[benlessard]

I initially wanted to post a reply in http://www.bridgebas...st-polish-club/ but felt it was better to start a new thread.I wanted to give my opinion (sometimes without arguments) on the pros and cons of precision (PRC) and VS Polish clubs (PC) and speak of my system.

My system is a hybrid of PC and precision, we are using a weak 1NT (12-14) and use the strong 1C at 15 so all balanced hand are open 1C or 1Nt and 1D is unbalanced with 4D like PC but our 1C is always "strong" like precision. One caveat is that I have never played Prc or PC at a serious level.

Im starting from 2nt and go down.

2NT = I really hate 2NT 19-21 or 20-21. For standard players I believe 2C for 20-21 or any GF and 2NT for 22-23 is a lot better. For the PC & prc I believe almost anything is better than 2NT 20-21. Yes I know that Meckwell keep 2nt for 19-21.

2M = I like frequent and wide ranging plain weak 2. I see nothing wrong with them except that they have a high variance when you play vs weaker teams.

2D = I like plain weak 2d, but i guess could play ranges around 8-12, Wilkosz or multi. I dont like mini-Roman, 2D precision,flannery or to use 2D to fix holes, since the frequency is going to be low and it will require special continuations that dont repeat anywhere else in the system. But overall I don't think its that relevant one way or another.

2C= I play that 5C+4M is possible, the standard precision responses scheme is simply awful. I think transfers are likely to be a good methods. The new version of what is

2D = GF relay or INV with long Maj (paradox responses) or inv with clubs
2M = INV NF with 4 or 5, opener need 3 (and a min) to pass with 2 or less he scramble to 2S,2NT,3C with a min.
2NT natural INV (could be long D inv)
3C preemptive
rest is GF.

2C-2D
??

2H i refuse a H inv may accept a S inv
2S = I refuse S INV but accept a H inv.
rest is non miminimum so GF usually showing specific shortness.

So basically when responder is GF he can use 2D GF relay but instead of knowing lenght he know opener shortness (leaking information however). (2C-2D-2M-2NT is GF) Its a compromise but this allow us to inv with 6M and inv with 4or5M and stop in 2M. We do rightside a lot and we often play in good 43 fits. So yes we could be 2c going down while 2M makes but we are not missing games or play the wrong games too often.

My 2 current partners think 2C with 5C+4M is no problem at all, my previous partner even thought that our 2C was a good winner. For me 1D show 4 and 2C show 5 is simply a lot better than 1D show 2 and 2C show 6. If you already have a balanced hand range in 1D than I can understand that the cost of using 1D for (41)35 or (42)25 is lower but for us and for PC it make little sense to use 2C for 6+C imo.

-----------------------------------------------------------
1NT= 12-14 may have 5M at any vul. This is our biggest weakness. 1NT vul is a little bit annoying but far worse is to open 1NT with 5M, its clearly where we loose most of our imps. Note that 1C with a weak nt (but forcing) is far from safe also. I feel precision 14-16 range and a 1D non forcing is a good winner here.

1S = for us its 11-14 or 18-21 always unbalanced, 5(422) is unb

If its good enough to overcall its good enough to open may seem logical but I think opening many 8-10 count got a lot of drawback. You ll need a monster to GF over them, and pass and overcall become non-existant. For quite a while I had the feeling that top players are opening too light or have too many "non-suits" openings, ive discussed this with a friend and he suggested that like poker if the players are too agressive being after them is going to be overly advantageous, about 2 month ago ive sent an email to Pavlicek to ask if 1&3rd seat will have a big advantage over 2and 4th and he kindly did it ... www.rpbridge.net/9x35.htm wich somewhat confirmed my views.

1st seat open 49% of the times while its 28.5% for 2nd seat 3rd is 17.5 and 4th is 4.5.

1&3rd are the opener 65% of the times compared to 35% for 2nd and 4th seats, this is a huge difference, but in the end 1st and 3rd seats are not even significantly ahead in the scores.

Either...
The top players bidding isnt as good as we think.
preempting doesnt work as much as we think
we are leaking too much info when we open
We open too light (not enough safety)
or some other reasons.

My view is that there is a massive increase in openings that dont suggest a suit or a lead and dont consume space, these are leaking pts because they are giving too much options to LHO and cannot be raised easily so they dont block RHO. These bids have a low annoyance effect and leak informations but dont always buy the hands. I also think that opening too light with 2/1 scheme cause problems. These 2 points may also explain a bit why Fantunes system got success.

Anyway for reals suits 10-15 or 11-17 look like good ranges to me but they are still wide enough to need a gadget to break the ranges (a la Gazilli, wich is ok but not great imo) or will face some invites that will put you one too high. 11-14 or 18-21 are tighter ranges and we rarely play at the 3 level. A splitted range and unbalanced 1M is something that must be tried rather than explained since its too different than standard methods.

1H= imo playing Kaplan inversion/1S relay if legal is a must, for us its among our best sequences

1H-1S (relay)--??

1NT=4 clubs 11-14 or 18-22
2C = 4D 11-14 or 18-22
2D =6H 11-14 or 18-22
2H = 4S+5H 11-14
rest is 5H+4S 18-22

With 5H and the proper pts count for 1NT I dont think its right to always open 1NT (like we do).

----------------
1D= for us its 4D unbalanced 11-21.

1- keeping a range of 11-15 or 11-17 for 1D is IMO super lame. I just dont understand opening 1C with 17-21 and primary diamonds. In about 10 years not once I have seen 1D all pass where we missed game. After 1D-1M- you have a lot of bids to show 16+ hands with long diamonds. Keeping the jumpshifing or reversing as non forcing is not worth a lot imo. The main advantages I see to a limited 1D is 1D-1nt psych.

