[mr1303]

If you have agreed to play suction over a strong or short 1C and a strong 2C, should this apply over a 2C opening that is strong and artificial or a weak 2 in diamonds?

---

What would you call here?

If it helps, you have discussed that over a multi 2D (common in EBU land) you play that 2H/S are natural and X = 13-15 balanced or 19+

[glen]

mr1303, on 2013-January-01, 07:48, said:

If you have agreed to play suction over a strong or short 1C and a strong 2C, should this apply over a 2C opening that is strong and artificial or a weak 2 in diamonds?

No, use your defense to a weak 2 in diamonds, and add 2♦ as 5-4+ in the majors, overcall strength.

[hrothgar]

glen, on 2013-January-01, 08:02, said:

No, use your defense to a weak 2 in diamonds, and add 2♦ as 5-4+ in the majors, overcall strength.

If you want to do something like this, I would think that its better to use 2♥ as the hand with both majors and use 2♦ to show hearts

[glen]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-01, 08:12, said:

If you want to do something like this, I would think that its better to use 2♥ as the hand with both majors and use 2♦ to show hearts

I wasn't trying to provide the optimal agreement, just one that was simple to implement. A better method uses 2♦ as a takeout double in ♦s, and double of 2♣ as values, but this requires the partnership to know things such as 2♣-X-P-P is Neutral.

[Gerben42]

Suction is only used against only-strong opening bids, so you cannot use it here. In your messed-up situation I would have called 3♠ if I believe partner used the convention here.

[Free]

2H is natural for me, this opening is completely different from a strong 2C opening.

[fromageGB]

There's no reason why you cannot play suction over a strong unspecified 2-bid, such as 2♣ or a benjaminish 2♦, and I have done and for simplicity am happy to continue to do so. The opening bids have much in common with a strong 1♣, but as the opening is stronger and the level higher, there may be more chance of coming unstuck. However, I have never been in a doubled bad contract. Opponents always seem determined to play the hand. Of course any interference can help them play the hand, and this can be important. It's a balance between giving information away and the disruption and loss of space you cause.

The weak 2 in diamonds is a different kettle of fish. Natural and forcing seems simple and good.

On the given hand, if 2♥ is spades or minors, I prefer 3♦, but it depends how free you are with the suction bids. There is no reason to believe opponents have game on, but they may have, and it may be best to let them play in 3♥ or 4♣ if they choose to bid it. But happy to play in 3♦ or ♠ if they let us. However, my bid is 2♠ if a vulnerable single-suiter can be 5 cards.

[Cthulhu D]

The relative frequencies are such that I think the weak hand is something like 3 times more common than the strong hand. It's wise to treat a 2C: Weak 2 in diamonds or strong as a weak 2 in diamonds.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, I misread the question. Over a multi2C (as I now read it) I play as glen suggested :

• X = balanced opening hand
  
• 2♦ = 3 suited opening hand short in diamonds (well, implying 44xx in majors), a takeout of 2♦
  
• 2♥ and upwards = natural or what they normally mean.

We had discussed what the defence should be when we played the multi2C before the EBU decided they didn't like it, but it never came up. It needs to be simple and as systemically normal as possible, because of the infrequency. As we play a bid of the opponents' transfer suit as a takeout of that suit { eg (1NT) p (2♦=hearts) 2♥ }, this approach seemed obvious.

[fromageGB]

As over a multi2D you play X = 13-15 balanced or 19+ , it makes sense to do the same over 2♣.

[fromageGB]

mr1303, on 2013-January-01, 07:48, said:

What would you call here?

Playing the defence as above, I make a simple game invitation of 3♥.

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2013-January-07, 05:08, said:

Sorry, I misread the question. Over a multi2C (as I now read it) I play as glen suggested :

• X = balanced opening hand
  
• 2♦ = 3 suited opening hand short in diamonds (well, implying 44xx in majors), a takeout of 2♦
  
• 2♥ and upwards = natural or what they normally mean.

We had discussed what the defence should be when we played the multi2C before the EBU decided they didn't like it, but it never came up. It needs to be simple and as systemically normal as possible, because of the infrequency. As we play a bid of the opponents' transfer suit as a takeout of that suit { eg (1NT) p (2♦=hearts) 2♥ }, this approach seemed obvious.

A lot of people do this, but it is technically inferior to just doubling 2♣ with a take-out double for a whole bunch of reasons:

1. You lose the option of extracting a penalty.

2. You commit yourself to the auction when you have a take out double. They have given you a virtually free way of entering the auction - use it!

3. You lose the option of partner cue bidding their suit in response to a double of 2♣ when the next hand passes.

4. You lose the option of partner doubling when the next hand bids 2♦.

5.You lose the option of partner having a free bid (rather than a forced bid) when the next hand bids 2♦. In your method over your 2♦, partner's 2M is 0-8. If you double with the take-out double, partner's 2M over 2♦ shows about 6-9.

Doubling 2♣ with your take-out doubles is intrinsically cheaper and safer. You can set a low threshold for the double (next hand almost invariably bids some diamonds) and partner is not forced to bid. With a genuine hand you can double or bid again.

Pass and double should be for penalties - not a weak take out, which are not safe hands to act on the second round. A cue bid should show the majors with a split range.

In this sequence, all I lose is the balanced 13-15 with the wrong shape to double (eg 4234). With that I pass and balance with 2NT, which is surprisingly effective.

This defence applies to all transfer openings with one weak or one-suited option with a few minor modifications - passing and doubling Namyats, for instance shows a strong balanced hand, since penalties is hardly likely. But being able to double 4♣ on a 4144 11 count is like printing free imps.

[Avoidance]

Phil, would/do you also apply this reasoning to (1NT)P (2 Red Suit Transfer) X as was I think suggested by Cathy Chau?

[PhilKing]

Avoidance, on 2013-January-08, 07:50, said:

Phil, would/do you also apply this reasoning to (1NT)P (2 Red Suit Transfer) X as was I think suggested by Cathy Chau?

It makes a lot of sense against a weak no trump.

Against a strong no trump I think it is less likely to be our hand, so I still play lead directing.