These overcalls seem to muck up unprepared strong clubbers who don't always know what their cuebids mean (it can tip off the opps that their suit is breaking 3-2 though).

 

Ant.

[sfi]

Strong Club Systems are frequently encountered at all levels of bridge in my home country. In a lot of different threads in these forums one often reads that Strong Club Systems are prone to pre-emption.

 

What methods do others use / recommend for good defensive strategies against Strong Club Systems?

 

Having played a variety of strong club systems over the years, I don't much care what your defence is - it's not going to mess us up a great deal at the one and two level. What does cause strong club systems problems are natural jumps to the three level, so stretch to do that on hands that are at all suitable.

 

Be aware that the strong club pair also knows that this is a weakness in their system and may shrug and accept whatever penalty you offer. So if you try it too much, you might regret it from time to time. On balance, you will come out ahead unless you start doing it on really unsuitable hands.

[hrothgar]

I listed my preferred defense earlier in the thread:

 

Here's a brief summary 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.

[lalldonn]

It's more important to bid aggressively than what you are playing in particular. But if I had to pick what I want my opponents to be playing against me, it would be something that doesn't let them overcall naturally at a certain level, for example using all the 1 level bids to show two-suited or three-suited hands. It constrains their options too much since I find the most common thing I want to do against a strong club is simply bid some suit at some level.

[32519]

Another question I hope someone can answer.

 

I have seen two schools of thought when the opponents interfere over the 1♣ opening. What must partner of the 1♣ opener do over the intervention?

1. The one option I have seen = Double shows 5-7 HCP, no specific suit. Any bid still shows 8+ HCP as a positive game force response.

2. The other option I have seen = Any bid shows 5-7 HCP. A suit bid would show 5-cards. Not having a 5-card suit, the lowest available NT would show 5-7 HCP. It doesn't necessary guarantee a stopper in the opponents suit. The double now would be for penalty showing 8+ HCP.

 

Which of these two options would be considered superior and why?

[mycroft]

I've said frequently that my keys to a successful defence of a strong club is to get to 2 or 3 of a fit by the time it gets around to opener's second bid - and then get out. (obviously, freaks go as high as they can, but I remember the following auction in a regional IMP pairs:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(Precision)3n(1NT%3Dminors%3B3NT%3Dmore%20minors)4c(hearts)5d6h7dp(forcing)p7h(40%25%20grands%20opp.%20a%20good%20sac)ppp]133|100[/hv]

 

...and we were one of two pairs to find (the cold, as it turned out) 7 - basically, because we were pushed there.

 

In order to get to that fit, I dislike any call that doesn't show a real suit (although hrothgar's idea of using 1red to show "concentrations with a suit-I-don't-want-led on the side" is promising). I've played 2-level Truscott:

 

X, 1suit = good suit I want led

2x = suit X and X+1

1NT = two non-touching suits (I know that doesn't fit my strategy, but I don't want to get forced to 3, and at least it takes away the entire one level with the ambiguous call).

 

But now? I just play Mathe (double = majors, NT = minors) for no real reason than we can remember it with "look at their card"'s notice. The keys are to bid aggressively but not insanely, and to raise immediately and aggressively with a fit (but be a little cautious when they show "almost game" values - like a traditional Precision 1♣ - (2♦) - X "usually 5-8 or so". If you push against that, so they don't have any room to find their fit and their level, the minimum strong opener is likely to just take the points - and they'll often be right (even if they don't take you for a number, game might not be there (and 300 is therefore "a number"), or game might be "obvious", but not make (in which case even 100 is "a number"))).

[mikestar13]

I've said frequently that my keys to a successful defence of a strong club is to get to 2 or 3 of a fit by the time it gets around to opener's second bid - and then get out. <snip>.

 

Best summary I've seen (among many good ones). Against good opponents, this is much more effective than the more complicated stuff. Truscott gives them 2 cuebids to play with, Crash gives them none but leaves partner far less likely to be able to give that extremely useful jump raise to 3 with a good fit. (Never mind the chance of convention forgets when playing something weird.) Here in North America where 2/1 is the norm, my favorite method is to look at my hand and decide the right level to preempt against a natural 1♣, and then consider bidding one more.

 

I have found the double=5-8 the most useful counter for the very reason mycroft cites: +300 looks damn good if game wouldn't be bid and awesome when game would be bid but goes down, both more likely occurrences than when responder has 9+. Also a factor is that making a 5-8 double on a directionless 10 count is much safer than making a 9+ double on a directionless 7 count. (Especially important against Crash and the like, but not trivial vs. natural overcalls.)

[JLOGIC]

I think all of the fancy defenses are misguided. Almost every good pair I have played against (and I've played strong club in all of my regular partnerships) have played X=majors NT=minors.

 

Personally, I think minors is a pretty stupid hand type to show. I like X=majors and 1NT=more majors, like 5-5. Joe likes X=majors, NT=minors 2D=5-5+ majors, but I would much rather have a natural 2D than a 1N for the minors bid. Minors is the hand type where we're least likely to declare, and it doesn't hurt their bidding much when you bid 1N showing 2 known suits, they now have 2 cuebids plus they can double and do something later, etc. Even when I am 5-5 in M+m, I rarely desire to show my other suit, it will just help them too much if they declare knowing 10 of my cards, and if my minor is unknown it will be hard for partner to preempt immediately and effective, and it is not that likely we need to bid 5m and won't be able to do so otherwise.

 

Just because they play strong club doesn't mean you're about to get a zero/lose 13 imps, you don't have to go psycho. Suction in particular which I played a lot of when I was younger was very ineffective ime and bad.

[akhare]

+1 for natural methods are best chorus.

 

Pard and I play a natural defence vs. 1C (being strong club players ourselves) (with X = majors and 1N = minors on occasion).

 

We have faced Suction (and the better psycho variant), CRASH etc. but they aren't very effective because fourth hand can seldom advance to the 3+ level before opener gets to rebid.

[dake50]

Amsbury used jump overcalls here 20y ago:

2S: WJO. If X, sit.

or 3-suiter w/o spades. If X, SOS red.

or touching 5-5. If X, bid lower.

2H,2D,2C similar.

Add ParadoX responses - this fit or partner

corrects to an implied fit, and it becomes formidable.

[awm]

I think it's misguided to be too focused on points in these auctions. Competitive bidding is much more about finding your fit (and degree of fit) than anything else. Points are good sometimes for judging "what you can make" but the goal in competition isn't always a making contract. You can win a great number of imps or mps by pushing opponents up a level (where their contract fails) or forcing them to guess which game or slam to bid instead of a having a scientific auction, or sacrificing against some making contract.

 

It's true that sometimes you can make a game after the opponents open 1♣ strong, just as you can sometimes make a game after they open 1NT strong. It's rare, but it does happen. However, overwhelmingly often when you can make a game it's because you have a big fit somewhere and some shape. This means if you bid based on shape and fit, you would bid these games anyway even if you had never communicated the number of hcp you held. It is true that you would also bid some games that don't make this way (because you never figured out how many high cards you have, and you might not have enough) but in those cases it's inevitable that the opponents could make a game of their own...

 

As far as defenses go, I am a big fan of psycho-suction at NV. It has a lot of the advantages of natural bids (lots of NF calls) but also lets you show all sorts of two-suiters (in a way that doesn't give opponents an easy cue). Opponents who don't have a lot of experience against this sort of defense will also frequently stumble against it because of the high frequency of artificial-but-very-non-forcing calls.