tweaking polish club :-)

[gwnn]

So what are the "optimal" parameters of a Polish ♣ opener in your opinion?

 

Maybe we will play Polish C with my partner and I am thinking

 

11-13

15+

17+

 

what do you think of this system?

 

Also is there any way of making the 2♣ opener 6+?

 

Also what would you prefer to play 2♦ as (perhaps something to make 2♣ really mean 6+)? Any meaning is allowed in Iceland.

 

But mostly I'm interested in making one of these new polls. They sounded really exciting!!

[Free]

Don't know what's best, but I think the pretty standard 12-14, 15+, 18+ is probably just fine. If you want to change 2♣ to a 6 card suit, then you're playing more precision than PC.

[Tomi2]

So what are the "optimal" parameters of a Polish ♣ opener in your opinion?

 

Maybe we will play Polish C with my partner and I am thinking

 

11-13

15+

17+

 

what do you think of this system?

 

Also is there any way of making the 2♣ opener 6+?

 

Also what would you prefer to play 2♦ as (perhaps something to make 2♣ really mean 6+)? Any meaning is allowed in Iceland.

 

But mostly I'm interested in making one of these new polls. They sounded really exciting!!

 

12-14 bal

12-14 5+ clubs 4 M or some 4414 hands that dont open 1dia

15+ club one suiter

18+any

 

the 2cl rebid will be 15-18 onesuiter after 1d and 1h, and "either 12-14 with 4 hearts or 15-18" after one spade

 

1cl-1sp

2cl-?

2d=invit+ relay

...2he=12-14 4hearts, then 2sp = art. GF

...3he=15-18 4hearts

...rest nat 15-18

2he=pass with 12-14, correct with stronger hands

other cheap bids natural and non forcing

 

 

2club opener becomes 10-14 6+cl with no 4M, you can use transfers here

 

since its no more Polish Club, call it Prussian Club pls :)

[the hog]

Play 2D Wilkosz. If you have a look at old rgb discussions, you will find it gains on average 1 1/2 imps every time you open it.

[MickyB]

Suggest reading David Collier's work on this - http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/

 

Basically, the raison d'etre is for 1C to "show" a weak no-trump. Everything else fits around that.

 

We were opening 1C with -

 

a) 12-14 balanced, including with five diamonds

B) 12-14 with 4414, 4405, (43)15 and the odd (14)35 with a stiff honour and bad clubs. Basically we assumed that 1C showed either tolerance for the majors or extra strength, but we were more wary about competing in diamonds. Opening 2C with (43)15 is far too likely to miss a major-suit fit so I would avoid it if there is a reasonable alternative.

c) 15+ with clubs. We would open 1NT quite freely if it seemed a reasonable alternative.

d) some 18+ hands. With primary diamonds, we opened 1D upto GF strength. With primary hearts, we opened 1H on a two-suiter upto GF strength, but 1C on a single-suiter. With primary spades, we opened 1C. This tied in well with both contested and uncontested rebids - a diamond rebid was usually artificial, heart single-suiters could show their whole hand with 1C then a heart bid, and spades are easier to show in competition than hearts. I cannot see much merit in opening more 18+ hands 1C, if anything I would open more hands 1M.

 

The problem with having the balanced range as 11-13 is -

 

a) you often have to act again on balanced 17s which isn't great

B) inbetween hands like 4414 14-counts become harder to handle

[dake50]

Naw, go all the way to Tangerine Club.

[Siegmund]

I would have voted for 11-14 on the notrump, if I had the chance. (I used to play 1C 11-13, 1NT 14-16, and liked the 14-16 notrump very well. But I had trouble finding enough bids to tell 17-18 and 19-20 apart, and in a standardish system, an 11-14 NT rebid has been easy enough to handle with a good checkback agreement.)

 

For the others I voted for 15+ 19+, though I admit there are a few 18s I would upgrade. If you do play 14-16 1NT, you might as well have 2 point range for 1D/H/S followed by a jump. If you went with 11-14 in 1C and 15-17 or 15-18 in 1NT, and deliberately chose not to have a "1 1/2 NT" sequence, I would understand 18+. (If you push the 1C opening all the way down to 17 or lower... A, you are overloading the 1C bid, which works best when the strong meanings are relatively rare -- you want the range for 1C-1D-2M, hands too strong for 1M and too weak for 1C-1D-2D, to be 'only one trick wide'... and B, well, you aren't playing polish club anymore. There are plenty of other systems out there where 1C is 17+ or weak balanced. In Polish, strong is the THIRD meaning of the bid, not the second.)

