Defense against Polish 1C

[kgr]

A saw below description of a possible defense against Polish 1C.

Do you think it is good; and especially: What do you think of the Garbage 1S (and the other bids are constructive)?

(This garbage 1S has a run-out that is similar to a weak 1NT that is DBLed)

 

DBL=H+C

1D=H OR S+C

1H=S OR C+D

1S=Garbage (any non constructive hand, NV vs V 4-3-3-3 0 pnts possible, V vs NV often a 6+card or 5-5(4))

1NT=C OR D+H

2C=D OR H+S

2D=S+D

2M=Weak

[Free]

I don't feel the need to play anything artificial against a Polish Club, because usually it's just a 12-14 balanced hand.

[helene_t]

Looks ok. It is certainly correct not to bid with good balanced hands.

[whereagles]

I once played that IDAK style 1♠ overcall on a european championship.

 

Next round we were back to natural.

[antonylee]

Please play this against me. I may resurrect my PC partnership just for that.

[mgoetze]

1S=Garbage (any non constructive hand, NV vs V 4-3-3-3 0 pnts possible, V vs NV often a 6+card or 5-5(4))

If opps were playing a 12-14 1NT opening, would you consider playing 2♣ to show this "hand type"? If not, why not and why is this 1♠ bid better?

 

What are your followups after 1♣-1♠-DBL?

[nige1]

An English international pair used a simple defence against all artificial and hybrid 1♣ systems -- they decided to ignore them! (Double showed ♣s, and other bids retained their ordinary opening-bid meanings -- e.g. a 1♥ overcall just showed a 1♥ opening-bid. Easy to remember, easy to use, and trouble free until one of them overcalled 2♣ intending it as 23+/GF -- but his partner forgot and passed.

 

A similar defence is to define double as clubs or a weak notrump. Other overcalls are normal and natural. Some players agree 2♣ = NAT 5+ ♣ but it may be better to define 2♣ = 5M/4M, 2♦ = Michaels 5+5+.

[whereagles]

An English international pair used a simple defence against all artificial and hybrid 1♣ systems -- they decided to ignore them!

 

Hey I proposed a scheme like that for opps when I played a two-way forcing pass system:

 

pass = 0-8 or 15+, forcing

pass pass 1♣ = 0-8 or 15+ (symmetrical)

 

then

 

pass 1x = system on

 

pass pass 1♣ dbl = "I would have opened 1♣"

pass pass 1♣ 1x = "my normal opening, had LHO passed"

[Siegmund]

Remember that, just as you are passing your strong balanced hands because you are guaranteed to get a second shot --- when you play a bid like "2C = D or HS" you are giving the opening side a second shot, and removing them from a lot of pressure to immediately describe their hands as best they can.

 

In the ACBL, you would be doing us an extra favor by playing an artificial defense against our 1C and allowing us to use transfer responses (which we cannot, if you pass or make a natural overcall, playing GCC.) In other jurisdictions, that's something we can take advantage of over natural overcalls too. Transfers by responder are realllly helpful, when opener is either balanced or strong.

 

And, as already mentioned -- you are going to be shooting your own side in the foot as often as you're going to be interfering with our auction.

 

By all means, devote X and 1D to showing artificial two-suited hands, because those don't take up any of our space. And make 1NT something artificial because you don't need it as a strong balanced hand. But I think you would do better to make 1H/1S/2C/2D/2H/2S natural. You accomplish something constructive for your side, and you threaten us with having to describe all of our big hands immediately.

[awm]

How about something like:

 

Suit bids = natural, including clubs

1NT = both majors, at least 5/4

2NT = 5+♥ and a 5+ minor

Dbl = a weak notrump with 3+ in each major

Pass = can be weak, but could also be a variety of strong hands

 

In general pass and then bid when opponents have not raised a suit is stronger than a direct bid. This is especially true over the possibly-weak sequences 1♣-P-1♦-P-1M. Double in these auctions is still takeout, but shows a very good hand.

[kgr]

If opps were playing a 12-14 1NT opening, would you consider playing 2♣ to show this "hand type"? If not, why not and why is this 1♠ bid better?

I saw this defense description in a system of a good pair. I don't even know it hey are playing it.

In our club one weaker pair is playing Polish club and I proposed my partner to try this defense against them, but then I realized that the success/failure would not really be a reference. Therefore I decided to ask here.

The difference with defense against a weak NT is that Polish club includes other hands types and that opps maybe have more issues to describe what they have?

What are your followups after 1♣-1♠-DBL?

Escape after (1♣)-1♠-(DBL)- ?

