[bridgeboy]

Hi all,

For those who have played against Raptor 1NT overcall a.k.a Polish 1NT overcall.

-How do you suggest we defend against it?
-What are the things to look out for when you play against it?


Thanks all in advance

[Gerben42]

The first advice is to stay on known ground. Second, let's distinguish between majors and minors.

1m (1NT) ?

Now you defend as if they have overcalled the other minor, i.e. 1♦ (2♣) or 1♣ (2♦). Dbl shows strength and after that penalty doubles apply.

1M (1NT) ?

Now in principle you can also defend as if they bid the other major, but since their major is only 4 cards, I suggest bidding their major is natural and forcing. Dbl still shows strength, after which penalty doubles apply.

[JanM]

Well, I have a slightly more extensive defense . I agree that it's important to distinguish between whether your opening was in a Major or a minor. After 1m-(1NT) where 1NT shows 5+ in the other minor and a 4 card Major, I have two alternative suggestions. One allows you to stay on familiar ground - that is to play as you do over a 1NT opening by the opponents, except that DBL shows cards even if you normally play DBL as something else. I play Woolsey over 1NT openings, (multi/Landy with DBL showing a 4 card Major, longer minor) so with this approach, I'd play, after 1m-(1NT):
DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing)
Pass then DBL T/O
2♣ Majors
2♦ One Major
2M 5 card Major and 4 card support for partner’s minor
2NT LR+ of our minor
3m NAT PRE
3om Good shaped raise of our minor
3M NAT, FG

Alternatively, and particularly if your favorite defense to 1NT doesn't work well in this context, after 1m-(1NT):
DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing)
Pass then DBL T/O
2om Majors
2M NAT, competitive
2NT LR+ of our minor
3m NAT PRE
3om Good shaped raise of our minor
3M NAT, FG

Looking at this, I wonder how the Raptor players play 1♣-1NT when the 1♣ opening is Polish (so the one thing that opener doesn't have is club length in a minimum hand). To play it as diamonds and a Major seems wrong to me, but not having any anchor suit seems even worse, even if it were allowed.

After 1M-(1NT) where 1NT shows 4 of the other Major and an unknown longer minor:
DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing)
Pass then DBL T/O
2X NAT, NF (Note: includes 2/OM; they’ve only shown 4 and might not even have that)
2NT Limit raise+
3m, 3♥/1♠ NAT, Forcing
3M PRE
Bids above 3M are same as after 1M-(P)

[hrothgar]

It might be easiest to start by focusing on the specific auction 1♠ - (1NT). The opening side has a lot of bidding Space, so it should be possible to design a reasonable response schedule.

Personally, I'd lean towards something like the following

3♠ = preemptive
3♥ = mini-splinter
3♦ = Fit showing jump
3♣ = Fit showing jump
2NT = Mixed raise (4+ Spades, good ODR)
2♠ = preemptive
2♥ = Good raise to Two Spades
(good 5332 hands with a 3 card Spade support advance via 2♥)
2♦ = Natural and non-forcing
2♣ = Natural and non-forcing
X = Values, balanced or 3 suited with short Spades
(Penalty oriented)

I'd use pass to show either

1. A bad hand without Spade support or a long minor
2. Single suited with values
3. Two suited with Hearts and a minor

[Gerben42]

Quote

I wonder how the Raptor players play 1♣-1NT when the 1♣ opening is Polish

There are some ideas. In the Netherlands some pairs play after Polish 1♣

1♥ = Natural or 4♠ + minor
1♠ = Natural or 4♥ + minor

Okay, not for everyone hehe

Simpler after 1♣:

Dbl = ♥
1♦ = ♠
1M = 4-card with longer side suit

[JanM]

This is raising several interesting things. Why is it that threads seem to expand?

First, Richard and I have managed to demonstrate an important aspect of designing defenses - it depends on the "normal" systems used by the pair who are going to use the defense. For example, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Richard uses transfer responses after 1M-(DBL). I don't. So 1♠-DBL-2♥ shows hearts for me, spades for Richard. Thus, when we suggest a defense against 1♠-1NT showing hearts and a minor, I suggest that 2♥ is natural and Richard suggests that it shows spades. I suspect we'd both agree that our suggestion makes sense for those who play as we do over DBL, and not for those who don't. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with who's doing the right thing over DBL (I actually think Richard is; that change has been on my "proposals" list for a long time, but it has a lot of corollaries and we've been too lazy to adopt it). The point is that when you're suggesting a defense, you want it to be something with which the players who are going to use it are comfortable, and that usually means you'd like to get back to familiar territory.

And then there's the artificial defense to Polish Club. What interests me about this is that I think (not sure) most of the people who are using the

Quote

1♥ = Natural or 4♠ + minor
1♠ = Natural or 4♥ + minor

defense also use it against my 1♣ opening (which shows clubs or a balanced hand, instead of a strong club or a balanced hand). And that gets us into the current ACBL debate over whether it's allowed - is my club "natural" or not? I think it is. I also think that a Polish Club isn't. But the only way you can tell the difference between these 1♣ bids is by looking at the meaning of 2♣, so it seems "simpler" to treat them the same, both for purposes of designing a defense and for purposes of deciding whether an artificial defense is "legal" because it's a defense to an artificial opening bid.

