[Ross Stacey]

A supplementary question is that in the White Book it appears that at Level 2 this bid would not be allowed in any position (Is this correct?).  At level 4 the bid would not be allowed at seats 1 & 2 but appears there is no restriction in seat 3 and therefore would be permitted.  Is this correct?   If so, should the convention card reflect this   i.e. Differing opening bids in third seat depending on the event level

[Ross Stacey]

Thank you for your reply and the approach to the defence  -it  sounds like the defence to a multi.

I have e mailed you with details.

[Ross Stacey]

Legality of bid is a question for David .  Level 4 allows  “Any hand that shows 5+ cards in at least one suit, specified or not, but which must not show 4+ cards in the suit opened”

Interpreting this is a challenge – I suspect it may be legal as two 5 card suits were shown  (S/D  or H/C) , they were not exactly known  but were covered by “specified or not” .  Understanding the rules is possibly beyond most (count me as included in most) .  Await David’s view on this.

You would need to be a high level player to be aware, interpret the rules and then challenge the bid when you come across this situation.

When I come across these situation I tend to leave the questioning to the end unless I have some sort to strategy to deal with the bids.

Base question – can we ask opponents what the normal defensive system is to their bid. Supplementary what would be the defensive system.

 

 

[Ross Stacey]

Thanks for the reply – appreciated.  On the face of it the system of “double of opponent’s transfer response to show lead directing or penalty double of 1NT ” is obvious and quite sensible  – yet this option was missed by all the players on the night – including a very experienced player –  hence the appreciation of your reply .

[Ross Stacey]

Good Question  – EBU Beginning Bridge 2009 taught not to open 1NT with a 5 card major – however in the second year -“Improvers”  the teaching was to open 1NT with a poor 5 card major – e.g. JXXXX or worse .

In the  2016 edition of Beginning Bridge the advice was changed to any balanced hand with 12 -14 to open 1NT including 5 card majors .

It is likely that both the 2009 and 2016 advice is sound for inexperienced players,  with experience a judgement needs to be made on whether or not to open 1NT with a 5 card major .   For example with a strong 5 card major in a balanced 12-14 hand the 1M opening may be more suitable option   (depends on what your planned rebid is)

[Ross Stacey]

Thanks – an interesting subtle point – Bernard discussed it in his seminar on Friday 9th July – explaining how in the auction,  such as 1H -2C -2D, the 2D would be forcing so that the auction could be kept low and the hands could be explored.  He explained it very well.  Many would be tempted to make a jump bid with the West 20 HCPs hand above after a 2C response – but there is no need once it is understood that  the 2D bid is forcing.  At the table it would take a disciplined player to hold back from making a jump bid.

I wonder if the person who originally raised the question had distinguished the difference between 1H -1S -2D  non-forcing and 1H -2C -2D forcing  which may have been the root of the error.

[Ross Stacey]

Thanks for the reply – helpful and appreciated

Just to add most club players, in a small field, opened 2C Benji with one opening 2NT – neither really look right . The person who raised the question opened 1H and was under the impression the 2D was forcing under “old fashioned Acol”.   I think with his original long term partner (sadly died) they played this as forcing –  however as you say 2D is an error as it can be passed as it caters for a light opening . It  is termed as non forcing in Acol  in a book such as All about Acol – Lederer & Cohen 1976.  Bidding shows there are several ways of reaching the contract – with potential errors on the way.

[Ross Stacey]

To add to the above – in the uncontested auction 1H -1S  -2D is the 2D both forcing in Trad Acol and Benji  when responder, 1S , has previously passed.   Is there a difference between the systems or are they both the same.

[Ross Stacey]

Hi Charles

Player has been playing a long time , also plays regular county B level for a long time – occasional county A  , plays mainly in club , has come 3rd in National pairs final after the regional qualifying route,  won event in Australia congress – so I expect he is experienced. He normally plays Benji but was playing with a less experienced partner.  An added factor in the 1H -1S -2D – AP  sequence is that he regarded the 2D as 95% forcing –  even though responder is a passed hand -regrettably his partner clearly did interpret it as forcing.

