Polish Diamond?

[the hog]

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

 

You have got to be kidding. I really only address serious posters whose opinions I respect; that eliminates you. By the way, the expression is troll bait, not bite.

[rhm]

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.

This sounds superficially convincing, but can you give some illustrative examples from top level play how this 1♦ showed a convincing profit compared to a standard 1♦ opening in the other room, where it simply guaranteed four cards in diamonds?

Better still would be a statistic over a larger number of boards from high level play showing how this 1♦ opening gained IMPs when compared to a standard 1♦ opening in the other room.

 

You claim this 1♦ opening is nice in competition. What do you really know when your partner opens 1♦ and there is interference?

 

Opener could be balanced 5332 with a 5 card diamond suit

Opener could be semi balanced 2245 with a 4 card diamond suit and a 5 card club suit

Opener could be unbalanced with a 4 card diamond suit

 

How does this translate into an exploitable big competitive advantage over standard?

 

When you make system choices it is easy to make some bids more precise by narrowing down the hands it shows.

But then you have to do something with the hands you exclude. In case of Polish club these are minimum balanced hands with a four card diamond suit, a rather large chunk of hands.

Putting these hands into 1♣ creates a big risk: That you will not find your diamond fit. Should partner have 4 or 5 cards in diamonds you have a problem:

With a limited hand partner can not bid diamonds, since 1♦ over 1♣ is artificial and 2♦ is strong and forcing, often played as game forcing.

What is worse is that opener has no way of showing diamonds in a minimum hand even with his rebid after 1♣ and partner's response.

If opponents interfere it is difficult to find a diamond fit since opener could have a minimum hand short, even void, in diamonds. So responder, unless strong, can not bid diamonds over interference as easily as he could bid a major.

 

My conclusion: While the advantages of narrowing down 1♦ in this way is rather elusive, the risk of not finding your ♦ fit, when you open 1♣ with diamonds is very real.

Whenever opponents interfere over 1♣ and you have a 4-4 or 4-5 fit in diamonds you are at a severe disadvantage when competing for the partial.

 

There is another advantage, when you open such hands with 1♦ instead of 1♣. Whenever opener rebids ♦s after opening 1♣, for example in response to a negative double from partner over interference, you know that opener must have the strong variant.

I really would like to understand better why most top level Polish club players as you claim went back to the old 1♦ opening and what the arguments really are.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

Rainer, I suggest you read the chapter on the 1D opening in Matula's definitive book on the PC. Matula explains why many have abandoned the old fashioned 1D=5 cards opening.

[Mtt]

I am inspired by magic diamond and have some thought of adding the weak NT hands into 1♦ which originally showing 18+HCP.

 

1♣ = 11-17, 4+♦

1♦ = weak NT or 18+, unbal

1♥/♠ = 11-17,5+

1NT = 15-17

2♣ = 11-17, 6♣ / 5♣ + 4M

welcome to leave some comments

[Zelandakh]

2♣ = 11-17, 6♣ / 5♣ + 4M

welcome to leave some comments

I suggest playing a few hundred boards where the dealer is set to create random 2♣ openings. Then come back and ask how to modify the 1m72m openings to make the system playable.

[rhm]

Rainer, I suggest you read the chapter on the 1D opening in Matula's definitive book on the PC. Matula explains why many have abandoned the old fashioned 1D=5 cards opening.

I have tried for some time to get this book from somewhere.

I can not find it on the market.

If you have a source...

 

Rainer Herrmann

[glen]

... Matula's definitive book on the PC. Matula explains why many have abandoned the old fashioned 1D=5 cards opening.

Is this the book that is nearly two decades old, or is there a more recent book where "Matula explains why many have abandoned the old fashioned 1D=5 cards opening"?

[mattias]

I have tried for some time to get this book from somewhere.

I can not find it on the market.

If you have a source...

 

Rainer Herrmann

It's available as a pdf from the publisher http://www.scaniabridge.com/eng/ebok.html

[perko90]

Jassem's book on WJ2005 addresses it. Essentially, even the older style that implied 5 ♦'s almost always had the exception for 4-4-4-1 hands and x-x-4-5 hands, so partner couldn't confidently raise ♦'s w/ 3-card support anyway. Another reason that's hinted at but not explicitly stated is that 1♣-1♦; 1M auctions w/ a 3-card M are not so hot, but necessary in PC on a few 12-14 bal distributions. However, if you include 12-14 bal w/ 4-card ♦'s into 1♣ opening, there's many more 1M rebids on 3-card M suits, which is undesirable for readily apparent reasons.

[antonylee]

In my own (limited) experience, 1C-1D-1M as 3crd 12-14 is extremely rare, as usually opponents will already have entered the auction by then. However, this may be due to the fact that I'm usually playing in a field that has little to no experience defending against WJ.

