[relknes]

Hi, I am currently interested in learning more about the Polish/Sweedish Club systems. There are several varriations. The one that I am currently playing around with has a 1♣ opening bid as either:
1) 11-13 points, balanced
2) 11-16 points, 6+ clubs
3) Very strong hand (17+ unbalanced, 21+ balanced)
I am looking for the best set of followups to this opening bid. Does anyone have a recomendation, or know of a good book that would help?

[Gerben42]

I would play the following responses (Polish style, sort of)

1♣ - ?

1♦: 0 - 7 any / 8 - 10 without 4-card major unbal. / invite to 3NT

1♥/♠: 8+, 4+card

1NT: 8 - 11 (11 - 13 NT will pass)
2♣/♦: 11+, 5+card
2♥/♠: 4 - 7, 6-card suit
2NT: Invitational, both minors
3m: Invitational, 6-card minor

Continuations seem clear but check WJ2005 if you need ideas.

[MARNICk]

http://jassem.pl/typeArticles/view/5 Try this. Jassem has been one of the most involved people in developing WJ in latest years. Those are articles in english . Perhaps U'll dig something that is in polish and readable for foreigners(universal bridge language) on this site. If anybody asked me I would have said : If You wanna play imps and artificial♣ play precision if MPs than WJ is ok ,but natural systems rule in this format undoubtedly..

[Gerben42]

I disagree with Jassem that no special agreements are necessary to play against Polish Club.
On the other hand, everyone who wants to depict is as a weird and alien system should rethink. In Germany, some really ancient players (80++) play a similar system which is like a 1960s Polish Club. And none of the opps seem to be bothered.

Suggested defense: http://gerben.homepa...tems/def1c.html

[relknes]

Thank you all for your replies. I got some good ideas from those rescources. My current thought is this:
1♦ = 0-7 OR 13+
1♥ = 5+ hearts, 8-12 points
1♠ = 5+ spades, 8-12 points
1NT = 8-12, no 5 card suit
2♣ = 5+ clubs, 8-12 points
2♦ = 5+ diamonds, 8-12 points
2♥ = 6+ hearts, 0-7 points
2♠ = 6+ spades, 0-7 points
2NT = 13+ balanced
3♣ = 6+ clubs, 0-7 points
3♦ = 6+ diamonds, 0-7 points
The 1 Diamond bid would be made when the responder is either sure that there are points close to game even across from the balanced min, or else can not be sure of game even across from the strong option. The other bids basically assume a balanced min for the moment.
The only major differences between this and WJ2005 are the two way 1♦ and that the 1♥ and 1♠ bids require 5 cards instead of 4. My reasoning was that, across from a strong hand there would be less risk of "wrong-siding" the contract, while across from a balanced minimum 1NT seemed as good a place to play as any. Does this set of responses seem reasonable to people?

[Free]

relknes, on 2011-January-24, 05:41, said:

Does this set of responses seem reasonable to people?

No.

My 2 major points:
- You'll miss way too many 4-4 M fits
- You'll miss easy 12-12/13-11/13-12 HCP games

I have several other points concerning the 1♦, 2m and 2NT responses, but ok...

[relknes]

Free, on 2011-January-24, 08:24, said:

No.

My 2 major points:
- You'll miss way too many 4-4 M fits
- You'll miss easy 12-12/13-11/13-12 HCP games

I have several other points concerning the 1♦, 2m and 2NT responses, but ok...

Interesting. I see your point about the 4-4 major fits. Do you think it would be profitable to play a reversed major response, with 1♥ showing 4+ spades while denying 4 hearts, and 1♠ showing 4+ hearts, or would that have too many drawbacks elsewhere to make it worth the effort? Perhaps a better solution would be to respond with all 8+ point hands without a 5 card major as 1♦, or maybe I am just way too concerned about the whole "wrong siding" thing and need to forget it... sorry, now I'm just rambling...
A second question I have been currious about for a while now is how much worse is it to play in 1NT when a major fit exists, but you have a balanced hand facing a balanced hand? I know it is often important at the game level, but is it equally important when considering 1NT vs say 2♥?
The other point you raised confused me a little. I have always avoided game on 24 combined points without some compensating shape considerations. My basic assumption has been that 26 points, including distribution, are needed for a good chance at game. Have I been operating under a false premise?
The 2NT bid is taken directly from WJ2005, adjusted 1 point because my weak balanced is 1 point different than theirs. Same with the point ranges on the 1NT bid, the difference being the issue of a 4 card major.
Thanks for your response. I hope that this discussion is as fun for you as it is for me. I am one who has always had just as much fun with the theory as I have actually playing.

[relknes]

Here is the reworked idea, trying to incorperate the feedback I got on the original set of replies.

