Defence against defence against polish club?

[gwnn]

Straube are you seriously arguing that 13-31 is a better distribution between 1C and 1D than 28-24?? It stands to reason that lower openings should come up most often, if other things are equal. Of course, generally I do not lend a lot of credence to this "underloaded/overloaded" issue, but if you are going to talk about percentages only, at least do it right. Believing without wondering that 62% of the time responder bids 1D to 1C is also telling.

[straube]

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.

 

Thanks for running it. I tallied 100 hands looking at 12+ hcps that fit the parameters for 1C and got similar results. I put all GF bal into 2N and used 2M as 4-6 with 6+M. I didn't upgrade (or downgrade) any hands based on playing strength.

 

1D-44

1H-25

1S-17

1N-3

2C-3

2D-3

2H-1

2S-1

2N-3

 

which is a respectable distribution. Last night I tallied a mere 20 hands which seemed to confirm 60% for 1D.

 

Do you happen to have a hand generator you could share? Would save a lot of time.

[antonylee]

Do you happen to have a hand generator you could share? Would save a lot of time.

 

I have my own:

https://github.com/anntzer/redeal

 

The script I used for this study:

from collections import Counter
from redeal import *


resps = Counter()


def accept(deal):
   s = deal.south
   return (12 <= s.hcp <= 14 and balanced(s) and len(s.spades) < 5 and len(s.hearts) < 5 or
           15 <= s.hcp <= 17 and not balanced(s) and max(map(len, s)) == len(s.clubs) >= 5 or
           18 <= s.hcp)

def do(deal):
   n = deal.north
   #if n.hcp <= 6 or n.hcp <= 8 and len(n.spades) < 4 and len(n.hearts) < 4:
       #resps["1D"] += 1
   if n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.spades) >= 6:
       resps["2S"] += 1
   elif n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.hearts) >= 6:
       resps["2H"] += 1
   elif n.hcp <= 7:
       resps["1D"] += 1
   elif 4 <= len(n.hearts) > len(n.spades) or len(n.hearts) == len(n.spades) == 4:
       resps["1H"] += 1
   elif 4 <= len(n.spades) >= len(n.hearts):
       resps["1S"] += 1
   #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n):
       #resps["1N"] += 1
   #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11:
       #resps["1D"] += 1
   elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n):
       resps["1N"] += 1
   elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11:
       resps["1D"] += 1
   elif n.hcp >= 12 and balanced(n):
       resps["2N"] += 1
   elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) >= len(n.clubs):
       resps["2D"] += 1
   elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) < len(n.clubs):
       resps["2C"] += 1
   else:
       print(n)

def final(n_tries):
   print(resps)

 

Comment and uncomment accordingly to switch between WJ05 and "Canape Polish club", whatever it means.

 

Run as "python -mredeal -n10000 filename.py".

[rhm]

My responses to my variant of Polish Club show roughly the following frequencies :

 

1♦: 46%

1♥: 24.5%

1♠: 21%

1NT: 3.3%

2♣: 1.8%

2♦: 1.9%

2NT: 1.5%

 

I did not bother with preemptive hands. They all went into 1♦. So the 1♦ is a bit less frequent.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[antonylee]

On another topic...

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.

 

I know (think?) Zel also plays a structure where 1M is NF. I guess that means ~0-9(10)? How useful is that? Most of the time if you have a fit you will be bumped to 2M anyways by the opponents and if you don't have one, 1M may or may not be better than 1N (yes, probably you'll save a couple of undertricks on a few 12-0 hands but even then...?) And PC will also get you to 1M, it's just going to be opener's better major instead.

[straube]

On another topic...

 

 

I know (think?) Zel also plays a structure where 1M is NF. I guess that means ~0-9(10)? How useful is that? Most of the time if you have a fit you will be bumped to 2M anyways by the opponents and if you don't have one, 1M may or may not be better than 1N (yes, probably you'll save a couple of undertricks on a few 12-0 hands but even then...?) And PC will also get you to 1M, it's just going to be opener's better major instead.

