Polish club

[Hanoi5]

Artificial systems are certainly problematic for natural players who are not accustomed to their use. The Polish club is a little more bothersome as its 1♣ shows many types of hands as well as their nebulous 1♦. What is a good defense? What are some common places in defenses against artificial systems?

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=17796

 

Hm what do you mean nebulous 1♦? It promises 4 doesn't it? In some variants it promises 4 and an unbalanced hand.

[TimG]

Artificial systems are certainly problematic for natural players who are not accustomed to their use. The Polish club is a little more bothersome as its 1♣ shows many types of hands as well as their nebulous 1♦. What is a good defense? What are some common places in defenses against artificial systems?

The common variations of Polish Club that I have seen use a 1♦ opening which shows 4+ diamonds -- not nebulous at all.

 

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days. Yes, a Polish 1♣ could have 0 clubs, but only in a strong hand 18+ or 19+ depending upon variety. When the opponents have one of these hands, it's unlikely that you'll need to be worrying about such things as whether a club bid is a cue-bid raise of partner's overcall.

[Cascade]

Artificial systems are certainly problematic for natural players who are not accustomed to their use. The Polish club is a little more bothersome as its 1♣ shows many types of hands as well as their nebulous 1♦. What is a good defense? What are some common places in defenses against artificial systems?

The common variations of Polish Club that I have seen use a 1♦ opening which shows 4+ diamonds -- not nebulous at all.

 

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days. Yes, a Polish 1♣ could have 0 clubs, but only in a strong hand 18+ or 19+ depending upon variety. When the opponents have one of these hands, it's unlikely that you'll need to be worrying about such things as whether a club bid is a cue-bid raise of partner's overcall.

But you might want to be bidding clubs naturally to find a sacrifice or just pre-empt the auction.

[skjaeran]

Indeed. Just keep the club overcalls and advances natural.

[OleBerg]

Simple suggestion:

 

Treat it as natural.

Agree to overcall aggressively. (Use Clubs as "their suit", for cuebid purposes.)

Reserve 2♣ for a natural overcall and 3+♣'s for preempts.

[TimG]

Artificial systems are certainly problematic for natural players who are not accustomed to their use. The Polish club is a little more bothersome as its 1♣ shows many types of hands as well as their nebulous 1♦. What is a good defense? What are some common places in defenses against artificial systems?

The common variations of Polish Club that I have seen use a 1♦ opening which shows 4+ diamonds -- not nebulous at all.

 

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days. Yes, a Polish 1♣ could have 0 clubs, but only in a strong hand 18+ or 19+ depending upon variety. When the opponents have one of these hands, it's unlikely that you'll need to be worrying about such things as whether a club bid is a cue-bid raise of partner's overcall.

But you might want to be bidding clubs naturally to find a sacrifice or just pre-empt the auction.

You might want to be doing this over the more and more common 2+ 1♣ opening in a natural framework as well. I did not mean to suggest that it doesn't need some discussion, just that it is not that much different from something that most people encounter with regularity.

 

I think I have seen players choose to use 2♣ as a natural overcall and 2♦ as Michaels.

[WesleyC]

For a while I had the agreement that over a 'could be short' club including polish, our 2C was natural, 3C preemptive and 2D 5/5 majors. We've actually extended that agreement now to cover all 1C openings that are frequently 3 cards.

 

As others have pointed out, the natural overcall is only available on the first round of the auction, any subsequent cue-bids of clubs are artificial, strength showing.

[helene_t]

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days.

Depends. I think there is a difference between "could be two but only with specifically 4=4=3=2" and "any balanced 12-14 without a 5-card d/h/s". The former can adequately be treated as natural. As for the later, it is less clear.

[gnasher]

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days.

The main difference is that a Polish 1♣ is forcing. That's something that you should be able to exploit.

 

Passing on strong balanced hands is an attempt to do this, because it frees an immediate 1NT overcall for something else, gives you a chance to catch them if they have a weak notrump opposite a bad balanced hand, and reduces the risk of intervening with a strong notrump.

 

For example:

- Double = takeout, but major-suit oriented (or perhaps this should be 12-14 balanced)

- 1NT = Michaels

- 2♣ = Natural

- Pass then double 1M = 15+ balanced

- Pass then 1♠ over 1♥ = takeout double of hearts

- Pass then 1NT over 1♠ = takeout double of spades

 

I don't really know how useful this approach is, because I don't play against this sort of system often enough to be able to judge.

 

Somebody mentioned playing 2♦ as Michaels. I think that's a bad idea. A natural 2♦ over 1♣ is a really annoying preempt, because of the difficulty in working out what major-suit lengths each player has.

Edited August 17, 2009 by gnasher

[TimG]

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days.

Depends. I think there is a difference between "could be two but only with specifically 4=4=3=2" and "any balanced 12-14 without a 5-card d/h/s". The former can adequately be treated as natural. As for the later, it is less clear.

1♦ is opened on balanced hands with 4 diamonds. So, the minimum balanced version of a Polish 1♣ is also only 2 with specifically 4=4=3=2.

[Free]

If you want to have fun, try Holo Bolo.

 

Or bid your 2nd longest suit.

[cherdanno]

I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days.

