Maminsky club

[whereagles]

Hi all. I was thinking of tweaking 2/1 with the following twist:

 

1♣ = natural or any 20+ hand. Forcing for 1 round.

 

1♣ 1♦ = natural or 0-4 any shape.

 

Then you'd have

 

1♣ 1♦

2♦ = strong hand, 1 round forcing. Resp bids 2♥ with a bust and opener bids in transfer (2♠ = clubs, 3♣ = diams, etc). Resp fills transfer if *really* bust.

 

1♣ 1x

2♦ = game-forcing (opener has 20+, resp 5+). Follow up natural. Other rebids by opener are natural.

 

1♣ 1♦

2NT = 18-20. If 18-29 then clubs is best minor.

 

1♣ 1♦

2♦ 2♥

2NT = 21-23 system on.

 

The main motivation for using this scheme is that it allows opening a weak 2♣!!! The 2NT opener will be for a 55 minors weak or the 4 diam 5 clubs reverse, which cannot be bid naturally.

 

Plusses:

- Allows for a weak 2♣ opener.

- More precision with strong hands if responder bid 1♣ 1x.

- 2NT opener for the minors.

 

Minuses:

- Preempts mess you up more than usual, due to the overload placed in the 1♣ opener. Nethertheless, since the percentage of strong hands is really really low, 1♣ can safely be taken as natural.

 

So what do you think?

[hrothgar]

I think that you would be well served by reading "The Polish Club" by Matula...

[MickyB]

Probably no help whatsoever, but a couple of England Juniors played 1♣ as natural or any 20+ and 1♦ as natural or balanced. 1♣ then 1NT rebid showed the 20+ type.

[david_c]

The 2NT opener will be for a 55 minors weak or the 4 diam 5 clubs reverse, which cannot be bid naturally.

Why not open 1D with this hand?

[david_c]

Minuses:

- Preempts mess you up more than usual, due to the overload placed in the 1♣ opener. Nethertheless, since the percentage of strong hands is really really low, 1♣ can safely be taken as natural.

I'd say it's only half true that 1♣ can be safely taken as natural. The fact that 1♣ includes 20+ hands doesn't make life any harder for responder at his first turn. The problem comes later when opener makes a strong rebid - it's difficult to distinguish the 20+ hands from shapely hands with clubs.

[the hog]

Minuses:

- Preempts mess you up more than usual, due to the overload placed in the 1♣ opener. Nethertheless, since the percentage of strong hands is really really low, 1♣ can safely be taken as natural.

I'd say it's only half true that 1♣ can be safely taken as natural. The fact that 1♣ includes 20+ hands doesn't make life any harder for responder at his first turn. The problem comes later when opener makes a strong rebid - it's difficult to distinguish the 20+ hands from shapely hands with clubs.

This is not correct. Polish Club has been in existence for over 30 years and has bid this way with no difficulties. What Whereagles is proposing is nothing more than Polish Club - see Hrothgar's post above.

[MickyB]

Minuses:

- Preempts mess you up more than usual, due to the overload placed in the 1♣ opener. Nethertheless, since the percentage of strong hands is really really low, 1♣ can safely be taken as natural.

I'd say it's only half true that 1♣ can be safely taken as natural. The fact that 1♣ includes 20+ hands doesn't make life any harder for responder at his first turn. The problem comes later when opener makes a strong rebid - it's difficult to distinguish the 20+ hands from shapely hands with clubs.

This is not correct. Polish Club has been in existence for over 30 years and has bid this way with no difficulties. What Whereagles is proposing is nothing more than Polish Club - see Hrothgar's post above.

1♣-(1♥)-P-(4♥)

Isn't 4♠ now 20+ with no implication of a club holding, so with a wildly distributional 15 you need to bid something else?

[MickyB]

The 2NT opener will be for a 55 minors weak or the 4 diam 5 clubs reverse, which cannot be bid naturally.

Why not open 1D with this hand?

Because the alternative is it showing 5-5 minors weak! Anything to escape that...

