Polish Club - why better?

[cwiggins]

In several threads, I've seen comments to the effect that the Polish Club is better than Precision and that it is better than 2/1. I am inclined to agree, but I would like to be able to provide compelling reasons clearly and succinctly.

 

Precision seems easy.

1) No crazy competition after 1♣ strong

2) 1M hands with 16-17 HCP are better off in Polish than Precision, especially if a Precision 1♣ gets a 1♦ response.

3) A 1♦ that promises diamonds

4) 2♦ is available for preempts

 

These add up to a pretty good case. Are there others?

 

I am having a harder time coming up with an explanation for Polish compared to 2/1.

 

It doesn't seem to be the 18-21 HCP hands. I used Borel to generate 30 hands with 18-21 HCP, and then bid them with both 2/1 and Polish. I found little diffference. I'm trying again on a different set of 30 hands. But maybe I'm missing something.

 

It doesn't seem to be that 1♦ promises four in Polish. In 2/1, I have always treated 1♦ as promising four and have not, to my recollection, got burnt.

 

For the most part, hands with 18-20 HCP and balanced are handled better in Polish. Offsetting that, competition over 1♣ can make some Polish auctions difficult.

 

What am I missing or have wrong?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Chris

[Free]

Well, it seems to me like you've said it all :D

 

One other (dis)advantage is that all openings other than 1♣ are limited up to 17HCP. Can be helpfull in competition, or when you have slam ambition opposite a hand which is a little stronger... It might also help opponents in a rare case I think, but not sure.

[the hog]

What PC version vs what 2/1 version vs what Precision version? Depends on your definition of Polish Club and also depends on your definition of 2/1. Many, Poles included, consider Strefa a version of PC and Strefa uses a strong 2C opening. This means , of course, that opening bids in tthat system are NOT limited to 18 as in say Matula's version of PC.

 

Competition over 1C? Well....you get a heck of a lot more playing Prec. rather than PC; over PC the opps have a lot harder time deciding whose hand it is.

 

Re comparisons between PC and 2/1: modern PC is pretty much a 2/1 system, depending on whose version you play. Balicki plays that 2/1 is a GF unless you rebid the minor. Kwiecken plays that 2/1 is a GF unless you bid opener's Major at the min possible level, in which case it shows 9-11 with 3-4 card support and a decent 5 card suit. Still others play it as 100% GF.

 

Yor question is actually a difficult one on which to comment, because you really need to compare a souped up, fully fledged PC system with say a nicely developed 2/1 system with lots of agreements vs a modern Precision version such as Cohen - Berkowitz eg. The natural 1D opening in PC has a lot going for it though imho.

 

Ron

[mishovnbg]

Hi all polish club fans! :D

 

I will define polish club idea(can be surprising for poles too :D ):

 

The system where 1♣ is 3 way: Natural/Balanced/Strong.

 

Instead of comment WJ2000 (nice natural system, but made for the crowd, not for regular partnership) I will define WJ2100 :D , actually already played by Rumen-Kalin pair (best pair all time in bulagaria).

 

Openinings(V=vul, NV = not vul)

 

1♣: NV->15+hcp, ♣ or bal or GF; V-> 11-14/18+hcp ♣ or 11-14/18+hcp bal or GF

1♦: 11-21hcp, 5(4)+♦

1♥/♠: 11-21hcp, 5+♥/♠

1NT: NV->11-14hcp bal; V->15-17hcp bal

2♣: NV->11-14; V->15-17; 5+♣-4M or 6+♣

2♦: multi; strong hand only with major 2 suiter

2♥/♠: Muiderberg (2 suiters)

2NT: 21-23hcp, bal

 

Note: NV vs V, 3th and 4th position some differences exists.

 

Implemented:

2♣: GF relay;

Transfers to 1♣ opening;

2NT preemtive/slam try with support after minors; exactly only inv with support after majors;

2 way transfers after weak 1NT/2♣ (weak transfer or nat strong)

transfers in competition;

Garozzo 2/3 double;

 

Not implemented but need to be included imo:

Inverted majors after 1♦ opening;

Kaplan inversion after 1♥ (1NT=♠; 1♠=NT);

2 way transfer responses anywhere;

2 way transfer preempts;

Turbo (slam convention 4NT show even KC)

Spiral scan (denial cue bids)

Transfer responses to overcalls;

Transfer rebids;

 

Have a nice day, Misho :)

[Gerben47]

First of all, there are many advantages to Polish Club, let me look at your 4 points that are relevant to Precision, since they're just not valid.

