The {edited} discussion on this page took place on the Usenet
group rec.games.bridge at the start of 2001
With some of my partners I play Truscot
Pass = "Strong" or "natural" D = C+D 1D = D+H 1H = H+S 1S = S+C 1NT = D+S 2C = C+D 2D+ = Natural preempt
However I soon found that I when non-VUL often chosed to bid both 4-4s and occasionally 5-3s as two-suiters. Therefore I instead developed the following which is my favorite:
Pass = "Strong" or "natural" D = C+S 1D = D+S 1H = H+S 1S = any garbage not suitable for any other bid. 1NT = C+H 2C = C+D 2D = D+H 2H = (5)6+ 2S = (5)6+ 2NT = Extreme 2-suiter
I never pass weak hands when non-VUL. As Double and 1D don't consume any space I do not bid them without good suits (usually 5-5) so that partner may do the space consuming raising me. With worse suits I bid 1S. The higher two suiters I often bid on somewhat lousy 4-5s.
1S may be basically anything but is usually not very unbalanced. If the responder doubles or passes, partner may pass (then he usually has 3+ spades) or bid a decent 5+suit. 1NT from any of the defenders is not mainly meant to play (though it is not forcing) but a wish for the other to bid the lowest suit in which he is prepared to play. xx is of course always SOS.
I'm trying to remember any occasion where we have gone for a number after a 1S overcall, but no such occasion comes to my mind. The opponents usually just try to ingore our bid, with various results. Tommy Larsson
Ask four different bridge players and you will get five different opinions!
One point - if you decide to play natural overcalls (and I'm not saying that is optimum), then 1C - 2C should also be natural. Dave Flower
Too true. :-) Here's one, Modified Truscott, I've read about, but not used:
1 level bids are natural and weak single suiters X shows clubs 1NT is clubs and hearts 2C is clubs and diamonds 2D is diamonds and hearts 2H is hearts and spades 2S is spades and clubs 2NT is spades and diamonds Ed Reppert
Here's a family invention, a cross of Truscott and Crash (Crash=using X, 1D, 1NT for Color-RAnk-SHape 2suiters)
X = H+C 1D = H+D 1H,S = Natural, 5card suit 1NT = One minor or both majors 2C/D = that minor+spades 2H/S = Natural, 6card suit 2NT = both minors Csaba Raduly
Typo above 1D = C+D should read C+H.
Basic rule to make it easy to remember is that any suit bid shows that suit and the one above. A double shows the suit doubled and the non-touching one, and 1NT shows the other non-touching ones. Note that by this definition, (1C) - P - (1D) - X shows D+S, and 1NT shows C+H. You can play it the other way round if you prefer, but you need to clarify it with your partner as this is a potential source of misunderstanding.
1D = D+H 1H = H+S 1S = S+C 1NT = D+S 2C = C+D 2D+ = Natural preempt
These higher bids can be played as showing the suit bid (WJOs) or the three other suits (exclusion bids). This allows all 1, 2 and 3-suiters to be shown. Gordon Rainsford
Flint suggested the jumps show either
1 the bid suit 2 the other 3 suits 3 a weak jump in the next suit
I have played it and it is good fun but it seems better for longer matches so there can be several occurrences and you can bid both 1 and 3. In short matches there is a tendency to go for 3 because it is more likely to cause a swing but there are problems in that partner is going to expect it rather more than the 50-50 (ignoring 2) that you would like to be able to tell the oppos. Douglas Newlands
Is the bid forcing ? Otherwise, there is a danger of playing in RHO's long suit, if your (three suited) overcall is passed out. Dave Flower
That's part of the fun! David Stevenson
No, it is not forcing. The "danger"of playing the opponents' best fit is one of the advantages of this approach -- when non-vul at least. Paul Friedman
No. -300 for down 2Hearts down six is generally a good result. Of course disasters can happen. However, the underlying principal of bidding over opponant's strong club, is that if RHO has a good hand and you have a bad hand, the odds are high that the opponants have at least a game.
This is like the situation:Certainly, 1S is likely to be your safest harbor; however, you should pass. If partner rebids either red suit and the opponants forget to double, you will pass contentedly.