Also normally you have space to fit everything show extras and stop in 2D/2M. Keeping 1D-1H-1S or 1D-1S-2H as forcing could be artificial should be good enough but there are other solutions.

we are using 1D-1H-?? 1S/1NT/2C as artificial and forcing here so we fit a lot of things in 1D-1H.

1D-1H-??

1S= clubs any strenght (may have 4H) 1NT is asking for longest minor.
1NT= 6D any strenght or 5D+4H 11-14 (2C is range check)
2C = 11-14 or 18-21 with 4S
2D 4D+4S 15-17
2H 4D+4H 15-17

1D-1S as showing 5s is pretty good.
1D-1NT showing 6c is also nice.
1D-2C as raise 5-7 or GF
1D-2D as 8-10


----------------
For 1C I think 16+ unb and 17+ if balanced is too rare. In general I think you should open 1C significantly more often than you open 1Nt. I also think 1C is better for balanced hands than for unbalanced hands. Balanced hands are less vulnerable to preemption and need more space to let partner describe his hands. However if your balanced is too weak (11-12) the chance to buy the hands is not good enough and all you have done is help the opponents adn took some risk if you were vul.

So I like that our bal 15+ are in 1C. Another idea for balanced hand is to be sound in 1st/2nd seat but compensate in 3rd/4th seat.

I think playing transfers or switch over a strong club/polish clubs is just too good to be true. I prefer weak or GF transfers but any type of transfers/switch will give you a good edge over plain prc or pc methods.

1C--2D (showing 6H)
2H all pass

1C--1NT (6C)
2C--??

2D gf bal
2H stiff D
2S stiff H
2Nt stiff S

these are huge for finding slams.

Things i hate

1C-1NT natural forcing or not is just awful.
1C-1D is 0-7 or 0-5, I prefer to show shapes first and than pts not the other way around.
1C-2y natural forcing or not.

Things I like

1C-1D-1M could be 3 cards non forcing like in polish clubs. It maximize the number of sequences when responder is GF and allow you to stop low when responder is broke and hold 3-4 cards there. It will only work if the opener is often a balanced hand wich is the case in my system.

I like to use 1C-1D-1NT as 18-20 (19-20 in our case)

[straube]

Wikipedia said:

Strong club systems are the most popular artificial systems, where opening of 1♣ shows a strong hand (typically 16+ HCP). Other 1-level bids are typically natural, but limited to about 15 HCP. The most popular strong club systems are:

Vanderbilt Club (the predecessor)
Precision Club
Blue Club

In Small club systems, the opening bid of 1♣ is forcing but not necessarily strong. It typically includes some range of balanced hands, some hands with long club suit, and very strong hands. Examples are:

Vienna Club (the predecessor)
Roman Club, developed and used by famous Blue team
Polish Club, originating (and standard) in Poland but also gained certain popularity worldwide.
Dutch doubleton, an offspring of the Polish Club system
SAYC+, Based on Standard American but with the 1♣ forcing and including all 21+ hands too. [1]

Not sure if a true hybrid of little and strong clubs is possible. Either the club can contain weaker hands or it can't. Our discussion was whether strong club or little club was better. Anyway, I think your system is quite a lot different than most strong club systems, but it's still a strong club system and not really a compromise. Thanks for describing it though.

[Kungsgeten]

Quote

1H= imo playing Kaplan inversion/1S relay if legal is a must, for us its among our best sequences

If 1♥ is always unbalanced I think this is a good idea. If 1♥ can contain balanced hands, then KI has some problems (you'll have to rebid 3-card suits or similar). A minor(?) downside to KI is "wrong-siding" (playing against the field) where you declare spades/1NT from the other hand.

Our 1♥ opening is 5+ with 11-16 hcp, may be 11-13 5332, and does not contain 4 spades (we play Flannery). We've thought about playing 1♠ as forcing-NT/relay and 1NT as 5+♠ but currently play 1♠ as 5+♠ and 1NT as natural (may have 4 spades).

Quote

2NT = I really hate 2NT 19-21 or 20-21. For standard players I believe 2C for 20-21 or any GF and 2NT for 22-23 is a lot better. For the PC & prc I believe almost anything is better than 2NT 20-21. Yes I know that Meckwell keep 2nt for 19-21.

So what is your use for 2NT? We currently play 2NT as 20-21, which partner do not like. We use it because it is hard to fit into our 1♣ (Swedish) structure in a good way. I guess we could play 2NT as 25+ balanced and put 20-21 in 1♣, or 2NT as 22-24 and switch it up that way. It is pretty common at our club to play 2NT as weak with 5-5 minors or majors, but we wouldn't be able to do that due to system regulations (you can only play a certain sum of artificial opening bids) so if 2NT were to be artificial it would have to show at least 4 cards in a specific suit, or it would have to be strong (at least 15+). I know of some people who play it as 9-10 balanced (no major) too

Quote

2C--2M = INV NF with 4 or 5, opener need 3 (and a min) to pass with 2 or less he scramble to 2S,2NT,3C with a min.

Your response scheme to 2♣ seems pretty simple, which to me is a good thing In the sequence above, what do you rebid with a max and less than 3♥? Let's say 2♣-2♥. It seems like the only bids available is 3♦ and 3NT (I guess suits above 3♥ shows shortness and support)?

I've been thinking of trying a different response scheme to 2♣. We currently play 2♦ as INV+ relay, 2M as natural F1 and 2NT as INV or GF diamonds. The scheme I've been most interested in is Zelandakh's transfer response scheme, but partner's first impression was that it seemed a bit too complicated.

Quote

keeping a range of 11-15 or 11-17 for 1D is IMO super lame.