 

1) No crazy competition after 1? strong

 

You wish... After Polish Club (frequently 12 - 14 balanced) it is often your hand. After 1C Precision it rarely is. This makes your more free and that's why people have designed so many systems against Precision.

 

2) 1M hands with 16-17 HCP are better off in Polish than Precision, especially if a Precision 1? gets a 1? response.

 

Why? I think the advantage of opening the suit you have on this kind of hands is not to be underestimated. After 1C Prec (1S) pass (2S) you might've lost the hearts forever.

 

3) A 1D that promises diamonds

 

Same for Polish Club. The different styles are:

a) 4-card suit, can be balanced

:D 4-card unbalanced (4441 or 4D + 5C) or 5-card suit

c) 5-card suit

 

4) 2D is available for preempts

 

Same for Polish Club. It's used as Wilkosz when that's not banned.

 

About the 18 - 21 hands:

One of the most powerful auctions with 18 - 21 hands is 1C - 1M - 2D (3+card support and GF).

Another one is 1C - 1D - 1NT where you're just one level lower than most systems.

 

Some pairs (Gotard - Piekarek, German Open Team) even use 2C as preemptive bid and pack all the 2C openers in 1C.

 

My personal style:

1D = Style a) above.

2C = Precision style but at least 6 clubs.

 

Gerben

[Free]

Gerben, I think you misread the topic post, but I was also confused at first. The 4 arguments are not for precision, but advantages of polish club opposite precision... :D

[Flame]

Its not a good idea to compare PC to precsion and 2/1 at the same time, because each of these comparance is totally different.

As i see it PC is a natural 5 card major when you push more hands to the 1c bid, anyone can decide which hand would he transfer from the other bids into the 1c, and you can say i dont like adding this to the 1c but i like adding that. for example i dont like adding the 5 card major strong to the 1c, because i believe in natural bidding and its adv in competition, meaning when i have 18 hcp and 5 hearts, i rather be in 1♥ (1♠) p (2♠)

then 1♣ (1♠) p (2♠)

other hands that can be push into the 1c is the balance with better diamonds then clubs. this is ok but i dont get too ecxited of this, since i dont give that much credit to the diamond suit, and i know this got a pay, we made the 1d better but the 1c worse and this also mean the 1c is now forcing is a big problem imo, because now you cant just cut off the 0-5 hcp hands in your response structure.

As you can see i dont like the PC too much.

[luis]

In my modest opinion PC is an improvement over SAYC. It's a standard system that has as many variations and conventions an options as SAYC but the general structure is really better.

I'd recommend it for beginners instead of SAYC since it's better and easier to play.

2/1 is just a variation of SAYC where 2/1 bids are game forcing.

 

And we can't compare to the zillion versions of precision.

[inquiry]

Polish club is better than precision. I agree here too...

 

But in my opinion, a modern 2/1 system is better than Polish club. Of course, it has to be a jazzed up 2/1 not some run of the mill agreement with just Jacoby and some agreemnent about notrump responses.

 

Why is this true? Becasue people compete against 1C openings and by the time the bidding gets back to opener, if the opponents have found a fit, the opening side hasn't even announced their suit. Somehow, fit first, stregnth second, seems to be a good apporach for me.

 

Ben

[mikestar]

I could argue for using a Precision defense against a Polish 1C. If my hand is weak, it is more likely that the 1C opener is strong (or his partner is).

 

A typical precision defense should be modified in two ways:

 

Just be aggressive/very agressive, don't imitate Marty Bergen.

 

Both intervenor and advancer need ways to show strong hands without having to lie in wait--though the prime focus will still be on preemption.

[Gerben47]

Yes I read it wrong, Free. Then I want to retract one point. In Precision 2♦ is also free for preempts. I usually just ignore those 4414 hands and open 1♥/♠ with those even if that shows 5 cards.

 

About PC and 2/1, they are not mutually exclusive. 2/1 is a convention after 1♥/♠ and possibly 1♦ that can be applied to Polish Club. The "Polish Club" part just applies to restricting 1♦ to what I call at least 4 1/2 cards and all 1-bids except 1♣ to 18 HCP.

 

You can include all your favorite conventions from the "2/1 system" (which I always thought were part of advanced bidding in general) and use them in PC.

 

The extra card in 1♦ (in my notation from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2) is very significant, because you know you have a fit and you can preempt that extra level. Another great advantage is that 1♦ - 1M - 2NT is free for the "Bridge World Death Hand" (invitational with 3-card support and 6-card minor).

[the hog]

"But in my opinion, a modern 2/1 system is better than Polish club. Of course, it has to be a jazzed up 2/1 not some run of the mill agreement with just Jacoby and some agreemnent about notrump responses."

