bluecalm

This sucks in high from xx context as illustrated by my example (you don't know if partner had 98x or 9x). If there is one thing I want from my leading agreements is to sort those xx vs xxx situations out, even if it's not immediate information, not knowing by trick 2 is disastrous.

Unless you lead from xx, then leading the middle from xxx/Hxx is decent choice although the count information isn't that good as in 3rd/high from xx case but on the other hand you won't confuse lead from Hxxx and xxx basically ever which I guess could happen with 3rd. I agree with mgoetze it's either low from xx and high/middle from xxx or low from xxx and high from xx. Leading high from both xxx and xx seems bad to me and MUD is bad because you often can't afford the highest card, say from T8x or something. Original question is about suit contracts. I can't imagine playing anything which doesn't solve xxx vs xx problem by 2nd trick. It's completely unplayable imo. I mean, we lead high from 98x or w/e that is, dummy has Qxx, partner has AKxxx and we are in the world of pain because not only he can never switch immediately knowing we can't have xx but he can't even switch after playing both of his honors. I mean: [hv=pc=n&s=saqj76hk52da76c75&w=st98hat986d98c982&n=sk32hJ3dkqjt2cq43&e=s54hq74d543cakjt6&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2dp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] The lead is 9c, after taking it W plays Ac and... do really some people play that he doesn't know what to do at trick 3 ? :)

This is standard Polish style. Almost everybody in Poland play it. My understanding is that this is different from "British 2/4" in a way that we lead small from xx (up to 92). You also need an agreement about what card you play from xxxx in 2nd round of the suit if you can't afford the highest one (so appearance of lowest/highest not seen tells partner exact count at this point).

I think small is the best, it gives the most important information first (count). No surprise it's so popular at elite level. I play 2/4 all my life: low from xx, middle from xxx (and then small). This is decent, you don't waste the highest card and got delayed count information (and sometimes instant, expecially in xx case). I don't like MUD. If you have T8x/98x you sometimes don't want to play the highest 2nd round and I predict a lot of confusion as to 2 or 3 dilemma. Beware those 98x vs 9x problems :) I always thought it's very bad agreement. You con't distinguish xx from xxx even by 2nd trick. Looks like source of disasters to me. I think I remember a spectacular disaster of Hamman-Zia on vugraph caused by this. What am I missing here ?

Great, that may push me to finally start writing my analysis tools :) As to dd solvers I was using this: http://www.bcalc.w8.pl/API_C/index.html and wrote a wrapper in Python for it back in the day it didn't have API (by inputting/reading human readable output and invoking it via popen). I had an impression that it's very fast comparing to other programs but I didn't seriously benchmark anything. If the human readable output format didn't change it should still work. You can find it on my repo: https://github.com/OneTrickPony82/Bridge-Tools in bridgetools file. There are Python functions to calculate minimax, best lead etc. included.

Some people play that: 1D - 1S 3H 1D - 1N 3H 1D - 2D 3H is ~12-15 6-5. I feel that normal reverse is risky with no experience/agreements I would prefer opening 1H to keep it simple in pick-up pd'ship.

I really fail to see significant layout unless declarer played us for AK second failing to put up the queen of diamonds. Could you please post the full hand ? I am curios.

Sucky system. 3H should be 5D-4H or 4-4-4-1 about 14~16(17). You need a bid for balanced hands with 4H at some lower level and apparently you didn't have one. I think bidding 3H with his hand is ridiculous unless it shows 18-19 balanced with 4H :-) Can we please stop using this ? HCP count is much more accurate, especially when it comes to openings (because NT contract is on the table and KNR sucks for that). Overall, your system should be designed in such a way that you don't play at 5level too often. That means all game forcing bids must be much lower than game if they are not signoffs (or be very well defined) to allow you to cuebid or make some slam tries. 1m - 1M 4M as 18-19 breaks this principle and thus is very bad convention.

The latter option. I should've written t/o "of spades" I guess, anyway the double is t/o assuming the overcaller has spades. Yeah, I didn't think about it. Interestingly I polled some very good players including soon-to-be-national-team pair and they both pass here. I guess this is a blind spot of sorts as 2H makes perfect sense to me now. I guess I was blinded by going for blood attitude. Anyway, what do we do now ?

[hv=pc=n&w=skq9hat96dj53cajt&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=ppp1n2ddpp2spp]133|200[/hv] Some explanation as to the bidding: 1NT = 15-17 2D = weak two in major dbl = t/o to spades S' pass after 2D = diamonds Now our double would be penalty and 2N natural. Our choice ?

Imo his bidding is ok'ish/lucky and we screw up. Above all though it's partnership fault. The 6C call was misunderstood. I still think default should be ask for 3rd round control but maybe I am biased as this is what people in my country often play.

Well, wouldn't he bid that with: AKxxxx Kxxx - AKx ? The grand is good opposite this because: a)they may lead a heart b)they may lead a diamond c)if they don't and we take inference from lack of red suit leads and spade suit split we will get Qh right quite often anyway.

Overtaking and shooting the spade back seems like automatic thing to do. With some luck we will lock declarer in hand and take 3 heart tricks if he is 5-Jxx-xx-AKx or something. I fail to come up with any layout when it matters assuming all players played rationally though.

I like simple agreements: system on, xx = let's try to get them (supposedly 4 decent spades).

