bluecalm

There is even official poll for polish players regarding changes in wj2010: http://ankieta.jassem.pl/ Unfortunately it's only in polish. I don't know when its due but I think it will be in 2010 :)

Yes you are right. There is nothing about that beside that later note. The problem with wj2005 booklet is that it's meant as instrutction of how to go from wj2000 to wj2005. It's not really a comprehensive guide to the system but rather description of changes. Some things are just natural to any polish club player and they are not mentioned in the booklet. Once a friend of mine (bridge newbie) wanted to learn the system (not a good idea) and he struggled with the simplest things like : pass - 1S 2C = drury. Pretty obvious for someone playing a lot but you really need to know what you are looking for to find it in the booklet. There is more situations like that with "obvious" (for polish players) situations. WJ2000 was much better in this respect as it was more a comprehensive guide of how to bid using polish club. I am not sure if that book was translated to english though.

Still wj2005 is really bad. If you have for example : xx xx AJxx AKxxx and bidding starts : 1D - 2C ????? you are in deep **** trying to show your suit and strength later because 3C is 15+ (and if that hand is too good then change it to something like : QJx x AJxx KJxxx) Fortunately wj2010 is coming :-)

Not really. While 2D is five diamonds it's in 12-17 range. 2H/2S are natural with exactly 4diamonds and 12-14. 2NT is natural without 4card major and with 4diamonds (12-14balanced). I don't know what source you use. Mine is original wj2005 booklet. Well... maybe that's according to that full disclosure cc but it has nothing to do with eithe wj2005 or with how polish pairs actually play. (I mean it's not really a lie; 1c doesn't show balanced hand; it shows either balanced or 12-14 with 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5)

As to side note : In some other versions of polish club if you have 4=4=4=1 shape you open 1D and you rebid 2nt in sequence : 1D - 2C 2NT* (4-4-4-1 exactly) 2D = 5D 2H/2S = 15-17, 5D-4M with 4-4 minors (and 4-1 majors) and 12-14hcp or with 4diamonds and 5clubs you rebid 3C : 1D - 2C 3C (minimum, 4clubs) This solution allows for precise auctions and is way better than this in wj2k version. Also you may play 1D - 2H/2S as artificial (2H = 5S-4+H, 6-10pc and 2S = 6+clubs invitational is what Balicki-Zmudzinski play) which allows you to stop in 2NT is partner has dreaded 4=4=4=1 pattern Unfortunately in wj2k 1D opening is 4+ which in my opinion sucks and just kills one of the advantages of polish club over standard (which is natural 1D opening basically always promising 5+ or sometimes 4 but then unbalanced).

You should also open 1C with 4-4-0-5 shape and 11-14pc btw. Jassem wrote about that case in wj2k booklet. The reason is that you have easy rebid to any action of pd and you won't lose 4-4 major fit. Theoretically you could be in trouble in sequences : 1C - 1D 1H - 2D (5-11pc, 5+D) 1C - 3D (here you have to pass and pray) 1C - 1D 1H - 3D (well.... pass again and pray even more) but that never happens in practice :)

Meckwell bid slam off two aces... I think 46 is more surprising. This defensive problem is very easy and I would be surprised if any decent player got it wrong at the table so it was definitely "simple" mistake.

Standard is opening 1D with any 4-4-4-1 shape with 4diamonds and 1C with exactly 4-4-1-4. I don't know who made this convention card but it's pretty clear form any description of the system I saw (and I am from Poland so it's pretty obvious to me as I am playing polish club varietes all my life).

Yeah... I saw a lot of vugraphs and two players which basically never make simple mistake in play (not bidding) are Balicki and Duboin. I saw a few of Meckstroth and Rodwell but taht's probably because there so many hands of them in the archives :)

Back to the system. Do you know if opener's rebid is natural or it shows suits in steps (like in original Meckwell) ? For example : 1C - 1S (spades) 2C = ? clubs or hearts ? I think there is a lot going for showing hearts as the cheapiest step (because then responder can agree hearts at 2level and start slam investigation from there). I am asking about what Greco Hampson plays. Also if they use steps what's the meaning of the auction : 1C - 1NT 2C - ? I also have a question about 1D auctions. 1D - 2C/D - 2H is 11-13bal, what is 2S ? what are the continuations ? for example if you want to ask about shortness or check stoppers to 3nt, what forcing bids do you have in your disposal ? Take care :)

Thanks for the answer Fred. I am big fan of watching past vugraphs. I usually watch the matches from chosen player perspective (this time it was Hampson) and I am usually able to spot quite a few "simple" mistakes during play and more post hand looking at all 4 hands. This match was quite amazing though because so many swings resulted from very close decisions (close games making or not, different nt ranges, aggressive questionable actions which might work differently). I think it's for sure one of the best played matches in recent years. I am always happy in some ways seeing top players making simple mistakes because then I can think : "damn, it really wasn't difficult, maybe i can play as good as these guys if I put the effort". During this match though I thought : "well.. i really can't see how i can ever win against pairs like that". Good to hear you agree that level of play was exceptionally high :)

This is opposite to what I noticed. Usually best double dummy lead = best lead in my opinion but I didn't run that many simuls (for sure less than a hundred).

