Defending against a 1S fert

[hrothgar]

Quick question:

Does anyone have a relatively complete defense against a 1S fert? Ideally, I'd like to get something fairly well detailed that documents actions in direct seat and balancing seat, as well as some continuations.

Thanks in advance

Richard

[Newroad]

Hi Hrothgar,

In the hope it might inspire some discussion for you, I will respond. In truth, I haven't had to defend against a sx fert for over a decade.

Before I provide what we played circa 1994, I would add one comment. There is no doubt that a 1sx fert is the most difficult of the conventional ferts to defend against. But this is a two edged sword - they can have pre-empted themselves as well. Hence, don't push quite as hard to get in with a weak hand as you might against a 1hx or 1dx fert - they might be in trouble, get themselves into further trouble, and whether they do or not, you might get another chance either way.

OK, the defence. General principle: this is like opening, not overcalling - don't get hung up on suit quality.


X: 12+ hcp, BAL (sometimes semi-BAL), forcing up to and including 2dx
1NT: 12+ hcp, 5+cx or 4cx441 [12-16 hcp], usually unbalanced
2cx: 12+ hcp, 5+dx or 4=4=4=1 exactly [12-16 hcp], usually unbalanced
2dx: 12+ hcp, 5+hx, usually unbalanced
2hx: 12+ hcp, 5+sx, usually unbalanced
2sx: 17+ hcp, any 4441
2NT: 12-16 hcp, 5+/5+ minors
3cx+: "constructive" pre-empts


"Forcing up to and including" auctions, both above to 2dx and below to 2sx, mean that if they bid again, and we have not already made a non-forcing bid, that the auction is forcing on us, and bids mean as follows

Pass: T/O or nothing much to add at that point
X: PEN
Bidding Directly: weaker than "PASS then PULL"

That is, like "Forcing Pass" auctions in other systems. So, (1sx) X (2cx) Pass [see above] and (1sx) X (Pass) Pass (2hx) Pass [see below] are forcing, but (1sx) X (2hx) Pass is not.

Responses to X:

PASS: 4+sx, 10+hcp, now forcing up to and including 2sx, usually BAL or semi-BAL* (shape reduces the chance of a penalty so may as well bids sx constructively)
1NT: NAT, 6-9 hcp, "System On" (i.e. whatever you play over your normal 1NT)
2cx: ART, NEG, around 0-5 hcp (an ugly auction sometimes, but it rarely happens, and more importantly, it gives definition [6+ hcp] to all other bids). Then "PASS" = 3+dx, no game interest; 2dx = ART, F1, at least game interest**; 2NT = to play, no game interest; others: scrambling, quite possibly only 2dx if minimum.
2dx+: Lebensohl or Rubensohl - whatever your normal preference

* Our goal here is to have a crack at them whenever we have sort of balanced hands and a 4-2 (3-2 at the 3 level) fit and in the suit they are proposing to play in. To "guarantee" this, the x'er (or the passer of a X if the auction goes high enough for T/O to apply) needs 4 trumps (3 at the 3 level) and confidence that partner has at least 2 (hence the BAL or semi-BAL requirement).

** Then 2hx = ART, 0-3 hcp; 2sx = ART, FG, 4-5 hcp, nothing better to say (then 2NT by DBLer is NAT, F); 2NT = TRF to dx; 3cx = Puppet/5-card STAYMAN; 3dx = TRF to hx, 3hx = TRF to sx, 3sx = TRF to cx.

Responses to 1NT (cx, usually unbalanced)

PASS: Not strictly allowed, but if apparently mis-fitting and very weak, a view can be taken
2cx (i.e. STEP): ART, NEG, around 0-7 hcp
2dx (i.e. STEP+1): ART, POS, 12+hcp, FG
2NT: Semi-POS in the "Step+1 suit", so here, 8-11 hcp, 4+ dx
others: NAT, Semi-Pos


The responses to 2cx, 2dx & 2hx follow similar principles (though over 2hx, 2NT is simply ART, FG).

You can add some other complexity if you wish, by making the step after then NEG "artificial and strong"), e.g. (1sx) 2cx (Pass) 2dx (Pass) 2hx as artificial and strong. Or, you can play a form of "Good/Bad or Bad/Good 2NT". Just choose a principle and stick to it - it will usually work.

Over 2sx, 2NT is an enquiry, over which you show singletons down the line, then 3 hcp range either explicitly in the case of cx, or in response to a second query otherwise (i.e. 3NT would show 4=4=4=1 20-22 hcp).

Over 2NT, 3m is to play and 3M is NAT, F.

The weakest point of the defence in practice, as far as I recall, is if you begin to penalise them after a X, but cannot finish the job - you occasionally have range definition issues in the ensuing constructive auction. Once again, both partners should use your own preference of Lebensohl/Rubensohl or equivalent here, but just be aware, partner may have a problem.

Hope this helps or provokes some other comments.

Regards, Newroad

PS No particular change in the balancing seat.

PPS The same defence works even better over a 1hx fert. 1sx becomes 12-16 NAT, over which you can play ACOL, if you like. It also takes all the 4sx441 hands. The only 4441 that 2cx now gets is 1=4=4=4 exactly. 2hx is now 17+hcp, 5+sx. You can extrapolate the 1dx fert defence from this.

[sartaj]

Quick question:

Does anyone have a relatively complete defense against a 1S fert? Ideally, I'd like to get something fairly well detailed that documents actions in direct seat and balancing seat, as well as some continuations.

Thanks in advance

Richard
Tony and i play
Jumps = strong
bids = natural, usually limited
2N jump = 2 suited powerhouse

X = 15+,not highly distributional
Then
1N = 5-8 ,naturalish NF
Step = negative
Others = FG

In competition after 1S X
second X = takeout, third X = pen
Responder's dbl = takeout, 5-8 no clear bid or bal GF,
Responder's voluntary bid = GF


I guess its not a very detailed treatment but by not having rigid definitions, there is more of a scope to play with the flow, especially in favorable and adverse vulnerability competitive decisions

[Newroad]

Hi Sartaj,

Looks like you've quoted a generic defence against 1hx (or even 1dx) fert, which is fair enough. Unfortunately, unless I've misunderstood, your 1NT in response to X over a 1sx fert is implied to be both 5-8 natural and a negative.

I imagine you might like to clarify to Hrothgar which you mean.

In any case, it seems from both what you and I quote that nothing much has changed/advanced in this regard since 1994 :) Given the relative frequency such a defence is required, this may be not unreasonable.

Regards, Newroad