BBO Discussion Forums: 1S Defense - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1S Defense

#1 User is offline   olien 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 2008-March-06

Posted 2009-September-15, 19:58

There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something

I was wondering where I could find more information on this

Thanks
0

#2 User is offline   cherdanno 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,640
  • Joined: 2009-February-16

Posted 2009-September-15, 20:25

olien, on Sep 15 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something

I was wondering where I could find more information on this

Thanks

I used to play this (with Han and inquiry). It works well whenever
- opponents overcall spades or clubs, and
- there is an unbid major and an unbid minor.
In fact we played it up to the 3-level.

I still think it's sound, we just dropped it at the time because we wanted to simplify things.
"Are you saying that LTC merits a more respectful dismissal?"
0

#3 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2009-September-16, 02:55

A better method, I think, is:

2 = diamonds
2 = hearts, 6 cards any strength or 5 game-forcing
2 = hearts, exactly five, exactly invitational
2 = clubs

Forming good agreements about this sort of thing requires effort, because there are so many different categories of sequence, and lots to discuss about opener's followups.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#4 User is offline   rbforster 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,611
  • Joined: 2006-March-18

Posted 2009-September-16, 02:57

The same idea comes up in a lot of places, where putting the other major first is likely more important than a natural forcing minor bid.

You could just as easily play this inversion in 2/1 after 1 is opened:

1-?:
2 inv+
2 nat GF
2 GF
...

or after a weak two by your side:

2-?:
2N ask
3 forcing with
3 forcing nat
3 forcing with

Sorry I dont have more details on the continuations.
0

#5 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,637
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2009-September-16, 07:21

olien, on Sep 15 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C    5+H constructive+ strength
2D    NAT NF
2H    5+C GF or something

I was wondering where I could find more information on this

See the section Switch Plus in:

http://www.ny-bridge.com/bt/add96.html

As Granovetter notes about Bergen's Switch:

Granovetter said:

When Marty published "Switch" in Bridge Today Magazine last year, I thought it would take the tournament world by storm, but it was overlooked by lots of people...

For additional fun at the table, you can rename Switch as Bergen2 when describing it.
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users