Polish club: 20+ opposite a negative

[antonylee]

Right now I am playing the WJ05 structure: 1♣-1♦-2M = 21-23 strong NF (à la French standard 2♣-2♦-2M), 1♣-1♦-2♦ art. GF (2♥ double negative, higher bids various semipositives -- again we're basically in the same spot as French standard with the big exception that responder already had a chance to deny values). Especially with big ♥ hands this can be awkward, so I was thinking of changing this to 1♣-1♦-2♦/♥/♠: good 20+, F1, continuations like over std. 2♣-2♦-2M (so 3♣, or perhaps just next step, double negative -- to be decided)

 

This gains on 20+♦ hands (especially 5♦4M) and GF ♥ hands (and perhaps we can even make 1♣-1♦-2♦ specifically start at 18+ or so given how hard it is to bid strong 5♦4M hands in WJ...), basically at the cost of having to jump to 3N on GF balanced hands and sometimes playing at the 3-level when we could have bought it at the 2-level -- a price that seems reasonable to pay.

 

Any opinions?

[straube]

I'd be afraid of getting too high so I'd make 1C-1D, 2M nf. That said, I think I'd look at hands first and confirm this.

 

I've always been wary of the 1C as strong or weak NT etc hands because of issues like this. Have you thought of switching to something like what Zelandakh plays or perhaps the Unassuming Club? I like that they both (I think) use a weak NT. Then you could play 1C-1D, 1H as forcing...bigger or various. I think the Unassuming Club acts more like a strong club (my bias) but it may not be what you want to play.

[antonylee]

You may get too high with 21 opposite 0 but perhaps the good way to put it is that you won't be in a worse spot than the standard bidders (actually, because partner has described his hand a little bit, you're still in a very slightly better spot than after 2♣-2♦-2M).

 

Not saying that other systems aren't better (note the double negative here too :-)) but I'm just trying to play Polish club not too badly right now...

[Zelandakh]

Could you not do the equivalent of Reverse Benji here? That is 1♣ - 1♦; 2♦ = the equivalent of a SEF 2♣ opening (now 2♥ is negative and non-forcing) and 1♣ - 1♦; 2M are natural and game forcing. Obviously you also need the 3m rebids available too to cover GF hands in the minors but theoretically this should be very slightly better. As an extra aside, you could even play 1♣ - 1♦; 2♥ as Kokish here if you found that useful.

[antonylee]

Good point, I will give it some thought. I just noticed that the discussion is effectively about the following: assuming you have all the bids starting from 2♦ to describe 20+HCP hands (2♣ is already taken for 15+, 5+♣), what is the best way to allocate these?

[Siegmund]

Personally, I felt that when I made the switch from SA to Polish style, I was gaining something by having 2D very strong and 2M Acol Twos, vs. the single strong 2C opening.

 

I suppose you could play 2H as strong as a SA 2C-2D-2H, but that leaves a lot of 18-22 minor suit hands to try to squeeze into 2D (I assume those are the hands you are most worried about, not wanting to jump to 3m on them all.)

[straube]

You might wrongside it, but you could use transfers...

 

1C-1D,

.....2D-hearts, 20+

.....2H-spades, 20+

.....2S-diamonds and possibly clubs 20+

..........2N-asking, weak or strong (in context)

..........3C-clubs preference, middling

..........3D-diamond or no preference, middling

.....2N-natural, GF?

.....3C-clubs, invitational

.....3D-clubs, GF

.....3M-invitational with major (self-sufficient suit?) or maybe a 3154

 

 

We used something like this and it wasn't that bad. Many times responder can raise and then you can use transfers again to rightside opener's major so it's not always wrong-sided. The initial transfer allows opener a lot of freedom. He can show a second suit which is invitational or can force game by jumping to a second suit. He can transfer to his major and rebid 2N to show a balance or semibalanced hand with a 5-cd major.

[Zelandakh]

I suppose you could play 2H as strong as a SA 2C-2D-2H, but that leaves a lot of 18-22 minor suit hands to try to squeeze into 2D (I assume those are the hands you are most worried about, not wanting to jump to 3m on them all.)