[FrancesHinden]

JanM, on May 30 2006, 07:59 PM, said:

After 1M-(1NT) where 1NT shows 4 of the other Major and an unknown longer minor:
DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing)

This seems a little odd.
If the auction starts

1M (1NT) x (P)
?

doesn't it make sense to treat this in a similar way to 1M x xx and play new (non-reverse) suits by opener as weak and distributional, and pass with a good hand?

If you decide to play forcing pass at the 2-level after this start to the auction (depends on how many 'cards' the double shows, so it's not obvious whether to or not), then you would do the same if RHO bids over the double.

[1eyedjack]

JanM, on May 31 2006, 01:27 AM, said:

For example, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Richard uses transfer responses after 1M-(DBL). I don't. So 1♠-DBL-2♥ shows hearts for me, spades for Richard. Thus, when we suggest a defense against 1♠-1NT showing hearts and a minor, I suggest that 2♥ is natural and Richard suggests that it shows spades.

I expect that Richard will clarify, but I suspect that it has less to do with transfers (none of his other suggested bids being tfr) than it has to do with cue bidding the one suit guaranteed by opps to show a sound raise where a direct raise would be weak - a fairly standard meta agreement whether transfer-orientated or not.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on May 31 2006, 09:58 PM, said:

JanM, on May 31 2006, 01:27 AM, said:

For example, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Richard uses transfer responses after 1M-(DBL). I don't. So 1♠-DBL-2♥ shows hearts for me, spades for Richard. Thus, when we suggest a defense against 1♠-1NT showing hearts and a minor, I suggest that 2♥ is natural and Richard suggests that it shows spades.

I expect that Richard will clarify, but I suspect that it has less to do with transfers (none of his other suggested bids being tfr) than it has to do with cue bidding the one suit guaranteed by opps to show a sound raise where a direct raise would be weak - a fairly standard meta agreement whether transfer-orientated or not.

As 1eyedjack notes, using 2♥ as a constructive raise to 2♠ and 2♠ as a weak raise certainly isn't any kind of original contribution by yours truly.

For me, the primary motivation behind adopting this type of method in a raptor defense is the desire that a "pass" deny as many hand types with Spades as possible. Recall, that I recommended a 2 way over 1NT in which pass showed either weakness or certain strong hand types. (I like the idea of multiplexing the pass, because this permits me to use a direct seat double to show balanced or 3 suited hands). The cost of playing this type of well defined double is some additional complexity later in the auction.

Consider auctions like the following


1♠ - (1N) - P - (2♣)
P - (2♦) - ???

1♠ - (1N) - P - (2♥)
P - (P) - ???

There are a lot of different hands types that responder might want to show.

Note the implication of using 2♠ as a "garbage" raise. The failure to bid 2♠ directly denies a hand that would want to bid a "natural" 2♠ during the second round of the auction. In turn, this allows the partnership to use a 2♠ bid during the second round as some kind of artificial advance.

BTW, part of the reason that i suggested focusing on a defense to the auction 1♠ - (1NT) is that this is the easiest Raptor overcall to defend against. Consider the auction 1♥ - (1NT). Here, the defending side has much less bidding space available. You need to decided whether you want to sacrifice the 2♦ garbage raise or the natural 2♦ overcall. Either way, defining an efficient defense to Raptor type methods is going to involve a fair amount of artificiality and some complex agreements.

As usual, I'll note the insanity of a regulatory structure that presumes that players are capable of handling this level of complexity in GCC events where they lack any form of suggested defense but their big brothers who play in Flight Midchart events are going to be crippled by a transfer opening.

[awm]

Seems like the easiest defense is something like the following:

(1) Over 1m-(1NT), treat it like an overcall of the other minor at the two-level. So we have:

Pass = either a weak hand, or want to penalize 2om
X = takeout, major-oriented
2m = normal raise
2om = strong raise of opener's minor
2M = natural and forcing (5+)
2N = natural and invitational, promises stopper(s) in the other minor
3m = natural preemptive

After 1m-(1NT)-P-(P/2om):

X = takeout, as over 1m-2om-P-P
Else = natural

Note that many of the "problem" hands after 1m-2om involve minimum values and a long major. These hands can comfortably pass the 1NT call since the auction is much less likely to end.

(2) Over 1M-(1NT), treat it like a takeout double or a "1NT for takeout." So:

Pass = various 0-9 hcp hands without a long suit or a fit
X = like a redouble of 1M-X-XX, 10+ points, at most a 3-card fit
2m = natural and not forcing
2OM = natural and not forcing
2M = normal raise
2NT = limit raise or better, four trumps
3M = preemptive raise
3m, 3OM = fit-showing (or weak or splinter, whatever you play over 1M-X)

Of course if you normally play transfers over 1M-X you can do that here as well (you lose the "transfer to 1NT" I suppose).

While I don't claim that this is the "best possible" defense it's certainly very simple and reasonably effective. It does seem to me that things like Raptor and 1NT for takeout should probably be a pre-alert (give us time to discuss these things) but I'm not sure they really need a defense. The situation with transfer openings is a little different, because any defense that doesn't assign a meaning to the (relatively cheap and useful) call of one of the major transferred to is pretty obviously deficient. Nonetheless I'm not convinced a simple "suggested defense" wouldn't suffice.