A nice thing about it is, as all limited openings, the edge you get in contested auctions. Also responder can preempt more frequently. I think it is a winning strategy to support diamonds with a weakish hand instead of showing a four card (or even a five card) major, but when responder can be strong you could miss game in the major (unless opener has a way to show his major after the support bid, ofcourse). A couple of months ago we changed 1♣-1♦; 1♥ to F1 (natural weak or strong with extras) so now 1♣-1♦; 2♦ is 17-19 natural NF, where previously we used the Polish method of 1♣-1♦; 2♦ as GF. If using the Polish method I would really want to play 1♦ as wide ranging. I still think it could be a good idea to extend the range of our 1♦ opening (if for no other reason than to make it more frequent) but then I'd probably play it as 11-19(20) and make 1♣-1♦; 2♦ be 20-21 balanced.

I've stolen (but somewhat modified) our 1♦ response scheme from you

1♦--
1♥ = Natural or GF relay (can choose to use natural methods instead or relays)
1♠ = 4+♠, F1 (may be GF)
1NT = 5+♣, weak or GF
2♣ = 3+♦, weak or GF (4+♦ if GF)
2♦ = INV
2M = Weak
2NT = INV
3♣ = INV
3♦ = Preempt
3M = Splinter

The above structure works well, the main problem being 3-3-2-5 and constructive values (something like 8-10). We've been thinking of using the sequence 1♦-1NT; 2♣-2♦ for this.

1♦--1♥;
1♠ = 4+♣, if at least 5-5 then minimum (minimum 11-13, max 14-16)
1NT = 6+♦ or max with 4♥
2♣ = Max with 4♠
2♦ = Min with 4♠
2♥ = Min with 4♥
2♠ = Max with at least 5-5 minors

Quote

I think playing transfers or switch over a strong club/polish clubs is just too good to be true. I prefer weak or GF transfers but any type of transfers/switch will give you a good edge over plain prc or pc methods.

In your methods it seems that you can cope with not having a negative 1♦ since your 1♣ has a lot of strong hands excluded. In Polish/Swedish methods I think it is harder to not have a 1♦ negative, and thus it is harder to play transfer methods too. The main downside for using switch over a Polish/Swedish 1♣ is when responder has 4-4 in the majors and not enough to force vs the weak NT. Now you'll not find your fit in the other major (the one you could not show).

Fredin-Lindkvist used switch when they played Swedish club, since they wanted to play relays. I've studied their methods and they look fine but the downside is that they miss 4-4 hearts when responer is "weak" (about 8-11) and opener got the weak NT hand.

Quote

1C-1NT natural forcing or not is just awful.

I think it can be useful since it preempts the opponents from finding their major somewhat (if you play Polish/Swedish and opener has the weak NT hand). We play 1NT and 2♣ as transfers (8+ hcp) however and our 1♦ negative is any 0-7 or 8-11 NT without major. This has the added benefit of the start 1♣-1♦ when we end up in 1NT that opener has 11-13 and responder 0-11 so it is not quite as clear if it is the opponents board our ours (compared to standard negative 1♦ commonly used in Swedish club where in this sequence the opponents know that they have 20-29 hcp, now it is 16-21 instead).

[Zelandakh]

To be honest Ben, the best comparison for your system is probably mine. We have similar 2♣ and 1NT openings, for example. Because of this I am fairly convinced that you are wrong about 1NT being the biggest weakness. My 1NT also includes 4414 hands and I rate it more highly than 2♣, even when I have invested some time creating a structure over the opening I hugely prefer to the 2♦ relay approach.

The key difference is really that you include 18-21 hands in 1M where I have 15-17. Whether the split-range works better than the continuous one is hard to say. The main drawback I see in it comes not in the 1M openings themselves but in making 1♣ more common with so-so middle-of-the-range hands where I would really want to have gotten a suit in earlier. I see this as taking away from the advantages of the basic 1♣ hand being 15-17 balanced. In this respect I see your 1♣ opening also as being a bigger weakness than 1NT. The other difference is that the top end of your range for 1♦ is higher than mine. No big thing here - my 1♦ opening is underloaded so having a few more hands here is just fine.

[phoenix214]

I have play a strong club with almost that kind of a setting. For us the basic idea was - If you want to play NT -> Open 1NT, if not then open 1 of suit. This was because it was also impossible to end up in 1NT otherwise, but i do agree that it was not a big loss(with the 5M), we did not play puppet stayman there as well, and didnt care much about opener having the 5th card in the major.

[straube]

I like the clear captaincy that is available in strong club (especially relay) systems. I like that responder is able to preempt opposite partner's limited opening hand. It compensates for those times that a strong club is opened and the opponents are able to preempt against it. Benlessard's system doesn't have the advantages of limited 1D, 1H, and 1S openings, because sometimes they are quite strong.

[benlessard]

Quote

Our 1♥ opening is 5+ with 11-16 hcp, may be 11-13 5332, and does not contain 4 spades (we play Flannery). We've thought about playing 1♠ as forcing-NT/relay and 1NT as 5+♠ but currently play 1♠ as 5+♠ and 1NT as natural (may have 4 spades).

For example you could maybe drop flannery here at very little cost.

1H-1S (may or may not have 4S) (1H-1Nt = 5S)
??

1NT= clubs or many minimum
2C = spades
2D = diamonds max or 5H+5D
2H = H maximum or at least 6 good H.

basically when you have a flannery hand you start at 2C. This can make you to stop in 2C instead of 2D is less direct than 2D-4M but you win a 2D relay wich is a lot better than a 2nt relay since you may sometimes stop in 2M.

when you have 25(42) 35(41) minimum you can stop in 1nt. Stopping in 1NT instead of a 61 H fit with crappy trump is also good.
If you bid 2H or 2D you have some extra goodies or extra shapes.
You get back the 2D opening for something else but you are a bit stuck with the 3532 since partner will bid 2C with 4clubs quite often.

also rightsiding 1NT should be good enough to compensate the 1H-1S-(X).




