Polish/Dutch Club?

[nullve]

That makes sense, though I don't like the structure much. There are two benefits to the 1♣-1M; 2♦ auction in the Polish/Dutch system - responder has shown 8+, and responder has shown a 4(+) major suit while denying some other hand types. I think that makes it much more efficient to have responder clarify their hand type opposite the really big hands. Incidentally, this is what the Odwrotka treatments do. Forcing 2♥ and then reserving 2♠ and up on the next round doesn't facilitate much cooperative bidding.

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the structure, either. They wasted an enormous amount of useful bidding space with their style of accepting transfer responses to 1♣. Just imagine what they could have done by accepting also on inverted NT hands with 2-3 M, as in the Swedish style of T-Walsh! That would free up the 1N rebid, for starters, and you could even play

 

1♣-[1M-1]; ?:

 

(...)

1N = "clubs"

2♣ = Odwrotka-like

...2♦ = 0-7, any

...2♥+: as over Odwrotka 2♦ in your system

(...)

 

.

 

It's interesting that they manage to fit clubs-diamonds reverses and 16-18 with long clubs in there. I am still unclear on the ladder for hands with long clubs though. Is it something like:

• (10)11-15 open 1♣ rebid 2♣
  
• 16-17 open 1♣ rebid 2♦ then over the forced 2♥ bid 3♣
  
• 18-20(21) open 1♣ rebid 3♣
  
• (21)22+ open 1♣ rebid 2♦ then over the forced 2♥ pick your poison
  

? This seems risky when responder can be weak with shape, to say the least. Especially since responder likely has short clubs, so will stretch to get into the auction on the first round on exactly the misfit hands.

In the 2002 version the ladder was probably something like this:

 

11-15: 1♣-1x; 2♣

16-18: 1♣-1x; 2♦-2♥; 3♣

19-21: 1♣-1x; 3♣

22+: 1♣-1x; 2♦-2♥; 3♦(ace ask)

 

I don't think they took any risk on the 16-21 hands that modern standard bidders don't already take, and they seem to have been better placed on the 19-21 opposite a misfitting nothing hands.

 

This heavily relies on opening 2♣ (or something else artificial at the 2-level) with 17-19 balanced. The whole NT ladder looks awkward to me, but it does free up 1♣-1[M-1]; 2NT. Maybe it would make sense in my system to swap the 2NT and 3♣ rebids, so that I can include GF hands with long clubs (bid again over partner's 3♣ signoff) at the cost of one step with the GF balanced 2NT. It might wrongside 3NT too often though.

Do you really need 1♣-1M; 3♦ as ~16-20, 5+C4D3M? I think I saw a top player (Zia?) on Vugraph using this sequence for the GF one-suiter recently. Seems like a much better use of the bid than Mini-Splinter!

 

I think it is a bad idea to reserve multiple different bids (pass, 2♠, 3♣, maybe others too) for hands too weak to go to game opposite a natural reverse. If this reverse can be very strong (would you bid this way with, say, a 1=4=2=6 20-count, assuming the rest of the system? Why (not)?) this can also be a bit of a blame transfer. And all your constructive auctions will now start at a higher level. It might be better to just take your lumps, pass/3♣ to play, everything else descriptive (not necessarily natural, 2NT artificial is probably great) and forcing. And sometimes you'll get to a bad 5-opposite-17 game, oh well.

I don't think the number of rebids (P(!),2♠,3♣(+?)) used on weak hands have necessarily changed compared to standard (P(?),2♠,2N). Well, there are many posters on BBF who think a reverse should be forcing in standard even if all Responder wanted was to escape from 1♣ (say, with xxxxx-xxx-Qxxx-x), but I'm certainly not one of them.

 

If this reverse can be very strong (would you bid this way with, say, a 1=4=2=6 20-count, assuming the rest of the system? Why (not)?) this can also be a bit of a blame transfer. And all your constructive auctions will now start at a higher level. It might be better to just take your lumps, pass/3♣ to play, everything else descriptive (not necessarily natural, 2NT artificial is probably great) and forcing. And sometimes you'll get to a bad 5-opposite-17 game, oh well.

I'm not sure I understand. I believe hands the GF hands that would rebid 2♦ are precisely the hands that would open a GF 2♦ in more recent versions of their system and that the reverses are limited by this and probably have a range very similar to reverses in standard systems.

 

Standard methods over reverses pretty much assume that Responder has positive values for his response. For example, if Responder could go through a lebensohl-like 2N to signal weakness with nothing (as opposed to ~5-6 hcp), Opener would not know when to bid on with a maximum. The INV+ relay is meant to solve this problem, although some might still find the ranges ~17-19 and ~20-22 uncomfortably wide.

[DavidKok]

I don't think they took any risk on the 16-21 hands that modern standard bidders don't already take, and they seem to have been better placed on the 19-21 opposite a misfitting nothing hands.

