Defence against defence against polish club?

[gwnn]

I had these two come up recently:

 

1)

1♣-(2♠)-x-p

?

 

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

 

2)

2♣-p-2♦-2♠

p-p-x

 

this is takeout, right?

[straube]

I had these two come up recently:

 

1)

1♣-(2♠)-x-p

?

 

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

 

I'm familiar with but haven't played Polish Club.

 

I would think that 1C (2S) X would promise invitational+ strength so that 1C (2S) X P 3C would be forcing if it showed 15-17 with clubs. Perhaps you could play that opener's 2N rebid is Lebensohl and bids at the 3-level are natural and forcing. After a Polish 1C opening, you have a lot to unwind.

 

 

2)

2♣-p-2♦-2♠

p-p-x

 

this is takeout, right?

 

I think it would be takeout if opener's dbl of 2S is takeout. That's a partnership agreement. I like that after responder has shown (here with 2D) presumably invitational+ strength that double by either hand is penalty. The higher the level of interference, the more penalty makes sense.

[Kungsgeten]

In your first example, I think that 2NT should be scrambling, and 3C would be (usually) a five card suit and weak NT. I also think that 3H should be forcing, with weak NT and hearts then bid 2NT, usually planning to support hearts later. If you play that 1C denies 4+ diamonds if balanced (or perhaps only denies 5 diamonds) then 3D should be forcing. With this structure you are in a tough spot with the medium club hand though, if you can not afford to force game vs a take-out double (which I think you should, or at least 4C).

[awm]

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

[antonylee]

Actually Jassem treats explicitly this auction in his WJ2005 book (See "How do you show the middle variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" section.): 2N doesn't show a stopper and covers all WNTs; 3C is indeed 15-17 clubs. As he says, at least you get overcaller on lead.

 

PS: I just saw that Jassem now also has WJ2015; anyone knows what's new in it?

[gwnn]

Ah right he does cover this in the "how to show the medium variant of the 1♣ opening" in the WJ2010 book (probably that's what you mean?). Just where you'd expect to see discussion on 1♣-(2♠)-x-p; ? :) I like the book but it's quite frustrating to look up something quickly. It's closer to a postmodern novel in first person than a book describing a bridge system.

[Zelandakh]

Ah right he does cover this in the "how to show the medium variant of the 1♣ opening" in the WJ2010 book (probably that's what you mean?). Just where you'd expect to see discussion on 1♣-(2♠)-x-p; ? :) I like the book but it's quite frustrating to look up something quickly. It's closer to a postmodern novel in first person than a book describing a bridge system.

Profi tip: Go through the book and write all of the sequences out in a proper system write-up style containing every sequence given. Then you can go back and fill in the gaps and you have a perfect document for looking everything up.

[gwnn]

Yes but that would require effort... Plus I wrote two versions of WJ from scratch with two different partners, so I'm not gonna write another one. Whining is the best solution in this case (as it is indeed in most cases for me).

[rhm]

I had these two come up recently:

 

1)

1♣-(2♠)-x-p

?

 

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

I disagree with Jassem on this in contested auctions.

For me this is just a takeout double and a suit response at a minimum level may be made with a minimum opening.

If you want to show a strong hand you either cuebid or jump.

With intermediate hands and clubs use your judgment. Without anything useful in spades it will often be prudent to bid 3♣. So a 3♣ response can be wide ranging.

(In some versions of PC if you open 1♦ with four, diamond bids can be used to show the strong variant artificially, but this requires discussions and prior agreements)

For me 2NT is natural (12-14) in this sequence.

Responder is essentially unlimited and it may be important that opener declares notrump.

Bidding 2NT with xx Axx Kxx KQTxx as Jassem suggests is asking for trouble.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

Just what the Americans said about the Italian methods when they were beaten time and again.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

 

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

[straube]

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

 

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

 

Maybe you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT. The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

 

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

 

Again, it would be useful if you tallied a couple hundred hands or so and shared your results with us.

[straube]

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

 

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

 

Maybe if you're interested you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT. The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

 

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

 

I like having a 10-15 range for 1M because it allows for frequent 1M-4M auctions without undue fear of missing slam. I understand there's divided opinion about the optimum 1M range.

[gwnn]

Actually Jassem treats explicitly this auction in his WJ2005 book (See "How do you show the middle variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" section.): 2N doesn't show a stopper and covers all WNTs; 3C is indeed 15-17 clubs. As he says, at least you get overcaller on lead.

