[Kungsgeten]

rhm: So 1C can be 12+ hcp and 4-4-0-5? With 4414 and 15-17 you open 1NT?

[rhm]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-30, 17:25, said:

rhm: So 1C can be 12+ hcp and 4-4-0-5? With 4414 and 15-17 you open 1NT?

I open 1♣ in both cases. In fact doing anything else with 4-4 in the majors and short diamonds seems to me a distortion unless you use a specialized opening showing this hand-type.
Where do you anticipate problems?

In essence my 1♣ opening shows:

1) 12-14 balanced usually without 4 reasonable diamonds or a semi-balanced 5422 distribution with 5 clubs and a 4 card major.
2) any 18+ HCP
3) long clubs 15-17
4) Threesuiter short in diamonds 12-17 with no 5 card major.

1) and 2) is by far the most common.
A reopening double by opener could only be ambiguous if opponents interfere in diamonds. It could be 2) or 4)

When I said responder reacts to 1♣ interference the same way you do over interference of a weak notrump, I meant responder assumes opener holds 12-14 and can be assured in this case that opener has no shortage except possibly in diamonds, which I consider no big deal, since the money is on the majors.

Rainer Herrmann

[Kungsgeten]

Quote

Where do you anticipate problems?

Mostly curious since I play Swedish Club and our 1♣ opening is 11-13 NT (or 4414) or 17+ and 2♣ is 12-16 with 5+♣. We've discussed how to make the 2♣ opening better, and I guess the most obvious thing to do is like you, but I'm not quite sure of including short diamond hands in 1♣, especially not in the 14-16 range (our 1NT opening range). For now we'll stick with the 2♣ opening.

I think the Polish Club response scheme to 1♣ handles your structure okay, since 1♣-1♦ is bid with most non-GF minor-suited hands. We use 1♣-1NT as transfer to clubs (8+ hcp) and 1♣-2♣ as transfer to diamonds (8+ hcp) where opener is supposed to accept the transfer with the 11-13 hand. We've accepted that once in a blue moon we'll be stuck in a 5-1 fit when opener is 4414 and responder transfers to diamonds and pass, but including more short diamond hands in 1♣ will make this more frequent. The same is true if the opponents interfere.

[straube]

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

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

I think it is. Here's a rough estimate of Precision openings...
1♣ 15%
1♦ 31%
1♥ 11%
1♠ 11%
1NT 15%

so these players (by comparison) use 1C almost half as less. They might do so because 1) strong hands are more important 2) 1C has to handle every
possible pattern and this is difficult enough without having to also describe additional point ranges outside of strong and 3) 1C is forcing and
because partner cannot pass 1C (like he can 1D for example) more space is needed than for non-forcing openings.

More important is what is revealed by responses to 1C (why I asked yours). Some kind of canape Polish Club reported the following frequencies...
(http://bridgemaniacs...requencies.html)

1D-62%
1H-8%
1S-8%
1N-8%
etc

Its 1D response netted higher than would be true for Precision. Maybe your responses are not so lop-sided. A high number of 1D responses is not good. Lots of 1C openings and lots of 1D responses...and not much is really known thereafter except that opener has 12+ hcps. The next forcing bid available is 2D?

A second concern is that the 1H and 1S responses are probably similar in frequency and this is also not good. Contrast this to...

IMPrecision responses to 1C
1D-47%
1H-22%
1S-16%
1N-7%
etc

or Meckwell Lite
1D-55% ?
1H-20+%

I think the reason for this is that the more room responder takes up, the more responder will get in the way of opener when he has the "wrong" hand type.
For example, if opener were known to have an intermediate balanced or club hand, one might arrange the responses as...

P-to play
1D-artificial invitational+
1H-natural, not forcing
1S-natural, not forcing

which is very different from most club structures.

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

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.

