[awm]

I was talking recently to a strong player who has played a lot of Polish Club. He commented that one of the big weaknesses of the system is that people can pass with a strong notrump over your 1♣ and then start doubling later. This gives you one of the big disadvantages to playing a weak notrump opening without the preemptive effect. In fact he said this is part of why so many Poles took up playing raptor notrump overcalls.

I asked him if he'd considered using transfer responses to 1♣, so 1♦ shows hearts etc, and making these responses regardless of strength. This potentially puts opponents at a bigger disadvantage because it's harder for them to tell when responder is broke. He was interested but had never heard of anyone trying this. Has anyone experimented much with such a structure?

[lowerline]

Take a look at David C's Millennium Club. It has a weak NT opening as well though.

Steven

[helene_t]

http://forums.bridge...topic=18201&hl=

[whereagles]

I believe transfer responses fit very well with polish club, but I must confess I never gave the subject much thought.

[joshs]

awm, on Nov 29 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

I was talking recently to a strong player who has played a lot of Polish Club. He commented that one of the big weaknesses of the system is that people can pass with a strong notrump over your 1♣ and then start doubling later. This gives you one of the big disadvantages to playing a weak notrump opening without the preemptive effect. In fact he said this is part of why so many Poles took up playing raptor notrump overcalls.

I asked him if he'd considered using transfer responses to 1♣, so 1♦ shows hearts etc, and making these responses regardless of strength. This potentially puts opponents at a bigger disadvantage because it's harder for them to tell when responder is broke. He was interested but had never heard of anyone trying this. Has anyone experimented much with such a structure?

This is basically what Lanzerotti and Buratti play, maybe Bocchi and Deboin did also.

[JanM]

Welland-Fallenius, Welland-Willenken and Garner-Weinstein also play a 2-way Club with transfer responses. I've never heard any of them suggest preventing the opponents from passing and penalty doubling as a reason, but perhaps it is an additional benefit. We use transfer responses to our 1♣ opening (in a weak NT system), but if we have the short club/balanced hand we have a strong NT so the opponents probably don't want to sit in the bushes and then double .
Transfer responses get you a lot of other advantages (just like transfers in other situations). I think they may work only in a system where the 1♣ opening doesn't include really strong hands (IOW, 2♣ is strong and artificial, and 1♣ includes the club hands), because you don't need an artificial negative response. That's what Bocchi-DuBoin, Garner-Weinstein, Welland, Fantunes and we play. The "real" Polish clubbers put the strong hands in 1♣ and the club hands in 2♣ and tend to play that 1♦ is an artificial negative (plus sometimes some strong hands opposite the weak NT) and 1M is natural.

[MickyB]

Indeed, that's what Adam is referring to, I think - a system where 1♣ is often a weak no-trump and includes all GF hands.


Two problems:

You've got to do something with the negatives without a four-card major.
If 1♣:1♥ shows 4+♠, any strength, that makes it much harder to establish a GF when it is right to do so. In WJ, after 1♣:1♠, any bid other than 1N, 2♣ or 2♠ is GF, and the 2♣ rebid is one of the more problematic sequences in the system. I don't know how you would have a sensible sequence with an 18+ unbalanced hand opposite a 6+ hand.

[JanM]

I just took a quick look at the Polish team's convention cards for Shanghai, and none of them use transfers in response to the "true" Polish Club (including strong hands). I suspect that's because they've decided the problems of losing the negative diamond are more serious than the advantages of transfers. Those of us who don't include the strong hands in 1♣, OTOH, are losing a natural 1♦ response and find that less problematic.

[david_c]

It may well be correct to "lurk" with a strong balanced hand over a Polish 1♣ opening, but it's not at all easy to extract a penalty. The opps aren't forced to 1NT, and if they do get there, they will already know that they don't have a major-suit fit, which means that they can scramble from 1NT doubled (or choose not to scramble) much more effectively than people playing a weak NT opening.

Also, if opps do both have weak hands, the bidding starts 1♣ : 1♦ , 1M. Now what do you do? 1NT lets them off the hook, and pass may do as well since 1M is not forcing. So double? But you can't double on all balanced shapes - you have to decide whether you're promising strength in the opponents' suit, otherwise partner won't know whether to take it out. And if you do double, you give the opponents extra options (redouble, and a more frequent pass) which make it easier for them to find their best spot. All in all, it doesn't seem like you'll get rich particularly often.

I play Polish Club, and I'm well aware that there are ways we can lose out to standard systems on a bad day, but getting doubled when opener has a weak NT is really not something that worries me at all.