 

PS: I just saw that Jassem now also has WJ2015; anyone knows what's new in it?

I ordered the new book. It's true that my Polish is nonexistent but I couldn't resist. I will answer when I get the book.

[rhm]

Maybe if you're interested you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT.

Contrary to what many believe, this is not inherent to the Polish 1♣ opening. That depends more what restrictions you put on the 1♦ opening, for which there is no agreement in PC.

If you insist 1♦ to be unbalanced you are right, but many believe this to be a wonderful idea. For example Transfer Walsh is commonly played with an unbalanced 1♦ opening and is now getting quite popular in expert circles. In this system opening frequency is even more skewed.

If you only require that 1♦ should show 4 cards (as for example in WJ05) you are wrong, because the balanced 12-14 notrump hands are essentially shared between 1♣ and 1♦ depending on whether there is a 4 card diamond suit or not.

 

The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

Here I agree. My 2♣ opening guarantees six cards in clubs.

I open hands with 4-1 in the majors and 3 diamonds and 5 clubs with 1♦ and have not found this to be a problem in practice.

 

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

One can tell that you must have had little practical exposure to Polish club.

When opponents interfere over 1♣, responder always assumes the weak variant until proven otherwise. Responder reacts very similar as if partner had opened a weak notrump and next hand interfered. Responder is in fact usually in a much more comfortable position compared to strong clubbers. It is quite simple.

Opener's rebid tends to tell immediately whether he has 12-14 or 18+ (The 15-17 club variant is rare). This is somewhat unusual at first, but it works quite well once you get used to it. Polish clubbers are somewhere in between strong club systems and natural systems where opener could have any hand between 11 and 21. But even strong clubbers can have difficulties and do not know whether opener has 16 HCP or 21 HCP after a preempt by an opponent.

 

I like having a 10-15 range for 1M because it allows for frequent 1M-4M auctions without undue fear of missing slam. I understand there's divided opinion about the optimum 1M range.

One could argue the same way as you do above.

Limiting the strength of 1M opening too much reduces their frequencies and underloads them at the cost of other openings.

 

I once tabulated the frequencies of openings for my variant of Polish club (4 card diamond suit) and the result was:

 

1♣ 28.7% (18+ HCP: 12.4%, 12-14: 14.1% and 15-17 clubs: 2.2%)

1♦ 24.7% (4+ reasonable diamonds, unless (14)3♦5♣)

1♥ 15.0%

1♠ 15.4%

1NT 12.7% (can have a 5 card major)

2♣ 3.5% (six cards in clubs)

 

That does not look to me as if 1♣ is overloaded. .

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

If you insist 1♦ to be unbalanced you are right

Not necessarily. Another modern variant that one sees sometimes is for the 1♦ opening to be unbalanced but also wide-ranging, exactly as in the Transfer Walsh methods you outlined. These diamond hands then do not need to be accounted for after 1♣.

 

Here I agree. My 2♣ opening guarantees six cards in clubs.

I open hands with 4-1 in the majors and 3 diamonds and 5 clubs with 1♦ and have not found this to be a problem in practice.

I am interested whether you open 1♦ on 3 also in the 15-17 range. If so then your 15-17 club variant is presumably also 6+, right? To make this work you are presumably also giving up a 2♦ opening for mini-Roman, which is certainly an additional disadvantage to weigh against the benefits. If you do not find a significant difference between the short diamond and the unbalanced one then I would suggest you were not making the most from the latter. It is not so much that 3+ produces a problem though, so much that the unbalanced one creates opportunities, so perhaps this is what you mean here.

[straube]

Hi Rainer,

 

I'm interested in Zelandakh's questions.

 

Do you use 2D for the 3-suited short diamond hands?

 

Have you tallied your responses to your 1C opening? How often do you respond 1D?

[glen]

It would be interesting to play 2D as:

 

- 11-14

- three-suited

- exactly 5 clubs

- 0, 1, or 3 Ds

- 1, 3, or 4 in each major

[Zelandakh]

You have been reading too many of Ken's posts, Glen!

[rhm]

I am interested whether you open 1♦ on 3 also in the 15-17 range. If so then your 15-17 club variant is presumably also 6+, right? To make this work you are presumably also giving up a 2♦ opening for mini-Roman, which is certainly an additional disadvantage to weigh against the benefits. If you do not find a significant difference between the short diamond and the unbalanced one then I would suggest you were not making the most from the latter. It is not so much that 3+ produces a problem though, so much that the unbalanced one creates opportunities, so perhaps this is what you mean here.