If I understand correctly, they do. Since 1♣ can be very strong you have to find a response even with garbage. The worst one is probably ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦xxxxx, ♣xx. Standard bidders will pass 1♣ by partner, comfortable in the knowledge there's no game. This ladder (and my own) can't get out below 3♣.

 

Do you really need 1♣-1M; 3♦ as ~16-20, 5+C4D3M? I think I saw a top player (Zia?) on Vugraph using this sequence for the GF one-suiter recently. Seems like a much better use of the bid than Mini-Splinter!

. I don't need it for anything in particular at all. In simulating I found that responder often faced an awkward choice on (my) 1♣*-1M; 2♦*-2M (5+); 3♦ (standard club-diamonds reverse). There's not a lot of bidding space left between the safety level of 3NT and the current bid, and opener hasn't shown significant extras in context (approximately 16-21). Also I couldn't think of a hand type that wants to volunteer bidding 3♦ without a(t least a partial) fit, precisely because responder is in such an awkward spot. Your suggestion of artificially using this for a clubs hand, freeing up my 1♣*-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♣ makes sense.

 

 

I don't think the number of rebids (P(!),2♠,3♣(+?)) used on weak hands have necessarily changed compared to standard (P(?),2♠,2N). Well, there are many posters on BBF who think a reverse should be forcing in standard even if all Responder wanted was to escape from 1♣ (say, with xxxxx-xxx-Qxxx-x), but I'm certainly not one of them.

2♠ is 5(+) and forcing for me on the auction 1♣-1♠; 2♥, and I prefer to play it that way even if 1♠ could be garbage (instead of Dutch Doubleton). The payoff to getting choice of game decisions right is much higher than that of stopping in 2♠ when it is right, and also aids with slam investigation.

I don't mind passing a reverse (or giving weak preference to opener's lower ranked suit). Opener is limited to a 21-count or so, and if responder judges that there's nothing more to look for then by all means call it quits. But it's another thing entirely to then dedicate multiple bids to finding the optimal partscore. It's relatively low gain (in IMPs) and low frequency, and does not deserve lots of bidding space.

 

I'm not sure I understand. I believe hands the GF hands that would rebid 2♦ are precisely the hands that would open a GF 2♦ in more recent versions of their system and that the reverses are limited by this and probably have a range very similar to reverses in standard systems.

 

Standard methods over reverses pretty much assume that Responder has positive values for his response. For example, if Responder could go through a lebensohl-like 2N to signal weakness with nothing (as opposed to ~5-6 hcp), Opener would not know when to bid on with a maximum. The INV+ relay is meant to solve this problem, although some might still find the ranges ~17-19 and ~20-22 uncomfortably wide.

Ah, my mistake. I thought the 2♦ was shape-showing, by failure to bid a natural reverse (but partly overlapping strength ranges). Some of the point remains though - since [1M-1] can be bid on a garbage hand the requirements for being GF or near-GF strength are higher. I wouldn't be surprised if slightly over strength natural reverses fare better when being shown as a reverse compared to being bid as an artifitial GF in that system.

3-point ranges are good enough. I just worry that we won't be able to set trumps and establish a game force at a comfortably low level if all decently-strong responders have to bid 2NT. What are the responses to this bid, and where does slam investigation begin?

[nullve]

2♠ is 5(+) and forcing for me on the auction 1♣-1♠; 2♥, and I prefer to play it that way even if 1♠ could be garbage (instead of Dutch Doubleton). The payoff to getting choice of game decisions right is much higher than that of stopping in 2♠ when it is right, and also aids with slam investigation.

 

[...]

 

3-point ranges are good enough. I just worry that we won't be able to set trumps and establish a game force at a comfortably low level if all decently-strong responders have to bid 2NT. What are the responses to this bid, and where does slam investigation begin?

I think the biggest problem with the structure

 

 

 

1♣-1♥; 2♥-?:

 

P: allowed (remember, Responder could have nothing)

2♠ = 5+ S, NF

...P: ~17-19, 2 S

...2N = usually ~20-22, F1

......3♣ = sign off

.........P = ~20-22, 2-S4H

.........(...)

.........3♥ = 5 H, stronger than if bid directly over 2♠

.........3♠ = ~20-22, 3 S

.........(...)

......3♦+ = NAT (and mostly) GF

...3♣ = ~ 17-19, no tolerance for S

...(...)

...3♥ = 5+ H, NF

...3♠ = ~17-19, 3 S

...(...)

2N = INV+ relay

...3♣ = ~17-19

......P = was INV only, C tolerance

......3♦ = GF relay

......(...)

...3♦+ = ~20-22, NAT

3♣ = 4 S, to play

(...)

 

 

is that Opener has no way of showing a sixth club naturally below 3N. But it's not that easy in standard, either. For example, even if 3♣ shows 6+ C over 1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠, if it's F1 (NF), then Opener cannot bid this way with a minimum (maximum) reverse.