My personal preference is 1NT on any 0 to 9 points balanced, not vulnerable. Partner pulls with a decent five card suit. In fifteen years playing this from clubs to Blue Ribbon pairs, I have never been doubled or had partner's run out doubled. Fred Sinal
You want to overcall something ambiguous, pre-empting their fits Weak two styles are a good source of ideas (I used Wilkosz for a year). At present I use:
x = clubs 1D = hearts1H = spades (these a bit feeble) 1S = 'Raptor' 4S and longer minor 1NT = 'Raptor' 4H and longer minor (these both preempt the other major nicely) 2C/D/H = Myxomatosis Two* based, and either 6 cards in the suit above, or 5-5 in next pair .. eg 2H = spades; or minors 2S = Spades and diamonds (so we can play there) 2NT = Hearts and a minor (pre-empting spades) Above this .. preempts
I like the Raptor 4cM overcalls a lot, but the Myxo 2 based overcalls are more frequent. We pass strong hands. Note that most jurisdictions allow any defence to a strong club and so otherwise brown sticker methods are OK Chris Ryall
Hence "feeble"Chris
My experience from both sides of the fence is that two of the interference bids to 1C make little or no difference to the responder's action. double and 1D still leave as much space for responder to describe his hand (he has double and redouble and pass to substitute for 1D...) So one wants to define the interference of double and 1D as some form of sound hand -- since you are not going to be getting in their way.
1H/1S are the best interference bids -- you want to make these actions as often as possible and therefore not be constrained by suit quality or shape. some two suiter including that major, or something along the CRASH lines is indicated. canapé works well too.
1NT can be doubled for penalty --your two-suiter should be slightly sounder. 2 level bids as one suiters pose no problem to the 1C bidder if you bid the suit you have; you should make them either/or actions. possibilities are suit above/two below, or 'that suit or the one above'.
The secret is to pass with any 14+ and act initially --even actions by fourth hand after 1C-1D should be quite loose. bidding later offers the fielder's choice to opponents, so have the values if you do. Barry Rigal
How does 1H remove any space at all? We lose 2 calls (1D and 1H) but we gain pass and double. The intervening side has to say the words "one spade" or higher to discombobulate the big 1C openers. Steve Grant
1H does not affect my relay system (assuming hearts is natural). Responder simply makes his normal call of 1S, 1NT, 2C or 2D and the entire system is on.
Actually, they must say at least 1NT to be more than a very minor nuisance. And, if they say 2 of anything, most Precision bidders systems are now worthless. Their only advantage is the information given by the 1C opener, mitigated by the fact that they have not yet bid a suit. Don
<begin religious diatribe>
I am looking at this from the Truscott-ish school of thought. It is obvious
that the 1D bid takes up no space but I disagree that that 1H/1S do take
up space. If you are playing against relayers 1H takes up no space at
all and 1S only removes 1 step.
The key, IMO, is the raise by partner which can take up space and one wants to maximise the frequency of this. Thus schemes which show the 2 suiter at the 2 level are too infrequent since they require too much so as too be safe as well as relegating the 1 suiters to the one level. The Truscott-ish schemes allow you to get the 2 suiter (5-4, 4-4 sometimes [4-3 if you are desperate or your surname is Dyke])
In at the one level where the 1C ers in practice never catch you and allow partner to raise really aggressively with 4+ cards and a singleton. The problem with crash/rco type defences is that partner has got to constrain his raise since he may not be able to raise on pair of suits aggressively or even at all and so the opps get their time/space back again. <end religious diatribe>
1H/1S are the best interference bids. re canapé: The Italians were at the recent National open teams here and the canape overcalls (of minors only Bocchi said in response to a query at the table) were the only fearful item in there arsenal. We agreed that our agreements covered all parts of their system except this but could come to no conclusions on how to deal with this. Sadly we missed them in the draw so we never dealt with it. I kibitzed when Bill Jacobs played them but didn't notice him agreeing a defence. Did you Bill? What? Douglas Newlands
Does anyone have experience of canapé style? It seems we have two so far ...
o The '1S = 3 spades' method o Fuller canapé where several bids show 3-4 in that strain and a longer suit elsewhere.
I am playing raptors with 1S and 1NT(=4H) holding a longer minor and these work well. How is a shorter canapé advanced. I can use standard Paradox as I know the long suit is a minor. Chris Ryall
So one wants to define double and 1D as some form of sound handOr rather, since you are giving the opponents space, you should maximise the probability that partner can bounce effectively to take it away again. Showing a real two-suiter (5/5) is a good possibility, especially at red, where it can be dangerous to do this at a higher level.
1H doesn't take away space, so 1S is the first effective intervention. Some (most?) relayers attempt to play their normal scheme one step higher after 1S, which can lead to memory problems, and (if their normal method is optimised for right-siding) wrong-siding everything, so can be a very effective intervention even if it is your side's only action.
2 level bids as one suiters pose no problem ... possibilities are suit above/two below., or 'that suit or the one above'.
Or canapé
... bidding later offers the fielder's choice to opponents, so have the values if you do.
I agree with passing 14+, but I'm not sure about light interventions in 1C-1D auctions. After 1C-1D, strong club pairs can find it tough to match the results of pairs playing natural methods, and intervention generally helps them. I would keep all actions very sound, and very rarely balance. Ed Colley
1H can be a fair bit of use vs relays if it gets raised to 2H a fair percentage of the time. Fair chance of being enough to kill relays.
play their normal scheme one step - Dunno what 'normal' is here :)
1S ... can be a very effective intervention even if it is your side's only action.