 

Well, I wouldn't want to play that for PC. I was trying to make the point that very different approaches would be optimum for a club known to be strong vs a club known to be weak. If the club can be strong or weak, you have to have a compromise structure which is not optimum for either one.

[antonylee]

Coming back to the simulation issue: I would say that in practice, I would guess 1C-1D auctions were less than 45% (well, I haven't played PC for more than 2 years so it's just a guess) -- likely because on most weak hands, lefty will have overcalled before you get to bid (in practice in the US most play a standard defense against PC, essentially treating it as a short club). I would argue that this is something that should be taken into account in all these simulations -- but the wide-ranging styles of overcalls makes this difficult to simulate.

 

Perhaps we should come up with some "standard overcall rules" for sims? Could be useful for DD sims too.

[awm]

The reason I think Polish Club is a bad system has very little to do with the frequency charts of which Straube is so fond. The problems I see with the method generally come down to the following:

 

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

 

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit. After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

 

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts? Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

 

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

 

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances from very good players using these methods.

[Kungsgeten]

Now I haven't played Polish club, but Swedish Club (11-13 NT or 17+, but not 20-21 NT) is a similar style, so I'll respond anyway ;)

 

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

 

In practice opener often has the strong hand, but ofcourse the opponents may be trap passing. Our 1♦ response show most 0-7 or 8-11 NT without a 4 card major (optional with 5 card minor), this response is not forcing. We play that a 1♥ rebid by opener is forcing for one round, which solves a lot of problems when holding the strong hand. This is also recommended by Martens in one of his books (a strong club system, but very inspired by Polish Club, where 1♣ is 15-17 balanced, 15+ with clubs or 18+ any). By using 1♥ as forcing you lose the ability to play 1♥ though. Our rebid structure:

 

1♣-1♦;

pass = 11-13 NT, usually no 4 card major

1♥ = a) (3)4♥ 11-13 NT b) GF with 5+♥ c) Balanced GF d) Extras unbalanced but not GF (about (19)20-22, Acolish)

1♠ = a) (3)4♠ 11-13 NT b) Any unbalanced hand with 4+♠, 17-19 c) 5♠332, 17-19

1NT = 17-19

2♣♦ = Unbalanced, 5+ suit, not 4♠, 17-19

2♥ = 5+♥, not 4♠, 17-19

2♠ = Natural GF

2NT = 22-24

3♣♦ = Natural GF, 3♦ denies 4 card major

3♥♠ = 4 card suit, 5+ diamonds, GF

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥--

1♠ = Natural 0-7, weak hand must pass

1NT = No major, 0-11, weak hand must pass

2♣ = 4+♥, 0-7, weak hand must bid 2♥

2♦♥ = 5+ suit, 5-7

2♠ = 6+♣, 5-7

 

Playing Polish I think something similar is possible, but the 15-17 hand with clubs is a problem.

 

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit. After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

 

Yes, it is bad. So is bidding after interference when playing strong club (but not as bad), and when having a very strong hand when playing natural (especially if we've opened with a 2+ club opening or similar). We play that the 17+ hand must act, which I think is the correct way to do it but sometimes this will lead to bad results ofcourse. 1♣-(1♠) is much easier. In my mind negative free bids is not the same thing as playing the two-level as "to play". A negative free bid should show about 8-12 if opener most of the time has 11-13 bal. With good support and a max, opener can raise and we'll bid game. Jumping to 3X should be GF vs the weak hand. This is a problem independent of Polish Club or not, if playing negative free bids.

 

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts? Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

 

18+ hands with 5+♦ seems to be a pain if playing Polish, and I guess this is the reason why some play the 1♦ opening as wide-range 11-21. Now a jump to 3♦ is a very strong hand. 1♣-1M; 2♦ is not reserved for hands with exactly 3 card support, it shows 3+ support. We play 1♣-1♠; 3♠ as 17-18 balanced with 4♠. The 2♦ support bid is not as good as playing relays, but works well otherwise. In normal Polish Club 1♣-1M; 2♣ is 15+ with clubs and forcing for one round. Our 1M response is game forcing vs the 17+ hand, and opener can not have an intermediate hand with clubs, so we use the following rebids:

 

1♣-1M;

1♠ = Natural, F1. 11-13 NT or 17+ 5+♠.

