[Chamaco]

Hi all and happy new year :-)

This question is yet another question on how to handle a Precision 1 club jump- overcalled.

The sequence is

1C-(2H/S)- ?

There are a few constraints. e.g.:
(I color in red the bids whose meaning can be changed; as for the other, it is impossible to change them without shocking teammates for too many frequent system changes)

1. 1C opening excludes 16-18 2 suiters (opened with other gadgets)
2. Responder's 2 level bid is a Negative Freebid, NONFORCING (say about 5-7 hcp)
3. Responder's immediate 3-lvel bid is GF and GUARANTEES A GOOD SUIT (say a decent 6 bagger with at least 2 honors or a solid 5 bagger)
4. Double is either a classical negative double (min strength, 7 hcp) OR any normal GF hand whose suit quality does not allow a 3-level bid
5. 2NT = to define (I accept suggestions here: minors 2 suiter or GF balanced natural?)
6. cuebid (3H/S) = suggested meaning ?
7. 4m = Leaping Michaels hand type (suggested hcp range ?)

================================

Just a Christmas wish: please please please do not start a thread on how better youtr methods are vs this one .
Except the points I colored in red, I cannot change it again, so please let's continue the discussion from this starting point

================================

THE QUESTION

Opener's rebid over responder's double

1C-(2M)- DOUBLE-(pass)
?

How should opener behave with a balanced or semi balanced hand ?
With a minimum or max ?

I had thought that it might be plausible to use the same methods that we use over weak 2 openings, and this would include the use of 2NT lebensohl, but I am not sure how this fits here...
What should a 2NT Leb mean here ? A minimum 1C opening ?
Or what ?

Thanks a lot and happy new year !

[FrancesHinden]

I would have thought it makes sense to play the sequence 1C - (2M) - x as game forcing, as you are at least 23 high and life is much, much simpler if you aren't trying to work out what bids are non-forcing.

I don't think it makes sense to treat this the same as after a weak 2, because the double is much less obviously shape-suitable, and you don't need to sort out invitational vs. FG values.

So without making life too overwhelmingly complicated, how about:

2NT = balanced or semi-balanced with a stop, unsure
3 suit = NAT distributional, 5+
Cue bid = strong pure 3-suiter
3NT = minimum, their suit very well stopped, unsuitable for a pass (possibly because of a good 5-card minor or because of the vul)

The alternative is to play 2NT as any hand with no clear direction, keeping the 3-suit bids pure. That gives responder time to bid his/her own 5+ card suit. Possibly including 3C by resopnder as a shape relay (in which case responder's double followed by a cue bid becomes a club suit).

[Chamaco]

Quote

I would have thought it makes sense to play the sequence 1C - (2M) - x as game forcing, as you are at least 23 high and life is much, much simpler if you aren't trying to work out what bids are non-forcing.

Yes I agree about that, we'll play some thin games but it does make bidding easier.

Quote

I don't think it makes sense to treat this the same as after a weak 2, because the double is much less obviously shape-suitable, and you don't need to sort out invitational vs. FG values.

So without making life too overwhelmingly complicated, how about:

2NT = balanced or semi-balanced with a stop, unsure
3 suit = NAT distributional, 5+
Cue bid = strong pure 3-suiter
3NT = minimum, their suit very well stopped, unsuitable for a pass (possibly because of a good 5-card minor or because of the vul)

The alternative is to play 2NT as any hand with no clear direction, keeping the 3-suit bids pure. That gives responder time to bid his/her own 5+ card suit. Possibly including 3C by resopnder as a shape relay (in which case responder's double followed by a cue bid becomes a club suit).

Ok, thanks a lot !!
This suggestion looks quite practical to me, I'll propose it to my teamates :-)

[pclayton]

THE QUESTION

Opener's rebid over responder's double

1C-(2M)- DOUBLE-(pass)
?

How should opener behave with a balanced or semi balanced hand ?

2N with a minimum NT (17-19, if your 1N opener is 14-16) and 3N with the 20-21 point hand. 2N can't be forcing as responder is limited to 5-7. I've toyed with 2N being 'scrambling', but it makes more sense if its natural.

With a minimum or max ? Ditto. Single suiters are tough. You either need to jump or cue bid.

I had thought that it might be plausible to use the same methods that we use over weak 2 openings, and this would include the use of 2NT lebensohl, but I am not sure how this fits here...
What should a 2NT Leb mean here ? A minimum 1C opening ?
Or what ?

A lot of this difficulty comes from using a negative double here to show a non-GF hand. If double showed 8+, then opener can rebid in comfort and not have to cue or jump.

I would suggest that you keep the negative x at the 1 level only and doubles at the 2 level and higher are GF.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Jan 3 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

A lot of this difficulty comes from using a negative double here to show a non-GF hand. If double showed 8+, then opener can rebid in comfort and not have to cue or jump.

I would suggest that you keep the negative x at the 1 level only and doubles at the 2 level and higher are GF.

Yeah I used the wrong wording.

I should have used "takeout", but intended it as GF, even if light-ish (good 7 is ok).

BTW we play 1NT = (12)13-15, so our min balanced hand is 16-18.

[hrothgar]

Your not going to want to hear this, but:

You are making an explicit assumption that a 2♥ overcall of your strong club opening shows a Heart suit... With all the variants of suction and crash and RCO and TWERB and whatever else is floating arround, its unclear whether this assumption is warranted

From my perspective, you really want to start by creating a taxonomy of "obstructive" methods: Try to break the bids down into a tree structure with a reasonable number of classes.

1. Bids which show shape/strength

1. A. Bids which show length
1.A.1 Bids with a known anchor
1.A.1.a. The anchor suit is the suit bid
1.A.a.b. The anchor suit is not the suit bid
1.A.2 Bids with no known anchor

1. B. Bids that show shortness

2. Lead directing bids

3. Bids which are ambiguous

Once you've defined the different cases, you can start worrying about developing appropriate defenses....

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Jan 3 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

Your not going to want to hear this, but:

Oh I know your point damn well

But I always try to define well a defense vs a natural preempt before tackling the most sophisticated weapons.
After all, the first thing to develop is the judgment and familiarity in front of a bidding situation.

Once that is well defined, I agree it is necessary to work also on more complicated defences.

First things first

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Jan 3 2006, 08:35 AM, said:

Your not going to want to hear this, but:

You are making an explicit assumption that a 2♥ overcall of your strong club opening shows a Heart suit... With all the variants of suction and crash and RCO and TWERB and whatever else is floating arround, its unclear whether this assumption is warranted

From my perspective, you really want to start by creating a taxonomy of "obstructive" methods: Try to break the bids down into a tree structure with a reasonable number of classes.

1. Bids which show shape/strength

1. A. Bids which show length
1.A.1 Bids with a known anchor
1.A.1.a. The anchor suit is the suit bid
1.A.a.b. The anchor suit is not the suit bid
1.A.2 Bids with no known anchor

1. B. Bids that show shortness

2. Lead directing bids

3. Bids which are ambiguous

Once you've defined the different cases, you can start worrying about developing appropriate defenses....

I've spoken with Keylime about this and he has 4 categories of interference (I believe these are the groups) and breaks down the different ways of coping:

1. Natural single suiters.
2. Known 2 suiters
3. 2 suiters with an anchor suit and one unknown
4. Multiple meaning