[mgoetze]

In a spout of creativity, I thought up a defense against Hybrid 1♣ openings. It's probably seriously flawed and has not ever been used at a bridge table AFAIK, so there are no guarantees if you decide to use it , however I invite your comments:

(1♣)-p: Includes all 12+ balanced hands as well as constructive (14+) minor-suit overcalls
(1♣)-X: Constructive (12+) heart overcall (5+ hearts)
(1♣)-X-1♦: 6+ points, 0-2 hearts
(1♣)-X-1♥: 0-5 points
(1♣)-1♦: Constructive (12+) spade overcall (5+ spades)
(1♣)-1♦-1♥: 6+ points, 0-2 spades
(1♣)-1♦-1♠: 0-5 points
(1♣)-1♥: Lead-directing (6-11) overcall with 4-5 hearts
(1♣)-1♠: Lead-directing (6-11) overcall with 4-5 spades
(1♣)-1NT: Both majors, perhaps even 4-4 non-vulnerable, weak
(1♣)-1NT-p: minors
(1♣)-1NT-2♣: No preference, asks better major
(1♣)-1NT-2♦: To play
(1♣)-2♣: 8-13, any hand with 5+ clubs [Lebensohl by advancer if opps bid]
(1♣)-2♦: 8-13, any hand with 5+ diamonds [Lebensohl by advancer if opps bid]
(1♣)-2M: Standard WJO (6 cards)
(1♣)-2NT: Diamonds and a major 5-5, weak
(1♣)-2NT-3♣: Asks for major
(1♣)-3♣: Both minors 5-5, weak

(1♣)-(1♦)-X: 16+ any
(1♣)-(1♦)-1M: 5 cards, 8-15 points
(1♣)-(1♦)-1NT: Diamonds and a major 5-5
(1♣)-(1♦)-1NT-2♣: Asks for major
(1♣)-(1♦)-2m: 5 cards, 11-15 points

(1♣)-(1♦)-(1M)-X: 16+ balanced
(1♣)-(1♦)-(1M)-1NT: Both minors, 14+
(1♣)-(1♦)-(1M)-2m: Natural, 14+
(1♣)-(1♦)-(1M)-3m: Natural, GF

[olien]

Not sure how that would work, but the defense against a strong ♣ that I've been playing with my regular partner lately has been working well:

NV:
X = good hand (about 15+ points)
1♦ = 5+ ♥
1♥ = 5+ ♠
1♠ = Majors or Minors
1NT = 4M 5+m
2♣ = either minor
2♦ = 5+M 4+m
2♥ = ♥ or ♠
2♠ = 4♠ 6+m (not sure if this meaning is best)
2NT = more minors
3x = natural weak

1st thing of note is we only use this defense if NV, and I understand that the 1♣ opening you're trying to defend isn't always strong so maybe this isn't best. You might consider our vulnerable defense to a strong ♣ which is:

X = good hand
1♦ = 5+♥
1♥ = 5+♠
1♠ = majors or minors
1NT = 4M 5+m
2x = natural
2NT = minors
3x = weak

You could play this and define 2m as in the original post. However, I normally just treat a hybrid 1♣ as semi-natural and play natural defense with X = T/O, 2♣=natural, and 2♦=majors. This may not be best, but when its our hand it makes the auction easier.

[mgoetze]

My idea is that the 1♣ opening I'm up against is a weak NT most of the time - especially when I have a had I want to bid with. So the goals should be similar to defending a weak NT - punish them when they've got it coming, but make sure we can bid our games too. But the difference is that we've got a lot more room to work with - not just the whole 1 level, but also pass. On the other hand, 1♣ will sometimes be a different hand type and that's why our bids should be somewhat obstructive with only moderate strength.

Playing a defense like (1♣)-1♠ = majors or minors is totally shooting yourself in the foot, I would definitely prefer treating 1♣ as just natural or seminatural. But the question is how much better one can do if preparing specifically for this type of bid.

[Fluffy]

So Michael you are making a constructive system based on opponents bidding for you when you are strong balanced, is it the idea?