[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Nov 10 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

There is no reason to have a defense against a Polish Club.  A Polish Club is not too much different than a Standard American club when it comes right down to it.  But you never hear anyone say "We play such-and-such against your Standard American Club."

1♣ in Standard American is:

1)  A balanced hand with 12-14 HCP
2)  A balanced hand with 18-19 HCP
3)  A two suited hand with primary clubs, 12-21 HCP.
4)  4414 with short diamonds, 12-21 HCP.
5)  A three-suited hand with 5 clubs, 12-21 HCP.

If you heard this explanation of a Standard American 1♣, would you devise some defense against it?

Uhm. One-suited hands with clubs open what in Standard American?
I also seem to remember that most Americans open their longer minor with balanced hands.

I think it is worth having a natural club overcall over a Polish 1♣.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I think it is worth having a natural club overcall over a Polish 1♣.

Last time we went through this, just going from memory, a 1♣ opener in SA averaged 3.75 clubs while a 1♣ opener in Polish averaged 3.45.

I happen to think that a natural club overcall over a 'natural' 3+ card club suit is also worth having, especially with all that wonderful space available. Use 2♦ or something for Michaels. But I seriously question that having a natural club overcall is necessary for a 3.45 average club length but not a 3.75.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 10 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I think it is worth having a natural club overcall over a Polish 1♣.

Last time we went through this, just going from memory, a 1♣ opener in SA averaged 3.75 clubs while a 1♣ opener in Polish averaged 3.45.

I happen to think that a natural club overcall over a 'natural' 3+ card club suit is also worth having, especially with all that wonderful space available. Use 2♦ or something for Michaels. But I seriously question that having a natural club overcall is necessary for a 3.45 average club length but not a 3.75.

He didn't say necessary, he said worthwhile.

I find it hard to believe a standard 1♣ opening averages as few as 3.75, but I am just going off instinct. I've been wrong before...

[mycroft]

Two goals with a strong club defence against pairs that actually know their system (please note, there are a lot that don't, and anything that isn't bog-natural works against them; in fact, bog-natural works against them as well):

- avoid giving them a second chance - don't play anything that doesn't expect to get passed. Make responder do something to describe her hand.
- play a system that can get to 3 of a fit before opener gets a second chance, should you have a fit. 1C-1H-X-p really isn't a problem; 1C-1H-X-3H is. You should be willing to push a bit, especially NV, to take away the control-ask cue below 3NT.

Actually, bog-natural, or Mathe, works well for this. So does things like psycho-suction or wonder bids, where you only need a two-suiter including the bid suit to jump-respond. Because that's the third thing that works:

- avoid giving them a cuebid in a suit they know they won't play in. But that doesn't trump "don't give responder a second chance": pass-and-cuebid is just fine for the clubbers.

Me? I play Mathe, now, because for the number of strong club pairs I run into that aren't me, it's not worth remembering anything more. Back east where I ran into more, I played Truscott (possibly inverted, never can tell):

X, 1suit: natural, willing to have it led
2suit: that suit and the next one up (2S = S+C), DONT-style (very aggressive)
1NT: two non-touching suits (again, very aggressive).

if they use my 1-level suit, P/X/XX/raise is available for sacrifices or lead vs. NT decisions; at the 2 level, they have to decide whether the cuebid is (something) or "stopper-ask for NT" (hard to have both); push to the 3 level is easy (except after 1NT), and there's usually a reasonable degree of safety if they decide to defend.

I've been seeing in <companion city> a trend to using Cappelletti/strong C, which I think is stupid - X=onesuiter? 1D doesn't show diamonds? Go Right Ahead. Other than that, Strong NT defences do tend to work well.

[blackshoe]

Jerry Helms, in Helms to Hello, recommended Mathé/natural at the one level, and Hello at the two level. But then, in that book he suggested Hello as the basis for defense to just about everything.