So a supplementary question may be what JP thinks of the 1H – 1S -2D sequence if comparing trad Acol with Benji.

[Ross Stacey]

At a risk of being shot down in flames

1C – 2D – Pass -3C

X    -3D

West is too weak to bid 2S – and a X or a bid of 2S depends on the partnership agreement – some partners expect more then 7 HCPs for the X – however the shape is right.   ” Sp shows 5 spades but more values.  West passes South’s 2D hoping for a X from partner for East  to show extra strength if North passes

However North is a bit stuck after West passes and may bid 3C to ask South to describe his hand more – give South the Spade ace rather than the Heart J and 3NT is a fair shot .  However South is weak and settles in 3D – going off.

Game is spades by E-W looks very speculative.

If West does respond 2S and this eventually leads to a spade game, this is all very well – but I would suggest it does not help the harmony of the partnership on what responses over interference by opponents mean .  Would be interested in Julian P comments.

 

[Ross Stacey]

Very good , I like the point (or guidance) that South should consider that because the system is weak NT (12-14), he should take the view that North may have a strong NT hand (or a weaker hands with long hearts) and take action .  He would not be misleading North or taking a big risk (V) by bidding 3H .  North would need to be aware of this and realise South is under pressure.  I had not picked up the strong NT inference in this sequence before due to the weak NT system, yet often the point is made that if opening a four card major and the hand is balanced it will be 15+ (exception = weaker 4-4-4-1).

Of interest playing precision with another partner,  North opens 1C (16+) so South can be more confident about bidding naturally over a 3 level intermediate overcall as he knows the values are there.

best regards   Ross

[Ross Stacey]

With your 18 HCPs partner is going to have very little – -0-4 HCPS .  So 2S will be competitive to play

If you double for take out partner is likely to bid 3 of a minor , and is unlikely to pass to convert opponents 2H to a penalty .  You would have to pass 3m and hope it just makes or goes off one undoubled.

Looks like settling for 2H might be best option  because of the vulnerability  or alternatively 2S just making .

Tough hand to bid and decide in the time allowed at the table.

Settle for 2S  and fingers crossed with any partner who may be confused by the auction.  However partner sitting with a min is likely to pass – unless with a 6 card minor.

Suggest bidding 2S .  What is the best score?

Interesting to see Julian Pottage’s comments

[Ross Stacey]

I would suggest the 15-16, 17-18 and 19 style has been traditionally taught and helps new players to reach 3NT contract quickly   e.g.   1D- 1S -3NT .  It will work most of the time and does not introduce extra complexities.

However the more modern style of 15-17 (1NT) and 18-19 (2NT ) provides more  bidding space. For example  compare 1D -1S -3NT (19) with the more modern method of  1D -1S -2NT (18-19) –  ??  Responder has a choice of rebids – Responder can

(1) Exceptionally a pass with a bad 6 points

(2) Rebid  3S to show a 5 card suit and game forcing – opener can then chose between 3NT and 4S  with a 5-3 spade fit,

(3) Rebid of 3NT showing a 4 card spade suit and enough points for game opposite the 2NT 18-19 .

Perhaps a better example of the advantage of the 18-19 2NT is 1D -1S -2NT (18-19)-3H  – where responder is showing shape –  Opener can now place contract  i.e.  3NT, 4H or 4S . Compare this  with 1D -1S -3NT(19) where responder is left wondering,  with 5-4 in majors, whether to bid 4H or not.  The 2NT (18-19) enables more discussion in the auction.

