[benlessard]

unbalanced hands with D in the range 17-21 should be in 1D not in 1C IMO. Balanced hands with 5D can also be in 1D.

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

Those % looks slightly off. 1D should be higher than 1S or 1H, there is 4441,4144,1444,??45 and maybe even some ??46. While the 1M advantage is when its 5M+5D (5251,5152,5350,5053) and some 5H+6D. So in the end 1D should have a higher frequency. In PC its sure that 1D is underused and 1C is overused.

[straube]

benlessard, on 2012-January-25, 22:08, said:

unbalanced hands with D in the range 17-21 should be in 1D not in 1C IMO. Balanced hands with 5D can also be in 1D.

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

Those % looks slightly off. 1D should be higher than 1S or 1H, there is 4441,4144,1444,??45 and maybe even some ??46. While the 1M advantage is when its 5M+5D (5251,5152,5350,5053) and some 5H+6D. So in the end 1D should have a higher frequency. In PC its sure that 1D is underused and 1C is overused.

Well, I placed 12-14 5M332s into 1M and 12-14 5D332s into 1C. I tended to count 11 pt hands with shape (including diamond hands) and not 11 pt balanced hands. I only looked at 100 hands.

[Tomi2]

Jassems WJ05 System differs in the english book and the polish one, because he tried to make the system easier for foreigners. I talked to Jassem about his books and he says, that he a) does not like everything that is mentioned and b) has not invented everything there himself, his aim was to define some actual standard in Poland and make some easy book for non-polish readers

If you open 1Dia in Poland with a bal hand and 4 card only you surely play against the field! If you go to Poland and play an individual tournament, and your CHO is K. Jassem, you can expect him to open 1 club on 2344...

this 90% somebody has mentioned fits with my experience of 5000+ boards at polish bridge festivals. some 10% really open 1dia and sometimes gain tricks because silly oponents like me forget to ask about their openers and play on 5 cards on defense and declarer play...

[bluecalm]

I guess I like humiliating Hog in this discussion:

Quote

as they are in Idzdebski's version

Yeah, but Izdebski is one guy, who has his own vision of bridge. While he writes a lot he is a bit of controversial figure and but no way authority on what is standard or good agreement in pc as he usually pushed his own hybrid standard/polish system.

Quote

Even in Strefa, a Polish C variant, 1D showed 4 and could be balanced

This is just not true. Here are links to the cc's of best Polish pairs from recent years playing this variant of pc:

http://bridgefiles.n...en-Pszczola.pdf
http://www.ecatsbrid...ki_kwiecien.pdf
http://www.ecatsbrid...-narkiewicz.pdf

As you can see all of them play 1D as 5+ or 4-4-4-1.
Even in original Martens - Lesniewski system which began "strefa" system 1D was 5+ or 4-4-4-1.
It never changed in mainstream and I think there never was top Polish pair playing 1D as 4+.

So Hog... what about admitting you were wrong for once and move on ?

[the hog]

"Yeah, but Izdebski is one guy, who has his own vision of bridge."
In your mind only. Jealous? Really BC, you appear to think you are a legend in your own underpants. I think the only one humiliated is you.
I suggest you look up Jassem-Tuszynski writeup.
My last communication with you. Perhaps you know the old adage "Never wrestle with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you only get dirty.
Talking of humiliation, by the way, you still have not apologised in the other thread for stating someone was cheating!

[mgoetze]

The humiliation can't penetrate his reality distortion field.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I suggest you look up Jassem-Tuszynski writeup.

So you found two players who at one point in time played together and used that opening.
Guess what, they are now in new partnerships (with Martens and Nowosadzki) and they both don't play that anymore. As Tuszynski is definitely the system maker in his new partnership I guess he reconsidered.