1NT = 11-13 NT

2♣ = 0-2 support, 17+ and both minors (at least 5-4) or a 5+ minor and 4 cards in the other major.

2♦ = 3+ support, 17+

2M = 11-13 NT with 4 card support

2♥ = 0-2 support, 5+♥ and 17+

2♠ = 0-2 support, good 6+♠ and 17+

2NT = 1-2 support, natural 17+

3♣♦ = 0-2 support, 6+ suit and no other 4+ suit, 17+

3M = 17-18 NT with 4 card support

Higher = Splinter, 17+ and 4 card support

 

This would probably be possible if playing Polish too, but the 2♣ rebid would have to cater for 15-17 and be able to stop below game which might be hard.

 

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

 

This is probably true, except for nebulous diamond hands in a strong club system where opener is not able to show his suit and responder can't act because opener can be balanced or have diamonds or even other stuff. There's some holes on routine hands in those methods too. It is possible that Polish Club has more holes though.

 

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances

from very good players using these methods.

 

Is Moscito really spread anywhere? Bidding enthusiasts seem to like it, but has it been played outside of Australia/New Zealand otherwise? The Poles sees Polish Club as a natural system, which it mostly is, but the system often get compared to more artificial methods. I would say that a strong club system is more artificial than Polish Club. I think that a reason that Precision is popular in America is that its basically American Standard converted into a strong club system: keep the majors 5+, keep the strong NT, make 1♣ strong and what do we have to adjust in order for it to be playable? This is also the way Precision is marketed in books about it: easy to adapt into if playing American Standard or 2/1.

[rhm]

The reason I think Polish Club is a bad system has very little to do with the frequency charts of which Straube is so fond.

Let's face it: There is no system, which does not have strengths and weaknesses.

With weaknesses I mean hands, which are handled much better by other systems.

 

Over my career as a Bridge player I was very much interested in bidding systems. I started with ACOL and then played Blue Club, Precision, a strong club system I developed myself.

In recent years I played mostly my variant of Polish club and Two-Over-One.

Since I have kept up with the English Bridge literature I think I know a little bit about the issues.

One thing I am convinced of is that five card majors have a slight advantage over four card majors.

 

About weaknesses of systems: If you are competent, to spot them is easy. But this does not tell you much. To know how serious they are in practice you have to play the system and battle with them.

 

Weaknesses of Natural systems like SAYC or Two Over One: Obviously the wide ranging opening one bids and the start of strong hands with 2♣.

Strong club systems like Precision overcome these problems. There must be a reason why in the US a far bigger portion of the top players prefer to play such a system compared to the general public.

 

Weaknesses of Precision: Typically nebulous diamond opening (not an issue in PC) and the requirement for an opening showing short diamonds in preference to an obstructive opening bid. The 2♣ opening is also somewhat dubious.

 

Now let's get to the individual problem issues you mention of PC:

 

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

This is one of those areas, which you identify immediately in theory.

Strangely enough I never get this issue at the table and I have now played PC for a long time.

My way of playing over 1♣-1♦ is that a 1♠ rebid guarantees at least 4 cards and when I am 12-14 with no four card major I will respond always 1♥, never 1♠.

I have never been caught in a penalty double. Sure, when I get a 1♥ rebid, I could theoretically be in an uncomfortable position.

I probably pass with xx KJx xxxx xxxx. Opener had stronger rebids like 2♥ over 1♣-1♦. Once in a blue moon I miss a good 4♥ with 23 HCP and a 5-3 fit between us, opener holding something like AQx AQxxx AKxx x. (By the way the contract is not cold)

Yes it happens, but that happens in standard too, maybe on different hands.

 

But let's assume you hold xx KJx xxxx xxxx in standard. Are you sure your position is so comfortable when you decide to respond over 1♥?