Yeah, I've never played PC. I've read that many are attracted to using a club that doesn't announce a strong hand and doesn't encourage frivolous intervention. If using a multi-club creates problems for an uncontested auction, it doesn't seem worth that advantage to me. In any case, when opponents intervene, and especially at higher levels, I'd much rather have delivered the "strong" message than not. 1C (2S) and responder can take action with roughly an 8 count but can't without roughly 12 if opener may have only a weak NT. I think that's a big difference. After 1C (2S) P P opener can easily be stitched in PC if holding an awkward shape, particularly with a spade holding. Bidding with Qxxx x AKxx AKQx could easily be wrong and yet responder could have a 10 ct. Playing strong club there isn't the same kind of pressure to reopen this.

You know, your openings seem like they've been influenced a bit by modern Precision openings (2C promises 6 clubs and 1D can be 1435 or 4135). You could choose to open 1M with 11-17 if you preferred and then the main difference between what you play and Precision would be your choice to reveal (usually) 4+ diamonds or whether opener has a strong hand.

[antonylee]

straube, on 2015-February-01, 11:41, said:

1D-62%
1H-8%
1S-8%
1N-8%
etc

I'm fairly sure his numbers are wrong. Using the WJ95 structure (1D=0-6 any, 7-8 no 4cM, 9-11 unbal minor(s); 1N=9-11), I get 1D~40%, 1H~26%, 1S~23%, 1N~4%, 2m~1% each. Depending on what you use for 2M (strong in standard but I assume some play it as weak) the numbers will change a little bit, I also ignored the ~3% bal GFs which should get split between 1D and 2N (depending on right-siding issues).

From the blog description, which uses slightly different point ranges, I get 1D~46%, 1H~22%, 1S~19%, 1N~6%, 2suit~1% each -- still pretty far from his results.

[gwnn]

Straube are you seriously arguing that 13-31 is a better distribution between 1C and 1D than 28-24?? It stands to reason that lower openings should come up most often, if other things are equal. Of course, generally I do not lend a lot of credence to this "underloaded/overloaded" issue, but if you are going to talk about percentages only, at least do it right. Believing without wondering that 62% of the time responder bids 1D to 1C is also telling.

[straube]

antonylee, on 2015-February-02, 00:56, said:

I'm fairly sure his numbers are wrong. Using the WJ95 structure (1D=0-6 any, 7-8 no 4cM, 9-11 unbal minor(s); 1N=9-11), I get 1D~40%, 1H~26%, 1S~23%, 1N~4%, 2m~1% each. Depending on what you use for 2M (strong in standard but I assume some play it as weak) the numbers will change a little bit, I also ignored the ~3% bal GFs which should get split between 1D and 2N (depending on right-siding issues).

From the blog description, which uses slightly different point ranges, I get 1D~46%, 1H~22%, 1S~19%, 1N~6%, 2suit~1% each -- still pretty far from his results.

Thanks for running it. I tallied 100 hands looking at 12+ hcps that fit the parameters for 1C and got similar results. I put all GF bal into 2N and used 2M as 4-6 with 6+M. I didn't upgrade (or downgrade) any hands based on playing strength.

1D-44
1H-25
1S-17
1N-3
2C-3
2D-3
2H-1
2S-1
2N-3

which is a respectable distribution. Last night I tallied a mere 20 hands which seemed to confirm 60% for 1D.

Do you happen to have a hand generator you could share? Would save a lot of time.

[antonylee]

straube, on 2015-February-02, 02:09, said:

Do you happen to have a hand generator you could share? Would save a lot of time.

I have my own:
https://github.com/anntzer/redeal

The script I used for this study:

from collections import Counter
from redeal import *


resps = Counter()


def accept(deal):
    s = deal.south
    return (12 <= s.hcp <= 14 and balanced(s) and len(s.spades) < 5 and len(s.hearts) < 5 or
            15 <= s.hcp <= 17 and not balanced(s) and max(map(len, s)) == len(s.clubs) >= 5 or
            18 <= s.hcp)

