[mycroft]

Ah well, in [hated other city] they've decided that Cappelletti is an optimal defence to strong clubs, because it works so well against strong NTs. So all the one-suiters go with double, and all the two-suiters bid (usually at the one level), either with the majors (with 1♦!) or with an unknown minor.

"UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS."(*) - at least, when you're playing against me!

(*) Anybody who gets this reference (without googling) has been online TOO FREAKING LONG, just like me :-)

[Free]

I understand the logic behind natural intervention and bidding 2-suiters specifically (for example "both Majors"). Dbl and 1NT are obvious choices for 2-suiters, but what about 1♦? It's an overcall that doesn't do any damage, it even creates space for opps, and all of this in the hope that partner can preempt.

You can't show a ♣ single suiter at 1-level, you might as well sacrifice your natural 1♦ overcall and bid 2♦ with these ♦ single suiters. This frees up 1♦ for a specific 2-suiter and runs less risk to be left in doubled than an aggressive 2♠ overcall for example. But I wonder which 2-suiters are most useful to show. Both Majors is obvious (but how aggressive? 4-4, 4-5, 5-5?). When we have 2 more bids left for other specific 2-suiters, which ones should we show immediately?
- ♠+♣ and ♠+♦
- ♥+♣ and ♥+♦
- both minors and both Majors (more extreme)
At first I thought that ♥+m is useful because you don't have the master suit. On the other hand, if you have ♥+m then opps will usually end in ♠ knowing a lot about defenders' hands. ♠+m seems quite lame, you can easily start with 1♠ and bid your minor afterwards if necessary. Both these approaches could use 1♦ as natural and Dbl/1NT for the ♣+M hand (respecting Justin's "law" of bidding to play).
When we'd use the 3rd approach, it would allow us to intervene with both Majors a lot more, and let partner preempt more accurate. But 1♦ now becomes artificial unless you use it for both minors.

What are your opinions about the following defense:
Dbl = both Majors, 4-4 or 4-5 (or 5-5 with very weak hands)
1♦ = both minors, 4-4 or 4-5 (or 5-5 with very weak hands)
1NT = both Majors, 5-5 or better
2NT = both minors, 5-5 or better
rest = natural
(I haven't thought about continuations)

[EricK]

Free, on 2012-April-09, 13:36, said:

I understand the logic behind natural intervention and bidding 2-suiters specifically (for example "both Majors"). Dbl and 1NT are obvious choices for 2-suiters, but what about 1♦? It's an overcall that doesn't do any damage, it even creates space for opps, and all of this in the hope that partner can preempt.

It could perhaps be used for a strong(ish) ♠ overcall. So 1♦ is a good ♠ overcall, 1♠ is weak overcall with a 5 card suit, and 2♠ is weak with a 6 card suit.

[the hog]

EricK, on 2012-April-09, 15:04, said:

It could perhaps be used for a strong(ish) ♠ overcall. So 1♦ is a good ♠ overcall, 1♠ is weak overcall with a 5 card suit, and 2♠ is weak with a 6 card suit.

If 1D is a good S overcall, you give the partner of the big clubber X and 1S to show other hands.

[mgoetze]

So, when's the money game? I want to watch.

[straube]

How about dbl = 4 spades and 1D = 4 hearts? Or maybe dbl = 3 spades and 1D = 4 spades.

[JLOGIC]

Today, the one time we opened a strong club, my opponent (Mike Kamil) overcalled 1D. He had an unremarkable hand, a 5332 11 count with QJxxx of diamonds. His partner happened to have a stiff spade and 5 diamonds and 6 or 7 points, and saved over our cold 4S in 5D. This was down 300 and we were cold for 620. At the other table, they didn't play strong club, so they opened 1S and had an uncontested auction to 4S and made it. Everything on this hand was completely normal, and we lost 8 imps due to effectively a system swing.

Of course, if the opps had played some fancy convention, they could not have been in our auction and would probably not have even noticed that their methods cost them a normal 8 imps. This is what people miss when they say that 1D is a useless overcall, or that 1D gives the opponents more room, etc. 1D is always an unpreemptive bid, but it enables partner to preempt or save or compete to make or push them higher in a competitive auction, etc. It gives away little about the hand relative to 2 suiters. Yes, sometimes playing CRASH or some other convention would have gained, and this is just a 1 hand sample, but it is certainly a loss to have no way to show a 1D overcall (and it would be a huge loss to not be able to show a 2C overcall also).

Perhaps I have selective memory but it seems to me that there are many many hands like this, and I don't remember very many hands at all where we got screwed by the opponents being able to make a 2 suited overcall, especially relative to how often it causes them to lose in the play.

This is definitely not a cherry picked example, it was the only example tonight. Perhaps I will bump this thread this week when someone bids over strong club or doesn't bid when they might have with some results.

