Defending 1C "strong or natural"

[Kungsgeten]

Tommorow we'll be facing a pair that's playing something like the following 1C opening:

 

a) 15-19 NT

b) Unbalanced with clubs. If holding a four card major, then 16+.

 

I'm not quite sure if they open 1C with both minors and minimum values, or if they open 1D with that kind of hand. Very often the hand will have either 6+ clubs, or 15-19 NT, or 16+ with clubs.

 

We do not really need a special defense for this, but it seems that getting in with shapely hands could be a good tactic. They also seem to play that responder almost always respond with a 1D relay, so fourth hand could also use utilize stuff like forcing pass etc over this.

 

I'm considering if we should treat it as a "forcing strong NT", so overcall with lightish values and shape. Perhaps use Raptor 1NT overcall. Nothing too complicated, since we'll only play them for 10 boards.

[Zelandakh]

The only difference between this opening and 1♣ in a 5542 weak NT system is the exclusion of 4M5+♣ hands in the <16 range, so I am not sure I would want to do anything different to my usual short club defence. What would you be playing against that?

[Kungsgeten]

Zel: We do not have any agreements over that; we simply haven't faced pairs playing that method (or perhaps just for two boards or so). Without discussion, we play as though they have the suit opened when they use nebulous minors: A cue bid shows 5-5 in spades and another suit, 2NT would be hearts + other minor.

 

I think the exclusion of a four card major in the 11--15 range makes it more tempting to act on lightish values. They basically have a Modern Precision 2C opening (6+C) or 15-19 NT or 16+ with clubs. I'm thinking (based on Woolsey's Grunt defence):

 

Pass: Have no bid. Could be natural, strong NT hand, take-out of clubs unfit for other bid, or a hand too strong to overcall.

Dbl = Both majors

1D = Both minors?

1M = Natural

1NT = 4M and 5+ minor

2m = Natural, usually 6 card suit

2M = Weak

2NT = Minors, weak

 

And perhaps playing the same way after their relay.

 

(1C)--(1D) [almost mandatory relay]

Pass = Have no bid

Dbl = Both majors

1M = Natural

1NT = 4M and 5+ minor

2m = Natural

2M = Weak

2NT = Minors, weak

[Phil]

Sounds pretty strong to me.

[nige1]

If the 1♣ opener has fewer than 15 HCP, then he is unbalanced with ♣s. This seems to imply that he usually has 5+ ♣s. Hence, for simplicity, you might just employ your normal defence to a natural 1♣ opener.

 

If you want to mess with their 15-19 1♣ openener, you might adopt Kungseten's suggestion (also advocated by Kit Woolsey) -- to employ an extended Raptor 1N overcall (4M and 5 of either m)

[nullve]

I think the exclusion of a four card major in the 11--15 range makes it more tempting to act on lightish values. They basically have a Modern Precision 2C opening (6+C) or 15-19 NT or 16+ with clubs. I'm thinking (based on Woolsey's Grunt defence):

 

Pass: Have no bid. Could be natural, strong NT hand, take-out of clubs unfit for other bid, or a hand too strong to overcall.

Dbl = Both majors

1D = Both minors?

1M = Natural

1NT = 4M and 5+ minor

2m = Natural, usually 6 card suit

2M = Weak

2NT = Minors, weak

The 1N overcall is a BSC. (Doesn't matter in Sweden, I know.)

[Zelandakh]

The 1N overcall is a BSC. (Doesn't matter in Sweden, I know.)

In which jurisdiction is an artificial 1NT overcall of an artifical opening a BSC?

[nullve]

In which jurisdiction is an artificial 1NT overcall of an artifical opening a BSC?

Sorry, I was mixing up the WBF Systems Policy (where suit openings must promise 3+ cards in the suit in order to be natural) and the Revised GCC (where 1♣ may be opened on 4432 and still be natural).

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, I was mixing up the WBF Systems Policy (where suit openings must promise 3+ cards in the suit in order to be natural) and the Revised GCC (where 1♣ may be opened on 4432 and still be natural).

It would not matter in this case - the opening can be any balanced hand within range.

[nullve]

It would not matter in this case - the opening can be any balanced hand within range.

Also true. I forgot to mention that I was also thinking about the Shanghai "Holo Bolo" incident.

 

Anyway, the fact that no defence against a 2+ C 1♣ opening can be Brown Sticker opens up a new world for me. :)

Edited October 26, 2016 by nullve

[nige1]

In which jurisdiction is an artificial 1NT overcall of an artifical opening a BSC?

I think the short club has become popular in American pro-client partnerships. To protect them from sophisticated defences, I'm told that the ACBL has defined this 1♣ opener as "Natural". Amazing if true! But local system regulation is always nonsensical :)

[nullve]

WBF Systems Policy (where suit openings must promise 3+ cards in the suit in order to be natural)

Don't know where I got that idea from. I'm really confused today.

[Vampyr]

I think the short club has become popular in American pro-client partnerships. To protect them from sophisticated defences, I'm told that the ACBL has defined this 1♣ opener as "Natural". Amazing if true! But local system regulation is always nonsensical :)

 

LOL what is nonsensical is to equate ACBL regulations with those of any other "locality". It is like dividing by zero.

[mycroft]

Sorry, I'm going to follow the digression. Kungsgeten, all I can do here is point you to the post I made, where I got told "Grunt defence or natural, really there's nothing useful, definitely nothing really high-variance with a good chance of getting out the other side". That was against a 5=5=5=2 (they played mini-roman for the 4441s) Montreal Relay-type system, though.

 

Digression: The ACBL has allowed specifically 4=4=3=2 to be opened 1♣ (along with any relevant 3+ club hands) without hitting the "any defence [that is not primarily designed to destroy opponent's methods] to a conventional call" trigger. Not "clubs or balanced." Not "short club". Certain pros are fighting for 1♣ "clubs or balanced" with transfer responses to be GCC (while telling us that "oh, it's easy to defend, just have a meaning for double and 1-level cue". Hmm, I wonder why "there's no defence" to this?) - they haven't yet succeeded (well, the transfer responses anyway). Even they, however, wouldn't claim that it's "natural" (okay, some would. and I'm readying myself for that fight in 5 years. But right *now* they're not).