WJ - some possible revisions

[helene_t]

Disclaimer: I've just read the WJ2000 and WJ2005 boks and played with two semiregular partners on BBO for one year. So I'm no WJ expert.

 

I've adapted T-Walsh (majors-first 4-card transfer reponses to a 1♣-opening) to a standardish system as well as to Boring Club and played it with my IRL partner since 2000. I thought WJ could benefit at least as much from it, though. My problem with WJ is sequences that begin with 1♣-1♦-1M. In

1♣-1♦

1♠

Opener could have a 3235 11-count or 15+ with 4 spades and longer clubs or 19+ with 5+ spades. Responder could have 0-6 points, any shape, or some semipositive with clubs and/or diamonds. I want to clean this up.

 

Responder's hands are divided into three categories:

0-5(6): Will not necesarilly commit to more than 1M or 1NT opposite a strong opener.

(6)7-10: Will commit to 2M, 2NT or 3♣ opposit a strong opener but not opposite the 12-14 bal

11+: Will allways commit to 2M, 2NT or 3♣

 

The responses from 1NT and up are allocated to semipositives which do not fit into the WJ preempt structure (5-5 or 6M). This allows for strong negative inference after a 1♣-opening in 3rd or 4th seat.

 

1♣-?

1♦: 4+ hearts

1♥: 4+ spades

1♠: 0-5 or 11+ w/o 4M

1NT: 6-10 bal, no 4M

2♣: 6-10, 5+ clubs

2♦: 6-10, 6+ diamonds

2M: 6-10, 5-card M and 2+ clubs.

 

1♣-1♦

?

1♥: 12-14 bal or 16-20 with excatly 3-card support

2♦: 16+ w/ 4-card support or 21+ any.

other rebids: 16-20, less than 3 hearts.

 

1♣-1♥ similar

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-?

1♠: relay (6-10 with 4 hearts and not 4 spades, or 11+ any)

1NT: 6-10, 4-4 majors

(other bids allocated to 6-10 with 4s5h or 6h).

 

Any thoughts?

[hrothgar]

Hey there:

 

Polish club type methods have a few weak spots. One of the most significant is when opener holds a weak NT opening opposite a negative response. The partnership can be exposed to some pretty hellacious penalties. Both members of the partnership are balanced. NT is going to be a disaster and you don't have much idea about fit.

 

Playing traditional Polish Club type methods, the partnership will (typically) land in 1♥ with these misfitting hand types. (For what its worth, I'm used to a style in which opener would rebid 1♥ with your 3=2=3=5 11 count)

 

Your method will force the partnership considerably higher:

 

Following 1♣ - 1♠, opener (presumably) rebids 1♠ with the weak hand type. You're now sitting in 1NT with the weak balanced hand type. If you scramble, you've forced yourself to the 2 level.

 

If responder has a strong hand, he needs to rebid 2♣+ (I suspect that you'll want to use 2♦ as some king of artifical advance promises 17+ balanced). You no longer get to rest in 1NT with 18 balanced opposite a weak response.

 

I'm dubious....

 

Personally, I'd recommend getting a copy of a real writeup of Polish Club. Comparing WJ2005 with real Polish Club is like comparing SAYC to BWS...

[DJNeill]

Comparing WJ2005 with real Polish Club is like comparing SAYC to BWS...

 

Well, maybe like OKB 2/1 to BWS :-)

[hrothgar]

I should note:

 

I'm not saying that a transfer based response scheme wouldn't work... Rather, I think that you might want to consider something ike the following:

 

1♦ = negative or 4+ Hearts

1♥ = positive with 4+ Spades

1♠ = positive, unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds

[paulg]

Personally, I'd recommend getting a copy of a real writeup of Polish Club.

Which would you recommend?

[hrothgar]

Personally, I'd recommend getting a copy of a real writeup of Polish Club.

Which would you recommend?

Matula's book is the best write up that I'm aware of.

Its a bit dated, but what you gonna do

[the hog]

I agree with Richard and Dan here, Helene. WJ is a poor shadow of PC. Apart from the Matula book have a look at a couple of PC write ups on Dan's system site. Koscki(?sp) is quite interesting.

[helene_t]

Thanx. Unfortunately, someone else took the last copy of Matula's book from the local bridge shop just before me. I'll try to find it in some online bookstore.

 

I didn't know that low-level penalties is a major concern. Obviously I have too little experience with WJ. Intuitively I would think the problem is less than if you open 1NT with 12-14, since

1) Opps may allready have saved you before you get to 1NT

2) No matter what continuations you play, you have some inference about a possible fit. In my method, opener knows that responder has at least seven cards in the minors.