[Zelandakh]

To me it matters less what percentage of hands are contained in a bid (although this is a useful metric) but rather how many hand types. Bids with multiple hand types often lack homogeneity which causes a problem in competition. The difference between 1♣ = 12-14 bal or 15-17 clubs or 18+ any and 1♣ = 15-17 bal or 15-17 clubs or 18+ any is miniscule in competition (the <18 hands are generally not acting in either method) and the Polish opening may well attract less competition (since you are mostly constructive in initial actions). Of course the Polish opening is much more common so if the bid is an overall loser then that effect is amplified; on the other hand if the bid is a winner that is also amplified. A big difference is in constructive auctions which are (imho) a little easier with the strong club than after a Polish 1♣. Whether this is enough to offset the additional preemption is an open question.

What I am trying to say here is that if you think the 1♣ opening in my system is not overloaded (as you say, it is not dissimilar from a strong club) then it is probable that the Polish 1♣ opening is also not overloaded despite what the percentages may say. The reason here is that there is a homogeneity between the weak and strong variants. Information that is good for one is usually goos for the other. This effect is seen even more so in Swedish Club methods. The nebulous 1♦ opening in modern Precision methods is an example of a bid that has mixed homogeneity - it is good from a strength point of view but bad in terms of hand pattern. Since the strength range is weak there is often not a huge amount of space to sort out the different hand types. The plus is that it is not always easy for the opponents to take advantage of this - overall though it is easy to see why this opening is a loser (in isolation).

As for the issue as to whether weak 4♦432 and 4♦333 hands should open 1♣ or 1♦ to be considered "official" Polish Club - well quite frankly who cares? It is clear that both styles are playable - opening 1♦ takes some hand types out of 1♣ (good) but considerably weakens the 1♦ opening. My preference would be to open these hands 1♣ and I would even give some thought/testing to opening weak 5♦332 hands with 1♣ too. But your mileage may vary.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-26, 02:32, said:

To me it matters less what percentage of hands are contained in a bid (although this is a useful metric) but rather how many hand types. Bids with multiple hand types often lack homogeneity which causes a problem in competition. The difference between 1♣ = 12-14 bal or 15-17 clubs or 18+ any and 1♣ = 15-17 bal or 15-17 clubs or 18+ any is miniscule in competition (the <18 hands are generally not acting in either method) and the Polish opening may well attract less competition (since you are mostly constructive in initial actions). Of course the Polish opening is much more common so if the bid is an overall loser then that effect is amplified; on the other hand if the bid is a winner that is also amplified. A big difference is in constructive auctions which are (imho) a little easier with the strong club than after a Polish 1♣. Whether this is enough to offset the additional preemption is an open question.

What I am trying to say here is that if you think the 1♣ opening in my system is not overloaded (as you say, it is not dissimilar from a strong club) then it is probable that the Polish 1♣ opening is also not overloaded despite what the percentages may say. The reason here is that there is a homogeneity between the weak and strong variants. Information that is good for one is usually goos for the other. This effect is seen even more so in Swedish Club methods. The nebulous 1♦ opening in modern Precision methods is an example of a bid that has mixed homogeneity - it is good from a strength point of view but bad in terms of hand pattern. Since the strength range is weak there is often not a huge amount of space to sort out the different hand types. The plus is that it is not always easy for the opponents to take advantage of this - overall though it is easy to see why this opening is a loser (in isolation).

As for the issue as to whether weak 4♦432 and 4♦333 hands should open 1♣ or 1♦ to be considered "official" Polish Club - well quite frankly who cares? It is clear that both styles are playable - opening 1♦ takes some hand types out of 1♣ (good) but considerably weakens the 1♦ opening. My preference would be to open these hands 1♣ and I would even give some thought/testing to opening weak 5♦332 hands with 1♣ too. But your mileage may vary.

When you say "hand types" are you referring to "hand patterns"? I'm not sure.

My preference is for strong club because while opener may have any hand pattern, the message that he has a strong hand has been delivered. For me, PC's 1C is used for disparate/inconsistent "hand types"...weak balanced, medium clubs, strong any. I frankly don't understand how the system is any good at all, but I also know that many many people do very well with it. So I can criticize it while admitting that it's quite possible or likely that I'm just not seeing the benefit. True, opponents can't compete with crap, but the continuations after 1C-1M, 2D (etc) seem very awkward to me. I also don't get 1C-1D, 1M nf. Seems a tremendous waste.

