Revision Polish Club

[MickyB]

A while back, in a thread on the "Revision" strong club system, we were debating the merits of removing the balanced minima (16/17 counts) from the strong club opening by playing a strong NT. It was suggested, by Glen I think, that this might be of more use in a multi-club system - 18-19 balanced hands can be problematic in competition in most systems (apart from strong club), hence a number of pairs devoting either a 2♣ or 2♦ opening to showing this hand-type.

 

With this in mind, I've come up with this opening structure, as a modification of Polish Club -

 

1♣ = 11-13 balanced/14+ with clubs/17+ major single-suiter/20+most hands

1♦ = 14+, either balanced, primary diamonds or 4♦5♣

1M = Either 5+cards or 4M5m 11-13

1NT = 17-19

2m = Unbalanced, 9-13, either 6 cards or 5-4 minors

 

I like many things about this - the 2m openings work very nicely, balanced hands show their strength immediately, we'll be able to show 20-22 balanced with a 1NT rebid and the 1♣ opening should work very nicely in competition. Whether this is enough to overcome the strangeness of a 17-19 1NT opening, I don't know! I may well be giving this a try this weekend, hopefully that will give me an idea.

 

I think I remember hearing that Klinger's Power system uses a 17-20 no-trump with a fairly wide range of shapes permitted and responses tailored to cope with this - does anyone have any more info here?

 

Btw, I may land up using this system in 3rd/4th seat only, which would reduce the loss of the preemptive effect of opening 1NT on weaker hands. This is mainly due to the old 15-17 1st+2nd/14-16 3rd+4th issue - if anyone wants me to expand on this, I shall do so when it isn't 4am :)

[Rossoneri]

I'm interested in trying this out. Hit me up on BBO some time?

[the hog]

I think I remember hearing that Klinger's Power system uses a 17-20 no-trump with a fairly wide range of shapes permitted and responses tailored to cope with this - does anyone have any more info here?

17-20, 6322 shapes including a 6 card Major allowed.

Relays and many splinters over the opening.

[MickyB]

Thanks Ron, and that sounds good Shen.

[glen]

I found myself evaluating the structure based on what I like/don't like, as opposed to its merits. Here's my feelings:

 

2m: very nice

1NT: never bought K's Power idea (I bought the book, not the idea), and even K doesn't use the range anymore - so I would play 1NT 14-16, 1♦ 13/14+ ♦s or 17-19 Bal.

1M: I like including a 4M minimum here, in order to keep the opps concerned that they are missing their own M contract. I believe Kokish would think that this opening style would make it harder to judge some competitive decisions.

1♦: as is, or if modified for 17-19 Bal, very nice

1♣: doing a lot of work but it is the lowest opening so it can be the workhorse - I would be tempted to move all ♦ hands below a game force into 1♦.

[jtfanclub]

What is the advantage to having 1♣ include 17-19 only with a single suited hand (but not diamonds), instead of

 

 

1♣=11-13 balanced, or 14+ clubs, or 17+ any unbalanced, or 20+ any?

[MickyB]

1♣: doing a lot of work but it is the lowest opening so it can be the workhorse - I would be tempted to move all ♦ hands below a game force into 1♦.

They are. Might even be best to put all diamond hands in here and make it forcing.

 

The problem with swapping the 14-16 and 17-19 ranges around is that you then aren't showing your strength in one bid on balanced hands, which was the main aim. Still, it's better than many systems on 17-19 balanced.

[MickyB]

What is the advantage to having 1♣ include 17-19 only with a single suited hand (but not diamonds), instead of

 

 

1♣=11-13 balanced, or 14+ clubs, or 17+ any unbalanced, or 20+ any?

It comes down to trying to describe the hand in two bids. On a single-suiter, 1C then bidding the major describes the hand. If you start with 1C on a two-suiter, you might well be unable to get show both of your suits in competition.

[awm]

It seems like this method misses on a lot of fronts. For example:

 

(1) There is some advantage to 5cM openings. This system almost has them, but it doesn't.

(2) There is some advantage to a 1♦ bid showing 4+♦. This system almost has it, but then throws in a bunch of balanced hands.

(3) There is some advantage to removing the one-suited minor hands from the 1m openings and showing them with a bid that actually shows them. The system almost does this, but again, there are "not so heavy" hands with 6+m in the 1m openings (14 not really that strong) and the 2m openings promise only five rather than six.