Currently I do not do this for the 15-17 range and I see little need because the scenario is quite different when you open 1♣ instead of 2♣.

Using 2♦ for mini-Roman looks to me too high a price to pay.

One reason I dislike opening 2♣ with five is that you may miss a 4-4 fit in the majors or get too high because responder will try for it or a limited responder does not know what to do with shortage in clubs.

But opening this distribution with 1♣ when 15-17 is okay, because you will always explore your major suit 4-4 fit first.

So having only 3 cards when opening 1♦ is quite rare, You are always in the 12-14 range and either 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣ or 4♠=1♥=3♦=5♣

 

Hi Rainer,

 

I'm interested in Zelandakh's questions.

 

Do you use 2D for the 3-suited short diamond hands?

 

Have you tallied your responses to your 1C opening? How often do you respond 1D?

I use standard Polish two opening: 2♦ as a weak two in a major and 2♥ and 2♠ as Polish two suiters.

I see little problem opening 1♣ with 3 suited hands short in diamond. The only shortage you can always have when you hold the weak variant of 1♣ is in diamonds. But responder knows this and competing in diamonds over interference with a five card diamond suit when responder is limited is not that important. We can not have a great fit in diamonds since opener would open 1♦ with 4 cards in the variant I play.

 

My responses to 1♣ are also fairly standard.

 

I have not tallied my responses to 1♣ but I play the following natural responses to 1♣ similar to WJ05:

 

1♦: 0-6 if responder holds a major suit. Without a four card major it can be balanced 0-10 HCP or unbalanced (minors) up to 11 HCP.

1M is 7+ HCP with a four card or longer major

1NT is 10(+)-12, invitational opposite a weak notrump. With 12-14 opener either rebids 3NT or passes. This allows the partnership to stop in 1NT if opener declines the invitation.

2♣ 5+ clubs, can contain a four card major, game forcing

2♦ 5+ diamonds, no four card major, game forcing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Kungsgeten]

rhm: So 1C can be 12+ hcp and 4-4-0-5? With 4414 and 15-17 you open 1NT?

[rhm]

rhm: So 1C can be 12+ hcp and 4-4-0-5? With 4414 and 15-17 you open 1NT?

I open 1♣ in both cases. In fact doing anything else with 4-4 in the majors and short diamonds seems to me a distortion unless you use a specialized opening showing this hand-type.

Where do you anticipate problems?

 

In essence my 1♣ opening shows:

 

1) 12-14 balanced usually without 4 reasonable diamonds or a semi-balanced 5422 distribution with 5 clubs and a 4 card major.

2) any 18+ HCP

3) long clubs 15-17

4) Threesuiter short in diamonds 12-17 with no 5 card major.

 

1) and 2) is by far the most common.

A reopening double by opener could only be ambiguous if opponents interfere in diamonds. It could be 2) or 4)

 

When I said responder reacts to 1♣ interference the same way you do over interference of a weak notrump, I meant responder assumes opener holds 12-14 and can be assured in this case that opener has no shortage except possibly in diamonds, which I consider no big deal, since the money is on the majors.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Kungsgeten]

Where do you anticipate problems?

 

Mostly curious since I play Swedish Club and our 1♣ opening is 11-13 NT (or 4414) or 17+ and 2♣ is 12-16 with 5+♣. We've discussed how to make the 2♣ opening better, and I guess the most obvious thing to do is like you, but I'm not quite sure of including short diamond hands in 1♣, especially not in the 14-16 range (our 1NT opening range). For now we'll stick with the 2♣ opening.

 

I think the Polish Club response scheme to 1♣ handles your structure okay, since 1♣-1♦ is bid with most non-GF minor-suited hands. We use 1♣-1NT as transfer to clubs (8+ hcp) and 1♣-2♣ as transfer to diamonds (8+ hcp) where opener is supposed to accept the transfer with the 11-13 hand. We've accepted that once in a blue moon we'll be stuck in a 5-1 fit when opener is 4414 and responder transfers to diamonds and pass, but including more short diamond hands in 1♣ will make this more frequent. The same is true if the opponents interfere.