 

So here's a more artificial structure:

 

1♣-1♥; 2♥-?:

 

P: allowed (remember, Responder could have nothing)

2♠ = 5+ S, NF

...P = MIN, 2 S

...2N = MAX, 4 H, F1

......3♣ = sign off

.........P = 2-S4H

.........(...)

.........3♠ = 3 S

.........(...)

......3♦ = GF relay

.........3♥ = 6+C4H

.........3♠ = 3 S

.........3N = 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL)

......(...)

...3♣ = MIN, 4 H, no tolerance for S

......P = < GF, C tolerance

......3♦ = GF relay

.........3♥ = 6+C4H

.........3♠: does not exist

.........3N = 5C4H (so 1435/0445)

......(...)

...3♦ = 6+C5H, F3♥

...(...)

...3♠ = MIN, 3 S

...(...)

2N = INV+ relay

...3♣ = MIN, 4 H

......P = was INV only, C tolerance

......3♦ = GF relay

.........3♥ = 6+C4H (and 2- S?)

.........3♠ = 3 S

.........3N = 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL)

......(...)

...3♦ = 6+C5H, F3♥

...3♥ = MAX, 6+C4H (and 2- S?)

...3♠ = MAX, 3 S

...3N = MAX, 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL)

3♣ = 4 S, to play

(...)

 

Responder will be able to learn about Opener's range and approximate shape without bypassing 3N. All 5-3 and 6-2 spade fits can be found easily, if not always below 3N. For example, the bidding could go

 

1♣-1♥

2♥-2N(1)

3♣(2)-3♦(3)

3♥(4)-3♠(5)

4♦(6)

 

(1) INV+ relay

(2) MIN reverse

(3) GF relay

(4) 6+C4H (and 2- S?)

(5) 6+ S

(6) cue agreeing S

 

.

[DavidKok]

I like the idea that responder should be captain over a natural reverse (which is inverted from Ingberman/Lebensohl methods, very interesting), but I'm not sure I like the response structure. The min/max nature of a shapely hand depends greatly on whether we are in partscore, game or slam zone and whether or not we have a trump suit. I think responder should have a way to cheaply set a trump suit for hands with slam interest, and reserve the artificial asking bids (by negative inference) for hands that are unsure of strain (with no SI and no doubt about strain you simply bid game) or too weak to bid game.

Come to think of it, that sounds not too far off from a Lebensohl 2NT. Opener bids 3♣(/3m) with a minimum, after which we may stop below game, and higher answers are natural and show a maximum.

 

Converting to the above to a (simple) scheme over, say, 1♣-1♥* (showing ♠); 2♥ (reverse) we would have:

• 2♠ - ? (hands that can't make good use of the bids below)
  
• 2NT - Asks for min/max, with maximum hands showing a feature with 3♦ and up.
  
• 3♣ - SI in clubs.
  
• 3♦ - ? fourth suit, probably exactly 5♠, 3-♥, a single (or even half) stopper in diamonds, lacking club support and unsure of 3NT vs 4M.
  
• 3♥ - SI in hearts.
  
• 3♠ - SI in spades (self-sufficient suit).
  
• 3NT - To play.
  
• 4♣ -
  
• 4♦ -
  
• 4♥ - To play.
  
• 4♠ - To play.
  

Out of space considerations it is probably better to flip multiple of these answers around (in particular, the 2♠ answer should probably be the asking bid, 2NT should perhaps confirm hearts and 3♦ and up should be highly specific) but I prefer keeping it simple for now.

[DavidKok]

This month's edition of IMP (a Dutch bridge magazine) covered artificial uses of the 1m-1M; 2NT bid, and I think it might be relevant and helpful for this idea. These agreements are in the context of a balanced club, containing (among other options) 18-19 balanced and unbalanced hands with long clubs. Two main options they present are:

 

• 1♣-1M; 2♦ as either a natural reverse or 18-19 balanced, responder must bid 2♥ to ask over which opener bids 2NT with the balanced hand and a feature with the reverse hand.
  
• 1♣-1M; 2NT as 6(+) clubs, 15-17 and at most a doubleton in support of partner's major.
  
• 1♣-1M; 3♣ as the BW Death Hand, 15-17 with 6(+) clubs and 3-card support.
  

Alternatively, they consider:

• 1♣-1M; 2♦ a natural reverse.
  
• 1♣-1M; 2NT as 6(+) clubs, 15-17 and at most a doubleton in support of partner's major or 18-19 balanced, may have up to 4-card support. Responder bids 3♣ with any hand that wishes to play there opposite the no-fit long clubs option, 3♦ artificial GF asking and higher bids are natural and GF.
  
• 1♣-1M; 3♣ as the BW Death Hand, 15-17 with 6(+) clubs and 3-card support.
  

The second option seems suitable for a Polish/Dutch club. The signoff structure over 2NT strongly reminds me of the Wolff signoff - 3♣ weak puppet to 3♦, except that now opener 'rejects' the puppet with long clubs and passes, while they bid on with the balanced hand type. I think this is far from optimal but at least I could copy existing structures here.

