[inquiry]

Jlall, on Sep 20 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

My problem with raptor is not that it has no gains, it obviously does (confusing them, and raptor hand type it seems). It just seems that the losses constructively do not outweigh the gains. But that is why bridge is so great, we all get to make that decision ourselves.

Cake and too situation...

I have natural bids (well for major with transfer) at one level, and two flavors of raptor). The two level bids are weak with six plus in transfer suit, or 5-5 variable stregnth.

(1♣) - 1♥ = shows spades for sur spades... so can show them at one level
(1♣) - 1♠ = raptor, shows spades and a minor, minor longer usually
(1♣) - 2♣ = six diamonds, or major two suit
(1♣) - 2♦ = six hearts, preemptive, or 5-5 in black suits
(1♣) - 2♥ = preemptive with ♠ or two suiter
(1♣) - 2♠ = 5♠+5♦, i tend to use raptor with this hand a lot too.

Immediate three level are normal preempts...

Seems workable imho, and paradox raises work very nice.. for instance,

(1♣) - 2♦ - (dbl) - 3♥ <<---- heart support and ♣ or ♠ support.

[Free]

awm, on Sep 20 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

Interesting that Free (who seems to believe suction doesn't work against strong ♣) is advocating transfer-oriented overcalls of Polish club. Not sure what the difference is here...

Polish 1♣ is usually a weak NT. So no need to bid destructively, constructive and the possibility to find a decent partscore contract or game is much more important. Transfer overcalls don't use too much space and give opponents extra bids (but when partner supports you're as far as after a normal overcall), but taking an entire level away to show both minors is a lot more usefull than using 1♦ to show this type of hand. That's why we use transfers...

I also didn't say suction doesn't work against strong ♣, I just mentioned that pairs with good agreements won't get the damange that suction suggests. Note that I use this against strong 2m openings.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Sep 20 2005, 08:47 PM, said:

Interesting that Free (who seems to believe suction doesn't work against strong ♣) is advocating transfer-oriented overcalls of Polish club. Not sure what the difference is here...

I think Free was basically replicating the structure of Moscito Openings, using X as a substitute fotr "strong-ish" 1C.

He already has a built-in framework for bidding constructively over that, so I am not shocked by his proposal :-)

[Free]

Wrong Chamaco It's a combination of our overcalls after a natural 1♣ opening and an overcall structure over strong NT. Basicly we use Power Doubles and describe our hand (showing the 4 cards or longer) immediatly with the normal takeout hands (and with the ones which are a little weaker). After natural openings we show the suits immediatly (only 3 useful possibilities), but after an artificial opening we have to use other bids as well.

Overcalling has nothing to do with MOSCITO, however it uses the same response structure over the 2♦ overcall, but not after others...

[Chamaco]

What do you think of a structure that replicates strong club opening with some modifications ?

--------------------------------------------

X = 16(17?) +, any shape except 2 suiters.
Advancer bids as if responding to a strong 1C opening.

1D = takeout limited (max hcp = 15) , guarantees 43 or better in major, can be void in diamonds.
Basically it's a nebulous 1D, but includes the 3-suiter short in Diamond.

1H/1S = natural, NF

1NT = Raptor (or some specific 2 suiter ? )

2C = natural, same as Precision 2C

2D/H/S = weak 2, natural

2NT = 55+, diamonds + major

3C = 55+, both majors

[Free]

Might work But I like overcalling on 4-4's too much

[glen]

Above 1♦ and not 1NT - as over a natural ♣ opening except jump overcalls are aggressive when not vulnerable.

Double: Passable Value Showing Double - 2+♣s, 13/14+. Next double by either this doubler or advancer is a Passable Takeout Double (i.e. like a negative double, and can be passed with length and values in suit doubled).

1♦: Natural or Takeout of ♣s with short ♣s (at most one) and 11-17. Non-forcing. 1♥ by advancer asks hand type, with 2♣ showing short ♣ hand.

1NT: Takeout of ♣s with 17/18+. Forcing.

[DelfinoD]

I think that the strong-pass Lambda defence is popular against all strong ♣ systems.

It goes like this:

x - 5+♥ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
1♦ - 5+♠ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
1♥ - 5+4+ ♣♥ or ♠♦ 8-15
1♠ - 5+4+ ♣♠ or ♦♥ 8-15
1NT - 5+4+ ♣♦ or ♥♠ 8-15
2♣ - 5+ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
2♦ - 5+ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
2M - 6+ preemptive

[paulg]

DelfinoD, on Sep 26 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

I think that the strong-pass Lambda defence is popular against all strong ♣ systems.

It goes like this:

x - 5+♥ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
1♦ - 5+♠ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
1♥ - 5+4+ ♣♥ or ♠♦ 8-15
1♠ - 5+4+ ♣♠ or ♦♥ 8-15
1NT - 5+4+ ♣♦ or ♥♠ 8-15
2♣ - 5+ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
2♦ - 5+ 8-15 (5332, 6322, 6331)
2M - 6+ preemptive

This is the defence that Balicki/Zmudzinski were playing against a Polish Club (although I believe 1♦ was either just spades or balanced 4-4 majors). In all cases next suit up was relay.

Against a non-forcing Short Club (which is what I play), we just treat it as natural with 2♣ being Michaels. There is a case to play a 3♣ overcall as natural.

Paul

[keylime]

I treat short club as a reg. club opener.

Over the Polish:

X - majors or minors
1D/H - transfers into H/S
1S - reds or blacks
1NT - pointed or rounds
2X - natural

I treat direct jumps as intermediate in nature to allow pard to raise freely over 1C-2H/S-X.

[DelfinoD]

cardsharp, on Sep 26 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

This is the defence that Balicki/Zmudzinski were playing against a Polish Club (although I believe 1♦ was either just spades or balanced 4-4 majors). In all cases next suit up was relay.

Yes I think you're right. There are few versions of this defence, and they probbably used 1♦ 4-4 majors (with 54 1nt).

I've also heard about a convention against 1♣ called Warsaw diamond. 1♦ overcall is 8-12 (or 6-10 maybe?) on diamonds or 4-4 in majors. It's very nice because responder is affraid to bid 1 major, and they have no opp. suit to force.