1♦ = 0-7 OR 8-11 with a 4 card major
1♥ = 12+, 4+ hearts
1♠ = 12+, 4+ spades
1NT = 8-11, no 4 card major, no 5 card minor
2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs
2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds
2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts
2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades
2NT = 12+, no 4 card major
3♣ = 0-7, 6+ clubs
3♦ = 0-7, 6+ diamonds

This should catch the 4-4 fits, and dosn't risk a severe wrong siding even across from a strong hand since the direct 1M responses require fairly strong hands themselves. I also adjusted the point spreads by a touch to adress the concern of missing a close game. Is this a more reasonable set of responses?

[Free]

There is no problem in playing 1♥ as 4+♠ and 1♠ as 4+♥ (I've done that in the past), but in that case you need to play 1♣-1♥(4+♠)-1♠ as 4 card ♥. Well, maybe not in your new scheme in this system, but with a natural approach it's necessary.

Missing a 4-4 M fit can be better from time to time (example 4=3=3=3 vs 4=3=3=3), but nobody says responder has to be balanced. With your previous scheme responder had to bid 2m with say 1=4=3=5, and opener with his balanced 11HCP 4=4=3=2 would pass. With your new scheme you can bid 1♦, see if opener has 4M, and bid 2m afterwards. This is definitely a much better approach for these hands.

Games with 24-25HCP are makeble lots of times, even if both hands are balanced. If you always require 26HCP then you'll seldom go down in game, but you'll miss too many (especially at imps). Sometimes you can't even make game but with opps mistakes you get there. A wrong lead can already mean you make an unmakeble contract.
With extra distribution the situation is different and you can easily have very light games, but you seem to know this.

In your new scheme there's no place for 12+HCP with 5+M. I guess you respond 1M with that?

I'm not really convinced that 1♣-1M should be that strong, there are lots of systems available to handle all sorts of hands after opener's rebid. Playing 1M as 12+ still doesn't make it GF, so you still need invites.

There might be some merrit in playing 1♣-2m as limited and constructive, but as a result you need to respond 2NT with every strong minor-oriented hand. What if opener has a strong hand with a long Major, and responder has a strong hand with a long minor. The auction will start 1♣-2NT-3M. You lost an enormous amount of space, you still don't know what the limit of the hand is, you can't start control bidding, you still don't have a fit,...

I have the impression that you have some kind of an idea about responses over the 1♣ opening where responder can define his hand very accurately (in some cases), but you forget to think about the continuations. The first round of bidding is not always the most important, and since opener may have a variety of hands, it only makes things more complicated when you look at the 2nd round of bidding...
Perhaps it's useful to think about and write down all the design goals (part score philosophy, F and NF calls, importance of rightsiding, slam bidding, preferring 1NT or 2M with a 4-4 fit,...) of the structure. For example, if you're willing to play 1NT whenever both hands are balanced, fine, it may not be the optimal way but that will definitely reflect in the response structure.

[relknes]

Free, on 2011-January-25, 03:01, said:

In your new scheme there's no place for 12+HCP with 5+M. I guess you respond 1M with that?

I'm not really convinced that 1♣-1M should be that strong, there are lots of systems available to handle all sorts of hands after opener's rebid. Playing 1M as 12+ still doesn't make it GF, so you still need invites.

There might be some merrit in playing 1♣-2m as limited and constructive, but as a result you need to respond 2NT with every strong minor-oriented hand. What if opener has a strong hand with a long Major, and responder has a strong hand with a long minor. The auction will start 1♣-2NT-3M. You lost an enormous amount of space, you still don't know what the limit of the hand is, you can't start control bidding, you still don't have a fit,...

I have the impression that you have some kind of an idea about responses over the 1♣ opening where responder can define his hand very accurately (in some cases), but you forget to think about the continuations. The first round of bidding is not always the most important, and since opener may have a variety of hands, it only makes things more complicated when you look at the 2nd round of bidding...
Perhaps it's useful to think about and write down all the design goals (part score philosophy, F and NF calls, importance of rightsiding, slam bidding, preferring 1NT or 2M with a 4-4 fit,...) of the structure. For example, if you're willing to play 1NT whenever both hands are balanced, fine, it may not be the optimal way but that will definitely reflect in the response structure.

