Polish Club question

[EricK]

The descriptions of Polish Club I have read suggest that with minimum hands with a (24)25 or a (34)15 shape should open 2♣. Wouldn't it be better to include them in with the 1♣ opening? Maybe even (14)35 hands could be included too.

 

After a 1♦ response opener can rebid 1M.

After a 1M response opener can either raise or rebid 1OM or 1NT.

 

Meanwhile the 2♣ opening becomes much better defined.

[Gerben42]

Many pairs do this at least for the 2425. 1435 / 3415 is a bit problematic though...

[EricK]

Many pairs do this at least for the 2425. 1435 / 3415 is a bit problematic though...

What sequences are problematic?

[Gerben42]

1♣ - 1♠ - ehh...

[david_c]

I like this style (my preferences are here). Specifically:

 

(42)25 hands are fine for opening 1♣. Even if it's not been agreed with partner, I would imagine most people would open 1♣ on these hands whenever the club suit was weak. I think this is covered in the WJ05 book(?)

 

(43)15 hands are also fine for opening 1♣, but in this case you need to agree with partner that a raise of 1♣ - 1M on three cards is allowed. Other than that, it doesn't seem to cause much of a problem.

 

Obvoiusly if you open these hands 1♣ systemically, sometimes you will lose out by not showing your clubs or by allowing the opponents into the auction. You hope to gain by making the 2♣ bid better defined and by making it easier to find major-suit fits with the (42)25 and (43)15 shapes.

 

The problem comes with (41)35 hands. If you leave them in the 2♣ opening then you haven't gained much by taking out the other 5C4M types. In my opinion the main problem is that if you open 1♣ on these hands, partner will often compete to 2M on a 5-card suit expecting it to be a playable spot. For this reason the 4135 shape seems to be even worse than the 1435 shape since the auction 1♣ : (1♠) : 2♥ [NF] is quite common.

 

I like to pass hands of (41)35 shape with 12 HCP or a bad 13 HCP in order to avoid this problem. (This is another reason why 4135 shapes are the worst: they're not as good for passing as 1435s.) Stronger hands seem to go badly whatever you do, but I prefer to open them 1♣ and hope everything turns out OK.

[EricK]

1♣ - 1♠ - ehh...

1NT if 1435 and 2S if 3415. Aren't the same rebids made (after 1♦ 1♠) on a 1453 or 3451 hand?

[mikestar]

This sort of hand is the reason I think Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club is an improvement over Polish. It uses a weak NT, 2♣ with 6+♣ and no major and puts all unbalanced hands with 4M and 5+♣ into 1♣.

 

The change in 2♣ is quite important--expert consensus is that 2♣ on 5♣-4M is so bad in Precision that an ambiguous 1♦ loses less--why should this bid be any good in Polish?

[the hog]

This sort of hand is the reason I think Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club is an improvement over Polish. It uses a weak NT, 2♣ with 6+♣ and no major and puts all unbalanced hands with 4M and 5+♣ into 1♣.

 

The change in 2♣ is quite important--expert consensus is that 2♣ on 5♣-4M is so bad in Precision that an ambiguous 1♦ loses less--why should this bid be any good in Polish?

Mike, you are clearly not aware that there are many variants of Polish Club. Some use the Precision 2C variant, others do not. Then is Strefa and Nasz which also qualify as PC systems and use 2C as a game force. Comparing Don Varvel's system to these is like comparing a Fiat Toppolino to a Ferrari.

[SteelWheel]

This sort of hand is the reason I think Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club is an improvement over Polish. It uses a weak NT, 2♣ with 6+♣ and no major and puts all unbalanced hands with 4M and 5+♣ into 1♣.

 

I have been intrigued with Unassuming Club for quite some time now. If anyone wants to give it a spin on BBO sometime, PM me. Thanks.

[mikestar]

This sort of hand is the reason I think Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club is an improvement over Polish. It uses a weak NT, 2♣ with 6+♣ and no major and puts all unbalanced hands with 4M and 5+♣ into 1♣.

 

The change in 2♣ is quite important--expert consensus is that 2♣ on 5♣-4M is so bad in Precision that an ambiguous 1♦ loses less--why should this bid be any good in Polish?

Mike, you are clearly not aware that there are many variants of Polish Club. Some use the Precision 2C variant, others do not. Then is Strefa and Nasz which also qualify as PC systems and use 2C as a game force. Comparing Don Varvel's system to these is like comparing a Fiat Toppolino to a Ferrari.

You are quite correct with regard to the various other forms of Polish--I haven't the technical knowledge of the systems to evaluate them. I meant only to compare to Polish as given above, with the Precision 2♣ promising only 5 clubs.

 

By the way, though I agree that Precision 2♣ (when it can be a 5-card suit) is horrible, I use it in my partnerships which play Real Diamond Precision. As always, we have to consider tradeoffs--having the more frequent 1♦ non-nebulous seems to gain more than 2♣ not guaranteeing 6 loses. Your mileage may very, but where I play, they intervene almost as aggressively over a nebulous 1♦ as over the Precision 1♣ itself.

 

A special point in AUC's favor for those of us who play f2f in North America is that it is (by design) GCC legal--very likely the advanced Polish systems are not.

 

Playing f2f in North America is my only choice--can't afford to travel to a more enlightened region for a game.

[the hog]

Hi Mike,

I would be VERY surprised if you could not play Strefa or Nasz f2f in the US. They are largely 2/1 systems with the major difference of a forcing 1C opening and a natural D opening. Should you be interested, PM me and I can send you copies in Word format.

[mstyrcz]

The main reason of using 2♣ with weak 5-4 hands is that in Polish Club you can open 1♣ with a very strong hand. Any jump after opening 1♣ is forcing to game and means a good suit. You can't jump in 3♣ even with a quite strong hand. So sequences like 1♣-1NT-2♣ would be problematic for your partner if you could have 12 points and 17 as well. When you use Precision-like 2♣ your partner can be sure that 1♣-1NT-2♣ means at least 15 points.

[glen]

A special point in AUC's favor for those of us who play f2f in North America is that it is (by design) GCC legal--very likely the advanced Polish systems are not.

I'm not sure how you can say it is "very likely the advanced Polish systems are not". I would suggest a "perhaps" instead of a "very likely" if not certain.

 

ACBL 2005 Chart

 

One of the great things the ACBL ever did was open the GCC up to some non-standard non-precision systems, via:

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening

bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

 

...

 

ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to 1♣.

[glen]

The descriptions of Polish Club I have read suggest that with minimum hands with a (24)25 or a (34)15 shape should open 2♣. Wouldn't it be better to include them in with the 1♣ opening? Maybe even (14)35 hands could be included too.

 

After a 1♦ response opener can rebid 1M.

After a 1M response opener can either raise or rebid 1OM or 1NT.

 

Meanwhile the 2♣ opening becomes much better defined.

I've tried this mod out when playing Polish and its okay - the 2♣ opening is better defined so does not come up often!

 

The sequence 1♣-1♠;-2♠ can be 3 card support (3-4-1-5) and the sequence 1♣-1♠;-1NT can have a singleton ♠.

 

However greatly influenced by Fantoni-Nunes I would rather play a frequent 10-13 5+♣s 2♣ opening, and move the 13/14+ hands into 1♣. I believe the tighter point range (compared to 10/11-15 or so 2♣) gives sufficient definition to the 2♣ opening, while keeping the preemptive effect of opening 2♣ on minimum opening values.