[gwnn]

I had these two come up recently:

1)
1♣-(2♠)-x-p
?

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

2)
2♣-p-2♦-2♠
p-p-x

this is takeout, right?

[straube]

gwnn, on 2015-January-18, 06:04, said:

I had these two come up recently:

1)
1♣-(2♠)-x-p
?

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

I'm familiar with but haven't played Polish Club.

I would think that 1C (2S) X would promise invitational+ strength so that 1C (2S) X P 3C would be forcing if it showed 15-17 with clubs. Perhaps you could play that opener's 2N rebid is Lebensohl and bids at the 3-level are natural and forcing. After a Polish 1C opening, you have a lot to unwind.

gwnn, on 2015-January-18, 06:04, said:

2)
2♣-p-2♦-2♠
p-p-x

this is takeout, right?

I think it would be takeout if opener's dbl of 2S is takeout. That's a partnership agreement. I like that after responder has shown (here with 2D) presumably invitational+ strength that double by either hand is penalty. The higher the level of interference, the more penalty makes sense.

[Kungsgeten]

In your first example, I think that 2NT should be scrambling, and 3C would be (usually) a five card suit and weak NT. I also think that 3H should be forcing, with weak NT and hearts then bid 2NT, usually planning to support hearts later. If you play that 1C denies 4+ diamonds if balanced (or perhaps only denies 5 diamonds) then 3D should be forcing. With this structure you are in a tough spot with the medium club hand though, if you can not afford to force game vs a take-out double (which I think you should, or at least 4C).

[awm]

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

[antonylee]

Actually Jassem treats explicitly this auction in his WJ2005 book (See "How do you show the middle variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" section.): 2N doesn't show a stopper and covers all WNTs; 3C is indeed 15-17 clubs. As he says, at least you get overcaller on lead.

PS: I just saw that Jassem now also has WJ2015; anyone knows what's new in it?

[gwnn]

Ah right he does cover this in the "how to show the medium variant of the 1♣ opening" in the WJ2010 book (probably that's what you mean?). Just where you'd expect to see discussion on 1♣-(2♠)-x-p; ? I like the book but it's quite frustrating to look up something quickly. It's closer to a postmodern novel in first person than a book describing a bridge system.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2015-January-19, 05:08, said:

Ah right he does cover this in the "how to show the medium variant of the 1♣ opening" in the WJ2010 book (probably that's what you mean?). Just where you'd expect to see discussion on 1♣-(2♠)-x-p; ? I like the book but it's quite frustrating to look up something quickly. It's closer to a postmodern novel in first person than a book describing a bridge system.

Profi tip: Go through the book and write all of the sequences out in a proper system write-up style containing every sequence given. Then you can go back and fill in the gaps and you have a perfect document for looking everything up.

[gwnn]

Yes but that would require effort... Plus I wrote two versions of WJ from scratch with two different partners, so I'm not gonna write another one. Whining is the best solution in this case (as it is indeed in most cases for me).

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2015-January-18, 06:04, said:

I had these two come up recently:

1)
1♣-(2♠)-x-p
?

I had something like xx Axx Kxx KQTxx and I bid 3♣ because we had no agreement but I guess that should be 15-17 with clubs, and non-forcing? So with these hands I should just close my eyes and bid 2NT, right? I did not find this anywhere in Matula or Jassem, strangely enough.

I disagree with Jassem on this in contested auctions.
For me this is just a takeout double and a suit response at a minimum level may be made with a minimum opening.
If you want to show a strong hand you either cuebid or jump.
With intermediate hands and clubs use your judgment. Without anything useful in spades it will often be prudent to bid 3♣. So a 3♣ response can be wide ranging.
(In some versions of PC if you open 1♦ with four, diamond bids can be used to show the strong variant artificially, but this requires discussions and prior agreements)
For me 2NT is natural (12-14) in this sequence.
Responder is essentially unlimited and it may be important that opener declares notrump.
Bidding 2NT with xx Axx Kxx KQTxx as Jassem suggests is asking for trouble.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

awm, on 2015-January-19, 00:34, said:

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

Just what the Americans said about the Italian methods when they were beaten time and again.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

awm, on 2015-January-19, 00:34, said:

Reading some of these Polish club threads I am becoming more and more amazed that the Poles are able to do so well with such (seemingly) terrible methods!