I forgot to add the + after the 1M bids in my chart...sorry about that. It has been fixed.
The strong 1M responses are not only because of game contracts, but to avoid the posability of playing in a major suit slam with the 8-11 point hand declaring. I don't mind as much if an opening strenght hand is declaring, even if partner is stronger.
My thinking was that having the option of showing your 4+ major 2 ways would make game bidding easier across from a balanced min, and slam bidding easier across from a strong hand.
After 1♣-1♦-1NT for instance, responder's possible bids all seem prety well defined, and knowing that a game invite would have 10-11 points AND distributional considerations seemed helpful.
After 1♣-1M-1NT, a 2M response shows 5+ and invitational values, a 2NT response shows that you only had 4 with invitational values, and anything else shows game forcing strength. So basically, across from a balanced 11-13, I thought that the responder's invitational hands could be more well defined by making an immediate 1♣-1M require a cirtain strength, thus making it easier to find good games and avoid bad ones.
It also seemed to make slam bidding easier across from a strong hand, since 1♣-1M-2M can now be played as strong and suit agreeing. If 1♣-1M could be bid on weaker counts, then you can't bid 1NT despite a fit with a balanced min and risk partner passing it with 8-10 points, so the raise to 2M is needed for supporting partner's suit with the weak varriant (possibly with only 3 card support). So, by forcing responder to bid 1♦ with a 4 card major and 8-11 points, you can avoid playing in a lot of moysian fits that you would otherwise be stuck in, and start slam exploration at a very low level when it is warented.
The other consideration that you brought up, the 1♣-2NT-3M auction when opener has a strong major and responder a strong minor, this is a concern. It guarentees 29 combined points, but on what is possibly a total misfit. Opener has promised 5+ in his major; without 3 card support, responder might bid his minor at the 4 level, and the partnership could end up playing 4NT on a 29 point misfit. In the worst case, you go down in 4NT when 3NT would have made, which is the sort of thing that keeps bridge players up at night.
Now, I do have a free bid elsewhere in my system that I could use for any major single suiter with 17+ points or 9+ playing tricks. It is the 2♠ opening bid (why this bid is free is a whole other story, but I have been trying to figure out the best use for it). If I put the strong major single suiters there, then 1♣-2NT-3M would promise 5+ in that major and 4+ in the other major, allowing partner to sign off at 3NT with no fit and 12-14 points. With a 4+ minor and 5 card major, you would bid the minor first, since partner has already strongly discouraged the majors. Every once in a while you will end up playing in 3NT with a 5-3 major fit, but with 29+ points between the hands, it will have no trouble making.
The other method would be to put the strong unbalanced minor hands into the 1♦ bid, signaling with a jump bid after partner's next turn.
Is it worth it to do something like this, or are there good enough ways to deal with 1♣-2m as unlimited that I shouldn't worry about it? I was concerned that an 11 point hand having to rebid over 2m might bring the partnership too high, and since 11 point balanced hands are not at all infrequent, I gave more weight to that scenario than I perhaps should have. What are your recomendations on the subject?

[relknes]

Ok, so I think I am finally prety happy with the responses to 1♣. Thanks to everyone who contributed. For those who are currious, I ended up sticking the strong minor oriented hands into the 1D response. The responses are now:
1♦ = 0-7 points, any shape
. . . OR 8-11 with a 4 card major
. . . OR 10-11 very distributional (ie. planning to invite game opposite 11-13 balanced)
. . . OR 12+ that cannot bid 1H/1S/2N
1♥ = 12+, 4+ hearts
1♠ = 12+, 4+ spades
1NT = 8-11, no 4 card major, no decent 5 card minor
2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs, no 4+ major
2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds, no 4+ major
2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts, but not 4+ spades
2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades, but not 4+ hearts
2NT = 12+ balanced, no 4 card major
3♣/♦/♥/♠ = 0-7 points, 6+ length
This make the 1♣-1♦ sequence the most ambiguous sequence I have ever played... but it seems like it should work ok. The followup sequences make it clear prety quickly which category of hand each player has.
Thanks again to everyone who provided guidance, and especially to free who pointed out some serious flaws in the initial design.

[bluecalm]

Putting that much of stuff in 1♦ is very bad. They compete and you will die.
Responses should be either standard (1M = 4+, 8+pc, 2m = GF, natural, 1NT = 8-11 bal etc.) or transfers but this require a lot of work.

Quote

I disagree with Jassem that no special agreements are necessary to play against Polish Club.

In Poland where everybody plays polish club almost nobody (including national top pairs) plays different defense than: all natural, 2♦ majors (or multi and then 2M are 2 suiters but this option sucks), 2NT = minors.
That speaks a lot about value of time spent on devising fancy defense vs pc.
That being said if you really want to do something different the best direction is to start passing with some strong hands (ie. not t/o shape) and play 1NT overcall as something different (minors, or 4M-5+m or w/e)

[Zelandakh]

I am not sure that is entirely true blue. Is the standard defence to PC in Poland not for X to show a 1C opening? I know this is what I usually see when I kib Poles on BBO.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I am not sure that is entirely true blue. Is the standard defence to PC in Poland not for X to show a 1C opening? I know this is what I usually see when I kib Poles on BBO.

