[Fluffy]

---

I have very little experience towards 1♣ openings being preempted high, so I am trying to learn fast. What I am worried is to have overlearning from bad experiences.

Here are my thoughs, you can rate them from ridicoulous to unlucky if you want.


I felt that I had a good enough suit to try 5♥, my ODR was good enough to try for a 5 level bid, and partner should be shor tin diamonds, so I though I was relatively safe. Also there was something about bidding hearts before partner wanted to bid spades.


Over 5♠ I though that if partner is short in hearts, and not very long in diamonds he is very likelly to hold clubs, I could see some 74 or 65 blacks that would even make 6 clubs, why not give it a try?


Then over 6♥ I was a bit puzzled I didn´t think long enough before bidding 6♠ I though partner would be something like 71 in the majors at this point.



Then you have my partner´s thoughs of bidding 5♠ to protect ♦Kx form the lead wich made exactly the opposite

[kenrexford]

You might like a new defensive structure I am working on:

1♣(strong)-5♦-?

X = penalty suggesting. Usually balanced or semi-balanced.

5♥ or 5♠ = long suit (longer than 5-card)

Pass = Forcing, with two of the other three suits (typically 5-5)



After the pass, Opener normally bids:

X = prefers spades to hearts
5♥ = prefers hearts to spades

If you started with both majors, this tells you where to play.
If you started with spades and clubs, and partner prefers hearts, bid 5♠ and let him elect contract.
If you started with hearts and clubs, and partner prefers spades (doubles), bid 5♥ and let him elect contract.

If Opener wants to force slam, he bids:

1. Double and then raise spades if he wants to play 6♠ if you have spades but only 5♥ (or maybe 6♣) if you do not.
2. 5NT to demand an unwind:
a. 6♣ = has clubs (6♦ then asks for major instead)
b. 6♦ = both majors
3. 6♦ to demand election of a major (play six of the one major or of the better of two majors)

You can obviously use this same defense a level lower, if the competition only bids 4♦. But, you could also use this over 6♦ (1♣-6♦-?), with the hedge of being in 7♣ on rare occasion.

[benlessard]

South has the perfect hand to X, 2 trumps a stiff to lead not a great hand for slam i dont see what is the problem here. Playing FP when we may be outgunned and vulnerable is just too crazy for me. The good thing is 9 cards suit are pretty rare.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2011-December-07, 07:50, said:

You might like a new defensive structure I am working on:

1♣(strong)-5♦-?

X = penalty suggesting. Usually balanced or semi-balanced.

5♥ or 5♠ = long suit (longer than 5-card)

Pass = Forcing, with two of the other three suits (typically 5-5)



After the pass, Opener normally bids:

X = prefers spades to hearts
5♥ = prefers hearts to spades

If you started with both majors, this tells you where to play.
If you started with spades and clubs, and partner prefers hearts, bid 5♠ and let him elect contract.
If you started with hearts and clubs, and partner prefers spades (doubles), bid 5♥ and let him elect contract.

If Opener wants to force slam, he bids:

1. Double and then raise spades if he wants to play 6♠ if you have spades but only 5♥ (or maybe 6♣) if you do not.
2. 5NT to demand an unwind:
a. 6♣ = has clubs (6♦ then asks for major instead)
b. 6♦ = both majors
3. 6♦ to demand election of a major (play six of the one major or of the better of two majors)

You can obviously use this same defense a level lower, if the competition only bids 4♦. But, you could also use this over 6♦ (1♣-6♦-?), with the hedge of being in 7♣ on rare occasion.

I remember awm saying that he wanted pass as an option for a hand that might have a zero count. For myself (and having very little experience with strong club), I think that I'd prefer to assume that responder has something and that after 1C (5D) it is our hand (whether or not it actually is). Why not play PDI (Pass Double Inversion) which is an invention of Rodwell's. Btw, I'm not at all sure that he uses it in this instance. It may only apply after the partnership has committed to a GF.

1C (5D)

P requests opener double unless opener is 1-suited
.....dbl-opener is not 1-suited
..........pass-penalty
..........pull-2-suited
dbl-shows a balanced or takeout hand (at least 2 of available suits)
bid-single-suited

If I were to use this, I would concentrate on getting to the right strain (ours or theirs) and not slam. The mere fact that responder is taking action with possibly a zero count means that opener has to really pull.

[the hog]

I would not have bid 5H but would have doubled instead. 5H is a very strange bid; do you expect to stop at 5H exactly? Partner has little idea whether to raise, pass or bid some other strain.

[olien]

straube, on 2011-December-07, 22:48, said:

I remember awm saying that he wanted pass as an option for a hand that might have a zero count. For myself (and having very little experience with strong club), I think that I'd prefer to assume that responder has something and that after 1C (5D) it is our hand (whether or not it actually is). Why not play PDI (Pass Double Inversion) which is an invention of Rodwell's. Btw, I'm not at all sure that he uses it in this instance. It may only apply after the partnership has committed to a GF.

1C (5D)

P requests opener double unless opener is 1-suited
.....dbl-opener is not 1-suited
..........pass-penalty
..........pull-2-suited
dbl-shows a balanced or takeout hand (at least 2 of available suits)
bid-single-suited

If I were to use this, I would concentrate on getting to the right strain (ours or theirs) and not slam. The mere fact that responder is taking action with possibly a zero count means that opener has to really pull.

