Shropshire Congress 1 (EBU)

[c_corgi]

To give you some idea, let's swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give essentially the hand she bid. Modifying N/S acordingly, we might well have something like

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj54hakjt2dqckq65&w=sk9876hq3da743c43&n=sat2h984dkjt2c987&e=sq3h765d9865cajt2]399|300[/hv]

 

That's 3♦ -5 by E.

 

Or we may find that South bids 3H over 3D, or they don't defend double dummy, or that West's honour structure is less unsuitable, or that North doesn't have an obvious double of 3D.

[phil_20686]

If they are, then at this vulnerability it would be quite normal for W to bid on 4-4 - it's not a 5-5, maybe 5-4, type 2-suiter - and I'm with bluejak (congratulations on winning the event BTW) in thinking that to bid 3♦ on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA.

 

The idea of bidding over a strong club with a balanced 44 hand is making me quite ill - is it just to make sure that partner can never guess what level to raise to? Also, most of these defences keep a natural 1M overcall, so I presume that if they were 54 it has to be a longer minor. Bidding this way with 54 either way round is making me more ill.

 

Still, its obvious from the fact that (s)he did bid that this a hand they consider ok, in which case surely 3d is not a logical alternative.

[mycroft]

2NT has shown a balanced positive with pointed-suit cards, but not wild enough to try for a double at us favourable? And I'm still going to stick my neck out with 9-fourth and a queen that's going to be crashed? I like pushing to 3-of-a-fit, but in this auction what information does N-S not have, so how likely are they going to guess wrong?

 

So, count me as a passer in the 3♦ poll. Oh, and I agree on everything else - sometimes misbids work; unless of course, E/W (I'm guessing West) have a history of getting this one wrong; and I can't see forcing East to continue either spades or diamonds on the play - and hearts looks self-defeating.

 

Interesting that the other strong clubbers chose to treat this as a maximum 1♦ opening, and they *still* couldn't get to 4♠ (without use of UI :-). Guess it's just a death hand for Precision.

[nige1]

2NT has shown a balanced positive with pointed-suit cards, but not wild enough to try for a double at us favourable? And I'm still going to stick my neck out with 9-fourth and a queen that's going to be crashed? I like pushing to 3-of-a-fit, but in this auction what information does N-S not have, so how likely are they going to guess wrong?

So, count me as a passer in the 3♦ poll. Oh, and I agree on everything else - sometimes misbids work; unless of course, E/W (I'm guessing West) have a history of getting this one wrong; and I can't see forcing East to continue either spades or diamonds on the play - and hearts looks self-defeating. Interesting that the other strong clubbers chose to treat this as a maximum 1♦ opening, and they *still* couldn't get to 4♠ (without use of UI :-). Guess it's just a death hand for Precision.

FWIW (probably not much) West's dilemma is posted as a a poll in Interesting Bridge hands

[PeterAlan]

FWIW (probably not much) West's dilemma is posted as a a poll in Interesting Bridge hands

(Actually, I think it's East's.)

 

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

(my emphasis).

 

To repeat a point made earlier, a poll is surely meaningless in the absence of knowing what methods E/W are playing. I've said it looks to me as though they may well be playing Truscott as a defence to a strong 1♣, since that uses 1NT as the overcall to show ♦ & ♠ and is a relatively common defence here (I played in the event in question - it's Board 34 if anyone's interested). Partner and I play it, though it doesn't come up that much where we play, and if you're not employing it regularly it's easy to get the non-touching 2-suiter bids the wrong way round. I'd put money on that being what's happened here - W was trying to show ♥ & ♣ and got it wrong.

 

If this is what's going on, then 3♦ does not seem to me to be a LA.

 

Let's look at the auction if W hasn't misbid (as in my post above, swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give the hand she showed in the auction). If your methods are to put in a call like this on a hand like W's what does 3♦ by E over 2NT by N achieve? You've already created about as much disruption to N/S's auction as you're likely to manage, you're hardly taking away any bidding space, and you're putting your head on the block if N/S have very suitable hands for penalties.

