[phoenix214]

Opening 1♣/♦ as 2+ is not a natural opening, if it contains specific NT ranges. The opening gives an advantage to you because you can play 1♦ as unbalanced or adjust your notrump range. Another gain of the opening is that it makes confusion as of the cue bid is natural or not if a partnership has not discussed it.

Although there is a problem with these openings. Since they are not natural(Does not promise 3 cards in the bid minor), you can use brown stickers vs these openings. Does someone use a strategy like this.
I have played CRASH style defense vs these nebulous openings, it is kinda annoying for opps who dont expect it.
Has anybody else tried some sort of defense vs these kinds of openings

[hrothgar]

 phoenix214, on 2013-August-09, 06:24, said:

Opening 1♣/♦ as 2+ is not a natural opening, if it contains specific NT ranges. The opening gives an advantage to you because you can play 1♦ as unbalanced or adjust your notrump range. Another gain of the opening is that it makes confusion as of the cue bid is natural or not if a partnership has not discussed it.

Although there is a problem with these openings. Since they are not natural(Does not promise 3 cards in the bid minor), you can use brown stickers vs these openings. Does someone use a strategy like this.
I have played CRASH style defense vs these nebulous openings, it is kinda annoying for opps who dont expect it.
Has anybody else tried some sort of defense vs these kinds of openings

The ACBL has ruled that certain types of short club openings are natural rather than conventional.

With this said and done, you can use any defense against most short club / short diamond openings.

A multi 2♥ overcall (2♥ showing a weak 2 in either hearts or spades) is particularly nasty

[phoenix214]

Well but technically you can use all the nasty stuff that you want, for example Multi 2♥. Polish 2♦, Canape overcalls on level 1, if im correct. Im just wondering, why there arent lots of people on the top who do that

[Free]

Years ago I've tested my destructive strong ♣ defense against Polish 1♣ openings with mixed success. It was quite fun though, to see the look on their faces when it went 1♣-(1♠), asking about the 1♠ overcall and getting the response "any strength, 0-3♠".

The reason why very few people do it is because usually the nebulous opening doesn't always show a strong hand (examples: Polish 1♣ includes 12-14 bal, precision 1♦ includes 11-13 bal). As a result, it may be our hand, so we don't want to destroy our own constructive bidding. Brown Sticker Conventions have the tendency to complicate matters and sabotage precise constructive auctions.

[PhilKing]

1♦ = either major
1♥/♠ = 3 or four cards with 5+ in either minor
2♣ = majors (can be 5-4)
2♦ = multi (weak nv but shows circa 11-15 vul)
2♥/♠ = 5M + 4m nv 5-5 vul

The 1M overcalls put them in unfamiliar territory, but require a lot of work on follow ups. The 2M bids are fairly constructive, but the main aim being to win the race to find a fit.

The two level bids as a whole take some strain off the 1♦ overcall (which is the weak spot), but 1♦ has some great boards where they show four cards in our suit.

[phoenix214]

Well the structure seems quite similar to the one have played which is
1♦ - both majors
1♥ - ♥+♣/♠+♦
1♠ - ♥+♦/♠+♣
1NT - ♣ or ♦
2♣ - Minors
2♦ - Multi
2♥/♠ - Muidberg,
The problem is, i dont know which of these is more troublesome for the opps. That is the main reason why did i start this thread

[MickyB]

 Free, on 2013-August-09, 07:23, said:

It was quite fun though, to see the look on their faces when it went 1♣-(1♠), asking about the 1♠ overcall and getting the response "any strength, 0-3♠".

Was it a face that said, "now give me a real explanation"? Surely there are hands with 0-3 spades that would do something else...or would a 4H/5m overcall have shown four spades on the side?

[Free]

 MickyB, on 2013-August-09, 07:44, said:

Was it a face that said, "now give me a real explanation"? Surely there are hands with 0-3 spades that would do something else...or would a 4H/5m overcall have shown four spades on the side?

Sigh, not this again... Whenever we didn't have 4 ♠s we were allowed to either describe our hand or bid 1♠, they weren't mutually exclusive...

[mycroft]

Yes, oh this again. If that is the case, it should be part of the explanation. Similarly if a non-1♠ call promised 4 spades, that should be part of the explanation. If pass is allowed, that should be part of the explanation - plus any relevant partnership experience that you have that would determine whether pass or 1♠ would be the call.

If it's not, you haven't disclosed properly. In places where you're allowed to play this, it can't be *detrimental* to your efforts to compete if the call is more random to the openers than to you - of course, whether it's legal or not...

[mikestar13]

Have a look at Kit Woolsey's Grunt Defense on bridgewinners.com. Simple, effective, legal against even vs. ACBL "natural" doubleton club openings.

[fromageGB]

I think Free hit the mark when he said you need to bid constructively as it could be your hand.

We have fun with a double of a nebulous club meaning "I would have opened that", and use normal transfer walsh continuations, which gets the benefits of those constructive takeouts. If they are using transfers, 4th seat can overcall a transfer with a transfer!