[pclayton]

I've been mulling this over in my head and I'd like everyone's feedback on it.

This idea is similar to psycho suction. All suit overcalls (unless otherwise defined) represent the suit bid, or the next higher.

So:

(1♣) - 3♦ = ♦'s or ♥'s. The same could be played after (1♣) - pass (1♦) - ?

Responder answers similar to Multi, except a pass = a non-raise. All 'raises' are pass / correct.

I don't like this vulnerable, where 100 a trick can be expensive, but it seems like a good interference mechanism NV.

The concept is similar to Versace / Lauria's 2♥ multi opening which could be hearts or spades.

[Free]

Ok, so when would you bid ♥ and when would you bid ♦ if you hold ♥?

[rbforster]

Yeah I thought about stuff like this, similar to 2♥ Multi (♥ or ♠). You don't need all the bids for single suited hands (since you're covering twice the ground per bid relative to the natural bidders). So use the other bids for 2-suiters ala Wilkcoz. Something like

♣ - either minor (single suited)
♦ - ♦ and another (not ♠)
♥ - either major (singled suited)
♠ - ♠ and another (not ♦)
NT - ♠+♦

Obviously you can play around with the 2 suiter combinations to taste, with an eye to having the bid suit be one of the promised suits. If you prefer more uncertainly to give the opps headaches, you could try

♦ - two touching suits
♠ - two touching suits (somewhat more preemptive obviously, but same suits possible)
NT - two non-touching suits

[rbforster]

pclayton, on Jun 5 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

All suit overcalls (unless otherwise defined) represent the suit bid, or the next higher.

Alternatively, if you want to keep the redundancy of being able to show ♥ with a ♦ bid (♦ or ♥) or a ♥ bid (♥ or ♠), you could use the higher one as a more distributional preempt. Or you could show your better fragment between the adjacent suits, so

xx KJTxxx xxx xx bids 2♦ since it has longer diamonds than spades, while
xxx KJTxxx xx xx bids 2♥ since it has longer spades than diamonds

This way you partner can pass rather than "correct" more aggressively knowing you tend to have at least some length in the other possible suit. Likewise, you can also pass his "correct" bid more aggressively with some length there. Make them double you before you admit what your real suit is .

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Jun 5 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

I've been mulling this over in my head and I'd like everyone's feedback on it.

This idea is similar to psycho suction. All suit overcalls (unless otherwise defined) represent the suit bid, or the next higher.

So, is this purely destructive? Is there no reasonable hand where after 1♣-3♦-P* partner can make a call?

Kind of amusing to me, because it seems like there'd be a lot of reverse feedback. If playing against a system where * is forcing, it seems like you'd forego bidding this with a lot of hands where 3♦X doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

[the hog]

Phil, why don't you play canape overcalls over a strong C. In my experience methods like suction do very little to stop a good pair and are just a "noise". I have discussed this with Ono Eskes, one of the better Dutch players who has used this method, and he agrees that the canape overcall is far superior to anything else and far more difficult to counter.
Just a thought.

[pclayton]

JT: the call works like a multi. Responder isnt barred at all. With support for both suits, he can raise, or even convert the transfer with support for the lower ranking, but not the higher.

[jdonn]

The nice thing about variants of suction, in my opinion, is that it lets you show 1 and 2 suiters on every level, which most conventions don't do. I really hate conventions that are like one level is 1 suited hand, two level bids are various 2 suited hands, since the system rather than judgement dictates what level I have to overcall on. I like suction much more for this reason than for the supposed confusion factor. For that reason in particular, I would prefer psycho suction by a great deal over what you suggest Phil.

[rbforster]

What about this variation on Phil's suggestion, also allowing 2 suiters in the possible suits:

♣ = ♣ or ♦ or both
X = X or X+1 or both

This lets you show both single suiters and touching two suiters (NT could cover non-touching 2 suiters). Of course the responser will be passing much of the time, but that's usually a good thing.