[benlessard]

Its normal for a big balanced hand to pass 1C and get ready to X 1M when they know its 12-14 vs 0-7. To play takeout X after (1C)-(1D)-(1M) is simply lacking imagination.

[bluecalm]

Jassem's book on WJ2005 addresses it. Essentially, even the older style that implied 5 ♦'s almost always had the exception for 4-4-4-1 hands and x-x-4-5 hands, so partner couldn't confidently raise ♦'s w/ 3-card support anyway

 

In his newer book WJ2010 he explains why "the standard" is back to 1D, 5+ (with exceptions).

 

This sounds superficially convincing, but can you give some illustrative examples from top level play how this 1♦ showed a convincing profit compared to a standard 1♦ opening in the other room, where it simply guaranteed four cards in diamonds?

Better still would be a statistic over a larger number of boards from high level play showing how this 1♦ opening gained IMPs when compared to a standard 1♦ opening in the other room.

 

You require the level of evidence from me which you can't provide for opposite hypothesis.

All I have to offer is that top polish players all play 1D as 5+ in polish club context and the idea of 4+ never become popular. This includes Jassem and Martens.

 

How does this translate into an exploitable big competitive advantage over standard?

 

You are either unbal with 4 or have 5. You can raise with 3 card support in many sequences.

 

But then you have to do something with the hands you exclude. In case of Polish club these are minimum balanced hands with a four card diamond suit, a rather large chunk of hands.

 

On the other hand if you put them in 1D you run into new problems.

For examle:

a)

1D - pass - 1H - 1S

1N = 5diamonds so we can compete to 3D over 2S

 

b)

1D - pass - 2C - pass

???

Now in PC there is nice way to play:

2D = minimum, 5+diamonds

2H/2S = reverses

2N = 4-4-4-1 exactly, 12-14

 

Including bal hands with diamonds ruins it and makes the sequence a pain.

 

Putting these hands into 1♣ creates a big risk: That you will not find your diamond fit. Should partner have 4 or 5 cards in diamonds you have a problem

 

Yes, I think that's a good point and main argument for 1D being 4+.

 

With a limited hand partner can not bid diamonds, since 1♦ over 1♣ is artificial and 2♦ is strong and forcing, often played as game forcing.

What is worse is that opener has no way of showing diamonds in a minimum hand even with his rebid after 1♣ and partner's response.

 

This is not entirely true.

If you have 5-11 hands not suitable for 1NT after 1C opening you bid 1D and then 2D, say:

 

1C - 1D

1H - 2D = 5-11, 5+diamonds, unbal

 

If opponents interfere it is difficult to find a diamond fit since opener could have a minimum hand short, even void, in diamonds.

 

Not really. Minimum hands have 2+ diamonds unless it's 4-4-1-4 exactly which is very rare (because they don't often compete in a major if we have that and it's rare shape to begin with).

 

So responder, unless strong, can not bid diamonds over interference as easily as he could bid a major.

 

Imo it doesn't matter. You bid both just as readily but it's true that you can't bid diamonds at 2 level over 2M :)

 

Whenever opener rebids ♦s after opening 1♣, for example in response to a negative double from partner over interference, you know that opener must have the strong variant.

 

It's the same in standard PC.

1C - 1S - d - pass

2D shows strong hand in PC.

 

I really would like to understand better why most top level Polish club players as you claim went back to the old 1♦ opening and what the arguments really are.

 

Most of them didn't really go back, they just didn't try 4+ at all. Jassem went back in his booklets and we are yet to have top pair playing PC with 1D being 4+. Kalita Gawrys play that now, but they gave up PC and started playing standard so it doesn't count :)

 

Most of your arguments are things which are rare and don't matter while at the same time you assert that we can't raise with 3 anyway (which we can).

There is one good argument: we lose 4-4 and sometimes 4-5 fits with opener having 4.

I gave some counter arguments. It's not 100% sure thing for me which is better but for now consensus among top polish player is clear.

[the hog]

Is this the book that is nearly two decades old, or is there a more recent book where "Matula explains why many have abandoned the old fashioned 1D=5 cards opening"?

 

 

2 decades old! Oh Gosh, oh golly gee! How old is Meckwell Precision? How old is Moscito? Matula's book is still the best system book I have read by far.

[mgoetze]

Well, I gave up trying to learn Moscito 2005 because "noone plays that anymore, it's completely outdated". Meckwell Precision has also certainly seen some major changes in the last 20 years, the use or nonuse of Multi-2♦ being just one example.

[the hog]

Well, I gave up trying to learn Moscito 2005 because "noone plays that anymore, it's completely outdated". Meckwell Precision has also certainly seen some major changes in the last 20 years, the use or nonuse of Multi-2♦ being just one example.

 

"noone, (sic), plays that anymore"

Really??!! I guess you are a bit outdated!