Antoine Fourrière

I would rebid 3♣ because that does not seem completely wrong, only possible bad judgment (which often means insufficient codification). This being said, if 1N should be strong and a 2♥ opening should cover the minimum 5332 with five spades and perhaps a few unpleasant and uncommon hand types, you might decide that 2N by opener over 1♠ 2♦ shows clubs, which would allow responder to merely complete the transfer when he doesn't feel like saying anything more useful. Another idea would be to use a multi and open 2♠ to show a minimum opening with six spades and rebid 2♠ to show a hand which lacks definition, but at least isn't a minimum with six spades. Maybe that's just me, but I don't understand why we're supposed to open 1♠ as often as 1♥.

I meant: A quick and dirty simulation (dealer -s0 on ubuntu) with the following file predeal east SAJ, HKT86542, DA, CAK4 condition hearts(west)<=3 && spades(west)<=3 && hcp(west) <= 12 - 6*shape(west, x3xx) && hcp(west)>=4 produce 20 action print(west) gives 1. QT2 Q3 98753 T73 2. Q92 J3 J654 QJ75 3. T72 - QJT74 JT976 4. Q3 93 Q98542 QJ3 5. 764 93 K9874 J53 6. 765 QJ KT632 J62 7. K4 A3 K632 J7532 8. 85 Q7 QT754 T975 9. KT4 73 QT86 T987 10. 873 A3 QJ9853 Q2 11. T3 Q97 K843 JT83 12. 4 73 KQ9532 J986 13. 865 A KJ72 Q9875 14. 862 J Q72 QT7632 15. Q92 3 K732 QT875 16. K84 3 QT9764 QJ7 17. K3 A7 T53 JT9752 18. Q85 Q3 K85432 75 19. 5 A3 QJ972 Q7532 20. K6 A3 T7643 QJ75 So, I guess there are enough patterns which make 3♣ worth bothering with. It surely helps that responder shouldn't have four spades (and therefore no 4144). (5♣ - and 6♣ by opener - with hands 3, 14 (hmm) and 15, 4♥ with hand 11, 4♣ with hand 13, 3♦ with hand 16, 3♥ showing exactly two cards with all the other hands?)

A quick and dirty simulation (dealer -s0 on ubuntu) with the following file predeal east SAJ, HKT86542, DA, CAK4 condition hearts(west)<=3 && spades(west)<=3 && hcp(west) <= 12 - 6*shape(west, x3xx) && hcp(west)>=4 produce 20 action print(west) gives 1. 2. 3. 4. Q T 2 Q 9 2 T 7 2 Q 3 Q 3 J 3 - 9 3 9 8 7 5 3 J 6 5 4 Q J T 7 4 Q 9 8 5 4 2 T 7 3 Q J 7 5 J T 9 7 6 Q J 3 5. 6. 7. 8. 7 6 4 7 6 5 K 4 8 5 9 3 Q J A 3 Q 7 K 9 8 7 4 K T 6 3 2 K 6 3 2 Q T 7 5 4 J 5 3 J 6 2 J 7 5 3 2 T 9 7 5 9. 10. 11. 12. K T 4 8 7 3 T 3 4 7 3 A 3 Q 9 7

Maybe I am not answering the question, but over an unbalanced 1♦, should responder still show four-card majors? It seems to me that 1♥ should merely relay for a possible four-card major, and other bids should cater to five-card majors.

I would pass now, but I think I might have opened a (strong) notrump, and bid spades up to the three-level if given the opportunity. I wouldn't be too happy with rebidding 2♠, 3♠ or 2♣ after 1♠ 1N.

