[TylerE]

I would say no, and most of the time it does lead to a good score, it's an "obvious" spot that would have easily been found by less ambiguous methods, and don't routinely go for area codes.

[CSGibson]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 12:19, said:

I would say no, and most of the time it does lead to a good score, it's an "obvious" spot that would have easily been found by less ambiguous methods, and don't routinely go for area codes.

So what you are saying is that idiots shouldn't play suction. Seems reasonable. On the other hand, it can be a highly effective convention in the hands of people who know how to use it, myself included.

[TylerE]

CSGibson, on 2013-June-24, 12:48, said:

So what you are saying is that idiots shouldn't play suction. Seems reasonable. On the other hand, it can be a highly effective convention in the hands of people who know how to use it, myself included.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I'll continue to score up consistently good-to-great results against it.

[Free]

I don't understand the Muiderberg argument, it's at least as frequent as a regular weak two.

Anyway, what I always like to read:
- The meta agreement "No jump no game".
- Strong ♣ system where opps respond their number of HCP, even after intervention.
- "Negative double up to 3♥" or something similar, for obvious reasons.
- Transfer preempts, especially at 2-level. I love to have more options than the other tables.
- Weak or mini NT with a runout system that doesn't include "pass = suggestion to play".
- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-24, 09:30, said:

IMO, it is pretentious to infer the quality of the opponents by a particular convention they use ---or to even have an expectation of a good result if it comes up.

Doesn't Hamman like Flannery?

Quote

I do, however, admit to assumptions that we will have a good round when I hear the opponents discussing stolen bid doubles, or transfers being on above 2c/1nt; and I do project this to assumptions about their overall skill level.

I reluctantly play stolen bid doubles with my regular partner, who is otherwise extremely capable. His excuse for wanting them is that he doesn't like any system after the opponents interfere with our NT auction, and thinks this is just the least of evils. I think he's just got a mental block about it.

[TylerE]

Point steps to 2♣ is another good one.

[GreenMan]

Suction seems at least playable over 1NT, but I sometimes see people using it over strong 1♣, which means advancer cannot bounce the overcall because they have no idea what overcaller has.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-June-24, 13:44, said:

Doesn't Hamman like Flannery?

My point exactly. So do Levin/Weinstein, etc. etc. Also, Reverse Flannery responses to 1m are also very useful in the capable hands of those who integrate them into their system and know how to deal with the other hand types --but would be brutal employed by some pairs. We just cannot judge by specific methods the quality of the opposition.

There are many (IMO) accurate ways of prejudging opponents as we sit down to play, but perhaps another thread would be best for that.

[awm]

"Gloat" is probably the wrong word, and playing weak pairs is usually straightforward regardless of what's on their CCs. Here are a couple methods I like to see opponents playing:

1. Weak notrump, especially in a fairly "natural" structure. I'm well aware that this method is great against pairs that don't know how to defend it, but I'm thankfully not in that category. When these pairs hold a strong notrump, I get extremely good results (either because they have trouble in competition, or because I can lead and defend almost double-dummy because their auctions are so much more revealing). When they hold a weak notrump, I'm able to take them for a number often enough to make up for anything else that happens.

2. Strong club. I play this in my strongest partnership, so I'm not about to say it's a "bad method." However, I do a lot better against strong club pairs than I would against pairs of comparable skill playing a more "standard" system. As best I can tell there are two major reasons for this: first, I play a very good defense to the 1♣ opening which less-than-expert strong club pairs usually cannot handle. Second, strong club pairs tend to bid a lot more pushy game contracts, which works well for them against opponents who aren't at their best on defense... but defense is not my weakest point as a bridge player and I like being given the opportunity to pick up boards by defending well.

In a team match (for example) I will try to make sure partner and I are at the table with anyone playing either of these two methods, and expect much better results that way than in other configurations.

[ArtK78]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-24, 15:06, said:

Suction seems at least playable over 1NT, but I sometimes see people using it over strong 1♣, which means advancer cannot bounce the overcall because they have no idea what overcaller has.

Not true. You bid to your highest level of safety given the suction bidder's possible hands.

[Vampyr]

awm, on 2013-June-24, 19:21, said:

I play a very good defense to the 1♣ opening which less-than-expert strong club pairs usually cannot handle.

What is it?

[Antrax]

Free, on 2013-June-24, 13:41, said:

- "Negative double up to 3♥" or something similar, for obvious reasons.

Not so obvious to me What's wrong with that?

[32519]

Free, on 2013-June-24, 13:41, said:

- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

Sheesh! When did you hear about this? Never mind actually playing it! This is the first time that I have ever heard of this method.

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2013-June-24, 13:41, said:

- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

Do the cards stand for the same suits if they are discarded slowly?

[TylerE]

Antrax, on 2013-June-24, 21:31, said:

Not so obvious to me What's wrong with that?

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 22:03, said:

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

Negative doubles are not the same as takeout doubles of opening bids.

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 22:03, said:

It means doubles of 4 level opening bids are penalty, not takeout, amongst other things. Good players generally play takeout doubles through either 4♥, 4♠, or 7NT

No. The CC doesn't have a place for the range where doubles of opening bids are no longer takeout oriented.

Free even placed his "negative doubles up to...." in quotes. He was referring to what today is described as a negative double, not what it meant 60 years ago...a double as a first response when partner has opened the bidding and an overcall intervened.

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-24, 23:35, said:

No. The CC doesn't have a place for the range where doubles of opening bids are no longer takeout oriented.

The ACBL's does: "vs Opening Preempts Double Is Takeout thru ___"

But that's not near the space where negative doubles are indicated. They are, as you point out, different things.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-24, 09:45, said:

But -- were you minus the same amount when you opened a Multi? Or when you had a weak 2 in diamonds?

Good question. A similar minus against the (most) advanced players. Very little difference from expectation against the intermediates. The latter is probably due to these players not having a good defence to the multi, although the extended 3m openings (many of the minor suit weak twos would qualify as 3m openings) were also quite effective against this class of opponent.

I could extrapolate from this that the overall scheme is likely to be a small loser against expert opponents but extrapolation is always dangerous. Against a non-expert field I am convinced it is a positive and that the OP is either experiencing selection bias or was not playing the method correctly.

[manudude03]

I'm often confident any time I see the opponents are playing a strong club system with "penalty doubles over interference". Overcalling just causes so many problems for them especially when it gets raised.