[hrothgar]

Thanx. Unfortunately, someone else took the last copy of Matula's book from the local bridge shop just before me. I'll try to find it in some online bookstore.

 

I didn't know that low-level penalties is a major concern. Obviously I have too little experience with WJ. Intuitively I would think the problem is less than if you open 1NT with 12-14, since

1) Opps may allready have saved you before you get to 1NT

2) No matter what continuations you play, you have some inference about a possible fit. In my method, opener knows that responder has at least seven cards in the minors.

Comment 1: Lots of folks go gunning for penalties after a 12-14 HCP 1NT opening. There are lots of methods that either include a penalty double or a descriptive double that can be converted for penalties.

 

Comment 2: (I think that) you look to me more exposed here than after a weak NT opening because both members of the partnership have limited their range more precisely.

 

A. In the case of a weak NT, the NT opener limits their range to 12 - 14 HCP. If responder passes, the only think that is known is that the partnership doesn't have sufficient strength for game. In particular, if the partnership is playing methods where balanced game invites don't exist it becomes very difficult to place values.

 

B. With your methods, BOTH members of the partnership have limited their strength. The combination of a 1♣ opening with a 1NT rebid once again shows 12-14 HCP. However, the combination of the 1♠ response followed by a pass limits strength to 0-5 HCP. (Think about how nicely a 13 count plays opposite a 3 count)

 

Even my grandmother could find a double....

[Antoine Fourrière]

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+.

[Antoine Fourrière]

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

[Gerben42]

In practice Richard's problem is going to be a non-problem because 99% of the pairs will not have a good defense against Polish ♣ and bid with all their strong hands.

 

The really mean pairs who HAVE a defense will pass with a strong NT for example after 1♣ and then whack you when you have declared to be weak.

[helene_t]

Antoine is right, the transfer accept shows 12-14 or 18-20. Besides, opener's LHO doesn't know yet if responder is weak. But still, an opp may often, on the basis of his own point count plus his table presense be able to guess that opener is 12-14.

 

In the Boring Club system, the 1♠ reply shows 0-6 without four clubs or 11+, does not deny a four-card major. This sounds more dangerous to me since scrabling becomes less accurate and because it comes up more often. (I don't play it that way with my regular p. We transfer to majors with 4+ HCPs and with 0-3 we just say pass 1♣ as long as it hasn't been doubled).

 

Richard's idea of using 1♦ as hearts or negative certainly has merrits. Jansma/Verhees play WJ except that 1♥/♠ are inverted, that's somewhat similar but with the advantage that responder can show hearts immediately which is more important than being able to show diamonds.

 

But it doesn't solve the problem I want to solve, namely to clear up the (in my eyes) awkward start of the bidding after a neboulous 1♦ response and a neboulous 1M rebid. I'm sure that a well-oiled partnership can bid effectively with WJ, but to me it sounds like you need a lot of agreements in convoluted auctions where both partners can still have a variety of shapes and strength ranges, especially after a preempt in the sandwhich position.

[hrothgar]

Antoine is right, the transfer accept shows 12-14 or 18-20. Besides, opener's LHO doesn't know yet if responder is weak. But still, an opp may often, on the basis of his own point count plus his table presense be able to guess that opener is 12-14.

Multiplexing 12 - 14 HCP and 18 - 20 HCP into the same bid makes things a little better, but not much.

 

Lets assume that the auction starts

 

(1C) - P - (1♠) - ???

 

And I am sitting on a nice balanced 17 count. I decide to pass. The 1♣ opener rebids 1NT showing either (12 - 14) or (18 - 20) and the auction floats arround back to me.

 

I ran a quick sim. The 1♣ opener will have the weak hand type 95% of the time and the strong hand type 5% of the time.

 

Now, lets change the numbers slightly, so that the player in the balancing seat "only" holds 12 HCPs. The odds that you're facing the strong hand type have increase almost four-fold. The 1♣ opener holds a 18 - 20 HCP hand 17.7% of the time.

 

Just for kicks and giggle, lets see what happens if you hold an eight count in balancing seat. (Probably not very likely on this auction) Here, the chance that the 1♣ opener holds 18 - 20 balanced has jumped all the way to 33%.

 

I don't think that you need much in the way of table presence, just some basic knowledge about probabilities.

[glen]

Some disorganized thoughts on PC mods and major replies:

 

Our favourite sequence when playing PC was 1♣-1M--2♦ ask, with range and length replies (see any good PC book). This came up a fair fit and delivered good results.

