Polish Diamond?

[Cthulhu D]

So in a 2/1 system with 1C: Clubs or balanced, it seems like you spend your entire life opening 1C, and your 1D opening is rarely used. This is backed up by the percentages - 1C is 16% ish and 1D is 4.5% ish depending on your aggressiveness with 11 counts.

 

Given how comparatively under-loaded the 1D opening is, has anyone seen anything looking at folding additional hand types into 1D? Obviously inspired by AWM's magic diamond stuff it seems like you could include 21+ unbalanced or 23+ unbalanced in 1D and use some sort of 1NT or 2C gazilli style relay to sort out the strong hands.

 

Edit:

 

So this would give you an opening structure like:

 

1C: Clubs or Balanced, 11-19

1D: Unbalanced diamonds, 11-21 OR Unbalanced 22+ OR Balanced 23+

1M: Standard 2/1 GF stuff.

 

On the other hand, is the losses in competition worth it? I don't have significant polish or unassuming club experience to know, so input is good here.

 

On the gripping hand, the other obvious concern is what do I get? Well, you get the 2C opening freed up and the opportunity to start GF auctions at a lower level. B isn't worth much, assuming you use some sort of 1NT Gazilli relay you're going to get P's second negative about the same time a pair playing standard methods bids 2H, so not a huge deal of space is gained.

 

I do think being able to open a frequent weak hand type - like a weak 2C or whatever would be a big winner when it comes up, but assuming that 60% of auctions are contested, people are going to come in over your 'strong' opening more frequently than you are going to get the upside of a weak 2C. This points to playing something higher frequency - some sort of assumed fit shennagians (4/4 or better minors? At 4.8% frequency this is going to come up a lot and puts the oppo under huge pressure), or a super fert NV or whatever, but these methods have their own risk!

 

Anyone tried this or seen anything like it?

[bluecalm]

Some Polish players tried going back to 1D 4+ but most got back to 5+ and it's currently universal standard among top Polish players. Having it as 5+ (or 4 if 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors) is very nice in competition and that's what counts.

If there is one thing I like about Polish Club it's nice 1D opening putting us ahead of precisioners and standard 2/1 players.

[Cthulhu D]

Some Polish players tried going back to 1D 4+ but most got back to 5+ and it's currently universal standard among top Polish players. Having it as 5+ (or 4 if 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors) is very nice in competition and that's what counts.

If there is one thing I like about Polish Club it's nice 1D opening putting us ahead of precisioners and standard 2/1 players.

 

Whoops - I was not as clear as I would have liked. I meant has anyone tried something like this

 

1C: Clubs or any balanced, 11-19

1D: Unbalanced with 5+ diamonds or 4441 with a stiff club 11-21 OR 18+ Unbalanced OR 23+ Balanced

1H: 5+ 11-17

1S: 5+ 11-17

1NT: 14-16

2 level: Whatever.

 

Then use 1D-1x-1NT as strong artificial. As you point out the losses in competition might be to much.

[MickyB]

That 1D opening would be awful in competition. I suggest you read David Collier's blog.

[kenrexford]

I had some success years ago with 1D as 8-11 balanced, some limited unbalanced hands, or some very strong options, so it is workable.

[Cthulhu D]

That 1D opening would be awful in competition. I suggest you read David Collier's blog.

 

Isn't it pretty much the same as a Polish 1C, except while Polish has three handtypes:

 

Weak NT

Strong with Clubs

Any strong

 

We have

 

Weak with Diamonds

Strong with Diamonds

Any strong?

 

I've read the blog and I really like it, but it seems more homogeneous than the polish equivalent? I guess the Weak NT is more flexible for partner's hand that diamonds? I guess that due to the contiguous range of diamond openers, are to many 1 bid hands not sufficiently close to the dominant hand type? And unlike polish club you have both minors being somewhat ambiguous.

 

I had some success years ago with 1D as 8-11 balanced, some limited unbalanced hands, or some very strong options, so it is workable.

 

That would be pretty fun to play!

[MickyB]

Isn't it pretty much the same as a Polish 1C, except while Polish has three handtypes:

 

Weak NT

Strong with Clubs

Any strong

 

We have

 

Weak with Diamonds

Strong with Diamonds

Any strong?

 

I've read the blog and I really like it, but it seems more homogeneous than the polish equivalent? I guess the Weak NT is more flexible for partner's hand that diamonds? I guess that due to the contiguous range of diamond openers, are to many 1 bid hands not sufficiently close to the dominant hand type?