def do(deal):
    n = deal.north
    #if n.hcp <= 6 or n.hcp <= 8 and len(n.spades) < 4 and len(n.hearts) < 4:
        #resps["1D"] += 1
    if n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.spades) >= 6:
        resps["2S"] += 1
    elif n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.hearts) >= 6:
        resps["2H"] += 1
    elif n.hcp <= 7:
        resps["1D"] += 1
    elif 4 <= len(n.hearts) > len(n.spades) or len(n.hearts) == len(n.spades) == 4:
        resps["1H"] += 1
    elif 4 <= len(n.spades) >= len(n.hearts):
        resps["1S"] += 1
    #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n):
        #resps["1N"] += 1
    #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11:
        #resps["1D"] += 1
    elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n):
        resps["1N"] += 1
    elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11:
        resps["1D"] += 1
    elif n.hcp >= 12 and balanced(n):
        resps["2N"] += 1
    elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) >= len(n.clubs):
        resps["2D"] += 1
    elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) < len(n.clubs):
        resps["2C"] += 1
    else:
        print(n)

def final(n_tries):
    print(resps)

Comment and uncomment accordingly to switch between WJ05 and "Canape Polish club", whatever it means.

Run as "python -mredeal -n10000 filename.py".

[rhm]

My responses to my variant of Polish Club show roughly the following frequencies :

1♦: 46%
1♥: 24.5%
1♠: 21%
1NT: 3.3%
2♣: 1.8%
2♦: 1.9%
2NT: 1.5%

I did not bother with preemptive hands. They all went into 1♦. So the 1♦ is a bit less frequent.

Rainer Herrmann

[antonylee]

On another topic...

straube, on 2015-February-01, 11:41, said:

I think the reason for this is that the more room responder takes up, the more responder will get in the way of opener when he has the "wrong" hand type.
For example, if opener were known to have an intermediate balanced or club hand, one might arrange the responses as...

P-to play
1D-artificial invitational+
1H-natural, not forcing
1S-natural, not forcing

which is very different from most club structures.

I know (think?) Zel also plays a structure where 1M is NF. I guess that means ~0-9(10)? How useful is that? Most of the time if you have a fit you will be bumped to 2M anyways by the opponents and if you don't have one, 1M may or may not be better than 1N (yes, probably you'll save a couple of undertricks on a few 12-0 hands but even then...?) And PC will also get you to 1M, it's just going to be opener's better major instead.

[straube]

antonylee, on 2015-February-02, 11:27, said:

On another topic...


I know (think?) Zel also plays a structure where 1M is NF. I guess that means ~0-9(10)? How useful is that? Most of the time if you have a fit you will be bumped to 2M anyways by the opponents and if you don't have one, 1M may or may not be better than 1N (yes, probably you'll save a couple of undertricks on a few 12-0 hands but even then...?) And PC will also get you to 1M, it's just going to be opener's better major instead.

Well, I wouldn't want to play that for PC. I was trying to make the point that very different approaches would be optimum for a club known to be strong vs a club known to be weak. If the club can be strong or weak, you have to have a compromise structure which is not optimum for either one.

[antonylee]

Coming back to the simulation issue: I would say that in practice, I would guess 1C-1D auctions were less than 45% (well, I haven't played PC for more than 2 years so it's just a guess) -- likely because on most weak hands, lefty will have overcalled before you get to bid (in practice in the US most play a standard defense against PC, essentially treating it as a short club). I would argue that this is something that should be taken into account in all these simulations -- but the wide-ranging styles of overcalls makes this difficult to simulate.

Perhaps we should come up with some "standard overcall rules" for sims? Could be useful for DD sims too.

[awm]

The reason I think Polish Club is a bad system has very little to do with the frequency charts of which Straube is so fond. The problems I see with the method generally come down to the following:

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit. After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts? Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances from very good players using these methods.

[Kungsgeten]

Now I haven't played Polish club, but Swedish Club (11-13 NT or 17+, but not 20-21 NT) is a similar style, so I'll respond anyway

Quote

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

In practice opener often has the strong hand, but ofcourse the opponents may be trap passing. Our 1♦ response show most 0-7 or 8-11 NT without a 4 card major (optional with 5 card minor), this response is not forcing. We play that a 1♥ rebid by opener is forcing for one round, which solves a lot of problems when holding the strong hand. This is also recommended by Martens in one of his books (a strong club system, but very inspired by Polish Club, where 1♣ is 15-17 balanced, 15+ with clubs or 18+ any). By using 1♥ as forcing you lose the ability to play 1♥ though. Our rebid structure:

