Weird opening ay..?

w, b4  Black e6  w a3, black nf6 w bb2

So what is white playing against me anyway? I played the Kings Indian Defence and ended up winning this game on time, it was a 5 min. blitz and they had the pawn advantage in the end game, however I managed to win but this really caught me off guard. Is this a common opening or just a random thing????

Polish. The move order is a little different but here it is. 

https://www.chess.com/openings/A00_Polish_Opening_1...Nf6_2.Bb2_e6_3.a3

Ok, thanks for the feedback.....Why in the world would anyone use the "polish"????????!

Also, how did I almost lose to that crappy opening? So whats the best approach to overcome the "polish"? Thanks in advance!

How can you say it's crappy when you obviously don't even know what it is and therefore don't know anything about it.?

I know enough to realize that you are already playing "catch up" from the beginning and have the whole game to equalize, this idiot that played the "Polish" against me might have won if there was more time, however in 5 minutes, and already being in a awkward position he lost because he could not impliment his attcks on time, with 5 minutes. The "Polish" seems to just try and catch you off guard, and would probably work in longer time controls, as the pawn advantage becomes obvious, however I beat it and now I know more than the chump I defeated.

There isn't really any such thing as an unsound opening, especially below master/GM level

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bobby_fischer.html

oh!

"There are too many Jews in chess. They seem to have taken away the class of the game. They don't seem to dress so nicely. That's what I don't like." -Bobby Fischer

the irony, you should be asking Najdorf about his change of attitude but I don't think it is possible anymore

Care to elaborate?

if e4 is played,does f5 contain a gammit or a winning line? my mind enquiring

The negatives that come about with offbeat openings (ie a loss of tempo, slightly less center control, slight lag in development) are usually so subtle that players below master level won't be able to exploit them effectively especially when you consider that they are completely off book by move 1 or 2.  Understanding the basic principles of opening is more important than playing the specific openings with the most theoretical backings.  Even in Grandmaster games, people can play what are considered unsound openings and win (look at Spassky's win over Fischer with the King's gambit or Tony Miles' win over Karpov, the world champion, with 1... a6).  

their are thousands of pages and articles on the kings gammit.

whats unsound about getting ur opponents pawn structure offbalance?

im trying to figure out e4, f5

It's usually considered unsound at fairly high levels and let's black equalize as long as he avoids any traps.  My contention though is that there aren't really any unsound openings, so I wouldn't classify it as such, but many have at various times claimed it to be refuted.

I looked in the explorer here and there is a gambit with 1.e4 f5, called the Duras gambit, but there are only 6 games available, 5 wins for white and 1 draw.  Who knows though, maybe try it out?

Here is the most recent master game it was played in 

very intresting, i feel like theirs something about this thats ideal. 

     it be nice to find a book about. fischer would know. theirs has to be a winning line that exists.

Would you be, by any chance, just one more disrespectful egomaniac on chess.com?

Offbeat opening does not necessarily mean dubious. First moves such as g3 or b3 are considered fine.

1.b4 allows White to control the center from afar with 2.Bb2 and it does not weaken White's King position, so basically even if it is (maybe) not very challenging, it does not violate any opening principle.

For the time being. An early 1.b4 does not develop the kingside fast enough and gives Black an early target, an early 1.f4 does, and it does not weaken the central squares too early like the King's Gambit does, because it does not give Black that many early targets, just one.

And yet, people rated far higher than you have found 1. b4 worth bothering with. (I don't like "Polish Opening". As eloquently argued in Barden and Heidenfeld's Modern Chess Miniatures, 1. b4 is nothing like a Polish Defence with reversed colours, and you might as well call 1. e4 the "Budapest Opening". When you have such a lovely name as "Orang-Utan Opening", why not be proud of it?)

I used to tool around with 1. e4, f5; 2. exf5, Nf6 at school. It's amusing to know that the odd good player has mucked around with it too. Still, it's probably complete crap objectively even if you have to be quite a strong player before your choice of opening is anything much you need to worry about.

All I'm saying is that there is no reason for 1.f4 to be considered a bad first move, your arguments are flawed.