 

We can contrast this with a similar-looking two-way 1C opening which shows either a minimum hand with 4+ clubs, or a strong hand of any shape. It would be very easy to build a system around this bid. And the one-bid hands here are nicely homogeneous, so responder does not have any immediate problems. However, it does not work so well, the reason being that the hands that responder will take action on have changed. In particular, he is going to be bidding on hands with moderate club support. Knowing that responder has four clubs (say) is really of very little use to opener when he has a strong hand - he is much more interested in 5-card suits, particularly major suits. And because opener's one-bid hand types no longer promise tolerance for the majors, responder will be much less willing to introduce a major suit into the auction. While we were happy to bid 1C : (2D) : 2S on a spade holding of KJxxx opposite a Swedish 1C, we would have to pass or double if the weak option just showed clubs (unless the hand was strong enough to force to the 3-level). So opener will get much less information about the majors: information is skewed towards the club suit.

[Cthulhu D]

 

 

Ah yeah, good point, it really is that the Weak NT is more flexible to partner's hand type, but also that the infomation gained is more useful opposite a strong hand.

[straube]

Whoops - I was not as clear as I would have liked. I meant has anyone tried something like this

 

1C: Clubs or any balanced, 11-19

1D: Unbalanced with 5+ diamonds or 4441 with a stiff club 11-21 OR 18+ Unbalanced OR 23+ Balanced

1H: 5+ 11-17

1S: 5+ 11-17

1NT: 14-16

2 level: Whatever.

 

Then use 1D-1x-1NT as strong artificial. As you point out the losses in competition might be to much.

 

 

Imo two-way openings suck. They prevent branching until opener has announced what sort of hand he has. While some bids may be useful to opener (whatever his hand may be), others will not. In effect, responder has to relay...make low-level bids until opener shows one or the other.

 

Even worse that Polish and Swedish two-way openings (of 1C) show very different hand strengths. Responder has to assume the weaker...which means he can't bid as much or as high....can't compete as high even when it would be helpful opposite a known strong hand.

 

I realize that a strong club is vulnerable to competition (I think more is made of this than I've experienced at the table), but at least it promises 15+ or 16+. In a similar fashion, a strong NT announces a moderately good hand...before the bidding gets too high for this strong hand to do anything and thusly losing this information to partner. Open a strong NT 1D and after a 3H preempt pass pass it may be too dangerous for opener to act. A game or penalty may be lost.

 

Both a strong club and strong NT empower responder to bid in a way that Polish Club and weak NT do not. That ought to be a big goal of one's opening structure....saying "I can support fit-finding this high"....letting partner have an idea if we are in a part score, game, or slam vicinity. We have another thread going by mgoetze who would like to sort out Swedish 1C (3H) auctions. It's just frequently not possible.

 

I have some difficulty doing everything I want after a strong club opening...even in an uncontested auction. I can't imagine adding weak NT or other meanings...and reserving bids I used now for other things to announce a weak NT hand.

 

The only nice thing I can think of to say about Swedish Club is it's less bad than Polish Club.

 

This structure seems worse than both. The 1D (in particular) seems extremely overloaded. Plus how is responder to respond? He can't pass, so you need to reserve at least one bid as a waiting/negative bid. After that waiting/negative bid, opener has to announce whether he has a limited hand with diamonds or 18+ unbalanced. I think it would be impossibly difficult.

[mgoetze]

I think you are concentrating too much on one specific principle of good system design (lower bids should be more frequent) while ignoring some other important principles.

[benlessard]

If you want to get a nice frequency without changing the nature of the bid just use 1D as 4+ unbal 11-22. Opening 1C a hand with 6D because its too strong is one of the biggest weakness of precision and PC imo.

[glen]

If you want to get a nice frequency without changing the nature of the bid just use 1D as 4+ unbal 11-22. Opening 1C a hand with 6D because its too strong is one of the biggest weakness of precision and PC imo.

I would make this 11+, forcing.

[straube]

I would make this 11+, forcing.

 

If it's potentially strong, responder can't preempt against it.

 

If it's forcing, responder has less room to describe his own hand.

[glen]

If it's potentially strong, responder can't preempt against it.

 

If it's forcing, responder has less room to describe his own hand.

If it is 11-22 it is essentially forcing, and potentially strong.

[awm]

I've thought for a while it'd be interesting to try:

 

1c = clubs, or balanced not in 1nt range; unlimited

1d = natural and unlimited

1M = 5+ cards in M, about 8-16 hcp

1nt = 14-16

2c = 17+ with at least one 5+M

[glen]

I've thought for a while it'd be interesting to try:

 

1c = clubs, or balanced not in 1nt range; unlimited

1d = natural and unlimited

1M = 5+ cards in M, about 8-16 hcp

1nt = 14-16

2c = 17+ with at least one 5+M

Consider the Fantunes split: 5-4-2-2 with a five card major and a four card minor is "balanced", and:

 

1♣ = ♣s, or "balanced" not in 1NT range; unlimited

1♦ = natural and unlimited

1M = 5+ cards in M, 12-16 or 9-11 both majors, unbalanced

1NT = 14-16 "balanced"

2♣ = 17+ with at least one 5+M, unbalanced

2M = 5+ cards in M, not 4+ in OM, 8-11

[the hog]

If you want to get a nice frequency without changing the nature of the bid just use 1D as 4+ unbal 11-22. Opening 1C a hand with 6D because its too strong is one of the biggest weakness of precision and PC imo.