My partner and I play that after the opponents overcall 4♥ or higher, that we are in a forcing pass, regardless of the colors. It may be best to play PDI over a 4m overcall as well (à la meckwell). However, our decision is based on IMP strategy. If we double a game, and it makes, its only a few IMPs away, but the additional auctions available more than makes up for these occasional losses. Its unlikely that the opponents will make overtricks in game after a strong club opening; not impossible, but unlikely. This has served us well, and we're happy with it. We just don't want to be in a force over a 4m overcall, and be backed into doubling what may very well be a cold contract and lose a double-digit swing.

[EricK]

the hog, on 2011-December-07, 23:45, said:

I would not have bid 5H but would have doubled instead. 5H is a very strange bid; do you expect to stop at 5H exactly? Partner has little idea whether to raise, pass or bid some other strain.

I think this is right. S J Simon's advice to look for the best result possible rather than the best possible result springs to mind. You are probably right that you can make something worth more than 5♦X - but how likely are you to actually find that making contract? Is it often enough that bidding shows a net plus on average over taking the money? In this particular case, I think the only making contract is 5NT by North - which not even Ken can find

[Vampyr]

benlessard, on 2011-December-07, 08:23, said:

Playing FP when we may be outgunned and vulnerable is just too crazy for me.

With 10 HCP opposite a strong 1♣, we are unlikely to be outgunned.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-08, 00:45, said:

With 10 HCP opposite a strong 1♣, we are unlikely to be outgunned.

And how does Opener know about these 10 points at the point of decision after Responder passes...?

[Statto]

X now. Surely those playing natural systems will be getting an equally rough ride: 1♠-(5♦)-?

[mikestar13]

Statto, on 2011-December-08, 23:33, said:

X now. Surely those playing natural systems will be getting an equally rough ride: 1♠-(5♦)-?

Not necessarily. My partnerships would bid 5♦ vs. a strong club on most any hand that is a reasonable 4♦ overcall vs. a natural opener. "Preempt one level higher" is a not uncommon general rule against big clubs.

[Fluffy]

Statto, on 2011-December-08, 23:33, said:

X now. Surely those playing natural systems will be getting an equally rough ride: 1♠-(5♦)-?

The difference here is that opener at least has shown the suit where he has AKQJxx, and he will feel less compelled to bid it at the 5 level when partner already knows at least that he has 5 of them.

[straube]

My partner and I have discussed adding PDI to deal with situations like this. I think the bidding ought to go...


1C (5D) P P dbl all pass

Responder passes because he isn't 1-suited (which would bid) or takeout/balanced (which would double). Opener could bid 5S because he is one-suited, but ought not because he is balanced and he can handle supporting hearts if partner pulls with a 2-suited hand. Responder can pull to show hearts and another suit, but as this other suit is clubs (committing to slam if pd has no tolerance for hearts) and as he holds Jx in diamonds, passing the double is the percentage action.

[the hog]

straube, on 2011-December-07, 22:48, said:

I remember awm saying that he wanted pass as an option for a hand that might have a zero count. For myself (and having very little experience with strong club), I think that I'd prefer to assume that responder has something and that after 1C (5D) it is our hand (whether or not it actually is). Why not play PDI (Pass Double Inversion) which is an invention of Rodwell's. Btw, I'm not at all sure that he uses it in this instance. It may only apply after the partnership has committed to a GF.

An invention of Rodwell's? Really? Burgess and Marston were using this more than 20 years ago. These threads remind me of the Cold War Soviets who claimed to have invented anything from refrigerators to the automobile.

[Statto]

Zelandakh, on 2011-December-08, 08:34, said:

And how does Opener know about these 10 points at the point of decision after Responder passes...?

Precisely.

Our simple system (which I mentioned on Fluffy's other recent thread) would suggest doubling here to show values and no other clear bid (i.e. a 6 card suit at this level). I think opener would then 'pull' to 5♠ and that's where we'd play. (I can't however argue against some very good ideas above )

mikestar13, on 2011-December-08, 23:59, said:

Not necessarily. My partnerships would bid 5♦ vs. a strong club on most any hand that is a reasonable 4♦ overcall vs. a natural opener. "Preempt one level higher" is a not uncommon general rule against big clubs.

I think against decent opps you'd get 5♦ here regardless.

Fluffy, on 2011-December-09, 04:27, said:

The difference here is that opener at least has shown the suit where he has AKQJxx, and he will feel less compelled to bid it at the 5 level when partner already knows at least that he has 5 of them.

On the other side of the coin, opener has shown a strong hand with 1♣. Though it shouldn't really happen, I can see 5♦ being allowed to play undoubled following a natural opening .

[straube]

the hog, on 2011-December-09, 19:47, said:

An invention of Rodwell's? Really? Burgess and Marston were using this more than 20 years ago. These threads remind me of the Cold War Soviets who claimed to have invented anything from refrigerators to the automobile.

You could have just said that Burgess and Marston invented PXI or given a link if you had one. I want to credit the right people.

I learned about PXI from "I Love This Game" by Auken. She said that Meckwell, Cohen/Berkowitz, and Hamman/Soloway were playing it and that she started using it in the mid-90s (so not 20+ years ago). She got her version from Cohen/Berkowitz but they credit Meckwell (see page 95)...

http://books.google....sion%22&f=false

I may have made the Rodwell connection from here...

http://www.pitbulls....nterference.htm

So if Meckwell got it from Burgess and Marston, that's good to know. Marston was really nice answering a question about 1C-1S (double negative) continuations and it made a big improvement in our notes.

[blackshoe]

They may have got it from Burgess and Marston, they may have developed it independently. That does happen, you know.

[straube]

Like Newton and Leibniz Well, whichever way I'm not going to worry much about it. It sounded like the hog had personal knowledge of the matter.

[the hog]

"You could have just said that Burgess and Marston invented PXI"
I thought I did.