One can not discuss the disadvantages without the advantages. For example that you can often stop at 1NT in PC, where other play 2NT opposite a near yarborough.

 

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit.

what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length

 

As a rule:

 

Opener shows a strong hand by taking any action other than Pass and Double. (Some play that DBL also confirms the strong variant. I could also double with the weak hand in the passout situation, but will double only if weak, I hold a doubleton spade and four hearts).

Now tell me please why you are in a better position in standard after 1♣-(2♠)? The way most play, opener has promised 2+ cards in clubs, but opener does not even promise anything in the other suits.

In case of Polish club we know opener will have at least a doubleton in the majors if he is minimum. The information that opener has at least a doubleton spade if he doubles and is minimum is invaluable.

 

After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

You have a misconception about negative free bids, but you are not alone in that and you suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome.

Negative free bids are not forcing but they are constructive, not a sign-off. They are not purely competitive and they are designed for invitational hands. I will often make the same bid, you play as forcing as a negative free bid. The difference of course is that my partner can pass and I will know I will find at least a doubleton on the table.

If I have an invitational hand I either want to be in game or stop two levels below game. I do not like to stop in 2NT, 3♥ or 3♠. Chances that you can not make those contracts when partner does not fit your hand well are high. That's one reason why I like negative free bids at the two level.

If my points are poor and I think I have no chance for game opposite a balanced 12-14 even when opener has a good fit for my suit, I will decline to act immediately.

But I can be a bit more aggressive with negative free bids, knowing my partner can pass my bid and sometimes this is the only way to get to game easily on a distributional hand with a reasonable suit.

In fact opposite the strong variant negative free bids are forcing to game. The big difference to standard is that opener is not forced with a misfitting minimum.

 

Where I play most play standard with negative free bids, even though opener could be short in responders suit in standard. I know negative free bids have often a bad press in the US. I believe they are a strength not a weakness of the system.

 

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts?

Strong diamond hands are not handled particularly well in PC. It is a trade-off.

You want a strong raise available over 1♣-1M showing 18+ and at least 3 card support without taking up too much bidding space. These hands occur far more often than strong hands with long diamonds.

1♣-1M-2♦ is used for this purpose. It is called "fit reverse" and is game forcing and acts as a relay, responder describes his strength and distribution. It is a cornerstone of PC slam bidding.

Most use 1♣-1♠-3♥ to show 4♥ and longer diamonds and 18+ and a few bid 1♣-1♠-3♦ expecting responder showing a heart suit if at least 5-4 in the majors.

I admit that in standard you can reverse 1♦-1♠-2♥, which is better.

Nevertheless if in PC the bidding starts 1♣-1M-3♦ or 1♣-1M-2NT responder knows opener has less than three cards in his major, in standard the equivalent sequences 1♦-1M-3♦ and 1♣-1M-2NT do not give you this information.

Whatever your critic, if we do discard the fit reverse these problems would all disappear. But I have no doubt that the fit reverse convention is a big improvement overall to the system.

This last point clearly shows that it is dangerous to judge a system solely by its "holes". Almost all decisions in a system are tradeoffs.

 

Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

Here you show a lack of knowledge of the system..

As explained above PC uses the 2♦ (fit reverse) to show these hands. This is clearly a strong point of PC.

With regard to the 2NT rebid (1♣-1♠-2NT) there are some important differences:

Opener could have rebid a forcing 2♣ with a club suit. Rebidding 2NT was game forcing and denied already 3 cards in spades. There is no need for a check-back and responder can simply bid 3♠ with a six card suit.

The simplest way is for responder to bid a second suit with four cards or longer and a fit in another suit can be established easily since we are in a game forcing situation to start with. But you could also play 3♣ as an asking bid here, opener describing how his minors look like.

I can not see why PC is so much behind other systems here. The information available is different but not all to the advantage of other systems. For example there is no need for a Wolf sign-off in PC.

 

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

 

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances from very good players using these methods.

On the number of "holes" I disagree entirely.

However, when playing an ill defined system, like natural systems tend to be, it is almost always possible after the table action, to come up with a sequence leading to the right contract.