My understanding of WJ2005 was that 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ could be made with hands up to 20hcp, so we can remove those from the equation at least. All of the GF 5-5 hands are also dealt with. Getting Kokish here also helps to avoid the somewhat ugly 21-23 jump and frees up an additional sequence (2♦ followed by 2NT). So

 

1♣ - 1♦

==

2♦ = Acol 2 in unknown suit (responses can be as simple as 2♥ non-forcing; 2♠ GF; others show a strong variant)

2♥ = 23+ bal or GF with hearts (Kokish)

2♠ = GF with spades

2NT = 21-22 bal

3m = GF and natural

3♥ = 5+ hearts, 5+ other, GF

3♠ = 5+ spades, 5+ minor, GF

3NT = 25-26 bal

4♣ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds, GF

 

The 2NT rebid after 1♣ - 1♦; 2♦ - 2M could be used to show both minors, perhaps 5+ diamonds, 4+ clubs. Or the sequence could be retained as natural, perhaps 23-24 hcp so as to make the 2♥ rebid always GF. Or you could use it to cut up the diamond hands better (say 2NT 18-20, 3♦ 21+). Or it could even be used as a 3-suited (Roman) call, although this last would perhaps be something of a luxury in this system.

 

The problems I foresee with this are strong hands with diamonds. Nothing new here of course, these are anyway a bit of a hole in PC. However, we could improve that somewhat if we were prepared to drop the 2-suited jumps. So

 

1♣ - 1♦

==

2♦ = Acol 2 in unknown suit (responses can be as simple as 2♥ non-forcing; 2♠ GF; others show a strong variant)

2♥ = 23+ bal or GF with hearts (Kokish)

2♠ = GF with spades

2NT = 21-22 bal

3♣ = GF with clubs

3♦ = GF with diamonds and no major

3♥ = GF with diamonds and 4 hearts

3♠ = GF with diamonds and 4 spades

3NT = 25-26 bal

 

Again, the 2♦ - 2M - 2NT sequence is available with the same options as before.

 

Basically, you are getting all of the benefits of Reverse Benji Two bids here without having to give up the 2♦ opener.

[rhm]

 

1♣ - 1♦

==

2♦ = Acol 2 in unknown suit (responses can be as simple as 2♥ non-forcing; 2♠ GF; others show a strong variant)

Interesting.

 

But assume you hold a weak hand (0-6) with heart support but not spades.

 

What do you do in the above sequence?

The original schema would work better.

It is not so simple.

Maybe a pass or correct schema would work over your 1♣-1♦-2♦, but this will wrongside the contract often.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Yeah, you could play it for 2♠ to show that hand and 2NT as essentially a relay (Ryall Paradox-style) but within a PC set-up I am not sure if it is not better to allow the stronger variants some extra options. Probably something for testing/simulation.

[gwnn]

Would it help to increase the range of your 1♦ openings?

[straube]

It's a pity that (apparently) your 2N opening doesn't offload the 20-21 balanced...or some other range. The structure I proposed assume that.

 

Zelandakh's structure deals with the fact that you have to have bids to describe all of the balanced 20+ hands. In particular, he uses Kokish.

 

But look how crowded this is now...you don't have an invitational way to handle single-suited clubs...or diamonds...or both minors. No way to show an invitational hand with 4S/5H either.

 

I think all of this suggests something is wrong, and that something is that your are short-changing your strong hands, most likely by combining them with your weak NT etc hands.

 

I've wondered whether you can make at least one of your major suit rebids (1C-1D, 1M) forcing to help out Well, you probably can't. But I'd at least consider an opening 2N as 20-21 instead of weak minors or whatever it is now.

[antonylee]

Increasing the range of 1♦ is certainly an option, as well as using a 20-21 2N (the transfer scheme seems reasonably simple).

I should also give more of a thought to making 1♣-1♦-1♠ forcing, putting all WNTs into 1♣-1♦-1♥. Yes, this could lead to some silly partscores but this is assuming the opponents are disciplined enough to start by passing with strong hands (probably good defense against Polish club in general... but not that common here in the US :)) and anyways we could in theory already land in 3-1 fits currently (1♣-1♦-1♥(WNT 3+♥ or stronger options)-P(0-(3)4 any))... not that it ever happened to me. I feel having WNTs with better ♠ in the 1♠ rebid only allows for a tiny extra precision in scrambling (especially when it could still be 3♠2♥).

[straube]

I'd be curious what 1C-1D, 1H as your weak NT would do for you. Seems like responder could sign off in any 5-cd suit (including 1M) or failing that sign off in a 4-cd major for at least a 4-2 fit or with a 3244 could show minor interest with a 1N rebid.

 

Then 1C-1D, 1N would show hearts I guess. Funny because this is similar to what we're doing.

[benlessard]

We have a bid that show hands in the 22-23 pts range and those are at least five times more frequent than true GF hands. Most of the times responder has at least some pts so its a bit irrelevant but on hand where responder was broke 2M was a great spot. So imo keeping 2M as an Acol 2 is a good solution.

[Zelandakh]

You do realise that we still stop in 2M opposite a bust playing the reversed method, right Ben?