[straube]

I don't think that 3N ought to clarify my hand type as balanced. If I'm Qxx x AJx AKJxxx aren't I bidding 3N? Sure, we might be on for 6C but we might not. And if I'm xxx xx AKx AQxxx don't I need a 3S stopper ask? I can understand taking a stab at 3N with Jxx but I can have 3 or 4 spades without so much as the jack or ten.

Look at it also from a frequency angle, the 3S bid ought to be a very common bid because it's my next bid after 3H. Why reserve this for the low frequency hands that want to give a strong heart raise?

I can understand using 3S as a 2-way (stuck or hoping to pull 3N to 4H) and playing 4D natural (showing a very big diamond hand), but I think it would be much better to agree 3S is a stopper ask (or big club hand without a stopper or very big diamond hand) and agree that 4D is a very strong raise of hearts.

[the hog]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-24, 03:45, said:

Polish or not, are you ok with playing 3NT without a stopper ?
I mean, if it went:
1NT - 2S - 3H - p
?

3S would be stopper ask here, right ? It's the same in pc as weak nt is vast majority of opener range.



Opener might have 4 diamonds, wtf Hog ? Every balanced hand with 4 diamonds opens 1C in pc.

Nonsense. With 4D you open 1D. If you are Polish, as you claim, it appears that you do not even know your country's national system, lol.

The one exception is if you play Balicki's version where 1D is 5. However the op clearly stated he did not do this.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Nonsense. With 4D you open 1D. If you are Polish, as you claim, it appears that you do not even know your country's national system.

Oh c'mon Hog, what about you do your research or something ?
Almost nobody in Poland plays that you open 1D with balanced hand with 4 diamonds. It's not popular and it never was. Top polish pairs don't play it (check out convention cards if you don't believe me), regular people don't play it, if you open 1D partner will roll their eyes seeing some 2-3-4-4. Just because Jassem made arbitrary personal choice not based on how people actually play (or how he actually plays for that matter) in one of his many booklets, probably to make the system a bit more easier for foreigners, doesn't mean it's standard or best agreement nor how you define "polish club".

For the record all 3 pairs representing Poland in recent BB (including Jassem -Martens) open 1C with 4D and balanced hand as do Balicki - Zmudzinski and as do 90% of players in Poland.

[mgoetze]

the hog, on 2012-January-24, 18:07, said:

Nonsense. With 4D you open 1D. If you are Polish, as you claim, it appears that you do not even know your country's national system, lol.

Bullshit.

[the hog]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-24, 18:44, said:

Bullshit.

I agree that you are full of bullshit. Instead of making idiotic comments, perhaps you would like to contribute something useful, such as pointing to systems where balanced hands are opened with 4D are opened with 1C or is that beyond your intelligence?

[antonylee]

WJ2000 did this (it's even mentioned in the preface of the WJ2005 booklet that the change was mostly to simplify the definition for foreign players). The "panel standard" published by the "Brydz" magazine in 2006 does that as well. WJ2010 does this as well (according to a quick Google search). (And in case this matter, I do that as well, and I even put 5♦(332) hands into 1♣ in order to free up the 1♦-1M-1N for some artificial use (distinguish 5♦-4♣ and 4♦-5♣ hands over a 1♥ response, and more importantly show 5♦-4♥, less than reverse strength hands over 1♠). I'm actually interested in knowing whether this is a good idea or not.)

So please stop trolling indeed.

[the hog]

I did say in old fashioned versions on PC where 5 card D suit is still played, (such as Balicki's), 4 card D suits were opened with 1C. That is a very old concept and is largely notplayed anymore. Look at Matula's and Idzdebski's versions for example.

"WJ2010 does this as well"
As a matter of fact it does not. "Opening 1D = 12–17 5+ or 4441; Bal 12–15 4D, 4D + 5C"

"(And in case this matter, I do that as well, and I even put 5♦(332) hands into 1♣ in order to free up the 1♦-1M-1N for some artificial use" This is not PC, but rather some homegrown hybrid version
If you ask questions about your hybrid home made system, please do not call it PC. Your post is titled "Preempt over Polish Club".

[antonylee]

I would be interested in knowing where you found that piece of info. A quick search gives me "WJ2010 standard, modified for TOP individual 2010": 1♦ 12-17 with 5♦ or 4441, bal. 12-15 4♦-5♣. I would be surprised if the modification for some individual event (whatever TOP is) changed something as basic as the definition of the 1♦ opening.
As for my homegrown system, it is irrelevant to the discussion -- all still applies more or less identically in a WJ2010 (or 2000 if you really want) context.

Coming back to the main thread, I like straube's idea of using 4♦ as a strong ♥ raise -- but even more using Rubensohl at the 3-level as well.

