[whereagles]

Do we really need that many 1-2-3 suiter bids vs a strong club? Isn't natural + good judgement enough? I mean..

1♣ ..??

1x = natural, good 4 card or better suit
2/3/4x = wide-range jump overcall (2-14 HCP or so)
pass = nothing to say or any 15+ HCP

The idea is to overcall loosely. Advancer, in turn, raises very conservatively. Loose overcalls are ok because chances are our side has no game on.

And you still have dbl and 1/2/3NT free for good 2-suited hands (5-5s), which you can define in any way you like.

[gwnn]

whereagles, I think you're underestimating how hard it is to deal with 2♥=hearts or spades. but obviously your scheme is quite good, and better than most artificial defences.

[whereagles]

Oh, I agree 2H as multi can be quite annoying And while you're on it, you could try one for the minors as well, i.e. 2C or 3C = clubs or diamonds LOL.

[32519]

For any defence against a strong club system to be effective, frequency of occurrence needs to be your primary objective. 5/5 holdings in the 6-24 HCP range (opener has the remaining 16 HCP) have a low frequency of occurrence (0.86%). Even multiplying that by 3 for different 5/5 holdings only get you to a 2.58% probability of occurring.

Make your defence simple, no ambiguity as to the meaning of any bid, high frequency of occurrence, something partner can jump raise immediately with a fit, no unnecessary memory load.

Try something like this –
1. X = both majors, if you want you can say 5/4 when vulnerable, 4/4 is good enough when not vulnerable. 5/4 has a 3.17% probability of occurring in the 6-24 HCP range. Times that by 2 for the reverse 4/5 holding you get 6.34%. Not too shabby.
2. 1♦/1♥/1♠ = all natural and at least a 5-card suit. Give partner something to work with immediately if a fit is found.
3. Use 1NT for something useful but a low frequency of occurrence, something to let the 1♣ opener know he is in for a fight. I suggest 5/5 in the majors. The frequency of occurrence is low at only 0.86% in the 6-24 HCP range.
4. 2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit. You’ve taken away the whole of the 1-level for the opponents and partner has something to work with. The frequency of occurrence is quite high, standing at 4.49% in the 6-24 HCP range.
5. If you want to be fancy, allow the 2♣ and 2♦ bids to double up as, either
a. 6-card suit, or (4.49% probability)
b. 5-cards and a 4-card major (Precision style) (6.34% probability)
c. Combined probability = 10.83%
6. Use 2NT for 5/5 in the minors. I hate the bid myself as I consider it pretty useless and easy to defend, but at least you’ve taken away the entire 1 and 2 level from the opponents
7. 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit.

[hrothgar]

I've attached a link to my preferred defense

http://www.bridgebas...059#entry212059

Along with a brief description of the design goals:

1. Whenever possible, bids should be natural. If I am showing Diamonds, I want to be bidding Diamonds. If I am showing Hearts, I want to be bidding hearts.
Bidding suits naturally means that partner can pass the suit much of the time. In turn, this places a lot more pressure on the opponents.

2. It's more important to get to an adequate contract as quickly as possible than risking a long involved auction looking for an optimal contract.

3. 1D and 1H overcalls really won't inconvenience a good pair. I use these for canape overalls which typically show concentrated honors in the bid suit and a "real" suit that I don't necessarily want lead.

4. Double gives the opponents significantly more bidding space. Use this to show both majors where you (hopefully) can outbid the opponent's who hold the minors.

[Hilver]

What about Multi defense?

Double = 5+ ♦ or 4+ ♥ and 4+ ♠
1♦ = 5+ ♥ or ♠ and ♣
1♥ = 5+ ♠ or ♣ and ♦
1♠ = 5+ ♣ or ♦ and ♥
1NT = either ♣ and ♥ or ♦ and ♠
2♣ to 2♠ = intermediate and a good 6+ card

You only bid with distibutional values. You want to compete the partscore.


Jan

[32519]

So why exactly is there all this fuss about "defending a 1♣ opener?" Treat it like you treat a 1NT opener. Alternatively, why not just bid like you would against any other opening bid? In 2/1 or SAYC or any other system you don't know whether the opener is minimum or maximum. You just bid what you have.