 

Of course, if E/W are playing something different - say, W's guaranteeing 5-5 - then the picture changes and it may well be helpful for E to show support (though the evidence of W's bid is that not what's happening here). So until we know what their methods are, the question of whether 3♦ by E is a LA must remain moot.

[nige1]

(Actually, I think it's East's.) (my emphasis).

My mistake :( Sorry :(

To repeat a point made earlier, a poll is surely meaningless in the absence of knowing what methods E/W are playing. I've said it looks to me as though they may well be playing Truscott as a defence to a strong 1♣, since that uses 1NT as the overcall to show ♦ & ♠ and is a relatively common defence here (I played in the event in question - it's Board 34 if anyone's interested). Partner and I play it, though it doesn't come up that much where we play, and if you're not employing it regularly it's easy to get the non-touching 2-suiter bids the wrong way round. I'd put money on that being what's happened here - W was trying to show ♥ & ♣ and got it wrong.

estion of whether 3♦ by E is a LA must remain moot.

Presumably, the director ruled on the information given in the OP, we can assume that is all the relevant information that was available, and we can make our minds up accordingly. My guess is the same as Peter Alan's: "Truscott". East's explanation implies that "♠ and ♦" is their complete understanding. On that basis,

• Peter Alan would pass.
• I respect the opinions of Peter Alan and Blujak but I wouldn't Pass.
• I would consider 3♣ or 3♦ or 3♠ or 4♦.
• Hence I think Pass and 3♦ are logical alternatives.

[MrAce]

I came to this topic after i voted because the poll said not to come here and check untill after vote.

 

I voted for 4♦ with the condition that 1NT promised 5-5, i added if it can be 5-4 i would bid 3♦

 

I would think pass is out of question by East, but i saw 2 votes for pass in the poll and a few here too so it may at most be a L.A. But still way far from being obvious pass, since i saw 8 votes for 3♦ and 2 votes for 4♦. Looking at it now that 1 NT can be made on 5-4 you can change my vote from 4♦ to 3♦.

 

If pd is bidding with 4-4 and more into joke than bridge, i would definetely make sure to raise him untill he gives up doing it.

 

At these colours pd is showing 2 suiter and i have a fit and i wont show it ? Especially with Hx in his side suit and 4 card support ? I have been listening to the excuses people come up with for not supporting their pd with support long time now, that i decided not to even argue with them anymore and just wish them good luck.

[Zelandakh]

FWiiW I would seriously consider 3♦ but actually pass. The reason is that we have lost the main benefit of it when the opps have already reached 2NT. After the UI I would bid 3♦ though. I am confident that a high enough proportion of players would satisfy the seriously consider criteria here and I still suspect enough would get the actually bid it. But this is what a poll is for so luckily we do not need to guess or decide based on our own ideas.

 

I am surprised that the TD appears to have made this decision without consultation. If responses to a poll were indeed "fairly evenly split" then 3♦ is absolutely a LA! If I had to guess (and like I said, luckily that is not necessary) I would suggest that at least half of [county level] players would seriously consider 3♦ and perhaps 1 in 10 or so actually bid it. Interestingly I would suspect that weaker [lower club level] players would be less likely to consider or bid 3♦ while stronger players would perhaps all consider 3♦ but I suspect fewer would actually bid it. Given West's reaction it is not impossible that E-W fall into the "weaker" category which could easily affect the poll results. In this case I have (somewhat) more sympathy with the TD's decision.

[Trinidad]

I would already say that a 3♦ bid "could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI" over the LA of 4♦. If East would have bid merely 3♦, I would adjust to 4♦X - 1 more, and judge that it might be hard to evaluate at the table whether 4♦ would be an LA. Therefore, I would leave it at that.

