[ArcLight]

In the book "World Class" by Marc Smith is a chapet on Karen McCallum. She predicts taht in 20 years 2/1 will die off (she says thats a good thing) and will be replaced with something like Polish Club.
I realize the people who post in this folder tend to prefer non-natural systems.

1) What is so terrible about 2/1? Why is it good that it die off?

2) Or is Polish Club a wonderful system? Ive never seen system notes any where.

3) Is Polish club better geared towards MPs? IMPs?

[luis]

2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad.
Among the many problems of 2/1 is the "Luis endplay" situation that no single 2/1 lover ever solved.

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ -

Now let's say responder has a balanced 12 or 13 count hand with 5 diamonds and 2 spades. How do you solve the problem of having only the 3♥ bid between you and 3NT when you may have a club stopper or a heart stopper or none or both?
What is 3♥ in this situation and why?

I will agree this is not the worst problem of 2/1, there're worst scenarios like how to survive after a forcing 1NT when opener has a strong hand or how to determine who is strong enough to look for slam when both hands have 14-16 unbalanced hands. Etc etc etc.

I don't think Polish club is perfect, In my opinion is better than 2/1. But wait, I'm not saying you shouldn't play 2/1 because it's bad, field protection is one of the best things to have on your side and if everybody plays a bad system then you can win without any problems playing the same bad system as long as you defend and play the hands well, that is exactly why most SAYC or 2/1 lovers tend to say other systems are satanic and would like to ban them because in a world where 2/1 or sayc is only played by 20% of the field you are in great disadvantage if you play such a system.

Just some quick thoughts, I can be right I can be wrong I can even change my mind soon.

[mike777]

Please remember Roman Club and Neopolitan have won many more World Championships than Polish club has. Yet no top players play these systems.

Polish club fad will be around for awhile and fade away.
My guess is the problem with Polish club will be similiar to 2/1. Everyone will play it and none the same in dramatic fashion.

If you play on bbo you can see the main problem with 2/1 is that everyone says they play "IT" and most seem to play it just goofy but swear their way is the standard way.
Is 2/1 with responder rebidding suit forcing?
Is 1nt forcing by passed hand?
Is 2c response game forcing?
How offshape can 1nt be?
The usual level verus strain issues.
1Major=3 minor =what?
1 minor =invite or g/f=what?

[ArcLight]

>2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad.

If its bad, then how costly is it to use compared to other systems?

(I think Fred uses 2/1 so if it was so bad then why would he use it?)


I dont know if this is true but someone posted that Bobby Hamman said that the bidding system was only 3% of the game (or 3% of teh final score). Perhaps at the top levels tahts a lot, but until one reaches taht level, will one really lose out using 2/1 compared to other systems?

[Walddk]

Bidding methods develop all the time, and we are not even close to having seen everything yet. Through my long career I have tried most anything, and I don't think it's fair to say that this system is second to none and that system is awful.

You don't become a better bridge player by changing your system as often as you change your socks, but it's no doubt a good idea to try different methods to see what you are more comfortable with.

There is no right and there is no wrong in my opinion. The simplest of system may be superior to some, because the risk of a major disaster is bigger the more complicated your system is. You can bid to the right contract by using simplified methods too.

Judgement is very often the key word as far as bidding is concerned, drawing inferences and good technique are some of the important keys to declarer play and defence.

2/1, Standard American, Acol, Precision, Polish Club, Standard French, Magic Diamond, whatever. Anything could work for a particular partnership if you spend enough time on going through every possible sequence.

Isn't that the whole issue? You use a system, try it out, spend hundreds of hours at and away from the table and you will be well placed. No one can cover everything, and no system will ever be able to cover all aspects of the game. There will always be room for improvisation, and most importantly again: judgement.

You can't buy that for money!

Roland

[david_c]

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

2) Or is Polish Club a wonderful system?  Ive never seen system notes any where.

Search this forum for "WJ 2005". You will find links to system notes, and more. Well worth reading.

