[CSGibson]

kenberg, on Mar 7 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

... I suppose a black suit bid shows a willingness to play four hearts when I have hearts. I suppose that i could figure it out on the fly but who knows. Since we should probably also have been in 4S had I held the black two-suiter the system has to accommodate that also. 4D I guess. Lotsa luck.

...

I play suction, love the system, but it does take some work and inference between partners to play it well. What you described was correct - Partner should contemplate all possible hands. If he is willing to play in 4 hearts, but only 3 spades or 4 clubs, he should bypass 3 hearts and bid like you had the blacks. If he wants to be in game opposite either, he has to bid 4 diamonds, and let you show your hand at the 4 level. That is the systematically correct way to bid the hands.

[fromageGB]

As Ken hijacked his own thread, I feel justified in adding this.
I play suction over a strong club, but not over 1NT as I prefer Vertigo.

While I agree that suction has the disadvantage that it gives responder many more options, which makes psycho suction a better bet, I find in practice (at the club level; I don't play top competitions) that most people haven't really discussed those options in detail, so it does not really lose out. Accepting this, then pyscho suction is the loser, as it is usually a natural bid, and every opponent knows what they are doing over a natural bid.

On the other point, the question of methods to bid game, I think if you have any method of constructive continuation it severely limits the destructive use of a convention. Bid suction over a strong club at will, and give up the thought of game. OK, you miss game occasionally, but rarely, as opener has a 16+, but you gain on the many more hands where your interference makes an impact on their methods.

[kenberg]

Psycho suction I have not previously heard of. It certainly wins in the "best title" category.

Some of these things of course depend on matching conventions with personality. I am most comfortable with constructive auctions.

I'll respond at more length to your point about most pairs not having discussed their methods over, say, a suction 2D. Of course this is particularly true in an online game. Call me a muddle headed idealist but I hope to play a system I could play against Meckwell. I'll lose no doubt, but the system will hold up. I like to win but I mostly hope to bid well and play well.

The biggest gap, imo, in the bridge lit is in follow ups on conventions and, as you note, deciding what our own bids mean when opps bring in their gadgets. There are a lot of conventions out there that succeed far more often than they should, often simply because the opps get their own meanings tangled.

[bill1157]

I didn't follow the psycho-suction thread here, but back to the original thoughts.
Since you don't come up against the mini too often, does anyone have some general ideas on defending that a casual partnership could discuss in about 5 seconds (i.e. when the opponents announce in round 3 that they are playing 10-12 nt).
For example: partner, lets play direct bids natural, showing 13+, X is card showing. Balancing 8+ 2♣ is landy... The idea being to optimize a simple defense against the mini.

Bill

[mtvesuvius]

kenberg, on Mar 8 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Psycho suction I have not previously heard of. It certainly wins in the "best title" category.

There is also Inverted-Psycho Suction. IPS is a fun convention to play, but it takes some table feel. Here is the link: http://bridge.thomas...com/psycho.html

I have played it and occaisionally got a bad result, but it's fun to play and usually works reasonably well.

[kenberg]

Here is what I think of as a quickie: The X shows an opening NT. Reason: At other tables the auction might well go Pass-1NT. Now you are back on track for many hands, and you have the added chance you may get them for a number. Since you have gotten back to right against the other tables, use sys on. Partner can transfer and so on. When you arrive at your contract you have the extra information of the opening mini to help you play the hand. Playing natural overcalls is maybe not best but it gets the job done in many cases. This would mean you will be passing the mini no with a flat 12-14, but that is not always bad. Certainly not optimal, but perhaps serviceable.

If they run over 1NT-X you play whatever you play when the auction goes pass-1NT and they enter.

It seems that playing this way is apt to keep you from stumbling over yourselves and leaves you with reasonable ability to enter the auction. If you are playing 2 boards against them it may well be as good as anything you can come up with on the spot.

[JanM]

I agree with Ken that playing DBL is an opening NT, with "system on" works reasonably and hopefully you'll know what your bids mean (hopefully you've discussed what bids mean when you open 1NT and the opponents overcall).

But I'd play that overcalls are whatever you play against a stronger NT, with the understanding that the overcalls and responses should be constructive. That gets you back to something you're familiar with and hopefully have discussed at least to some extent. It also means that when you look at the auction after a round or two, it won't matter whether you remember that 1NT was 10-12. Finally, it means that if you and your partner have a different opinion of where the line should be drawn between "mini" and "weak," you will normally still be on the same wavelength about your bids.

[awm]

I really disagree with this "systems on" idea after (1NT)-X.

The issue is that most people's notrump systems are optimized for inviting, forcing game, looking for 4-4 major fits, and making effective slam tries. This is all quite sensible when our side opens a strong notrump. On the other hand, most people's notrump systems are not particularly good at reaching two-of-a-minor when our side's hands are weak, creating a scramble when our side would be in trouble playing in notrump, or showing weak two-suiters which might offer game prospects opposite a nice fitting hand but otherwise want to subside as low as possible.