 

By all means require 6 clubs for a 2C opening, even if you don't tweak anything. Nothing bad can happen to you when you open 1C with a minimum 5C4M; just rebid the major after 1C-1D, and be willing to occasionally raise on 3-card support or rebid 1NT with a singleton (3415 and 1435 after 1C-1S). The only problem hands are those with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds. Opening them 1D is evil, but a lesser evil than opening a 5-card club suit with 2C. If you don't need a strong 2NT opening, I like opening 2NT to show "both minors but the lower suit always better or longer than the higher suit" - 5-5s really are not hard to bid by other means.

 

You can also nudge the bottom end of 2C down to about 9-14. I tried pushing it all the way to 7-13, but it's a little bit uncomfortable having to put all the 14-pointers with clubs into 1C. (And, let me tell you, people thought a weak two-bid in clubs was weirder than just about anything else in the system. Heh.)

 

2D: Wilkosz. Not close. Beats the pants off any other use for that opening I've ever seen.

[lowerline]

Not standard, not easy, (not Polish anymore?) but theoretically sound:

1♣

weak variant: 12-14 balanced or 3suiter with ♦ shortage

natural variant: 15+ unbalanced

strong variant: 18+ balanced or 17+ 5+♠/6+♥(1suiter) or 20+ 5+♥ or GF any

 

1♦: natural unbalanced (up to just short of a GF)

 

1♥: 11-19 5+♥

 

1♠: 11-16 5+♠

 

1nt: 15-17

 

2♣: 11-14 6+♣

[Gerben42]

I like the following tweak:

 

2♦ opening as Multi showing a W2 in a major OR 18 - 20 with 6♦ or 5♦ 4♣. I mean with a 4-card major, you can rebid 1M over 1♦, but with these hands you are rather stuck.

[gwnn]

Also over

 

1♣-1♦

1♥/1♠

 

should 1♥ be 3+ and 1♠ 3+

or 2+ and 4?

[glen]

I like 2♣ 6+, and 1♦ always 5+ unbalanced, thus:

1♣ includes hands with singleton/void in ♦s, (4)5♣s and 4-4/3-4/4-3 majors

2=2=4=5 exactly opens 1♣ or 1NT

2♦ is 11-15, three suiter, 3-4♦s, 5-4-3-1, 4-4-4-1, 5-4-4-0, no five card major

[MickyB]

Not standard, not easy, (not Polish anymore?) but theoretically sound:

1♣

weak variant: 12-14 balanced or 3suiter with ♦ shortage

natural variant: 15+ unbalanced

strong variant: 18+ balanced or 17+ 5+♠/6+♥(1suiter) or 20+ 5+♥ or GF any

 

1♦: natural unbalanced (up to just short of a GF)

 

1♥: 11-19 5+♥

 

1♠: 11-16 5+♠

 

1nt: 15-17

 

2♣: 11-14 6+♣

 

What about 4135/1435 11-14?

[lowerline]

What about 4135/1435 11-14?

 

Open 1♦ (like in Precision). Of course agreements are needed on the further bidding. Will a 1-4-3-5 rebid 1nt or 2♣ after a 1♠ response? If you rebid clubs you probably need the 2♥ response to show 5♠4♥ in order not to loose the heart fit.

 

Steven

[straube]

I've never played Polish Club and I know that a lot of good players like it. I did read the book and it seemed like 1C was very overloaded. Is 1C-1D, 1H still nf? Seems wasteful. And 1C-1M, 2D is still an asking bid about the major? But the partnership may only have uncovered a 4/3 fit at this point? What do folks like about the Polish Club and how has it evolved? Thanks

[mgoetze]

Whatever you do, please don't call your system Polish Club if 1NT is 12-14 and 1♣ includes 15-17 balanced. Call it something else, there's enough of this sort of confusion already. :P

 

Straube, while 1♣-1♦-1M is not technically forcing in standard Polish Club, responder will bid something 99% of the time and indeed you don't lose very much by making it forcing instead. 1♣-1M-2♦ is only rarely bid with only 3 card support, at least the way I play it. Anyway, you must keep in mind that the 1M response promises GF strength vs. the strong variant of 1♣.

[sty2000]

Last year on European Universities Championship I saw one Polish pair play 1♣ as 12-14NT, 11+ with ♣ or 18+ any, freeing 2♣ opening for some other hands (i.e. both majors, preemptive). How did they manage to do this, I don't know, and if someone know, I'd like him/her to share that wisdom with us.

 

Also, studying WJ2005 I noticed there's no way to bid 18+ one-suited ♦ hand after 1♣ opening and 1♦ response.