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

[straube]

helene_t, on 2015-January-29, 05:10, said:

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

Maybe you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT. The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

Again, it would be useful if you tallied a couple hundred hands or so and shared your results with us.

[straube]

helene_t, on 2015-January-29, 05:10, said:

PC is actually a great system, IMHO.

Yes, the 1♦ opening may be underloaded and the 2♣ overloaded, and three-suited hands short in diamonds are awkward, but most systems have such "issues". On the bright side, PC makes a useful distinction between the minor suit openings, the 1M range is not as ridicolously wide as in SA nor as ridicolously narrow as in classic Precision, and the whole opening scheme is fine to play in 3rd/4th seat as well.

Maybe if you're interested you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT. The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

I like having a 10-15 range for 1M because it allows for frequent 1M-4M auctions without undue fear of missing slam. I understand there's divided opinion about the optimum 1M range.

[gwnn]

antonylee, on 2015-January-19, 01:29, said:

Actually Jassem treats explicitly this auction in his WJ2005 book (See "How do you show the middle variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" section.): 2N doesn't show a stopper and covers all WNTs; 3C is indeed 15-17 clubs. As he says, at least you get overcaller on lead.

PS: I just saw that Jassem now also has WJ2015; anyone knows what's new in it?

I ordered the new book. It's true that my Polish is nonexistent but I couldn't resist. I will answer when I get the book.

[rhm]

straube, on 2015-January-29, 13:03, said:

Maybe if you're interested you could post here a frequency diagram for your openings. My previous tallies of these lead me to believe that the 1D is significantly underloaded. The 1C opening is significantly overloaded; I have enough trouble with space for my strong 1C opening without deducting bids to show the weak NT.

Contrary to what many believe, this is not inherent to the Polish 1♣ opening. That depends more what restrictions you put on the 1♦ opening, for which there is no agreement in PC.
If you insist 1♦ to be unbalanced you are right, but many believe this to be a wonderful idea. For example Transfer Walsh is commonly played with an unbalanced 1♦ opening and is now getting quite popular in expert circles. In this system opening frequency is even more skewed.
If you only require that 1♦ should show 4 cards (as for example in WJ05) you are wrong, because the balanced 12-14 notrump hands are essentially shared between 1♣ and 1♦ depending on whether there is a 4 card diamond suit or not.

Quote

The 2C opening expresses far too much preference for clubs when clubs may be a 5-cd suit.

Here I agree. My 2♣ opening guarantees six cards in clubs.
I open hands with 4-1 in the majors and 3 diamonds and 5 clubs with 1♦ and have not found this to be a problem in practice.

Quote

One club which may be strong or weak NT creates immediate problems for responder. If 1C were always a weak NT, responder's bids would be assigned something very different than if 1C were always strong. These immediate problems are amplified when LHO takes away bidding room.

One can tell that you must have had little practical exposure to Polish club.
When opponents interfere over 1♣, responder always assumes the weak variant until proven otherwise. Responder reacts very similar as if partner had opened a weak notrump and next hand interfered. Responder is in fact usually in a much more comfortable position compared to strong clubbers. It is quite simple.
Opener's rebid tends to tell immediately whether he has 12-14 or 18+ (The 15-17 club variant is rare). This is somewhat unusual at first, but it works quite well once you get used to it. Polish clubbers are somewhere in between strong club systems and natural systems where opener could have any hand between 11 and 21. But even strong clubbers can have difficulties and do not know whether opener has 16 HCP or 21 HCP after a preempt by an opponent.

Quote

I like having a 10-15 range for 1M because it allows for frequent 1M-4M auctions without undue fear of missing slam. I understand there's divided opinion about the optimum 1M range.

One could argue the same way as you do above.
Limiting the strength of 1M opening too much reduces their frequencies and underloads them at the cost of other openings.

I once tabulated the frequencies of openings for my variant of Polish club (4 card diamond suit) and the result was:

1♣ 28.7% (18+ HCP: 12.4%, 12-14: 14.1% and 15-17 clubs: 2.2%)
1♦ 24.7% (4+ reasonable diamonds, unless (14)3♦5♣)
1♥ 15.0%
1♠ 15.4%
1NT 12.7% (can have a 5 card major)
2♣ 3.5% (six cards in clubs)

That does not look to me as if 1♣ is overloaded. .