We use 2NT for a crappy preempt in a minor or both M 3 or 4 losers (when we dont forget to bring the acbl defense). Using 3m as decent preempt allow you to make better 3Nt/pass/saves & the both majors hands are often buried after a 1C opener. If you still need a balance range I suggest using the direct 2NT for the rarest range like 22-23 and used 1C-??-2nt for the more frequent 20-21. The frequency difference is quite high IIRC, for one 22-23 you get three 20-21, these are high importance imps hands.

After 2C-2M we use 3D and 3H for shortness and often 3 card support, it allow us to find good 52 fit or reach 5C instead of 3NT. We use 3S for 3226 hands (with 3 trumps) or for max and 4S over 2H. bidding 4m is (430)6 with 3 in partner suit. We simply give up on slams after 2C-2M.

Quote

A nice thing about it is, as all limited openings, the edge you get in contested auctions. Also responder can preempt more frequently. I think it is a winning strategy to support diamonds with a weakish hand instead of showing a four card (or even a five card) major, but when responder can be strong you could miss game in the major (unless opener has a way to show his major after the support bid, of course).

Im glad to hear you say that. Im one of the strongest proponent of raising minors you will ever meet I consider inverted minors to be in the hall of fame of worse conventions in imps. We have 2C and 2D for raise that can be 3 card and contain a 4M. With

xx
Qxxx
KJx
xxxx

I think raising D is clearly the better bid in Imps and probably good in MP too. If partner got 4H or 4C opps have a S fit and raising make life harder than 1H. I also want a D lead rather than a H lead. For us 1H doesnt even promise 4H anyway so its a no brainer. After 1D-2D or 1D-2C ive never had difficulties finding a 4-4 M fit and untangle the stoppers situation since slams are somewhat rare and the opener is unbalanced. Note that since our 1NT and 2NT are clubs we have 4 diamonds raise that are not limit raises. 2C/2D (only 3 trumps or 4 trumps no short) 3C/3D (4 trumps and shapes) and we use the 1H relay when we are gf unless its a huge fit or we have a void.

A funny hand in this weekend tournament

AKxx
xx
Axxxx
Jx

vs

xxx
void
QJTxx
AQ9xx

1D-1H-3H where 3H showed a void in H (our splinters are always voids in any circumstances) we were "pushed" and made 6D since the K of D was onside, even if the K of D is offside I could still hope for KT or Kxx of club onside.

[benlessard]

Quote

In your methods it seems that you can cope with not having a negative 1♦ since your 1♣ has a lot of strong hands excluded. In Polish/Swedish methods I think it is harder to not have a 1♦ negative, and thus it is harder to play transfer methods too.

Even with a 1D neg there is no reasons not to switch 1H and 1S or at least play 2 level transfers. Yes 1C-2H (showing Spades) is less effective than 1C-2S for preemption but you rightside and gain extra spaces for GF hands. This allow you to be more precise elsewhere. Basically its a similar tradeoff than playing transfer or not vs a weak NT except that after

In PC

after 1C-(P)-?? its more likely to be your hand than after 1NT-(P)-?? because of the failure to overcall and because opener could have 18+, so rightsiding is more important than preemptiveness. So unless you are a hardcore advocate of no transfers after a weak NT I dont see why transfers are not standard in PC.

After a strong clubs or a strong 2C using 2or3 something as natural is just ludicrous. If I hold a 5 or 6 card suits and some values its likely my values are in the long suits, so the balanced hand hand is more likely to have the tenaces in the suit led even if the pts are splitted evenly give a differenc of 10 pts between the hands and rightsiding become a huge winner. 17-vs 8 with both squared hand rightsiding is not a big deal. But if the 8pts hand got a 6 card suit the difference is just too important imo.

[awm]

A lot of stuff in this post; I will try to give my views on some of these things.

If the opponents are not going to bid, opening 2NT is a significant loser. What I think Meckwell (and others) have realized is that showing these hands after opening a strong (or multi-way) club can also be quite painful. The issue is that these hands generally have more than a minimum "strong hand" by enough that you cannot rely on partner to act every time you have game, yet they are not sufficiently strong that you are comfortable just forcing to game by yourself. Of course this depends a lot on your competitive methods too, and I have not personally found opening 1♣ on these to be a big problem.

I agree that weak two bids are good, if played with the right combination of aggression and discipline. They do seem a lot better than multi, although multi seems to create a lot of hilarious disasters (for both sides).

The 2♣ opening which shows six has a lot of advantages, especially in competitive auctions. I don't think a 2♣ bid which shows five necessarily shares these; it seems a ten-card fit is really huge in a lot of situations and you can identify these more often opposite the six-card opening. There is also a lot more safety in passing (you might miss a major fit, but it's less frequent, and you are always playable in clubs, and if you have a major fit you usually have a double-fit which means opponents have a big fit too).

Your response scheme to 2♣ is interesting, in that it seems to heavily emphasize the invitational hands. This is especially funny coming from you, since we have discussed before what I think is the biggest hole in your system -- the general lack of invitational sequences over your one-level openings. Yet here you have put a lot of work into invites, and I suspect you are behind on the GF hands which some other methods have more ways to show. Probably you will do well on the invitational hands, although I suspect there are some hands where you make game in the presence of 3-card major support (i.e. KQxxx Axx xxx xx opposite Axx Kxxx x KJTxx is a decent game even though it's not even a real invite and opener seems very minimum).