 

But given that East passed, I would go beyond an adjustment to 4♦X-n. While it may be hard to evaluate whether 4♦ could be an LA, it is impossible to think that supporting diamonds at some level would not be an LA. East must have known that by passing he chose an LA that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. I would add a PP. This could be in the form of a warning if East would be inexperienced, but -given the fact that EW have agreements on how to interfere with strong club auctions- I think it is unlikely that that is the case.

 

If you don't even adjust the score in such a case (as seemed to have happened in practice) you are actively breeding unethical players: You will teach players to take the unethical action (pass).

- They might get to keep their good result. The unethical action will have won.

- They might get "unlucky" and the TD will adjust to the result they would have obtained if they would have taken the ethical action. The unethical action will not have lost.

The net gain for being unethical is large. This will make it very hard for many players to remain ethical.

 

In general, I am very careful in handing out PPs in UI cases: It is often difficult to judge at the table what the LAs are. IMO it doesn't send the right message if you penalize someone who has tried his best, but was not able to envision at the table what his peers might consider LAs.

But this means that if the case is blatantly obvious (and how can raising partner in a non constructive auction, at favorable vul, not be an LA?) you will have to give a PP on top of the AS. Otherwise you will be breeding unethical players.

 

I can understand that people think there are arguments why you shouldn't raise diamonds. (There always are.) I can even understand that there are people who at the table wouldn't raise diamonds. But that is irrelevant. The criterion is whether raising diamonds is an LA. With four card support, raising partner always is an LA, particularly in a non constructive auction (like this one) at favorable vulnerability.

 

Rik

[PeterAlan]

East's explanation implies that "♠ and ♦" is their complete understanding.

I think we're given a bit more than that in the OP: in particular, that their methods countenance a two-suited overcall on W's ♠43 ♥A743 ♦Q3 ♣K9876.

 

The criterion is whether raising diamonds is an LA. With four card support, raising partner always is an LA ...

The thing is, this sort of slogan just becomes self-fulfilling: if enough players believe it then it is by definition true. But it's based on the unstated and probably unrecognised assumption that W has something different from what W, I stress again, has actually shown in the methods that the partnership appear to be playing. All these comments seem to me to be from players who don't play these methods and don't understand them. Playing Truscott commits you to the 2-level in one of your suits in order to be disruptive; going beyond that is a different kettle of fish.

 

Bidding 3♦ on ♠Q3 ♥765 ♦9865 ♣AJ102 opposite ♠K9876 ♥Q3 ♦A743 ♣43 (ie the hand W has shown) when LHO has opened a strong ♣ and RHO has bid 2NT over partner's interference is not in my view a logical (small l) alternative. It does nothing to obstruct N/S's constructive auction, and just gives them a "Head I win, Tails you lose" chance to extract 800+ if they have great defence to a ♦ contract. Once that's recognised, it's not a Logical Alternative either.

[c_corgi]

Bidding 3♦ on ♠Q3 ♥765 ♦9865 ♣AJ102 opposite ♠K9876 ♥Q3 ♦A743 ♣43 (ie the hand W has shown) when LHO has opened a strong ♣ and RHO has bid 2NT over partner's interference is not in my view a logical (small l) alternative. It does nothing to obstruct N/S's constructive auction, and just gives them a "Head I win, Tails you lose" chance to extract 800+ if they have great defence to a ♦ contract. Once that's recognised, it's not a Logical Alternative either.

 

According to you, 3D is down 5 on this layout. That means 2D is down 4, or -800 when the 1NT overcaller hits partner with a 4 card fit, a key Q and a well-supported ace. It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that the 1NT overcall should not be made on silly hands rather than that responder should suppress the fit. Certainly I see no reason to assume that the West hand is anything other than the 'unsuitable' end of the range. I expect it is too late to find out where in the range the West hand is. I am not sure how valid is your assertion that the objective is to take the 1-level away from responder: my understanding that the most effective way to defend against strong clubs is for advancer to be able to bounce to the 3-level as often as possible.