Very annoying yes. It's also (much?) more effective vs pairs playing RKB based relay termination rather than control based.(The lost single step does quite a bit more damage....) The thing you do want to watch is that people who do play rightsiding relays +1 step will be doubling 1S to show 4+spades. So a tiny bit of caution might be useful ;)
(My favourite memory of playing a relay system(fairly badly ;)) for about a year and a half is taking a vunerable 1S* 6 off with us non vun. But that was a slightly freaky result :) And an insane intervention)
I would keep all actions very sound. Maybe. Certainly it's the auction where you see the most massive amounts of artifical system thrown at it :)(If 1C - 1D - 1H is being played as 20+ then they gain when they can bid that so might be worth trying to stop?)
(For what it's worth I either play everything natural and just bid the higher suit at 2 level with two suiters or 1NT/2S/2NT as RCO and 2H as weak H or S. With 14+ I'd probably just bid at the offensive level apropiate :) I'd like to play that 2H bid as an opening but not likely to get the chance in a hurry ;)) Martin Carpenter
jumps show the bid suit .. the other 3 suits .. a weak jump in the next suit Is the bid forcing ? Otherwise, there is a danger of playing in RHO's long :suit, if your (three suited) overcall is passed out.
Not forcing and yes the danger exists however partner is there with a multi type response/raise and the scoring/vulnerability often means they need to double.
If you make 0 or 1 trick undoubled presumably they have a reasonable chance of a slam and -800 against a vul game is no disaster at imps especially if you add in the psychological effects. 2 down is OK against a vul game as well most of the time. At green you are certainly safe and at red you are sensible!It's perfectly playable. Remember all these hands are weak and good ones pass on the first round then come in.
Anyway strong club types (I have a long history of being one!) are always paranoid about all the things they have not yet shown in the auction. Of course, I do live in Oz where bidding methods are scarcely restrained and you can play this sort of thing anytime any place essentially. Douglas Newlands
I prefer a Suction version of Flint in this scheme for bids 1NT to 2S
1NT = diamonds and spades or hearts and clubs. 2C = 5/6+ clubs, or weak long diamonds or weak both majors 2D = 5/6+ diamonds and some values (otherwise bid 2C), or weak long hearts or weak spades + clubs. 2H = 5/6+ hearts and some values (otherwise bid 2D), or weak long spades, or weak both minors. 2S = 5/6+ spades, some values (otherwise bid 2h) or weak long clubs or weak diamonds and hearts. 2NT to 3S can use the same format but with more distribution. A little less complex is this:1NT = diamonds and spades or hearts and clubs. 2C = 5/6+ clubs, or weak diamonds and hearts. 2D = 5/6+ diamonds, or weak both majors. 2H = 5/6+ hearts, or weak spades and clubs. 2S = 5/6+ spades, or weak both minors.
One idea behind this is that if responder has the suit that cannot be held, to bid it takes maximum space (e.g. must bid 2S over 2C or 3H over 2S). At BridgeMatters there is another defense called Jumble posted which is a combo of Crash and Wonder. In general play a defense that lets the partnership feel comfortable in bidding over one club, using more gadgets if that makes one feel more or less invincible.Glen Ashton
Much of Glen's system is very close to the Myxomatosis Two based method that I use. In fact more so in that 2x can be a sound hand with that suit
A little less complex is this: 1NT: diamonds and spades or hearts and clubs. 2C: 5/6+ clubs, or weak diamonds and hearts. 2D: 5/6+ diamonds, or weak both majors. 2H: 5/6+ hearts, or weak spades and clubs. 2S: 5/6+ spades, or weak both minors.
Here we depart. In my version you either hold the suit one up, or the pair two up. Whereas you are willing to play in eg 2 diamonds holding the majors. You sow more confusion than I do. As for confusion, no one has mentioned Joe Amsbury's classic TWERB (Two way exclusion relay bid) method
2-any = {any of}
o wjo in that suit
o Touching 2 suiter {not that suit}
o 3 suited short in that suit Chris Ryall
Following up on this idea and what has been posted in other sub-threads, how about this:
1H: both majors or both minors - can be 4-4 or 5-3/3-5 1S: 3/4Ss + 5+ minor or weak two suiter 5+ hearts and 5+ clubs 1NT: 3/4Hs + 5+ minor or weak two suiter 5+ spades and 5+ diamonds 2C: clubs or weak two suiter hearts and diamonds 2D: diamonds or weak two suiter majors 2H: hearts or weak two suiter spades and clubs 2S: spades or weak two suiter both minors 2NT: any two suiter with 5+5+ shape and not weak but still limited 3X: natural Glen Ashton
The best results I had with the following:
Dbl = any 3suiter 4441 or 5440
suit = 1 suiter natural, or 2suiter above (eg: 1Sp = Spades or minors)
this is on any level (higher level makes natural more probable of course)
1NT = Sp + Di or Ht + Cl Richard Bley
I think it is easier to remember:
Pass and Pass = Usually weak and/or shapeless. Pass and come in = Strong and shows whatever shape the action suggests. Double= Black Suits 1D = Diamonds and Spades 1H = Majors 1S = Spades (the memory aid is that the cheapest bids all show Spades) 1NT = Minors 2C = Clubs and Hearts 2D = Diamonds and Hearts 2H+ = Preemptive, largely promising suit length and not too worried about "purity."