If 1♦ is unbalanced, here are my mullings: 1♦ __ 0-4HCP ::: 1♥ no 5cM 5+ ::: 1♠ 5H 4+ ::: 1N 5S 4-9 ::: 2♣ 5S 10+ ::: 2♦ 6H 4-8 or 6S 9-11 ::: 2♥ 6H 9-11 or 6S 4-8 ::: 2♠ 5S4H 10-12 ::: 2N 5S5H 4-7 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ two-suiter with longer diamonds 1N weak canapé in clubs or strong three-suiter with clubs 2♣ diamond one-suiter 2♦ 4441 (4450), F1 2♥ 1444 (0454) wk 2♠ 4144 (4054) wk 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1N 5-10 ::: 2♣ natural or 13+ bal ::: 2♦ 11-12 bal (opener may pass with a minimum and four clubs) ::: 2♥+ diamonds 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1N __ 11-15 w 4C 2♣ 4S, F1 2♦ 11-15 w 4H 2♥ 16+ w 4H 2♠+ 16+ w 4C 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 4H (2♥ by responder shows clubs, 2N is forcing) 2♥ 4S (2♠ by responder shows clubs, 2N is forcing) 2♠ 4C (2N is forcing) 1♦ 1♠(=♥) 1N clubs, possibly canapé 2♣ 5D 4S or 4144 2♦ 6D 2♥ only two hearts 2♠ three or four hearts with a nice minimum 3♥ three hearts with a bad minimum 1♦ 1N(=♠) __ weakish with clubs 2♣ 5D 4H or 1444, F1 2♦ 6D 2♥ strongish with clubs 2♠ only two spades 2N three or four spades with a nice minimum 3♠ three spades with a bad minimum 1♦ 2♣(=♠) 2♦ five diamonds, no fit 2♥ canapé in clubs, no fit 2♠ 1444, F1 2N+ fit for spades A two-level rebid of responder's major is invitational with only five cards.

2♣ followed by 3N.

I didn't answer your poll, but it seems to me that the worse in Precision is a tossup between the amorphous 1♣ and the nearly as amorphous 1♦. Besides, there is also a useful space principle frequency paradox (which you hinted at, and which affects Standard to a lesser extent). 1♣ is less frequent than 1♦, 1♥ doesn't occur often enough, and 1N is too frequent, which implies that responder has too many hand types to show for a frequent four-point range. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings, but no real distate, for the original 2♣ opening, which Polish Club has kept (in its WJ version). So I think you are right to revamp the 1♥ opening, but replacing hearts with clubs doesn't do the job IMO. I would prefer: 1♣ 15(16)+ 1♦ 10-15 unbal with 4+ diamonds 1♥ 11-14(15) bal or (semi?)three-suiter short in diamonds 1♠ 10-14(15) 1N 10-14(15) with 5 hearts and a 4 card minor or 6 hearts 2♣ 11-14(15) with 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a 4 card major 2♦ weak two in hearts (7-11) or weak two-suiter with spades (8-10) 2♥ Flannery 2♠ weak two in spades (6-10) 2N 10-14 with 5 hearts and a 5 card minor or 7 hearts Over 1♥, it could go pass to play, either 5 hearts or various very weak hand types 1♠ transfer to notrump, not caring about opener's range for game purposes 1N 0-(bad)11 with 4 spades, retrieving the 4-4 spade fits. 2♣ invitational stayman 2♦ 5 spades 2♥ invitational with 5 hearts 2♠ game forcing with 5 hearts After 1♥ 1♠ 1N, it could go 2♣ balanced, no slam interest, intending to show exact pattern 2♦ balanced, slam interest, asking about range and shape 2♥+ shortness After the Majeure d'Abord 1N showing hearts, responder - could pass with a heart shortness - could ask about range with 2♣ and stop in 2♥ After the (too wide) 2N opening, 3♣ would be pass or correct and 3♦ a GF relay.

It seems to me that South's hand is worth bidding game, but isn't worth jeopardizing that game with a descriptive process. There should be a specialized answer (3♦?) showing either a minimum balanced game force or an in-between hand with distributional values (5422, (good5)322, 5431 with a three-card fit), whose main purpose would be to allow opener to bid four if he judges there is more to lose than to win by inquiring further.