 

Ben, modern PC is virtually 2/1 in style.

[inquiry]

"But in my opinion, a modern 2/1 system is better than Polish club. Of course, it has to be a jazzed up 2/1 not some run of the mill agreement with just Jacoby and some agreemnent about notrump responses."

 

Ben, modern PC is virtually 2/1 in style.

While for the most part I agree with you Ron. However, when PC opener holds an intermediate hand (one not strong enough for 2/1 2Clubs but strong enough for PC 1Club, there is a difference. Say opener holds hearts but opnes 1C. NExt hand overcalls 1S, and the PC parnter does something, including say pass, and RHO now raises spades. This is what I am talking about. Poor PC opener has gotten across only his minimum hcp count, but nothing with regard to distribution. For this I give a slight advantage to 2/1, but I admit the 2/1 has to be very, very scientific. The type 2/1 you see in BBO advanced, is not good enough to overcome the stregth of polish club...but a really polished 2/1 is, at least imho.

 

Ben

[the hog]

OK slight misunderstanding. I assumed you meant that 2/1 was better because 2/1 bids are GF!

 

Agree with your comments on hands such as:

xx AJxxx AK AQxx

If you open 1C and get a 1S overcall, this can be problematic.

 

Be aware though that Strefa is also regarded as a form of PC and in Strefa this is a 1H opening. Pszkola - Kwiecken eg play Strefa. (He, P, may be migrating to Australia, incidentally!)

[mishovnbg]

Polish club is better than precision. I agree here too...

 

But in my opinion, a modern 2/1 system is better than Polish club. Of course, it has to be a jazzed up 2/1 not some run of the mill agreement with just Jacoby and some agreemnent about notrump responses.

 

Why is this true? Becasue people compete against 1C openings and by the time the bidding gets back to opener, if the opponents have found a fit, the opening side hasn't even announced their suit. Somehow, fit first, stregnth second, seems to be a good apporach for me.

 

Ben

Hi Ben!

 

2/1 system can be improved by gadgets like any other system, but can't be effective in light of modern bidding theory untill you don't change openings - this mean to change entire system and then it will be not "2/1". Why 2/1 openings will be never enough good theoretically despite any improvements? Because:

• 1. 1♣/♦ can include weak hands with/without distribution - obstacle for responder to make effective preemtive raises in not vul/constructive distribution raises in vul at 3+ level both with/without competition. Playing with weak NT will not help to 2/1, because opening still may contain strong bal hand and you can preempt badly your own partner.
  
• 2. Variable 1NT can be included in 2/1 system relative easy, but it will not help to 1♣/1♦ opening (look 1.) and it mean to have 2 different ways of rebidding schemes after 1 of suit opening both with/without competition(100 pages more need to be added to system).
  
• 3. 2♣ GF opening is the worst bid ever exist. It take so much bidding space from auction, when you most need it with very strong hand, that most of time you must guess, bid quantitive slams agianst bidding theory and regular miss minor slams/games in side suit, because of impossible to find fit there below 3NT. For good opponents preempts and psyches in not vul are more easy vs 2♣ which promisse most of time game.
  

Note: You will have less problems with rebids of opener in competition than 2/1 with version of PC, which I posted early, and much better bidding with strong hands after 1♣ opening than 2/1. Above words are of course true also for any other natural system like ACOL, french natural system, italian standard, duch forum...

Misho

[Antoine Fourrière]

Polish Club is much better than 2/1 simply because it doesn't make sense to open 1♦ as often as 1♣. It gains when you open 1♦ because you show real diamonds -- I think it is better to open 1♣ with 5332, because it allows you to rebid 1NT with diamonds longer than clubs or a three-suiter and 2♣ with four diamonds and five clubs --, it gains when you open 1♣ because it gives you more room, whether you chose to play 1♦ 0-6 or minor(s) or 17+ balanced, 1♥ 7+w/ 4+ hearts and 1♠ 7+ w/ 4+ spades, or 1♦ 0+w/ 4+ hearts, 1♥ 0+ w/ 4+ spades and 1♠ 0+ w/o a four-card major, or something else, and in my view the WJ version is superior to Strefa because it gains more often than not when you open a natural 2♣.

2/1 has simply decided to play without the sequence 1♣-1♦. Why?

Of course, Polish Club is also superior in its treatment of the big balanced hands and has made a better choice of preempts.