It is possible that some of the issue is that it seems to be the weaker players that play artificial methods against strong club, so there is some bias there in my memory since it's more likely that weaker players will have bad judgement causing them to have bad boards with any methods. But, if that is true, it must be telling that weaker player almost always play some artificial methods, and stronger players almost always play X majors NT minors and do not bid hyperaggressively, there has to be a reason for that. Just as there must be a reason that almost all strong clubbers that have spoken say they love to play against artificial methods and hyper aggressive bidders over a strong club. That means something to me.

This post has been edited by JLOGIC: 2012-April-09, 21:34

[the hog]

straube, on 2012-April-09, 21:16, said:

How about dbl = 4 spades and 1D = 4 hearts? Or maybe dbl = 3 spades and 1D = 4 spades.

Or what about x = a 13 card suit, or perhaps some 9-4 distribution, or, or....................."
You have had the answers you need.

[mike777]

I thought suction can show all of these hands?

one suited or two suited.

granted I learned suction almost 30 years ago and there is something better now.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-April-08, 20:01, said:

Thanks JLall.

I've felt the CRASH bids were there just to take up space between the one level overcalls that are necessary and the 2♦(and higher) multi bids which I like for precisely the reasons you state.

I suppose I can make a very easy switch to 1N = minors and 2♣ = majors. I'm not terribly concerned with using the double as anything, since it gives the opponents an extra bid.

When you have a reasonable hand with the majors, there is a reasonable chance it is your hand or that you can at least compete even though RHO has more points than you. Being able to double with KJxx AQTxxx xx xx is useful, so is being able to get in on a hand like KJxx AKJx xx Qxx, just as it is over a normal 1m opener. This is why I think Joes idea of having a bid that shows 4-4/4-5 and a reasonable hand (double), and a bid that takes up more space that shows 5-5 majors and might be weaker is sound, just like we can bid michaels or make a takeout X over a normal 1m opener. They are different hand types, and both important. Minors seems pretty unimportant, and if you have a lot of minors you still have 2N.

[JLOGIC]

hrothgar, on 2012-April-09, 04:44, said:

If you have a moment, curious what you think of the following:

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

Not at all a fan of the "lead directing" overcalls. You can make a lead director, but it will be hard for your partner to compete/save/bid over it. It's not like it is never our hand for a partial/game/save because RHO has 16+. I still think at such an early stage of the auction our goals should be about fighting for those things, and to do that we need to find fits early. Preempting them quickly, same thing, we need to find fits early.

Also, why is a lead director so important? Even if theyre going to play it, usually overcaller is going to be on lead, I don't understand the emphasis placed on it.

The suggested style of things like the 1S overcall is too aggressive imo, I don't see the reason to overcall 1S on a 4432 7 count, I'd rather pass. It's fine to fight, I am a huge 1 level overcaller, but those kinds of hands are not the time imo and hurts you when you have one of the hands that is but your partner cannot fight since you might have something like a 4432 7 count.

I like that your 2 suited bids all show specific suits. However, you might be giving away too much info if you are bidding them very aggressively, and if you are not then standard preempts might be better. I don't know, but it's certainly on the right track if you value 2 suiters imo, not bad at all. I just value 1 suiters much more than 2 suiters.

[straube]

I still think dbl as 4 spades and 1D as 4 hearts is worth exploring. They could be canape bids.

Let's say it was our open and our goal was to find a fit as quickly as possible. Would we assign...

1C-both majors
1D-5D
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-both minors
2C-5C

or

1C-2 suits of same color
1D-2 suits of same rank
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-2 suits of same shape
2C-5C

or

1C-4S
1D-4H
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-minors
2C-5C

[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-09, 21:48, said:

Not at all a fan of the "lead directing" overcalls. You can make a lead director, but it will be hard for your partner to compete/save/bid over it. It's not like it is never our hand for a partial/game/save because RHO has 16+. I still think at such an early stage of the auction our goals should be about fighting for those things, and to do that we need to find fits early. Preempting them quickly, same thing, we need to find fits early.

Also, why is a lead director so important? Even if theyre going to play it, usually overcaller is going to be on lead, I don't understand the emphasis placed on it.

The suggested style of things like the 1S overcall is too aggressive imo, I don't see the reason to overcall 1S on a 4432 7 count, I'd rather pass. It's fine to fight, I am a huge 1 level overcaller, but those kinds of hands are not the time imo and hurts you when you have one of the hands that is but your partner cannot fight since you might have something like a 4432 7 count.

I like that your 2 suited bids all show specific suits. However, you might be giving away too much info if you are bidding them very aggressively, and if you are not then standard preempts might be better. I don't know, but it's certainly on the right track if you value 2 suiters imo, not bad at all. I just value 1 suiters much more than 2 suiters.

Hi Justin

thanks for the comments.

