polish club beginner

[gwnn]

Does anyone have a good, simple structure for

 

1♣-1♦

2♣-?

 

At this moment, we know:

Opener: 5+♣, 15-22 (anything below a GF+), no 4-card major. 2♣ is non-forcing

Responder: 0-6 any/7-11 unbalanced without a 4-card M (one or both minors, unbalanced)/13+balanced

 

Jassem's ebook does not cover it. Is there anything simple with as few artificial bids as possible? I would like to play a 1C structure that I can write down in 1 or 2 pages, so this sequence has maybe 1 line or 2 as its fair share. This seems like an uncommon sequence, what with all the passes from opps.

 

I'm thinking something like:

2♦-GF artificial. handles good minor-oriented hands that are now GF+balanced hands

2♥/2♠-stop or natural?

3♣ should be NF but what about 2NT?

[mgoetze]

2NT should be INV, surely.

[gwnn]

INV with which type? I think it's impossible to have stops in both major suits with a minor-oriented hand, wouldn't you bid 1NT with that most of the time? Not complaining about your answer but those were my original thoughts.

[rhm]

INV with which type? I think it's impossible to have stops in both major suits with a minor-oriented hand, wouldn't you bid 1NT with that most of the time? Not complaining about your answer but those were my original thoughts.

Of course it depends how you play the 1NT and 2NT responses to 1♣

Jassem suggests 1♣-1NT as 8-11 and changed his mind what 2NT shows, but stronger of course than a 1NT response.

 

Therefor

 

1♣-1♦

2♣-2NT would show 6-7 balanced.

 

I like to play that 1♣-1NT is invitational opposite a weak notrump, so I could be as strong as a poor ten for bidding 1♦ and still be balanced.

But with 9-10 I would force opposite a 2♣ rebid by opener. So 2NT shows less.

 

A simple approach is to play something analogous what you play over a precision 2♣ opening.

2♦ is forcing but not necessarily game forcing and with the difference that a bid in a yet unbid major by responder after 2♦ shows a stopper not a suit, because with a major suit responder can not be strong enough to bid 2♦ first.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

A simple approach is to play something analogous what you play over a precision 2♣ opening.

2♦ is forcing but not necessarily game forcing and with the difference that a bid in a yet unbid major by responder after 2♦ shows a stopper not a suit, because with a major suit responder can not be strong enough to bid 2♦ first.

Would opener's 2M rebids then show 3-card suits?

[Kungsgeten]

Here's a suggestion, but it is pretty artificial so sorry. The level of artificiality and complexity depends on your other agreements, since you may already play some of these concepts:

 

1C--1D; 2C---

P = Too weak to act

2D = Multi, weak major or 16+ balanced

2H = 4+ clubs, 7--11

2S = 6+ diamonds, 7--11

2N = 13--15 balanced

3C = About 4--6 with some club support

 

Two line summary:

 

Responder bids 2M Lissabon style with 7--11 unbalanced (clubs has priority). 2NT shows 13--15 bal.

A weak responder can pass, raise clubs or bid 2D multi, showing either a weak major or 16+ bal.

[mgoetze]

INV with which type? I think it's impossible to have stops in both major suits with a minor-oriented hand, wouldn't you bid 1NT with that most of the time? Not complaining about your answer but those were my original thoughts.

INV with the type that is trying to find out whether we have 25 HCP combined. I think checking for stoppers when we have 25 HCP is overrated (they might not find the lead, they might break 4-4, they might block...) but I seem to recall that we've disagreed on this already in the past. ;)

[gwnn]

INV with the type that is trying to find out whether we have 25 HCP combined. I think checking for stoppers when we have 25 HCP is overrated (they might not find the lead, they might break 4-4, they might block...) but I seem to recall that we've disagreed on this already in the past. ;)

Could you be a bit more specific? I know what invitational means. Partner can have 15-22, as mentioned. So we can have 25 HCP together with 3-9 HCP (with 10 we know we have it already). So do you mean 3-6 balanced? Or can it also have something like Kxx x QJxxxx xxx? Is this a hand in which you are not worried about a heart stop at all?