I have a lot of experience on the "opening light" front from various angles. My general views are that opening light on unbalanced hands is a winner if you can keep your range fairly narrow and that opening light on balanced hands is quite overrated. However, I think a lot of expert pairs open too aggressively in the context of a wide-ranging system, and that this gets them in trouble (sometimes in subtle ways that are easy to blame on something else). There is some statistical evidence for this view (like the success of Wilkosz 2♦ which hrothgar is fond of mentioning).

In the context of your system, you obviously need as many cheap relays as possible. I think this is very different philosophically from a typical strong (or two-way) club system, because you want to maximize the opportunities for opener to bid again in case he has the 18-21 hand, whereas in a strong club system there are few opener hands which want to unilaterally make so many bids, and thus the goal is to make sure that responder has a cheap forcing bid available when strong. For example, it makes sense to play one-under transfers in your system (so that when responder wants to bail opposite 11-14, opener still has another chance) whereas in a strong club I'd rather play either natural rebids or in some cases two-under transfers (to allow responder a cheap relay). I do think it's interesting that your 1x openings are all "almost forcing" because they include the 18-21 hand; your system is probably closer to Fantunes than to a strong club system in this respect.

I've found that playing 1NT when opener has a three-suiter and responder has no good fit is generally a big winner; this is one of the big weaknesses of things like mini-roman, and also the reason I like to rebid 1NT a lot on 5431 type patterns after opening 1m. This leaves me unconvinced with your method over 1♦, besides the issue of responder having no bid with 3325 hands. It's just not clear to me that a 4-3 diamond fit is a better partial than 1NT, especially one level higher. In fact even a 5-3 diamond fit may be inferior when responder has a decent holding opposite the shortage (esp. at MP).

I disagree that 1♣ 16+/17+ is too rare. You have to consider the impact of seat/position here too; in 2nd or 3rd seat the 1♣ opening is extremely common (because your HCP expectation goes up with passes in front of you). Obviously one could play different strengths in different seats but for the most part this is not worth it. Also, 1♣ is not really the best opening in the system (it has the widest range of shapes after all) and the goal is not to maximize its frequency. In general transfer responses after 1♣ (and especially after interference) are good; however I think if you play a two-way club you really need 1♦ negative (else you reach too many bad contracts when opener is weak). It also helps a lot in the follow-up bidding to distinguish strength at least somewhat -- your further auctions get muddled if your 1♥ response is 4+♠ any strength (for example) because you need a lot of space to sort out forcing vs. invite vs. signoff. This may be less bad in your system where the 1♣ is usually limited, of course.

I do not really understand 1♣-1♦-1M showing 3+M and 11-21 hcp; this seems impossible to bid over. Seems better to show suits you hold, to me anyway.

[straube]

 awm, on 2015-February-10, 20:38, said:

In the context of your system, you obviously need as many cheap relays as possible. I think this is very different philosophically from a typical strong (or two-way) club system, because you want to maximize the opportunities for opener to bid again in case he has the 18-21 hand, whereas in a strong club system there are few opener hands which want to unilaterally make so many bids, and thus the goal is to make sure that responder has a cheap forcing bid available when strong. For example, it makes sense to play one-under transfers in your system (so that when responder wants to bail opposite 11-14, opener still has another chance) whereas in a strong club I'd rather play either natural rebids or in some cases two-under transfers (to allow responder a cheap relay). I do think it's interesting that your 1x openings are all "almost forcing" because they include the 18-21 hand; your system is probably closer to Fantunes than to a strong club system in this respect.

 benlessard, on 2015-February-08, 20:15, said:

My system is a hybrid of PC and precision, we are using a weak 1NT (12-14) and use the strong 1C at 15 so all balanced hand are open 1C or 1Nt and 1D is unbalanced with 4D like PC but our 1C is always "strong" like precision.

 straube, on 2015-February-09, 00:54, said:

Not sure if a true hybrid of little and strong clubs is possible. Either the club can contain weaker hands or it can't. Our discussion was whether strong club or little club was better. Anyway, I think your system is quite a lot different than most strong club systems, but it's still a strong club system and not really a compromise. Thanks for describing it though.

 awm, on 2015-February-10, 20:38, said:

I do not really understand 1♣-1♦-1M showing 3+M and 11-21 hcp; this seems impossible to bid over. Seems better to show suits you hold, to me anyway.

Benlessard's 1C-1D, 1M is strong (15+) but nf and is either a real suit or perhaps something like a 3-card holding in a 15-17 balanced hand. Is that right? So at least in the respect of rebidding a fragment, it would resemble PC. But it would be 15+

Benlessard, will you clarify whether your club is always strong (15+) or not? I think your thread title gave some the impression that it could have non-strong meanings. Thank you.

My understanding of Benlessard's system is that 1C handles balanced 15+ and also unbalanced 15-17 or 23+ except that unbalanced diamond hands are opened 1D with the range of 11-21. For example, he likes that with a 5-cd major he would open....

1C with 15-17 or 23+
1M with 11-14 or 18-22

and then clarify the range with the rebid. I think I have the same sorts of concerns for this opening structure...for example not being able to safely pass 1M openings, but even in raising or preempting in other suits having to worry about whether opener has a minimum or much better hand...

 straube, on 2015-February-09, 15:49, said:

I like the clear captaincy that is available in strong club (especially relay) systems. I like that responder is able to preempt opposite partner's limited opening hand. It compensates for those times that a strong club is opened and the opponents are able to preempt against it. Benlessard's system doesn't have the advantages of limited 1D, 1H, and 1S openings, because sometimes they are quite strong.

