Interference over 1C

[s***@gmail.com]

Hi,

I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
questions:

1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?

3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?

Regards,
Gideon

[s***@bellsouth.net]

I too play a strong club system. Our notes include 4 pages of what to
do over interference, so certainly we expect it. We also get many fine
scores when opponents interfere frivolously.

The basics are:
1C, any opp bid 2NT or below:
pass shows 0-5 OR a penalty pass (alertable)
X shows 6-7 HCP any shape
1NT is 8-10 and positional
Suit bids are natural with 8+
Opener is expected to reopen with a double when partner passes.

IF opponents bid at the 3 level or higher:
X shows values, willing to compete
Suit bids are natural and game forcing

Rich Regan

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Post by s***@bellsouth.net
I too play a strong club system. Our notes include 4 pages of what to
do over interference, so certainly we expect it. We also get many fine
scores when opponents interfere frivolously.

Since ACBL GCC lets you use whatever defense you like against strong 1C
systems, I often use my strong 1NT defense.

I have noticed this about defending strong club:
1) Try to keep your single suited hands concealed. One favorite is to
use double to show a single suited hand and advancer jumps to the one
that he would least like to play at the 2M or 3m level. Whatever you
do. NEVER naturally bid your single suit. Transfer to it or psych
transfer (as above) to it. If possible put them on the guess about
whether to play 3NT or something else before they can exchange
information about stops.
2) Try to show two-suiters cheap. Sometimes, you might actually want to
play in one of them.
3) Jumps into the one suit that you don't have are really good ways to
show three-suiters. They take away bidding space and leave one of three
ways to get out (and may show the way to defend

If you can't cope with a system that is at least this simple, you can't
play strong 1C:
X: A single suited hand. Advancer will jump to the suit that she would
least like to play.
1D: Majors. Advancer will certainly jump with a 4-card suit and may
jump with 3.
1H/1S: This suit and a minor. Look for a raise with some support or a
jump to 3C with good minors
1NT: Both Minors. Look for a jump to 3C, if it remotely makes sense
2x: Three suited, short in the suit bid. Advancer will certainly jump
with 5-card support in any fitting suit.
2NT: any of the above with extreme shape.

This is likely the simplest effective system. Almost all effective
systems will give better disruption than this. You have to be ready for
it.

[Gerben Dirksen]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

Well in a way if they bid on junk they cannot beef up the auction to say,
the 3-level, that easily. I'd be more worried with opponents who know how to
bid against a strong Club. See for example "I love this game" by Sabine
Auken (yes I know she is throwing in her own windows but oh well *g).

Post by s***@gmail.com
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?

There is no simple answer to this. Every step of interference could be
optimized, however I think that after low-level interference you should
distinguish between bad (0 - 5) and medium (6 - 8) responding hands.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?

Yes but this would not be a strong club system, would it. It's a good system
though playing that way :)

Gerben

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

Basically, opponents can do whatever they like over your forcing
opener. If you don't like it, play 16-18 2-level bids and 19+ 3-level
bids. The basic idea is that if you make your forcing bid at a level
that permits your opponents to make a bid for a contract that they
might actually be able to make or that might be a good sacrifice, they
are likely to bid. Either you have to deal with it or you have to find
another system.

Post by s***@gmail.com
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?

Your first line of defense is a system that I refer to as
"Yabba-Dabba-Cue". This give you two chances to extract a penalty when
Responder can't force game and Opener is in a position to penalize.
This works with forcing 1NT, 2C, 2D and strong 2NT as well as 1C and
1D, but opponents almost never make a constructive overcall in those
situations. You know that they are weak.

The basics of DDPPBBCC "Yabba-Dabba-Cue" are as follows:

Double with Doubt: Double shows a hand that at most is at the bottom
end of the invitational range

Pass with Points: Pass shows a hand that can invite game (or at most
could just barely force).

Bid for a Bonus: If you have game plus a jack, it seldom pays to try to
penalize opponents at the 1- or 2-level. Just bid your hand. Systems
below the 4-level are off.

Cue if Curious: If you are within a queen of slam opposite a minimum
opener, bid the cheapest of opponents known suits, if there one. If
there is no known suit, bid the suit that they bid.

The basic idea is that, with favorable vulnerability, you should take a
1-trick penalty, if you can't make game. With equal or unfavorable
vulnerability, you need to beat them two tricks.

When you can make game, with unfavorable vulnerability, you need to
beat them 4 tricks to compensate for your game and 6 or 7 tricks to
compensate for your slam. It pays just to bid your slam.

With favorable vulnerability, you need only 2 tricks to compensate for
your game and 4 tricks to cover your slam. You will want to penalize
more frequently.

The point is that you have to be ready for opponents to bid or you have
a system that you can't play. If I knew that you couldn't deal with it,
I would find a way to interfere myself.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?

