Help
BridgeBuff, on Aug 28 2004, 08:34 AM, said:
I haven't been here long enough to be bored by it, but Fluffy raises a good point. Why not use the expertise on this forum to develop a killer defence, if one exists? What are the objectives? Would they be
(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently
(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently
(3) ability to show specifically both majors
(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand
(5) the system should be difficult to defend
(6) pre-emption is good
Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.
The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.
With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.
Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ = minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.
I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.
(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently
(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently
(3) ability to show specifically both majors
(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand
(5) the system should be difficult to defend
(6) pre-emption is good
Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.
The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.
With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.
Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ = minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.
I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.
Well, I'll tell you why I like Woolsey (scroll earlier to see what it is).
I don't think anyone that participates in this forum disagrees that modern bridge theory is to actively interfere with their strong 1N opener.
If we are choosing to jam with hands lite distributional hands, it is paramount that we arrive quickly in our best fit. These calls are not meant for constructive bidding, the actions are 90% destuctive by nature.
For me, its not just important to show different hand patterns, its also important to differentiate between respective suit lengths. Playing Woolsey, we can always fish out if partner has a longer minor than major and v.v.. Most other methods posted here do not.
Many posters like Meckwell, because it allows you to show a single minor suiter. I think the value of this is overrated, since dbl and 2C really doesn't create any action, and over a Meckwell dbl, responder doesn't know if overcaller has ♣ or ♦ or (unlikely) the majors. If you want to jam them with a single minor suiter, a jump overcall is more effective.