[straube]

antonylee, on 2012-January-24, 21:23, said:

WJ2000 did this (it's even mentioned in the preface of the WJ2005 booklet that the change was mostly to simplify the definition for foreign players). The "panel standard" published by the "Brydz" magazine in 2006 does that as well. WJ2010 does this as well (according to a quick Google search). (And in case this matter, I do that as well, and I even put 5♦(332) hands into 1♣ in order to free up the 1♦-1M-1N for some artificial use (distinguish 5♦-4♣ and 4♦-5♣ hands over a 1♥ response, and more importantly show 5♦-4♥, less than reverse strength hands over 1♠). I'm actually interested in knowing whether this is a good idea or not.)

So please stop trolling indeed.

I'm only a little acquainted with Polish Club, but hopefully this is helpful anyway. I think that if your system allows 1D-1H, 1N to show a specific 5/4 holding (e.g. 4D/5C or 5D/4H) that something is wrong here. I'm thinking that it points to your 1C being very overloaded (Polish Club is anyway imo) and your 1D is very underloaded. Tally up your opening frequencies and see if you agree.

Are you familiar with relay systems? That's what I play mostly and when we're working on our structure I have in mind about how much pattern we ought to be showing at any given point. For instance, our 2C response to our strong club shows 5/4 in the minors either way (properly loaded). Our 1D-1H, 2C shows 5D/4C (underloaded). Our 1D-1S, 2C shows 1435, 1444, or various 5+/4+ patterns (overloaded).

So for you to be able to show the relative lengths of 2-suits by the point of 1N makes me think it is too much of a good thing. You have an opportunity cost here.

I guess my first thought would be to move some/most of your 4+ diamond balanced hands into 1D. Has this fallen into disfavor? I'm not sure why though. I would think you would have an easier time finding diamond fits and also major suit fits when responder is not constrained to respond 1D over your 1C opening...assuming responder still needs 7+ points to respond a major.

No doubt your 1D opening would be less directional and less descriptive if you did this (maybe that's why some roll their eyes when they see partner has something like 2344) , but it shouldn't be very descriptive being your second lowest opening....taking up as little space as it does. Just for contrast, our 1D doesn't promise any diamonds and we do very well with it. You'll be far ahead of us promising 4+.

Good luck anyway.

[bluecalm]

Wow, I didn't know Hog is capable of arguing such hopeless case where he could be proven wrong by one google search. Pretty amazing stuff.

Quote

I guess my first thought would be to move some/most of your 4+ diamond balanced hands into 1D. Has this fallen into disfavor? I'm not sure why though

Polish 1D is one of the strongest part of this system because:
a)1D opening means we can often compete in diamonds because either opener has 5 of them or is unbalanced, suit oriented hand (Hx - Hx - 4 -5 or something opens 1C usually)
b)you don't tell them which minor to lead on simple 3NT hands.

Quote

You'll be far ahead of us promising 4+.

Well, at leat your system has advantage b) so it's not that simple.

Jassem's experiment to try to make pc more like sayc didn't work as people didn't like his idea. Apparently he doesn't like it either because he doesn't play it and he retreated from it in wj2010.

[straube]

I'm sure the 1D opening opening does very well. I'm questioning whether one can afford to keep such specific meaning for such a low opening. I haven't studied PC so I'm open to being wrong on this point. Here's Rodwell discussing minor openings. It may or may not be relevant as he is primarily contrasting strong club vs standard....


BridgeMatters: Do you think, when opening a Polish 1C or a Precision nebulous 1D, that there is an advantage in that responder and the opponents do not know what opener’s better minor suit is?

Eric Rodwell: Let me answer this way. Eric Kokish, one of the chief proponents of weak notrumps, once said that weak notrumps bury your fit but they also bury their fit. I think, to a certain extent, that is true with artificial one-of-a-minor openings. They make it harder to find where your minor fit really exists, but you have advantages with the opponents having less information. For example, if you open a Precision 1D and rebid 1NT, and the opening leader is 4-4 in the minors, he has no idea which one to lead or whether to punt with a short suit lead. Playing standard, the leader has a much better idea.

BridgeMatters: How would you weigh that trade-off—responder not knowing what opener’s best minor is but also hiding it from the opponents?

Eric Rodwell: It is a loser for the strong club if that was all there was to it. In other words, in standard, I would not want to open 1C or 1D randomly. The combination of limiting the hand with a well-designed system—and there are a lot of ways to do it, and we are just talking about some of them—can more than compensate for that disadvantage. You are limited to certain value ranges, and there are fewer types of things you need to clarify later, especially in a competitive auction. So, depending on how well the system is designed, the strong club is my preference, though a lot of people would disagree with that, obviously.

[Zelandakh]

The trade-off in PC is that the 1♦ opening is very well defined (and a big winner) but that the 2♣ opening is poorly defined and a loser. YOu probably know by now that I use almost exactly the same opening bid structure as PC for my system except that the "weak" nt range in 1♣ is 15-17 for me rather than 12-14. The 1♣ opening is therefore much less common but has the same number of hand types which makes little difference where iot matters, in compeittion.