No, because opponents will more frequently have a constructive call.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run

Reminds me of a day at a regional when I was playing Precision and
played four boards against a top expert who apparently believed in
this. We had 1C openings on three of the four boards, and on all three
of them the expert threw in a bid on a mediocre 4-card suit and a
mediocre hand. We got average-plus on all three of them. I don't
remember all the details, but I do remember that on one board, the
interference somehow kept us out of our normal 3NT that everyone else
in the room was bidding, and we got to 5D instead---and it turned out
to be one of those rare hands where 3NT was making just nine tricks and
5D was making twelve.

But that was probably just dumb luck, so it probably doesn't help tell
you whether this disruption works well or not.

-- Adam

[g***@gmail.com]

1) Disrupting the 1C is not as effective as you might think.
Many people do not realize that disrupting the 1D opening
is the percentage bid. The 1D opener frequently has no
safe harbor since partner can never show preference
to diamonds.

2) Adopt good agreements over disruptive bids. A good set of
logical agreements over this interference should stand you
in good stead.
Come up with a list of the most usualy type of hand that opener
will have and come up with agreements on what you would do with
each. Always remember, that "pass" is frequently the best bid.

3) I am not sure what you mean.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?
Regards,
Gideon

[Tamuel]

Post by g***@gmail.com
1) Disrupting the 1C is not as effective as you might think.
Many people do not realize that disrupting the 1D opening
is the percentage bid. The 1D opener frequently has no
safe harbor since partner can never show preference
to diamonds.
2) Adopt good agreements over disruptive bids. A good set of
logical agreements over this interference should stand you
in good stead.
Come up with a list of the most usualy type of hand that opener
will have and come up with agreements on what you would do with
each. Always remember, that "pass" is frequently the best bid.
3) I am not sure what you mean.

I guess he means that 1C opening shows either a strong hand _or_ 10-12 NT
(or why not 8-11)

If opener might have normal strenght it's not that attractive to enter the
auction with junk.


Actually, one of the funniest team matches I played was when I played
1C=8-11 NT or 17+ and we met some people who played "Säfflespader" where
Pass meant 8+, 4+ spades, and 1C was 8+, no 4-card major.

[Alex Martelli]

Post by g***@gmail.com
1) Disrupting the 1C is not as effective as you might think.
Many people do not realize that disrupting the 1D opening
is the percentage bid. The 1D opener frequently has no
safe harbor since partner can never show preference
to diamonds.

Well, that depends on what kind of strong-club system you're playing.
In "Composite Club", for example (basically, Acol with a strong 1C
opener), 1D is 3-card long only with specifically 3=3=3=4 shape, 4 cards
in clubs, and 15-16 HCP -- rare enough (and easy enough for opener to
clarify in most auctions) that the 1D opening bid is not all that easy
to disrupt. But, sure, totally nebulous 1D opening bids (as practiced
in many strong-clubs systems) are more vulnerable to disruption.


Alex

[John Schuler]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?
Regards,
Gideon

I developed a method for bidding over the "semi-preempts", 2C thru 2N.

DTL = Down The Line


Second hand bids 2C

1C (2C)
?
2D,2H Xfers.
2S Xfer to Diamonds
2N Club one suiter, in case 2C overcall was Michaels
3C both Majors, at least 4-5 either way
Smolen with unequal lengths after 3D ask,
else 3N+ = steps if you are playing them.
3D 4H, 5+ Dia
3H 4S, 5+ Dia
3S 5+/5+ in minors

Second hand bids 2D

1C (2D)
?
2M natural
2N both Majors, at least 4-5 either way
After ask:
3D: equal len 3H: longer spades 3S: longer hearts
Responder continues with steps if you are playing them.
3C 5+C, 4Major. DTL after ask
3D single minor, DTL after ask
3H Spades + Clubs, 5+/5+
3S Hearts and Clubs, 5+/5+

Second hand bids 2H

1C (2H)
?
2S nat, but not Michaels
2N 5+ Spades plus a minor, DTL after ask
3C 4 Spades plus a minor, DTL after ask
3D Diamond single suiter or both minors
3H Club single suiter
3S both minors

Second hand bids 2S

1C (2S)
? Frequency
2N 5+ Hearts plus a minor, DTL after ask 4.5
3C 5+ Hearts one suiter 18.6
3D 4 Hearts plus a minor, DTL after ask 10.4
3H Diamond single suiter or both minors 18.4
3S Club single suiter 13.7

Second hand bids 2N

1C (2N)
?
Dbl Penalty; can double at least one minor
3C 6+ HCP, both majors (at least 54), 3D asks, Smolen rebids.
If opener bids 3H or 3S, it's non-forcing.
3D GF, Xfer
3H GF, Xfer
3S Solid 6+ card major (either one)


Notes:

1. The frequency of bids is shown for a 2S intervention, as there was
some concern re wrong-siding NT.

2. The method tries to cover 2C interference when the meaning of 2C is
unknown (on a certain online site the directors think that "standard"
is plenty of information for the 1C side).

