[akhare]

Do forum posters have meta-rules on coping with 1N+ interference over strong 1♣?

Based on what we have seen so far, LHO interference can be broadly grouped into the following (assume that the interference is in the 1N - 2♠ range).

• Natural (including transfers)
  
• Suction (transfer oriented with bid suit excluded)
  
• Two unknown suits (CRASH, etc.)
  
• Specified two suited bids (Minors, majors, etc.)
  
• Two suited, with one known suits
  
• Psychic bids

• For #1, #2 and #5, we play transfers at the 2-level through 2S, teeing off the anchor suit or the single known suit. The transfer isn't GF
  
• For #3, our 2-level bids are natural and GF, with X showing balanced or awkward hands
  
• For #4, we use unusual vs. unusual treatments, with X showing balanced or awkward hands
  
• #6 is treated as natural per force, but we haven't had too much of it

Things get more interesting in #2 if partner passes and RHO advances.

Say if the auction went:

1♣ - (2♥*) - P* - (3♦*) - ??

P: Weak hand (unless unlikely trap)
2♥: Spades or minors
3♦:♦ + ♠, pass or correct

What should opener's bids mean here? My guess is that the bids should be natural, with X ostensibly a takeout of their assumed suit (♠).

A related scenario might be the following:

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ (negative) - (2♥*) - ??

*: Your hand strongly suggests a psyche by RHO

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by akhare: 2013-August-13, 15:02

[straube]

I'm thinking that after 1C (2H) P 3D P P that double should show spades. After all, we're (and perhaps not others) are playing that responder will pass with spades planning to double later. So I'm not sure that opener's double should mean the inverse (takeout of spades) or we have duplication in penalizing spades. Maybe double should be values/penalty? It's certainly nice to smoke out the 2H bidder and not allow him to pass 3D undoubled, even when diamonds is not his suit. Others may offer better suggestions for a defense to Suction...including being able to show spades by responder right away.

[straube]

I'm curious whether dbl of a Suction bid might be used as either a DN or GF hand. One nice thing about this is it would force the advancer to declare whether he wanted to sit for this undoubled. Otherwise...

1C (2D) P

could be short diamonds willing to play undoubled. Looked at a few hands and it's rarely right for opponents to want to play 2D here...even when responder holds the DN. Also takes pressure (usually) off opener who may sit or bid his own long suit.

So now 1C (2D) P would be semipositives without a suit (else responder transfers). In theory this could all go pass, but now opener's double is takeout of whatever suit comes his way (I mean if advancer corrects to anything). I mean opener now plays responder for a more or less balanced hand and competes or bids game in his own long suit.

Anyone like this? Suggestions?

[CamHenry]

I think semipositive, without a diamond stopper, is very good here. The DN/GF double is appealing as well; subsequent action will make it pretty obvious which option I hold.

With a semipositive *with* a stopper, do you bid NT? If so, what continuations do you play?

[straube]

CamHenry, on 2013-August-15, 03:42, said:

I think semipositive, without a diamond stopper, is very good here. The DN/GF double is appealing as well; subsequent action will make it pretty obvious which option I hold.

With a semipositive *with* a stopper, do you bid NT? If so, what continuations do you play?

I'd think a semipositive with a stopper would just pass. For one, we can't really be sure which suit(s) overcaller has. Also looks like a semipositive with a suit that would force opener to the 3-level would have to pass. For example...1C (2C) P with xxx x xxx AJxxxx.

[CSGibson]

Our rules: For interference of 2♠ and below, we use transfers showing 5+ HCP and a 5+ card suit. If we transfer to the 3 level, we won't be minimum for both. X is 5+ HCP, no 5 card suit. Pass = 0-4 or penalty pass.

For interference of 2N and higher, bids are natural and game forcing, X is game forcing with no clear direction, and pass is 0-7 or penalty.

We don't differentiate between different types of interference, and keeping it simple seems to work out all right for us in those auctions. We go into our interference agreements anytime direct seat makes any sort of pip over our strong club, since righty might be about to jack up the bidding.

[straube]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-15, 09:05, said:

Our rules: For interference of 2♠ and below, we use transfers showing 5+ HCP and a 5+ card suit. If we transfer to the 3 level, we won't be minimum for both. X is 5+ HCP, no 5 card suit. Pass = 0-4 or penalty pass.

For interference of 2N and higher, bids are natural and game forcing, X is game forcing with no clear direction, and pass is 0-7 or penalty.

We don't differentiate between different types of interference, and keeping it simple seems to work out all right for us in those auctions. We go into our interference agreements anytime direct seat makes any sort of pip over our strong club, since righty might be about to jack up the bidding.

Have you thought about playing system on vs dbl, 1D, and 1H interference? Something I don't like about X as 5-7 is that there isn't enough suit information. When we play X as 5+ it's also takeout shape.

[CSGibson]

straube, on 2013-August-15, 11:14, said:

Have you thought about playing system on vs dbl, 1D, and 1H interference? Something I don't like about X as 5-7 is that there isn't enough suit information. When we play X as 5+ it's also takeout shape.

Was my post not clear? I thought the answer was right in it, we have decided that playing system on is a bad idea vs double, 1D, and 1H interference. The reason is that we need to start getting the semi-positives with clear direction in before they start jumping.

Our double is not 5-7. It is 5+, no 5 card suit. Again, that was in my previous post.

[straube]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-15, 12:19, said:

Was my post not clear? I thought the answer was right in it, we have decided that playing system on is a bad idea vs double, 1D, and 1H interference. The reason is that we need to start getting the semi-positives with clear direction in before they start jumping.

Our double is not 5-7. It is 5+, no 5 card suit. Again, that was in my previous post.

I was making a suggestion and tried to word it politely. You might have found it helpful and thanked me for it. This response seems arrogant.

[CSGibson]

straube, on 2013-August-15, 13:11, said:

I was making a suggestion and tried to word it politely. You might have found it helpful and thanked me for it. This response seems arrogant.

I misunderstood, I thought that you just didn't understand what I had said - always a risk when you don't actually say what you mean, whether to try and make it polite, or for other reasons.

In that case, thank you for your suggestion, but we have carefully considered what to do over interference and feel that our present solution is best for us.

[akhare]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-15, 09:05, said:

We don't differentiate between different types of interference, and keeping it simple seems to work out all right for us in those auctions.

I think there’s really something to be said about having a very simple scheme instead of trying to decipher the semantics of their bids. The problem with a complex rule based scheme is that it becomes very confusing if they are using something like psycho-Suction or just making a psyche bid.

Adam uses a very simple scheme as well while remaining in system through 1♠:

If the opponents bid 1♠ or above, relays are off. We play transfers at the two level, where the cheapest two-level bid transfers to the next suit and so on, but there is never a transfer to a suit which would not be naturally biddable at the two-level. A double by responder is takeout and not necessarily game forcing, guaranteeing at least 5 points. Jumps by responder are transfers to the next higher suit, showing about 4-7 with a decent long suit. For example after 1♣-1♠:

Pass
at most a bad 8 hcp, if 5-8 normally length in spades

X
takeout double, 5+ points
1NT
balanced hand, game forcing
2♣
Transfer to diamonds
2♦
Transfer to hearts
2♥
Transfer to spades
2♠
Transfer to clubs
2NT
transfer to club, something like a club preempt
3♣ ♦ ♥ transfers, something like a preempt in the suit indicated
Transfer jump followed by a new suit bid shows a very distributional two-suiter willing to play in game in one of the suits, but with no desire to defend and without the strength for a pure values game force. Non-jump transfers guarantee constructive values but are not necessarily game forcing