[Al_U_Card]

Any system that stays as natural as possible (read easy to remember) will become and stay popular. 2/1 has a bit more memory load than sayc therefore its greater advantages(?) over sayc tend to make it more popular (read used by more serious players) than sayc.

Pros, fanatics and kids tend to gravitate to results oriented (read complicated) systems with reasonable success.

All systems, accompanied by wise use, experence and good judgement will normally get you where you are going.

Find a system that suits you (and hopefully your partner(s)) and then enjoy....

[inquiry]

Sayc is unplayable, 2/1 is almost unplayable. The problems with 2/1 are:

1) The opening 1 of a suit is too wide ranging,
2) Because of 1, you can not afford to open light hands, but in modern bridge get in and out early to take opponents out of their comfort zone is key
3) Jumpshifts can be based on two suits, on one good suit too good for jump rebid so you create a new suit jump to force. So in 2/1 you often lie about you distribution to show your strength. This makes reasonable bidding very difficult indeed.

How can any system work where 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♣ can be based on any of the following hands (these all taken from BBO hands within the past month)?

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

A nice jump rebid, but 5♦ missed (partner might have 3 ♦ after all), and the 4-1 trump split beat 4♥ each time it was bid.

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

  

Another problem with 2/1 is the vagueness of the 1NT response. It is too wide ranging. Game forced balanced, three card support 12 hcp, very weak with six or seven clubs. That is asking too much of the little bid. Play it as semi-forcing, denying three card support. No game invite balanced hands, no game invite fit hands, and no game forcing hands. Now life is easier.

Rip 2/1 up, add some conventions, 2♣ response drury all positions (or GF with clubs or balanced GI or stronger), MisIry to show strong two suiters, riton 2♣ or gazilli to remove the need for jumps on four card suits, opening bid of 2♥ or 2♠ as roman showing minimum normal opening with suit bid and clubs. Throw in some special agreements, like xyz, and new minor forcing by responder, and now you have a system that easily allows you to open with 8 hcp, to make jumpshifts on distributional hands that are not forcing, use new minor forcing (2♣ if open major) to show hand stuck for a rebid but with values. IS it 2/1? Probably not. Is this the only way to "fix" 2/1? No, but you need an approach of this type of magnitude if you are going to play an otherwise natural system that can compete with thinks like polish club and moscito.

[luis]

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2005, 06:23 PM, said:

>2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad.

If its bad, then how costly is it to use compared to other systems?

(I think Fred uses 2/1 so if it was so bad then why would he use it?)


I dont know if this is true but someone posted that Bobby Hamman said that the bidding system was only 3% of the game (or 3% of teh final score). Perhaps at the top levels tahts a lot, but until one reaches taht level, will one really lose out using 2/1 compared to other systems?

In order to choose a system you have to consider 3 things:

1) How good is the system in isolation.
In this area I think relay systems such as Moscito are superior. But this is the least important of the 3 factors to choose a bidding system.

2) How good is the system for your partnership?
As Roland said this is maybe the most important factor, as long as you feel good and confortable playing a system then that system is the best for you

3) What the other players play?
This is for the "field protection" factor I mentioned before. As long as averybody plays the same system the system is not as important as judgement and play.

So answering your question I think 2/1 ranks excellent in #3 and very poorly in #1 so depending on #2 you may play 2/1 or not. With some pds I play 2/1 and even when I think it's a bad system I reckon is the best tool for one of my partnerships.
I have 3 regular partners now (for different events) and I play 2/1 with one, Moscito with the other and Fantunes with the third one.

[Walddk]

So Ben seems to have found the philosophers' stone. Fine, it works well for him, and he dumps other systems (sayc and 2/1) as rubbish ("unplayable" and "almost unplayable"). Ben is obviously entitled to his view, but in my opinion it's an illusion if you think that his preferred method is the only thing in the bridge world.

It's narrow-minded and totally unfair.