don't really like the meaningless 1S as partner cannot make any move to take the bidding to the ceiling. I know that it sometimes works very well but it also uses a bid and I like to use every possible bid to show two-suiters.
We have also gotten very good results with a version of CRASH:DBL: Clubs 1D, 1H or 1S: Natural 1N: Either the Black suits or the Red suits, partner makes a pass/correct call. 2C: Either the Majors or the Minors, partner makes a pass/correct call. 2D: Either the round suits or the pointed suits, partner makes a pass/correct call. 2H+ Preemptive, largely promising suit length and not too worried about "purity."
Using either method, I find getting to our approximate total tricks level before opener shows any colors is lots of fun and usually a win or tie situation. Will Reich
DWS and I play
x = 2 of same coloUr (4,4 is quite sufficient) 1D = a major, paradox advances (bid what you'd have passed) 1H = 2 of same rank 1S = Any hand with precisely 3S, including all of the above 1N = 2 of same shape 2C->2S = either this suit or the other 3 2N = strong unspecified 2-suiter.
You bid till you find a fit, then stop at your LOTT level. Don't worry about missing occasional games. I bid about 80-90% of the time over a strong club, expecting partner not to hang me even with a 17 count. John (MadDog) Probst
Truscott lacks some of the precision of the scheme Maddog described but is much easier to remember. Also can be used over a strong 2C opener. This system probably has a name but I don't know what it is.
Others play Mathe:
Dbl: Majors 1NT: Minors 1D, 1H, 1S: Transfers to the next higher suit (some simply play these as natural instead) Also easy to remember.
My own philosophy is that 1C (and 2C) must be interfered with whenever possible. So take any excuse. (Twice in the past two weeks I've taken "favorable vulnerability, a 5-card suit and a passed partner" as an excuse over 2C; good results both times.) Brian Baresch
Here's an excuse:
|
xx Qxxx AQJxxx x |
Kx AJ8 K AKJTxxx |
Bidding (Acol, not Benji, 2C=GF) S W N E 2C 3S 4D p 6C all pass
West leads the Ace of spades (small,2,small), then the 10 of spades (small,small,King) and looks upset when you win with the king. What now ? Csaba Raduly
In England the Dbl/1NT are called DONT. Of course they can be played with or without the transfers. The advantage of DONT is that it is something very simple which people learning to play against a Strong 1C should probably use as their first defence, then progress with experience.
Simple transfer overcalls seem a very poor idea since they give the oppos an easy low-level cue-bid. David Stevenson
I've been reading Jerry Jelms' pamphlet on Hello (a defense to 1NT derived from Helms, a convention also attributed to Mike Cappaletti and Fred Hamilton :). He recommends:
Dbl: both majors 1NT: both minors 1D/1H/1S: natural, primarily lead directing 2C: relay to 2D, showing either diamonds or a major-minor 2 suiter 2D: transfer to hearts 2H: both majors, better than dbl, at least 5-5 2S: spades 2NT: transfer to clubs 3C: both minors, better than 1NT, at least 5-5. The two level bids (and 3C) are Hello. Ed Reppert
One effective method is often called TWERB (Two Way Exclusion Relay Bids)
Double: The same as a bid of the suit that you're doubling Clubs: Diamonds or Majors Diamonds: Hearts or Blacks Hearts: Spades or Minors Spades: Clubs or Reds Notrumps: Odd Suits.
Spades and Notrumps can be switched...there's probably some theoretical advantage. In response, Notrump bids tend to be strongish enquiries.
These bids apply at all levels, and can be done over strong clubs, strong diamonds, strong two clubs and negative responses to all of these. I used to define overcalls as TWERB as long as neither opponent has started to describe their shape (negative responses, control responses, point count responses etc).
