[CSGibson]

I've been playing mentally with strategies as to how aggressive I should be relative to an opponent's system. A lot of my thinking has to do with whether I think we are ahead in an auction or behind in an auction compared to other pairs.

For example - when a precision pair opens 1♥ or 1♠ against us, I think we are behind relative to other pairs, because they have a tighter definition of 1M, and may have been able to open a marginal hand. On the other hand, when that same precision pair opens 1♦, I tend to think that we are ahead in the auction, because it is so much less defined.

Currently my strategy against precision 1♦ and other situations where I think I am ahead in the auction is to compete slightly more aggressively than normal, including preempting more aggressively. So far I think it has paid off reasonably well as both a matchpoint and imp strategy.

On the other hand, I am less sure about other auctions as to who is ahead or behind - for example, over a weak NT, if I have a hand that was worth a 1♥ or 1♠ overcall over 1m, I tend to think I am behind, but it is also true that the 1N opening side may be behind if they were supposed to play in 2 of a major, or have to decide whether to compete over my interference. Adding in the common agreement that overcalls over a weak NT tend to be more sound than over a strong NT, and I'm not sure what my strategy should be against that bid.

So I guess what I'm trying to do is start a discussion about how the opponents system and your position relative to the field changes your own bidding aggressiveness, if at all, and what common system variations make you feel like you are ahead or behind in an auction.

[Cyberyeti]

If my opponents open a 2+ card club, I tend to feel I'm ahead if I can take the space away before they find out their real suit(s). The intervention that works best is 2/3♦ particularly where both opps have only one major, so I get in with that as often as I can and we will WJO with a 4 card suit for this purpose.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-07, 05:23, said:

If my opponents open a 2+ card club, I tend to feel I'm ahead if I can take the space away before they find out their real suit(s). The intervention that works best is 2/3♦ particularly where both opps have only one major, so I get in with that as often as I can and we will WJO with a 4 card suit for this purpose.

We have sort of decided to play 2♥= weak with hearts or spades over a 1♣ that could be 2 cards, but we have never been brave enough to actually play it. We don't know which side we would be damaging more...

[Mbodell]

I agree with the opinion that is sort of coming through that what matters most isn't how much you are ahead or behind other pairs who have had a more "field standard" auction but rather how well defined the opponents hand is and/or how much they need the space to work it out. As others suggest, if someone opens a standard 1♣, pushing to preempt makes sense. Same over a precision 1♦ or even a standard 1♦ (especially when you can bid ♣/♦). I don't think it makes sense to stretch over the weak nt, I think they've defined their hand quite well and you are better off saving your auctions for constructive and try to win it back on the hands they can't open 1nt *plus* the hands you can X for blood and make them pay.

[dake50]

I agree with the opinion that is sort of coming through that what matters most isn't how much you are ahead or behind other pairs who have had a more "field standard" auction but rather how well defined the opponents hand is and/or how much they need the space to work it out. As others suggest, if someone opens a standard 1♣, pushing to preempt makes sense. Same over a precision 1♦ or even a standard 1♦ (especially when you can bid ♣/♦). I don't think it makes sense to stretch over the weak nt, I think they've defined their hand quite well and you are better off saving your auctions for constructive and try to win it back on the hands they can't open 1nt *plus* the hands you can X for blood and make them pay. - Mbodell

*** Agree. Competing wins more when opponents action is poorly defined.
If opponents WANT their rebid to clarify their hand,
make that rebid painfully high.
*** Even to the point of a different defending scheme to their UN-defined openings
- especially 'get to the 3-level quickly and often.'
Leaving standard defensive bidding against their defined bids.

[Zelandakh]

As a general rule, the more undefined the opponents' hands are, the more aggressive it pays to be. So nebulous and strong 1m openings are ideal for aggression, whereas over a weak NT they are not only well defined but have also put you in a position where you need most of your bidding space for constructive auctions. Now it so happens that in a great many cases, their bids being undefined is the same as being ahead. In this respect your observations are correct because there is a correlation between the two factors. But I think you have put the wrong factor in focus here.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-07, 12:27, said:

We have sort of decided to play 2♥= weak with hearts or spades over a 1♣ that could be 2 cards, but we have never been brave enough to actually play it. We don't know which side we would be damaging more...

Being aggressive against a short club is a good idea (as others have said) but against good opponents I think it's wrong to play this sort of ambiguous overcall, because your partner can't raise.
Against natural jump overcalls, 1C (2H) dbl (P) is a bit inconvenient, but that's nothing to 1C (2H) dbl (3H) ? when opener can't cue, can't rebid clubs below 3NT...
Adding ambiguity to the auction works better against a pair who can't cope with it.

to be honest I think you are better off playing 2D as a multi, as the 2D WJO is less effective. Partner can always pass that if he fancies it.

[CSGibson]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-17, 15:32, said:

to be honest I think you are better off playing 2D as a multi, as the 2D WJO is less effective. Partner can always pass that if he fancies it.

Really, you think 2♦ is ineffective/less effective? I think its one of the most effective calls in bridge, analogous to 2♣ over 1♦, except now opener has even fewer good options as to what to do over a negative double. I push to make 2♦ calls over 1♣ because of how effective I find it.

