Self Suction over Strong Bids

[biggerclub]

So I was thinking about our NT (weak) and our 1 min - 1x - 1NT (strong) and other sorts of balanced hand auctions.

 

Why not use Suction over our own auctions?

 

1NT and then:

 

2♣ = ♦s or MAJs (weak)

2♦ = ♥s or blacks (weak)

2♥ = ♠s or minors (weak)

2♠ = ♣s or reds (not GF)

2NT = INV

3♣ = ♦s or MAJs (GF)

3♦ = ♥s or blacks (GF)

3♥ = ♠s or minors (GF)

3♠ = ♣s or reds (GF)

3NT = To Play

4♣ = Gerber

4♦ = ♥s

4♥ = ♠s

4♠ = forcing to 6NT but searching for safer minor suit slam

4NT = Quantitative.

 

Over interference . . . x = essentially stolen bid (I would have bid that) and x-fer into their shown suit = TO of that suit.

 

What are the flaws?

[gwnn]

In a competitive auction, you might be OK with showing 45/54/55/46/64 as a "two-suited hand." In a constructive auction, you can do better than that, or should strive to.

[rbforster]

Aside from aspiring to find major fits preferentially and describe two suits so you know which is longer, there's also the problem that you lose -

 

1) the ability for opener to super accept descriptively for the single suit transferred to

2) the ability for responder to use the first step after his transfer is accepted (most common auction) for some sort of asking bid (since now it's a weak two suiter)

3) the ability for opener to compete effectively over 4th hands interference since he doesn't know what responder has

[Vampyr]

You lose the ability to look for a major and invite.

 

( wouldn't worry about descriptive super-accepts, though; there is rarely need for them that outweighs giving away so much information about the closed hand.

[biggerclub]

So with 5+ in a MAJ, we always start by transferring into that MAJ or ♠s, holding both MAJs.

 

Thus 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ shows precisely 4-4 in the MAJs.

And 1NT - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦ shows 5+ (and often 6) ♦s and exactly 4♥ together with INV values (with a very weak 5+/4 in the reds, just use 2♣ to transfer to ♦s).

 

While a sequence like 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣ = 5♥s/4+♣ (and GF values -- just as in standard (at least in America)).

 

And the GF sequences like 1NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠ . . . shows 5-4 in the pointed suits with precisely 4♠s and longer ♦s.

 

I guess where we are behind standard methods is with 4-4-3-2 patterns or, less importantly, 4-3-3-3. The 4-4-3-2 is particularly troublesome when the doubleton is suit oriented such as xx, or Ax. I guess I am still not clear on how we lose to typical stayman with these patterns where either a fit exists or it doesn't. We may have to reassign a meaning to a sequence such as: 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT (modified to show red two-suiter -- not sure I like this either) - to be able to show all 3 two suited patterns and still have the option to stop in 2NT.

 

Just noodling outloud. I do think that primacy of transferring into MAJ with first call with 5 or more in length in the MAJ and only showing two suiters immediately with precisely 4 card length in a MAJ is the right track.

[newroad]

Hi Biggerclub,

 

Were I to consider your line of thought, I might go as follows

 

2♣ = ♦ or ♥/black, <FG

2♦ = ♥ or ♠/minor, <FG

2♥ = ♠ or ♣/♦, <FG

2♠ = ♣ or ♦/♥, <FG

 

3♣ = ♦ or ♥/black, FG

3♦ = ♥ or ♠/minor, FG

3♥ = ♠ or ♣/♦, FG

3♠ = ♣ or ♦/♥, FG

 

It wasn't clear to me what you were proposing with ♣/♥ and ♦/♠ combinations in the original - the above caters for them.

 

I have some other thoughts on possible continuations and the comments of other posters, but I'll get the above out there first.

 

Regards, Newroad

[Zelandakh]

I am still unsure what your plan is with 5 spades and clubs. Presumably we start with 2♥ and on the rebid:-

2NT = invite with 5 spades

3♣ = weak with both minors

3♦ = 5+♠, 4+♦

3♥ = 5+♠, 4♥

3♠ = invite with 6+ spades

3NT = choice of games

 

So the first available call to show a common hand type that will often want to play 3NT is 4♣. :unsure:

[biggerclub]

I am still unsure what your plan is with 5 spades and clubs. Presumably we start with 2♥ and on the rebid:-

2NT = invite with 5 spades

3♣ = weak with both minors

3♦ = 5+♠, 4+♦

3♥ = 5+♠, 4♥

3♠ = invite with 6+ spades

3NT = choice of games

 

So the first available call to show a common hand type that will often want to play 3NT is 4♣. :unsure:

 

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ is open for something . . . . (as are . . . 2NT, . . . 3♣). But I am somewhat building it on the fly, so criticize away.

