Crash over strong 1C. Does it make sense?

[Hans Georg Schaathun]

I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?

I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?

¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.

[MJ]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.
--
:-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/
`This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built
on government contract.' (Heinlein)

Yes, CRASH works well. But so does bidding. When ask about an
effective defense against a strong club, Benito said, Bid 2S!
The idea was to take up as much room as possible and leave them
guessing.

Another effective defense is SUCTION. It has an added advantage.
A direct overcall of 1C shows the next higher suit (aka a transfer) or
the next two higher suits! For instance, an overcall of 1H would show
either Spades or both minors. An overcall of 1S would show Clubs
or the red suits. Etc. Jump overcalls have the same meaning but
announce even more distribution (a 7 or 8+ card suit or 6/5 or 6/6).

Now for the advantage. Most responders to a 1C opening and
interference will pass with a positive. So most auction would go
1C-1H*-P-?. This leaves advancer well placed to disrupt the bidding
should he have fits for the transfer suit and one of the higher two suits
since he is guaranteed at least one fit. Further, since interloper has yet
to announce his hand, the opponents are still guessing which suit or
suits he has. This allows for bidding to the magic 2 or 3 level where
the opponents then must decide how to continue.

In my experience, there is no effective defense against it. If you are
aggressive, about 40% of the time it is right to double you. But
60% of the time they lose from doing so. This but tremendous
pressure on the opponents to get it right. Usually they just bid on.
And you have effectively thwarted any advantage of their club
system.

BTW you may augment the SUCTION further by using DBL to show
the pointed suits (S & D) and NT the rounded suits (H & C) or
vice-versa.

[Gerben Dirksen]

Post by MJ

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.

Yes, it's a good convention. One point: Why not play 1M as natural, Dbl as
Colour and 1D as shape? That is the "standard" Crash and better as it also
follows my golden rule of intervening versus strong Club:

* A bid should either promise cards in the bid suit, or the suit bid should
be one of several possibilities.

Post by MJ
Yes, CRASH works well. But so does bidding. When ask about an
effective defense against a strong club, Benito said, Bid 2S!
The idea was to take up as much room as possible and leave them
guessing.

Yes, that is good advice!

Post by MJ
Another effective defense is SUCTION. It has an added advantage.
A direct overcall of 1C shows the next higher suit (aka a transfer) or
the next two higher suits! For instance, an overcall of 1H would show
either Spades or both minors. An overcall of 1S would show Clubs
or the red suits. Etc. Jump overcalls have the same meaning but
announce even more distribution (a 7 or 8+ card suit or 6/5 or 6/6).
Now for the advantage. Most responders to a 1C opening and
interference will pass with a positive. So most auction would go
1C-1H*-P-?. This leaves advancer well placed to disrupt the bidding
should he have fits for the transfer suit and one of the higher two suits
since he is guaranteed at least one fit. Further, since interloper has yet
to announce his hand, the opponents are still guessing which suit or
suits he has. This allows for bidding to the magic 2 or 3 level where
the opponents then must decide how to continue.

Huh? With a positive you bid. There are some upsides to this convention but
a BIG downside is that the suit you bid is the one you do not promise. This
helps the opponents.

Post by MJ
In my experience, there is no effective defense against it. If you are
aggressive, about 40% of the time it is right to double you. But
60% of the time they lose from doing so. This but tremendous
pressure on the opponents to get it right. Usually they just bid on.
And you have effectively thwarted any advantage of their club
system.

At least with Suction as you describe it, opponent always have two shots.
This is BAD (see the golden rule)

Post by MJ
BTW you may augment the SUCTION further by using DBL to show
the pointed suits (S & D) and NT the rounded suits (H & C) or
vice-versa.

Okay. So if you plan to play Suction, please play it such that a suit bid
shows either that suit or the next two, i.e. 2D is Diamonds or Majors.

Gerben

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Gerben Dirksen
Yes, it's a good convention. One point: Why not play 1M as natural, Dbl as
Colour and 1D as shape?

I suspect you meant to say 1D as "rank" (1NT = shape as in the original
post).

-- Adam

[Hans Georg Schaathun]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:18:35 +0100, Gerben Dirksen
<***@t-online.de> wrote:
: Yes, it's a good convention. One point: Why not play 1M as natural, Dbl as
: Colour and 1D as shape?

I should certainly ask my partner about that :-)

[Tysen Streib]

Post by MJ
Another effective defense is SUCTION.