When you are defending a weak or mini notrump and the auction goes (1NT)-X-(Pass), by far the majority of advancer's invite-plus hands should simply pass. It is much better to defend 1NTX than to play our side's partial, and we will often do better defending 1NTX than we will bidding our own game. So an awful lot of the hands which would respond to partner's strong 1NT opening with stayman or various invitations are just passing now. On the other hand, occasionally advancer has utter garbage and wants to scramble. Playing 1NT and going down a few when responder has garbage is no big deal, and if opponents double we get an extra call (redouble) to help us sort things out. But defending 1NTX and letting it make with a few overtricks because advancer has garbage is quite awful.

There is also the point that you really want to double 1NT with some strong shapely hands (i.e. power doubles) because this helps limit your direct actions and takes some pressure off partner. Most people's notrump systems don't really say what to do when you open 1NT (15-17) and partner transfers to hearts, and you have a 4153 19-count (for example).

After (1NT)-X for penalty, I like to play the following:

(1) If opponents bid something which is natural (or shows the bid suit and another) then double is takeout and pass is not forcing.

(2) If opponents bid something which is artificial (like a transfer or stayman) then double shows general values and creates a force.

(3) If opponents bid something, then bidding directly over it at the two-level shows mild values (like 4-7) but not a serious invite opposite a minimum double.

(4) If opponents bid something, then 2NT lebensohl is on.

(5) If opponents pass, then bidding any of 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ are natural and show a five-plus card suit. This is normally quite weak (like 0-4), indicating a hand that does not have sufficient values to be confident defending 1NTX, but has a reasonable suit to play in. If the opponents pass is forcing (i.e. pass forces redouble) then 2♣ has the same meaning.

(6) If opponents pass is not forcing, then 2♣ just shows a lousy hand and starts a scramble at the two-level.

(7) Bidding 2NT shows a strong two-suiter, and three-level bids are invitational one-suiters. None of these ever really come up, but the idea is that with freak shape you may not really want to defend 1NTX even though you might make 3NT on your own.

[jdonn]

awm, on Mar 8 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

I really disagree with this "systems on" idea after (1NT)-X.

The issue is that most people's notrump systems are optimized for inviting, forcing game, looking for 4-4 major fits, and making effective slam tries. This is all quite sensible when our side opens a strong notrump. On the other hand, most people's notrump systems are not particularly good at reaching two-of-a-minor when our side's hands are weak, creating a scramble when our side would be in trouble playing in notrump, or showing weak two-suiters which might offer game prospects opposite a nice fitting hand but otherwise want to subside as low as possible.

When you are defending a weak or mini notrump and the auction goes (1NT)-X-(Pass), by far the majority of advancer's invite-plus hands should simply pass. It is much better to defend 1NTX than to play our side's partial, and we will often do better defending 1NTX than we will bidding our own game. So an awful lot of the hands which would respond to partner's strong 1NT opening with stayman or various invitations are just passing now. On the other hand, occasionally advancer has utter garbage and wants to scramble. Playing 1NT and going down a few when responder has garbage is no big deal, and if opponents double we get an extra call (redouble) to help us sort things out. But defending 1NTX and letting it make with a few overtricks because advancer has garbage is quite awful.

There is also the point that you really want to double 1NT with some strong shapely hands (i.e. power doubles) because this helps limit your direct actions and takes some pressure off partner. Most people's notrump systems don't really say what to do when you open 1NT (15-17) and partner transfers to hearts, and you have a 4153 19-count (for example).

I totally agree and was about to type a post a lot like this, so I'm glad Adam saved me the trouble. I'm absolutely shocked that a player as good as Jan would not think that playing systems on after doubling a weak nt is terrible.
- A 1NT opening is 15-17 balanced. Doubling a weak notrump is 15-unlimited, any shape (close enough to that anyway). How in the world could it work well to play the same system in both cases?
- He is also right your goals are entirely different and that most bids would be wasted since partner would pass the double on hands that make those bids.

[mtvesuvius]

I used to play systems on over X, but it was truely pointless, the reason being that with any strongish hand, I will pass the X of 1NT. This only leaves shapely hands and awful hands. The awful hands are stuck after a X and the shapely hands usually transfer then bid another suit. This means that you will have to make some sort of bid to get out of 1NTXed, all of which are losing options. I like to use 2♣ as a getout with any hand that is really weak, and doesn't have a clear preference for any suit. 2♦-2♠ are To Play with a clear preference for that suit, and 2NT is a distrubutional GF. 3 level is Invitational, which is nice to have available, because depending on the Vulnerability at MPs, sometimes bidding game will be more profitable.

[mikestar]

The_Hog, on Mar 6 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

As stated, Dont is awful against weak NTs and I don't like it much against strong NTs either.

I still like Asptro but understand that this excellent convention is not well known on your side of the Atlantic.

Bidding 3C on your hand is not unreasonable given that your partner showed C+?