(if DBL is not for penalty 4th seat can ignore it if no clear bid)

 

Responses direct seat after double:

- Pass = 3+ card ♠

- RDBL = no 3-card ♠, no one-suiter

- - (1C)-1S-(DBL)-Pass/RDBL-(Pas)-1NT = no one-suiter,

- - - if 1NT is passed, bidding a suit is natural and 5+card

- - - if 1NT is doubled in 2nd or 4th hand, the direct seat is in control of the bidding with our escape-mechanism (See 1NT-(DBL)) => This is transfers with 1 suit; and wait for partner RDBL with a 2-suiter.

- bidding a suit is 6+card

 

Responses last seat (pass out seat) after double:

- if 4+card spades and no special distribution = pas.

- RDBL = no 4-card ♠, no one-suiter

- - 1NT = no one-suiter,

- - - if 1NT is passed, bidding a suit is natural and 5+card

- - - if 1NT is doubled in 2nd or 4th hand, the direct seat is in control of the bidding with our escape-mechanism (See 1NT-(DBL))

- bidding a suit is 6+card

 

Vul against not Vul:

If 1♠ is not doubled, advancer bid 1NT to avoid a silly result in 1♠ undoubled. After 1NT:

- overcaller can bid his long suit if he wishes,

- if this 1NT is doubled, overcaller is always in control with our escape-mechanism. (See 1NT-(DBL))

Advancer can always bid a reasonable 6-card instead of 1NT.

[the hog]

How about natural?

[chasetb]

I think when it comes to defense vs Polish Club, no need to reinvent the wheel. But, if you want several options, here we go:

1.) Kit Woolsey's defense

2.) BBF discussion on 'Defense to "Short minors" '

3.) Gerben's defense

[mgoetze]

The difference with defense against a weak NT is that Polish club includes other hands types and that opps maybe have more issues to describe what they have?

Very rarely. Responder will just assume 12-14 balanced, and if opener has that he passes. If opener has 18+ you are either going to get whacked hard or opener will just make a natural forcing bid at the 2-level. The only time they have a problem is when they are 15-17 with clubs, i.e. almost never.

[the_clown]

I would suggest natural with undisciplined weak jumps. It will be hard for them to double you, since double would just mean some strong hand without a good suit. Also sometimes when you are sure they are strong (e.g. 1♣-p-1♦ and you have nothing) or p p p 1♣ it could be useful to just make a simple overcall to disturb their auction.

 

Option 2 is Canape, but you need to really know what you are doing if you decide to play it.

[helene_t]

It is usually ok to pass with good hands with spades as they are likely to bid 1d-1h. With that agreement a pass followed by f.x. 2d would show four spades and longer diamonds.

[jallerton]

Looks ok. It is certainly correct not to bid with good balanced hands.

 

Doesn't this depend on the vulnerability?

[helene_t]

Doesn't this depend on the vulnerability?

Whether you come in in second round with a 1NT bid after they start 1♣-1♦-1M may depend on vulnerability. Obviously you should always do something with 18 points but with 15 I can appreciate that it may depend on scoring and vulnerability.

 

But a direct 1NT should IMSO be artificial regardless of scoring and vulnerability. In second round you will know better whether 1NT, dbl or pass is most appropriate.

[the hog]

An English international pair used a simple defence against all artificial and hybrid 1♣ systems -- they decided to ignore them! (Double showed ♣s, and other bids retained their ordinary opening-bid meanings -- e.g. a 1♥ overcall just showed a 1♥ opening-bid. Easy to remember, easy to use, and trouble free until one of them overcalled 2♣ intending it as 23+/GF -- but his partner forgot and passed.

 

I've seen that story in one of Flint's books and it was a US pairs against Armstrong and [?]

who had interchanged pass and 1C in 1st and 2nd seat.

[PhilKing]

I've seen that story in one of Flint's books and it was a US pairs against Armstrong and [?]

who had interchanged pass and 1C in 1st and 2nd seat.

 

It was Mike Lawrence and Hugh Ross in Jamaica 1987.

[mycroft]

The story (which I think I got from Sobel's book, but my memory...) of Vic Mitchell's "Nuttin' System": as the NPC of the U.S. team, one of the pairs came up and said "these next opponents are playing all these crazy things" (likely something as odd as Neapolitan Club or the like, this being then). "What do we do?" Vic sez "Nuttin'". "What?" "Nuttin'. Until the auction ends, don't ask, don't think, just bid as if all their bids are natural. At the end of the auction, find out what they showed, and lead."

 

Still works, especially against the kind of Precision (or Polish, or Swedish, ... Club) pairs that feel much more comfortable if the opponents let them confirm they're on the same page - especially if they're the type that assume that everybody plays contagion against their strong club with nothing, and "take you" for +160 or +260...

[RMB1]

My recollection is different.

Flint/Sheehan played a system which switched Pass and 1♣ and a US pair had a misunderstanding about (1♣)-2♣.

 

Armstrong was playing two partnerships: with Kirby playing precision; and with Forrester playing TRS.

[Ant590]

I quite like 1-level natural and 2♣-2NT whatever defense you play over a weak NT.