[pclayton]

I hear what you are saying Josh, but we've decided in my partnership to trash all doubles of 1C and 1C - P - 1D. Double gives you additional bids not available if you just pass, and a double is one of the basic bids in Suction, etc.. Currently, our CRASH structure is 1D / 1N / 2C and 1N / 2C / 2D (instead of x).

I'm very wary about jumping into strong club auctions with 2 suiters. They give too much information if you don't end up buying the contract. I like the idea of keeping the 2 suiters silent (via crash), or having the ability to show a 2 suiter cheap, so that responder can bounce. That way we at least disrupt their low level investigations.

Suction (or psycho suction ) is fine, but I think I like turbulence this creates a little better, at least on paper.

[jdonn]

If you prefer to generally not show 2 suiters anyway then I like this (not vul). You could still keep maybe all the notrump bids as 2 suiters, just in case.

For your suggestion Rob, I think it's just worse than normal psycho suction since it is easier to defend against as you will usually have the suit you bid. Or to put another way, there are only two possible suits for you to have rather than three.

[foo]

pclayton, on Jun 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

I hear what you are saying Josh, but we've decided in my partnership to trash all doubles of 1C and 1C - P - 1D. Double gives you additional bids not available if you just pass, and a double is one of the basic bids in Suction, etc.. Currently, our CRASH structure is 1D / 1N / 2C and 1N / 2C / 2D (instead of x).

I'm very wary about jumping into strong club auctions with 2 suiters. They give too much information if you don't end up buying the contract. I like the idea of keeping the 2 suiters silent (via crash), or having the ability to show a 2 suiter cheap, so that responder can bounce. That way we at least disrupt their low level investigations.

Suction (or psycho suction ) is fine, but I think I like turbulence this creates a little better, at least on paper.

IME, having X available to ask for a C or D lead against the artificial 1C and 1D calls can be very useful.

At the same time, I've found Suction to be better than CRASH at eating enough space that the 1C'ers end up starting their auctions at 2C or higher as much as possible, negating the primary advantage of the space saving 1C or 1D opening.

I agree that the Two suited bids can make Declarer play easier. OTOH, the gain we're hoping for is to use enough space that the Forcing Minor side has a hard time getting to the right spot.

[Gerben42]

I prefer to use the Dbl and 1♦ overcall for constructive hands since you are not taking away any space and many pairs around here play a 15+ strong Club which does not exclude game for us.

Anyway I really like the Psycho Suction method, also because of what Josh said about being able to choose your level.

Discussion with good strong ♣ players like Sabine Auken have shown that defending against the 2+level preempts that might be the bid suit or not are tough to defend in situations where you want to catch them or bid a stopper.

My current combination of constructive / destructive is this:

Pass = nothing to bid / balanced / strong
Dbl = 4-4 majors / 5+♥ constr.
1♦ = 5+♠ constr., can not have 4♥ but can have 5♥
1M = 4M + longer side suit
1N = constructive minor overcall
2♣ = preempt, ♣ or red
2♦ = preempt, ♦ or majors
etc.

[zasanya]

pclayton, on Jun 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

I'm very wary about jumping into strong club auctions with 2 suiters. They give too much information if you don't end up buying the contract. I like the idea of keeping the 2 suiters silent (via crash), or having the ability to show a 2 suiter cheap, so that responder can bounce. That way we at least disrupt their low level investigations.

You might like to try Truscott overcalls i e 1♦ on 1♣ showing ♦ and ♥; 1♥ showing ♥ and ♠ etc .The non touching suits are shown by dbl and NT.Single suiters by a jump.

[blackshoe]

There's Helllo/Mathé as defense to strong club. Off the top of my head:

X - both majors
1 level suit bids - natural
1NT - both minors
2♣ - either ♦ or a major and a minor
2♦ - ♥
2♥ - both majors
2♠ - ♠
2NT - ♣
3♣ - both minors, more offensively oriented than 1NT

This gives you two ways to show most suits and two ways to show some two-suited hands.