This baffled me for a long time when I grew up with ACOL. I often did not have the success at the table, people claimed for the system in their books. The holes in the system are hidden behind so called judgement calls.

While I am a big fan of judgement I can distinguish between judgement and guesswork.

The Polish club system is a system, which evolved from a very long tradition. Forerunner where systems like Vienna. Systems like Swedish Club are not unsimilar to Polish Club.

Like the vast majority I do not speak Polish and I believe any system not in the English domain starts at a big disadvantage.

Even nowadays there are few books in English about the system, most of them outdated, and when you read a book about play it invariably uses a "standard system" in the bidding.

Given these facts Polish club has a remarkable adherence outside of Poland.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

In my strong club system, a 1♠ response to the (unbalanced) 1♦ opening is non-forcing but otherwise a 1M response is always forcing. The current response structure to 1♣ is the classical 1♦ negative and others GF, although I am considering an alternative with 1♦ DN or ♥ and 1NT+ as SPs. 1M will remain forcing (GF) in either scheme of course.

 

The theoretical basis of the PC and SC systems is that a weak NT is a "one bid hand" and works well homogenously with the strong hand type, which by their nature are "2+ bid hands". It does not matter that the weak NT hands are so common because they are effectively being treated as a single hand type. SC tends to work slightly better in competition as the 15-17 ♣ hand is a little awkward; but the rarity of it tends to make this issue unimportant in practise. It is this basis that makes both systems effective. The downside for both is that they generally lose the efficiency and effectiveness of a pure strong club auction. It is a trade off but for me SC is one of the very best "off the shelf" non-natural systems around and PC is only a little behind. There is, after all, a reason why my system shares certain characteristics.

 

Where I would like to agree with Rainer is in the subject of system making for easier/better judgement. We have had that discussion before and it is my strong belief that more system can easily make judgement calls more accurate in many cases, and also that differences in system can change the types of judgement calls significantly to ones that will suit a particular player better than in natural.

 

I also take the point about PC material being in Polish. The partner with whom I played my strong club actually learnt Polish after we stopped because PC was the closest she could get to playing my method with anyone else and it was a necessary step to join those tables. As far as I know she still likes this type of system and my experience is that the majority that do try these structures tend to like them after a period of getting used to them. That is not surprising when they are based on sound theoretical rules and a generally efficient design.

 

Whether Rainer's tweaks improve the basic system I cannot say. I see advantages and also disadvantages, the biggest minus being that you are mixing 2 different types of "one bid hand" into 1♣. Most of all his system seems to be a development in the direction of AUC (with a strong NT) and I am not sure it should still even be classified as PC. As previously pointed out, there are alternative ways of tweaking PC that remain truer to the basic concept. Again, I would not like to say which variant is absolutely the ost effective without trying out each extensively. Even then, the chances are that the positives and negatives largely balance each other leaving basically a personal choice on which strengths to take and which weaknesses to leave.

[straube]

Just a general point, but I think it would be most helpful to contrast PC and SC systems. I don't want to defend natural systems to PC.

 

 

The theoretical basis of the PC and SC systems is that a weak NT is a "one bid hand" and works well homogenously with the strong hand type, which by their nature are "2+ bid hands". It does not matter that the weak NT hands are so common because they are effectively being treated as a single hand type. SC tends to work slightly better in competition as the 15-17 ♣ hand is a little awkward; but the rarity of it tends to make this issue unimportant in practise. It is this basis that makes both systems effective. The downside for both is that they generally lose the efficiency and effectiveness of a pure strong club auction. It is a trade off but for me SC is one of the very best "off the shelf" non-natural systems around and PC is only a little behind. There is, after all, a reason why my system shares certain characteristics.

 

As you've written, yours is fundamentally a SC system. Your club is a point or two shy of most Precision clubs and you don't clutter it with a weak NT.

 

I don't think a weak NT works well at all with the strong hand type. For many strong clubbers, 1C-1D is a disappointing response in that a GF has not been created, the partnership has announced only 16+ hcps and no suit information has been exchanged. We've had lots of discussions about how best to proceed such as 1M rebids natural and forcing or not, 1H as 20+ artificial, or 1H as Kokish.