The people who are ruling conventions are, quite logically, of the convention-ruling ilk, and tend to rule against new conventions, which means banning them. (Of course, they don't mind at all, they view their kind of bridge as the only true bridge.) But (although it never was their problem), I think it would be fairer to merely permit an opponent to know the longer suit. Say you open 2♦ Multi (or Wilkosz) and a poor newbie (or ACBL player) is unable to come up with a defence. Instead of granting him the right to force you to play his system, why not give him only the right to force you to disclose your longer suit(s) when he has a hand which he feels would be otherwise too difficult to bid? There would be no ambiguity, but your pair would still retain some advantage of your convention (opening more hands, right-siding some of them, allowing responder to preempt immediately when overcaller insists on extra disclosure). I guess Multi or Wilkosz would remain valuable bids, contrary to a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major (see Martel's interview on Glen Ashton's site for another, possibly well-founded, complaint about insufficient disclosure), or a 2♠ opening showing a weak preempt in any suit. (I am not implying that such a rule would be better than an anything goes approach, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the present situation.)

Playing kickback, one could think of 1♠ 2♥ 4♣ 4♠ 5♦ 6♠. 2♥: please raise me with three cards, 4♣ splinter, 4♠ RKCB for hearts, 5♦ 2 keys, no ♥Q.

In my system, a 1N opening has only a two-point range (perhaps two and a few tenths) The idea is that responder usually shows his pattern and opener mostly relays. .FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS: Partner opens 1NT. The way you play, what do the following responses mean? 1) 2♣ - do you play Garbage Stayman? Puppet, denies a five-card major No, opener always rebids 2♦, even with a five-card major. 2) 2♠ Balanced game force, with either five spades (so that a rebid after 1N 2♥ 2♠ shows an unbalanced hand, as would a rebid other than 2♠ after 1N 2♦ 2♥) or values for slam. Opener rebids 2N without a spade fit and something else with a spade fit, then completes his pattern if responder reasks. With mere game values over 2N, responder bids 3♦/3♥/3♠/3N with 5(332)/5224/5242/5422. 3) 2NT Club transfer, either 6+ clubs (not 6322 or 7222 if GF) or 10+ club-diamond GF two-suiter, including 4 clubs and 6 diamonds. All 10+club-diamond two-suiters rebid 3♦. 4) 3♣ Diamond transfer, 6+ diamonds, 6331 or 7321 (7330, 8221...) if GF (no super-acceptance). 5) 3♦ 6 diamonds and 4 of a major 6) 3♥ 6 clubs and 4 hearts 7) 3♠ 6 clubs and 4 spades 8) 4♣ nothing 9) 4♠ natural, as would be 4♥. 10) 4NT nothing, the 2♠ relay will provide some information. 11) 5NT nothing SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS: For this set of questions, assume that the bidding has started 1NT- 2♣. I will provide opener's rebid and then ask you for the meaning of Responder's rebid. A) Opener rebids 2♦, what does responder's rebid of 2♥ mean? 4432 or 5m332, no slam. Opener keeps relaying and responder has enough room to show his number of hearts and spades in case of a CTC hand or a 5-3 major fit. (1N 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2N shows 4 hearts, because responder will have to play a 4-4 heart fit, and there is no need to disclose his remaining pattern; 1N 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ shows 4 spades without 4 hearts, higher third-round bids by responder show respectively a heart doubleton, a spade doubleton, 3352, 3325.) B ) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 2♠ mean? 5m422 or 6m322, no slam. Opener also keeps relaying. C) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 2NT mean? (so far I anticipate fairly consistent answers). 4-1(0) in the majors D) Opener rebids 2♦: what does a 3♣ rebid by responder mean? club shortness E) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 3♦ mean? diamond shortness F) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 3♥ or 3♠ mean? (Anticipate a lot of Smolen answers here.) 3♥ 31(54), 3♠ 1345, 3N(or more) 1354, barring possible voids. G) to O) Doesn't happen.

A Polish 2♣ opening has a closer range than in Precision, say an average 11 to 14 with five clubs and a four-card major, or a good 10 to an ugly 14 with six clubs. Thus invitations aren't absolutely necessary (although some rebids by responder are more (2N over 2♥, 3M) or less (3♣) invitational), and you can even bid 2♦ with something like Q9xx KQJxx Txx x and no intention to invite (provided you scrap the 3♦ response showing a maximum with six clubs and four diamonds). Over a 2♥ response, 2♠ should be scrambling with a singleton, not completely unlike a 2♠ rebid after 1♠ 1N 2m 2♥), and opener won't scramble with KQxx xx Kx Axxxx. So I think West should have bid 2♦ and raised 2♠ to 3♠.