 

I'm not comfortable attempting to add my 17-19 balanced to the Odwrotka. Opener's 2NT rebid has to force past 3NT to simplify subsequent bidding. Nevertheless the idea of overloading the (forcing!) 2NT rebid is very sound. If we accept that 1♣-1M; 2NT-3♣ means something like "pass with a minimum (for the auction) with long clubs, describe your hand further if not" it is good as free to fold in the 15-17 no-fit hands with long clubs. I think 18-20 or so might fit as well, you'll just have to bid over the signoff. This does harm slam investigation opposite 18-19 balanced.

Using 1♣-1M; 3♦ as '~18-20 with very long clubs' might work as well, but I'm worried about getting to such a high level without showing shape in the majors (well, a 4cM is excluded, but 3-card support isn't). I also still haven't resolved that the Odwrotka means that the sequence 1♣-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♦ gets us very high opposite a common minor suit reverse.

 

To summarise, I have several hand types to take care of and several sequences available, and I'm not sure which bids can be overloaded and where to best allocate some options. The hands I need to take care of are:

• 17-19 balanced
  
• 16-20 club diamond reverse (with or without 3-card support)
  
• 15-17 long clubs (with or without 3-card support)
  
• 18-20 long clubs (with or without 3-card support)
  

• 1♣-1M; 3♣
  
• 1♣-1M; 3♦
  
• 1♣-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♣
  
• 1♣-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♦
  
• 1♣-1M; 2NT
  

 

Folding the 15-17 and 18-20 clubs hands without support into the forcing 2NT might work quite well. I am tempted to try to squash as many of the 3-card support hands into the Odwrotka since responder will clarify their major suit holding in response - I think this is why a true Polish Odwrotka promises 3-card support. Maybe, 'to keep it simple':

 

• 1♣-1M; 3♣ - 15-17 long clubs with 3-card support.
  
• 1♣-1M; 3♦ - 16-20 minor suit reverse without 3-card support
  
• 1♣-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♣ - 18-20 long clubs with 3-card support
  
• 1♣-1M; 2♦*-2X; 3♦ - 16-20 minor suit reverse with 3-card support
  
• 1♣-1M; 2NT - 17-19 balanced or 15-20 clubs without 3-card support (strength to be clarified on future rounds as needed).
  

 

 

Lastly the article pointed out that over an unbalanced diamond 1♦-1M; 2NT has no natural meaning, and they recommend playing the same structure (but throw out the balanced and minor suit reverse hands). The 3♣ signoff is now a puppet to 3♦, to be accepted only with the 15-17 range. I'm not sure that this is necessary or even helpful (a Gazzilli structure seems to accomplish everything and more) but it does simplify the bidding structure.

[helene_t]

The 3♣ rebid as the "death hand" sounds nice. I have seen it played with the diamond suit in an unbalanced diamond system, and presumably in the system you refer to it would apply to diamonds also.

 

Something else: With ~20 points and a 4414, DD players can presumably rebid 2♥, but in your system that would show 5+ hearts so you would have to treat the hand as balanced, is that right?

[DavidKok]

4=4=1=4 patterns bid 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 2♠, showing 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 and 16+ (in both DD and my structure). In my system this would be ~16-20 or so, with very strong hands bidding the Odwrotka instead. Over the Odwrotka opener doesn't describe but instead asks.

Or were you thinking of a different first round response?

 

The 2NT (and up) structure is the same as (and borrowed from, as far as I can tell) the unbalanced diamond. It is quite common to play 1♦-1M; 2NT as the BW Death hand in unbalanced diamond systems, which by implication means 1♦-1M; 3♦ denies 3-card support. IMP points out it is better to flip these two, since without support for partner the strong hand is more likely to have positional values in both unbid suits, and therefore this switch rightsides 3NT more often.

[nullve]

Idea:

 

1♣-1♥; ?:

 

(...)

2♦ = a) H raise b) "22+"

2♥ = c) C+D reverse d) 17-19 BAL

(...)

 

1♣-1♥; 2♦-?:

 

2♥ = < INV opposite a), either 4 H or 5H(332) [so likely no Law protection at 3♥]

...P = a), no game interest

...2♠ (and/or 2N?) = b), relay

......2N+ = e.g. NAT

...(...)

2♠ = < INV opposite a), 5+ H, not 5H(332) [so likely Law protection at 3♥]

...2N = b), relay

......3♣+ = e.g. NAT

...(...)

...3♥ = a), to play

...(...)

2N+ = at least a game try opposite a), hopefully infrequent opposite b)

 

 

1♣-1♥; 2♥-?:

 

2♠ = relay (GF)

...2N = d)

...3♣+ = c), e.g. NAT

(...)

[DavidKok]

Folding the simple raise into 2♦ does win a lot of sequences, but I'm not sure this is the best approach. One of the great tricks of the Polish Odwrotka is that responder describes their hand cheaply and naturally, and is assured of safety at the 3-level. This way opener can use the Odwrotka on a wide range of hand types. If the bid also includes some weak options I think responder will frequently have to give preference to staying low over showing their shape, which in turn makes it harder to describe the hand on subsequent rounds if opener is strong.

