[Fluffy]

I am very unhappy with my responses when 1♣ gets overcalled, when the overcall is more or less natural I think it is a bit easier for us, because it puts us in a situation more common (trap pass, take out double), but when its a multi type whatever I don´t know what´s the best use for our bids.

What we do right now is:

differentiate if the overcall is

-Natural/seminatural (promises the suit bid): take out double
-Transfer/2 suiter in another suits, denies the suit bid: value showing double
-Multiwhatever including the suit bid: Balanced hand value showing double


Appart form the doubles, I though that it would be better to play negative free bids (5-7) at the 2 level to gain advantage to competitive situations, but so far this haven´t probed very useful, and dunno if GF new sits are better, or even overhemingly better.

[PrecisionL]

Transfers to the rescue (even with 5-7 hcp hands)!

You may have to give up the balanced hand double with 5-7 hcp.

Opener does not have to accept the transfer with a singleton or void.

[the_clown]

What I play is fairly simple and works most of the time.

Double 5-7 any shape or 8+ with no 5card suit and no Stopper (you cuebid on the next round)
new suit 5+cards GF
pass 0-4 any or trap pass
overcall their suit- other 3 suits

[Fluffy]

the_clown, on 2011-November-30, 09:33, said:

What I play is fairly simple and works most of the time.

Double 5-7 any shape or 8+ with no 5card suit and no Stopper (you cuebid on the next round)
new suit 5+cards GF
pass 0-4 any or trap pass
overcall their suit- other 3 suits

What about trap passing a joker/multi-bid bid that is passed around? How do you cue when there is no known suit?

[akhare]

Some of it may depend on whether the overcall is at 1N+ or below.

Pard and I had a scheme for interference through 1H, where we used P or X to show either a GF or poor hand, depending on the exact situation.

Over 1S interference (natural):

1N: 4+ ♠, GF
2C: 4+ ♥, denies 4♠, GF
2D: Bal GF
2H: GF, minors
2S: GF, clubs
3C: Diamonds, GF

For 2-level interference, bids were forcing one round, but not GF with X as TOX and 3-level bids GF (potentially with transfers to optimize space, 2N was natural GF).

For 3-level interference, suit bids were forcing and X was takeout.

• Over artificial 1N+ interference with known suits, we try to use unusual vs. unusual
  
  
• If their suits are unknown, our bids are natural and forcing. Therefore after 1♣ - (1♠) (some random meaning) - 2♠ would show ♠
  
  
• Bidding their anchor suit in Suction type transfer bids shows GF balanced hand, typically without stopper

The key here is to have meta agreements instead of worrying about every possible situation. Also, an useful rule is that after setting up a GF showing a stopper in the suit, a rebid of the suit by responder shows at least 5+ in the suit.

For example, after 1♣ - (1♠) (natural*) - 1N (4+ spades, GF) - <blah> - 2♠ shows extra length, thereby exposing a potential 1♠ psyche.

[gnasher]

PrecisionL, on 2011-November-30, 06:55, said:

Transfers to the rescue (even with 5-7 hcp hands)!
...
Opener does not have to accept the transfer with a singleton or void

If you play this, how does opener show a good hand opposite the transfer? For example, if

1♣ 1♠ 2♣ pass
2♥

shows a misfitting minimum, what does opener do if he wants to game-force?

I've never played this, but over low-level intervention it might be better to play two-step transfers. For example, after 1♣ (1♠):
dbl = balanced, 5+
1NT = diamonds, 5+
2♣ = hearts, 5+
2♦ = spades, 5+
2♥ = clubs (not sure what this should promise in strength)
2♠ = three-suited with short spades

Opposite a two-step transfer, opener can bid step one to show a minimum, or something else (including completing the transfer) to game-force. If opener shows a minmum, can bid his suit to say that he's only semi-positive, or something else to show a positive.

[nige1]

Rather than construct and remember specific counters that extract low-level penalties, you may elect to ignore opponent's efforts, as much as possible. Suppose, for example, that in an uncompetitive auction 1♦ is 0-7 and other responses are natural positives. Then you can adopt a scheme like ...

• 1♣ (X) ?? You have two new possibilities: Pass = 0-4 without ♣ (or rarely trap). Redouble = 0-4 with ♣. Other responses can retain their normal meanings but 1♦ shows 5-7.
• 1♣ (1♦) ?? Similarly. Pass = 0-4 (or rarely trap). Double = 5-7. Otherwise no change.
• 1♣ (1♥) ?? Pass = 0-7, Double = ♥ positive. Otherwise no change.
• 1♣ (1♠) ?? Pass = 0-7 (or ♠), Double = ♥ positive. Otherwise no change.
• 1♣ (2♣) ?? OK. The higher opponents compete the more they restrict your actions (at increasing risk to themselves). In the resulting confined space you may want to tailor your action to the meaning of the interference. Fall-back: Pass = weak or trap. Double = pudding. Cue = shortage/stop ask. Others = natural.
• At a pinch, I suppose you can play a form of Rubensohl over most interference.