Roland

[david_c]

On the question of whether Polish Club might replace 2/1:

2/1 may be dominant at the moment, but it seems that it is not very widely taught to beginners - they usually start with something like SAYC. So, usually what happens is that a player makes a conscious decision to learn 2/1, after having learnt the basics of the game playing SAYC. That is, 2/1 is an "expert standard" rather than a "beginners' standard". That puts it in a more vulnerable position than SAYC, because if a few experts start switching to some other system, then people who would previously have learnt 2/1 might be tempted to try the new system instead. So I think SAYC is safe, but 2/1 might just go out of fashion.

The other thing to realise is that 2/1 and Polish Club are not really very different. And there are a number of systems which "live" somewhere between the two - I think of it as being like this:

Standard 2/1

Spoiler

__

|
5542 short club

Spoiler

__

|
systemic short club (e.g. Ambra, Welland-Fallenius)

Spoiler

__

|
phoney club (Dutch Doubleton)

Spoiler

__

|
Strefa

Spoiler

__

|
Polish club without a Precision 2♣

Spoiler

__

|
Polish club WJ-style

So it would be possible for a change towards Polish Club to take place gradually, with various pairs adopting "intermediate" methods that they like. Taking this into account, I think it's fair to say that there is a gradual movement in the direction of Polish Club at the moment, and if Polish Club really is an improvement over 2/1 it seems unlikely that this is going to be reversed. However, I really can't see 2/1 losing its grip for a very long time.

[mike777]

inquiry, on Aug 22 2005, 01:50 PM, said:

Sayc is unplayable, 2/1 is almost unplayable. The problems with 2/1 are:

1) The opening 1 of a suit is too wide ranging,
2) Because of 1, you can not afford to open light hands, but in modern bridge get in and out early to take opponents out of their comfort zone is key
3) Jumpshifts can be based on two suits, on one good suit too good for jump rebid so you create a new suit jump to force. So in 2/1 you often lie about you distribution to show your strength. This makes reasonable bidding very difficult indeed.

How can any system work where 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♣ can be based on any of the following hands (these all taken from BBO hands within the past month)?

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

A nice jump rebid, but 5♦ missed (partner might have 3 ♦ after all), and the 4-1 trump split beat 4♥ each time it was bid.

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

 

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

- - Pass Pass
Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠
Pass 3♦ Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥ Pass Pass
Pass

Ok, not good enough for 3♦ for you? Add some hcp to opener without changing dist until it is strong enough

---

  

Another problem with 2/1 is the vagueness of the 1NT response. It is too wide ranging. Game forced balanced, three card support 12 hcp, very weak with six or seven clubs. That is asking too much of the little bid. Play it as semi-forcing, denying three card support. No game invite balanced hands, no game invite fit hands, and no game forcing hands. Now life is easier.

Rip 2/1 up, add some conventions, 2♣ response drury all positions (or GF with clubs or balanced GI or stronger), MisIry to show strong two suiters, riton 2♣ or gazilli to remove the need for jumps on four card suits, opening bid of 2♥ or 2♠ as roman showing minimum normal opening with suit bid and clubs. Throw in some special agreements, like xyz, and new minor forcing by responder, and now you have a system that easily allows you to open with 8 hcp, to make jumpshifts on distributional hands that are not forcing, use new minor forcing (2♣ if open major) to show hand stuck for a rebid but with values. IS it 2/1? Probably not. Is this the only way to "fix" 2/1? No, but you need an approach of this type of magnitude if you are going to play an otherwise natural system that can compete with thinks like polish club and moscito.

1) Main point agree 2/1 has many problems but.....
2) Your example hands seem to prove my Main points more which was people just bid 2/1 very goofy. I disagree very strongly with almost all of these hands.
3) Agree strongly with your main point which I think was that a huge problem in 2/1 is the lousy hands people jump shift with and the very poor rebids responders make after jump shift.
4) The wide range of one bids seems to have a decent if not perfect solution that I have argued many times here on the forum.
5) The one nt forcing remains a mess, esp. with long invite hands in a minor. Solutions just create other problems.

Whatever the heck system they are bidding I am lost.