Put differently, this will get us all the way to, say, 1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥; 2NT and nobody has said much about shape yet.

[DavidKok]

The more I think about it, the less of an issue it seems to fold something more into the 2NT response. If opener has, say, a good 16-count with 6(+) clubs then I want to be in game opposite 8(+) anyway. Trying to run from that to 3♣ also seems weird - surely if responder has some club support that warrants an upgrade into a game force, whereas with a misfit there's no great reason to try to bail out in 3♣. Based on this my current thoughts are:

 

After 1♣-1M, bid:

• 2♣: Downgrade mediocre 15-counts (and even some 16-counts, perhaps) with 6(+) clubs and 2- cards in the major suit.
  
• 2♦: Shows 1) a natural club-diamond reverse; 2) a strong game forcing hand (say 18+, maybe even 19+) with long clubs (with or without support for the major); 3) any traditional 2♣ opener.
  
• 2NT: Either 1) (good) 15-17 with 6(+)♣ and 2- in the major, or 2) 17-19 balanced, may have up to a 4cM. Game forcing, we use our normal 1m-1M; 2NT-? structure. Note that, by failure to bid a reverse, opener will usually have at least a singleton in responder's major (7330-hands are the main exception).
  
• 3♣: 15-17 6(+)♣, 3M. Even mediocre 15-counts should be bid this way. Prime hands near the top of the range can be upgraded into 2♦ (option 2).
  

Notably all the hands in the 2♦ bid can survive any response by responder past 3♣ since all of those show a diamond suit or extra playing strength.

I've been thinking of just ignoring the diamonds in clubs-diamond reverses and bidding 2NT or 3♣ (depending on the level of support for the major) as well. If I rebid 2NT with, say, a 3=1=3=6 on 1♣-1♥, is it really a distortion to do the same with a 3=1=4=5? Again I can just comfortably downgrade the mediocre 15-counts, and on 16-opposite-8 do I really want to stop in exactly 3♦? Unfortunately this plan hits a snag when it comes to the reverse diamonds with support for the major (quite rare, but still) - e.g. a 16-count 1=3=4=5 on 1♣-1♥. I'm not quite comfortable bidding 3♣ on that, especially since responder might want to investigate a club or diamond slam. But maybe there's no issue, for example with an asking bid:

 

1♣*-1♥; 3♣*-3♦* (asking, denies a 5c♥):

• 3♥ - Long clubs.
  
• 3♠ - Long diamonds (so a club-diamond reverse).
  
• 3NT - Long clubs with a decent spade stopper (so diamond shortage).
  

Either way it might not be necessary, the club-diamond reverses with fit can snugly bid 2♦ and, on hearing 2oM (so no major suit fit), rebid 3♦. It's a bit weird to have one weaker hand type in there and one not-GF sequence though.

[nullve]

Folding the simple raise into 2♦ does win a lot of sequences, but I'm not sure this is the best approach. One of the great tricks of the Polish Odwrotka is that responder describes their hand cheaply and naturally, and is assured of safety at the 3-level. This way opener can use the Odwrotka on a wide range of hand types. If the bid also includes some weak options I think responder will frequently have to give preference to staying low over showing their shape, which in turn makes it harder to describe the hand on subsequent rounds if opener is strong.

Put differently, this will get us all the way to, say, 1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥; 2NT and nobody has said much about shape yet.

I would be able to reuse my usual relay structures after e.g.

 

1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥; 2♠(relay)-?:

 

2N = BAL, not 3433

3♣ = 5+ C

3♦ = 1444 or 3433

3♥+ = 5+ D

 

.

 

(In more detail:

 

 

 

2N = BAL, not 3433

...3♣ = relay

......3♦ = 4H4C

.........3♥ = relay

............3♠ = 2434

............3N = 3424

.........(...)

......3♥ = 5H(332)

......3♠ = 2443

......3N = 3442

...(...)

3♣ = 5+ C

...3♦ = relay

......3♥ = 2425, 6C4H(21) or 6+C4H1-S

.........3♠ = relay

............3N = 2425

............4♣ = 0436

............4♦ = 6C4H(21)

............(...)

.........(...)

......3♠ = 1435 or 0445

......3N = 3451

......4♣ = 3460

......(...)

...(...)

3♦ = 1444 or 3433

...3♥ = relay

......3♠ = 1444

......3N = 3433

...(...)

3♥ = 2452, 6D4H(21) or 6+D4H1-S

...3♠ = relay

......3N = 2452

......4♣ = 0463

......4♦ = 6D4H(21)

......(...)

...(...)

3♠ = 1453 or 0450

3N = 3451

4♣ = 3460

(...)