[the hog]

"1♣-(1♥)-P-(4♥)

Isn't 4♠ now 20+ with no implication of a club holding, so with a wildly distributional 15 you need to bid something else? "

 

Eh? I don't understand this comment at all. Yes 4S in the above given auction would show 19+ with long S and clearly a very good hand. With a wildly distributional 15 count you obviously would not have opened 1C.

[Gerben47]

What you describe is not exactly Polish Club, which uses 2♣ as a Precision opening bid. However German open team players Gotard - Piekarek (from Polish origin) include all ♣ hands in 1♣ and play 2♣ as weak opening bid.

[MickyB]

"1♣-(1♥)-P-(4♥)

Isn't 4♠ now 20+ with no implication of a club holding, so with a wildly distributional 15 you need to bid something else? "

 

Eh? I don't understand this comment at all. Yes 4S in the above given auction would show 19+ with long S and clearly a very good hand. With a wildly distributional 15 count you obviously would not have opened 1C.

I can't find any reference to the hand now, and my memory of it is very hazy, but IIRC...In a world championship, a Pole rebid 5♣ on this sequence on a black 2 suiter (6-5 or 7-5); This resulted in 1400, when 4♠ would have gone for 300.

[david_c]

I'd say it's only half true that 1♣ can be safely taken as natural. The fact that 1♣ includes 20+ hands doesn't make life any harder for responder at his first turn. The problem comes later when opener makes a strong rebid - it's difficult to distinguish the 20+ hands from shapely hands with clubs.

This is not correct. Polish Club has been in existence for over 30 years and has bid this way with no difficulties. What Whereagles is proposing is nothing more than Polish Club - see Hrothgar's post above.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there was a hole in the system - I like to play this sort of thing myself. But you have to realise that there are some hands where your "natural" opening bid would be 1♣ but it's dangerous to do that because your normal rebid would be taken as showing a 20+ hand.

[helene_t]

Does this system include a neboulous 1♦? Or does "natural" clubs include ballanced hands with a 4-card clubs?

 

And how would you rebid with a 6-card clubs and something less than a GF hand? Seems as the ranges for

1♣-1♦

2/3♣

would be rather wide.

[whereagles]

hrothgar: I have the polish club book :) I realize there are a few similarities between my idea and PC, so I might go and check how PC solves some of the issues.

 

Helene: 1D is natural, but if you want to use a 9-11 1NT you can dump the 12-14 hand into 1C opener and the 15-17 one into 1D. (Or the other way around.)

 

As for club one-suiters, I would bid them as follows:

 

11-15:

Open 1C, rebid 2C

 

16-18:

Open 1C, rebid 3C

 

19-21:

1C 1x

2D

 

1C 1D

2D 2H

2S 3C <-- now pass with 19-21, bid on with 22+.

 

In any case, I'm happy to know polish club players have sucessefully dealt with interference over 30 years, so I'm convinced the maminsky club can be a winner :)

[hrothgar]

hrothgar: I have the polish club book :) I realize there are a few similarities between my idea and PC, so I might go and check how PC solves some of the issues.r :)

Polish Club is a very well designed system, evolving after years of experimentation by some very able theorists. With all due respect, you need to START by studying their work and understanding why the system is laid out the way it did.

 

From my perspective, the version that you are offering seems badly flawed...

 

Most notably:

 

The decision to treat 2♣ as weak and preemptive is going to severely overload you 1♣ opening

 

Your constructive opening bids feature a very high range. Once you allow a 1♠ opening on an unbalanced 19 count, you might as well play a strong 2♣ opening.

 

I fail to understand the purpose of your tinkering: When push comes to show, you have all the costs of a poorly defined two-way 1♣ opening and a nebulous 1♦ without effectively limiting the strength of your 1 level openings...

 

It seems that you are giving up an aweful lot in order to be able to show a "weak two" in clubs...

[whereagles]

I have already studied the polish club. I don't see how my treatment, which is so similar to PC, can be so badly flawed when PC is, in your own words, a very well designed system.