Playing this, it's important that the overcaller bid the offensive limit of her hand. Having overcalled, a subsequent voluntary bid (higher than partner forces) shows a goood hand - if you are tempted to compete higher, you should have overcalled higher instead. Responder is expected to place the contract opposite the less favourable option, ready for correction to the other. Three suiters can often show (one suit) or (the other two) and decide later which. Kieran Dyke
I thought the TWERB concept was long in the suit bid or short in the suit bid Please correct if I'm wrong. TWERB preempts were described here (Oct 99) from Australia as showing any from
o Weak in the suit bid - ie willing to play there o 3 suiter, short in the suit bid o (Weak in the suit two up) What you describe is a two way transfer (See Myxomatosis twos) Chris Ryall
What Kieran describes is definitely what we know as TWERB in Oz. It even matches the implied description of the name! Your version is the dread :) "wonder" bid.
I don't recognise this but if the last entry was changed to weak in the next suit up, then it is a defence described by Flint in one of his books and played Flint and Amsbury (???) in the Europeans many years ago. Douglas Newlands
I have very much enjoyed the comments from those who play strong club systems and who play against them more often than I do. I have more questions, if you don't mind.
1. It seems to me that the "weak jump overcalls," at least in the majors, are important hand types. (Say weak hands with a six card major, maybe five if NV.) I'd like to show those at the two level right away to take up bidding space. Comments?
2. If you agree with 1, how should these hands be shown? Natural? 2D showing an unspecified major, like a multi opening? 2m showing either the suit named or the suit two up (e.g., 2C shows clubs or hearts)? Something more complex, maybe 2H shows hearts or both black suits? I'd have thought it useful to bid something that will often be passed or raised, e.g., natural overcalls, but someone commented that natural overcalls don't cause the opening side much trouble.
BTW, on the basis of other comments, what looks good at the one level is something like:
x = majors, equal length or spades longer, constructive 1D = unspecified major, constructive (sort of a mini-multi) 1H = majors, hearts longer, constructive
(None of the above takes any space away, so they should be at least a little constructive. Different people no doubt have different ideas about what that means. Weak hands with both majors bid at the two level, with the exact scheme yet to be defined. Strong hands can wait a round.)
1S = spades (usually 4) + longer unspecified minor 1N = hearts (usually 4) + longer unspecified minor Steve Willner
.. weak jump overcalls," at least in the majors, are important hand types.
As noted in my previous answer, I think this is critical, majors or minors. I think you should routinely bid at the two-level with 5-card suits, at the three level with 6-carders.
.. natural overcalls don't cause the opening side much trouble
I think that last assertion is false. While funky bids have rarer but spectacular successes, you can grind them up by making them face 1C-2H-X(values)-3H- with some frequency. It's very difficult for them to pick you off when you've overreached, and their bidding is often pure guess at this point.
bids that don't take any space away, should be at least a little constructivly I agree very strongly with this general principle. Double and 1D should always be constructive; I use 1H as a pushy oft-4-card overcall, and hope to block with pard's raise, but there's an argument there as well. Different people no doubt have different ideas
1S = spades (usually 4) + longer unspecified minor
1N = hearts (usually 4) + longer unspecified minor
I think all this two-suited stuff is a mistake. One-suiters can compete fine. Plus, when you've got a two suiter, just bid the one you want led if you lack a two-suited method; our style with KJTxx x KT9xx xx is just to bid 2S (3S if favorable) and let 'em try to go from there. Describing your shape well has some other disadvantages when you defend.
Pick a suit, and attack. I can only say, once again, in support of my super-natural, super-aggressive treatment that it has proved brilliantly successful. I don't know how others do against strong club; maybe the structure inherently is a loser on the 1C openers to a degree not normally stated. I beat the strong 1C dudes to death with all-natural, except for double, 1N and 2N. John Mayne
I agree with bidding at the two-level with 5 cards, but I think 2 is also enough with 6 cards. If one can immediately reach the two-level against a Precision pair, your work is pretty much done. Anything after that is usually overkill or suicide. (Of course, wildly distributional hands should be bid the same against Precision as they are against anything else.)
When an opponent starts with 16+ points, the hand will most often belong to them. If you are able to get to the two-level immediately you have removed their system advantages. In many cases you have even turned their system into a disadvantage for them. Too many fail to recognize this and insist on burying their partner when he has already neutralized the opponents.
The strongest defense, in my experience from the 1C side of the argument, is to reach the 2-level right now. If you have a suit, I assure you we cannot get the 800 we have coming. (but we can get the 1100 if your partner insists) Don
Playing prec a lot, pre-emption only really causes a problem if it is at the 3-level. It's not been my experience that natural 2-level bids are anything more than annoying (sure we lose some accuracy, but we generally know if we're in a game zone or part score zone).