New players were not taught this more modern style  as it adds an extra layer to the auction.  A worse case scenario is 1D -1S -2NT -3S (GF with 5 spades ) and opener passes – I have seen this happen irrespective of the strength of the 2NT bid , this is due to partnership misunderstanding where the opener has not picked up that the 3S is forcing.   With the traditional style 1S- 1S -3NT at least you are in game and it will probably work most of the time.

Using the 15-17  and 18 style, the 3NT rebid by opener can be reserved for hands with a long strong running suit   e.g. 1C-1D -3NT which instead of showing the traditional balanced  19 HCPS shows a hand with a long solid minor , probably clubs hoping to run 9 tricks off the top.  This would be a partnership agreement.

Changing from 15-16 (1NT), 17-18 (2NT) and 19 (3NT)  arrangement  to 15-17 (1NT)   and 18-19 (2NT)  style is a matter of partnership agreement – the 18-19 2NT rebid may carry an extra edge over the traditional method of 17-18 2NT rebid over a one level response by partner however it introduces extra complexities in the partnership bidding system.

[Ross Stacey]

Hi Steve

As said previously I would be interested to hear in one of BM seminars how he defends the artificial 1C SAYC .   ( Hands with either long/ moderate / short clubs)

I have had a look on line and not found anything yet on defending SAYC 1C,   However if you look at  web site “BCL Full SAYC Convention Card – Bridge Club Live”.  it describes its general  use defensive methods .  For the strong club it uses natural methods (as opposed to conventional methods such as  Truscott and the like )  and is silent on conventional defences against the artificial SAYC 1 club opening.  I would have anticipated that the SAYC convention card would pick up special methods if needed against its own system  – not even mentioned in passing.

I rather like the  BM approach to these sort of issues – if you cannot explain your system in 3 seconds then don’t bother.  I find that remembering / applying the frequently occurring parts of bridge a challenge without straining the memory on the less frequent items .

We recently played a 32 board match against a strong team (we lost) with one opposing pair playing a complex precision system and the other half was playing possible 3 card minors .  I don’t recall  defensive methods over their two 1C systems being an issue .  We lost because of other inaccuracies in the bidding and their competitive bids . Hope this helps.

As all things in bridge there are several ways of tackling questions and you really need an expert to give a comment on whether or not there is a “best” method of competing over the possible short suited  1C opening  with normal opening HCPS .

 

[Ross Stacey]

In the original question Steve does not say whether the 1 Club opening is American Standard style or Strong Club style (Precision type) .  Many ASYC 1C openers are a weak NT type hand

If defending against precision I use a similar well known method to that described by Julian Pottage – Double shows hearts and a minor, and 1D shows spades and another,  1H and 1S natural and 1NT shows minors .  However we don’t come up against many precision players so are unable to put it into practice much.

I play precision with my long term partner and we find that we have precision methods which cope well with interference in most situations .  The most effective interference is 1C (16+ ) – 3M as so much bidding space is taken.

When playing against players who play an artificial club (or artificial diamond)  – we treat their bid as if it is natural and overcall/ X in the normal way.  That is we don’t have a sepcial system to cope with the artificial club system.

The reason we do this is because any <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>infrequent </span>special system bid is a strain on the memory so we stick to a normal defence system .  When you are a bit tired and the 1C comes out of the blue your memory is sorely tested.

Using a normal defence  system , we treat the 1C as natural . I recall playing against a pair where the bidding went 1C (artificial) – 2C (Michaels) – Michaels being a normal method .  It caused no end of confusion for the 1C artificial system pair .    Using the Julian Pottage method the bidding would have gone  1C -1S  but neither the suits are known or their length , and my partnership system against a strong club it goes 1C -1D.    I expect you have to read this twice to comprehend .

Overall my view is to keep it simple unless you are a very regular partnership who have it all written down and don’t forget the less used part of the  system due to lack of use..  I will be interested to see what Bernard’s defensive  approach is to the artificial 1C ( 5card major system ) is, especially as the short 1C opening is becoming more popular in UK.

[Author]

Posts