The trend for these systems is for the 2♣ opening to be 6+ without a major and to throw the 5♣4M hands into other openings. But somehow this just does not seem to work as well in a multi-way club context as with precision. So yes, PC can afford for its 1♦ to be so specific. Let me give you an analogy here which may or may not make sense. One of the trends (arguably) being seen in natural systems is for more and more balanced hands to open 1♣ and for 1♦ to be closer and closer to promising an unbalanced hand. Here the 1♦ opening is covering the same shape range of hands but a slightly increased points range. We only need to be able to find a way of handling the 18-21ish hcp hands via the 1♣ opening for these to be practically identical. Or, to put it another way, it is not so much that the 1♦ bid is dangerously underloaded in PC so much as it is (again arguably) overloaded, in comparison to 1♣, in 5 card major standard.

[straube]

I agree that 1D is overloaded in comparison to 1C in 5-cd major standard. 1C leaves so much more room so that if your only intent in opening 1D is to announce a weak NT hand looking for a major suit fit, then you would do better to open 1C and use transfer (or other) responses. It seems quite a bit different when you're adding strong meanings to 1C (as in PC). When you add strong meanings to 1C, then your response structure to 1C changes significantly.

So your 1C is 15-17 NT, 15+ clubs, 18+ any? That's basically a strong club? I think I like this much better than PC...but I'm a strong club fan.

I appreciate your trying to explain why PC's 1D can be so specific, but I don't get it. Perhaps you're saying in part that at the point of 1D-1S, 1N showing perhaps 4H/5D that you have a larger range (12-17 or so?) and that the bid therefore is not as underloaded as would be true of an 11-15 range.

I'd love to see a distribution breakdown for PC openings with 1C as all weak NT, 15+ clubs, 18+ other....

1C ought to be sky high in contrast to 1D and other openings.

[mgoetze]

the hog, on 2012-January-24, 21:01, said:

perhaps you would like to contribute something useful, such as pointing to systems where balanced hands are opened with 4D are opened with 1C or is that beyond your intelligence?

Polish Club, as played by actual Poles. But this has already been pointed out, so I didn't consider it necessary.

[antonylee]

straube, on 2012-January-25, 09:43, said:

I'd love to see a distribution breakdown for PC openings with 1C as all weak NT, 15+ clubs, 18+ other....

I did a quick sim yesterday, keeping only hands that open something between 1♣ and 2♣ inclusive. The definitions are not very exact (e.g. where to draw the line between 1♣ (good 15) and 2♣ (bad 15)) but it was something like 1♣ 39%, 1 other suit 15% each, 1NT 11%, 2♣ 5% (assuming 1♣ also contains balanced 4♦ hands). If balanced 4♦ hands are put into 1♦ the percentages only shift by about 2-3%. Of course if switching to WNT the main flux in probablilities is between 1♣ and 1NT (more than 10% move from the former to the latter).

[hrothgar]

My copy of The Polish Club by Matula is at home (and rather dated)

As I recall, balanced hands with 4 Diamonds were opened 1♦ rather than 1♣...

[straube]

antonylee, on 2012-January-25, 12:46, said:

I did a quick sim yesterday, keeping only hands that open something between 1♣ and 2♣ inclusive. The definitions are not very exact (e.g. where to draw the line between 1♣ (good 15) and 2♣ (bad 15)) but it was something like 1♣ 39%, 1 other suit 15% each, 1NT 11%, 2♣ 5% (assuming 1♣ also contains balanced 4♦ hands). If balanced 4♦ hands are put into 1♦ the percentages only shift by about 2-3%. Of course if switching to WNT the main flux in probablilities is between 1♣ and 1NT (more than 10% move from the former to the latter).

Thanks for running it. I looked through 100 hands. I placed 5M332s into strong NT and balanced 1D into 1C.

1C-38
1D-14
1H-13
1S-16
1N-14
2C-5

My results were similar. I didn't count how many balanced hands had 4 diamonds.

[bluecalm]

It's not true that system should be designed in such a way that the lowest openings contain the most hands (on frequency basis). The case could be made for lowest opening containing the most hand types (even if their combined frequency isn't that great) but even that is not absolute truth.
Imo putting balanced hand with 4 diamonds is design mistakes similar to:

1S - 2D not promising 5 or:

1S - 1NT
2D - not promising four

You just need to pack balanced hands into one call (2C and 2C respectively) and have other bids to be more descriptive and useful.

[straube]

Our 1D is significantly more frequent than our strong 1C. Frequency is a rule of thumb and I understand this rule can be broken. We break this particular rule because 1C is strong and forcing and important and we need more room to sort these hands out. I still feel PC's 1C is overloaded compared to its 1D, but I haven't played the system. I know it's a successful system, and if PC experts find that placing balanced diamond hands into 1C is more playable, then I expect they are right.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2012-January-25, 12:52, said:

My copy of The Polish Club by Matula is at home (and rather dated)

As I recall, balanced hands with 4 Diamonds were opened 1♦ rather than 1♣...

You are quite correct, Richard, as they are in Idzdebski's version. Even in Strefa, a Polish C variant, 1D showed 4 and could be balanced. However, let the boys play with themselves, as that is all they are capable of doing.