If my opponents use the 1-level for a combination of constructive major calls and random as yet unspecified 2-suiters then they're probably getting some benefit, because they can pre-empt heavily in known majors (not so easily in unknown ones) and may well be able to get to the 3-level a lot of the time on the 2-suiters before it gets back to the strong clubber.
Using the 2-level for "Guess to pass" calls is also annoying, and immediate jumps to a major (natural, weak, or strong-ish other 3-suits) is a pain in the butt. It's less of a problem where they're the minor suits, and it may well make sense to use 1C 2C, 1C 2D as something else, perhaps weak 6 carder + unspecified major. Declarer gets a problem if he declares a major, either because he suspects a bad break or an early ruff.
Bidding against strong clubbers, both DWS and I are happy to be staring down the barrel of an 800 at some stage early in the auction, because it seldom turns out that way. On the other side of the coin Gordon and I have some kit to try to nail 2-level bids if we've got 6 trumps between us. I don't know that the "best" method has yet been devised; I do know that pairs who make the first call specific (x=both majors, for example) have probably made our life easier rather than harder. John (MadDog) Probst
Years ago, Kitty Munson Cooper showed me a structure that struck me as very well designed. Her name for it was "British CRASH." Over their big 1C opening:
X = hearts 1D = spades 1H = black suits or red suits 1S = majors or minors 1NT = pointed or round suits After their big 1C and little 1D response, the structure changes: X = black suits or red suits 1H = natural 1S = natural 1NT = majors or minors 2C = pointed or round suits
In aggregate, this method captures most of the advantages you could want vs. their big club:
1. it gets the edge that accrue to CRASH methods: the big hand often doesn't know whether advancer will be taking another bid or not, and so cannot pass the decision around to partner
2. it puts the big club opening bidder on lead about as often as possible, and that's the hand we want on opening lead. Steve Grant
Almost any bidding has a negative effect vs giving them a free run. However there are 2 things which have value under almost all conditions: 1) having the strong hand on lead, and 2) raising the level of the bidding as high as possible quickly. For those reasons I prefer Transfer Overcalls (including all jumps) coupled with Suction. Whenever you have a single suited hand, if they defend, the strong hand is on lead. And, if partner has length in your suit, he can "step on the gas" as he accepts your transfer. If I add Mathe, I like double to be 4-4 or 5-4, no better, and 1NT the same. Sandy Barnes
I believe it was Benito Garozzo (if it wasn't him it was Belladonna) who when asked about the best defence to a big club said "Bid 2 spades" You want to chew up as much space as is safe (and borrow a little since they may well pull when you're dead).
There's a lot to be said for methods which don't name the suit (eg 2C as a bad 1 suiter), since the big clubbers often rely on cues as stalls when trying to establish what's trump. But I don't buy the notion that natural (jump) overcalls don't cause big clubbers much trouble. They often have a lot to straighten out in a fairly tight bidding space (what's trump -- or NT, game or slam)
I'd suggest that with constructive hands you wait. All initial actions in my style are at least semi-destructive. The point being that hands requiring constructive auctions are not that frequent after they open a big club. I like methods where partner can bounce if we catch a fit. Ron Johnson
Part of the reason is that an extraordinary number of Strong Clubbers have not discussed whether auctions such as
1C (2S) X (P) 3C 1C (2S) P (P) X (P) 3C (P) 3H are forcing or non-forcing.
Yes I know that Probst-Rainsford are not one of these pairs as discussed in another post, but my vast experience indicates that there are a lot of pairs who are likely to have a mixup if you overcall 2H or 2S, regardless of whether 2H/2S is natural or not. Peter Gill
I agree that a good hand probably should not bid immediately over the strong club. (Alertable pass?) I would suggest that if you are playing in ACBL sanctioned games that you change, at least, your terminology. Perhaps "semi-destructive" could be termed "somewhat preemptive?" If your methods are actually based upon destructive actions, then it will be necessary to change more than your terminology. Don
what is best defense to strong club?
3 card canapé overcalls, plus weak jumps. Basically, you need a method which allows your side to get in frequently, allows partner to raise to the two level, and doesn't give away much information to them. Proddy's 1S = exactly 3 spades looks fine to me, too. Thomas Dehn
What makes us think that David must be recovering? Pace david, I gave you credit for your method elsewhere, and Janis, I'mnot Proddy, my ex-partner is, and he didn't use the method. MadDog
Well, it's the one that best fits the hand you hold right now <smile>. I play a combination defense after 1c and 1c - p - 1d - we call it "exclusion overcalls"
Double shows both major suits 1nt shows both minor suits A suit bid is takeout, showing the other suit of that rank and one (or more) suits in the other rank. Typically I would want 5-5 distribution to enter a strong club auction. Thus: 1h shows spades and one (or, rarely both) minor.. 2c shows diamonds with a shorter major suit (with 4-4-4-1, I might use this bid, too). Partner expects some distributional two-suiter.
