[thomas c]

i dont see polish club played much in stars comp. is there a reason ? it appears to be a fairly natural system. what are the shortcomings etc?
thanx

[mgoetze]

I don't know what "stars comp." is, is it a serious tournament?

[Zelandakh]

Helo thomas, welcome to the forums. There are a number of world class pairs using systems based on Polish Club. However it is much less popular than, for example, 2/1. Obviously regional bias plays a role here too, so it might depend on which "stars comp" you are watching as to whether you see it often or not.

As for shortcomings, well the 2♣ opening is a definite weakness. The 1♣ opening is also not always great, being generally less efficient than a strong club when the opponents do not intervene. To balance that, having a weak hand included means the opponents cannot just go crazy with their first round overcalls. The 1 of a major openings are basically better than natural and worse than Precision so whether these are a positive or a shortcoming depends on your point of view.

Finally, I would not describe PC as a natural system in the normal sense of that term.

[bluecalm]

I think it's mainly regional bias.
I don't think polish club is especially good but it's not bad as well.
It's very natural and easy to play, solving many "impossible" problems of 2/1 which normally require a lot of system work. PC is a system beginners could play and not run into traps 2/1 have for them (in Larry Cohen words 2/1 is like Swiss Cheese - full of big holes).
It's easier not to overbid in pc as mechanism to find ranges is much better than in 2/1. You don't need jumps with 4 or 3 or 2 cards as well, same goes for reverses. Every jump in new suit is 5-5 in PC and every reverse is 5+-4+.
One big hole of std 2/1 is that if you have 18hcp you are forced to force to game opposite 1/1 which doesn't add up (1/1 is basically 4+hcp and it's not enough for game), if you have 18 balanced you end up in silly 22hcp 2NT or 3M while you are 1 level lower in PC.

I think PC is simpler and more beginner friendly than 2/1 and I think most non-very-serious partnership would do better using it. That being said, I think 2/1 could be a great system but it requires tons of work. You need relays in many sequences and artificial solutions to common problems I described. If you have many hours to work on your system , 2/1 might be the way to go, if you do not PC will serve you better.

Quote

Finally, I would not describe PC as a natural system in the normal sense of that term.

Change normal to "usual" and I agree. I think PC is more natural for beginners than 2/1. You just need to learn what openings mean and you are good to go basically bidding naturally thereafter. In 2/1 you have "natural" (I don't know how opening 1D on 3 is natural in any sense) openings but then tons of artificiality like reverses or jumps on 3 (or 2!) cards.
Same goes for precision btw, it's more natural as in the bidding is easier and solutions to problems appear naturally. Explain to any beginner who played some hands that 1C was 16+ and 1S was 8+ forcing to game and he will carry on reasonably. Do it for 2/1 and he will never guess he is supposed to bid his AQ tight of hearts now (AKx AQ x AQxxxxx). In precision you have difficult 1D opening though. In polish club you need to learn that:
a)1C - 1D is negative or hand not suitable for other bid
b)2C - 2D is asking and other bids are natural and not forcing
c)showing 5+clubs after positive response to 1C opening is 15+ and forcing at least one round.
And that basically it, all other conventions are optional.

[gwnn]

In Polish Club you still need a bunch of stuff to deal with 1C preemption and don't you also need some work on 17-20 hands with diamonds? Just asking.

In 2/1 maybe sometimes you have difficulties that many people solve with artificiality or de facto artificiality, but how often do those hands come up? In polish club you need 1C-1D as some sort of catchall that coems up a lot.

[gnasher]

In Polish Club, don't you have to deal with the complexity of bidding 1♣-1♦;1♥ on a 3235 12-count, a 4414 18-count, or a 2416 18-count?

Everybody thinks that the system they learned as a beginner and encounter at their local club is natural and easy to play. The English think Acol is easy, Americans think Standard American or 2/1 is easy, Poles think Polish Club is easy, and Bajans think Precision is easy.

Luckily they're all wrong. If they were right, the game we spend so much time playing and thinking about would be rather less enjoyable than it is.

[bluecalm]

Quote

In Polish Club you still need a bunch of stuff to deal with 1C preemption

Not really, you just play normal negative double and that about it. Sure there are problems sometimes but usually the problem is in judgement not in systemic solutions. Sure you are sometmies fixed when you open 1C and they jump to 3S but you more often fixed in 2/1 in more common and simpler situations.

Quote

ou also need some work on 17-20 hands with diamonds? Just asking.

No, most people don't have any system for 17-20 diamonds (it should be 18+btw). They just open 1C and after 1M they either bid 2N or 3D both natural and GF. That's it.

Quote

but how often do those hands come up?

Imo quite often. Basically every time you have 17+ and partner makes non game forcing bid (1/1 or 1N) you are in the world of pain in standard 2/1.

Quote

In polish club you need 1C-1D as some sort of catchall that coems up a lot.

Yeah, and then you bid naturally, wtp ?

I am not saying you don't need to learn few rules here and there I am saying what you get for those "artificial rules" is fundamental simplicity and natural feel of the system. In polish club if you open 1C or have some kind of 15+ hand then your subsequent bidding works like this:
"I have clubs" -> I bid clubs
"I have diamonds" -> I bid diamonds
"I have hearts" -> I bid hearts
"I have strong bal hand" -> I jump in NT
"I have 5-5 15+" -> I jump with my 2nd suit
"I have 5-4 and 15+" -> I reverse

and magically you are never in silly game on 22hcp or can't find your range before slam auction begin.
This nowhere as simple in 2/1.

Quote

Luckily they're all wrong. If they were right, the game we spend so much time playing and thinking about would be rather less enjoyable than it is.