 

I would suggest the modern Polish method of opening 1D to show 4+. This takes a lot of pressure off the 1C opening. It is true that some Polish pairs still play the old fashioned 5+Ds but more and more are moving over to Matula's ideas of 4+.

[glen]

Who is correct?

 

Some Polish players tried going back to 1D 4+ but most got back to 5+ and it's currently universal standard among top Polish players ...

or

 

... It is true that some Polish pairs still play the old fashioned 5+Ds but more and more are moving over to Matula's ideas of 4+.

[straube]

I don't know. The following citation appears to support the_hog but it doesn't necessarily reflect current expert practice.

 

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2001/sys/WJ2005webpage.htm%23_ftn1&date=2009-10-25+18:04:20

 

 

1♦ opening - 4+ cards

The WJ2000 1♦ was opened with either 5+ cards, or 4+ cards if 3-suited or with 5 clubs. The 2005 version promotes a simpler definition. It shows 4+ cards (like in the original WJ95). I think there are several good reasons for this change:

With the previous agreement responder didn’t know whether he could raise partner with 3 diamonds for fear of standing opposite a bad 4 cards. As a result he had to assume a conservative stance, assuming that opener may have 4 cards and raise only with 4 cards himself.

One could say that a 1♦ opening always has 5+ cards (like 1♥ and 1♠) – but then unbalanced hands with 4 diamonds would not be biddable.

Thanks to the 4-crd 1♦ opening, we lessen the ambiguity of the 1♣ opening.

Playing this version is easy to understand for new WJ-players; beginners won’t be forced to learn a complicated opening definition, and foreign bridge players see something nearer to what they are used to.

[Cthulhu D]

Consider the Fantunes split: 5-4-2-2 with a five card major and a four card minor is "balanced", and:

 

1♣ = ♣s, or "balanced" not in 1NT range; unlimited

1♦ = natural and unlimited

1M = 5+ cards in M, 12-16 or 9-11 both majors, unbalanced

1NT = 14-16 "balanced"

2♣ = 17+ with at least one 5+M, unbalanced

2M = 5+ cards in M, not 4+ in OM, 8-11

 

Seems like sorting out the weak with both majors from the 12-16 hands would be a pain in the ass - any ETM systems that do something similar? Otherwise I really like it - one option (though not that pure or great) is to put the weak 2D hands into 2C, then put the 8-11 both majors into 2D?

[mgoetze]

Who is correct?

This has been discussed previously and it was established that the_hog is an inveterate defender of a very marginal minority point of view.

[bluecalm]

I am not taking the troll bite again but nice try Hog :)

 

1c = clubs, or balanced not in 1nt range; unlimited

1d = natural and unlimited

1M = 5+ cards in M, about 8-16 hcp

1nt = 14-16

2c = 17+ with at least one 5+M

 

Any ideas how to make 2c not suck that much ? Rest of the opening looks nice (although I am not big on 8-16 range).

[glen]

... Any ideas how to make 2c not suck that much? ...

2♣ = 17+, 5+♥s

2♦ = 17+, 5+♠s

[benlessard]

I would make this 11+, forcing

I dont remember last time I had a true GF with primary diamonds or primary clubs. I do remember a couple of hands going 1D--pass--totally broke. Im not saying i did get a good/bad board by passing just that i was happy to pass on those hands. Needing to respond with crap can be a burden, you might improve the contract but more often you will go overboard that you could have avoided (yes it does happen that 1D is the par contract and opps let you play there (or should)) . For example the 5422 vs opposite 5422, these hands are quite frequent and stopping low is really the way to go on these hands.

 

We play 1D-2D as 7-bad10 and 1D-2C as 3-6 or GF diamonds raise both raise can be only 3 cards. I dont think Ive missed a game by passing 1D in the last 2 years.

 

In the end the 1d-pass-pass or the 1D super strong are quite rare so it wont make a big difference. But im pretty convinced 1D NF is superior in a strong club context, I dont see why its would be that different in a PC context.

[the hog]

This has been discussed previously and it was established that the_hog is an inveterate defender of a very marginal minority point of view.

 

It would appear to be only established by MGoetze who seems to be a legend in his own underpants.