[Walddk]

david_c, on Aug 22 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

I think it's fair to say that there is a gradual movement in the direction of Polish Club at the moment, and if Polish Club really is an improvement over 2/1 it seems unlikely that this is going to be reversed. However, I really can't see 2/1 losing its grip for a very long time.

All systems have flaws. If there had been a flawless system, we would all be playing it! Add zillions of gadgets, and the system will still have flaws. The worst of all is of course that there is much more to forget.

Give the bridge players of the world a system they can comprehend and remember, and let the remaining tiny percentage have fun with various quibbles.

Roland

[mikeh]

I agree with everything Roland has to say on this thread

And it is both unfair and misleading to describe 2/1 as unplayable or as a bad method.

That is partly because the evidence suggests otherwise and partly because the criticism contains an untrue but hidden assumption that there is such a thing as 'standard 2/1'

No serious partnership, at the expert level, plays an 'off the shelf' method, whether that be 2/1 or Power Precision or Acol or Polish Club.

In the 4 serious partnerships I have been fortunate to play in, with truly expert partners, we have always based our methods on 2/1, but the 4 systems actually used differed enormously. Not one had the same 1N opening ranges, let alone the response structures! Not one used the same minor suit structure, the same major suit structure, or the same responses to a big 2♣ opening.

And I assure you that the methods are playable

Some have pointed out weaknesses in 2/1, and they definitely exist. I am confident in stating that we shall never see a system, playable by humans, that has no flaws. There are simply too many possible hands and insufficient bidding space for any system, that retains even a moderate amount of playability, to cover all the possibilities. Show me my weakness, and I will show you yours, albeit on a different layout.

I have a lot of experience with various big club methods. I shudder to think of the problems I would experience if I sat down with a new partner, no matter how expert, and our system discussion was limited to 'let's play precision'. Yet that is no basis for telling Meckwell that they should switch to Polish Club because Precision is a passing fad.

[fred]

mikeh, on Aug 22 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

I agree with everything Roland has to say on this thread

Me too. I also agree with everything Mike has to say on this thread

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Aug 22 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

So Ben seems to have found the philosophers' stone. Fine, it works well for him, and he dumps other systems (sayc and 2/1) as rubbish ("unplayable" and "almost unplayable"). Ben is obviously entitled to his view, but in my opinion it's an illusion if you think that his preferred method is the only thing in the bridge world.

It's narrow-minded and totally unfair.

Roland

Gee roland, don't you think this is somewhat unfair to me. I did say,

"IS it 2/1? Probably not. Is this the only way to "fix" 2/1? No, but you need an approach of this type of magnitude if you are going to play an otherwise natural system that can compete with thinks like polish club and moscito."

So how in the world do you come up with idea that I (or anyone else) think that my way is the only way? In fact, I think Romex did a good job with their dynamic 1NT and mexican 2♦ (remainder 2/1). I think French method with 2♣ strong but not game force and 2♦ game is fine too. I also like all polish club which handles it with 1♣ natural but forcing and can be strong. Even Zar's new Zar bidding system (1♣ lots of ZAR points and 1♦ less Zar points, all others natural has its advantages. Each of these, and other system, approach the deficiencies in 2/1 in my opinion.

So I choose this question (which I didn't raise) to point out what I think is wrong with 2/1. The question invited such comparisions. The fact that only 4 people in the world play anything close to what I advocate suggest it will not take the world by storm, and few here will believe that my solution is THE solution, but that doesn't weaken the ideas behind its construction. And, I am happy to report, several people have written me wanting more details on MisIry and files with example hands, and are willing to try it out with their partners. I await their verdicts, maybe they will post some hands here (good and bad). But that is another thing about my approach, it is somewhat modular.