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2015-January-30, 03:40, said:

If you insist 1♦ to be unbalanced you are right

Not necessarily. Another modern variant that one sees sometimes is for the 1♦ opening to be unbalanced but also wide-ranging, exactly as in the Transfer Walsh methods you outlined. These diamond hands then do not need to be accounted for after 1♣.

rhm, on 2015-January-30, 03:40, said:

Here I agree. My 2♣ opening guarantees six cards in clubs.
I open hands with 4-1 in the majors and 3 diamonds and 5 clubs with 1♦ and have not found this to be a problem in practice.

I am interested whether you open 1♦ on 3 also in the 15-17 range. If so then your 15-17 club variant is presumably also 6+, right? To make this work you are presumably also giving up a 2♦ opening for mini-Roman, which is certainly an additional disadvantage to weigh against the benefits. If you do not find a significant difference between the short diamond and the unbalanced one then I would suggest you were not making the most from the latter. It is not so much that 3+ produces a problem though, so much that the unbalanced one creates opportunities, so perhaps this is what you mean here.

[straube]

Hi Rainer,

I'm interested in Zelandakh's questions.

Do you use 2D for the 3-suited short diamond hands?

Have you tallied your responses to your 1C opening? How often do you respond 1D?

[glen]

It would be interesting to play 2D as:

- 11-14
- three-suited
- exactly 5 clubs
- 0, 1, or 3 Ds
- 1, 3, or 4 in each major

[Zelandakh]

You have been reading too many of Ken's posts, Glen!

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-January-30, 07:08, said:

I am interested whether you open 1♦ on 3 also in the 15-17 range. If so then your 15-17 club variant is presumably also 6+, right? To make this work you are presumably also giving up a 2♦ opening for mini-Roman, which is certainly an additional disadvantage to weigh against the benefits. If you do not find a significant difference between the short diamond and the unbalanced one then I would suggest you were not making the most from the latter. It is not so much that 3+ produces a problem though, so much that the unbalanced one creates opportunities, so perhaps this is what you mean here.

Currently I do not do this for the 15-17 range and I see little need because the scenario is quite different when you open 1♣ instead of 2♣.
Using 2♦ for mini-Roman looks to me too high a price to pay.
One reason I dislike opening 2♣ with five is that you may miss a 4-4 fit in the majors or get too high because responder will try for it or a limited responder does not know what to do with shortage in clubs.
But opening this distribution with 1♣ when 15-17 is okay, because you will always explore your major suit 4-4 fit first.
So having only 3 cards when opening 1♦ is quite rare, You are always in the 12-14 range and either 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣ or 4♠=1♥=3♦=5♣

straube, on 2015-January-30, 09:06, said:

Hi Rainer,

I'm interested in Zelandakh's questions.

Do you use 2D for the 3-suited short diamond hands?

Have you tallied your responses to your 1C opening? How often do you respond 1D?

I use standard Polish two opening: 2♦ as a weak two in a major and 2♥ and 2♠ as Polish two suiters.
I see little problem opening 1♣ with 3 suited hands short in diamond. The only shortage you can always have when you hold the weak variant of 1♣ is in diamonds. But responder knows this and competing in diamonds over interference with a five card diamond suit when responder is limited is not that important. We can not have a great fit in diamonds since opener would open 1♦ with 4 cards in the variant I play.

My responses to 1♣ are also fairly standard.

I have not tallied my responses to 1♣ but I play the following natural responses to 1♣ similar to WJ05:

1♦: 0-6 if responder holds a major suit. Without a four card major it can be balanced 0-10 HCP or unbalanced (minors) up to 11 HCP.
1M is 7+ HCP with a four card or longer major
1NT is 10(+)-12, invitational opposite a weak notrump. With 12-14 opener either rebids 3NT or passes. This allows the partnership to stop in 1NT if opener declines the invitation.
2♣ 5+ clubs, can contain a four card major, game forcing
2♦ 5+ diamonds, no four card major, game forcing.

Rainer Herrmann