 

According to me, 3D is down 3 if they lead AKJ of hearts, or down 4 if South does well to play the QD before the 3rd round of H (this is because North holds the D10). Since you have hardly placed the cards to be favourable for 3D, that doesn't seem too bad odds. If they are going to catch you for 800 very often, they are also going to let you out for 500 frequently, either through misdefence or because the cards lie less favourably for them.

 

Of course, the real benefit of 3D will be to suggest a good save for partner to take. This is FAR more important than the occasional 800. No matter how feeble and usuitable West can be for the overcall, she is also going to bid it on KJxxx x KQxxx xx, which will have to defend 4H without help from East.

 

It is not even true to say that 3D takes away no useful bidding space. While it is unlikely that N/S will want to play in clubs, there is a reasonable chance that clubs is South's primary suit, and that the inability to show it at the 3 level will inhibit them from judging the auction as effectively. Depriving them of a cue-bid of 3D is also of significant value.

[bluejak]

Can you explain why? 3D looks completely normal to me and allows partner to compete further if suitable. How is partner supposed to save, having already shown a 2-suiter, if we don't tell her about the fit? FWIW I think it is way closer to 4D than pass even though 4D is a definite stretch.

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

 

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk962h984dkt72c43]133|100[/hv]

 

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

[c_corgi]

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk962h984dkt72c43]133|100[/hv]

 

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

 

Crikey, if that is fairly normal then I can see why you don't bid 3D, but if that is normal then words such as bizarre can be stricken from the dictionary, for they will never be used. If that is 1100 at the 3 level it is 800 at the 2 level when it gets what is a pretty suitable East hand opposite.

[PeterAlan]

According to you, 3D is down 5 on this layout. That means 2D is down 4, or -800 when the 1NT overcaller hits partner with a 4 card fit, a key Q and a well-supported ace. It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that the 1NT overcall should not be made on silly hands rather than that responder should suppress the fit. Certainly I see no reason to assume that the West hand is anything other than the 'unsuitable' end of the range. I expect it is too late to find out where in the range the West hand is. I am not sure how valid is your assertion that the objective is to take the 1-level away from responder: my understanding that the most effective way to defend against strong clubs is for advancer to be able to bounce to the 3-level as often as possible.

I'm not arguing in favour of these methods - I'm arguing that if they're being played then 3♦ is not a sensible bid.

 

According to me, 3D is down 3 if they lead AKJ of hearts, or down 4 if South does well to play the QD before the 3rd round of H (this is because North holds the D10). Since you have hardly placed the cards to be favourable for 3D, that doesn't seem too bad odds. If they are going to catch you for 800 very often, they are also going to let you out for 500 frequently, either through misdefence or because the cards lie less favourably for them.

It's 5 down on a top ♥ lead and a ♦ switch overtaken by N. I'm not claiming that double dummy defence is that easy to find, but once dummy's displayed it's surely clear that trumps are 4-4 and N/S want to draw them. I didn't spend any real time trying to manufacture a particular hand, I just switched W's cards around and adjusted N/S's to fit, giving N 4 ♦ (a) to fit the 2NT overcall and (b) to fit an auction where N/S decide to penalise rather than bid on. You can give N a ♦ fewer and a ♠ more and it's still -4 on best defence, but N/S might bid on then.

 

Of course, the real benefit of 3D will be to suggest a good save for partner to take. This is FAR more important than the occasional 800. No matter how feeble and usuitable West can be for the overcall, she is also going to bid it on KJxxx x KQxxx xx, which will have to defend 4H without help from East.

If you're looking for saves opposite that type of hand, play methods that show that type of hand and not others as well. Otherwise, it's just a lottery.