 

After 1C-1D PC has a great deal more to sort out than strong club does. Not only can opener have minimum balanced, minimum short diamonds, and medium club hands, but responder can have many hands which exceed the 0-7 range typical of Precision. I don't really understand about the weak NT being 1-bid hands. After 1C-1D the 1-bid hands have to bid again and that takes away room from the strong hands.

 

Btw, has anyone noticed the embarrassment of riches after PC's 1C-1N (GI) when opener has 18+? When opener removes, the partnership has suddenly announced something like 29 hcps. Same idea for 1C-2m where opener may know the combined assets are upwards of 30 hcps. Nice to know, but fit/GF early in the bidding and extras later in the bidding is a better use of system.

 

I think the auctions can be difficult, too, after 1C-1M, 2D when opener learns that only a 4-3 fit has been found. That's wasted effort and there isn't a lot of room to sort out responder's pattern.

 

 

Opener shows a strong hand by taking any action other than Pass and Double. (Some play that DBL also confirms the strong variant. I could also double with the weak hand in the passout situation, but will double only if weak, I hold a doubleton spade and four hearts).

 

So after 1C (2S) P P

 

with Qxxx x AKJx AKQx you rebid 2N?

 

with xx AKJx Kxx Qxxx you double?

[Kungsgeten]

straube: By SC I think Zelandakh meant Swedish Club, not Strong Club.

[rhm]

 

So after 1C (2S) P P

 

with Qxxx x AKJx AKQx you rebid 2N?

 

with xx AKJx Kxx Qxxx you double?

Yes, though pass is an option with the first hand, particularly if opponents are vulnerable.

I would reopen with a double on the seond one

 

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

straube: By SC I think Zelandakh meant Swedish Club, not Strong Club.

 

Hm. The last I knew/thought he was using a weak NT opening such that 1C-1D was like 15-17. Zelandakh, what's your system?

[straube]

The following is/was the basis for Zelandakh's system. I would group it into strong club because the club promises 15+...

 

 

1♣ = 15+ natural or 15+ balanced or 18+ any

1♦ = (9)10-17, 4+ diamonds, unbal

1♥ = (9)10-17, 5+ hearts, unbal

1♠ = (9)10-17, 5+ spades, unbal

1NT = (11)12-14

2♣ = 10-14, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4M

[Zelandakh]

Sorry for the confusion. My system is a strong/forcing club with a weak NT - 1♣ is 15+nat, 15+ bal or 18+ any. Because of the 3-way structure it has some similarities to PC but in truth plays much more similarly to a strong club system in practise. Kungsgeten is correct though that I was using SC as an abbreviation for Swedish Club. I was comparing PC with SC and other members of this family of systems.

 

The point is that if there is no interference there is enough space to unwind everything so the mixture of hands built into the 1♣ opening and 1♦ response are not so important; whereas if the opps interfere Responder can safely bid their own suit knowing that Opener either has residual support or a big hand. And more, that the informtation as to which suit Responder holds is actually useful to the big hand type. This is what I mean by a "one bid hand"; it is a well-known concept in bidding theory and the fundamental basis of SC. If you think this concept is wrong then SC is definitely not the system for you, and by extension also PC.

[Zelandakh]

We cross-posted. That is indeed the opening bid structure straube and as previously written you are correct that it is more strong club than Polish. Note that I essentially still treat a weak NT as a "one bid hand" though; it is just that this time it is on its own as an opening bid. It is also easy to see that the 2♣ opening is a weakness, mixing a one bid type (weak club one-suiter) with a 2-bid type. It is a compromise but the opening remains cramped even after I put some effort in to creating transfer responses and some additional gadgets. In return the other unbalanced openings are super and the 1♣ structure presents certain advantages (you can relay with 18+ and break relays with 15-17, and the extra strength from Relayer gives Responder more freedom with extras). It is all a compromise, same with every system.