We use CRASH at the 1 level and SUCTION at the 2-level and higher.
Crash bids are typically only 4/4 but can be 4/5. More shape means bid
at a higher level. Actually we use "inverted psycho suction." So it
looks like this:

Dbl = H (intermediate or better)
1D = S (intermediate or better)
1H = Color
1S = Rank
1NT = Shape
2C = both minors or hearts
2D = reds or spades
2H = majors or clubs
2S = blacks or diamonds
2N = rounded or pointed
3x = same as 2x with more shape

It's worked very well for us.

Tysen

[OldPalooka]

MJ wrote:
[snip]

Post by MJ
Yes, CRASH works well. But so does bidding. When ask about an
effective defense against a strong club, Benito said, Bid 2S!
The idea was to take up as much room as possible and leave them
guessing.
Another effective defense is SUCTION. It has an added advantage.
A direct overcall of 1C shows the next higher suit (aka a transfer) or
the next two higher suits! For instance, an overcall of 1H would show
either Spades or both minors. An overcall of 1S would show Clubs
or the red suits. Etc. Jump overcalls have the same meaning but
announce even more distribution (a 7 or 8+ card suit or 6/5 or 6/6).
Now for the advantage. Most responders to a 1C opening and
interference will pass with a positive. So most auction would go
1C-1H*-P-?. This leaves advancer well placed to disrupt the bidding
should he have fits for the transfer suit and one of the higher two suits
since he is guaranteed at least one fit. Further, since interloper has yet
to announce his hand, the opponents are still guessing which suit or
suits he has. This allows for bidding to the magic 2 or 3 level where
the opponents then must decide how to continue.
In my experience, there is no effective defense against it. If you are
aggressive, about 40% of the time it is right to double you. But
60% of the time they lose from doing so. This but tremendous
pressure on the opponents to get it right. Usually they just bid on.
And you have effectively thwarted any advantage of their club
system.

Since suction, like other transfer systems, "requires" advancer (4th
hand) to
take the relay, you are starting with pass, dbl, and a bid of their
anchor suit as
a basis for defense (assuming if responder and advancer pass, opener is

forced). That is an awful lot of room to give and yet claim there is
no effective
defense.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by OldPalooka
[snip]

Post by MJ
Yes, CRASH works well. But so does bidding. When ask about an
effective defense against a strong club, Benito said, Bid 2S!
The idea was to take up as much room as possible and leave them
guessing.
Another effective defense is SUCTION. It has an added advantage.
A direct overcall of 1C shows the next higher suit (aka a transfer) or
the next two higher suits! For instance, an overcall of 1H would show
either Spades or both minors. An overcall of 1S would show Clubs
or the red suits. Etc. Jump overcalls have the same meaning but
announce even more distribution (a 7 or 8+ card suit or 6/5 or 6/6).
Now for the advantage. Most responders to a 1C opening and
interference will pass with a positive. So most auction would go
1C-1H*-P-?. This leaves advancer well placed to disrupt the bidding
should he have fits for the transfer suit and one of the higher two suits
since he is guaranteed at least one fit. Further, since interloper has yet
to announce his hand, the opponents are still guessing which suit or
suits he has. This allows for bidding to the magic 2 or 3 level where
the opponents then must decide how to continue.
In my experience, there is no effective defense against it. If you are
aggressive, about 40% of the time it is right to double you. But
60% of the time they lose from doing so. This but tremendous
pressure on the opponents to get it right. Usually they just bid on.
And you have effectively thwarted any advantage of their club
system.

Since suction, like other transfer systems, "requires" advancer (4th
hand) to
take the relay, you are starting with pass, dbl, and a bid of their
anchor suit as
a basis for defense (assuming if responder and advancer pass, opener is
forced). That is an awful lot of room to give and yet claim there is
no effective
defense.

I would think that pass or correct bids would fit quite well with
Suction. Over a 1H (Spades or the minors suits) bid, I would think
bidding 2S with three Spades and an even better fit for one of the
minors would be standard, as would a bid of 3C with five Clubs and four
or more Spades. That's how it works in Crash anyway. Highest spot you
can stand in your best fit vs. the more pessimistic combination.

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

[pfriedmanNoSpam]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.
--
:-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/
`This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built
on government contract.' (Heinlein)

Several points perhaps worth consideration.

1) What is the purpose of the intervention? Some thing that getting in as
often as possible is the best tactic. Others think that getting the bidding
to the 3 level as often and as quickly as possible is the best tactic. Edgar
Kaplan was a strong believer in the latter and therefore favored a
conservative Truscott approach (2-suited overcalls; both suits always knows,
always 5-5 or better). Clearly CRASH is not going to allow advancer to boost
to the 3-level immediately very often as he needs good support for one of
each possibility.

