[Bende]

In an interview from 2001 at bridgematters.com, Chip Martel describes a defence to Swedish Club (weak balanced or any 16+) along the lines of:

(1♣) -
pass = a) weak, b) strong balanced or c) a hand that would open 1♥ or
1♠ in a natural 5cM system
dbl = a hand that would open 1♣ in a natural 5cM system
1♦ = a hand that would open 1♦ in a natural 5cM system
1♥ and higher = preemptive of some sort or other

After a 1♣ opening, a negative 1♦ response and a major rebid by opener, dbl would be penalty oriented with either a strong balanced hand and four cards in their major or a hand that would like to open in their major. In addition

(1♣) - pass - (1♦) - pass;
(1♠) - 2♣

would show a hand with opening strength, 5+♥ and 4+♣.

Does anyone have experience of or opinions on this defence?

[athene]

I am not that convinced (Martel does go on in that interview to say that he gave up playing the defence since it was a lot of hassle for not much upside, basically).

I think the main problem is passing with your 1major openers. For example, suppose it goes:

(1♣) P (1♠) P
(2♠) ?

And you have a 1♥ opener? You are really making life hard for yourself. Much nicer to be able to show the hearts right away.

It seems to me he gives up too much to pass with a whole host of good and reasonably-good hands in order to use ALL high bids as pre-empts and sometimes get in a later penalty double when they walk into his suit (this isn't going to happen much).

[skjaeran]

I used to play:

pass=8-14 BAL
x=15+BAL
1♦=0-7
1M=natural 8-14
1NT=15+ unbalanced
2♣=8-14 ♦ or both M
2♦=8-14 ♥ or ♠+m
2♥=8-14 ♥+m
2♠=8-14 NAT

Vulnerable pass and 1♦ switched
On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

[hanp]

Don't get the Norwegians started on Swedish club stories.

[the hog]

skaeran, on Jun 4 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

I used to play:

pass=8-14 BAL
x=15+BAL
1♦=0-7
1M=natural 8-14
1NT=15+ unbalanced
2♣=8-14 ♦ or both M
2♦=8-14 ♥ or ♠+m
2♥=8-14 ♥+m
2♠=8-14 NAT

Vulnerable pass and 1♦ switched
On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

Don't like this Harald. The 1D bid gives them too much room and too many options. Be a man and bid 1H with 0-7.

[Gerben42]

I play:

Dbl = ♥
1♦ = ♠
1♥ = 4♥ and a longer side suit
1♠ = 4♠ and a longer side suit
1NT = 1 minor, constructive
Higher = Preemptive

Quote

On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

That's a bold statement! Care to explain why?

[gnasher]

Gerben42, on Jun 4 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

Quote

On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

That's a bold statement! Care to explain why?

And also why you stopped playing these methods?

[helene_t]

With Shogi I play something similar but 1♥/♠ can be as good as 15 or such, i.e. close to normal overcall style.

[skjaeran]

gnasher, on Jun 4 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jun 4 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

Quote

On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

That's a bold statement! Care to explain why?

And also why you stopped playing these methods?

The main reason we won IMPs on most competitive hands is that opener has to pass with the weak NT and double (or bid) with all strong hands. Thus we normally got to play our partscore when opps had a better scoring contract reached at the other table (when opener had the weak NT) or competing was wrong with the strong hand (they went too much down or we would have gone down).

It's not as much that I've stopped playing these methods as that we very seldom play against a 2-way 1♣ these days. And with new partners I haven't had the opportunity to play these methods for years.

[DinDIP]

When I can, I get partners to defend as though they opened a weak NT but take advantage of the fact that we can act at the one level to include more hands, especially in our ASPTRO calls:
P = weak or a hand that would have made a pen X of a weak NT
X/1D = ASPTRO, 9-15 or so, could be 4432
1M = 5+, 9-15 or so (Now 1N is F1 and NS NF)
1N = C+D or GF 2-suiter
2m = 6+, 9-15 (NS and 2N F1)
2M+ = weak

We make a few adjustments from our normal defence to notrumps: we are happy to X with 4=4=x=y so play that a 1S rebid over advancer's 1D initially shows just 4S (but could be a min 5=4=x=y). With 5=4=x=y or 5=5=x=y and extras we rebid 2S. And we play that a 1N rebid after X or 1D shows some 4432 or 4441 hand; now advancer's 2C is a scramble (as advancer would have bid 2C directly with a long suit).

After passing, 2nd hand doubles O's 1M/1N rebid (if this shows a weak NT) to show a pen X of 1N without shortage in the bid suit. With a good hand short in the bid suit he bids another suit or 1N (takeout).

David