 

It is not even true to say that 3D takes away no useful bidding space. While it is unlikely that N/S will want to play in clubs, there is a reasonable chance that clubs is South's primary suit, and that the inability to show it at the 3 level will inhibit them from judging the auction as effectively. Depriving them of a cue-bid of 3D is also of significant value.

A very thin justification for a risky action - not good odds at pairs. If N's got the pointed suits for the 2NT bid, who's got the ♥ except S? ♣ won't be his primary suit.

 

I won't prolong the argument further, but my point remains: most of the justifications for a raise to 3♦ are implicitly based on playing different methods, whether the proponents realise it or not.

[VixTD]

I am surprised that the TD appears to have made this decision without consultation.

Where do you get this idea? Do we really have to state the obvious? Of course I didn't rule without consultation.

[Zelandakh]

Where do you get this idea? Do we really have to state the obvious? Of course I didn't rule without consultation.

Glad to hear it. The idea came from (a perhaps misreading of) your previous message

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts

The 2 'I's in the sentence suggested to me that you had not polled other players/TDs on the possibility of 3♦ being a LA but only thought about it at a later time.

[phil_20686]

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

 

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk962h984dkt72c43]133|100[/hv]

 

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

 

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

 

Perhaps you should take up poker?

 

:)

[bluejak]

Glad to hear it. The idea came from (a perhaps misreading of) your previous message

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts

The 2 'I's in the sentence suggested to me that you had not polled other players/TDs on the possibility of 3♦ being a LA but only thought about it at a later time.

I think you are confusing consultation and consideration. Good TDs consult to get other views and judgments, then consider before deciding.

 

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

 

Perhaps you should take up poker?

 

:)

You have led a sheltered life! :) I am sure strong club players are pleased to play against you.

[nige1]

I think we're given a bit more than that in the OP: in particular, that their methods countenance a two-suited overcall on W's ♠43 ♥A743 ♦Q3 ♣K9876.

Eventually, In the play, it became apparent that the West was 54. During the auction, however, East alerted 1N and explained it as "♠ & ♦". If the EW understanding was more detailed. East could have divulged it at the time. Also the director could have found out later and told us. IMO, whatever their actual agreement, extrapolating beyond the given facts is speculation.Anyway, FWIW, opposite a Truscott 1N, I wouldn't pass at the three-level

[Statto]

- They might get "unlucky" and the TD will adjust to the result they would have obtained if they would have taken the ethical action. The unethical action will not have lost.

I would have thought that the TD will only adjust the result if the non-offending side have been damaged. So if the offending side have lost out by taking an unethical action, there will be no adjustment. (I agree with the rest of your post and the sentiment of it.)

 

The poll seems to strongly suggest 3♦ was a LA.

[MrAce]

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

 

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk962h984dkt72c43]133|100[/hv]

 

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

 

This is your personal opinion. However, eventhough i disagree with you totally, i respect your opinion.

 

What i want to ask is, if i may, would you see bidding 3♦ as an L.A or not ?

[Trinidad]

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

 

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk962h984dkt72c43]133|100[/hv]

 

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

I thought that my partner and I were very aggressive against strong club auctions. We go as far as alerting our passes: They show a 4333, 4432 or 4441 pattern. With all other patterns we will enter the auction. Having said that, this West hand is an obvious pass, also white vs red. Why?

 

If you bid with balanced hands over 1♣, the advancer will not be able to evaluate his hand. And it is the advancer who is supposed to force the opponents to make their final guess. Since it is artificial, your 1NT overcall hardly preempted the opponents. Yes, they lost 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ and 1NT. But they got Dbl and pass back. They can even pass and bid later (which they can't when you overcall a natural 1♠), because 1NT is virtually forcing, effectively doubling the number of available bids in their bidding box.

 

So, you haven't achieved any preemption yet. You just have stuck out your neck and you have set up the stage for advancer to do the preempting (when appropriate). Then you should also give him something that he can base his decision on. Since preempts are based on distribution, rather than on high card strength, distribution is what you have to show your partner. And a distribution that is not fit for preempting (such as a 4342) is shown by pass.

