ATB would your partnership reach game?

[MrAce]

I would be defending 1NT undoubled on the auction 1NT P P P

 

For everyone making dogmatic comments about what is right or best against 1NT, I can explain why their methods fail on some other hands. There is no perfect defence against the weak NT (just like there is no perfect defence against any other opening bid).

Mine fail on this one but I think overall I gain, and I have a lot of experience defending the weak NT.

 

This

 

I said i would double and defend something doubled at the end, but i am aware the path i chose this hand will fail on another one.

[wank]

nm

[the hog]

This needs justification! If it is so clear to you, perhaps you could explain for those of us suffering from blurred vision?

 

The hand is within the range of the NT opening. You do not have a good enough suit, after all you are making a 2 level overcall. You risk a substantial penalty. Enough for you?

 

As I said, x is better than the awful 2H. I find it is usually those inexperienced with wnts who overcall on such hands.

[fromageGB]

The hand is within the range of the NT opening. You do not have a good enough suit, after all you are making a 2 level overcall. You risk a substantial penalty. Enough for you?

 

As I said, x is better than the awful 2H. I find it is usually those inexperienced with wnts who overcall on such hands.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

I am in the same strength range as their bid, but that does not stop me bidding when they open other than 1NT, and the contract is more likely to be ours than theirs. It shouldn't stop me now. If opponents having values deterred you from entering the bidding, then you will be passing far too often.

 

The suit is an excellent suit. I would be delighted to open 1♥ on this hand, and as someone who opens a weak 2 on a 5 or 6 card suit, I would be happy to open 2♥ on this if I was a little weaker. Being stronger does not make the hand worse. If you need a suit better than 5 to the AKT to overcall, then your opponents get a remarkably free rein.

 

I do sometimes overcall at the 2-level, and would like a suit of this quality to do so.

 

Of course I risk a substantial penalty, but the risk of it being substantial is small. I can appreciate that you find the IMPS scenario more inhibiting, as it should be, but it is a question of degree, and I have not come unstuck too often to hold me back from bidding this. Of course, I recognise that Frances has considerably more experience and I am sure better judgement that I, but risk is an assessment that depends upon personal tolerance and is very difficult to quantify objectively.

 

As to your last comment, I should add that I play against weak NT most of the time. Strong NT is rare, round here.

[MrAce]

I'd get there via a 2C overcall showing 3+S,4+H. I'd pass it out playing almost any other method.

 

 

 

Try playing 2H when partner puts down a stiff trump and see if you still claim AKTxx is a good suit :P

 

Will take 2 tricks for sure :)

[bluecalm]

For those who pass: do you guys still pass if it's 3442 with the same honors ?

[aguahombre]

For those who pass: do you guys still pass if it's 3442 with the same honors ?

I don't think a balanced 13 to the right of a balanced 13 is a hand with which I want to bid if RHO opens anything at the 1-level. I wouldn't double 1x and most certainly wouldn't Double a weak NT.

[1eyedjack]

If your goal is disruption, why should you not disrupt with a 2♥ bid?

If your disruptive bid has a minimum strength associated, why should partner not make a constructive continuation if he has the values for that?

I don’t have a very strong opinion on this, but I think that Suction’s principal disruptive effect derives more from ambiguity of shape than from limitations on values. It may be, as you suggest, that a sufficiently narrowly defined strength range, so that ambiguity of shape is the only issue for advancer, affords the opportunity for constructive continuations. Aside from restricting the frequency of the overcall (and thereby limiting the frequency of disruption) I remain unconvinced that it does enough to promote accuracy in constructive auctions to compensate. My concerns stem from the fact that advancer, when deciding whether to investigate game, may be under pressure to do so while still in ignorance of whether the hand is a misfit or superfit.

[fromageGB]

I don’t have a very strong opinion on this, but I think that Suction’s principal disruptive effect derives more from ambiguity of shape than from limitations on values. It may be, as you suggest, that a sufficiently narrowly defined strength range, so that ambiguity of shape is the only issue for advancer, affords the opportunity for constructive continuations. Aside from restricting the frequency of the overcall (and thereby limiting the frequency of disruption) I remain unconvinced that it does enough to promote accuracy in constructive auctions to compensate. My concerns stem from the fact that advancer, when deciding whether to investigate game, may be under pressure to do so while still in ignorance of whether the hand is a misfit or superfit.

Sorry, you are right as regards using a suction defence. My comments were relating to bidding 2♥ (natural) and having a minimum strength agreed, so that advancer may continue if suitable.

 

Using suction, if you do bid 2♦ with a minimum agreed strength, for it to be useful method, the strength would be quite a bit weaker than the OP hand. I guess you cannot have an invitational sequence, but if you had advancer bidding a say game forcing 3♥, on general strength, it would need to be very strong, strong than the OP advancer. This deal would not find game, and the only deal that would would be where overcaller was minimal. Not very useful.

[Zelandakh]

I guess you cannot have an invitational sequence,

Sure you can - use 2NT as a relay asking strength and shape. Something like...

 

(1NT) - 2♦ - (P) - 2NT; (P):-

==

3♣ = min blacks

3♦ = extras hearts

3♥ = min hearts

3♠ = extras blacks

 

...or whatever.

[1eyedjack]

Sure you can - use 2NT as a relay asking strength and shape. Something like...

 

(1NT) - 2♦ - (P) - 2NT; (P):-

==

3♣ = min blacks

3♦ = extras hearts

3♥ = min hearts

3♠ = extras blacks

 

...or whatever.

 

Certainly you CAN define the sequences as you suggest. But how does it profit you to have 3H show a min with hearts if your conclusion from that information is that you want to play in 2H (and that under duress)?

 

I see the same arguments promoted for the wide range 1N rebid, allegedly "safe" on the grounds that you can enquire with 2C.

Sure: 2C "what have you got?" Ans: 2D "a hand that wants to play in 1N". Responder’s next rebid: 1N. "DIRECTOR!"

 

Applying my thoughts to Suction, you could well have game interest opposite a Heart suit but not against a black 2-suiter. And vice versa.

[Zelandakh]

Applying my thoughts to Suction, you could well have game interest opposite a Heart suit but not against a black 2-suiter. And vice versa.

In this case you respond in your better black suit and bid game if partner shows hearts instead of passing. You can also get implied invites here if you wish, although I am not sure anyone actually does so.

[aguahombre]

In this case you respond in your better black suit and bid game if partner shows hearts instead of passing. You can also get implied invites here if you wish, although I am not sure anyone actually does so.

Yes, this "best of the worst" advancing style is common in Suction or CRASH or CHASM, etc. Advancer bids to the level he deems appropriate for the two suits partner is more likely to hold (Looking at his own hand will determine that.) and if partner corrects, can go nuts in one of the other two suits.

 

"Multi" openings could have this aspect as well. NAMYATS 3NT (Broken Minor) also: Responder removes to the acceptable level for the wrong suit, happy to be there or higher in the other one.