How about a new system from "Polish Club"?

[cf_John0]

You know, under the standard of WBF,Polish Club is red ;but in the ABF(Australia),it's blue.So ,I'll change partial big of Polish Club into "Polish Diamond",big Diamond system,then the new system is always blue.

What's your opinions? Thank you in advace!

 

For example:

1C=*12-16HcP,

balanced without 5-card major suit;or

one or two 4-card+ minor suit(s)

 

1D=*17+HcP,any distribution but 2NT open;

 

1NT=15-17,balanced;

1H/S=12-16Hcps,5-card H/S;

2C=precision 2C open;

2D/H/S=weak one or two suits;

 

2NT=20-22Hcps,balanced

...

Edited August 23, 2005 by cf_John0

[Free]

First of all, I'm not a fan of strong ♦ systems. And this one seems like a cheese with lots of holes in it. You play a 17+ strong opening with limited openings of 11-15. Don't you ever have 16HCP? Furthermore, why try to reinvent the wheel? There are already enough very similar strong ♦ systems... <_<

 

Note: openings alone are not enough to be able to make a decent opinion about this system.

[cf_John0]

There are already lots of similar systems,but the players in match seldomly play a same CC,is it stange enough?It's just an idea and an example,16Hcp could not join to big 1D.

[Flame]

I like inventing new systems but when i do that i have an idea behind it, there is a resson why i think my system is good, when i show my system i give the idea and why i think my system is good, usually the system is an improvment of another system, solving a problem in that system (and creating a new one ofcourse). Would be happy to hear why you think this system is better then others.

[hrothgar]

You know, under the standard of WBF,Polish Club is red ;but in the ABF(Australia),it's blue.So ,I'll change partial big of Polish Club into "Polish Diamond",big Diamond system,then the new system is always blue.

 

What's your opinions? Thank you in advance!

I think that the idea is badly flawed

 

1. The changes that you suggest are "dramatic". If you eliminate the ability to open a "natural" 1♦, your 1♣ opening becomes MUCH more vulnerable to preemption. I suspect that you will (probably) need to sacrifice your 2♦ preempt.

 

2. The changes that you suggest seem unnecessary. Does anyone actually run events where you can't play red systems?

[david_c]

First thought: I don't think this system looks particularly "Polish" at all. It's a fairly standard strong diamond system. Nothing wrong with that though.

 

Second thought: I believe that the usual reason to play a strong diamond rather than a strong club is so that you have more space for the limited minor-suit hands (opening 1♣, rather than 1♦ in Precision). In particular, it allows you to open at the 1-level with the "Precision 2♣" hand. So, I think combining a strong diamond with a Precision 2♣ opening is a strange decision. It would make more sense to restrict your 2♣ opening bid to hands with 6+ clubs and no 4-card major, or to use it as a pre-empt.

[cf_John0]

Thank you very much!

My "Polish Diamond" system needs more polishes:

1,1C open could be defined only preparative,for any unsuitable to other openings,including primary 1D open;

 

2,If 2NT open is same to Polish Club(now WJ2005),weak 2NT,the "Polish Diamond" is more like "Polish Club";

 

3,As a strong diamond system just name after "Polish Club",It still has its good reasons.Is it?

 

4,Generally,Green and Blue systems are easier to acceptive than Red and Yellow systems,because of their higher/lower color grades.

[cf_John0]

It's not easy to assemble a system,here is mine.More suggestions, please!Thank you very much in advance!

 

(Continued)

 

[2D:4~11hcp,euivalent both majors,Similar to Polish 2D;

(-)/? 2M/3M:Pass or Correct;

2NT:relay,...

3C:GF,one suiter hand;

...

 

[2H/S:4~11hcp,one major & another suit,5-5 or better;Polish 2H/2S

(-)/? 2M:natural,pass or correct;

2NT:another suit?

...

 

[2NT:4~11hcp with euivalent both minors;or 20~21hcp balanced hand;

(-)/? 3m:pass with weak,or 3card+ major with strong;

3H:ask for longer major;

...

 

[3m:7card minor,or 6card & another suit;7~11hcp;

(-)/?

...