[rhm]

The theoretical basis of the PC and SC systems is that a weak NT is a "one bid hand" and works well homogenously with the strong hand type, which by their nature are "2+ bid hands". It does not matter that the weak NT hands are so common because they are effectively being treated as a single hand type.

 

Whether Rainer's tweaks improve the basic system I cannot say. I see advantages and also disadvantages, the biggest minus being that you are mixing 2 different types of "one bid hand" into 1♣. Most of all his system seems to be a development in the direction of AUC (with a strong NT) and I am not sure it should still even be classified as PC.

Polish club has many variants.

 

If we look at the one-bid hands (12-14 HCP) most variants of Polish club put into 1♣ we find:

 

a) all balanced hand with no 5 card major. The only hands I add are 5-4-2-2 hands containing 5 clubs and a 4 card major

b) three suited hands containing diamond shortage 4♠=4♥=1♦=4♣ and 4♠=4♥=0♦=5♣. The only hands I add are 5-4-3-1 hands containing 5 clubs and a singleton diamond.

 

So I can not see what I am really mixing here.

In fact I could well argue since I am taking out balanced hand with diamond length, I make the one-bid hands more homogenous (Only possible 5 card suit: clubs, 2-4 cards in each major, at most 3 cards in diamonds).

 

So I have difficulties getting your point.

 

While I agree that one-bid hands and more-bid hands is at the heart of the whole philosophy behind Polish club (different to your philosophy or AUC mixing 15-17 balanced hands with 18+ hands) there are limits:

 

Responder uses negative doubles over interference. The corollary is that the weak hand type should reopen if short in intervenors suit, not least to be able to penalize intervenor.

I see little point in letting intervenor play unmolested at the one-level, only because I am in the 12-14 range in the balancing seat and neither do I like putting pressure on responder to act with modest values when nothing fits, because he has to fear he will not get protected by opener otherwise. One-bid and more-bid hands are not absolute. They are subject to bidding level.

I am still playing Bridge.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

Basically your club promises either 2+ for any suit other than diamonds or a strong hand. So more homogeneous than traditional Polish at the cost of some freedom making NFBs in diamonds. On a side note,

I'm surprised that your raise of clubs is not a 7-10 sort of raise; it would be welcome to either hand type and would be a frequent winner for finding an early fit.

 

Just making sure, but by "one bid hands" we're meaning that after 1C (overcall) 2L is a NFB which opener will pass with the weak NT? Is that (more or less) the main attractive feature of this system?

[gwnn]

One bid hand means that you're usually happy with giving your partner one piece of info and letting him decide. Your auction is one example of the principle but opener is allowed to raise with a maximum and a fit. david_c wrote on this: http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.nl/2007/01/dbt2-one-bid-or-two.html?m=1

 

edit: Indeed the whole series is a great instructive read, I just reread it all in one sitting. Come back david_c :(

[antonylee]

Side note re: NFB: you can also play transfers after overcalls, which I did, and is arguably better (with a WNT you complete or -rarely- superaccept).

[rhm]

Basically your club promises either 2+ for any suit other than diamonds or a strong hand. So more homogeneous than traditional Polish at the cost of some freedom making NFBs in diamonds.

Correct, but the description fits Polish club as well, including the fact that opener may be weak with shortage in diamonds. There is no difference here between my variant and for example WJ05.

Maybe I am slightly more likely to hold a singleton diamond, but it is not frequent even in my variant.

 

On a side note, I'm surprised that your raise of clubs is not a 7-10 sort of raise; it would be welcome to either hand type and would be a frequent winner for finding an early fit.

If opponents interfere that is what a 2♣ means.

But in an uncontested auction I prefer that responder first limits himself by bidding 1♦ first and that 2♣ is game forcing.

It makes slam investigation so much easier and a club raise is not very preemptive and might in fact preempt a strong opener.