The main difference is that a Polish 1♣ is forcing. That's something that you should be able to exploit.

That's one difference. But also, the precision-style 2♣ opening makes having clubs in a Polish 1♣ hand much less likely.

[TimG]

If 1C = 11-14 balanced without 4 diamonds or 15-17 unabalanced with 5+ clubs or 18+ any then 1C is (about):

 

weak balanced 55%

medium clubs 11%

strong any 34%

 

Reduce the weak balanced range to 12-14 and:

 

weak balanced 46%

medium clubs 14%

strong any 40%

 

In either case, opener has 2 or fewer clubs around 14% or 15% of the time.

 

Edit:

 

In a natural system where 1C is opened on all 4333 and 4432 hands (not in range to open NT), a 1C opening is made on a 2-card club suit about 10% or 11% of the time.

[oxyde]

I never thought about much changes on strong !c openings, except bidding more aggressively.

 

But somebody pointed out 1NT could get free for any other purpose.

So quickly thinking on it, might be good to overcall with transfers starting from 1NT ?

You could this way also cover 2-suiters and get stong opponent on lead.

[helene_t]

So quickly thinking on it, might be good to overcall with transfers starting from 1NT ?

No, I think transfers are much easier to defend against than natural bidding, and it is important to mess up their auction since Polish Club is vulnerable to interference.

 

So overcalls should be non-forcing.

[benlessard]

Against a short club/polish clubs i think its better to play 2C as natural and 2D as both majors.

[OleBerg]

I never thought about much changes on strong !c openings, except bidding more aggressively.

 

But somebody pointed out 1NT could get free for any other purpose.

So quickly thinking on it, might be good to overcall with transfers starting from 1NT ?

You could this way also cover 2-suiters and get stong opponent on lead.

I believe transfers have some merit. I would however do it in quite another way:

 

Pass: Weak or 15+Bal.

X = Transfer to diamonds.

1♦ = Transfer to hearts.

1♥ = Transfer to spades.

1♠ = Transfer to clubs.

 

Edit: Naturally this wouldn't apply to openings in fourth hand.

 

This would cover all constructive hands.

 

1NT = Both majors.

2♣+ = Preemptive.

 

As they will quite often have 12-14 bal., this is another possibility:

 

2♣ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♦, 11-16 non-forcing.

2♦ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♣, 11-16 non-forcing.

 

I have some experience with these kind of bids, and when you make them, they are quite efficient, especially if you are well-organized (jump in a new suit preemptive, while better hands "cue" in the opponents alleged suit), putting advancer in an excellent position.

 

The relatively low frequency is somewhat an argument against these bids.

[skjaeran]

Against a short club/polish clubs i think its better to play 2C as natural and 2D as both majors.

Or 2♣ natural, 2♦ WJO in a major (Multi style) and 2M weak/strong with 55 M, if you're allowed to.

[benlessard]

n a natural system where 1C is opened on all 4333 and 4432 hands (not in range to open NT), a 1C opening is made on a 2-card club suit about 10% or 11% of the time.

 

4=4=3=2 isnt 10-11% its less than 5%

 

Or 2♣ natural, 2♦ WJO in a major (Multi style) and 2M weak/strong with 55 M, if you're allowed to.

 

This mostly depend of what the use of 1Nt overcall.

[TimG]

n a natural system where 1C is opened on all 4333 and 4432 hands (not in range to open NT), a 1C opening is made on a 2-card club suit about 10% or 11% of the time.

 

4=4=3=2 isnt 10-11% its less than 5%

My, perhaps incorrect, understanding is that some open 1♣ on all balanced hands, leaving 1♦ to show an unbalanced hand, so that 1♣ would be opened with 4=4=3=2, 4=3=4=2 and 3=4=4=2. That is what I meant to address and what I meant by "all 4333 and 4432 hands".

[benlessard]

Ok

[skjaeran]

n a natural system where 1C is opened on all 4333 and 4432 hands (not in range to open NT), a 1C opening is made on a 2-card club suit about 10% or 11% of the time.

 

4=4=3=2 isnt 10-11% its less than 5%

 

Or 2♣ natural, 2♦ WJO in a major (Multi style) and 2M weak/strong with 55 M, if you're allowed to.

 

This mostly depend of what the use of 1Nt overcall.

Actually, what I was aiming at is that the 2♦ overcall would/might be considered Brown Sticker many places.

[TimG]

Ok

You are probably right in that many pairs who play 1♣ could be any balanced shape (even 4 diamonds and 2 clubs) may have another opening for the ~18-20 balanced hands so that my count is not really reflective of the approach.

 

So, while what I presented was accurate in what I described, it may not be particularly relevant. Sorry if that is the case.

[nigel_k]

I haven't played against it or developed a detailed defence.

 

However, my advice would definitely not be to treat it as natural. Doing so is playing into their hands by letting them have an unobstructed strong club auction. You could use your strong club defence or a modification of it, e.g.

 

Pass Includes all 15+ balanced or 14+ unbalanced

Dbl Majors

All suit bids natural

1NT 8-14 takeout of clubs (or Raptor or something else annoying and frequent)

 

It's always useful for responder to have a cue bid so I'd still use 2♣ for that. Pass then bid would be strong, obviously.