 

 

 

)

 

Besides, if the a) in

 

2♦ = a) H raise b) "22+"

is precisely hands that would raise a 1♥ response to 2♥ in Dutch Doubleton, then you could also just turn

 

1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥; 2♠+

 

into a better version of

 

2♦-2♥; 2♠+

 

in Benji/SEF. Better, because Responder has already shown ~ 8-11 and either 4H3-S or 5H(332) and 1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥; 3♥ would not be the problem sequence that 2♦-2♥; 3♥ is in Benji/SEF.

[DavidKok]

I think my current Odwrotka approach is better than the relay and the structure I play over (traditional) 2♣-2♦; 2♥. I'm mostly worried about conveying so little shape information on 1♣-1♥; 2♦-2♥. Even if 2♠ is a relay here I'd like to distinguish 5-card heart suits, 6-card heart suits, self-sufficient heart suits, 5-card side minor, balanced/unbalanced and if balanced a side 4-card suit (versus 5332) below 3NT. I don't think that's feasible, doubly so if I want to keep the bidding as natural as possible since this will be a very rare auction.

[Kungsgeten]

I haven't read all of the posts in the thread and OP's further tinkering, but some comments that may be helpful:

 

Playing 2♣ as "traditional strong or weak with diamonds" doesn't mean you have to play multi. It isn't great as a preempt (since responder might hesitate to raise, and as you say the opponents get two shots) but it does take away the one level. One thing it does is protect the strong 2♣ opening from destructive overcalls. Other uses for 2♦ (instead of multi and if you don't want to play 2♦ as something contructive) could be a "mini NT" with 5-6♦ (Bailey two bids), weak with both majors (Ekrens), 5-5 major and another (Wilkosz if allowed), diamonds and hearts, or even diamonds and a major.

 

Systems you may want to look into (similar to the ones you describe):

 

- An Unassuming Club. This system have a weak 1NT. 2♣ is 6+. 1♣ is natural (if 11-15 then a four card major too) or 15+ NT or any 20+.

 

- "Polish Club 2020: Expert" (I've also heard it described as Baltic Club). This is a book written by Jassem, and I think it is the system he currently plays. It is basically Polish Club but the Polish 2♣ opening has been put into 1♣. They instead use 2♣ as Ekrens (weak both majors). Seems like the 1♣ is really overloaded, but it might give you some ideas.

 

- Nightmare. Seems like Polish Club but with weak NT and normal 1M openings. Their 1C is always strong (15+ NAT, 15-17 NT or any GF). They put 18-20 NT into the otherwise natural 1♦ opening.

 

You also had a question regarding advantages of Polish Club vs Dutch Doubleton. I'm not saying Polish Club is better, but here's some things I'd consider advantages:

 

1. Removing the weak unbalanced hands from 1♣ makes it a bit more safe to compete as responder when the opponents enter the bidding. You assume opener have 12-14 NT (which you typically do in DD too, but then you're sometimes having problems when opener had the natural 11 count and you're in a misfit). I myself consider the treatment of the weak NT hands as the strongest part of weak/strong club systems compared to other systems with strong NT. Awm argued that opener can't reopen with the weak NT, and that may be true (unless you agree otherwise) but I'm sceptical regarding this in DD (or other "natural" systems) too: shouldn't a reopening double (when responder haven't bid) show something more than a flat minimum with a doubleton in their suit? Does opener have to bid something else with an unbalanced hand, or the 18+ NT (if that is included in the same opening bid)?

 

2. Opening 1♦/1M is more limited compared to DD. I agree with you that these openings are fine in DD, but when you actually open say 1M you can take advantage of opener having a maximum of 17.

 

3. The 2♣ opening in Polish is a double edged sword and I know this style get a lot of criticism (especially in American system litterature). In competitive auctions though it is pretty nice having showed your suit from the start, and also you force the opponents to enter at the two-level.

[DavidKok]

Thank you, I have read the notes of all those systems. My gripe isn't with the multi, I think the transfer weak two 2♣ showing diamonds (or, once every year, a strong hand) is a bad convention and harms both our preemptive and constructive bidding. I'd much rather not have a way to show weak diamonds at all and use 2♣ as strong any, but the whole goal of this thread was to get rid of that waste too.

 

1. It depends on the auction. There are situations where you can (and indeed, must) reopen with a weak notrump, and situations where it's best to pass. There are also situations where you might have an unbalanced minimum that is too weak to keep the auction open with a double, and you may choose to bid instead. I mentioned earlier that a lot of the pressure is taken off of this by being more aggressive in third seat. The 17-19 balanced hands (or 18-19 if you play 15-17 1NT) can bid 1NT/2NT depending on the auction, or might have to double. The level where 17+ balanced hands start doubling coincides with the level where 12-13 balanced hands stop keeping the auction open, but it depends on what partner has shown.
   