 

[3M/4M/5m:preempts;

(-)/?

...

 

[3NT:Gambling with a side bridge;

(-)/?

...

 

Just lower the limit of HCPs.

Edited September 20, 2005 by cf_John0

[cf_John0]

It's not easy to assemble a system,here is mine.More suggestions, please!Thank you very much in advance!

 

General Openings & responses:

[1C:10/12~16hcps,no 5card major,no 6card Club,any Diamond;

(-)/? 1D/M:natural;7~11hcps

1NT:natural;7~9hcps

2C:inverted minor raise,good hands for further biddings;10~11hcp with good Clubs;others with 12hcp+;

2D/M:preempts;4~9hcp with one good suit;

2NT:10~11hcps balanced;

...

 

[1D:17hcp+,including 18~19hcp balanced & 22hcp+ balanced;

(-)/? 1H/S:natural,7~9hcp

1NT:under 6hcps,no good suit;

2C:natural,10~11hcp,

2D:inverted minor raise,good hands for further biddings;10~11hcp with good Diamonds;others with 12hcp+;

2M/3m:only one good suit,4~9hcp

2NT:7~9hcp balanced

...

 

[1M:10/12~16hcp,5card+

(-)/? 1NT:7~9hcp

raise:7~9hcp;natural;

2o1:GF,Canape;

2NT:10~11hcp,balanced;

...

 

[1NT:15~17hcp balanced;or 13~15hcps as a weak 1NT

(-)/? 2C:stayman;

2D/H:Jacoby;

2S:minor Stayman;

2NT:transfer to 3C;

3C:transfer to 3D;

3D:good minor for game try;

3M:good suits for slam try;

...

 

[2C:10/12~16hcp,6card Clubs or 5card Clubs with 4card major;Polish 2C

(-)/? 2D:wait;

2M:natural;

2NT:weak raise or GF 2suter;

...

 

(To be continued)

Edited September 20, 2005 by cf_John0

[Echognome]

I personally don't like some of your structures, but note that I'm extremely biased as I play my own strong diamond system. First of all, I agree with David and don't see why you are using both 1♣ and 2♣ for minor suit openings. See my post on "nebulous 1c" here that shows both openings, continuations, and handling interference:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=9909

 

As per continuations after 1♦, I highly dislike using 1NT as your negative bid. This will wrong-side the NT contract too often. I would either play control responses (as we do) to keep things simple, or something like:

 

1♥ = 5+ spades positive or 0-6 any

1♠ = 5+ hearts positive

1NT = 5+ clubs positive

2♣ = 5+ diamonds positive

2♦ = 8-10 or 13+ balanced

 

Something close to Meckwell

 

I think you should either play an 11-13 NT, or a 14-16 NT. It fits in nicely with 3 point hcp range. e.g. 11-13bal = 1♣ rebid depending on p's response, 14-16bal = open 1NT, 17-19 bal = open 1♦ rebid 1NT, 20-21 = open 2NT. 22-23, open 1♦ rebid 2NT, etc...

 

Now you have the entire 2-level available for preempts. See my discussion of this and several interesting replies here:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=9932

 

I can say that I like both the structure that I play and Free's structure also (having played that as well).

[cf_John0]

Thank you,Echognome. I think you and I have lots of same considerations on the system,although some different.

 

1,My system is a variant of Polish Club System as I've indicated;So the "entire 2-level" openings and other sequences are similar to it;

 

2,1C opening prefers to Diamonds or preparation,but 2C prefers to Clubs;

 

3,The 15~17hcp balanced 1NT is typical;othe balanced hands opening are similar to yous;

 

4,Your [1D-1H] negative response may "wrong-side" a Heart slam/game contract;

 

Also,I'll think youdikha has sent this email from http:forums.bridgebase.com/index.php.

 

"1C 10 - 16, 2 honor in suit 4 card minor

1H/ 1S 10 - 16, 2 honor in suit 5 card"

 

I've considered a partial light opening with 10~11hcp under good positions and suitable vulnerability.And I would name this system PD-Based System after Polish Club.Perhaps you have more good ideas.It will be appreciation if you promoted them out.