3♠. Partner would have overcalled with six diamonds and five hearts.

3♥. I wouldn't pass after 3♣ (3♥) Dbl (Pass), so I might as well show my hand type now. Hope that partner hasn't six hearts.

Pass. Even if playing Polish two-suiters, I probably wouldn't open this hand, so why should I overcall?.

By the way, the Poles score heavily on these hand-types when they open them with Wilkosz (or an equivalent). One explanation is that they create some havoc. Another explanation is that they neither pass nor open one of a suit.

2♠. Pass followed by 2♠ (if you still can bid it) will say you had a problem for opening 1♠ or 2♠, but won't say which problem (bad suit?, another five-card suit?, four cards in the other major plus a void?, insufficient strength?). The stiff ♥A is a minus for 1♠. If there is a misfit, your hand offers potential only for spades.

In the absence of enemy intervention, my system might start: 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 1N 2♦ 3♣ 3♥... 1♣: weak NT or 18+ NT or 15+ with clubs 1♥: 5+ hearts, 6+ HCP 1♠: 15+ with clubs, less than 3 hearts (1N/2♣ weak NT, 2♦ 20+ NT, 2♥/2♠ 18-19 NT, other bids show clubs with 3+ hearts) 1N: mandatory without 6 hearts, a second five-card suit or spade/diamond shortness 2♦: 4 diamonds 3♣: natural, positive 3♥: cannot be three cards, so should be 1246 (would have opened 1N or rebid something else with 2245) Afterwards, I find myself in uncharted waters (is 4♣ by responder forcing?, is 4♦ by either player kickback for clubs?), so I think it might go ... 3♠ (cannot bid 3N) 4N? 5♦ 6♣ or ... 4♣ 4♦? 4♠ 5♦? 5♥ (♥K, no ♦K) 6♣

On hand 1, either 2♠ shows four cards and South should rebid 3♠ (not really invitational, but...) or it doesn't and North should bid 3♠. On hand 2, I think North should double twice (support and then takeout). <PROPAGANDA>Life would be easier with five-card major answers, wouldn't it? Oh, but wait, you can show five spades over a natural 2♣, or use the Montreal relay over 1♣.</PROPAGANDA>

This page offers a structure with transfers over the Polish 2♣ opening.

1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1N 2♠ 3♣ 3♠ 5♣ 6♣ 1♦: unbalanced with diamonds (could be a minimum canapé in clubs) 1♥: no FIVE-card major, 5+ HCP 1♠: five diamonds, four cards in another suit. (1N would show a three-suiter with clubs, 2♣ a canapé into clubs, 2♥/2♠ a three-suiter without clubs, 2N/3♣ five cards in each minor and the other bids would be one-suiters.) 1N: 5-10. Opener must bid again with a major 2♠: 18(17)+ with four clubs (2♣ spades, 2♦/2♥ hearts and 2N 16(17) with clubs and a major singleton) 3♣: NF (2N or 3♦ would be also NF). 3♠: fragment 5♣: to play (weaker than 4♣). 6♣: to play.

Oops! I hadn't understood that 1♠ denied a four-card major even when responder is 0-5. Sorry.

I think the structure is playable, since 1♣ 1♠ 1N presumably shows either 12-14 or 18-20 (assuming you play a 15-17 notrump) so the opponents are unsure they can double at their second turn with a 15/16 count. But I wouldn't play a 2♣ response as natural since responder either has six clubs (can bid 3♣ directly), a four-card major (must bid a transfer); a 2245 (1N is fine) or a 3145/1345 (err... they have a fit in your singleton, so 1N shouldn't be worse). I would prefer 2♣ to show 0-5 with a five-card major so that when responder has denied a five-card major with 1♠ : a) opener may also rebid 1N with some intermediate/strong hands with quick club tricks (A AKx xxxx KQJTx or AQx x Kxx AQJxxx), which argues against a delayed penalty double and makes the defense of 1N less clear. b ) responder's rebids over 1N always promise 11+.

I think it shows first-round control (even suggests AK) and anyway it forces to play the small slam, so it proposes a grand.