2) It is possible to play CRASH without the X and 1D transfers. One
approach:
x: either does not exist or a (semi)-balanced hand probably bigger than
opener's.
1D,1H,1N: the Crash calls
1S: natural. Since it does take up some room but is still safe to bid
on less than wondrous shape.

FWIW, I never double a strong 1C. I am kind of in the middle between get in
often and get high quickly.

Paul

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?

I play it with one partner, although we use 1NT, 2C and 2D to show the
two-suiters and Dble to show a Club overcall, 1D, 1H and 1S as natural.
It works very well as partner is often able to make a pass-or-correct
bid at a high level or raise one of the natural bids to a very high
level and the opening bidder might as well be playing a forcing 3C or
higher. Except that they have the option of doubling you. This does
not, however, often compensate them for the bidding room that they have
lost.

This also led to our most amusing push board ever.

LHO bid 1C
Scott Doubled (alerted and explained as showing a Club overcall)
RHO passed (alerted as showing a negative with no long suit to bid and
no Club shortness)
I had some ragged hand with three Clubs and decided to Pass.
LHO had a strong NT with four Clubs and passed.
He just made it. If I had the club 9 instead of the 8 he would not
have.
Our teammates had played 2H making three. For the same 140.
However, they could not guess the contract at our table.

Will in New Haven

--

All change for round ten; slow pairs please go home

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.
--
:-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/
`This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built
on government contract.' (Heinlein)

[Free]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.
--
:-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/
`This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built
on government contract.' (Heinlein)

I still prefer my own defense against strong 1C, and I explain why on
my blog:
http://freebridge.blogspot.com/2006/05/defense-against-strong-1c.html
I know someone who just adopted it this weekend and already had pure
success with it (and some havoc because of the 1S bid).

It uses some similar ideas like Majors in transfer, however we still
have a strong bid. CRASH is a good idea if you want to let partner jam
the auction. 1C - ... - ... - jam! However it's too late in many
occasions. Opponents both have told strength and perhaps even shape,
so they can handle preemption better, perhaps even adopt penalty
doubles.

Free
http://freebridge.blogspot.com

[KWSchneider]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.

A good defense to a strong club must do the following:

1) With weak hands [THEY have the auction], it must prevent them from
using their asking bid and slam tools
2) it must prevent opener from clarifying his hand strength -
especially when he is balanced
3) it must allow overcaller/advancer a method of constructively
reaching their own game when it is available

Schneider Over Strong Club

Pass - 10-12 balanced OR 10-15 unbalanced - NOT forcing since opener
has used artificial bid - advancer can relatively safely bid with 8+
and a suit
DBL - 16+ [my hand is as good as yours]
1D - 13-15 balanced
1M - 0-9 3+M super canape - advancer bids 1N=4M, 2M=5M, etc otherwise
any other bid is pass or correct
1N - 0-9 balanced [most strong club systems cannot deal with a 1N
overcall - if we get into trouble we use our mini NT rescue system]
2x - 0-9 6+x OR 55 in next 2 suits OR 4441x [similar to wonderbids] -
after DBL, pass=natural, next suit=2 suiter, rdbl=4441x
2N - 0-9 other 2 suiters [c/h OR d/s]

ALL hands 0-9 are opened - generally with 1S, 1N or 2x - this
addresses 1) and 2)
Intermediate hands are passed and allow advancer to safely enter the
auction - this addresses 2)
Opening and stronger hands are developed slowly either by passing,
bidding 1D or doubling - this addresses 3)

Cheers,


KWSchneider
NH, USA

[p***@infi.net]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
I am seeing a need for some firm defense agreements¹ over
strong 1C openers, and partner came up with Crash.
I.e. X shows hearts, 1D shows spades
1H/S/N show two-suiters, respectively same colour,
same rank, and same shape.
Has anyone tried it? Does it make sense?
I have some obvious reservations, that X and 1D should only be
used with a very constructive meaning (since they give away space);
probably as strongly lead directional. Is it good otherwise?
¹ and I mean _just_agreement_ not necessarily fancy conventions.

FWIW, without any claim to much experience in practice, I like X =
spades + another suit, 1D = hearts + a minor, 1NT = minors. The main
object is to have a known suit which partner can preempt as
appropriate. I have a group playing this at the moment so in the future
I can claim better experience.