 

So, what you achieve is that the strong clubbers at your table will have to deal with an interference of 1NT many times (which hardly bothers them), but you will not be able to preempt, when you have a hand that warrants it (like this East hand). At the other tables, they will have to deal less with interference, but when they do, they will often have to make a decision after 4♦ or 3♠.

 

To summarize: There is no way that West can have the hand that you gave. The reason for that is not that it would be too dangerous to bid with it (white vs red). The reason is that it wouldn't achieve anything other than preventing partner to preempt the auction when he should preempt (which is something that you don't want to achieve).

 

Rik

[PeterAlan]

In the play, it bacame apparent that the West was 54. During the auction East alerted 1N and explained it as "♠ & ♦". If the EW understanding was more detailed. East could have divulged it at the time. Also the director could have found out later and told us. IMO, whatever their actual agreement, extrapolating beyond the given facts is speculation.Anyway, FWIW, opposite a Truscott 1N, I wouldn't pass at the three-level

I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine.

 

But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.

[mycroft]

Some of the comments I see here baffle me - but I have some strong opinions about overcalling strong clubs (from both sides of the Alert card).

 

I may not overcall with David's hand, but I sure would with Kxxx x Kxxx xxxx - if I'm playing Truscott.

• 1NT isn't 1H, or 1D for that matter - it takes away actual bids.
  
• white on red? Come on.
  

I say that "get to 3 of a fit before opener's rebid" is the goal of competing against strong clubs; but:

• that 2NT call has clarified everything for opener, unlike say a "5-8 any" double or a "7+ any 5-card hearts" 2H call
  
• 1NT already did a lot more disruption than, say, 1H
  

Am I willing to go 800 w/r against a strong club with no slam on? Sure. I won't like it, but if it's not *possible*, then I'm not competing enough. Aren't you willing to go 800 w/r with your preempts with no slam on for them? I'm willing to go 1100 if everything goes wrong, but I expect slam in that case to be down on an unfortunate lie (ace opposite singleton, for instance). So saying "he won't have the hand where 3♦ is 1100 is bad because 2♦ would be 800" is silly;

• They have to find it - and tell me who's good at picking off two-level "fit" hands with 600+ staring them in the face;
  
• it's not likely (given just the 1♣ call) to be 800;
  
• and things have to be a really bad lie.
  

But 3♦ could be 800, easy, opposite an aggressive (not even "bluejak-quality") overcall, even without the 2NT call; with the 2NT call, it's almost guaranteed.

 

Ah well. I guess this is one of the reasons I play Precision.

 

I like Rik's theory, too - that with the hands he overcalls on, this is more like a 4♦ overcall than 3; that's very much a playable system. You don't give away as much with the overcalls (because you pass a lot); and partner can trust that when they do push hard, it's safe. But you let them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot. I think that's too much to pay.

[Finch]

to summarize: There is no way that West can have the hand that you gave. The reason for that is not that it would be too dangerous to bid with it (white vs red). The reason is that it wouldn't achieve anything other than preventing partner to preempt the auction when he should preempt (which is something that you don't want to achieve).Rik

 

You (and others) are imposing your own views on the EW system. I agree completely with PeterAlan: you cannot do a sensible poll on whether 3D is a LA without knowing, in detail, what a minimum hand is for West to enter the auction. I play something resembling these methods (1NT = hearts & clubs, dbl = diamonds and spades) and I wouldn't dream of bidding 3D after a natural 2NT bid on my right, but that's based on what I think partner needs to come in over 1C.

 

There are plenty of opinions about the 'best' way to defend against a strong 1C opening. They don't belong in this forum. Laws & Rulings are about applying the Laws. What we need to rule is to understand the EW agreements, not decide if they are a good idea or not.