[rbforster]

Hilver, on 2013-February-24, 03:41, said:

What about Multi defense?

Double = 5+ ♦ or 4+ ♥ and 4+ ♠
1♦ = 5+ ♥ or ♠ and ♣
1♥ = 5+ ♠ or ♣ and ♦
1♠ = 5+ ♣ or ♦ and ♥
1NT = either ♣ and ♥ or ♦ and ♠

This part of your defense is commonly known as "suction".

[awm]

While I agree with most of Hrothgar's design goals, I would restate them (slightly) as follows:

1. Whenever possible, bids should be natural non-forcing and frequently passed. If I am showing Diamonds, I want to be bidding Diamonds. If I am showing Hearts, I want to be bidding hearts.
Bidding suits naturally means that partner can pass the suit much of the time. In turn, this places a lot more pressure on the opponents.

2. It's more important to get to an adequate contract as quickly as possible than risking a long involved auction looking for an optimal contract.

3. 1D and 1H overcalls really won't inconvenience a good pair. I use these for canape overalls which typically show concentrated honors in the bid suit and a "real" suit that I don't necessarily want lead. But a quick jump to the three-level or beyond by advancer certainly will! I prefer to use 1♦ and 1♥ overcalls for hands that are too dangerous to bid at the two-level, but where I would love to hear partner raise.

4. Double gives the opponents significantly more bidding space. Use this to show both majors where you (hopefully) can outbid the opponent's who hold the minors.

---------

The main thing that seems to be lost in his defense is the ability to bid minor suits. Minor suit preempts actually cause quite a few problems because opponents have more likely contracts (after a major suit preempt, they can focus on the other major and/or notrump). For example, over a major suit preempt double can unambiguously show the other major, whereas over a minor suit preempt it can be tough to bid hands with one four card major, or with a long heart suit and the wrong strength to bid it directly. Hrothgar has no way to bid diamonds below the three-level (other than 1♦, which is apparently canape and doesn't really invite a raise) and no way to bid clubs naturally at all (an artificial 2NT bid could include a club one-suiter).

Multi bids like 2♥ "one major" work okay. They tend to randomize and lead to some accidents (for both sides); the main problem is that there are hands where we have a big major suit fit that we can't identify due to the ambiguous 2♥ call, and we end up not competing aggressively enough (either immediately or in the long run). Against that, opponents sometimes have difficulty sorting out which major we have and/or finding their major suit fit in the other major. I've found that suction is generally bad, because partner can't reasonably pass it and this relieves a lot of the pressure on the opponents.

What I currently use:

1. If we are vulnerable, I just play Mathe (double is majors, notrump bids for minors). At vulnerable I want to be fairly conservative and mostly just want to get all my very shapely hands in.
2. At non-vulnerable I play psycho-suction. So 1♥ (for example) is either hearts or ♠+♣, 1♠ is either spades or ♣+♦, and so forth. This gets all two suiters into play (notrump bids are non-touching two suiters) while maintaining many NF bids (when I have a one suiter I bid that suit and partner can pass). Compared to something like 2♥ multi, when I bid 2♥ with hearts there is a very good chance that partner has a big fit for one of spades/clubs and can raise my hearts to an appropriate level. If I bid 2♥ multi I need partner to have a big fit for spades to raise my hearts to an appropriate level. Basically I have two chances instead of one. When I actually have the two-suited option some random craziness occurs, but this is still better than a natural method where I didn't have a way to show the two-suited option (at all). Sometimes this random craziness involves playing a partial in the opponents' best fit undoubled (and they don't always have game when this happens either), which is why I prefer to do this only NV.

[Free]

32519, on 2013-February-23, 11:51, said:

For any defence against a strong club system to be effective, frequency of occurrence needs to be your primary objective. 5/5 holdings in the 6-24 HCP range (opener has the remaining 16 HCP) have a low frequency of occurrence (0.86%). Even multiplying that by 3 for different 5/5 holdings only get you to a 2.58% probability of occurring.