[joshs]

JanM, on Nov 30 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

Welland-Fallenius, Welland-Willenken and Garner-Weinstein also play a 2-way Club with transfer responses. I've never heard any of them suggest preventing the opponents from passing and penalty doubling as a reason, but perhaps it is an additional benefit. We use transfer responses to our 1♣ opening (in a weak NT system), but if we have the short club/balanced hand we have a strong NT so the opponents probably don't want to sit in the bushes and then double .
Transfer responses get you a lot of other advantages (just like transfers in other situations). I think they may work only in a system where the 1♣ opening doesn't include really strong hands (IOW, 2♣ is strong and artificial, and 1♣ includes the club hands), because you don't need an artificial negative response. That's what Bocchi-DuBoin, Garner-Weinstein, Welland, Fantunes and we play. The "real" Polish clubbers put the strong hands in 1♣ and the club hands in 2♣ and tend to play that 1♦ is an artificial negative (plus sometimes some strong hands opposite the weak NT) and 1M is natural.

Really???

I think Welland-F/W and G-W all play a strong 2C, with 1C being clubs or one of many balanced ranges. I do not think that they open 1C on say, 6 hearts, and a 22 count. It is not a polish club, since there is no strong hands (other then balanced ones) in the 1C opening.

[glen]

Jan said that some two-way clubbers play transfers, and that these are not really polish club systems [which is 3-way or 4-way depending on your view]. In particular she says that 1♣, in the two way club, does not include the really strong hands.

Josh says that the two-way clubbers are not really polish club systems. In particular he points out that 1♣, in the two-way club, does not include the really strong hands.

Since they both agree, I don't understand the "really???" - it should be really!!!

[joshs]

officeglen, on Dec 3 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

Jan said that some two-way clubbers play transfers, and that these are not really polish club systems [which is 3-way or 4-way depending on your view]. In particular she says that 1♣, in the two way club, does not include the really strong hands.

Josh says that the two-way clubbers are not really polish club systems. In particular he points out that 1♣, in the two-way club, does not include the really strong hands.

Since they both agree, I don't understand the "really???" - it should be really!!!

I never even thought of these as 2 way club systems. I have been playing the same way with Marc Umeno for years (although we open our better minor with a weak NT)... I do credit Bjorn for this. Basically Bjorn moved to NYC, discussed x-fers over 1C with Chris Willienkin, Chris mentioned it to Marc, Marc mentioned it to me, and I said, of course thats the right way of doing things if you are going to play walsh, and wrote up some notes...

What Bjorn used to play back in Sweeden was a 2 way club where 1C was something like 10-12 bal OR a strong hand. In the systems cited, the 1C opening has a continous range over the same range as the standard american 1C opening.

[glen]

Jan meant the "two way" club in the "Welland-Fallenius, Welland-Willenken and Garner-Weinstein" styles, as she noted, so you wouldn't have taken this as Carrot.

I've termed these clubs-or-balanced systems as the "Modern Club".

Btw was Bjorn in NYC before or after the publication of the BruWil Bidding system (April 92 pre-edition, April 93 pub)? If afterward, did anybody look at this?

[ASkolnick]

It seems we have come up with a simple reasonable interference methods over two-way clubs which seem to throw a monkey wrench into the responses.

1C - X Strong NT type hand or good single suiter.
1D Hearts Constructive Overcall. This way partner can also raise himself or bid again with a good hand. We will occasionally do this on the right 4 cards as well.
1H Spades Constructive Overcall
1S Transfer to Clubs (Yes, it could be right to pass, but sometimes you really have clubs and they have the balanced hands.)
1N and up are Suction bids.

Over 1C-x-P-
With clubs, obviously pass.

1D- 4 hearts.
1H- 4 spades.
1S - To let doubler play 1N.
1N - 5 card diamonds
2C - 6 card diamonds
2D - 5+ Hearts
2H - 5+ Spades

Over 1C-x-1X- Bid naturally.

[keylime]

Ultra's strong club defense, the synthesis which came from fellow BBO poster Free, uses a similar engine. Recently there was discussion whether to play another defense for prepared club methods and hearing this, I think we'll play our strong club defense here too.

[Tcyk]

JanM, on Nov 30 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

Welland-Fallenius, Welland-Willenken and Garner-Weinstein also play a 2-way Club with transfer responses. I've never heard any of them suggest preventing the opponents from passing and penalty doubling as a reason, but perhaps it is an additional benefit. We use transfer responses to our 1♣ opening (in a weak NT system), but if we have the short club/balanced hand we have a strong NT so the opponents probably don't want to sit in the bushes and then double .
Transfer responses get you a lot of other advantages (just like transfers in other situations). I think they may work only in a system where the 1♣ opening doesn't include really strong hands (IOW, 2♣ is strong and artificial, and 1♣ includes the club hands), because you don't need an artificial negative response. That's what Bocchi-DuBoin, Garner-Weinstein, Welland, Fantunes and we play. The "real" Polish clubbers put the strong hands in 1♣ and the club hands in 2♣ and tend to play that 1♦ is an artificial negative (plus sometimes some strong hands opposite the weak NT) and 1M is natural.

The advantage of transfers is that you can get a second bid. If you open 1C and partner transfers, just play acceptance of the transfer as sowing a minimum opening hand and bidding the step above that as showing a strong hand. If responder has a weak hand they just repeat the transfer. Other bids would be treated like a positive response and you could show another feature of your hand.