[straube]

I once tabulated the frequencies of openings for my variant of Polish club (4 card diamond suit) and the result was:

 

1♣ 28.7% (18+ HCP: 12.4%, 12-14: 14.1% and 15-17 clubs: 2.2%)

1♦ 24.7% (4+ reasonable diamonds, unless (14)3♦5♣)

1♥ 15.0%

1♠ 15.4%

1NT 12.7% (can have a 5 card major)

2♣ 3.5% (six cards in clubs)

 

That does not look to me as if 1♣ is overloaded. .

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I think it is. Here's a rough estimate of Precision openings...

1♣ 15%

1♦ 31%

1♥ 11%

1♠ 11%

1NT 15%

 

so these players (by comparison) use 1C almost half as less. They might do so because 1) strong hands are more important 2) 1C has to handle every

possible pattern and this is difficult enough without having to also describe additional point ranges outside of strong and 3) 1C is forcing and

because partner cannot pass 1C (like he can 1D for example) more space is needed than for non-forcing openings.

 

More important is what is revealed by responses to 1C (why I asked yours). Some kind of canape Polish Club reported the following frequencies...

(http://bridgemaniacs.blogspot.com/2010/06/opening-bid-frequencies.html)

 

1D-62%

1H-8%

1S-8%

1N-8%

etc

 

Its 1D response netted higher than would be true for Precision. Maybe your responses are not so lop-sided. A high number of 1D responses is not good. Lots of 1C openings and lots of 1D responses...and not much is really known thereafter except that opener has 12+ hcps. The next forcing bid available is 2D?

 

A second concern is that the 1H and 1S responses are probably similar in frequency and this is also not good. Contrast this to...

 

IMPrecision responses to 1C

1D-47%

1H-22%

1S-16%

1N-7%

etc

 

or Meckwell Lite

1D-55% ?

1H-20+%

 

I think the reason for this is that the more room responder takes up, the more responder will get in the way of opener when he has the "wrong" hand type.

For example, if opener were known to have an intermediate balanced or club hand, one might arrange the responses as...

 

P-to play

1D-artificial invitational+

1H-natural, not forcing

1S-natural, not forcing

 

which is very different from most club structures.

 

One can tell that you must have had little practical exposure to Polish club.

When opponents interfere over 1♣, responder always assumes the weak variant until proven otherwise. Responder reacts very similar as if partner had opened a weak notrump and next hand interfered. Responder is in fact usually in a much more comfortable position compared to strong clubbers. It is quite simple.

Opener's rebid tends to tell immediately whether he has 12-14 or 18+ (The 15-17 club variant is rare). This is somewhat unusual at first, but it works quite well once you get used to it. Polish clubbers are somewhere in between strong club systems and natural systems where opener could have any hand between 11 and 21. But even strong clubbers can have difficulties and do not know whether opener has 16 HCP or 21 HCP after a preempt by an opponent.

 

Yeah, I've never played PC. I've read that many are attracted to using a club that doesn't announce a strong hand and doesn't encourage frivolous intervention. If using a multi-club creates problems for an uncontested auction, it doesn't seem worth that advantage to me. In any case, when opponents intervene, and especially at higher levels, I'd much rather have delivered the "strong" message than not. 1C (2S) and responder can take action with roughly an 8 count but can't without roughly 12 if opener may have only a weak NT. I think that's a big difference. After 1C (2S) P P opener can easily be stitched in PC if holding an awkward shape, particularly with a spade holding. Bidding with Qxxx x AKxx AKQx could easily be wrong and yet responder could have a 10 ct. Playing strong club there isn't the same kind of pressure to reopen this.

 

You know, your openings seem like they've been influenced a bit by modern Precision openings (2C promises 6 clubs and 1D can be 1435 or 4135). You could choose to open 1M with 11-17 if you preferred and then the main difference between what you play and Precision would be your choice to reveal (usually) 4+ diamonds or whether opener has a strong hand.

[antonylee]

1D-62%

1H-8%

1S-8%

1N-8%

etc

 

I'm fairly sure his numbers are wrong. Using the WJ95 structure (1D=0-6 any, 7-8 no 4cM, 9-11 unbal minor(s); 1N=9-11), I get 1D~40%, 1H~26%, 1S~23%, 1N~4%, 2m~1% each. Depending on what you use for 2M (strong in standard but I assume some play it as weak) the numbers will change a little bit, I also ignored the ~3% bal GFs which should get split between 1D and 2N (depending on right-siding issues).

 

From the blog description, which uses slightly different point ranges, I get 1D~46%, 1H~22%, 1S~19%, 1N~6%, 2suit~1% each -- still pretty far from his results.