[Zelandakh]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ is open for something . . . . (as are . . . 2NT, . . . 3♣). But I am somewhat building it on the fly, so criticize away.

I was figuring that showed 5+ diamonds and exactly 4 spades, which in turn illustrates the problem with this approach - you end up with some less critical hand types being shown cheaply and some important hand types becoming difficult or unbiddable. My main criticism of the OP structure is that the 2♣ response is dreadfully underused with exactly as many hand types as a 2♥ response. The specific issues come from the ♥+♣ case already mentioned, several hand types holding both majors and perhaps even something as mundane as an invite with a 4 card major.

 

What I would suggest is that you write down all of the hand types you want to be able to show. Now work from the bottom up, since weak and invitational hands usually need to be shown lower, giving suitable auctions for each hand type. If you run out of space or end up with a breakdown in your bidding rules then you either need to improve synergies or drop a hand type. When you get to the end you compare where you stand against standard approaches. If you think it might be good then you need to test and refine the concept. By that stage it should be good enough to present as a finished structure. There is a lot of freedom over 1NT and I have created many such methods over the years. Even if what you end up creating is not an improvement, I think the process itself is educational and helps with logical thinking more generally during the bidding itself.

[straube]

The design goals of Suction are a lot different than what yours should be after partner opens 1N. Opponents want to be able to disturb your 1N with shapely hands. After an 1N opening, your side has already announced values, has already taken the bid, and needs to devote more machinery to invitations, game, and slam bidding.

 

With Suction, the opponents also have a penalty double to show values. Responder can't double 1N. So asking him to use the non-double machinery of Suction to handle part score hands and invitational+ hands is asking him to do more with less.

[nullve]

I guess where we are behind standard methods is with 4-4-3-2 patterns or, less importantly, 4-3-3-3. The 4-4-3-2 is particularly troublesome when the doubleton is suit oriented such as xx, or Ax. I guess I am still not clear on how we lose to typical stayman with these patterns where either a fit exists or it doesn't. We may have to reassign a meaning to a sequence such as: 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT (modified to show red two-suiter -- not sure I like this either) - to be able to show all 3 two suited patterns and still have the option to stop in 2NT.

If the 1N range is narrow enough (e.g. 15-17 using a good evaluator), there's no need to be able to stop in 2N, so you can play

 

1N-2N = Puppet Stayman,

 

like Meckwell do.

[Zelandakh]

Even better would be to have 2♠ include the balanced invite as well as ♣ or the red suits, thus giving up nothing whatsoever. But Puppet Stayman synergises really well with 2♣ showing diamonds, so including it under 2♣ might turn out to work better. Now the 2NT response is freed up for some other use such as an invite with 5 spades and 4 hearts. This kind of logic is essentially how my NT structure developed...

[biggerclub]

What I like about x-fers = multiple hand types can be compressed into 1 bid.

What I like about suction = either this or something completely different.

 

I do agree that 1NT and then 2♣ = about 50% of hands where R wants to do something other than PASS or 3NT/4NT/6NT is the theoretically best structure.

 

I get a lot of good results using a Meckwellian structure (2♣ = generally <GF stayman; 2♦ = ♥s; 2♥ = 2♠s; 2♠ = size ask or weak ♣s; 2NT = GF puppet stayman; 3♣ = weak ♦s or strong ♣s; 3♦ = strong ♦s, etc.) over my NTs.

 

I am just wondering if there is something even better. So far it looks like the giving up the 4-4 MAJ suit search with 2♣ is the major issue.

[Kungsgeten]

I haven't thought about it much, but if you enjoy two-way bids then perhaps 2C and 2D over 1NT could both be puppets? A rough sketch:

 

2C = Diamonds or spades

2D = Hearts or clubs

2M = 4 card other major, possibly canapé, INV+

2NT = INV

 

After the puppet responder can transfer to the other suit, or pass/bid which shows the first puppet suit.

[Zelandakh]

One obvious solution is to include INV+ hands with 4 hearts in 2♦ and use a different sequence, probably via 2♣) to search for 4-4 spade fits. That way it is possible to break the 2♦ transfer with 4 hearts and gain a little extra bidding space. Having 2♥ as spades or minors is more difficult as there is basically very little extra space available in a 2♥ transfer auction. Instead I would suggest returning that to being a standard transfer and finding an alternative for both minors. There are still issues after this, such as an invite with 5 spades and 4 hearts. Perhaps you can find enough space to put the minors hand in the 2♠ response and use 2NT for that. In any case, I think you know the main issues at this point and can have a play around to work out the optimal arrangement within the concept.