3. After 1C (2C) a pair could switch the meanings of 2S and 2N to make
the bids consistent (4 suit transfers just like over 1N openings).
However it seemed more logical to save room for the Diamond one suiter
at the expense of a Club one suiter which is less likely after a 2C
overcall...

[Tamuel]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand.

One way around this is to use 1C as either a weak NT or 17+ (or whatever).
I had a great time playing a system where 1C meant 8-11 NT or 17+

This makes it less attractive to enter the auction with junk.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Post by Tamuel

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand.

One way around this is to use 1C as either a weak NT or 17+ (or whatever).
I had a great time playing a system where 1C meant 8-11 NT or 17+
This makes it less attractive to enter the auction with junk.

... but more common to enter the auction with a constructive call.

[Tamuel]

Post by Michael Angelo Ravera

Post by Tamuel

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand.

One way around this is to use 1C as either a weak NT or 17+ (or whatever).
I had a great time playing a system where 1C meant 8-11 NT or 17+
This makes it less attractive to enter the auction with junk.

... but more common to enter the auction with a constructive call.

Yes, and that's no disadvantage to either of the sides.

[Thomas Dehn]

Post by s***@gmail.com
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

The time to aggressively
disrupt the 1C opener is when 1C shows a strong hand.

Double and 1D do not disrupt at all, they preferably should be used to
show constructive hand types. For example, against a "normal" 1C opener,
I play that a 1D overcall guarantees full opening strength, whereas
a 1S overcall which takes away their bidding space can be considerably
weaker.

A once popular method to disrupt a strong club was to ALWAYS
overcall 1S when nonvulnerable. No, this does not give them any
information to use in the play.

I use Canapé overcalls against 1C:

pass - can be strong. pass and bid later usually shows a good hand.
For example, 1C p(a) 1D p 1NT X is a penalty X.
X - takeout X, short clubs, 10+ HCP (alternatively,
you can play that X shows both majors.)
1D, 1H, and 1S are (destructive) canapé overcalls, showing a three+ card
suit and another five+ card suit. After the canapé,
the next suit is a weak relay, searching for
the long suit, 1NT (if not a passed hand) is a strong
relay, jump raises are preemptive (you need five card
support to raise to the 3 level), and most everything
else is natural and to play. If you are nonvul and have
support for all other suits, you might try the effect of
psyching a raise of partner's canapé overcall.
1NT - a constructive overcall in a minor
2C - destructive, 4+ clubs and a 5+ major (2D is a relay)
2D - a weak jump in a major
2H, 2S - 6+, constructive
2NT - destructive, 5-5 or better in a major and diamonds
3C - 3S: weak jumps.

Note that there is no bid to show both minors in there.
Thats intentional, showing both minors helps opponents
during the play but is unlikely to disturb their auction.


Thomas

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Thomas Dehn
Note that there is no bid to show both minors in there.
Thats intentional, showing both minors helps opponents
during the play but is unlikely to disturb their auction.

It does help you find a good save every now and then, though. Maybe
not often enough to make it worthwhile, I don't know.

Also, although a bid that shows minors might not disturb their auction
right away, they might have a little problem if it enables partner to
jump to the 5 level or something at his next turn. That sometimes
happens too.

-- Adam

[Thomas Dehn]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by Thomas Dehn
Note that there is no bid to show both minors in there.
Thats intentional, showing both minors helps opponents
during the play but is unlikely to disturb their auction.

It does help you find a good save every now and then, though. Maybe
not often enough to make it worthwhile, I don't know.

One problem is that these saves in the minors are on the five
level, and thus significantly less likely to be profitable
than a 4S save over their 4H. Especially, at IMPs, giving
up +500 against their potential vulnerable game is not
a good strategy.

There also is the issue of not being able to
have your cake and eat it, too.
Basically, two approaches are possible:
- show both minors frequently, possibly even with 4-4 distribution.
That approach gives opponents useful information, but does
not much help your side find a good save, because of lack of
playing strength.
- show only 5-5 or better distribution. Your side might find
a good save here, but that approach gives
them a blueprint how to play the hand.

And, of course, if you are using a double of the strong
1C/1D/2C opener to show both minors, that will give responder
*two* immediate extra bids to show additional hand types.


Thomas

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Thomas Dehn

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by Thomas Dehn
Note that there is no bid to show both minors in there.
Thats intentional, showing both minors helps opponents
during the play but is unlikely to disturb their auction.

It does help you find a good save every now and then, though. Maybe
not often enough to make it worthwhile, I don't know.