Make your defence simple, no ambiguity as to the meaning of any bid, high frequency of occurrence, something partner can jump raise immediately with a fit, no unnecessary memory load.

Try something like this –
1. X = both majors, if you want you can say 5/4 when vulnerable, 4/4 is good enough when not vulnerable. 5/4 has a 3.17% probability of occurring in the 6-24 HCP range. Times that by 2 for the reverse 4/5 holding you get 6.34%. Not too shabby.
2. 1♦/1♥/1♠ = all natural and at least a 5-card suit. Give partner something to work with immediately if a fit is found.
3. Use 1NT for something useful but a low frequency of occurrence, something to let the 1♣ opener know he is in for a fight. I suggest 5/5 in the majors. The frequency of occurrence is low at only 0.86% in the 6-24 HCP range.
4. 2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit. You’ve taken away the whole of the 1-level for the opponents and partner has something to work with. The frequency of occurrence is quite high, standing at 4.49% in the 6-24 HCP range.
5. If you want to be fancy, allow the 2♣ and 2♦ bids to double up as, either
a. 6-card suit, or (4.49% probability)
b. 5-cards and a 4-card major (Precision style) (6.34% probability)
c. Combined probability = 10.83%
6. Use 2NT for 5/5 in the minors. I hate the bid myself as I consider it pretty useless and easy to defend, but at least you’ve taken away the entire 1 and 2 level from the opponents
7. 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ = all natural and at least a 6-card suit.

That's exactly what we play these days:
X = 44+M
1NT = 55+M
2NT = 55+m
rest natural

This puts up the pressure, gives us ways to fight part score battles when we'll probably be able to win (both Majors), takes up space when we won't be able to win a part score battle (both minors),... A possible improvement may be to put more emphasis on ♠s with our 1-level overcalls, because ♠s mean more chance to fight a decent part score battle.

I've played all sorts of defenses in the past, but intervening too much seems to give away too much information when opps declare. It may be fun against poor players because they're unable to handle intervention well, but against decent opposition you better don't bid unless you have something useful to say.

[gwnn]

32519, on 2013-February-24, 03:55, said:

So why exactly is there all this fuss about "defending a 1♣ opener?"

There is much bigger fuss around on much less interesting subjects, bridge-related or not.

Quote

Treat it like you treat a 1NT opener.

That would be quite stupid, you have four more calls available, you should use them.

Quote

Alternatively, why not just bid like you would against any other opening bid? In 2/1 or SAYC or any other system you don't know whether the opener is minimum or maximum. You just bid what you have.

Because 1♣ is not like any other opening bid. In particular, it does not show length and it guarantees some strength, usually about an ace above an opening bid. There is less chance of a partscore battle and less chance that we have game when opponents open 1♣ strong. Preempting also has a higher upside (opponents are more in the dark about their suit lengths). Finally, in most jurisdictions you are allowed to play more fun/interesting defences to a strong ♣ opening than a natural opening. This is not to say that all these defences are better than just natural or Mathe. In fact, Suction sucks. Psycho suction and inverted psycho suction are pretty cool, though and I think clearly superior than just 'you just bid what you have.'

[Adebisi]

Hi, ive played suction over years and now moved to easy simple defence:
DBL(clubs)1D/H/S=nat
1NT=55 maj/minor
2C=majors
2D=64 minors
2H/S=6+ nat
2NT=55minors

[Zelandakh]

One I have been playing around with is:
X = 5+ hearts, 5+ spades
1♦ = 6+ major (Multi-style)
1M = 4+M, longer minor
1N = clubs or diamonds or both majors (4-4/5-4) (Multi style)
2♣ = both minors
2♦ = 5M(332) (Multi style)
2♥ = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠ = 5+ spades, 4+ minor
2NT = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds

The idea being to put the hands easiest to bounce into X and 1♦. To be honest though, my view is that attitude is more important than system here. Even something as simple as Mathe (X majors, 1NT minors) is reasonably effective if you get the balance between aggressiveness and recklessness right. Other than that, what Adam wrote is excellent - non-forcing calls wherever possible (and if not then easy to bounce) and vulnerability matters.