 

I don't get this revision club strategy of removing strong balanced hands from a big club. Those are the easiest hands to deal with in competition, since partner just assumes you have that type (it is both the most common and the weakest big club opening) and goes from there. It's the "balanced hands with a bit extra" that are a pain in competition (part of why Meckwell play a strong 2NT). And the problem is not "when I rebid notrump how does partner tell if I have extra" -- it's "should I bid at all if partner passed in competition."

 

Perhaps in Polish Club the 17-19 balanced hands are more of a problem, but I still don't really see it. You might do better to play 1♦ as 17-19 balanced or 14+ diamonds since this hand is strong enough that if partner tries to raise diamonds in competition you are safer correcting to notrump.

[Gerben42]

I also don't get this system. In Polish Club the 17 - 19 balanced hands are not a problem. In fact these are hands where you are ahead of the pack. Otherwise, I agree with Adam that this rates to be a lot worse than the original Polish Club.

[MickyB]

I also don't get this system. In Polish Club the 17 - 19 balanced hands are not a problem. In fact these are hands where you are ahead of the pack.

How is this true? Because you get to show them with a 1NT rebid? So do most other vaguely sensible systems that use a 14-16 NT.

 

17-19 balanced is a problem in competition for most systems. As Adam and I said, it isn't a problem in a strong club system (in fact, I find it slightly bizarre that so many strong club systems don't open their 16+ 1♣ with a balanced 16-count), but that's the exception. Maybe I'm going too far to try to find a cure.

Edited June 24, 2008 by MickyB

[MickyB]

An alternative structure (suggested by a reader of these forums, he can identify himself if he wishes!) trying to satisfy the same goals - basically "Polish Diamond" - a work in progress, I'm just throwing random thoughts out there really!

 

1C 17+, probably not opened with primary diamonds

1D 11-13 bal or 14+diamonds

1M 4M5m or 5+cards

1N 14-16

2C natural 11-16

2D natural 9-13

 

Compared with my original structure, it's easier to compare clubs with diamonds and diamonds with clubs. It handles diamond hands slightly better overall than my original structure handled clubs (because you can pattern out on strong hands more easily) and gets to open 1NT with 14-16 balanced. It's approximately equal on majors, 11-13 balanced and 17-19 balanced, but is a fair way behind with clubs (compared with diamonds in my original structure).

 

Again, perhaps thinking about this from a 3rd/4th seat point of view.

[jtfanclub]

Huh, again, just looking and asking, but what is the advantage to

 

1♦ = 11-13 or 14+ diamonds

1NT = 14-16

 

instead of

 

1♦ = 14+ diamonds or balanced (-16).

1NT = 11-13

 

Seems like that would work a lot better in competition.

 

But then, maybe I'm thinking of it from a 1st/2nd seat point of view.

[MickyB]

Huh, again, just looking and asking, but what is the advantage to

 

1♦ = 11-13 or 14+ diamonds

1NT = 14-16

 

instead of

 

1♦ = 14+ diamonds or balanced (-16).

1NT = 11-13

 

Seems like that would work a lot better in competition. 

 

But then, maybe I'm thinking of it from a 1st/2nd seat point of view.

It's the same issue as Polish Club (12-14 balanced or 15+clubs) vs Millennium Club (15+, clubs or balanced).

 

MC has the advantage of showing the strength of the 15-17 point club hands in one go, but it makes it much harder to bid sensibly opposite the balanced range. Take the auction 1D (1S) 2H, which is to play opposite 11-13 balanced -

 

You pass with a weak no-trump

Bid 2S with a GF hand with diamonds (17+ or so)

Bid naturally with 14-16 and diamonds

 

If you were playing 1D as 14+, balanced or diamonds, then on the same auction -

 

With a misfitting minimum you would guess whether to pass in a possible 5-1 fit or to rescue

With some extra values (say a 17-count) but not enough to GF, you would bid on, but partner might be unsure whether you have extras - you might just be rescuing, after all

Bid 2S with a GF hand

 

You could probably fix the range problems by making the cuebid F1 rather than GF, but hopefully it demonstrates my point. It may well be preferable to play a weak NT 1st NV, but at other conditions I'd expect the strong NT system to be superior.

[dake50]

With bal, pick a number, N-hcp that asks NT-ladder, not tells.

Eg. 1NT opener =12-14, 1D-1NT =15-16, 1C-1NT =17-18.

More than 18 (this N=19) relay asks hcp.

Doesn't this cover ALL bal?

[Rossoneri]

Have you tried it?

[MickyB]

Have you tried it?

I haven't, no, for a number of reasons - the least of which is that I decided to consider alternative structures that would satisfy the same objectives (see the TriBal thread).

 

I've just attempted a comparison between the two structures and posted it in that thread.