I happen to agree with luis, if your good enough, you can play what the field plays and beat them at it. Yes. while I describe SAYC as unplayable, I play it on line frequently. Yes while I describe 2/1 (lets call it vanilla) almost unplayable, I play it even more often. But how many world-championship pairs (people competeting at the Bermuda bowl this year will do), play SAYC? How aobut a vanilla version of 2/1 without gadgets like gazilla, multi 2D, two way check back, throw in transfer advances? If you look hard enough you may find a pair or two. Fred and Brad come close, but no prize there. Look at their 3NT opening bid (major two suiter weak), look at their 1C-2C and 1D-2C auctions, look at their forcing raise auctions. And Fred likes natural auctions!! Of course he calls his 2/1 but it is not "off the shelf" 2/1.

So to each his own. I am sorry if I said your beloved SAYC or beloved 2/1 are bad systems. I say this as I call what I play 2/1. But the truth is, polish club or some other artificial variation will run over those systems if they are not adapted to allow allow lighter openings, and to allow more bidding on distributional hands without forcing the auction too high. This is the BEST FEATURE of strong club systems.. not that 1C is strong, but that all the other bids are limited. The second best is they can open light because of the limited nature of their opening bids. This is the battle that 2/1 has to fight with conventions and treatments if it wants to stay competitive.

I offered the reasons why I think 2/1 is disadvantaged, I offered only one small set of solutions (those that I like) and suggested others would work as well. As I am not forcing my ideas on anyone, nor attacking any individual in my post, I take great person offense at your tone. I suggest if someone was narrow-minded in their view (since I allowed as there were many approaches that could work), the person not expressing views on why the system is good or bad might be the narrow-minded one. I wonder who that is?

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Aug 22 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 22 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

So Ben seems to have found the philosophers' stone. Fine, it works well for him, and he dumps other systems (sayc and 2/1) as rubbish ("unplayable" and "almost unplayable"). Ben is obviously entitled to his view, but in my opinion it's an illusion if you think that his preferred method is the only thing in the bridge world.

It's narrow-minded and totally unfair.

Roland

Gee roland, don't you think this is somewhat unfair to me

<snip>

As I am not forcing my ideas on anyone, nor attacking any individual in my post, I take great person offense at your tone. I suggest if someone was narrow-minded in their view (since I allowed as there were many approaches that could work), the person not expressing views on why the system is good or bad might be the narrow-minded one. I wonder who that is?

You started by stating that sayc is unplayable and 2/1 almost unplayable, did you not? That is what I call narrow-minded and totally unfair! I give every system a chance, with or without the loads of gadgets you want to add.

This is what I call being generous, the direct opposite of what you are. I am happy to see that MikeH and Fred agree with me. Ben, you are a system freak and I respect you for it, but you can't just discard sayc and 2/1 as unplayable and almost unplayable.

They are indeed both playable if particular partnerships prefer that system. We have no right to tell them that they must play something different in order to bid properly. That is simply not true.

Roland

[Free]

Imo any standard system sucks. It's made so the masses can play it, so this just can't be a perfect system. It has to be tweaked to the players' needs and preferences. On it's own, it's rubish, but it might be the base of a good system...

2/1, sayc, acol, precision, polish club,... it's all decent to play and you'll get decent results most of the time. But go to high level tournaments and you'll notice you're getting short.

[kvetcher]

Quote

2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad.
Among the many problems of 2/1 is the "Luis endplay" situation that no single 2/1 lover ever solved.

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ -

Where have you been Luis?

This "problem" was solved a long time ago - stick around for the miracle cure to the "Luis Endplay" situation

BTW did you invent this "situation?"

Over 3♦

a) With ♥ stop Responder bids 3♥ with ♥ stop but NO ♣ stop
(else 3NT)

b)With NO ♥ stop Resp bids 3♠ showing EITHER

1) 3 card Spade support
OR
2) ♣ stop but NO ♥ stop

Opener assumes 2) and bids 3NT with ♥ stop

Responder either passes with 2) or corrects to 4♠ with 1)

Quote

I will agree this is not the worst problem of 2/1, 

Its not exclusively a 2/1 Problem!

ALL systems including Polish ♣ have a problem when, by virtue of the suit ranks or opposition intervention, bidding space is curtailed

Quote

Just some quick thoughts, I can be right I can be wrong

I can even change my mind soon.

there's hope for us all then!



kvetcher