1♣-1♦;
pass = 11-13 NT, usually no 4 card major
1♥ = a) (3)4♥ 11-13 NT b) GF with 5+♥ c) Balanced GF d) Extras unbalanced but not GF (about (19)20-22, Acolish)
1♠ = a) (3)4♠ 11-13 NT b) Any unbalanced hand with 4+♠, 17-19 c) 5♠332, 17-19
1NT = 17-19
2♣♦ = Unbalanced, 5+ suit, not 4♠, 17-19
2♥ = 5+♥, not 4♠, 17-19
2♠ = Natural GF
2NT = 22-24
3♣♦ = Natural GF, 3♦ denies 4 card major
3♥♠ = 4 card suit, 5+ diamonds, GF

1♣-1♦; 1♥--
1♠ = Natural 0-7, weak hand must pass
1NT = No major, 0-11, weak hand must pass
2♣ = 4+♥, 0-7, weak hand must bid 2♥
2♦♥ = 5+ suit, 5-7
2♠ = 6+♣, 5-7

Playing Polish I think something similar is possible, but the 15-17 hand with clubs is a problem.

Quote

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit. After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

Yes, it is bad. So is bidding after interference when playing strong club (but not as bad), and when having a very strong hand when playing natural (especially if we've opened with a 2+ club opening or similar). We play that the 17+ hand must act, which I think is the correct way to do it but sometimes this will lead to bad results ofcourse. 1♣-(1♠) is much easier. In my mind negative free bids is not the same thing as playing the two-level as "to play". A negative free bid should show about 8-12 if opener most of the time has 11-13 bal. With good support and a max, opener can raise and we'll bid game. Jumping to 3X should be GF vs the weak hand. This is a problem independent of Polish Club or not, if playing negative free bids.

Quote

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts? Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

18+ hands with 5+♦ seems to be a pain if playing Polish, and I guess this is the reason why some play the 1♦ opening as wide-range 11-21. Now a jump to 3♦ is a very strong hand. 1♣-1M; 2♦ is not reserved for hands with exactly 3 card support, it shows 3+ support. We play 1♣-1♠; 3♠ as 17-18 balanced with 4♠. The 2♦ support bid is not as good as playing relays, but works well otherwise. In normal Polish Club 1♣-1M; 2♣ is 15+ with clubs and forcing for one round. Our 1M response is game forcing vs the 17+ hand, and opener can not have an intermediate hand with clubs, so we use the following rebids:

1♣-1M;
1♠ = Natural, F1. 11-13 NT or 17+ 5+♠.
1NT = 11-13 NT
2♣ = 0-2 support, 17+ and both minors (at least 5-4) or a 5+ minor and 4 cards in the other major.
2♦ = 3+ support, 17+
2M = 11-13 NT with 4 card support
2♥ = 0-2 support, 5+♥ and 17+
2♠ = 0-2 support, good 6+♠ and 17+
2NT = 1-2 support, natural 17+
3♣♦ = 0-2 support, 6+ suit and no other 4+ suit, 17+
3M = 17-18 NT with 4 card support
Higher = Splinter, 17+ and 4 card support

This would probably be possible if playing Polish too, but the 2♣ rebid would have to cater for 15-17 and be able to stop below game which might be hard.

Quote

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

This is probably true, except for nebulous diamond hands in a strong club system where opener is not able to show his suit and responder can't act because opener can be balanced or have diamonds or even other stuff. There's some holes on routine hands in those methods too. It is possible that Polish Club has more holes though.

Quote

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances
from very good players using these methods.

Is Moscito really spread anywhere? Bidding enthusiasts seem to like it, but has it been played outside of Australia/New Zealand otherwise? The Poles sees Polish Club as a natural system, which it mostly is, but the system often get compared to more artificial methods. I would say that a strong club system is more artificial than Polish Club. I think that a reason that Precision is popular in America is that its basically American Standard converted into a strong club system: keep the majors 5+, keep the strong NT, make 1♣ strong and what do we have to adjust in order for it to be playable? This is also the way Precision is marketed in books about it: easy to adapt into if playing American Standard or 2/1.