 

The overload of 1C seems marginal to me. With respect to PC, the only hand I'm dumping into 1C is the 11-15 5 clubs opener, a hand which I actually much rather open at the 1-level.

 

The purpose of this twinkering is simple, as I said:

- Allow for a weak 2C opener, a very common hand-type, especially if you open it on 5 cards as I do.

- Improve precision if opener is strong and resp has 5+.

[david_c]

I fail to understand the purpose of your tinkering:  When push comes to show, you have all the costs of a poorly defined two-way 1♣ opening and a nebulous 1♦ without effectively limiting the strength of your 1 level openings...

That seems a bit harsh - this 1♣ opener isn't going to behave much differently from a Standard 1♣, even in competition. And if I understand it correctly, the 1♦ opener isn't nebulous.

 

Meanwhile, if you play a reasonably frequent meaning for 2♣, that could easily score a few successes.

[hrothgar]

>I have already studied the polish club. I don't see how my treatment,

>which is so similar to PC, can be so badly flawed when PC is, in your own

>words, a very well designed system.

 

I was hoping to avoid this whole discussion, however, since you insist:

 

1. The maximum strength for your "constructive" opening bdis is much too strong. Polish club is characterized by limited opening bids showing 12-17 HCP hands. Opener's range is tightly defined, allow responder to accurately judge the maximum strength of the two hands.

 

In contrast, your constructive openings show 12 - 19 HCP. You have added in a range of very strong, comparatively rare hand types. In doing so, you are severely degrading the utility of the limited opening.

 

>The overload of 1C seems marginal to me. With respect to PC,

>the only hand I'm dumping into 1C is the 11-15 5 clubs opener,

>a hand which I actually much rather open at the 1-level.

 

2. When playing Polish Club, a 1♣ openiing explictly denies 12-14 HCP with 5+ Clubs. Consequently, any rebid in clubs shows a strong (15+ HCP hand). You are trying to work arround this problem by using a "simple" rebid in clubs to show 11 -14 HCP and jumping to 3♣ with 15+ HCP.

 

(A) You are going to encounter enormous problems during constructive auctions:

 

Example: You hold

 

♠ 7

♥ AK53

♦ Q32

♣ AK542

 

The auction starts 1♣ - 1♠

 

What is your rebid?

 

2♣ showing a weak hand with 6 clubs???

2♦ As some kind of relay?

2♥ showing 5+ Clubs and 4 Hearts?

3♣ suppressing your Heart suit???

 

If you chose 2♥, please explain how you plan to show "strong" hands with primary Hearts...

 

If you want to use the 2♦ relay, you might want to consider that the Poles believe that the relay needs to promise at least 3+ cards in Opener's suit to be able to hand intervention...

 

Example:

 

You hold

 

♠ Q542

♥ 6

♦ K3

♣ AK9542

 

You open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦

 

Whats your rebid?

 

A 1♠ response completely supresses your Club suit...

A 2♣ response looses Spades...

 

(B) These are construvtive auctions, where your system is expected to shine... Through in competitive bidding and life gets really ugly.

[david_c]

1♣ 1♦

2NT = 18-20.

Am I right in inferring from this that 1♣:1♦,1NT would be 12-14 balanced? That would be different from Polish Club!

[hrothgar]

1♣ 1♦

2NT = 18-20.

Am I right in inferring from this that 1♣:1♦,1NT would be 12-14 balanced? That would be different from Polish Club!

David_C has raised another point worth noting:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2NT

 

1♣ = Maminsky Club

1♦ = I'm broke - You have no transport to my hand

2NT = I have 18-20 balanced, please double me...

[whereagles]

I was hoping to avoid this whole discussion, however, since you insist:

Hum... why did you want to avoid discussion?

 

In contrast, your constructive openings show 12 - 19 HCP.  You have added in a range of very strong, comparatively rare hand types.  In doing so, you are severely degrading the utility of the limited opening.

I'm not playing limited openings. I'm just puting the usual 2/1 2C opener into the 1C opener, that's all. I thought this was clear :)

 

(A) You are going to encounter enormous problems during constructive auctions: Example: You hold

 

♠ 7

♥ AK53

♦ Q32

♣ AK542

 

The auction starts 1♣ - 1♠. What is your rebid?