Of course good bidding is hard. I am not even saying pc is the best way to get there. In fact if I were to choose a system framework to work on in serious partnership I would choose 2/1 with either T-Walsh or completely up the line bidding after 1C (with 1D being 4+).

All I am saying is that pairs of beginners get started on polish club and equal pair of beginners are taught 2/1 the former will outbid the latter by a long mile, especially at matchpoint (less forgiveness for playing something completely silly from time to time). They will have less "I had no clue what you had and what to do" kind of problems too.

[awm]

Can anyone think of a world-class pair not from Poland that plays Polish club?

There are many from places where strong club is not "standard" who have adopted it, and it seems there are pairs from England (where Acol is standard) or China (where strong club is standard) who have adopted 2/1.

Whether this means much is hard to say -- English is the international bridge language and most Polish Club materials are in Polish so that may be a factor. Still, its interesting.

[Tomi2]

deleted - misread the post

[mgoetze]

awm, on 2012-June-27, 10:42, said:

Can anyone think of a world-class pair not from Poland that plays Polish club?

Jansma-Paulissen comes to mind.

[barmar]

Tomi2, on 2012-June-27, 11:10, said:

thats quite a statement.

His question (and implication) was about players NOT from Poland. I don't think he was saying that all top pairs from Poland play PC, although as you point out a large number do.

[Tomi2]

new try then Piekarek-Smirnov

[bluecalm]

Quote

There are many from places where strong club is not "standard" who have adopted it, and it seems there are pairs from England (where Acol is standard) or China (where strong club is standard) who have adopted 2/1.

I am not surprised. First it's not very popular overall so it's less likely you will something inspiring to make you switch, second I don't think it's attractive for pro/very serious partnerships. All I am saying it's easier and more effective in beginners' hands.

[perko90]

bluecalm, on 2012-June-27, 14:17, said:

... I don't think it's attractive for pro/very serious partnerships.

I appreciate your point regarding PC's suitability for beginners, however, I'd like to hear more on the above comment.
Just in comparison to 2/1, do you think that PC is less attractive for pro/very serious partnerships? (I don't want to detour into a strong club discussion)
And if so, I assume that means in your estimation the weakness of PC 1♣ to preemption and the clumsiness of the 2♣ (when including 5-club & 4cM) out-weigh the "swiss cheese" weaknesses of 2/1? Or are there other factors that come to bear as well? Or do you think that (with a lot of work of course) 2/1's weaknesses can be patched up better than PC?

[gnasher]

perko90, on 2012-June-27, 16:22, said:

You spent a good chunk of space kinda defending PC in earlier posts.

No he didn't. He used a lot of space to defend his view that Polish Club is natural, easy to play, and therefore a good system for beginners. That doesn't make it a good system for more experienced players, and in fact Bluecalm has consistently said things like "I don't think polish club is especially good."

[perko90]

@gnasher:
Perhaps I could have worded my set-up better. His point on easy for beginners was well taken. I used "kinda" in the context of "kinda, sort of, but not really" but maybe that was too subtle. I'll edit it.
Anyway, I'm much more interested to hear an expanded answer on what makes PC not suited for advanced partnerships.

[thomas c]

Thanx for all the replies. i actually have played a very simple form of pc in europe a lot. we used precision 2c, multi 2d, muiderberg and 2n as minors. i though it was a pretty good system, but i rarely see it played when i kib (for instance jec has a lot of different parterships playing). i kib a pretty good bit. i agree with bluecalm that it is a pretty easysystem for beginners and i still think it is mostly natural.
anyhow thanx again

[sfi]

thomas c, on 2012-June-27, 19:17, said:

Thanx for all the replies. i actually have played a very simple form of pc in europe a lot. we used precision 2c, multi 2d, muiderberg and 2n as minors. i though it was a pretty good system, but i rarely see it played when i kib (for instance jec has a lot of different parterships playing). i kib a pretty good bit. i agree with bluecalm that it is a pretty easysystem for beginners and i still think it is mostly natural.
anyhow thanx again

I have played PC off and on for a few years, and it is true that you don't need nearly as many conventions as you do with std. american or 2/1. I haven't seen practical issues with most of the points brought up here - the options included in both the 1C opening and 1D response are distinct enough that it is pretty easy to sort out, for example.

The major issue that we saw is that it does not preempt the opponents as much as other systems. It's heavily weighted to the 1C opening, which means that the opponents can overcall more frequently. It does not wave the same red flag as Precision, because 1C is frequently a weak NT hand and the opponents can easily have a game, but it does make part score battles more frequent.

On balance, I would highly recommend it. The 2-3 conventions that are really important are easy enough to pick up and I've introduced people to it with 30 minutes discussion.

I don't see any reason why it would make a poor system for even highly advanced partnerships. The main drawback seems to be lack of familiarity.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Anyway, I'm much more interested to hear an expanded answer on what makes PC not suited for advanced partnerships.

I never said it's not.

Quote

The major issue that we saw is that it does not preempt the opponents as much as other systems.

I agree with that. The impression is of a bit boring, correct but peaceful system.
To increase aggressiveness you need to open higher and respond lighter. Both of those are a bit better with precision and standard type system. Both require very fine judgement and many agreements to handle subsequent bidding (all the Gazillis, multireverses etc. are conventions to deal with 4-7 range of 1/1 responder).

[sfi]

Many years ago Jan Eric Larsson published an analysis of various systems. It suggests that Polish Club was quite a passive system, and the analysis is well worth considering when choosing something that is right for a serious partnership.

It's 17 years out of date, but the data is still very relevant.