 

Just making sure, but by "one bid hands" we're meaning that after 1C (overcall) 2L is a NFB which opener will pass with the weak NT? Is that (more or less) the main attractive feature of this system?

answered below by GWNN

 

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

One bid hand means that you're usually happy with giving your partner one piece of info and letting him decide. Your auction is one example of the principle but opener is allowed to raise with a maximum and a fit. david_c wrote on this: http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.nl/2007/01/dbt2-one-bid-or-two.html?m=1

 

edit: Indeed the whole series is a great instructive read, I just reread it all in one sitting. Come back david_c :(

 

Found this...

For the two-bid hands, homogeneity is not so important: it is possible to have different rebids showing different hand types. The Swedish 1C opening is an excellent example of this. The one-bid hands are very homogeneous, consisting of a single hand type (11-13 HCP balanced), whereas there is much more variety in the two-bid hands: any shape is possible for the strong option. Many other well-designed multi-way bids work the same way: they have homogeneity in their one-bid hands, but it does not extend to their two-bid hands.

 

One problem with this sort of opening bid is a lack of flexibility. The different hand types are very clearly separated. So, if opener has a hand which is supposed to be treated as a two-bid hand, it is important to follow up by actually making the rebid which shows the hand. Unfortunately, as we know, not all hands are "pure" examples of one-bid or two-bid hands. A balanced 17-count is certainly not a pure two-bid hand. But if you open a two-way 1C, then this hand is treated as belonging to the strong variant. So if you are unlucky enough to have LHO overcall 2S, say, and responder raise to 3S, you will be in a difficult position. If you pass then partner will play you for a weak balanced hand, but there is no safety in making a free bid either. The lack of homogeneity between the different hand types is the problem here.

 

So this sort of bid works best when the "strong" hand types are genuine two-bid hands - as pure as possible. Ideally, they should either have overwhelming high-card strength (20+ HCP should ensure that the hand is a two-bid hand) or be very distributional - though in the latter case you need to be careful that you can actually describe the shape well with your rebid. (Single-suited hands are best for this.) In practice, most systems will have to allow some dubious hands into their strong options because of a lack of better places to put them, but clearly the strong option in our favourite example (17+ HCP, any shape) is already rather light, and anything weaker than this would be really asking for trouble.

 

I think he's paying a compliment to Swedish for having homogeneity in its one-bid hands (11-13 balanced) as opposed to PC including 15-17 club hands. Later he cites the difficulty including strong hands with weak hands...which is (as we've been discussing) it's not always safe for the strong hands to act later. He seems to be favoring a 2-way bid that might be some weak homogenous hands (11-13 bal?) with some much stronger hands (20+ bal or single-suited)...which is not what PC does.

 

awm went after this 1-bid hand idea by ridding his limited openers of 6+m and 5m/5m patterns such that 1D is 11-13 balanced or 10-15 3-suited. At worst it can be a 5m440. Responder can usually assume at least a stiff in support of his suit. He can then use NFBs or jump to game in competitive (or uncontested) auctions with an expectation of tolerance for responder's suit and without fear of depriving a strong hand of bidding room.

[gwnn]

. He seems to be favoring a 2-way bid that might be some weak homogenous hands (11-13 bal?) with some much stronger hands (20+ bal or single-suited)...which is not what PC does.

That part was just an example of how you could make the hypothetical opener 1♣=10-13 balanced work better. Indeed, 1♣=10-13 bal/20+ any is a definite improvement on 1♣=10-13 bal specifically. He is (or was at the time or writing anyway) a big fan of Polish club actually if you read his blog a bit.

 

About the 15-17 hands with clubs, yes, it's not so clear whether they're one-bid or two-bid hands. In general it seems to be best to use your judgement on whether you treat it as 12-14 balanced or 18+ depending on how the bidding goes in competition (in constructive bidding they are very easy to sort out actually). It's a bit like what david_c says, you open 1♣, hoping to describe that you have clubs and your range or clubs and maybe your second suit, but then you could be shut out like say Kxx x AJxx AKxxx (assuming you don't open 1♦ which some PC sources recommend) if it goes 1♣-(1♠)-p-(2♠) you are gonna pass because your hand looks more like a 12-14 NT than a 15-17 club hand. If your majors were reversed, you could x (although it's a bit of an overbid).