I for example never count losers. I think it's mental shortcut which was devised to help weak players to play suite games.I always count tricks and try to visualize different lines and count tricks I take using them. I've never have a thought like "now i discard my losing heart", instead I think : "well now i play trumps and 3 spades, pitching hearts, then clubs and heart ruff = 11 tricks".

a)This is not quoting out of context b)Yeah I am not reminding/calling anything. I am just curios because to me this final was played at incredibly high level. I saw a lot of vugraphs from various finals and tend to agree with quoted statement but here I have my doubts :)

...wasn't decided by simple mistakes". I am quoting Fred Gitelman here. Well... I am just looking at 2009 Vanderbilt final which Fred lost by a margin of 38imps. I went through all the big swings and while there is some mistakes which can be called "simple" I really doubt Fred and his team could make 38imps more by avoiding "simple mistakes". Most of the big swings are due to marginal decisions or difficult slam hands. So Fred, was this the first match which wasn't decided by "simple" mistakes or maybe I am missing something ? :)

I agree with that to some extent. I think Meckwell shouldn't really be accused of doing that though. They have one of only two really good and useful convention cards among all top pairs (other is Zia - Rosenberg). If you download cc of Italians (Duboin - Sementa is the worse) or polish pairs (Jassem - Martens has basically nothing in cc) or most of cc's of top pairs for that matter you will see that Meckwell really try to make their methods clear for the opponents. I think that in international play there should be some forms to complete for every pair. The form would consist of many standard bidding situations and some general style questions. This is the basic step. Requiring Meckwell to publish their notes while you can't even know if Duboin Sementa plays blackwood or turbo in slam bidding is not fair imo.

I agree with that in case you were given those system notes and publish it. I think that reverse engineering and analyzing hands from public vugraphs are fair game though.

There are countless videos on the net with analysis of Federer hitting and serving technique. In chess there are databases and public analysis of different players style and opening choices. Nobody sees nothing wrong with it and tennis and chess aren't games where you are OBLIGED to give full explanation of your methods. Bidding systems are in different category than composing hands or puzzles. They are in the same category as technique in ski jumping or in tennis. Everybody can follow, analyze, modify and write about it and even more so it's positive side of those sports that it's the case. I wouldn't go as far as making every pair publish their system notes but once its part is used in any bridge event it's fair game to analyze, write about and follow it.

Many people play this system. It's only fair to discuss it or reverse engineer it. Bridge is not copyright business.

Thanks for the link. The problem is I don't go through all hand and every card played (because it's time consuming) but by not doing so I am pretty sure Iam missing some double dummy mistakes which often are simply mistakes. Script for auto analyzing hands would solve this problem.

It would be nice to have the script for autoanalyzing double dummy mistakes made while playing on BBO. Something that takes input of lin files and gives output of hands in which you made cardplay mistake (mistake by double dummy standards). Is there anything like that on the net ?

5clubs for me. Not many hands play better in spades even wit solid support. We can miss a slam or maybe we are preempting too low. I don't know. 6clubs seems like good alternative but I have absolutely no intuition/knowledge/feeling about it being a good gamble or not.

Is there any place to find more information ? I am mainly interested in auctions afte 1D opening. Also some more agreements after 1C would be nice. Yeah that sound like good idea I think.

Yeah, by "artificial" I meant other than standard structure with 5card majors and wide range 11-21(22-23) openings and strong 2C opening. I agree taht most strong club systems feel more natural an easy once you learn them than most popular 2/1 varietes. I didn't try to quantify how much better I think strong club systems are. My feeling is that in almost every tournament I would have loss or potential loss if I played sayc or standard 2/1. One example is strong hands opposite weakish hands. It's about impossible to bid reasonably without conventions like gazilli but when you start using it you start producing long informative auctions on what should be easy bash the game and let them guess hands. In BBO tournaments every time the sequence 1c (polish) - 1d(negative) 1nt (18-21balanced) comes up I can count on 70+% score just from playing better system. Same goes for 1D - 1S - 3C and other jump rebids by opener which really doesn't tell much in standard. The habit of standard bidders of not passing any 5hcp to openers is another source of matchpoints but if you pass those hands you risk losing boards without any chance and fight. In "standard" you basically have to open 15-17hands with 5card major with 1NT. I think it's big big loser at matchpoints. Gazilli solves this problem but it introduces a lot of artificiality and complications in subsequent bidding. In contrary to popular belief I think those are less of a problem at imps. At imps you can play worse partscores if they make anyway. Or you can overbid here and there and still you don't lose much expected value.

You said that opinion about artificial systems being better is contrary to FACTS which is the sam as saying that those system are not better and that you it's obvious because some facts prove it. Exactly that. It's my opinion based on my experience and thinking about bridge in general. I didn't claim to have any hard evidence in favor of it. I stated my opinion which is that those systems are a lot better and that's my reason to choose them. Anyway, I hope you agree there are many people who think artificial sysetms are better than natural ? For many of them the choice of the system is matter of what is better and what is worse. Why do you think Meckwell chose precision ? Or Larry Cohen ? Or Greco - Hampson ? They are from ACBL land and they chose artificial systems. FOr sure at least for some of them it's better than standard. I think Larry Cohen expressed his opinion about it quite clearly for example.