[rbforster]

 benlessard, on 2015-February-08, 20:15, said:

Things i hate

1C-1NT natural forcing or not is just awful.

Yeah, I agree about a natural 1N response. You've got to bid 1C-1N on something of course, but the strong hand almost always wants to declare NT. My solution was to have it show a forcing hand with both majors, so at least it was likely opener could declare in those suits when NT was least likely as a final strain.

[foobar]

 rbforster, on 2015-February-11, 21:13, said:

Yeah, I agree about a natural 1N response. You've got to bid 1C-1N on something of course, but the strong hand almost always wants to declare NT. My solution was to have it show a forcing hand with both majors, so at least it was likely opener could declare in those suits when NT was least likely as a final strain.

(At the risk of derailing the topic):
Many of the good strong ♣ systems (e.g.: IMPrecision, TOSR), already use 1N for something else. Even Meckwell-Lite doesn't respond 1N unless 12+ and most balanced hands go via the 1♥ (8-11 any).

[benlessard]

Quote

The 2♣ opening which shows six has a lot of advantages

For my system and PC its a tradeoff, 1D show 4 and 2C show 6 or 1D show 2 and 2C show 5. I dont think its a close call at all. If 1D contain a balanced hand than I agree that 2C promising 6 is probably better. But I still stand by my point that its mostly the poor scheme of responses after a 2C opening that cause more problems. All things being equals I prefer to open 2C with 6C or 5C+4M than to open 2M with a 6M or 5M+4m a la Fantunes.

Quote

Your response scheme to 2♣ is interesting, in that it seems to heavily emphasize the invitational hands. This is especially funny coming from you, since we have discussed before what I think is the biggest hole in your system -- the general lack of invitational sequences over your one-level openings.

Yes, after 2C and after a 1NT opener im a strong believer in invites and stay low. It allow you to invite agressively with 6M or 4M and keep a good degree of security. Unbalanced hands with and unknown degree of fit have a volatile value. A (431)5 hand value will highly depend on the majors fits. A hand with no support could be seen as minimum but transform into Gf with 4 trumps or with 3 trumps and the right stiff.

As for the invs after my one opening, we dont have the INV 2Nt nor the round 1 limit raises. But we have the normal invitationnals bids its just that we rarely need to them compared to 11-16 style.

For example

xx
Tx
AKxxx
Axxx

1H-1S-2H (where 2H show 4S+5H 11-14)

2Nt is GF so we GF, pass or bid 3H Inv. With a 3rd trumps after the 1H opening we dont have a R1 limit raise and must go through 1S with the limit raise. My posistion is that when opener is unbalanced its better to INV or not after you know opener 2nd suit. You lose the preemptiveness of the limit raise but gain more precision before committing yourself.

After
1S--(2H)--??

we can bid 3H with for a limit and opener will bid 3S only with the 11-12.

Quote

I've found that playing 1NT when opener has a three-suiter and responder has no good fit is generally a big winner

My views is that not being able to play 1NT is a minus. Ive always considered 2/1 with 1NT forcing to be an inferior system to plain Sayc since 1NT is often the best partscore. By keeping 1D-1Y-1NT forcing we are able to stop low when opener is 15-17 and we know wich minor is longer when its both minors, more importantly those forcing rebids allow us to be super precise when responder is GF and in the end Imps is about bidding the right game & slams, is just worth more than the case where 1NT makes and 2m goes down. Often its goes 1D-1H-3H at the other table when at our table 3H is RKC in H and opener has showned a 3451 with 15-17.

Not playing a relay system I would never play 1S-1NT as forcing, would rarely open 1Nt with a 5M and would keep 1D-1??-1NT as to play. Still without relays with xx,Kxx,AKJx,Qxxx playing PC I would always open 1D not 1C and I don`t think its close. Relaying a hand is too good at imps and its the reasons why I like 1D & 1M unbalanced in the first place. I don`t think its such a good tradeoff to lose some lead directing openings just to play unbalanced 1D if you dont take full advantages of the fact that the opening is unbalanced.

Quote

I disagree that 1♣ 16+/17+ is too rare. You have to consider the impact of seat/position here too; in 2nd or 3rd seat the 1♣ opening is extremely common (because your HCP expectation goes up with passes in front of you).

1st seat open 49% of the times while its 28.5% for 2nd seat 3rd and 4th combined is only 22%. IIRC when you remove the balanced 16 & 19 to 21 a precision 1C opening is only 6-7% compared to 15% for Polish and less for my system. Its not a big deal but in precision 1D is overloaded and 1C is underloaded while its the opposite in PC.

Quote

Also, 1♣ is not really the best opening in the system (it has the widest range of shapes after all) and the goal is not to maximize its frequency.

I don`t think its a good argument, whne you hold the balance of pts bidding space is precious one way or another. How you distribute it matters, its not a goal in itself but its clearly a flaw to underused the bidding space. In fact most think its a good strategy to be super-agressive vs a strong club (I dont agree) to steal space. If 1C is a "bad" opening than why would they need to be agressive ? In my system and in PC the fact that they could easily have game after the 1C opening is a deterrant to wild actions something that I consider a slight minus not a plus vs most players.

Quote

I do not really understand 1♣-1♦-1M showing 3+M and 11-21 hcp; this seems impossible to bid over. Seems better to show suits you hold, to me anyway.

Its 15-20 and its a very clever bit that ive stole from PC. In PC 1C-1D-1H is bal 12-14 or 17 bad 18 with 5M for us its bal 15-20 or 15-17 with 5M. This allow to have 2 range before reaching 1nt. For example after 1D that show 4H or many 6-8 pts and 1H that could be 3+H.