On the other hand, I have a great deal of respect for Frances as a poster and player, so its entirely possible that I've just seen what I want to see in regard to the effectiveness of the 2♦ wjo.

[Cyberyeti]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-17, 15:45, said:

Really, you think 2♦ is ineffective/less effective? I think its one of the most effective calls in bridge, analogous to 2♣ over 1♦, except now opener has even fewer good options as to what to do over a negative double. I push to make 2♦ calls over 1♣ because of how effective I find it.

On the other hand, I have a great deal of respect for Frances as a poster and player, so its entirely possible that I've just seen what I want to see in regard to the effectiveness of the 2♦ wjo.

I agree, I find the 2♦ overcall is the one that causes the biggest problems.

[PhilKing]

I think 2♦ causes problems over a loose overloaded 1♣ primarily on partscore deals due to incorrect coutermeasures. It's pretty clear imo to play 2M as non-forcing, since opener frequently has a weak no trump, and play 2NT+ as transfers. This removes the pressure on opener and is pretty smooth. If I played 2♦ as natural, I would play it as 8-12, which is more frequent and more likely to put responder in no-mans land.

When the opening side has game values, no amount of jacking around is really going to discombobulate them too much, so bidding weak hands causes only infrequent problems. Our efforts are best geared towards bashing them up on the partscores, whilst retaining constructive potential. A way to do this is to make our hurtful interventions sufficiently informative that we are way ahead of them on a descriptive level, but close to level in terms of strength.

For instance, suppose we played a 2♥ overcall to show four hearts, five of a minor and about 10-14 points then we place responder in a bind. Say he has a 4324 seven count, he can compete and get his head served on a plate opposite an unsuitable weak NT or pass and miss an obvious partscore. The same applies if he is 5332.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-17, 18:13, said:

I think 2♦ causes problems over a loose overloaded 1♣ primarily on partscore deals due to incorrect coutermeasures. It's pretty clear imo to play 2M as non-forcing, since opener frequently has a weak no trump, and play 2NT+ as transfers. This removes the pressure on opener and is pretty smooth. If I played 2♦ as natural, I would play it as 8-12, which is more frequent and more likely to put responder in no-mans land.

When the opening side has game values, no amount of jacking around is really going to discombobulate them too much, so bidding weak hands causes only infrequent problems. Our efforts are best geared towards bashing them up on the partscores, whilst retaining constructive potential. A way to do this is to make our hurtful interventions sufficiently informative that we are way ahead of them on a descriptive level, but close to level in terms of strength.

For instance, suppose we played a 2♥ overcall to show four hearts, five of a minor and about 10-14 points then we place responder in a bind. Say he has a 4324 seven count, he can compete and get his head served on a plate opposite an unsuitable weak NT or pass and miss an obvious partscore. The same applies if he is 5332.

The sort of place we see opps going wrong over 1♣(2+)-2♦ is:

Responder has 2434 9 count, what does he do ? usually passes

Opener has a 3424 13 he has a reasonable double over 2♦, unfortunately overcaller's partner raises to 3 where X is now uncomfortable so preempters tend to play in 3♦ undoubled for -50. No biggie at teams but not good at pairs. If he doubles, he'll find responder was 42 rather than 24 in the majors. If responder bids 3♣ he'll find declarer didn't have 4.

[Zelandakh]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-17, 15:32, said:

to be honest I think you are better off playing 2D as a multi, as the 2D WJO is less effective. Partner can always pass that if he fancies it.

You can have your cake and eat it too here:
2♣ multi (wjo in a major or pointy suits + strong)
2♦ wjo
2♥ majors, weak
2♠ pointy suits, weak
2NT standard UNT (red suits)
3♣ majors, strong

Simple.

[FrancesHinden]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-17, 15:45, said:

Really, you think 2♦ is ineffective/less effective? I think its one of the most effective calls in bridge, analogous to 2♣ over 1♦, except now opener has even fewer good options as to what to do over a negative double. I push to make 2♦ calls over 1♣ because of how effective I find it. On the other hand, I have a great deal of respect for Frances as a poster and player, so its entirely possible that I've just seen what I want to see in regard to the effectiveness of the 2♦ wjo.

I'm being quoted out of context.
If I was going to give up one of the natural 2-level overcalls in favour of some sort of ambiguous thing, it would be 2D I would give up instead of 2H

p.s. PhilKing has made a similar point indirectly - a proportion of the benefit from intervening over a short club comes when fourth hand can raise.

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-18, 02:06, said:

You can have your cake and eat it too here:
2♣ multi (wjo in a major or pointy suits + strong)
2♦ wjo
2♥ majors, weak
2♠ pointy suits, weak
2NT standard UNT (red suits)
3♣ majors, strong

Simple.

Neither you nor I are american, but I think they like to have at least one natural club bid available

[CSGibson]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-18, 15:05, said:

I'm being quoted out of context.
If I was going to give up one of the natural 2-level overcalls in favour of some sort of ambiguous thing, it would be 2D I would give up instead of 2H

p.s. PhilKing has made a similar point indirectly - a proportion of the benefit from intervening over a short club comes when fourth hand can raise.

ok, sorry about that, it was not clear to me in context that was what you were saying, I certainly didn't mean to Murdoch you.