One problem is that these saves in the minors are on the five
level

Well, not always. Sometimes they're at the 7 level. That happened at
the last game I played in; they opened a strong 2C, I made a bid that
showed minors (actually, a CRASH bid showing minors or majors, but
partner figured out which one after they showed a major), and we found
a good 7C save over their cold major small slam. This was matchpoints,
though. I'm still not saying your argument is wrong---I can't say that
this sort of thing happens often enough to make it necessary to have a
way to show minors.

-- Adam

[Tamuel]

Post by Thomas Dehn

Post by s***@gmail.com
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

The time to aggressively
disrupt the 1C opener is when 1C shows a strong hand.
Double and 1D do not disrupt at all, they preferably should be used to
show constructive hand types. For example, against a "normal" 1C opener,
I play that a 1D overcall guarantees full opening strength, whereas
a 1S overcall which takes away their bidding space can be considerably
weaker.
A once popular method to disrupt a strong club was to ALWAYS
overcall 1S when nonvulnerable. No, this does not give them any
information to use in the play.
pass - can be strong. pass and bid later usually shows a good hand.
For example, 1C p(a) 1D p 1NT X is a penalty X.
X - takeout X, short clubs, 10+ HCP (alternatively,
you can play that X shows both majors.)
1D, 1H, and 1S are (destructive) canapé overcalls, showing a three+ card
suit and another five+ card suit.

Nice to see someone else playing that way. With one of my partners I play
canapé 1X.

However, its biggest success came when 1C was alerted and I assumed it was
strong club and entred with 1S on a three-card suit.
1C was *not* strong.

[Lorne]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents

Natural bidders generally find a fit then work out how high to bid whereas a
strong club system generally works out how strong you are then looks a for a
fit. The latter is much more exposed to pre-emptive disruption because the
decision whether to defend or bid on is almost entirely dependent on whether
you have a fit and they do not know. Hence people go out of their way to
pre-empt strong artificial systems (and 2C openers in natural systems)
because even world class players can't do more than guess if they do not
know what suit(s) their partner has.

Pre-empting natural auctions can never be as effective because they know if
they have a fit a lot of the time and are thus protected by the law of total
tricks (as long as they bid to the level of their trump fit).

Post by s***@gmail.com
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?

This would make "reckless" interference more dangerous. It is up the you to
decide if what you lose by adding this options is worthwhile for the upside
of less interference from good oppo and interference that is more likely to
benefit you from weak oppo who probably would not change their tactics.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Regards,
Gideon

[d***@aol.com]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi,
I am currently using a strong club system and I have the following
1) Many people I know would attempt to disrupt the 1C opening as long
as they have 13 cards in hand. What do you guys think of such frivulous
disruption in the long run - on one hand, it disrupts the precision of
the system and give opponents the ability to block the bidding at a
higher level; on the other hand it will give declarer information which
might help in the play of the hand, as well as the opportunity to
double the opponents
2) What are the best ways to defend against such interference to
extract a penalty as much as possible, and furthermore, under what
circumstances ie trump holding should the strong, game forcing side,
choose to defend a doubled contract?
3) Would making an additional meaning of 10-12 balanced help to reduce
the amount of interference?
Regards,
Gideon

The ACBL used to allow anything goes ONLY over strong artificial
openings, BUT now the language says over CONVENTIONAL opening. That
includes the 'may be short' 1Club-- so all of us reasonable 1cForce
system users Should let fly 'any thing goes' over this 1Club. Maybe
then sanctioning bodies recognize 'systems only to disrupt' is
forbidden gets some teeth.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by d***@aol.com
The ACBL used to allow anything goes ONLY over strong artificial
openings

I don't know how long ago you mean. There has been a blanket allowance
of "defenses to opponent's conventional calls" for as long as I've been
playing tournament bridge, i.e. since about 1980. Before there was a
GCC, defenses like this were allowed anywhere Class C conventions were
allowed---or maybe it was Class B, I don't quite remember.

Post by d***@aol.com
, BUT now the language says over CONVENTIONAL opening. That
includes the 'may be short' 1Club-- so all of us reasonable 1cForce
system users Should let fly 'any thing goes' over this 1Club. Maybe
then sanctioning bodies recognize 'systems only to disrupt' is
forbidden gets some teeth.

The original poster was referring to "players who try to disrupt a 1C
opening on every hand", which is different from "systems only to
disrupt". Previously I mentioned a top expert who tried to bid every
time we opened a strong club, but his bids were always natural,
four-card suits. This sort of practice doesn't involve conventions, so
it can't be forbidden. Organizations like the ACBL try to forbid
conventional calls that are "purely" disruptive, such as a 1S overcall
that shows 13 cards and nothing else. But players who wish to try to
disrupt almost every 1C opening can find a way to do so while using
only bids that show something significant about the hand; conventions
like that aren't forbidden (in the ACBL), and probably shouldn't be.

-- Adam