No. This sucks because t/o double (promising fits in majors) is much needed for comp.
It's true that some old timers play dbl as 1♣ opening but it's similar to "stolen bid" doubles - simple idea but very weak convention and only popular among weaker players.
After t/o dbl to 1C most people bid similar as they do after 1C opener though (1D negative, 1M F1 etc).

[Gerben42]

bluecalm, on 2011-February-02, 06:45, said:

Putting that much of stuff in 1♦ is very bad. They compete and you will die.
Responses should be either standard (1M = 4+, 8+pc, 2m = GF, natural, 1NT = 8-11 bal etc.) or transfers but this require a lot of work.



In Poland where everybody plays polish club almost nobody (including national top pairs) plays different defense than: all natural, 2♦ majors (or multi and then 2M are 2 suiters but this option sucks), 2NT = minors.
That speaks a lot about value of time spent on devising fancy defense vs pc.
That being said if you really want to do something different the best direction is to start passing with some strong hands (ie. not t/o shape) and play 1NT overcall as something different (minors, or 4M-5+m or w/e)

Why don't you have a look on my Polish Club defense page:
http://gerben.homepa...tems/def1c.html

I really do not suggest much fancy stuff (OK I prefer 2♦ overcall as Wilkosz but both majors 5-5 would work fine too), but if you are not used to playing against Polish Club, you will run into situations like not knowing what is your cuebid and if 1NT is natural or not in a certain situation. Or if weak jumps apply or not. Better discuss it first, I've seen fine pairs mess up such situations and it can be easily avoided if you just take the time with your regular partner to DISCUSS.

I'm sure you will get some ideas from the page that might help you.

[bluecalm]

I didn't mean to say that I don't like your agreements. I took a look and those looks sensible to me with the following remarks:

a)
6th hand bidding:

Most people play dbl here as t/o and I don't see compelling reason to play it as showing their suit. Why would I want to take action holding their suit anyway ? I could always bid natural 1NT if I really want or just pass. This seems to be both bad and artificial to me.

Holding: AQxx xx AWxx KWx I really want to dbl after:

1C pass 1D pass
1H ????

We may be collecting heavily afterall. I also want my natural 1S overcall with a hand which was too weak to overcall first time around (like KJT9x Kxx xx xxx being vulnerable)

b)1C - pass - 1D again I think all natural is better. Why would I give up natural 1NT here ? It puts opener on lead and makes subsequent auction easy.

c)In this situation, 2 should be the cuebid, as would have been the easiest overcall to make after 1. A bid in the other major is likely to show only 4 cards and is 1 round forcing (as it may be the strong NT hand).

I agree with this and it's really a nice idea.
People tend to play that always 2♣ is cuebid in 1♣ auctions though (which has advantage of allowing to distinguish medium and trash hands (2D/2M) but has disadvantage of losing club suit).

[the hog]

1♦ = 0-7 points, any shape
. . . OR 8-11 with a 4 card major
. . . OR 10-11 very distributional (ie. planning to invite game opposite 11-13 balanced)
. . . OR 12+ that cannot bid 1H/1S/2N

As Free posted above, I think this is a very poor scheme and intervention will crucify you.

[relknes]

Alright, so the general concensus seems to be that the planned responses are terrible, and I should stick with the responses from Polish Standard.
My last question, then, is will there be any problem with the fact that the single suited club hands with 11-16 points are thrown in? It is necessary for those hads to go there for the rest of the opening system to work, so i need a set of responses that take them into consideration (hence this whole exercise). In a lot of what I read about Polish Standard, they seem to draw some inferences from the fact that such hands would not be included, and I was worried that it would lead to some problems.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It is necessary for those hads to go there for the rest of the opening system to work, so i need a set of responses that take them into consideration (hence this whole exercise). In a lot of what I read about Polish Standard, they seem to draw some inferences from the fact that such hands would not be included, and I was worried that it would lead to some problems.

While throwing 11-14hcp, 6+♣ or 5♣ -4M hands into 2♣ opening is standard in modern version of pc many very good polish players use 2♣ opening for something different (usually 5+-4+ majors, 6-10 allowing handy relay 2♦) and leave those club hands in 1♣ openings.

Playing this way is a bit difficult because now:

1♣ - 1M
2♣ is 11-16hcp and is not forcing (contrary to current pc standard) but responder strives to bid if he sensibly can. Usually 2♦ is 9+pc relay here (comparing to GF relay in current standard) and you can still stop in 2NT/3C.
Club hands with 17+hcp are very problematic. You could try throwing some of them into 2♦ relay or into 2NT (putting some non fit hands in 2♦ relay). Also 3♦/3OM are free so you could use them for 6-3-1-3 hands or something.
This is complicated and there is no perfect solution but quite a few polish players think that gains from being able to open 2♣ on weak major 2suiter more than compensate for it.