[kugw]

Hello All!

Am looking for defences to precision bidding specifically 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

[sfi]

The defence to 1D is straightforward - treat it as a natural short (2+) diamond opening. This means you should have some way to show diamonds, but doubles are takeout and bids are natural. So you could play 2D as 5/5 in the majors and 3D as natural and constructive.

There are more defences to a strong club. If you're looking for a simple and reasonably effective one, use double for the majors, 1NT for the minors (2NT as well, which would show more shape), and everything else as natural. You can use the same agreements after (1C) - (1D).

[kugw]

sfi, on 2021-November-12, 16:28, said:

The defence to 1D is straightforward - treat it as a natural short (2+) diamond opening. This means you should have some way to show diamonds, but doubles are takeout and bids are natural. So you could play 2D as 5/5 in the majors and 3D as natural and constructive.

There are more defences to a strong club. If you're looking for a simple and reasonably effective one, use double for the majors, 1NT for the minors (2NT as well, which would show more shape), and everything else as natural. You can use the same agreements after (1C) - (1D).

Thx much appreciated.

[kugw]

How aggressive should the bidding be when overcalling 1♦ opening?

[mikeh]

kugw, on 2021-November-12, 16:29, said:

Thx much appreciated.

I’d suggest that over 1D (whether 1D could be 0 or 1 or 2, and always of course longer) bid 2D as natural. You don’t want to be jumping to 2D with, say, a decent 10-15 hcp and a good diamond suit.

Use 2H as ‘limited Michael’s’, such that you won’t miss games if partner passes 2H. With a hand too good for limited Michael’s ( what that looks like depends on vulnerability, but I’d suggest 2H shouldn’t be more than a reasonable opening hand) bid 1S unless too strong for that, in which case double.

The 2D overcall can be very effective, since responder may be unable to make a negative double unless he has both majors.

As for defending 1C, it depends on the skill level of your opps. I once read a credible report saying that in high level competition, such as major NABC or WC events, Meckwell’s results actually improved if the opps competed. I suspect it was because they collected some penalties or, even more, were able to play and bid the hand virtually double dummy

But IMO most club level or sectional level big club players are not very good.

Against experts, don’t compete without very good shape.

Against weaker, by all means be more aggressive, especially not vulnerable

I play suction.

A suit bid shows either the suit immediately above or the other two suits.

(1C) 3H is either a 3S bid or very distributional with both minors

(1C) x is either a 1D overcall or both majors

(1C) 2N is either clubs and hearts or diamonds and spades, etc…two non-touching suits.

The key to suction is advancer.

He assumes overcaller has the least attractive holding. After a 2H overcall, spades or minors, if he wants to preempt if you have spades but to get out in 3m if you have minors, he bids his preferred minor….if by chance overcaller has spades, he corrects to spades. If he likes a minor but hates spades, he bids 2S.

Advancer bids as high as he can afford.

White v red

Jxxx xx Qxxxx Kx

(1C) 2H (x) ?

Partner either has 6 spades or is 5-5 minors. If, as is common, x shows values, you must be expecting them to make at least game. You’re happy to be in 4S opposite 6 and 5D otherwise, so bid 4S

If partner has spades, he passes. If he has minors, he pulls to 5C (in case you liked that suit rather than diamonds) and you bid 5D

Meanwhile, opener has to contend with his first natural call being over 4S, not knowing (although he’ll often suspect) what’s going on.

The less experienced or skillful the opps, the more damage this does.

[hrothgar]

Here's my preferred defense

https://www.bridgeba...059#entry212059

[akwoo]

My preferred defense to 1C is 1 of a suit natural (with double showing clubs) and everything 1N or higher Suction.

But I have to admit that the reason Suction works as well as it does is that strong clubbers generally don't specifically prepare for it. I'm pretty sure there are ways the opponents could exploit the extra bid that it gives them (since advancer is almost forced) that almost no one does because remembering a special system for Suction is not worth it. (I play Precision in one partnership, in an area where Suction is quite common, and we still don't have anything special for it (though we have talked about how our generic agreements apply).)

In general, overcall aggressively against 1C openings. Everyone will be guessing, and the stakes are higher for them (even at MPs).

It's probably worth being slightly more aggressive against 1D openings in situations where their not knowing which minor they have might matter, but only slightly.

[sfi]

kugw, on 2021-November-12, 16:52, said:

How aggressive should the bidding be when overcalling 1♦ opening?

About the same as you would over any 1D opening. There's not really much reason to change.

As before, the question is more interesting over the 1C opening. Now you have less reason to expect it's your hand. So you want to be fairly aggressive with decent shape. I've had many good results showing 4/4 hands as two-suiters at the one-level, but you have to work out whether that sort of thing is within your partnership's comfort zone.

Looking at it from the Precision player's point of view, we always had good agreements about how to handle interference at the one- and two-levels. And to be honest it didn't much matter what agreements they played - none of them really pushed around more or less than any other. But we just accepted that we were going to be behind the field when the opposition jumped to the three-level. This means that if you are deciding whether or not to push to the three-level, it's likely to be worth doing so. Of course you can still run into a penalty double, so some caution is warranted.