 

A problem with Strefa is that Strefa has no immediate club opening, but a problem with WJ is that WJ has no immediate 'If I have a long suit, my long suit is clubs' opening. In the 1994 final, Balicki was forced to rebid 5♣ to show real clubs rather than 4♠, which would have shown a strong hand with spades, on ♠ AJ874, ♥ -, ♦ A, ♣ KQ109643, after he had opened 1♣ and his opponents had bounced to 4♥. Since his partner had a 4=5=3=1 zero-count, he lost 1100 instead of 200. Maybe it is an extreme example, but reporting the unbalanced game forces out of the 1♣ opening wins on the intermediate club hands and loses only on the unbalanced game forces. Personally, I wouldn't mind opening 2 NT the unbalanced game forces if it gave me better definition for my club hands and my preempts.

[cwiggins]

I agree that what version of 2/1 needs to be specified for a complete comparison. I was thinking that some characteristics are true of many/all 2/1 and could be used for a basis for comparison, similar to the comparison that you can make to Precision since every flavor of Precision has 1C as a big hand. The comments here persuade me otherwise.

 

However, the comments here did make me think of one more possible argument of "why PC rather than 2/1" that takes into account the flavors of 2/1. It is this. 2/1 systems have had a difficult time of bidding 16, 17, and 18 HCP hands. Go all the way back to a comment Goldman made in "Aces Scientific." While conventions are available to help in 2/1 (e.g. Gazilli), completely addressing the problem can be very complex (see Ambra). PC makes it simpler to bid these ranges of hands accurately while opening up to some possibility of preemption.

[mikestar]

Reopening the Polish vs Precision case.

 

Expert pairs interfere very aggresivly against Precison 1C, but don't go quietly against SAYC 1C. I suspect the optimal defense to Polish 1C is to be more agressive than vs SAYC and less agressive than vs. Precision.

 

Looking at a specific sequence as an example: 1C-(2S) and for the sake of argument 2S is natural.

 

The frequency of this sequence will be higher after Precision 1C than Polish 1C, but the Polish 1C itself will be more frequent than the Precison. My guess is that the overall probabilty of the sequence will be about the same.

 

So the question of advantage here is which system copes with this intervention less badly--personally I'd rather be playing Precison here.

 

The big win for Polish vs. Precision is its handling of primary club hands (nobody loves the precison 2C).

 

On the other hand, Precison wins on major suit openings because it limits the strength better than Polish.

 

The one diamond opening depends on the type of Precision--if nebulous, this is a win for Polish, if natural a win for Precision but paid for by bigger losses on the club hands.

 

I think that overall, Polish may be slightly superior (a grudging concession from a dedicated Precisionista) but that it isn't nearly so clearcut as some earlier posts imply.

[bhtf]

3. 2♣ GF opening is the worst bid ever exist.

 

ah ah

french 2D GF opening is more (! ! ! ) worst than 2C GF

but it's an other (no)-discussion.

 

alain

[inquiry]

3. 2♣ GF opening is the worst bid ever exist.

 

ah ah

french 2D GF opening is more (! ! ! ) worst than 2C GF

but it's an other (no)-discussion.

 

alain

Welcome to the Bridge Base Forum.

 

I also think 2♣ strong and forcing, has too high a range. I was a big fan of dynamic 1NT as played in original Romex (along with mexican 2♦ and 2♣ forcing). Since then I have adopted multi 2♦ that includes big hands with a minor (acol 2 in minor) or big balanced hands, and I include Acol 2 in a major in my 2♣ opening bid, allowing the auction to stop dead in 2♥ or 2♠ after this 2♣ opening bid. Maybe what I play is no longer 2/1, but I like it. By bidding what I have, I get more useful information from partner in competitive auctions (he can raise, fit jump, etc if he fits). After a 1♣ bid that may or maynot include clubs, compeition causes some problems of a different sort.

 

So one has to deal with the limitation of both systems, with PC and precision, no known fit, 2/1-ish, wider range of values. For some people, one way is best, for others, the second way. I have found I like trotting out my suit fit-showing bids in competition.

 

Ben

[MickyB]

Sorry, coming in a bit late on this one. Oh yes, a warning: my experience of actually playing these systems is very limited...

 

I have recently come round to the idea that Polish Club isn't greatly superior to Precision, if at all. To compare the two systems, it is probably best to compare variations with a lot in common. So, for PC I will work on 12-14 bal with 4♦s being opened 1♦, and for Precision I shall use a 4 card diamond suit (1♦:1major, 1NT showing 11-13), a 12-15 NT, and no Precision 2D opener.

 

[Firstly, a hobby horse...I don't think Precision 2♦ should ever be used. If you are that keen on having an opening bid for these hands then open them 2♥, this puts a lot more pressure on the opps and frees up the very useful 2♦ opening].

 

Precision gains on the hands that are opened 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ in both systems, because they are much more limited.