[rhm]

awm, on 2015-February-02, 19:31, said:

The reason I think Polish Club is a bad system has very little to do with the frequency charts of which Straube is so fond.

Let's face it: There is no system, which does not have strengths and weaknesses.
With weaknesses I mean hands, which are handled much better by other systems.

Over my career as a Bridge player I was very much interested in bidding systems. I started with ACOL and then played Blue Club, Precision, a strong club system I developed myself.
In recent years I played mostly my variant of Polish club and Two-Over-One.
Since I have kept up with the English Bridge literature I think I know a little bit about the issues.
One thing I am convinced of is that five card majors have a slight advantage over four card majors.

About weaknesses of systems: If you are competent, to spot them is easy. But this does not tell you much. To know how serious they are in practice you have to play the system and battle with them.

Weaknesses of Natural systems like SAYC or Two Over One: Obviously the wide ranging opening one bids and the start of strong hands with 2♣.
Strong club systems like Precision overcome these problems. There must be a reason why in the US a far bigger portion of the top players prefer to play such a system compared to the general public.

Weaknesses of Precision: Typically nebulous diamond opening (not an issue in PC) and the requirement for an opening showing short diamonds in preference to an obstructive opening bid. The 2♣ opening is also somewhat dubious.

Now let's get to the individual problem issues you mention of PC:

Quote

1. The 1♣-1♦-1M auctions seem very bad to me. Opener's rebid seemingly shows 3-4M in a weak notrump, or 4M with longer clubs in an intermediate hand, or 5+M with 18-21, or probably 4M with either longer minor in 18-21. This is effectively 12-21 high with 3+M, which is virtually impossible to continue over. Give responder a moderate hand with 3-fit like xx KJx xxxx xxxx after 1♣-1♦-1♥ and there seems to be no good way to continue. You can bid 1NT (or 2M) and get pounded any time partner had a weak notrump, or you can pass and miss game when partner has AQx AQxxx AKxx x. This is worse than a standard american based system where the 1M opening has the same range but always shows a five-card suit (giving you some safety on sub-par hands with 3-fit).

This is one of those areas, which you identify immediately in theory.
Strangely enough I never get this issue at the table and I have now played PC for a long time.
My way of playing over 1♣-1♦ is that a 1♠ rebid guarantees at least 4 cards and when I am 12-14 with no four card major I will respond always 1♥, never 1♠.
I have never been caught in a penalty double. Sure, when I get a 1♥ rebid, I could theoretically be in an uncomfortable position.
I probably pass with xx KJx xxxx xxxx. Opener had stronger rebids like 2♥ over 1♣-1♦. Once in a blue moon I miss a good 4♥ with 23 HCP and a 5-3 fit between us, opener holding something like AQx AQxxx AKxx x. (By the way the contract is not cold)
Yes it happens, but that happens in standard too, maybe on different hands.

But let's assume you hold xx KJx xxxx xxxx in standard. Are you sure your position is so comfortable when you decide to respond over 1♥?
One can not discuss the disadvantages without the advantages. For example that you can often stop at 1NT in PC, where other play 2NT opposite a near yarborough.

Quote

2. Bidding over interference seems very bad to me. That's what this thread is about. After 1♣-(2♠) and two passes, what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length? Partner won't double on 7-9 with doubleton spade, because he expects a weak notrump opposite, so you sort of have to balance but if partner's very weak or it's a misfit you go for a number. Not a problem in strong club, and not so big a problem in standard because at least you know partner could raise with a fit for your long suit.

what does opener do with a strong hand and some spade length

As a rule:

Opener shows a strong hand by taking any action other than Pass and Double. (Some play that DBL also confirms the strong variant. I could also double with the weak hand in the passout situation, but will double only if weak, I hold a doubleton spade and four hearts).
Now tell me please why you are in a better position in standard after 1♣-(2♠)? The way most play, opener has promised 2+ cards in clubs, but opener does not even promise anything in the other suits.
In case of Polish club we know opener will have at least a doubleton in the majors if he is minimum. The information that opener has at least a doubleton spade if he doubles and is minimum is invaluable.