I understand your structure better, Zelandakh, because it's much more akin to strong club...it's just that your club is not quite strong enough to enter a GF easily. I'm not sure if you have overloaded 1C-1D sequences or how you manage this.

As far as our nebulous diamond...it's primarily a weakness when we might have opened 1D naturally and partner might have competed in diamonds. It is frequently a nuisance to opponents. They don't have a cue bid for example. The reason we settled on a nebulous 1D is because it actually handles fewer hand types than does Meckwell's 1D which promises two+ diamonds. That's because their 2D opening handles only 4 hand patterns while our 2D handles all the single-suited diamond hands and 6D/4C hands. Awm's 1D is even more limited in hand patterns than is ours.

Even so, we can relay our 1D hand patterns pretty easily. We also have room to relay our 1M, 2m as well. Our whole structure is set up with relays in mind. The funny thing though is that even when we don't relay, leaving appropriate amounts of room for relays seems to work out well for non-relay auctions.

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2012-January-26, 03:15, said:

When you say "hand types" are you referring to "hand patterns"? I'm not sure.

Sort of. It kind of depends on context. In a competitive auction a weak NT is pretty much 2 hand types, either we want to compete or not. In PC the weak NT in competition is a single hand type since you are not allowed to compete. However, in an uncontested auction where we have the points the weak NT is multiple hand types depending on the level of detail required. The reason why Swedish club is so sensible in competition is that the hands across from a weak NT that want to compete provide exactly the same information as the strong hand needs to know. That means that Opener is usually well placed to make a sensible decision - this is not so good in PC because the 15-17 club hand complicates matters. But it is also not as bad as it first seems.

straube, on 2012-January-26, 03:15, said:

My preference is for strong club because while opener may have any hand pattern, the message that he has a strong hand has been delivered. For me, PC's 1C is used for disparate/inconsistent "hand types"...weak balanced, medium clubs, strong any. I frankly don't understand how the system is any good at all, but I also know that many many people do very well with it. So I can criticize it while admitting that it's quite possible or likely that I'm just not seeing the benefit. True, opponents can't compete with crap, but the continuations after 1C-1M, 2D (etc) seem very awkward to me. I also don't get 1C-1D, 1M nf. Seems a tremendous waste.

The incosistencies in the hand type disappear somewhat when you actually get into competition (as above) and without competition you have time to unwind. Since most of the time the 1♣ opening is a weak NT Responder essentially just assumes this and bids accordingly. If Opener has the strong hand then they can show this and the information from Responder's bid is helpful.

The reason why PC is a good system is essentially because the hand types are organised very efficiently. The 1M rebids are non-forcing but you generally only get dropped there when the hand belongs to the opponents, or when we have a sure fit and not enough for game. Playing in a 3-3 fit undoubled at the one level is not so bad when the opponents might have a game on!

Incidentally, strength-showing bids are not at all bad despite the many (distributional) hand types they contain. The extra power generally makes it somewhat safer to unwind them in competition and the general message is useful. There is a reason why I chose the 15-17 range for my 1♣ opening after all so it should not come as too big a surprise that I also like a strong club. I just do not like some strong club systems very much.

straube, on 2012-January-26, 03:15, said:

I understand your structure better, Zelandakh, because it's much more akin to strong club...it's just that your club is not quite strong enough to enter a GF easily. I'm not sure if you have overloaded 1C-1D sequences or how you manage this.

I manage this by burying the club suit. After 1♣ - 1♦, 1♥ is 18-20 any or 23+ balanced, 1♠ is 18+ 3-suited or any unbalanced game force, 1NT 15-17 balanced, and 2♣ 15-17 natural. That means I have to play the same system as over a 2♣ opening even for 15-17 point hands. This is surely not everyone's cup of tea!

straube, on 2012-January-26, 03:15, said:

As far as our nebulous diamond...it's primarily a weakness when we might have opened 1D naturally and partner might have competed in diamonds. It is frequently a nuisance to opponents. They don't have a cue bid for example. The reason we settled on a nebulous 1D is because it actually handles fewer hand types than does Meckwell's 1D which promises two+ diamonds. That's because their 2D opening handles only 4 hand patterns while our 2D handles all the single-suited diamond hands and 6D/4C hands. Awm's 1D is even more limited in hand patterns than is ours.