 

Precision also gains when 1♣ is opened, assuming there is no interference (a big assumption I know). Relays should be used to maximise the gains.

 

My suggested wide-ranging 1NT opener isn't great, but with the use of Keri, and a small modification allowing you to play 3C when responder has 5 opposite a minimum (which then must deny 4 diamonds) will minimise this loss.

 

I'm not sure how well PC handles weak NTs and 4441s in an uncontested auction, and as I am in the middle of exam period :P I don't really have time to check at the moment! I'd be surprised if 4441s are dealt with well. Personally, I have no problem with opening 4-4-1-4s 1NT at IMPs, as long as they are towards the bottom of the range for 1NT.

 

Right, now onto the big issue of interference over 1♣ openers.

 

Yes, a Precision 1♣ does ask for preemption more than PC, as 2nd seat cannot be sure whose hand it is when a PC is opened. But if he does interfere, responder doesn't have the guarantee that partner is strong, which makes things a lot harder for the PC pair.

 

Now change the above slightly. Let us have a pass on your right, followed by your opening a multi-club on your huge hand. RHO can cause you far more problems than he ever could over a strong club, because your partner cannot rely on your having strength. The ambiguous nature of the Polish Club has rebounded on its users. Surely this problem is so severe as to make multi-clubs totally unsound except in 1st seat?

[Flame]

Hi mickyB

When you're trying to compare to systems it most time the best not to comare everything with everything, but to undewrstand the differents.

Precision open all 16+ 1c, now lets change this to 17, did it make the system worse ? i dont think so, now lets change it to 18, worse? not by much for sure.

now lets try something else, we take 12-14 balance hands and add them to the precision 1c, is it make things better or worse ? (better for interfirence worse if not)

lets add 15+ with club suit, same response as before, we got ourself a version of PC. now someone can play PC and add other things , like not adding the 18 hcp and adding all GF hands, someone else can instead of adding 12-14 and 15+ club, can add 15-18 and 12-14 clubs, or make it depend on seat and vulnerability. someone else can just add 8-9 hcp with semi balanced, etc... (all those suggestions are current systems)

No one has to take into his precision all the components of PC, if you like a component say 12-14 balance you can add just it.

[Free]

Yes, but what's your point?? Really don't get where you're going to. :blink: How can you compare systems when you don't compare EVERYTHING with EVERYTHING? I think you have to compare the 1♣ opening, as well as the result on all other openings and the entire system...

[Flame]

Yes, but what's your point?? Really don't get where you're going to. :blink: How can you compare systems when you don't compare EVERYTHING with EVERYTHING? I think you have to compare the 1♣ opening, as well as the result on all other openings and the entire system...

comparing everything is something you cant do, its too compilcated, its better to see how you get from system A to system B, what you give up on the way and what you get back for it, since polish club has many versions you can choose that you like one thing about it and doesnt like something else, you dont have to take all the components of the system. comparing this way is much better imo.

example

system A : 1c= 2+c , 1d = 4+d (normal 2/1 system)

system B : the same as system A but moving all the balance hands with 4 diamonds into the 1c bid, as 1c now may be short in club you make it a forcing bid. (this system is strefa which the_hog plays)

system B has A better 1d then system A but worse 1C, you see what you get and what you lose and decide if you like it or not, in other words you compare this component.

[MickyB]

Yes, but what's your point??  Really don't get where you're going to.  :blink:  How can you compare systems when you don't compare EVERYTHING with EVERYTHING?  I think you have to compare the 1♣ opening, as well as the result on all other openings and the entire system...

comparing everything is something you cant do, its too compilcated, its better to see how you get from system A to system B, what you give up on the way and what you get back for it, since polish club has many versions you can choose that you like one thing about it and doesnt like something else, you dont have to take all the components of the system. comparing this way is much better imo.

example

system A : 1c= 2+c , 1d = 4+d (normal 2/1 system)

system B : the same as system A but moving all the balance hands with 4 diamonds into the 1c bid, as 1c now may be short in club you make it a forcing bid. (this system is strefa which the_hog plays)

system B has A better 1d then system A but worse 1C, you see what you get and what you lose and decide if you like it or not, in other words you compare this component.

I agree it can be complex comparing a lot of aspects of a system, that is why I chose variants of Precision and Polish Club that were as close as possible. Having done that, I had to compare all the differences that still existed.

 

One point - you shouldn't compare by bids, you should compare by hand types. In the case of Strefa, you do better on unbal hands with ♦, worse on unbal hands with ♣, and on the bal hands that you have moved you lose the knowledge of knowing that the hand probably hand 3♣s or definitely had 4♦s, but you gain an extra step in the bidding on the hands with 4♦.