I recommend you not get involved over a forcing club without good distribution. With a balanced, strong hand, the better approach is normally to pass and await developments. Karen Allison
.. I would want 5-5 distribution ..
This is weaker than bidding the suit you hold showing that suit plus another (or others). All shortage bids allow the strong clubber an easy double to show that suit.
eg (1C*) 1S = hearts, short spades etc
I would prefer (and played for a season)
(1C*) 1S = short hearts - (3 or semi-3 suited in my case)
We call the suit above the shortage. At least this preempted that suit at that level, and introduced ambiguity between 3rd hand's double as either showing the suit, or 'values' I think the same principles apply to two suited splinter overcalls as three. Chris Ryall
I recommend you not get involved over a forcing club without good distribution. With a balanced, strong hand, the better approach is normally to pass and await developments.
While that is true, what about a balanced, weak hand? For example, if you are going to play Truscott you might as well get the advantage of it, namely the increased safety of two known suits at a very low level.
xx Jxxx Jxxx xxx
Over 1C, 1D showing the reds is routine. OK, perhaps you should have a king in one of your suits vulnerable. You need a little more when your suits are less well defined. David Stevenson
Too strong, surely? Chris Ryall
>It is what I was dealt ....
You were always a lucky rubber bridge player. Chris
Be a man, bid 2C to show the minors! Thomas Dehn
Many moons ago, my partner and I used to play CRASH and TRAP, with Modified Panama jump overcalls. The fun part was, the weaker the hand, the more aggressive at the low level we became. I think a more descriptive approach would have been TRASH and CRAP on some of the hands we barraged with. Steve Prowse
Answer 341 to this thread, but .. I've had spectacular results, just destroying strong clubs, with this very simple defense:
Pass = No distribution, or strong and two or three-suited.
Double = 17+ balanced. Why? Because using double as something
non-strong gives the opponents more room early. This is a Bad Idea.
1D = Constructive, diamonds, lead value.
1H/S = Depending on vul, usually 4 cards in suit, about K9xx a par suit.
1NT = Majors, 4-4 or better unless adverse, then 5-4.
2C-2S = Natural. Five card suits very common.
2NT = Minors, 5-4 or better
Higher bids: Natural, very aggressive, preemptive, but may be strong.
At equal, the following are 2S bids:
K98xx x xx xxxxx
AQJTx Ax Kx xxxx
JT9xx xxxx xxx x John Mayne
Akin to my feelings about defenses to Multi 2D, I find it essential not to forego natural, constructive, overcalls in either major. On more destructive hands with two suits I don't want to give opponents too much info early on (while still allowing advancer to preempt), nor one or two convenient cuebids. I therefore like the following, a modified "crash" I guess, after 1C*:
Dbl = red or black 1D = majors or minors 1H/S= natural, constructive, overcalls but max abt 15/16 hcp 1NT = S+D or H+C.2X = natural agressive (5+ cds) preempts 2NT = any extreme (normally min 6-5), weak, two-suiter. 3X = natural agressive (6+ cds) preempts. Pass= may be 16+ hcp. After (1C*) P (1D*) the same except: 1NT = majors or minors 2C = S+D or H+C.
The two-suiters may be 4-4 if NV, otherwise 5-4+. Suggested minimum for Dbl NV abt QJ9x xx xxx QJTx, and for 1NT NV (forcing the 2-level) QJTx xx QTxxx xx. A minimum Dbl Vul should be abt QJT9 xx xxx QJT9.
Advancer bids "pass or correct" (paradox I guess for the british) at the highest "safe" LoTT level possible. With a strong hand advancer can inquire abt the suits with the lowest NT bid. Intervenor responds in the lowest of his suits with a "normal" hand, the higher suit if "good". A minimum "good" Dbl NV might be AQT9 xx xx KQT9x. An example of advancer's actions:
(1C*) Dbl (P/xx) .. 2S should be bid on xxxx xx xxxxx xx
Intervenor passes with S+C but corrects to 3D with H+D. A "correction" to 2NT is available for optional use, maybe showing H longer than D, or a "strong" S+C hand. Jan Kamras
I like the "suction" approach (Transfer Overcalls - including preempts), with 1NT being any weak 4441 shape, and double being a good 4441. After the initial transfer, non-touching 5-5's can be bid by introducing the 2nd suit freely.
Suction works in this way: Transfer Overcall, followed by a suit bid in the suit directly above the suit transferred into: shows that suit (the one just bid) and the suit immediately above it. Partner may jump accept the transfer provided he holds at least 3 card support of one of the two suits immediately above the suit transferred into. Sandy Barnes
I dislike transfers here since they just give opponents a very convenient cuebid. Jan
I strongly prefer suction over any other system. I play Precision and know I wouldn't like it against me. I also find that suction comes up very often (my partner and I had 5 consecutive hands where it was used against a strong 1C or 2C bid; and I should have bid it a sixth) Ralph Russo
I've played against people who used Suction against our either/or club, and I wasn't impressed with it. The basic principle of interfering with artificial systems is to get in quickly, bounce the bidding to the 2 or 3 level as fast as possible, then get out. Advancer can never bounce a Suction call because he or she doesn't know what overcaller has. David Goldfarb
Taking away space is the first objective and any jump overcalls achieves this. Adding some confusion to their auction is a secondary objective which can be by having multiple options for the jump. It might also increase safety by having more than one place to play but that requirement reduces your frequency of action which you want to be high.
I don't think you need the pass or raise option over a jump overcall since you have already taken a lot of room. For short games e.g. pairs I use natural weak jumps. For longer games the jump shows that suit or the next suit or 3 suiter short in the first. You really want the WJO options to be about equal frequency but in a short game you will tend to bid the suit under the one you have and there are ethical/disclosure problems so I usually abandon the options.
Barry Rigal feels that 1H or 1S is enough to remove their relay methods (but not asking methods) and that is fine if that is your sole objective. I think you want to take some space as well to hamper their subsequent option and you may want to try to cause some confusion. Also note (following BR's comment) that all this applies only when 3rd hand passes (negative) or doubles (semipositive) and not when he gives a natural positive when they have started to exchange information.
It is also correct that one level overcalls do not take up much space but, given the above assumption (about P and X), the amount of space which partner takes up with his bid is the important matter, not how much you took up with your 1 level overcall.
Thus, I am in the truscott camp here because partner immediately knows both suits and can raise maximally. The unknown 2 suited overcalls can restrict partner's preemptive raise because he has to take care of the bad case e.g. (1C)-X-(XX)-? if the double is majors or minors and you are 1255 you are going to look mighty silly bidding 1H when partner has the minors and you fail to take away space.
The confusion factor of multiway overcalls is, I feel overstated, experienced 1C players will have agreements about such interference like nothing is a cue bid, all just natural positives (i.e. ignore them). Even schemes like truscott can give away advantages if you plan to use the extra bids. e.g. I don't claim this is ideal but use it in one partnership.
1C-(truscott) assuming they bid lower of touching suits pass 0-4 or 8+ holding that suit X(XX) : 5-8 cue next suit : at least 4-4 in other 2 suits, 5-8 cue lower suit : 8+, 5 in other lower suit, 4 in other suit jump cue higher suit : 8+, 5 in higher other suit, 4 in other suit 1N = stop(s) 5-8
Without getting into personal preferences (well any more than I have!) we might compare and contrast methods by a table with categories of H=high, M=medium, L=low for various methods.
Denial of space
H = overcall at 2M+
M = overcall at 2C,D
L = overcall at 1H,S,N level
0 = overcalls is X or 1D (or 1C over fp)
Preemptive raises
H = overcaller's suit or suits all known
M = either or options so raise can be constrained
L = too many options to know what you are doing.
frequency of occurence
H = can be done on 4-4 or 5 cards if one suited
M = need at least 5-4 or 6 cards if one suited
L = need at least 5-5 or 6 cards and good values if 1 suited
Denial of methods
H = 2M+ level bid in first round to embarass relayers and askers
M = 2C,2D is in first round
L = 1H,S,N overcall to embarass relayers
0 = X,1D overcall only
confusion of methods
M = lots of options to overcall
L = 2 options (RCO)
0 = natural overcall
(no H because it is difficult to do)
So each part of an overcall structure can be described by a 5-tuple
(space, raises, frequency, method_denial, method_confusion) e.g.
CRASH(X,1D) = { 0, M, M, 0, L} I see crash described as 5-4 so freq = M
CRASH(1N) = { L, M, M, L, L} Might be H if you allow 5-4
CRASH(1M) = { L, H, H, L, 0}
Nat(2C,D) = { M, H, M, M, 0}
WJO(2M) = { H, H, H, H, 0}
Trus(1M) = { L, H, H, L, 0}
Flint(2M) = { H, M, H/M, H, M} wjo in suit, next suit or other 3 suits
One might try to get a better metric since I don't believe that the semantic distance between H and M is the same as that between M and L. Following a modern trend, one might try to reduce everything to a single number ... It was an amusing way to spend 30 minutes anyway! Douglas Newlands
There is no "best" defense. There are a large number of different defenses. Choose one that works for you. Bob Silverman
"" Style sheet control has failed.
Pages on this site should still be readable, but layout may be spoiled. Your
browser may be out of date, or style sheets disabled !!
|
www.chrisryall.net/bridge/debates/strong-club.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008
|