The primary idea behind the lead directing overcalls at the one level is not so much that bid, but rather trying to discipline other bids.

Lets assume that the auction starts

(1♣) - 2♠

Not only do I know that partner has a six card spade suit, I also know that spades has some kind of lead directing value since partner would have preferred a one level overcall with something like

♠ T75432
♥ KQ2
♦ 98
♣ 84

I'm torn about the bids. (Maybe its better to treat 1D / 1H as showing five baggers or some such)

In any case, thanks for the thoughtful comments and grats once again on the recent wins...

[chasetb]

I don't play this with any partners, but why not leave the 1-level bids as natural, and use Woolsey over a Strong Club? 1NT shows any 5+ card minor / 4 (or bad 5) card Major 2-suiter, 2♣ is for the Majors, 2♦ is a pre-empt in a Major, and 2♥ and 2♠ show 5+ of that suit and a 4+ card minor. 2NT can show either the minors or a REALLY strong 2-suiter that basically laughs at the 1♣ opener's hand. I do play Precision (but only in GCC events), and for simplicity's sake partner and I use a Modified Woolsey (that is GCC legal) over a Strong NT as well as over Precision.

*Getting off topic here and responding to an earlier post, I congratulated JLall on his Platinum Pairs win while in Memphis, outside of a fancy restaurant right after the Vanderbilt final. I was rather hoping that he would stick with a Strong Club with Hamman, but I'm not a part of the partnership, and I certainly can't argue with success. I know 2/1, when worked on, can work very well, just look at Levin-Weinstein or Gitelman-Moss.

[Phil]

There might be something lost in translation.

In this construct, 'lead directing' means I have length in the suit as well, and its a suit I want led against 3N. Its the same as the double of a Jacoby Transfer for instance. I need some length in the suit to protect against some silly doubled result, just like I would against any overcall.

I don't know if Hrothgar sees things the same as me or not when he discusses 'lead directors'.

It is not the same 'lead director' I might make of a high level cue bid with say, KJx(x) of a suit.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2012-April-10, 13:15, said:

There might be something lost in translation.

In this construct, 'lead directing' means I have length in the suit as well, and its a suit I want led against 3N. Its the same as the double of a Jacoby Transfer for instance. I need some length in the suit to protect against some silly doubled result, just like I would against any overcall.

I don't know if Hrothgar sees things the same as me or not when he discusses 'lead directors'.

It is not the same 'lead director' I might make of a high level cue bid with say, KJx(x) of a suit.

After a strong club opening, I would overcall 1H with

♠ T75432
♥ KQ2
♦ 98
♣ 84

But 2♠ with

♠ KQ5432
♥ T72
♦ 98
♣ 84

(Its entirely possible that I am overly enamored by canape overcall styles)

[Siegmund]

I've been a fan of CRASH (X, 1D, and 1NT) with the other overcalls agressive and natural (on the 11-count with 5 diamonds Justin mentioned, I would have bid 2D)... after the discussion in this thread, I am thinking that taking the minors out of 1D and having a bid for majors only instead may be better.

I wonder why I never thought of doing that before; over 1NT, I have played CHASM ("color-shape-majors") instead of CRASH to be GCC-legal for years.

I did have one regular partner who insisted on Truscott, and it did work better against weak opps than strong ones.

[akwoo]

chasetb, on 2012-April-10, 12:56, said:

I don't play this with any partners, but why not leave the 1-level bids as natural, and use Woolsey over a Strong Club? 1NT shows any 5+ card minor / 4 (or bad 5) card Major 2-suiter, 2♣ is for the Majors, 2♦ is a pre-empt in a Major, and 2♥ and 2♠ show 5+ of that suit and a 4+ card minor. 2NT can show either the minors or a REALLY strong 2-suiter that basically laughs at the 1♣ opener's hand. I do play Precision (but only in GCC events), and for simplicity's sake partner and I use a Modified Woolsey (that is GCC legal) over a Strong NT as well as over Precision.

My opinion is that, unless you play against strong club regularly, you should use your strong NT defense against strong club, with 1-level bids natural and as solid as normal 1-level overcalls. The lower memory load for something that comes up rarely compensates for whatever slight disadvantage your system has.

[32519]

akwoo, on 2012-April-12, 01:15, said:

My opinion is that, unless you play against strong club regularly, you should use your strong NT defense against strong club, with 1-level bids natural and as solid as normal 1-level overcalls. The lower memory load for something that comes up rarely compensates for whatever slight disadvantage your system has.

I can see some merit in this suggestion. What do others think?

[Free]

32519, on 2012-April-12, 05:04, said:

I can see some merit in this suggestion. What do others think?

I think you should read Justin's posts again. Btw, I don't think it's hard to remember the meaning of Dbl and 1NT, but it is easy to forget you're playing the same defense as over a 1NT opening.