 

It seemed that flip-flop major replies (1♠=♥s, 1♥=♠s, both 6/7+, and 1♣-1♥--♠ shows 4♥s) would be better, especially considering the 2♦ asker would have a better chance of playing the contract. However my polish partner did not want to make this change until I could show him a set of hands we had played where it was necessary, and sadly I was never able to find that set.

 

Playing transfers instead of a 1♦ mostly negative response could work, and I would not let the chance of getting nailed worry one so much. I’ve played a strong club in tournaments where it goes, by us, 1♦-1♥(light responses)--1NT(11-13), just like Meckwell, and a few times it has now gone double by one of the opponents to produce a negative number of us, but not enough that one would want to alter that style. At the Chicago NABC, my wife and I had the misfortune of playing against the great Deas/Palmer partnership, and even playing standard with 6+ requirement for responding, we still got caught after 1♣-1♥--1NT(12-14) and now double.

 

I do have a vested interest in seeing transfers work in a PC framework, as all my designs in this area have stunk. I had tried the straight transfers, and 1♦ as negative or ♥s, and also tried transfers that only promises 3+ in the suit (so 1♦ response would show 3+♥s instead of 4+). The follow-ups were full of puppets and relays to attempt to unwind the mess. So I want to see where I went wrong here.

 

As to PC revisions I would make, they would be on the lines of:

- flip flop majors over 1♣ (even if I can’t find a set of hands necessary);

- taking the 4♥+5♣ (or the 4♠+5♣ if you do not play flip-flop) out of the 2♣ opening – this improves the replies to the 2♣-2♦ ask (we did make this change in PC);

- limiting the 2♣ opening to 14;

- opening 1M or 1♦ with a five card or longer suit and a second suit, 18-21, and at least 5-4-3-1, instead of opening 1♣ – so less hand types in 1♣.

- 2♣ response as a GF ask to the 1 level suit openings (we were using 1♣-1NT as the GF ask, and had put the 6-10's with no 4cM into the 1♦ response).

 

These are all personal preferences as opposed to anything necessary.

[david_c]

But it doesn't solve the problem I want to solve, namely to clear up the (in my eyes) awkward start of the bidding after a neboulous 1♦ response and a neboulous 1M rebid. I'm sure that a well-oiled partnership can bid effectively with WJ, but to me it sounds like you need a lot of agreements in convoluted auctions where both partners can still have a variety of shapes and strength ranges, especially after a preempt in the sandwhich position.

I've never found this to be much of a problem. It may look awkward not to have clarified either partner's hand types in the auction 1♣-1♦-1M, but it seems to be very easy to sort them out later. Having said that, I do like using 1♣-2♣ as a semi-positive, moving the stronger hands somewhere else. And I'd love to be able to show semi-positive hands with 5+ diamonds immediately as well, but that seems more difficult to fit into the system.

 

I mostly agree with Glen's suggested changes. The most important one in my opinion is opening 1♦ rather than 1♣ on two-suiters in the 18-21 range when diamonds is the longest suit. For two-suiters with a major suit being longest it's not so clear - my preference is to open 1♥ with hearts but 1♣ with spades, but I could be persuaded to change my mind on either of these.

 

The other change I would make would be to define opener's rebids more clearly after any positive response. I think it's OK for the 1M rebid to be made on a variety of hands after a negative, because responder never has much else to say and can allow opener to reveal his hand type later. But after a positive response things can get a bit fuzzy if opener doesn't clarify his hand type immediately. So for example, after a 1♥ response, I think opener should always rebid 1NT (or 2♥) with a minimum balanced hand, and not 1♠ as is allowed in WJ. Similarly, after 1♣-2♣/2♦, if you play these as forcing, opener should have an artificial rebid available which shows the weak NT hand (probably step one).

 

Actually I've got a webpage on this which you can see here.

[helene_t]

And I'd love to be able to show semi-positive hands with 5+ diamonds immediately as well, but that seems more difficult to fit into the system.

I suggested a 2♦ response showing 6+ diamonds semipositiv. But if partner is a passed hand a non-vulnerable, he allready denied such a hand. Besides, consider this:

 

[hv=w=skqxxhajxdxcaqxxx&e=sxxxhqxxdkjxxxxcj]266|100|[/hv]

 

Opener has to make a game try over 2♦ yet 2♦ is the last safe spot.

 

It's better to define the 2♦ response as

9-10, 5+diamonds, or

6-8, 7+ diamonds, or

6-8, 5+ diamonds and 3+ clubs

 

As for Glen's ideas I agree with most of them, especially the two-suiters with diamonds. In fact, even when playing Precision, I sometimes open 1♦ with strong two-suited hands.

 

But I don't understand the advantage of flipping the majors. Opps get a lead-directing double.