1C-1D-1NT =17-18 bal without 4H
1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT 15-16
1C-1D-1H-1S-2nt 19-20 without a 5card suit & since responder is GF bal or 6-8 we are in good shape.
1C-1D-2H = 18-20 with 4H, bal or 5C+4H

the fact that balanced hand without 3H are not frequent is very useful. By using 1H that way we have

1C-1D-1H-??

1S bal GF or inv no majors or inv with clubs
1NT INV with 4 or 5S
2C 6D INV or H+D GF
2D 4H inv or H+C GF
2H 6S inv or H+S GF

this is very powerful. After 1C-1D-1S its convoluted but 1C-1D-1H is a great start for us. A couple of months ago ive switch 1C-1D-1NT to be 19-20 to have more 1C-1D-1H start but it lead to some complications so its possible we will revert to 17-18.

[rhm]

 benlessard, on 2015-February-08, 20:15, said:

Things i hate
1C-1NT natural forcing or not is just awful.

 rbforster, on 2015-February-11, 21:13, said:

Yeah, I agree about a natural 1N response. You've got to bid 1C-1N on something of course, but the strong hand almost always wants to declare NT. My solution was to have it show a forcing hand with both majors, so at least it was likely opener could declare in those suits when NT was least likely as a final strain.

I happen to differ.
Right-siding is just one aspect of system design and not a particular important one.
I think it was Meckstroth, who said right-siding is overjudged and he is right.
We are all impressed when it happens but it happens rarely, admittedly more often in notrumps than at a suit contract.
And when a deal comes up where it matters, more often than not opponents will tell you by bidding the danger suit before your side will bid notrumps.
And making the stronger hand declarer does not guarantee right siding, it only makes it more likely.
PC as a rule does a very good job at right siding.
I use 1♣-1NT to show an invitational hand opposite a weak notrump. Opener either accepts or declines and we avoid playing 2NT when he declines, a big advantage in my experience.
This way, if opener has the weak notrump, opener is only slightly stronger and if opener has the strong variant we have more than enough for game making right siding very unlikely to matter.

Now in all natural systems 1NT is bid as a response to one of a suit opening, if responder is lacking the strength for a two-over one response, which makes the 1NT response very frequent.
The response does not even guarantee stoppers in unbid suits nor must responder be balanced.
Whether the one notrump response is forcing, semi-forcing or not, it makes the weaker hand declarer at notrumps by the above definition.
There are many problems with natural bidding, but wrong-siding does not seem to be such an important issue.

I keep my hate for subjects, which have a much higher impact on my results.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 benlessard, on 2015-February-12, 01:51, said:

For my system and PC its a tradeoff, 1D show 4 and 2C show 6 or 1D show 2 and 2C show 5. I dont think its a close call at all. If 1D contain a balanced hand than I agree that 2C promising 6 is probably better.

This is an issue, which puzzles me since I got acquainted with PC.
All 2♣ openings , whether they can be based on five or not are by definition not balanced.
So what has this to do with the issue whether 1♦ contains balanced hands?
I happen to put balanced hands into 1♦, but only to offload 1♣ openings, not the 2♣ opening.
It is perfectly possible to play 1♦ as unbalanced and 2♣ as showing six cards.
Unbalanced hands containing 5 cards in club are opened 1♣ or 1♦, depending on where your shortage is.
If in diamonds open 1♣, if in a major open 1♦ and 5♣422 hands with a 4 card major (12-14 HCP) can be treated as balanced and opened 1♣.
Where is the problem?

Rainer Herrmann

[benlessard]

Quote

I use 1♣-1NT to show an invitational hand opposite a weak notrump.

At least this cover a problem hand, the standard 8-10 or 9-11 no majors solve no problems its just a preemptive bid.

Quote

Where is the problem?

The problem is 1C-2D/2M (or by transfer) wich is GF vs 17+ but to play vs a bal hand, imo its sensible to drop this feature and use 1C for the 11-15 hands with clubs but it lead to a 3 way club type of bidding system wich is imo significantly different than PC ex after 1C-1M-2C has to be natural now and cannot be used as a gadget.

[awm]

The frequency claim isn't really important -- people pay too much attention to that. A weak notrump is an extremely frequent hand type, such that if you play 1NT as 11-13 it is probably more common than your other one-level openings. However, the hands in the 1NT are extremely uniform, such that it does not really create a problem (in competition or not). In comparison an opening like precision 1♣ which contains lots of different distributions needs space to sort out. So the fact that 1♦ (which is almost always a weak notrump) is more frequent than 1♣ (which shows a strong hand but can be any shape) is not really bothersome. In fact the 1♣ bid can already be awkward in competition, and becomes much more so if you try to add yet another hand type (like a weak notrump, or just dropping the point range a bit).

What I don't understand about this 1♥ 3+ business, is that I don't really see that you can pass. After all, if you pass with short hearts you could be in a terrible partial (violating Burn's law on a hand where you may even have half the strength). If you pass with some length in hearts you are probably missing game when partner has a 5-6 card heart suit. So you basically can't pass, at which point it's not clear what you've gained by making the bid "natural" and "limited" rather than simply a relay. You could easily play Kokish (for example).

[rhm]

 awm, on 2015-February-12, 17:16, said:

What I don't understand about this 1♥ 3+ business, is that I don't really see that you can pass. After all, if you pass with short hearts you could be in a terrible partial (violating Burn's law on a hand where you may even have half the strength). If you pass with some length in hearts you are probably missing game when partner has a 5-6 card heart suit. So you basically can't pass, at which point it's not clear what you've gained by making the bid "natural" and "limited" rather than simply a relay. You could easily play Kokish (for example).

