[straube]

For our opening 1N, what's a good defense against their Suction? Partner suggests 1N (2D) 2M be natural to play. What other ideas are out there?

[glen]

straube, on 2013-July-30, 13:39, said:

For our opening 1N, what's a good defense against their Suction? Partner suggests 1N (2D) 2M be natural to play. What other ideas are out there?

On hands that are balanced or semi-balanced, responder should pass or double. For pass this means you want to define 1NT (Suction) P (P) P. I recommend that if responder and advancer both pass, then opener's pass shows length in the strain and a minimum hand. This allows responder to safely pass the Suction bid with game invite values.

[aguahombre]

Since in Suction 2D is the only suit overcaller cannot have, are we really worried about a pass by advancer?

The target person of the ACBL requirement that bids above 2C have at least one known suit had decided to psyche Suction with length in the bid suit to mix things up a bit. But, he isn't living any more.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-30, 17:29, said:

The target person of the ACBL requirement that bids above 2C have at least one known suit had decided to psyche Suction with length in the bid suit to mix things up a bit. But, he isn't living any more.

Is there any connection?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-30, 21:35, said:

Is there any connection?

Maybe. Some Regionals on the West Coast allow Suction (therefore, full CRASH) as a condition of contest now --even though they are not GCC. The restrictions were not the cause of his demise, but his demise might have been the cause of the loosening of restrictions.

[CamHenry]

straube, on 2013-July-30, 13:39, said:

For our opening 1N, what's a good defense against their Suction? Partner suggests 1N (2D) 2M be natural to play. What other ideas are out there?

We tend to play Suction against Suction: so after 1N-(2D), for example:
X = values, penalty interest (including something in diamonds)
P with a weak hand
2♥ = ♠ or minors
2♠ = ♣ or reds
2NT = non-touching two-suiter
3♣ = ♦ or majors

[mycroft]

One thing to think about is "bids mean whatever they would in my x-sohl, but there's no cuebid" the first round and "bids mean whatever they would in my x-sohl" the second round, with initial X=cards (to fight the "my suit is better than yours" pass and the "50 a trick is still a good score" pass). If you have a hand where you want to not let them show anything (and potentially find the right lead, and potentially find the right sacrifice), you go straight ahead. If you have the hand where you do want to know what overcaller has, you can pass/double and find out.

I play this against the GCC-legal "2♣ = diamonds or M+m", for instance.

Like all "X=cards" doubles, you want to agree on how high you're in a forcing auction (even if it's "nowhere").

[glen]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-30, 17:29, said:

Since in Suction 2D is the only suit overcaller cannot have, are we really worried about a pass by advancer?

Only in the context that we want to pass and double more often, compared to bidding over overcalls that show the suit bid.

mycroft, on 2013-July-31, 15:30, said:

Like all "X=cards" doubles, you want to agree on how high you're in a forcing auction (even if it's "nowhere").

If one plays that pass can be a game invite (see my first posting), then double can be game forcing.

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2013-July-30, 13:39, said:

For our opening 1N, what's a good defense against their Suction? Partner suggests 1N (2D) 2M be natural to play. What other ideas are out there?

Maybe it is not optimal but for I/A bridge do you need anything more complicated than X = takeout/Stayman (with values) and everything else is your normal (Lebensohl, Rubensohl, etc) overcall structure?

An amusing defence would be treat the 2♦ overcall as natural (the one thing it is not) and use that suit as the cue bid for -sohl purposes with doubling showing that suit. It seems like that would be worse than the other simple defence though.

[CSGibson]

I play X then X as penalty, pass then X as take-out. 2 level suits are natural and to play, transfers starting at 3♣ which are invitational or better. If I double then cue-bid, that's stayman. xfer lebensohl is on after they have defined their suit as well as immediately.

This structure works for me because it is general principles what I play against other defenses, and I don't want to spend a lot of time devising and memorizing defenses to all of the common interference over 1N when I already have a lot of artificiality in our system that I have to memorize.

[Zelandakh]

I see a potential problem with that Chris. Say you double and the next hand passes. What now? Partner might have a Stayman hand and zero diamonds or might have a hand that wants to penalise. I cannot see any way of sorting it out without letting them off the hook (if they were on it).

[CSGibson]

Zelandakh, on 2013-December-06, 11:07, said:

I see a potential problem with that Chris. Say you double and the next hand passes. What now? Partner might have a Stayman hand and zero diamonds or might have a hand that wants to penalise. I cannot see any way of sorting it out without letting them off the hook (if they were on it).

Nothing is perfect, this comes close enough for me. I play in a district where suction is allowed in all competitions, and I have never had the situation you have quoted come up even once, and if it does, I expect opener to use their judgement - at least if they pass, they are behind the length.

[Mbodell]

Over nt and suction I think a simple defense is X is bal inv+ and creates a force, other bids are what they'd mean if they bid the single suited bid (so leb or rub or whatever with their single suited hand), bidding the next step is takeout, and after an initial X all doubles are penalty. Pass then X is also take out.