[mycroft]

Since the clarification on which minor openings are "any nondestructive call"-protected (because I really didn't want to fight that battle every time), I've been wanting to play some sort of short/ambiguous/NF minor defence; mostly because I think that the benefits the short minor people are getting only have the little downside they have because opponents "treat them as natural".

With the proliferation of, say, Montreal Relay, Polish Club (maybe this one's different?), 1♣ "clubs or balanced", never mind the ambiguous diamond associated with Strong clubs and the Club Major system posted earlier, it's getting to the point where a defence is worth learning - we'll use it once a session or so.

Unfortunately, apart from Bluejak's "canape overcalls" from years ago, I've been having trouble finding something that makes sense. And what's written about that one doesn't really help me with continuations enough to feel comfortable using it.

Sorry for a "feed me" question, but does someone know of a structure they're comfortable with against short, but "natural" minors?

[whereagles]

Not sure I follow you. You want to play short club, but need a defence for it?

[glen]

whereagles, on 2014-July-16, 17:32, said:

Not sure I follow you. You want to play short club, but need a defence for it?

just wants a defence to it that is not "treat it as natural"

[mikestar13]

Try this one: Kit Woolsey's Grunt Defense

[helene_t]

If 1♣ is forcing you should just pass with all balanced hands and use 1NT for something artificial. Using a 1♦ negative response, they will tell you whether they would have doubled a natural 1NT or not, so better to wait with your natural 1NT until you know. Note that if 1♣ is forcing, 1♥ has zero preemptive effect so 1♥ should be descriptive so that responder can raise it frequently. And/or 1♥ should be contructive. 1♦ should be constructive also.

You might also want to pass with good hands with spades as they can usually get in next round after their 1♣-1♦-1♥ begin. Depends what kind of responses they play, of course. A weak jump shift, raised obstructively by opener, could be annoying. If good hands with spades pass, you can incorporate 1♠ in your psycho-suction structure, showing five spades OR various kinds of two/three-suiters without spades.

With Shogi I play Fishbein. It is nice to be able to show clubs but since opener will sometimes have clubs, dbl is safer than 2♣. You can use 2♣ for something else, then.

If the local community play all kind of more or less dodgy club openings, from 2+ nonforcing to 1+ semiforcing to Polish to Precision and all kind of vague hybrids, it can be a pain to remember which defence you play against which of them.

Here's something I made up, based on psycho suction, which might work nonvulnerable against Polish Club and similar:

Pass: any balanced OR 12+ with 5+ spades
dbl: 9+ with 5+ clubs
1♦: 0-17 with primarily diamonds
1♥: 0-13, 5+ hearts
1♠: 0-11 with 5+ spades OR (0-8 with clubs+red or 1444)
1NT: 14+, 5+ hearts unbalanced
2♣: 0-8 with 6 clubs OR 0-7 both reds
2♦: 0-7 with 6 diamonds OR 0-7 both majors
2NT: 18+ with diamonds (need to take some hand types out of this to make it playable)

Note that pass followed by 2♣/♦/♥ shows 5+ spades in addition to the suit you bid.

[Kungsgeten]

Sorry for necroing this thread, but I thought I might as well continue this discussion instead of starting a new thread.

I have been thinking about playing our Swedish Club system "system on" (almost) when they open a nebulous 1C. I know that "system on" vs these openings are pretty common, but because of the nature of Swedish/Polish Club, I think it could work fairly well.

(1C)---
Dbl = 12--14 NT (4-4-1-4 possible) / 17+ (excluding some hands, as seen below)
1D = 4+D. 11--19 unbalanced, may have longer clubs.
1M = 5+M, 9--16.
1NT = 15--18, might be 4-4-1-4.
2C = 12--16, 6+C or 5C and 4M.
2D = Weak, 5+D unbal.
2M = Weak, usually 6 card suit.
2NT = Weak, 5-5 majors / minors.

It would also be possible to do something similar to Woolsey, and pass with 15--18 NT. That way the 1NT overcall could be something else: Raptor, both majors, etc.