40 years ago, in Germany a forerunner of PC was popular with the LOLs. (called Little-Big club)
1NT was 16-18 and with 12-15 balanced opposite 0-6 HCP the bidding went 1♣-1♦-1NT.
I always doubled this without looking much at my hand and was frequently rewarded with a top. In fact with a strong balanced hand I never bid directly over 1♣, which was forcing, hoping for this sequence.
This is obviously unsound.
PC realized this and needed an "emergency" exit for the weak balanced hand after responder gave a negative response of 1♦ and of course only 1♥ and 1♠ are low enough.
(It is better to reserve a 2♣ rebid for stronger club hands.)
I prefer that a 1♠ rebid guarantees at least 4 cards and accordingly I would bid 1♥ with 3♠=2♥=3♦=5♣ and 12-14 HCP.

Now let me ask you a question
You are vulnerable and playing standard your partner opens 1♣ and you have a balanced yarborough 4-3-3-3 with 3 clubs. Do you bid?
If you pass you may violate Burn's law where you may have even have half the strength.
Or you are playing Precision.
Again you are vulnerable and partner opens a nebulous 1♦. This time you have a balanced near yarborough (0-4 HCP) with clubs the only suit. Do you bid?
If you pass you may violate Burn's law.
So what?

I simulated my variant of PC,
If the bidding goes 1♣-1♦-1♥

Partner will usually pass with 0-3 HCP with almost any distribution (unless holding a heart suit himself).
He will pass with balanced 4-5 HCP unless his spades are longer and at least 4 cards.
He will find a bid with more HCP (including distribution).
He will raise hearts with 4 cards and 4-6 HCP(including distribution) or with 5 cards in hearts.

Under those conditions, even when partner passes (only with a near yarborough) I will violate Burn's law less than 40% of the time.

Nobody claims that the sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥ is a thing of beauty in PC.
It may be theoretical unsound, but as a practical matter I can not say I have had bad experience with it. It is an emergency exit to keep the bidding low, which is more important than Burn's law violation and it seems to work.

Playing 1♣-1♦-1♥ as forcing with Kokish Relays over 1♠, begs the question what the responses would be.
Remember opener might have a weak notrump with various distributions (say 4333) or he could have clubs medium strength with a four card heart suit or 18+ unbalanced with a four card heart suit or longer.
In red, if opener is weak and responder broke I can see trouble ahead if the bidding is forced.

Playing it non forcing allows you to stay low even when opener has the strong variant but partner is broke.
If opener has long hearts (6+) with 18+ HCP he can jump to 2♥ after all.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Rainer, as shown by experience from users of AUC, it is ok to play a stupid 1M in PC where Opener is often a weak NT but quite a different thing when the balanced hand is a strong NT. For the same reason I am perfectly happy using 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT for the strong NT hand in my system and finding a more purposeful usage for the 1M rebids. Opps are free to double the sequence without looking at their hands!

[awm]

 rhm, on 2015-February-13, 05:05, said:

Now let me ask you a question
You are vulnerable and playing standard your partner opens 1♣ and you have a balanced yarborough 4-3-3-3 with 3 clubs. Do you bid?
If you pass you may violate Burn's law where you may have even have half the strength.
Or you are playing Precision.
Again you are vulnerable and partner opens a nebulous 1♦. This time you have a balanced near yarborough (0-4 HCP) with clubs the only suit. Do you bid?
If you pass you may violate Burn's law.
So what?

The situations here are really not the same. I'll give reasons in order of relevance to your system:

1. Major versus minor. Hands like ♠xx ♥AKxxxx ♦AKQx ♣x make game pretty easily opposite a yarb with a 4-card fit, or a very modest hand with a 3-card fit. This makes passing a 1♥ bid which could fairly frequently be such a hand dangerous (with a fit). If you switch the rounded suits to make this a standard american 1♣ opening, you are not all that likely to miss a game because you need an eleventh trick. In fact it's hard to construct standard 1m openings which can make game opposite a balanced nothing hand, and the ones you can build generally have so much minor suit length that it's hard to believe the opponents are passing. In fact I have never missed a good game by passing a standard 1m opening.

2. Auction tempo. This is the reason that the "beginner" version of Polish Club where you rebid 1NT after 1♣-1♦ on a weak no-trump is so terrible, but a system where you open 1NT on the same hands is good enough to be played at the highest level. If you are going to land in a bad contract, it is better to bid that contract right away, when opponents do not know what is going on (yet) and might still rescue you by bidding. The slow auction to a moysian fit (or sub-moysian) is unlikely to induce opponents to bid a suit of their own (they both passed in the first round of bidding after all) and they are more likely to pass or even double you.

3. Frequency. In standard american there are exactly four hand patterns where you open a "short" minor: 4333, 3433, 4423, 4432. If you always open 1♦ with 4+, there are the same number of patterns where you rebid a "short" major in polish club: 3334, 3325, 3235, 2335. But if you start adding hands with 4+♦ the number grows rapidly, such that people who play "unbalanced diamond" have more than doubled the number of bad distributions.

4. Strength. This is more of a problem when your side is "supposed" to go plus on the board. If you have 12-14 balanced opposite 0-3 it's not your hand for a score anyway, and even if you go down one extra in a bad fit that might be okay for you. However, when the balanced option is 15-17 (as for benlessard's system) things get much more dicey! I suppose standard methods with a weak opening 1NT have the same issue, but my feeling is that most people playing these methods do not pass 1♣ very often (if at all).

Really for a more "regular" polish club (as opposed to what benlessard plays) I would be most concerned about missing game. This is not a problem at all in a strong club system, and in more standard bidding you can get away with responding pretty light to 1M (showing 5+) when you have a fit (i.e. with a (semi) forcing no-trump response) knowing that you have some degree of two-level safety (after all if partner is minimum opponents are probably missing something).