[gordontd]

deleted

[mgoetze]

Could you be a bit more specific? I know what invitational means. Partner can have 15-22, as mentioned. So we can have 25 HCP together with 3-9 HCP (with 10 we know we have it already). So do you mean 3-6 balanced? Or can it also have something like Kxx x QJxxxx xxx? Is this a hand in which you are not worried about a heart stop at all?

3-6 is too large, partner won't know what to do, and I don't want to stop in 2NT on a combined 18-count either. My thought was 5-6 but I would want to run a sim to find out the frequency of responder's various hand types in this situation before deciding. And yes, the given hand is one where I wouldn't want to worry too much about a heart stop. (BTW both opponents have had at least one chance to bid 1♥.)

[straube]

I think Kungsgeten was on the right track. Btw, I think 1C-1D, 2C as 15-22 is just a huge range. If you compare it to Precision 2C with a 10-15 range and promising 6+ clubs...

 

How about?

 

2D-a 6-cd major, 0-5

.....paradoxical advances

2H-5+D,7-11, 1-suited

.....2S-GF, relays for shape

.....2N-requests 3C for p/c

.....3C-inv

.....3D-inv

2S-4+ clubs, 7-11

.....2N-GI, f

2N-0-4 club raise

3C-5-6 club raise

etc-bal 13+ in steps?

 

I really don't like taking up so much room with the balanced 13+ but you have a lot of weaker hands to sort out.

[antonylee]

I also think 15-22 is just too wide... What about just 15-18 (this is what I used to play)? You can jump to 3C with 19-less than GF, possibly keeping responder's 3D over that as looking for a 4-4 major fit. Not great but at least it is not worse than "standard".

[gwnn]

I also think 15-22 is just too wide... What about just 15-18 (this is what I used to play)? You can jump to 3C with 19-less than GF, possibly keeping responder's 3D over that as looking for a 4-4 major fit. Not great but at least it is not worse than "standard".

3♣ should be a 6-card suit but maybe you can sell some of those 5-carders as balanced hands or bid 3♣ anyway, or open an overstrength 1♦ on 5-4. What were your continuations over 2C?

[rhm]

Would opener's 2M rebids then show 3-card suits?

This assumes that opener will rarely bypass a 4 card major when bidding 2♣, which is reasonable and in the Polish tradition (Mafia). This looks to me a simple but good approach.

If 1♣-1♦-3♣ shows a six card suit and a hand just short of forcing to game, it is important to understand that 1♣-1♦-2♣ must cover some strong, but difficult to describe unbalanced distributions and could be based on as little as 4 clubs when 18+ with longer diamonds.

Over 1♣-1♦-2♣ 2M by responder shows a weak hand and is not encouraging while 2♦ is the only force.

Opener bids a 3 card major only if opener has shortage or no half stopper in the other major, since responder can not have a 4 card major and enough to rebid a forcing 2♦.

 

For example if you hold something like ♠Ax ♥x ♦AJxxxx ♣AKQx I would probably rebid 2♣ hoping to follow up with 3♦ (diamonds at least as long as clubs).

If you hold (13)-5♦-4♣ 18+ you rebid 2♣ and if partner bids 2♦ you bid your 3 card major followed by 3♦ if possible.

Not ideal, but I do not see anything better.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[antonylee]

3♣ should be a 6-card suit but maybe you can sell some of those 5-carders as balanced hands or bid 3♣ anyway, or open an overstrength 1♦ on 5-4. What were your continuations over 2C?

Yes, strong hands with 5♣ were either treated as 6-carders or balanced hands.

Otherwise close to what Rainer suggests: 2M=weak, 2♦=art. F, 2N~7-8 bal.

I don't think we really ever discussed the non-weak options as they are exceedingly rare anyways but I guess a better (although still very simple) structure could be:

2♦=Staymanish signoff, or 13+; 2M=weak 5(6)M; 2N=7-8 bal with 2♣; 3♣ 7-8, fit; 3♦=nat, 7-11; higher=♣, 7-11.