Hum.. I don't see any difference in comparision with sayc or 2/1, so what's the problem? :)

 

If you chose 2♥, please explain how you plan to show "strong" hands with primary Hearts...

Bid 2D and if pard bids 2H, rebid 3D transfer to hearts. Remember I'll have 20+ in that case, so I'm in a different situation than polish club.

 

If you want to use the 2♦ relay, you might want to consider that the Poles believe that the relay needs to promise at least 3+ cards in Opener's suit to be able to hand intervention...

The 2D relay won't be promising that, but in compensation opener's hand will be stronger.

 

You hold

 

♠ Q542

♥ 6

♦ K3

♣ AK9542

 

You open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦. Whats your rebid?

Simple: 1S, showing a 5C-4S with strenght up to a minimum reverse.

 

David_C has raised another point worth noting:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2NT

 

1C = Maminsky Club

1D = I'm broke - You have no transport to my hand

2NT = I have 18-20 balanced, please double me...

This is an important point, which there is a simple solution to. In the first place, I don't think they can double me that easily, as the 1D response is unlimited. Second, original precision had a 1C-1D-2NT rebid of 19-21 and did fine with it. I'm just stealing a point to it...

 

But I agree this can be improved, and it can be done in the following way:

 

1C 1D

1NT = 12-14 OR 18-19.

 

Now, if responder has 0-4 he will pass regardless. With more that that he'll have 5 diamonds and can use a keri-like relay 2C into 2D, intending to play there. Opener can escape into 2NT with 18-19. That should be safe since the line has 23-24 at least. Other rebids by responder will be

 

1C 1D

1NT ...?

2C = relay to 2D, opener bids 2NT with 18-19.

2D = hearts. Opener fills transfer and if resp passes it's 0-4 5 hearts. If opener bids on, it means 2D was made with 4 hearts only and so 1D walsh style with a 5-4. There is a game-force on now (else bid 1C 1H).

2H = spades. Same as above.

2S = asks range. Opener bids 2NT with 12, 3C with 13-14, 3D with 18-19.

2NT= transfer to clubs

3C+= whatever you prefer.

 

So.. problem fixed, though I might try the 18-20 2NT rebid for a while since it's simpler. If it proves unsound in practice, I apply the above solution.

[hrothgar]

>I'm not playing limited openings. I'm just puting the usual 2/1 2C opener

>into the 1C opener, that's all. I thought this was clear

 

What you are doing is quite clear.

You motivation to do so is far less obvious....

 

Polish and Precision style 1♣ openings a big losers at the table. They are a necessary cost that system builders accept in order to realize significant gains elsewhere in the system.

 

In most cases, these gains are related to supporting a structure of light/limited opening bids. In your case, you seem to be suggesting that are you are willing to

 

(A) play an EXTREMELY poorly defined 1♣ opening - far less defined than either a Polish style 1♣ or a standard 1♣

(B) Add enormous amounts of complexity to your system

 

all in order to free up your 2♣ opening for use as a weak 2...

 

Out of curiousity, I'd love to see any simulations that you've done comparing the relative frequence of your 1♣ opening compared to your 2♣ opening...

 

>Bid 2D and if pard bids 2H, rebid 3D transfer to hearts. Remember I'll

>have 20+ in that case, so I'm in a different situation than polish club.

 

I think that the 2♦ relay is severely overloaded. You're going to be forced to relay with almost any "strong" hand. In general, relay methods work best when thenbalanced hand asks and the unbalanced hand shows. As I noted earlier, you're going to take a major hit, either in efficiency or complexity...

 

>>♠ Q542

>>♥ 6

>>♦ K3

>>♣ AK9542

>>

>>You open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦

>>

>>Whats your rebid?

>

>Simple: 1S, showing a 5C-4S with strenght up to a minimum reverse.