I have to admit that I am not a fan of the traditional Precision 2♦ opening and also believe there are more efficient ways of dividing the hand types up. I actually quite like a limited 1♦ opening that is diamonds or clubs but not both. I have considered that approach for my system too but there are certain reasons why it is less efficient there than in a 16+ context. Besides, you actually only need to get close to breaking even on these hands because you are winning on the 1M and 2m hands which are quite precise in your system. Therefore you can afford to lose some of these part-score battles.

straube, on 2012-January-26, 03:15, said:

Even so, we can relay our 1D hand patterns pretty easily. We also have room to relay our 1M, 2m as well. Our whole structure is set up with relays in mind. The funny thing though is that even when we don't relay, leaving appropriate amounts of room for relays seems to work out well for non-relay auctions.

There is an excellent reason for this! People tend to divide hand types into relay and non-relay. The relay is typically the next step but that leaves free every other bid for non-relaying. That means there is just as much space for non-relay auctions as relay ones. So the space is automatically close to being optimised. I suspect there is a pretty sound principle at work here that is useful even for non-relay systems.

[antonylee]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-26, 06:42, said:

I manage this by burying the club suit. After 1♣ - 1♦, 1♥ is 18-20 any or 23+ balanced, 1♠ is 18+ 3-suited or any unbalanced game force, 1NT 15-17 balanced, and 2♣ 15-17 natural. That means I have to play the same system as over a 2♣ opening even for 15-17 point hands. This is surely not everyone's cup of tea!

I would be interested in knowing how you unwind the various hand types over 1♣!-1♦!-1M!, could you explain this? Thanks in advance.

[hrothgar]

Not sure its worth trying to square the circle, but:

Is it possible the the preferred opening bid with minimum balanced hands with 4-4 in the minors has changed over time?

As I mentioned before, I know Matula's write up of Polish Club pretty well - always preferred it to this WJ2000 stuff - however, I also acknowledge that this is a date treatment. Perhaps styles have changed in recent years...

[mycroft]

Straube, from the point of view of an opponent (I've never found a partner wanting to play PC, so I haven't put in the trouble to learn it beyond be absolute basics), I think that the Polish 1C and Precision 1C do similar things and for similar reasons - to get a bunch of hands out of non-1C auctions.

Hrothgar is famous for saying "I just hope to break even with my (strong) 1C auctions". I tend to agree with that. I get it back when I open 1M. I get some of it back when I open 1 nebulous diamond, 1NT, 2m, ... all of which benefit from the limited nature of the hand.

However, the Precision club removal of hands has many faults - 1D is almost unplayable as diamonds (in fact, some play it as 0+); the limited range of all bid - 11-15, or 10-15, or even 9-15 - gives away a lot of information when defending or declaring - including whether to decide to defend or continue to compete - benefit when your side uses it, downside when they do. Also, both 2m calls in Precision are effectively "bolted on to make it work" - surely the standard 3-suited Precision 2D can't be the best use of that bid, for instance (which is why some players play a 0+ 1D), 2C 6+ works best when it's a preempt (and worst when we've preempted partner), and 2C 6+ or 5C4M is even less playable than putting those hands into 1NT or 1D... Now look at the strong club itself. Opening 1C means "please compete with any shape, opponents, and don't worry about missing game." Sure, sometimes they go overboard and you can catch them, but the rest of the time you're in the hole and digging.

