[jkljkl]

Hallo,

in an interclub match we are going to face opponents that play Polish Club and I was wondering if our team could optimize the defense against their Two Suiter openings.


Pair A
2♣ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♥ + any
2♦ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♠ + minor

Pair B
2♥ = 6-10 hcp, 5♥ + 5 any
2♠ = 6-10 hcp, 5♠ + 5 minor

Any suggestions? Thank you,
stefan
germany

[gnasher]

jkljkl, on Apr 14 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

2♣ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♥ + any
2♦ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♠ + minor

Either:
- Their major shows a takeout double; double = some balanced hand; 2NT = some other balanced hand, or
- Double is for takeout of their major; their major = two-suited with the other major; 2NT = natural
Other bids natural, as after a weak two.

If the auction ever starts (2D) 2H, make sure you comment on how convenient it was to be able to bid hearts at the two level.

Quote

2♥ = 6-10 hcp, 5♥ + 5 any
2♠ = 6-10 hcp, 5♠ + 5 minor

Treat them like weak twos.

[whereagles]

gnasher's suggestions FTW!

over 2m, I prefer variant 2 (dbl = takeout of M, 2M = two suiter)

[Gerben42]

Ah, the famous "Baltic Club" Good luck in the match, you'll need it. It's a strong team!

Since these bids show 5-5, some words of caution:

Don't put too much value in 4-4 fits as they often break 4-1, and prefer 3NT when possible.

Given that, I would rather play Gnasher's method #1 against this:

* Dbl = weak NT (sort of) or strong
* their suit = other major + minor
* 2NT = Strong NT
* Other bids = Natural

EDIT

I would suggest spending some time thinking about Polish ♣ auctions, especially things like:

(1♣) Dbl (Pass) 2♣

or

(1♣) 1♠ (Pass) 2♣

etc.

[akhare]

jkljkl, on Apr 14 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

Hallo,

in an interclub match we are going to face opponents that play Polish Club and I was wondering if our team could optimize the defense against their Two Suiter openings.


Pair A
2♣ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♥ + any
2♦ = 5-11 hcp, two-suits, 5+ - 5+, ♠ + minor

Pair B
2♥ = 6-10 hcp, 5♥ + 5 any
2♠ = 6-10 hcp, 5♠ + 5 minor

Any suggestions? Thank you,
stefan
germany

It might be worthwhile to read Chip Martel's thoughts on defensive bidding against the Polish Club.

As I recall, he was of the opinion that the system wasn't sound and that the 1♣ opening was the Achilles' Heel...

[david_c]

akhare, on Apr 14 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

It might be worthwhile to read Chip Martel's thoughts on defensive bidding against the Polish Club.

As I recall, he was of the opinion that the system wasn't sound and that the 1♣ opening was the Achilles' Heel...

Well, here are the original posts:

Martel, on r.g.b. 1994, said:

Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
prepared to play against that system.

Martel, on r.g.b. 1994, said:

I should clarify a bit that what we were very successful against was the
1C opening in the Polish club system (the 2H/2S openings showing two
suiters with the suit opened were big winners for the Poles, other
openings were largely neutral since they were similar to methods
used at the other table).

The 1C opening is either a weak NT, a 4-4-1-4 hand, 16+ with clubs or
18+ any hand. The fact that it is so wide range and forcing makes it vulnerable
to preemption. Almost every time  Balicki-Zmudzinski opened 1C with
a strong hand we climbed into their auction and gave them a hard time.
On these boards they were always guessing and lost a total of over
30 imps (just about the margin of victory). Even on the hands where
they did not lose imps they were taking a stab at the final contract
(in fairness however two points: 1) some of their losses came from
bidding reasonable contracts which failed, and 2) There was an
unusually large number of strong clubs compared to weak NTs. In fact
Balicki remarked that he thought the hands were fixed).


Now for a short discussion of planning a defense to this type of forcing
multi-way club. I won't give my defense, but this will tell you how I
formed it:

The defense to the Polish club has three goals:

1) Be able to get into the auction to compete for a game or
partial when you have a decent hand

2) Get in on light hands to disrupt the auction for the other
side (this disruption can be effective against both the
weak NT and strog club hands. It will be very effective
when the 1C bidder is strong, since responder cannot
assume a strong hand).

3) Extract a penalty when the opponents have a weak NT opposite
a weak hand (particularly when you are at favorable).

The low level opening (1C) combined with the fact that
1C is forcing (so you can pass with some good hands),
allows you to do all 3 fairly effectively
if you structure your bids properly.

I quote this here because I think this "Martel says that PC is unsound" thing has become a bit of an urban myth. Looking at it here, it's clear just how flimsy the evidence was. Not that I have a problem with that - personally I'm happy to dismiss things without ever having played against them at all - but for the amount of times it's been quoted you'd think it was a bit more substantial. For what it's worth I disagree with his point 3 - getting a penalty from the weak option is much harder than it might appear and IMO you're better off not worrying about that unless it falls into your lap. The rest of the advice is fine.

Not that this has anything to do with the 2-level openers we were being asked about. Sorry about that.

[glen]

Having seen his rgb posting, I asked Chip Martel about this here:

http://www.bridgemat....com/martel.pdf

Chip Martel said:

BridgeMatters: Playing in a world championship a few years ago, you said that you had developed a defense to nebulous 1♣ openings like the Polish Club. There was a lot of interest in it at the time.

Chip Martel: The defense was really geared to the Swedish Club, where a 1♣ opening is 10-12 balanced or 16+. We had three different goals with our defense: to bid constructively, to disrupt their auction if they had a strong 16+ hand, and to penalize them if they had 10-12 opposite a weak hand. We used double, 1♦ and pass for strong hands while bids of 1♥ or higher were destructive. Double showed a hand that you would open 1♣ if playing a standard 5-card major/strong NT system while 1♦ showed a one–diamond opener using the same system. For all other strong hands – balanced or with a major – you would pass. After a typical Swedish Club auction of 1♣ opening, 1♦ response and a major rebid by opener, a double would be penalty oriented, showing a good hand with their major or a strong NT with four cards in their major. A bid, as opposed to a double, would show a good hand with the other major as the primary suit. So after (1♣)-P (1♦)-P-(1♠), 2♣ would show a good hand with five or more hearts and four or more clubs. If you had spades you would double.

While the defense was quite effective against the Swedish Club system, I don't think it is as effective against Polish Club type systems. It is not quite as sound to be doubling or bidding 1♦. It also had the disadvantage that you could easily get into unfamiliar auctions. ...

I have underlined the Swedish/Polish remark.

[Gerben42]

My defense to a Polish / Swedish ♣:

(1♣) ?

Dbl: 5+♥, constructive
1♦: 5+♠, constructive
1♥: 4♥ + 5+ other, constructive
1♠: 4♠ + 5+ other, constructive
1NT: Minor 1-suiter, constructive
2+x: Preemptive, that suit or the next two
2+NT: Preemptive, ♣♥ or ♦♠

PASS with balanced hands.

(1♣) p (1♦) ?

Dbl: Both majors
1M: Natural
1NT and up: As after 1♣ directly

(1♣) p (1M) ?

Just as defending a 1M-opening bid (includes Raptor 1NT)

(1♣) p (1NT) ?

Defend as if opps opened a strong NT (except if you play DONT, then you're better off not playing it here either *g)