Which conventions on the opponents CCs...

[TylerE]

Point steps to 2♣ is another good one.

[GreenMan]

Suction seems at least playable over 1NT, but I sometimes see people using it over strong 1♣, which means advancer cannot bounce the overcall because they have no idea what overcaller has.

[aguahombre]

Doesn't Hamman like Flannery?

 

My point exactly. So do Levin/Weinstein, etc. etc. Also, Reverse Flannery responses to 1m are also very useful in the capable hands of those who integrate them into their system and know how to deal with the other hand types --but would be brutal employed by some pairs. We just cannot judge by specific methods the quality of the opposition.

 

There are many (IMO) accurate ways of prejudging opponents as we sit down to play, but perhaps another thread would be best for that.

[awm]

"Gloat" is probably the wrong word, and playing weak pairs is usually straightforward regardless of what's on their CCs. Here are a couple methods I like to see opponents playing:

 

1. Weak notrump, especially in a fairly "natural" structure. I'm well aware that this method is great against pairs that don't know how to defend it, but I'm thankfully not in that category. When these pairs hold a strong notrump, I get extremely good results (either because they have trouble in competition, or because I can lead and defend almost double-dummy because their auctions are so much more revealing). When they hold a weak notrump, I'm able to take them for a number often enough to make up for anything else that happens.

 

2. Strong club. I play this in my strongest partnership, so I'm not about to say it's a "bad method." However, I do a lot better against strong club pairs than I would against pairs of comparable skill playing a more "standard" system. As best I can tell there are two major reasons for this: first, I play a very good defense to the 1♣ opening which less-than-expert strong club pairs usually cannot handle. Second, strong club pairs tend to bid a lot more pushy game contracts, which works well for them against opponents who aren't at their best on defense... but defense is not my weakest point as a bridge player and I like being given the opportunity to pick up boards by defending well.

 

In a team match (for example) I will try to make sure partner and I are at the table with anyone playing either of these two methods, and expect much better results that way than in other configurations.

[ArtK78]

Suction seems at least playable over 1NT, but I sometimes see people using it over strong 1♣, which means advancer cannot bounce the overcall because they have no idea what overcaller has.

Not true. You bid to your highest level of safety given the suction bidder's possible hands.

[Vampyr]

I play a very good defense to the 1♣ opening which less-than-expert strong club pairs usually cannot handle.

 

What is it?

[Antrax]

- "Negative double up to 3♥" or something similar, for obvious reasons.

Not so obvious to me :( What's wrong with that?

[32519]

- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

Sheesh! When did you hear about this? Never mind actually playing it! This is the first time that I have ever heard of this method. :huh:

[Vampyr]

- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

 

Do the cards stand for the same suits if they are discarded slowly?

[TylerE]

Not so obvious to me :( What's wrong with that?

 

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

[Vampyr]

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

 

Negative doubles are not the same as takeout doubles of opening bids.

[aguahombre]

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

No. The CC doesn't have a place for the range where doubles of opening bids are no longer takeout oriented.

 

Free even placed his "negative doubles up to...." in quotes. He was referring to what today is described as a negative double, not what it meant 60 years ago...a double as a first response when partner has opened the bidding and an overcall intervened.

[GreenMan]

No. The CC doesn't have a place for the range where doubles of opening bids are no longer takeout oriented.

 

The ACBL's does: "vs Opening Preempts Double Is Takeout thru ___"

 

But that's not near the space where negative doubles are indicated. They are, as you point out, different things.

[Zelandakh]

But -- were you minus the same amount when you opened a Multi? Or when you had a weak 2 in diamonds?

Good question. A similar minus against the (most) advanced players. Very little difference from expectation against the intermediates. The latter is probably due to these players not having a good defence to the multi, although the extended 3m openings (many of the minor suit weak twos would qualify as 3m openings) were also quite effective against this class of opponent.

 

I could extrapolate from this that the overall scheme is likely to be a small loser against expert opponents but extrapolation is always dangerous. Against a non-expert field I am convinced it is a positive and that the OP is either experiencing selection bias or was not playing the method correctly.

[manudude03]

I'm often confident any time I see the opponents are playing a strong club system with "penalty doubles over interference". Overcalling just causes so many problems for them especially when it gets raised.

[barmar]

Second, strong club pairs tend to bid a lot more pushy game contracts

It's always interested me that the typical 1♣ opening is 16+, and positive responses are 8+, which means they bid game with all 24 counts. I know Meckwell consider that to be "extras", but most of us like to have at least 25 HCP or compensating shape.

 

Of course, this only happens when both are dead minimum for their bids. But they may already have upgraded their hands due to distribution when choosing the initial bids: 1♣ might have been a shapely 15 count.

[Zelandakh]

Was there not some analysis done suggesting that most of the early gains of Wei's Precision team over their competitors was down to their routinely bidding game on most 24 counts whereas the prevailing theory of the day said this was not enough?

[aguahombre]

Was there not some analysis done suggesting that most of the early gains of Wei's Precision team over their competitors was down to their routinely bidding game on most 24 counts whereas the prevailing theory of the day said this was not enough?

Maybe someone did that, later. At the time and in the aftermath, what I read seemed to be skewed toward promotion of the system. Even Alan Sontag's Power Precision follow-up hyped up the importance of bidding system to an extremely high percentage in the mix of factors for victory. And, there was much less competition by the opponents; but, they themselves were attuned to competitive bidding.

 

They just flat out played better than the opposition in all aspects of the game when they were having their successes. They were also ahead of their time with regard to mental/physical preparedness ---especially Weischel.

[GreenMan]

It's always interested me that the typical 1♣ opening is 16+, and positive responses are 8+, which means they bid game with all 24 counts. I know Meckwell consider that to be "extras", but most of us like to have at least 25 HCP or compensating shape.

 

Of course, this only happens when both are dead minimum for their bids. But they may already have upgraded their hands due to distribution when choosing the initial bids: 1♣ might have been a shapely 15 count.

 

Interesting ... when I played a strong-club system our explicit standard for 1♣ was 5 points better than a minimum opener with the same shape. So e.g. Kx AKxxx KQxxx x would qualify, but Kx AKxxx KQxx xx would not. I don't remember landing in an excessive number of hopeless 24-point games.

[aguahombre]

Interesting ... when I played a strong-club system our explicit standard for 1♣ was 5 points better than a minimum opener with the same shape. So e.g. Kx AKxxx KQxxx x would qualify, but Kx AKxxx KQxx xx would not. I don't remember landing in an excessive number of hopeless 24-point games.

It is interesting. I would think the 5-5 hand would be especially problematic to open 1C, where there will likely be competition and we haven't begun to show either of our suits.

[Wackojack]

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

 

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

[aguahombre]

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

 

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

Proudly announcing that they use Blackwood while doing their greeting is a clue as well.

[Cyberyeti]

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

 

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

I mentioned one of the two G words in post 3, the other one is only truly dubious if it's your only way to ask aces.

[ggwhiz]

Proudly announcing that they use Blackwood while doing their greeting is a clue as well.

 

Or asking the meaning of your 1♦ opener. Is that bulls eye on your forehead a tattoo or a birthmark?

[GreenMan]

It is interesting. I would think the 5-5 hand would be especially problematic to open 1C, where there will likely be competition and we haven't begun to show either of our suits.

 

It's been years since I played this system, but I don't recall any particular difficulties of that nature. Maybe that's just nostalgia. :)