2. -
   
3. I'm not surprised the bid has competitive upsides. I do have twin concerns about the Polish 2♣. If it shows [6+ or 5♣4M] I imagine we often end up preempting partner, while if it shows 6+ always the opening is low frequency. The tighter range compared to Precision (11-14 instead of Precision's (10)11-15) reduces this even further. When bid I imagine it might well be a winner (although with the 5♣4M in there maybe more of a double-edged sword?), but I'd rather not have the bid in the system at all.
   

Clubs hands can be annoying to show in competition in DD, and we have some tools to make a partial recovery. However, sometimes a club fit is lost. In fact, with our style, sometimes a diamond fit is lost as well. We think the extra clarity in all the other auctions more than compensates for this.

[Kungsgeten]

I don't understand how the "multi 2♣" (or whatever it should be called) hurts the preemptive bidding compared to not being able to show diamonds at the two level at all. However I'm not trying to convince you, simply sharing some alternate views.

 

The style with 6+♣ or 5♣ and 4M is what I meant when referring to the Polish style. It would be interesting to see statistics on IMP differences where one table opened 1m compared to the other table opening 2m.

 

Some more systems I forgot to mention which could be interesting to look at:

 

- Silent Club. By rbforster on this forum. I don't know if there's notes published, but the idea is that you pass with the Precision 2♣ opening (and the three-suited 2♦ opening). Third hand opens lighter than usual to compensate is my guess. The more well defined and less frequent your 2♣ opening is, the easier it should be to pass with it.

 

- Transfer Responses to One Club with Relays (book by Lyle Poe 2019). He includes all GF bids in 1♣ (along with weak NT, 18-19 NT, 15+ clubs and some weaker hands with clubs). Opening 2♣ is natural 8-14 (so more frequent and also more preemptive than your examples). With 8-10 you have 6+♣ (like a sound weak two). With 11-14 there are some 5431 hands with 5♣ and 4M included, if the club suit is good. Also all 4-4-0-5 and 0-4-4-5 hands are opened 2♣ instead of 1♣. He claims that 2♣ shows 6+♣ 90% of the time, and responder should assume opener has six. To me 8-14 seems like a huge range, but I haven't tried it :) Overall this system seems quite similar to what you describe (but with transfer responses instead of a negative 1♦).

[DavidKok]

In my version the bidding would go

 

1♣-1♠*

1N**-P***

 

* helene_t's trick: does not include an invite opposite the split range 11-13(min)-or-17-19(max)

* includes both 11-13 BAL and 17-19 BAL!

*** 0-6

 

on the hands you mention, and Responder would have little incentive to pass 1♣ even if the opening didn't include 23+ BAL or GF hands.

I'm trying to understand how this works. Are the basic ranges similar to:

• 1♠: 0-5 any (no major) or 12+ BAL or 7-10 unbal no major (you may split some of this last hand type out to 2♣/2♦ immediately, if you prefer).
  
• 1NT: 6-11 (semi)BAL.
  

The idea being that the 0-5 hands can pass 1NT, the 12+ hands can make a GF bid and the 7-10 unbal hands can make a 'to play opposite 11-13, GF opposite 17-19' runout from 1NT, while over 1NT opener can pass with 11-13 and bid game with 17-19? There are some rough edges (12 opposite 11-13 is not a great game, though you could play 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2NT as 'invitational opposite 11-13' or something) and this wrongsides 3NT opposite 17-19 quite often. Is there a more refined approach to splitting the no-major hands?

[helene_t]

Yes that's the basic idea. I haven't worked out all the follow ups with semipositive hands with one or both minors but that should be doable.

 

In one partnership I play that 1♠ contains all balanced hands without a 4-card major, and that creates problems with 4414 hands with 15-17 points. I suppose it's a too small a problem to design the system around. But we do play the 1♠ as promising 6 points - with 0-5 points we just pass the 1♣ opening. Even in a standard system I don't like that, and obviously you can't do it in the Polish/Dutch system. So you need a way to stop in 1NT with 18-20 opposite nothing.

[nullve]

I'm trying to understand how this works. Are the basic ranges similar to:

• 1♠: 0-5 any (no major) or 12+ BAL or 7-10 unbal no major (you may split some of this last hand type out to 2♣/2♦ immediately, if you prefer).
  
• 1NT: 6-11 (semi)BAL.
  

The idea being that the 0-5 hands can pass 1NT, the 12+ hands can make a GF bid and the 7-10 unbal hands can make a 'to play opposite 11-13, GF opposite 17-19' runout from 1NT, while over 1NT opener can pass with 11-13 and bid game with 17-19? There are some rough edges (12 opposite 11-13 is not a great game, though you could play 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2NT as 'invitational opposite 11-13' or something) and this wrongsides 3NT opposite 17-19 quite often. Is there a more refined approach to splitting the no-major hands?

The exact ranges may depend on how you like 2N as a contract.

 

For example, it makes sense for 1♣-1N to have a lower limit of 6 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 6 BAL opposite 19 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 17-18 BAL, say after 1♣-1N; 2N(INV (typically with 17-18 BAL?))-P.