Quote

After a simple auction like 1♣-(1♠) what does responder do with an invitational hand with a suit opposite the weak notrump? 2x is a negative free bid, so 3x and take away all the space when opener has a strong hand? Double or a forcing 2nt (giving partner no clue about your shape)? It's just ugly.

You have a misconception about negative free bids, but you are not alone in that and you suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome.
Negative free bids are not forcing but they are constructive, not a sign-off. They are not purely competitive and they are designed for invitational hands. I will often make the same bid, you play as forcing as a negative free bid. The difference of course is that my partner can pass and I will know I will find at least a doubleton on the table.
If I have an invitational hand I either want to be in game or stop two levels below game. I do not like to stop in 2NT, 3♥ or 3♠. Chances that you can not make those contracts when partner does not fit your hand well are high. That's one reason why I like negative free bids at the two level.
If my points are poor and I think I have no chance for game opposite a balanced 12-14 even when opener has a good fit for my suit, I will decline to act immediately.
But I can be a bit more aggressive with negative free bids, knowing my partner can pass my bid and sometimes this is the only way to get to game easily on a distributional hand with a reasonable suit.
In fact opposite the strong variant negative free bids are forcing to game. The big difference to standard is that opener is not forced with a misfitting minimum.

Where I play most play standard with negative free bids, even though opener could be short in responders suit in standard. I know negative free bids have often a bad press in the US. I believe they are a strength not a weakness of the system.

Quote

3. The uncontested strong auctions don't seem as good as you might expect. For example, say the auction goes 1♣-1♠. You have 18+ with a long diamond suit. But 2♦ is artificial showing three-card support, so what do you bid? 3♦ seems space-killing and contrary to the whole point of opening your big hands with a cheap 1♣. What if you have 4♥ and 5+♦? Certainly 2♥ is available, but couldn't this be a strong hand with primary hearts?

Strong diamond hands are not handled particularly well in PC. It is a trade-off.
You want a strong raise available over 1♣-1M showing 18+ and at least 3 card support without taking up too much bidding space. These hands occur far more often than strong hands with long diamonds.
1♣-1M-2♦ is used for this purpose. It is called "fit reverse" and is game forcing and acts as a relay, responder describes his strength and distribution. It is a cornerstone of PC slam bidding.
Most use 1♣-1♠-3♥ to show 4♥ and longer diamonds and 18+ and a few bid 1♣-1♠-3♦ expecting responder showing a heart suit if at least 5-4 in the majors.
I admit that in standard you can reverse 1♦-1♠-2♥, which is better.
Nevertheless if in PC the bidding starts 1♣-1M-3♦ or 1♣-1M-2NT responder knows opener has less than three cards in his major, in standard the equivalent sequences 1♦-1M-3♦ and 1♣-1M-2NT do not give you this information.
Whatever your critic, if we do discard the fit reverse these problems would all disappear. But I have no doubt that the fit reverse convention is a big improvement overall to the system.
This last point clearly shows that it is dangerous to judge a system solely by its "holes". Almost all decisions in a system are tradeoffs.

Quote

Okay, what if you have 4+♠ support? Great, but 2♠ shows a weak notrump, so it seems you are bidding 3♠ a lot (again taking a lot of space) and partner has no idea if you have spades and clubs or spades and diamonds or primary spades (nor do you have any idea about partner's hand beyond 4+♠ and better than a negative). This just seems a lot worse than a strong club auction, and arguably worse than a standard american-ish auction where you generally know what opener's long suit is (in addition to the fit and the overall strength). Or take a balanced hand, 1♣-1♠ and now you more or less have to rebid 2NT on 2335 and 2353 (and maybe also 1453 if 2♥ showed primary hearts and 3♦ showed six). Again this is way behind precision, behind standard-ish with T-walsh (both those systems can rebid 1NT on this hand type) and arguably behind a vanilla standard-ish (where again, you at least know opener's longer minor).