[the hog]

Open 1♦ (like in Precision). Of course agreements are needed on the further bidding. Will a 1-4-3-5 rebid 1nt or 2♣ after a 1♠ response? If you rebid clubs you probably need the 2♥ response to show 5♠4♥ in order not to loose the heart fit.

 

Steven

 

This is an extremely poor idea. The 1D opening in PC gains a great deal simply because responder KNOWS it shows 4+D.

[glen]

...Also, studying WJ200 I noticed there's no way to bid 18+ one-suited ♦ hand after 1♣ opening and 1♦ response.

First, WJ200 was over 1800 years ago, and the roman systems were all the rage then. Years later, in WJ2005, the notes say that 1♣-1♦;-3♦ is natural: "The remaining rebids at the 2-level (over a negative 1♦) are natural and show a strong club with at least 5 cards in the suit bid." Although the notes are not clear, this would not be forcing (1♣-1♦;-2♦ is the game force, and 1♣-1♦;-3♦ should deny a 4cM (bid 1♥/♠ if less than a game force - the notes just say "It’s possible to rebid 1M even with the strong club variant.", but perhaps in Polish it is clear.

 

To play 1♣ as having 11+♣s (instead of 15/16+ in Polish ♣), you have adjust somethings back towards standard (e.g. 1♣-1♥;-2♣ is 11+ natural, and not-forcing) - there are a few systems that have tackled this.

[sty2000]

First, WJ200 was over 1800 years ago, and the roman systems were all the rage then. Years later, in WJ2005, the notes say that 1♣-1♦;-3♦ is natural: "The remaining rebids at the 2-level (over a negative 1♦) are natural and show a strong club with at least 5 cards in the suit bid." Although the notes are not clear, this would not be forcing (1♣-1♦;-2♦ is the game force, and 1♣-1♦;-3♦ should deny a 4cM (bid 1♥/♠ if less than a game force - the notes just say "It’s possible to rebid 1M even with the strong club variant.", but perhaps in Polish it is clear.

 

To play 1♣ as having 11+♣s (instead of 15/16+ in Polish ♣), you have adjust somethings back towards standard (e.g. 1♣-1♥;-2♣ is 11+ natural, and not-forcing) - there are a few systems that have tackled this.

 

It's look more like standard, except that 1♣ is forcing, and can also be strong club. I attached two convention cards, so you can take a look on this methods.

Nowosadzki-Wiankowski.pdf

piekarek-smirnov.pdf

[mgoetze]

Attachments don't seem to be working. (Why are we only allowed to use the "report" button for objectionable content?)

[sty2000]

Attachments don't seem to be working. (Why are we only allowed to use the "report" button for objectionable content?)

 

OK, then I'll post direct links:

 

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/2010Ostend-european/OpenTeams/germany/piekarek-smirnov.pdf

 

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/2008MindSportGamesBeijing/U26/Poland/Nowo-Wian.pdf

[lowerline]

This is an extremely poor idea. The 1D opening in PC gains a great deal simply because responder KNOWS it shows 4+D.

 

No, it is a trade-off. The 2♣ opening gains a great deal simply because it shows 6+♣.

 

Steven

 

 

[the hog]

No, it is a trade-off. The 2♣ opening gains a great deal simply because it shows 6+♣.

 

Steven

 

Disagree completely. I have analysed about 1000 hands when we played Polish C and Power. The 1D bid was a big winner.

By playing 2 or 3 cards Ds you are no longer playing Polish Club anyway.

[lowerline]

Disagree completely. I have analysed about 1000 hands when we played Polish C and Power. The 1D bid was a big winner.

By playing 2 or 3 cards Ds you are no longer playing Polish Club anyway.

 

Ok, maybe I was not clear. I only make an exception for the exact distributions of 1-4-3-5 and 4-1-3-5. So the 1♦ opening is always unbalanced and the aforementioned distributions are the only cases it does not show at least 4 diamonds. Responder can still raise with 4crd support. So it can happen you have to play in a 4-3 fit, but with a singleton in the hand with the 3crd trumps, this is usually playable.

I agree with you that a 1♦ opening guaranteeing a 4crd is still better, but then you will have to open 2♣ (or 1♣?) with these distributions. I guess you will agree with me that a 2♣ opening always showing a 6crd is better than one showing a 5crd.

 

 

 

 

[Free]

No, it is a trade-off. The 2♣ opening gains a great deal simply because it shows 6+♣.

 

Steven

That's a very poor trade-off if you ask me...