 

So you rebid 1NT with any 12-14 HCP balanced hand, regardless of whether partner holds a 4 card major... This introduced its own set of problems:

 

1. Many people who play Polish Club believe that this type of NT rebid is very exposed to penalty doubles...

2. Your going to be missing a lot of major suit fits

 

I note that you are also considering a method in which the 1NT rebid shows either 12-14 balanced OR 18-19 balanced...

 

I'll note once gain that you are introducing enormous complexity while realizing very little gain.

[the hog]

"The purpose of this twinkering is simple, as I said:

- Allow for a weak 2C opener, a very common hand-type, especially if you open it on 5 cards as I do.

- Improve precision if opener is strong and resp has 5+. "

 

I don't see much pre emptive value in a 2C opening.

 

I think you actually lose precision if opener is strong and responder has a 5 card suit, particularly 5M. Odwrotka is a very valuable tool, just as often because of the inferences when it is not used as when it is used.

 

I agree with Richard that the overloading of the 1C opening has made it poorly defined and added a layer of unnecessary obfuscation to low level bidding.

[whereagles]

you seem to be suggesting that are you are willing to

(A) play an EXTREMELY poorly defined 1♣ opening - far less defined than either a Polish style 1♣ or a standard 1♣

I think you are overrating the poor definition of the maminsky 1C. The strong variant will show up 5% of the time, maybe less. (Don't have simulations, though. I'm a busy person.)

 

(:) Add enormous amounts of complexity to your system

Add some complexity yes, add enormous amounts of it, no way. By the way, I played relay systems so this is absolute peanuts to me.. lol :)

 

I think that the 2♦ relay is severely overloaded. You're going to be forced to relay with almost any "strong" hand.

Overloaded?? Not more than a sayc 2C opener, for I rebid 2D with the same hands I'd have opened 2C. And note that if pard has a positive response, I'll be starting the auction at a lower level. I consider this an improvement on a sayc 2C.

 

So you rebid 1NT with any 12-14 HCP balanced hand, regardless of whether partner holds a 4 card major... This introduced its own set of problems:

No.. if you can support pard's major you just do it. As for auctions like

 

1C 1H

1NT <--- 12-14 no 4 card heart, may have 4 card spade

 

I'll agree I might miss a 44 spade fit, but I've been playing like this for the last year (1C-1H-1S is a 5-4) and I never had problems. Besides, playing checkback or keri enables you to dig back the 44 spade fit if the hand is inv+.

 

1. Many people who play Polish Club believe that this type of NT rebid is very exposed to penalty doubles...

There we go again. While opposite polish club you can perhaps afford to pass 1C with a 16+ balanced hand and double later, opposite a maminsky club you probably can't, so the penalty of 1NT is unlikely to be executed (unless LHO decides to take some anti-percentage action).

 

I note that you are also considering a method in which the 1NT rebid shows either 12-14 balanced OR 18-19 balanced... I'll note once gain that you are introducing enormous complexity while realizing very little gain.

The increase in complexity is marginal, and the gains (weak 2C) are not to be dismissed so lightly. I've seen it happening over and over again that opps take an absolutely mandatory and sound action over a 5 card weak two only to find out their very sensible action was pure and simply wrong.

[Chamaco]

Whereagles,

if you want to play all 2-level bid "weakish" you may consider play "Fantunes" system, which opens naturally at the 1 level any 14+ hand, and is forcing, using a 2nd round relay to discriminate minimum openers, reverses and battleships.

 

Of course 2 level bid cannot be too weak, e.g. more or less 8-13 hcp.

 

1NT opener (even with 5cM) is 12-14, and all 15+ balanced openers will open 1C.

 

The system sacrifices wild weak 2s, but is solid and aggressive at the same time:

 

- natural 1-level bids with huge hands avoid the usual problem of artificial 1C and 2C openers; in fact, now opps will be wary to overcall preemptively a 1C opener which has a high % of being balanced and to penalize;

 

- "weak 2s" are not-so-weak, and puts responder in a similar situations as when pard opens a weak NT: if opps gets frisky because they feel they are stolen, responder may double them safely, in the knowledge that opener will contribute something.