Here you show a lack of knowledge of the system..
As explained above PC uses the 2♦ (fit reverse) to show these hands. This is clearly a strong point of PC.
With regard to the 2NT rebid (1♣-1♠-2NT) there are some important differences:
Opener could have rebid a forcing 2♣ with a club suit. Rebidding 2NT was game forcing and denied already 3 cards in spades. There is no need for a check-back and responder can simply bid 3♠ with a six card suit.
The simplest way is for responder to bid a second suit with four cards or longer and a fit in another suit can be established easily since we are in a game forcing situation to start with. But you could also play 3♣ as an asking bid here, opener describing how his minors look like.
I can not see why PC is so much behind other systems here. The information available is different but not all to the advantage of other systems. For example there is no need for a Wolf sign-off in PC.

Quote

4. There seem to be a lot of "holes" in the method. Yes, all systems have difficult hands and poorly defined auctions, but there just seem to be more of them in Polish club and not always on crazy distributions or against aggressive preemption. The various threads in this forum about Polish club seem to often be "how do you bid this hand" (when the hand is really simple in other methods) or "how do you fix this problem" where again the problem seems very early in very simple auctions. Maybe some of this is because people can't read Polish, but I feel like the "problem" sequences in strong club auctions tend to be on less routine shapes and/or sequences.

5. As for the Poles doing well with the system, I would tend to discount that a little bit. Certainly Poland is a bridge-loving country with some very good players. But if their system was really so good, why has it not spread outside that part of the world? Are there any top American pairs playing Polish club? Maybe you think Americans are too system-restricted; how about the top Aussies? The Norwegians and Dutch seem unafraid to try some interesting stuff, any of them playing Polish club? I just don't see it much outside the Poles, and there has been plenty of adoption of Meckwell-inspired precision or blue club-inspired methods, or variants of Moscito (where allowed) or versions of T-Walsh making the rounds so it's not like everyone just plays their country's standard. It's also quite possible that because the methods aren't that well-known outside Poland, people don't defend them optimally. Certainly I have seen some disappointing performances from very good players using these methods.

On the number of "holes" I disagree entirely.
However, when playing an ill defined system, like natural systems tend to be, it is almost always possible after the table action, to come up with a sequence leading to the right contract.
This baffled me for a long time when I grew up with ACOL. I often did not have the success at the table, people claimed for the system in their books. The holes in the system are hidden behind so called judgement calls.
While I am a big fan of judgement I can distinguish between judgement and guesswork.
The Polish club system is a system, which evolved from a very long tradition. Forerunner where systems like Vienna. Systems like Swedish Club are not unsimilar to Polish Club.
Like the vast majority I do not speak Polish and I believe any system not in the English domain starts at a big disadvantage.
Even nowadays there are few books in English about the system, most of them outdated, and when you read a book about play it invariably uses a "standard system" in the bidding.
Given these facts Polish club has a remarkable adherence outside of Poland.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

In my strong club system, a 1♠ response to the (unbalanced) 1♦ opening is non-forcing but otherwise a 1M response is always forcing. The current response structure to 1♣ is the classical 1♦ negative and others GF, although I am considering an alternative with 1♦ DN or ♥ and 1NT+ as SPs. 1M will remain forcing (GF) in either scheme of course.

The theoretical basis of the PC and SC systems is that a weak NT is a "one bid hand" and works well homogenously with the strong hand type, which by their nature are "2+ bid hands". It does not matter that the weak NT hands are so common because they are effectively being treated as a single hand type. SC tends to work slightly better in competition as the 15-17 ♣ hand is a little awkward; but the rarity of it tends to make this issue unimportant in practise. It is this basis that makes both systems effective. The downside for both is that they generally lose the efficiency and effectiveness of a pure strong club auction. It is a trade off but for me SC is one of the very best "off the shelf" non-natural systems around and PC is only a little behind. There is, after all, a reason why my system shares certain characteristics.

Where I would like to agree with Rainer is in the subject of system making for easier/better judgement. We have had that discussion before and it is my strong belief that more system can easily make judgement calls more accurate in many cases, and also that differences in system can change the types of judgement calls significantly to ones that will suit a particular player better than in natural.