[inquiry]

I am fond of.... Myxoma/Raptor based overcalls of strong club, this is another idea I stole directly from Chris Ryall's webpages. You can read about it here.. . Mymoma/Raptor page, briefly

1D and 1H are transfers to the next suit.
1S and 1NT are raptor with 4S and 4H each, plus unknown longer minor
2C is 6+diamonds, or 5-5 majors
2D is 6+Hearts, or 5-5 black suits
2H is 6+ spades or 5-5 in minors
2S is 5-5 in spades and diamonds
2N is 5H, 5 either minor... risky....

this has a little flavor or Ron's suggestion of playing canape... as I end up bidding 1S and 1N to show my shorter major first a fair amount of the time.

[Echognome]

I definitely prefer bids that are NF. No reason to give them two bites at the cherry. At the 1-level, I think Canape overcalls are great. At the two level playing them as either psycho suction OR suit bid or next higher suit makes some sense. But there's no reason to have them overlap. So you might want to play 2♣ as clubs or diamonds and 2♥ as hearts or spades, but then have 2♦ as diamonds and a major and 2♠ as spades and a minor, with 2NT being hearts and a minor. Anyway, something along those lines would lead to plenty of preemption and obfuscation.

[hrothgar]

Here are my preferred methods. As you can (probably) tell, I like bids that are able to unambiguously show 1-2 known suits. Whenever possible, I prefer natural bids that responder can pass.

Pass = Strong or weak

X = Both majors

Typical example hands (minimum/maximum)

♠ KJT2 ♥QT98 ♦73 ♣762
♠ AJ763 ♥ KT52 ♦ 9 ♣ 763

1♣ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

Typical example hands

♠ 92 ♥ 874 ♦ QT853 ♣ KQ3
♠ 54 ♥ T87432 ♦ 63 ♣ AQJ

1♦ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)
1♥ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

1♠ = Spades

♠ AJ72 ♥ 52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 763
♠ AQJ73 ♥ 74 ♦ 843 ♣ K5
♠ AJ843 ♥ K742 ♦ 672 ♣ 4

1N = 2 suited with Spades and a minor

♠ AQ52 ♥ 673 ♦ QT632 ♣ 3
♠ AJT62 ♥ 4 ♦ 52 ♣ KJ942

2♣ = Clubs and Hearts

♠ 7632 ♥ QJ73 ♦ 4 ♣ KQ42
♠ 5 ♥ AQJ9 ♦ Q42 ♣ KQ8742

2♦ = Diamonds and Hearts

♠ Q52 ♥ KT52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 62
♠ 42 ♥ KJT82 ♦ AQ932 ♣ 3

2♥ = Hearts

♠ 73 ♥ QJT642 ♦ K72 ♣ 732
♠ K4 ♥ AQT9732 ♦ 73 ♣ 82

2♠ = Spades

2N = Clubs or Diamonds and a major

3♣ = Minors

♠ 4 ♥ 863 ♦ KJ762 ♣ KQ73
♠ 2 ♥ 63 ♦ AT572 ♣ AKT73

3♦ = Diamonds
3♥ = Majors

[mycroft]

I prefer defensive systems that tell a story to those that play guessing games, and here's why:

At the one level, you're not doing much of anything to a strong club pair.
At the two level, you're putting a crimp in things, but it's still dealable.
If you can get to the three level, however, now you're putting a serious crimp in things - especially since you've taken away their cuebid for 3NT.

Why does Mathe X=majors work? Not because 1C-X is a difficult bid to handle - as many say, it gives more options than 1C-P - but because when the doubler has both majors, 3NT is "in the picture" a lot more often than average, *and* with a good fit in a major, advancer can bid 3M.

In other words, you don't have to play lone wolf attacking the strong clubbers - they rarely can negotiate strength and strain in one call by responder, and 3M still takes away the stopper-ask cuebid for 3NT even if it's done by the strong hand's RHO.

Having said that, straight up Wonder bids (bid=that suit or the other three) are *very* effective. The chance of catching a safe place to land with either option is much higher than with many X or Y bids...

Michael.