Polish Club takes other hands out of the mix and throws them in the catchall 1C opener. 1D is real - in fact, it seems that partner is going to assume you play 5cD. Nice. 2D is available for whatever reason, too. Nice. 2C is back to "big enough that I'm happy to preempt ourselves out of the 1 level", while the moderate long club hands are back nice and low. Nice. Okay, so we have to raise the limit of the non-1C bids some more - 11-18 or so - and that does mean that we now can't just have 2 ranges - but it's still helpful, and it doesn't give as much information away to opponents. And now, we have competing against the PC itself. My reading is that one should assume the opener has a weak NT and bid from there. That works - and certainly causes a problem for responder when she's not sure opener has a weak NT, and causes the "have to pass to show the WNT" issue as well. But what it does do is give pretty fair sailing when opener has the big hand - because it's not going to hit anywhere near as much destructive competition as the Precision Club (and it's a lot more limited, too - good 18-22 or so).

I'm guessing it's swings and roundabouts - there are hands that really suck in PC, as there are in Precision, 2/1, K/S,... There are hands that are so much easier in PC than anything else that it feels like stealing, I'm sure.

[antonylee]

Quote

2D is available for whatever reason, too.

Actually, anyone has a good idea of a GCC-legal (erk) use of that bid in a PC framework? Of course a classic weak two works, but more originality is welcome :-)

Quote

2C is back to "big enough that I'm happy to preempt ourselves out of the 1 level"

I assume this means the version of PC you learnt has a strong 2♣? At least it seems that now the usual treatment is Precision (WJ), 6♣ or 5♣4M -- or, as mentioned in some other thread, some artificial preempt.

Quote

certainly causes a problem for responder when she's not sure opener has a weak NT, and causes the "have to pass to show the WNT" issue as well.

The pass with WNT is a problem, though you can make the agreement that a T/O X doesn't show extras (so far this has proved helpful and hasn't bitten us), mitigating the problem. As for responder not sure of whether opener has a WNT or not, say after 1♣-(some overcall), NFBs (or better, Rubensohl) at the 2-level (perhaps transfers at the 3-level as well -- see earlier in the thread) works fine: responder places the contract with his 5-card suit (assuming a WNT) with a limited hand, and if opener has extras he will be happy to 1/ show them and 2/ use that extra information (as mentioned before by previous posters).

[Zelandakh]

antonylee, on 2012-January-26, 12:20, said:

I would be interested in knowing how you unwind the various hand types over 1♣!-1♦!-1M!, could you explain this? Thanks in advance.

After 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥, 1♠ is a relay that is used > 90% of the time. Then

1NT = 18-20 balanced
2any suit= 18-20 and 5+ suit
2NT = 23-24 balanced
3♣/♦/♥ = 27-28 balanced with ♥/♠/neither respectively


After 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠,

1NT is a positive (~6-8), then 2♣ is 3-suited (with relays), 2♦♥♠ natural GF and 2NT clubs GF;
2♣ is a double negative (~0-2). Then 2♦ is 3-suited (with scramble), 2♥♠ natural GF, 2NT clubs GF, 3♣ diamonds GF;
2♦ is in-between (~3-5) with rebids 2♥♠ natural GF, 2NT 3-suited (relays on), 3♣♦ natural GF

Essentially the 1♥ sequences are Kokish but with the new suit variant showing 18-20 instead of hearts. You are often worse placed than standard here when holding reversing shape but the fact that Responder is limited means that this is manageable (with a couple of tricks).

The system after 1♠ has evolved to be something similar to the familar 1st step positive, 2nd step double negative that I played for a while over a strong 2♣ opener. The nice part about these sequences is that you are never(*) worse off than against natural systems and usually better off. It would probably be possible to implement relays here too but I find natural works well enough and am unwilling to construct something unique for these hands.

[* obviously if they preempt over 1♣ you are worse off than the same preempt over a 2♣ opening.]

To bring this (slightly) back towards the topic, although the system looks alot like PC and is quite handy in some respects for a quick opening bid comparison, it actually plays completely differently in reality. If you want to play PC on BBO then you really need to learn some basic Polish and then you can easily join a wj table. It is probably not worth learning it for face-to-face play in America or if you are not willing to make an effort with the Polish language.