I also take the point about PC material being in Polish. The partner with whom I played my strong club actually learnt Polish after we stopped because PC was the closest she could get to playing my method with anyone else and it was a necessary step to join those tables. As far as I know she still likes this type of system and my experience is that the majority that do try these structures tend to like them after a period of getting used to them. That is not surprising when they are based on sound theoretical rules and a generally efficient design.

Whether Rainer's tweaks improve the basic system I cannot say. I see advantages and also disadvantages, the biggest minus being that you are mixing 2 different types of "one bid hand" into 1♣. Most of all his system seems to be a development in the direction of AUC (with a strong NT) and I am not sure it should still even be classified as PC. As previously pointed out, there are alternative ways of tweaking PC that remain truer to the basic concept. Again, I would not like to say which variant is absolutely the ost effective without trying out each extensively. Even then, the chances are that the positives and negatives largely balance each other leaving basically a personal choice on which strengths to take and which weaknesses to leave.

[straube]

Just a general point, but I think it would be most helpful to contrast PC and SC systems. I don't want to defend natural systems to PC.

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-03, 10:56, said:

The theoretical basis of the PC and SC systems is that a weak NT is a "one bid hand" and works well homogenously with the strong hand type, which by their nature are "2+ bid hands". It does not matter that the weak NT hands are so common because they are effectively being treated as a single hand type. SC tends to work slightly better in competition as the 15-17 ♣ hand is a little awkward; but the rarity of it tends to make this issue unimportant in practise. It is this basis that makes both systems effective. The downside for both is that they generally lose the efficiency and effectiveness of a pure strong club auction. It is a trade off but for me SC is one of the very best "off the shelf" non-natural systems around and PC is only a little behind. There is, after all, a reason why my system shares certain characteristics.

As you've written, yours is fundamentally a SC system. Your club is a point or two shy of most Precision clubs and you don't clutter it with a weak NT.

I don't think a weak NT works well at all with the strong hand type. For many strong clubbers, 1C-1D is a disappointing response in that a GF has not been created, the partnership has announced only 16+ hcps and no suit information has been exchanged. We've had lots of discussions about how best to proceed such as 1M rebids natural and forcing or not, 1H as 20+ artificial, or 1H as Kokish.

After 1C-1D PC has a great deal more to sort out than strong club does. Not only can opener have minimum balanced, minimum short diamonds, and medium club hands, but responder can have many hands which exceed the 0-7 range typical of Precision. I don't really understand about the weak NT being 1-bid hands. After 1C-1D the 1-bid hands have to bid again and that takes away room from the strong hands.

Btw, has anyone noticed the embarrassment of riches after PC's 1C-1N (GI) when opener has 18+? When opener removes, the partnership has suddenly announced something like 29 hcps. Same idea for 1C-2m where opener may know the combined assets are upwards of 30 hcps. Nice to know, but fit/GF early in the bidding and extras later in the bidding is a better use of system.

I think the auctions can be difficult, too, after 1C-1M, 2D when opener learns that only a 4-3 fit has been found. That's wasted effort and there isn't a lot of room to sort out responder's pattern.

rhm, on 2015-February-03, 07:16, said:

Opener shows a strong hand by taking any action other than Pass and Double. (Some play that DBL also confirms the strong variant. I could also double with the weak hand in the passout situation, but will double only if weak, I hold a doubleton spade and four hearts).

So after 1C (2S) P P

with Qxxx x AKJx AKQx you rebid 2N?

with xx AKJx Kxx Qxxx you double?

[Kungsgeten]

straube: By SC I think Zelandakh meant Swedish Club, not Strong Club.

[rhm]

straube, on 2015-February-03, 12:16, said:

So after 1C (2S) P P

with Qxxx x AKJx AKQx you rebid 2N?

with xx AKJx Kxx Qxxx you double?

Yes, though pass is an option with the first hand, particularly if opponents are vulnerable.
I would reopen with a double on the seond one

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-February-03, 14:23, said:

straube: By SC I think Zelandakh meant Swedish Club, not Strong Club.

Hm. The last I knew/thought he was using a weak NT opening such that 1C-1D was like 15-17. Zelandakh, what's your system?