I've always been surprised that Asptro hasn't caught on here in North America. It is an excellent method to get to the right major when 5-4 and handles major minor hands reasonably well. True you can't get out in 2♣ or in 2♦ when you show spades, but I think DONT advocates overestimate your chances of buying the contract in 2m-and how much 2m disturbs their 1NT.

[kenberg]

I have found the key to getting some really good advice: Make a really bad suggestion

I will take all of this to heart. Including Jan's agreement with the suggested approach. Amd including other's strong disagreements.

Thanks
Ken

[JanM]

My understanding of the question here was what to do in a casual partnership where you're not going to discuss things for more than a few sentences. In that context, I think that playing something where you will know what your bids mean is the most important thing, and "system on" will generally achieve that. Obviously, the NT bidder will have to bid something unusual with a hand that wouldn't have opened 1NT, but that actually doesn't come up as often as you might think. And of course advancer will often pass, but when advancer has a shaped hand, particularly one with shortness someplace, advancer will prefer to bid to their side's best contract instead of defending 1NT with partner often leading the wrong suit (I don't know about you, but when I have a singleton, my partner seems to lead it against 1NT more often than not ).

Of course if you have time to discuss things, you'll have better agreements, but this really isn't something a casual partnership needs to spend much time on - there are other far more important things to discuss (defensive signaling, for instance, which IMHO is often pretty much ignored by people who want to spend hours on what we do over our NTs and their NTs).

[jdonn]

I took the discussion as what is best in theory, not what is adequate for a casual partnership with no inclination to make detailed agreements. It was because of this from the original poster:

kenberg, on Mar 5 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

My primary point is that bidding over the mini is seriously underdiscussed in the bridge lit. Setting the meaning of second hand's action is only the beginning of an effective defense.

That doesn't sound like the kind of thing someone who just wants to survive a round with a pickup partner would say.

But even if taken as you did, I would much rather agree something like this:

Quote

- Pulling the double right away is very weak and natural, unless you jump which is forcing and offensive.
- All doubles are penalty (or whatever rule you want).

and leave it at that than play 'notrump systems on', which I still think is very bad. I mean you can't even run to 2 of a minor...

[kenberg]

As often is the case with threads. it wanders a bit. And, as noted, I did some of the wandering myself.

My original purpose was indeed to go beyond "adequate for a casual partnership". I have been running across the mini on BBO much more often than I had in f2f. Various reasons for that I suppose, but certainly part of it is the worldwide span. I appreciate the opportunity and I would like to think a bit about it.


A few posts back the practical issue of what to do on the spot if you sit down and play and find that you are playing two hands (or some short number of hands) against the mini.


No doubt the answers will vary with the situation as well as with the players.

My views are something like this: I don't really know if weak nts are better or worse than strong nts, let alone the mini. Whatever their intrinsic merits, I think the weaks succeed more often than they should because so many of us are unprepared to deal with them. I want the weaks to earn their keep by succeeding, if they do, against a reasonably well prepared defense from me and from others.


So my original post was as jdonn interpreted it. But I am happy to have variant interpretations as well. I appreciate all answers. This is more or less an invitation to do a little hijacking.

[JanM]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

But even if taken as you did, I would much rather agree something like this:

Quote

- Pulling the double right away is very weak and natural, unless you jump which is forcing and offensive.
- All doubles are penalty (or whatever rule you want).

and leave it at that than play 'notrump systems on', which I still think is very bad. I mean you can't even run to 2 of a minor...

The problem with that is it doesn't deal with what bids mean when responder runs from 1NTx, whereas if you agree to treat the auction as if the doubler opened 1NT, most partnerships do have agreements about what their bids & DBLs mean after an overcall, whether the overcall is 2♣ for Majors or a transfer or a DONT type bid. And in general, the competitive agreements a partnership has after they open 1NT will work pretty well after they double a weak NT.

After a 10-12 NT is doubled, advancer is much less likely to want to run to 2m than after a stronger NT is doubled. If responder redoubles for penalty, or passes forcing redouble (yuck) and then passes the redouble, advancer can run to 2m. And being able to seek out a 4-4 Major suit fit (particularly on a shaped hand) is often very useful as is being able to show a 2-suited hand. So although "systems on" isn't a great method, it's also not a terrible one for a casual partnership.

[y66]

Good thread. Very helpful discussion of a big problem area for me.

[rbforster]

JanM, on Mar 8 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

I think that playing something where you will know what your bids mean is the most important thing, and "system on" will generally achieve that. Obviously, the NT bidder will have to bid something unusual with a hand that wouldn't have opened 1NT, but that actually doesn't come up as often as you might think.

Twice in a short match I was forced to play "systems on" (at partner's request) over a 10-12 NT. One time I had a balanced 20 count with a 5cM. The other time I had an 8 card solid minor and Qx Qx J outside. Last I checked there isn't an answer for stayman with either of these, and neither worked out well.