I don't know :) Intuitively pass but I see many ways it can backfire (1S - p - 1N - p 2S p p p and we are cold for 6H opposite Axxxxx of h and nothing more while even defeating 2S is questionable).

Yep and we need to do that before ruffing 4th diamond.

This I think would bid direct grand. Even opposite the worst possible hand: QJxx Axx KQJ Jxx which looks like the only 14 which doesn't guarantee 13 tricks the grand is very good and many very weak hands in the context like: QJxx AJx KQJ Jxx make it a laydown. This is more convincing to me. I am generally happy to play a grand with key queen missing (they lead the suit sometimes and if they don't I will make in 60%+ of cases anyway) but maybe 6D is better bid than 7S if we expect to score well for 6S anyway.

One chance I see is W holding: xx KQ xxxxx xxxx In which case we can collect 12 tricks by eliminating diamonds, playing trumps two times and throwing him in with a heart. I don't see other chances but knowing you I wouldn't be surprised there is one luring somewhere :) You were actually the defender ?

I agree. Are we asked to make fully informed decision or are we asked to guess what 6C was. In the first case I look at my system notes about 6C in 2nd case I bid the grand as w/e 6C is it must be invite to 7 looking for something specific and this specific thing could be only 3rd round value in clubs. If partner was interested in how well my hand fit opposite shortness or specific kings or w/e he wouldn't have bid the ERKCB but splinter or some other forcing bid.

There are some people doing this (bidding 1H on every weak hand). It's certainly not standard and I don't really see a point in it but I think it's not completely silly. No, you need something for 5-6-7hcp and bal. You can't pass because opener could have 21. 11 or fewer and 11 is not very comfortable. This is wide ranging bid (from nothing to 11) and you won't play game opposite basically 12-14 ever (as actions from opener will be considered competitive if they interfere and if they don't opener won't bid without super maximum and 4 card support). There are no GF club hands in 1D in any version of pc I am aware of. 3C and 3D bids are usually played as invitational (9-11) with weakish suit (good suits bid 3C/3D directly after 1C) but those are so rare I can't recall one time they occurred. If you see holes in that, it's no surprise 1C - 1D - 1H/S sequence is weak side of pc. Fortunately it's rare as they usually bid and usually you can manage if they don't. You may end up in something silly though.

There are even rarer if partner can have systemic 3 themselves ;)

With 4 you generally pass. With 5-7 you have a problem as partner could have 21. In general you bid 1NT with 3 cards support and raise with 4 card support. This is clumsy sequence for polish club and many defenses arised to exploit it including passing every strong hand vs pc and doubling later hoping to catch them in 12-5 1NT or 2M.

In his newer book WJ2010 he explains why "the standard" is back to 1D, 5+ (with exceptions). You require the level of evidence from me which you can't provide for opposite hypothesis. All I have to offer is that top polish players all play 1D as 5+ in polish club context and the idea of 4+ never become popular. This includes Jassem and Martens. You are either unbal with 4 or have 5. You can raise with 3 card support in many sequences. On the other hand if you put them in 1D you run into new problems. For examle: a) 1D - pass - 1H - 1S 1N = 5diamonds so we can compete to 3D over 2S b) 1D - pass - 2C - pass ??? Now in PC there is nice way to play: 2D = minimum, 5+diamonds 2H/2S = reverses 2N = 4-4-4-1 exactly, 12-14 Including bal hands with diamonds ruins it and makes the sequence a pain. Yes, I think that's a good point and main argument for 1D being 4+. This is not entirely true. If you have 5-11 hands not suitable for 1NT after 1C opening you bid 1D and then 2D, say: 1C - 1D 1H - 2D = 5-11, 5+diamonds, unbal Not really. Minimum hands have 2+ diamonds unless it's 4-4-1-4 exactly which is very rare (because they don't often compete in a major if we have that and it's rare shape to begin with). Imo it doesn't matter. You bid both just as readily but it's true that you can't bid diamonds at 2 level over 2M :) It's the same in standard PC. 1C - 1S - d - pass 2D shows strong hand in PC. Most of them didn't really go back, they just didn't try 4+ at all. Jassem went back in his booklets and we are yet to have top pair playing PC with 1D being 4+. Kalita Gawrys play that now, but they gave up PC and started playing standard so it doesn't count :) Most of your arguments are things which are rare and don't matter while at the same time you assert that we can't raise with 3 anyway (which we can). There is one good argument: we lose 4-4 and sometimes 4-5 fits with opener having 4. I gave some counter arguments. It's not 100% sure thing for me which is better but for now consensus among top polish player is clear.

It doesn't. In standard 2C is 11-17hcp while 2S is 11-14hcp. Partner won't pass 2C as readily as he would pass 2S. This is terrible. Splinter should promise 4 card support here. You will go overboard with 3 trumps here as partner will often count 1 trick more for slam. This is improbable, especially if you play some kind of reverse flannery to eliminate weak 5S-4H hands from 1S. Partner will strive to bid after 2C knowing our range is wide.

I doubled. My pd wasn't happy about it. It might not be entirely reasonable at this colours but the question is how low can we go. I didn't like 2N because of weak heart holding and I didn't want to lose clubs or possible (although unlikely) 3N by bidding 3D. I kinda more like 3D now after reading the answers. It's preemptive and games are rare. Thanks all for the answers.