[pigpenz]

after reading about defenses to strong clubs how about defenses to pairs that play 1♣ maybe only 2 cards and 1♦ maybe be short openings?

To me it seems that if they arent sure if their partner has a real suit at all its best to take away bidding space as soon as possible.

[whereagles]

Depends on what variants the opening has. If it's like polish club "strong with clubs, or stronger any shape, or weak NT", then you can play

(1m)-2m

as natural, and use

(1m)-1NT

for the majors. (With a natural 1NT overcall, pass first and double the 1NT rebid later.)

If the opening is more like "preparatory with x-y NT, or natural", then it makes more sense to keep (1m)-1NT as natural. You can then use (1m)-2m as natural or two-suiter.

If you use it as natural, the two-suiter will have to be bid one suit at a time. If you use it as two-suiter, you pass first and overcall 2/3m in the 2nd round of bidding.

[Al_U_Card]

Especially when the minor could be short because they will rebid 1NT to show their strong NT range, you can double to tell pard that you have any opening hand that would have opened a minor. From there it gets interesting....

[kenrexford]

I have for years played 1C as "Nebulous," restricting 1D to hands with diamonds and unbalanced (a stiff, or at least 6332). Not much in the way of interference causes any more difficulty in locating minor fits than simple, normal bidding. The nebulous club (and diamond, for that matter) suffers that problem on its own. Interference actually helps on most occasions, if interference is the sought goal.

This contrasts, as suggested, with my experience with canape or natural strong club systems, where either nebulous opening (1C or 1D), whether weak or strong, can somewhat effectively be "messed with."

Canape nebulous 1C or 1D suggests the need for better stopper-seeking structures. All too often, we would defend 3NT for a nice set when the "other minor" is the lead.

With respect to the generic "short club" or a nebulous semi-natural club, the best option I have found for myself is to use double as "stolen opening" and to retain normal systems, especially if using a pet system. The "short club" enables this structure, which is nice. For instance, I once plated a canape system with a strong 1D opening, a nebulous 1C (more so than most), and strange 2-level openings. When the opponents were kind enough to use short club, we could kick into our general approach, with 1D a strong forcing opening/overcall, 2C as a 4441 of 10+ HCP's, and double as a nebulous canape start, with any one minor or a short minor and longer major. We liked this mostly because of the shock value.

But, for the normal folks, sexy things over a natural-ish short club offers little to no gain.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming they play a natural system and open only
1C if they have a 4-4-3-2 shape, then none.

Because in this case, they will only have <5% of the time
a 2 carder and you dont need to cater for the case, that
your side has a reaonable club fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: My partner asked me to play
(1C) - 2C as natural and
(1C) - 2D as Michales for the mayor, I accepted his proposal,
altough I am not sure, it is really necessary

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the difference between a natural 1♣ opening which could be a three card suit and a natural 1♣ opening that could be a two card suit is pretty much meaningless. Why should I bother changing my defensive methods based on the fact that the opps chose to treat a 4=4=3=2 hand in a slightly different manner. I can think of any number of MUCH more significant system changes that players simply gloss over... Case in point: Do you use the same defense versus Strong NT with 5 card majors as you do against Weak NT and 4 card majors? Adopting different methods versus a "may be short" club boils down to playing conventions for the sake of playing methods.

Not that there's anything wrong with that... Perhaps the zonal authority that you play in doesn't permit you to play the methods you want over a natural 1♣ opening... But don't have any illusion that you're getting much gain out of this.

Rather than worrying abut methods, I'd suggest focusing on a much more fundamental problem: How should one determine whether a pair of bids are sufficiently similar that the same defensive methods can be applied?

For what its worth, I'd argue that whether or not the bid is forcing is MUCH more important than minimum length. For that matter the you might be better offer focusing on the minimum strength necessary for a 1:1 advance than the minimum length of the club suit

[kenrexford]

"the difference between a natural 1♣ opening which could be a three card suit and a natural 1♣ opening that could be a 3 card suit is pretty much meaningless"

I cannot agree more. Other than grammatical choice between "that" and "which," I see no difference.

LOL

The more I analyze it, I realize that "3" and "three" is different also, but I can fathom no theoretical reason for this to affect bidding.

[Free]

Against polish or nebulous 1♣ openings we use a similar scheme like after strong 1♣, but in a constructive way. Only changes are the 1♠ bid which shows 44+M or 5+m, 1NT now shows both minors and 2♣ shows 44+♣-M (not with both minors anymore).

Against 5M4♦2♣ systems, we just play like 1♣ is natural. So Power Double and 2-suited 4-4 overcalls.

Against nebulous 1♦ openings, we play following (also quite similar to the scheme after strong 1♣):
Dbl = 15+HCP, any (Power Double)
1M = 5+M
1NT = 5+m or 44+M
2m = 4+m and 4+M
2M = weak, 5+M
2NT = weak, 55+m
So with constructive hands with 44+m we have to pass. After the Dbl we respond as follows (1♦ - Dbl - pass - ?):
1M = 0-8HCP, 4+M
1NT = 0-8HCP, no 4+M
2X = GF, unbalanced with 5+ in the next suit (2♠ shows ♣)
2NT = GF, balanced
3X = GF, 4441 with singleton X

[Elianna]

Speaking of short minor openings, Adam and I had a national-rated (ACBL) director try to rule 1♦ which could be as short as 0 is a natural bid.

[Gerben42]

First on short 1♣ that may be two cards but not forcing. Playing 1♣ 2♣ as natural and 2♦ as both majors is a terrible idea in my opinion, you lose the jump shift to 2♦, which is quite effective, for an infrequent hand type as opener has 3+♣ and the same opening as the rest of the field 95% of the time, and 4+♣ most of the time.

If you pass with long ♣ then overcall 2♣ when opener rebids 1NT, that's soon enough. However if 1♣ is FORCING including a lot of balanced hands then you can consider a different defence.

About 1♦ could be short. Same story really. If you have ♦ you should not hurry to bid them with a natural 2♦, use that as 2-suiter. Also after the overcall, treat it as natural and use 2♦ as the cuebid.

[Chamaco]

Over Polish-like club, some italian pairs play a straight forward agreement that 1D shows a takeout for majors, usually unbalanced, and DBL is a sort of power double, typically weak NT or better.

Other bids are moe or less standard but every pship allows for gadgets for 2 suiters (Mich+U2NT or Ghestem or whatever)

[Gerben42]

Balicki - Zmudzinski defence to PC goes something like:

Pass: 16+ or no overcall (0-7 any or 8-15 balanced)
X: 8-15 one-suited Hearts (rarely 4)
1D: 8-15 one-suited Spades (rarely 4) or 44(32)/(54)22
1H: 8-15 5+/4+ non-touching (H+C or D+S) or any three-suiter
1S: 8-15 blacks or reds
1NT: 8-15 Majors or minors
2x: 8-15 Natural, strength vul-dependent

Dutch defence: Holographic

Dbl: 5+♦ overcall, 12 - 14 balanced or 18+
1♦: 4 - 4 majors, 10+
1♥: ♥ overcall or 7 - 11 4♠ 5m
1♠: ♠ overcall or 7 - 11 4♥ 5m
1NT: 15 - 17 NT or 7 - 11 6+♣
2♣: 5♥ 4♠