[jdonn]

I despise defenses that are something like conventional at 1 level natural at 2 level, or other way around, or different conventions on both. Say what you will about suction and its variants, but at least it lets you show both 1 and 2 suited hands on any level you want no matter what the suits.

[glen]

jdonn, on Nov 11 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

I despise defenses that are something like conventional at 1 level natural at 2 level, or other way around, or different conventions on both...

Do you mean your defensive despising for just big 1♣s or even for Polish 1♣s, or even standard 1♣s?

[jdonn]

I meant over strong club, it's not that relevent to me otherwise since I play very standard things.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Nov 11 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

I despise defenses that are something like conventional at 1 level natural at 2 level, or other way around, or different conventions on both. Say what you will about suction and its variants, but at least it lets you show both 1 and 2 suited hands on any level you want no matter what the suits.

What is there to despise about having constructive bids be single-meaning and natural, while destructive bids are conventional and usually multi-meaning?

Would you despise an opening system where one of a suit was natural, but two of a suit is conventional, such as 2♣ strong, 2♦ Multi, 2M Muideburg?

Or is it just that you don't think that constructive bids are useful over a 1♣ opener?

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 11 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

What is there to despise about having constructive bids be single-meaning and natural, while destructive bids are conventional and usually multi-meaning?

It has to do with the level. If I have spades I don't like my system saying I must bid them on the 1 or 3 level but I can't on the 2 level, for example.

Quote

Would you despise an opening system where one of a suit was natural, but two of a suit is conventional, such as 2♣ strong, 2♦ Multi, 2M Muideburg?

I dislike multi a lot, although I'm not sure why I even answer since you hopefully know your question is completely irrelevant. I said DEFENSES, as in DEFENSES TO A STRONG CLUB (which I even clarified in a later post).

Quote

Or is it just that you don't think that constructive bids are useful over a 1♣ opener?

Please click.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Nov 11 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I dislike multi a lot, although I'm not sure why I even answer since you hopefully know your question is completely irrelevant. I said DEFENSES, as in DEFENSES TO A STRONG CLUB (which I even clarified in a later post).

I understand that you're talking about responses, not openers. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that.

After a 1 club opener, you have the same space you would if he'd passed. That's why I mentioned openers.

Let me give a specific example on point. Suppose that somebody were to propose this very simplistic defense to a Precision club:

1♦ Transfer to hearts, 12+ hcp
1♥ Transfer to spades, 12+ hcp
1♠ Transfer to a minor, 12+ hcp
2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠: Natural, weak (pre-emptive).

Would you despise this, and if so why? It could be that I just don't understand where you're coming from here. Is it the possible confusion of the natural/conventional mix, or is it the inability to show a specific suit that you dislike? The Psycho Suction variant I proposed, for example (1♥ and 1♠ natural, 2 of a suit are natural or two-suited not including the suit bid) there's no level forbidden to you with a single suited hand, except bidding a minor at the 1 level.

I'm sorry that my question didn't come out well.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 11 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Let me give a specific example on point.  Suppose that somebody were to propose this very simplistic defense to a Precision club:

1♦  Transfer to hearts, 12+ hcp
1♥  Transfer to spades, 12+ hcp
1♠  Transfer to a minor, 12+ hcp
2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠:  Natural, weak (pre-emptive).

Would you despise this, and if so why?

!@#(&*^$(@#*$^@

jdonn, on Nov 11 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

It has to do with the level. If I have spades I don't like my system saying I must bid them on the 1 or 3 level but I can't on the 2 level, for example.

[Wackojack]

Thanks I am a little wiser now but not much. Perhaps sometimes in order to please partners and not to seem a stick-in-the-mud, we agree to play conventions when natural methods are either just as good or better. Maybe Suction methods are superior. For me though, the jury is still out. Incidentally, I have agreed to play Suction defence to 1NT with one partner. It hasnt come up yet, and all I can say so far is that it should be fun when it does come up.