 

Similarly, it makes for sense for 1♣-1N to have an upper limit of 11 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 12 BAL opposite 13 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 11-13 hcp, say after 1♣-1♠; 1N-2N(NAT INV opposite 11-13); P.

 

Personally I like to design my system so that I can quite comfortably "pass or blast" instead of having to play 2N after a declined invite. Then the only BAL 1♣-1N range that makes sense is 7-12, I think. (I "pass" (respond 1♠, then pass 1N) with 6 and "blast" (respond 1♠, then force to game) with 13.)

 

Yes, the wrong-siding is annyoing.

[DavidKok]

That makes sense. I don't love this tradeoff - I hate 2NT as a contract, but I also hate missing 25HCP games. Including 12 BAL in 1NT means missing 13-opposite-12, excluding 6 BAl (or committing to passing 6 any after 1♣-1♠*; 1NT) means missing 19-opposite-6. Inverted minors can take some of these hands but not most.

 

The unbal range in 1♠ should probably be 7-11, maybe even 6-11?

 

If you lean more on "blast or pass", what do 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2M/2NT/3m show?

 

As an aside I've been interested in using 1♣-2♦/♥/♠ as intermediate with a long suit, NF. This seems superfluous with this tool (at least in diamonds). How would you use these bids? Do you make 1♣-2♣ GF, since the hands that don't want to be in game opposite 11-13 BAL can bid via 1♠?

[nullve]

That makes sense. I don't love this tradeoff - I hate 2NT as a contract, but I also hate missing 25HCP games. Including 12 BAL in 1NT means missing 13-opposite-12, excluding 6 BAl (or committing to passing 6 any after 1♣-1♠*; 1NT) means missing 19-opposite-6. Inverted minors can take some of these hands but not most.

With 12 hcp you could use a similar philosophy as when responding to 1M in a 2/1 system with 14-16 NT and 1M-1N SF or NF.

 

For example, if you have a normally sound (rule of 20-ish) opening style on unbalanced hands, then probably the only thing that would stop you from forcing to game is fear that Opener has 11 BAL. So you might decide to require 12 hcp for a 1M opening on BAL hands. Similarly, you could, like you already do, require 12 hcp for a 1♣ opening on BAL hands and force to game with 12 hcp as Responder. 1♣-1N would then be INV opposite the split BAL range 12-13 OR 17-19, and would itself have a range from (6)7 to 11.

 

Or, if you have a quite light (rule of 19-ish) opening style like I have, you will generally not want to force to game with 12 but could be a more aggressive if VUL at IMPs, when it's ok to be in a 35 % game. So 1M-1N now risks missing game with 13 BAL opposite 12. A popular (but IMO dubious) solution is to "upgrade" the 13 hcp in a 5M(332) hand to 14 and open 1N instead. My solution is to try to make the 3-point ranges in my system (like 11-13, 14-16 and 17-19) narrower and less overlapping by using good hand valuation. The basic idea is as follows: Suppose we have two hcp valuation methods A and B, A being more accurate than B, that both have the property that the value of an ace, a king, a queen and a jack are worth a total of 10 hcp, as in Milton Work. Then by using A on the hands lying in the 3-point ranges of B, new ranges appear that are wider and overlapping. In particular, 11-13/14-16/17-19 using B could become (say) 10-14/13-17/16-20 using A. Hence the ranges using A (which we have assumed is the more accurate method) are narrower and less overlapping, so pass-or-blast opposite a 3-point range becomes a more comfortable strategy.

 

The unbal range in 1♠ should probably be 7-11, maybe even 6-11?

Do you mean the unbalanced range in 1♣-1N?

Edited February 13, 2023 by nullve

[nullve]

If you lean more on "blast or pass", what do 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2M/2NT/3m show?

In a system with just a NAT or BAL 1♣ opening, it could be something as simple as

 

2M = normal non-jump reverse (~ 16-21 in your system?)

3♣ = normal single jump rebid of Opener's suit (~ 16-18 in your system?)

2N = like 3♣, only stronger (~ 19-21 in your system?),

 

although reversing or jump rebidding with as little as 16-17 doesn't seem optimal now that Responder has either 0-6 or (12)13+ hcp.

 

What I do in my T-Walsh system, where 1♣ unlimited but always NAT(ish) or BAL, is to rebid 1N over 1♣-1♠ also on unbalanced ~ 16-18 hands, i.e. hands with roughly (or hopefully) the same playing strength in NT as a 17-19 NT. This turns the 1N rebid into a kind of limited Gazzilli although it's still NF. Reverses and the single jump rebid of Opener's suit can then be about a king stronger than normal, as in

 

2M = ~ 19+, M reverse

2N = ~ 19+, D reverse

3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited,

 

which is actually not what I play but very similar to scheme used in the Nightmare system, where, in addition,

 

2♦ = any GF.

 

In a system like yours the obvious tweak would be:

 

2♦ = any 22+

2M = ~ 19-21, M reverse

2N = ~ 19-21, D reverse

3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited