[Miron]

Hi,

I run a thread where I asked for some defences against strong club. I have read some books and after a time I have an idea. I would like to know whether it is sound or just anothor dumb convention. Here it goes:

Miron Against Strong Club

The probability prefers two suiters, so I based my method on it (44 25%, 54 25%).

The x and 1♦ doesn't make a lot of problems for opponents so it should be some calls that partner will be able to bid. The 1♥♠NT are good for weak hands, the penalty is rare and you have overcall (I think you should nearly always overcall - especially in good vulnerability). The higher overcalls should be bit better.

Because of some memory issues, I decided to use Cappelletti methods (they suit me well, just one or two bids would be better another, but you will not forget cappelletti, woun't you).

With bad hand I mean, that you don't wish partner to compete unless he is pretty sure.

I also prefer bids where you bid at least on of your suits so partner can preempt properly (4333 by partner is not very common and with 5431 he will be afraid against some reds or blacks).

pass    strong or weak (affraid to bid)
x    5+♣ & 4+major
1♦    5+♦ & 4+major

1♥    4+♥ & 4+other (4+♥ & 4♠ only with weak hand, otherwise 2♦), bad hand
1♠    4+♠ & 4+other, bad hand
1NT    4+♣ & 4+♦, bad hand

2♣    6+ any
2♦    4+♥ & 4+♠
2♥    5+♥ & 4+minor
2♠    5+♠ & 4+minor
2NT    5+ & 5+ any
3x    natural
3NT    -6 & -6 any

With 4333 you can say that one of your 3 cards is 4 card, on your own responsibility.
You can have in NVxV shorter suits and in VxNV longer (but that makes sense).

The 2♦ is used with 6+ hands you don't call a two suiter (64 depends on your wish). You can also bid 3x instead of 2♦ (it's all up to you).

If you'll find this interresting I will add some further bidding (but this woun't be much difficult).

BTW: This can be played after 1♣ - p - 1♦ as well (you just loose clubs and major - there could be bid for it, but I dislike to have two defenses for 2nd and 4th seat).

I hope it is clear. But if you have any question or notice, I will edit this post to have it up-to-date.

[Free]

Sorry to say this, but using crappeletti as a base to design a new overcalling system can't create something great.

I have some comments about specific matters:
- Dbl and 1♦ overcalls give away extra space. Either use them never, or very rare, or as lead directing when opps will find their game anyway, but not just to show some suits. Playing natural overcalls would allow you to overcall 2m, which actually takes away bidding space. Natural vs MASC: 1-0
- 1M natural with weak hands. Why show opponents you're weak? Better use this lead directing imo, but still acceptable.
- 1NT gives away 2 cuebids and shows a lot of your shape. Nice to be declarer after such auction! Imo 1NT should include several handtypes, not just 1.
- 2♣ to show a 6 card suit somewhere? Just bid it! Natural vs MASC: 2-0
- 2♦: forcing and it gives away 2 cuebids. This is VERY far away from being 'decent'
- 2M, I prefer to only need a M, but ok...
- 2NT and higher: the usual, so pretty ok until someone finds something better
How do you bid 5332's?

Summarized: I really don't like it


I have some theory's about overcalling strong ♣ systems. I play a strong ♣ system myself, I've tested my overcalls to improve both defense and handling intervention, and our overcalls work if they're used well.
Here are my thoughts:
- use double to show strong hands. You never know you have game (you're behind the strong hand) or penalty opportunities. Don't use it to show ♣ or anything else, since you give opps a lot more bidding space which they can always use.
- use 1-level bids as lead directing. Even good 3 card suits are fine!
- use higher bids either natural (4+ card in a 2-suiter is enough) or as a multi bid showing other suits (like suction) preferably NF. Never show your 2 suits in 1 bid, because opps get a lower cuebid than when the 2nd suit is unknown.
- 1NT isn't natural, so give it more than 1 meaning so opps don't have an immediate cuebid.

[luis]

I generally agree with Free's comments. While it is not common there has to be a way to show a good hand that "thinks" it can be your hand and not theirs.

I'm using this which is simple requires no memory and has worked well for me:

Dbl : I think this can be our hand (includes good two suiters, good 1 suiters, strong hands etc)
1d/1h : Lead directing
1s: VUL = lead directing, NV = Random (either a spade lead or no preference 13 cards)
1N: Strange hand (includes 6-5 hands, 7-4 etcs)
2x: Suction style
3x: 6+ cards preempt (NV might be 5 cards)

Very very similar to what Free commented.

Luis

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that Miron's methods are as bad as the other respondents have suggested although I think that from choice I would probably choose another.

Firstly I would take issue with the notion that a double or 1D overcall give away bidding space. In isolation that is true, but the space given is trivial and the potential space consumed by advancer having confidence of a fit more than offsets that disadvantage.

I don't like the 2N bid showing unspecified 5-5. I think I would prefer to show the suits.

It looks as though there is some duplication between the 1M and 2M bids, 2M showing much the same suits but extra shape. Removing the extra bidding space is a good idea, but the cost seems to be a loss of ability to show 3-suiters and also I do not like shoving all of the 1-suited hands into 2C and losing the ability to overcall a 5332 hand.

I have never noticeably regretted passing initially over the 1C with strength. It is bound to happen one day, but I am happy not to have a bid to show it.

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Apr 20 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

Sorry to say this, but using crappeletti as a base to design a new overcalling system can't create something great.

I have some comments about specific matters:
- Dbl and 1♦ overcalls give away extra space. Either use them never, or very rare, or as lead directing when opps will find their game anyway, but not just to show some suits. Playing natural overcalls would allow you to overcall 2m, which actually takes away bidding space. Natural vs MASC: 1-0

Just one comment, X and 1D are lead directing,
since they show club and diamond.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

I also think that, on balance, if I have 2 suits I would rather show both of them as soon as possible. Overcalling 2M to show 5 in the major and a 4 card minor conceals the specific minor in the interests of consuming space to show the extra shape. I am not convinced that this is the best approach, or at least I don't think that it gains much over a method that guarantees two specific suits albeit perhaps at a lower level and without promising the extra shape. Definitely an element of swings and roundabouts there, but I could not be sure of the numbers.

[Free]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

Free, on Apr 20 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

Sorry to say this, but using crappeletti as a base to design a new overcalling system can't create something great.

I have some comments about specific matters:
- Dbl and 1♦ overcalls give away extra space.  Either use them never, or very rare, or as lead directing when opps will find their game anyway, but not just to show some suits.  Playing natural overcalls would allow you to overcall 2m, which actually takes away bidding space.  Natural vs MASC: 1-0

Just one comment, X and 1D are lead directing,
since they show club and diamond.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Dbl and 1♦ show 5+ in the minor suit (with a side Major), which is NOT the same as 'lead directing'. It's a natural, biddable (?) suit. It's imo better to be able to bid 2m than to show my suit at 1-level, especially with 5-4 hands because that's quite safe. Taking away an entire level opposite giving away extra bidding space, what do you think is better?

Here is what I play:
Dbl = strong hand, at least as strong as 1♣ bidder
1♦ = (3)4+♥ lead directing
1♥ = (3)4+♠, lead directing
1♠ = 0-3♠, usually 3+ card support in the other suits
1NT = 5+m or 44+♠-♥
2m = DONT
2M = natural, 5+M
2NT = any 55+ hand

I wanted to keep my 1♠ bid, that's why 1♦ and 1♥ are in transfer. This is perhaps a downside.

[P_Marlowe]

[quote name='Free' date='Apr 21 2006, 08:31 AM'] <skip>
Just one comment, X and 1D are lead directing,
since they show club and diamond.

With kind regards
Marlowe [/QUOTE]
Dbl and 1[di] show 5+ in the minor suit (with a side Major), which is NOT the same as 'lead directing'. It's a natural, biddable (?) suit.
<skip> [/quote]
A matter of definition. I doubt, that you would make a
lead director in this situation with a shortage.
One of the purposes of a "natural" overcall
is lead directing.
So if you require a certain suit quality, than it gets a
lead director, unless you require a lead director to be
AK???, to increase the frequency I would weaken those
req.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Apr 21 2006, 08:31 AM, said:

<skip>
It's imo better to be able to bid 2m than to show my suit at 1-level, especially with 5-4 hands because that's quite safe.  Taking away an entire level opposite giving away extra bidding space, what do you think is better? 

<skip>

Yes I agree, killing space is better.

With kind regarads
Marlowe

[Echognome]

Ok. Miron asked for opinions and mine are similar to Free's. Playing strong club, we find most 1-level interference pretty easy to handle. We bid our suits naturally and the worst we have to cope with is being 2 bids higher than we would be otherwise. I would call it only a minor annoyance.

The tougher hands are when opponents start jamming the auction. So the one thing I find pointless about all of these bids with multiple meanings is that you often take advancer out of the picture.

Imagine it goes: 1♣ - 1♦ (♥ or ♠+♣) - ?

We pass for semi-positive, double for double negative, or bid natural positive. So we continue with say 1♠ and advancer is left there not know which it is and cannot really bounce the auction. So we are left on our normal track and we can figure out later what LHO has.

But if it goes 1♣ - 1♦ (showing ♦s) - blah - 3♦

Now we are back to natural and much of our room is taken away from us.

So any system that has so much ambiguity as to limit advancer from upping the ante is no good in my book.

Also, since the 1-level doesn't take away much bidding room, I believe it's best used for lead direction. This may be your last chance to safely get into the auction, so why not use it for something that may be helpful on defense?

All that being said, I'm up for having a system that you and your partner remember and know how to deal with. Here's where I think having some parallelism with other parts of your system are useful. We play very similar methods defending a strong club, defending 1NT, and our opening 2 bids. They may not be best, but we certainly are comfortable with them and know all of our continuations. So if Miron and his partner are familiar with and happy with Cappelletti, then that's great. At least they will remember what their agreements are and know what their continuations mean.