[sfi]

If you want another defence to consider, in most of my partnerships we play CRASH. The three cheapest bids of X, minors and NT show, in order, two suits of the :

• same Colour (H+D or S+C)
  
• same RAnk (H+S or D+C)
  
• same SHape (H+C or D+S - rounded or pointed suits)

So this would be X, 1D and 1NT over 1C; and X, 1NT and 2C over the 1D response. But I'm not sure how much difference there is in relative merit for any of the proposals.

[mycroft]

These suggestions are all good, but the first bid (whatever it means) is almost irrelevant. It's when to make the bid (as MikeH mentions) and what you do after.

As a (former, but not because of disinterest) Precision player for many years, with my current regular partners, we play Mathe (sfi's suggestion of "Double is majors, NT is minors, everything else (including 2♣!) is natural"). Not because it's the best - it's definitely not - but because there are very few opportunities for me to play against Precision - one pair where I am now, used to be two; three pairs in Calgary, out of the 90 or so I'd expect to run into; at a tournament I'd expect to play against one or two all weekend.

And the thing about Mathe is it's easy to remember, it gives you "the best bid" - majors - and partner will remember it, at least when "remember, we play Mathe" is the response to the "we play a strong Club" Pre-Alert (now required in the ACBL, where I play). There is nothing worse than playing a wonderful defence that partner forgets, either when you bid it and get left in a 3-1, or when partner bids it and gets to the 5 level before she convinces you she forgot. Or when both of you remember it, but don't know how to use all the cool tools you have.

As a Precision player, my goal defending 1♣ is to get to 2-of-a-fit major (or 3-of-a-fit minor) before opener's rebid if at all possible. Opener hasn't said anything at all except strength, and frequently responder doesn't either. So, despite the fact that they give "useful cuebids" (and, with double = majors, at least, extra steps) to responder, I like the advantage that known suits give me more than "confusing with options", where partner has to have fits for all of your possibles to push them around the first time.

Remember to discuss whether the system is still on after 1♣-p-1♦ negative! I suggest "yes".

A caution against some defences you might be given: remember that double does give two extra calls to responder (pass and redouble) and 1♦ gives one (pass vs double). Even bad Precision pairs can use those. (So why do I play double=majors? Because it's easy to remember (remember?), and because most uses of those extra calls just give better strength information than "0-8 any". So, when it goes 1♣-X-XX-2♠, we're still at "goal" - getting to 2M before the opponents have done anything but show HCP. And 2M is much safer than 3m!) You have to bid 1♥ at least to "take away any room". So any fancy bids that require you to bid 1♦ for "this or that or the other thing" - please don't.

Again, no matter what you play, remember that "bid" is key. Don't be stupid, but don't wait for the perfect hand either. Yes, Meckwell may do better when opponents overcall, but you're not beating Meckwell anyway. The players you and I meet just don't do as well after 1♣-something than they do after 1♣-pass. And partner doesn't get to raise you with a fit if she doesn't know about your fit. Remember as advancer that partner isn't being constructive, he's just trying to compete, safely and aggressively, and don't hang him.

Over 1♦ - as they say, play what you play over a 2+ 1♣. There are options if you don't currently have a defence, but I play "standard", at least over the 2+. The 0+ pairs maybe I should do something about...

Finally, know that though it's flashy and fun, Precision doesn't win with the Strong Club - in fact, break even is a pretty decent result. It's the 1M bids where the system is "a bid ahead of the field", and the fact that with a 15 upper limit, they can open hands that standard players have to pass - again, getting "a bid ahead of the field". Give me a game where I get 11-15 hands (balanced or with a major) all night, and I'll be happy for weeks.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a reasonable advice I got several years ago:
Use your defense against a strong NT opening against a strong 1C opening.
The reason is simple: Quite often the 1C opener has a strong NT hand, so just assume he opened 1NT.
And another reason: You start your interventions at the 2 level, which kills space.

The advantage: This simplifies memory load.

Also treat intervention over (1C) - Pass - (1D) - ... similar to the direct action over 1C.

You did ask, how agressive: The counter question would be, how agressive are you against a strong NT opening.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The approach works similar against a polish club opening, now use your weak NT defense.
It is also possible to do similar over precision 1D, ..., obviously if the 1D opening is truly natural 4+, go
for traditional methods, but quite often weak NT openings go through precision 1D.

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on 2021-November-13, 05:47, said:

Hi,

a reasonable advice I got several years ago:
Use your defense against a strong NT opening against a strong 1C opening.
The reason is simple: Quite often the 1C opener has a strong NT hand, so just assume he opened 1NT.
And another reason: You start your interventions at the 2 level, which kills space.

That's a really interesting observation and not one that I had heard before

[mycroft]

Well, at least it's better than the idea from up north to play Cappelletti at the 1 level, which is in my opinion the worst of all possible defences against a strong club - worse than natural, worse than "always pass". Perhaps more dangerous, but at least it takes away space.

[blackshoe]

If you're going to play Cappelletti or similar defense to Precision 1♣, you should imo play it at the two level. Leave the one level for natural bids.