[nullve]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-August-10, 01:41, said:

It would also be possible to do something similar to Woolsey, and pass with 15--18 NT. That way the 1NT overcall could be something else: Raptor, both majors, etc.

Woolsey's Grunt defence is a way of tapping into the force set up by the 1♣ opening, or rather, by describing 1♣ as forcing. By using a weaker notion (e.g. 1♣ is "not forcing if pass by LHO means so-and-so"), the opening side might¹ be able to take advantage --- without MI --- of the fact that Overcaller can have a strong balanced hand by allowing Responder to pass certain hands, potentially giving Advancer a headache.

¹ Ok, that's a big 'might'.

[fromageGB]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-August-10, 01:41, said:

I have been thinking about playing our Swedish Club system "system on" (almost) when they open a nebulous 1C. I know that "system on" vs these openings are pretty common, but because of the nature of Swedish/Polish Club, I think it could work fairly well.

Also working well over a nebulous club is double, meaning "I would have bid that", when playing transfer walsh. Advancer replies exactly as he would do to your 1♣ open, and when responder bids, as he is wont to do, it is "system on" with advancer's bids the same as your responses to 1♣ after their overcall. Of course you need to have well-developed methods for this, but as they happen all the time I have no trouble remembering. It is more effective at discovering fits than the takeout double you might otherwise bid.

Similarly 1♦ is the unbalanced variety.

[Vampyr]

We just use 2 ♥ as a weak jump overcall in a major and 2♠ as a good preempt in clubs or a bad one in diamonds. Depending on the nature of the short club, it is more likely to be 5 than 2. Obviously not as much if the 1♦ opening can have longer clubs.

Mr Bridge recently had a bidding quiz where the opponents were playing 5-card majors with a club that could be single. I suppose they could have been playing 5-card diamonds as well; further detail was not supplied.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-26, 12:25, said:

Depending on the nature of the short club, it is more likely to be 5 than 2. Obviously not as much if the 1♦ opening can have longer clubs.

My clubs can be longer when opening 1♦, and my "could be two cards" 1♣ has a median length of 3.something. Should we be considering defences to a "less than 4" 1♦ opening? Nobody seems to have touched on this.

[newroad]

Hi Mycroft.

I'm not sure I'd bother: a fairly generic defence as treat it as natural if and until the oppo show a 4+ long suit works for me (right ratio of efficacy versus effort).

However, if not, then you're into the territory of treating it in many ways akin to a Fert (though it doesn't consume space in the same way). I wonder if something built on the Senior "Antiferts" defence to nuisance openings ("The Transfer Principle, pp 110-123) might be something to build on. In short, DBL would show a BAL hand with a bottom limit or an unlimited hand with strength in the suit opened. In this, it shares some commonality with the broad advice earlier of helene_t.

In the rest of the original Antiferts, other 1 level overcalls were limited openings, 1NT/2♣/2♦ were transfers excluding the suit opened (strong if it could have been shown at the one level) and 2♥/2♠ were three-suiters short in the suit opened (2♠ stronger). It strikes me that over an opposition constructive opening you'd probably want to reverse the suit strengths (one level stronger than two level) so maybe something like the following (over 1♣)

• DBL: ♣ overcall, unlimited but constructive (use your own defintion for this) or BAL 15+ (but feel free to choose a lower MIN range for the BAL type)
  
• 1♦/♥/♠: natural overcalls
  
• 1NT: classic shape T/O of ♣ or any 17+
  
• 2♣/♦/♥/♠: WJO (dovetailing with your definition of "constructive" above)

Over a potentially short diamond, similar, except the T/O (of ♦D) moves to 2♣ and 1NT becomes a constructive transfer overcall to ♣.

You can figure out your own response structure over the DBL. In the original, 2♣ was invitational opposite a BAL MIN and 2♦ was FG opposite a BAL MIN, but I suspect I'd play something like a reverse Herbert Negative, i.e. step artificial and constructive (i.e. covering the ground of 2♣ and 2♦ in the original) with others natural and limited by the "step". Another option would be instead or additionally use 1NT in the same capacity.

Regards, Newroad

[Vampyr]

EDIT please delete have answered above. Thought this was new.