This post has been edited by nige1: 2011-November-30, 21:10

[straube]

Akhare and I are partners so I'm just elaborating on his structure...

After dbl or 1D interference, you have extra room available. After 1H, you have the same room available and probably should play systems on...and it makes it simple to disregard the meaning of their 1H overcall.

1S is the likeliest overcall to give you problems. Now awm's opinion is that dbl of a 1S bid should show some values and be takeoutish. I just mention that because he always has good reasoning for what he's doing.

We chose (after 1C (1S)) to make dbl show a really bad hand and pass to show something like 5-7 points. The double puts strain on opener when he has spades and wants to sit for it (he might have to bid 1N or guess to pass), but the way we do it, responder's pass leaves the partnership with more room when we have more likelihood of needing it. For instance...

1C (1S) P P dbl creates a GF and asks responder to relay his hand. In fact, responder may pass with spades and isn't limited to 5-7 when he is hopeful of sitting for the double. Just emphasizing how dbl leaves us the most room to have a GF auction.

OTOH, with a GF hand and spades, responder may immediately choose to show spades. This can thwart a psyche or just help him pattern out when he doesn't have good enough spades to want to sit for a double.

So 1C (1S) 1N is how we relay all of our distributional hands that have spades and don't want to play 1S doubled.

Now at the 2-level, we found out that it's too hard to try NFBs because they require too many hand types to start with double. This is quite similar to such a situation as...

1D (1S) 2H

which most folks play as forcing but not GF.

This means that when we double, opener can reasonably take the double as takeout of 5+ hcp strength.

1C (2D) P

then has to handle all of the 0-4 hands as well as the 5-7 hands with some diamond length....not necessarily wanting to sit.

In fact, 1C (2D) P P dbl P 3H might be a 5-7 hand with 3-5-3-2 shape or so....because we also require that a 5-7 pt hand should not introduce a suit at the 2-level unless he has a comfortable rebid. For example, a rebid might be a second suit or a rebid of a 6-cd suit or it might be a 5-cd suit with a diamond stopper.

The reason for this is....

1C (2D) 2H P 3D P ?

Responder would have a problem holding xxx Axxxx xx Qxx.

So again, our requirement to make a 2-level bid after 2-level interference is that we have at least 5 hcps and we have a descriptive rebid available. Another way of looking at this is that with a 5-7 pt 1-feature hand, one might as well let opener start to describe his hand and then show that 1-feature at the next opportunity. This preserves room for opener and lets him know that responder has (for example) no stopper, no side suit, no extra length, and no takeout shape.

[whereagles]

Gonzalo, have a look at Rigal's advanced scheme. It's in the last chapter of his 'Precision in the 90s' book. I used to play that with Reinaldo in our junior european matches and it was quite ok. Maybe outdated now, though.

[Zelandakh]

When the overcall is 1H or lower then it is probably simplest to use your usual methods but to use the extra step(s) (for X or 1D) in some advantageous way.

When the overcall is 1S then I think you need to be able to show spades somehow even if it is ostensibly natural as it is not uncommon for the call to be made on, well anything really, since this is usually the first bid that turns relays off. I am now using pass to show spades which I think is a big improvement over traditional schemes. The other calls: X = weak-INV without a major; 1NT = weak with 4 hearts (or 5 bad ones); 2C = diamonds or bal, GF; 2D = INV with hearts; 2H = weak with 5+ hearts; 2S = clubs, GF; 2NT = 4 hearts, longer minor, GF; 3X = 5+ hearts, GF.

For overcalls higher than 1S (up to around 3C) then I think a meta-defence based on transfers is best. Of course there is also plenty of scope to optimise within this depending on whether they are showing 0, 1 or 2 suits. Ideally the rules for defending here will be close to identical to the rules for 1NT being overcalled, at least in the 2D to 3C range. Finally, for higher overcalls then I think you essentially just play as if a strong 1NT opening has been overcalled - pretty much natural I guess.

[Statto]

We play:
- X (or XX) is forcing to game or penalty double (unspecified values TBA);
- cue bid of a suit shown by opps is an IN type hand with shortness in that suit (maybe distortable to non-4441 hands with care - also GF of course);
- all other bids are weaker than the above (i.e. not GF, e.g. 1♠ now if available would be a 5-card suit and about 5-8 HCP).

Not been playing it long enough to speak authoritatively, but I like it so far, and it's simple . Would welcome critique on this...