[david_c]

I've been playing around with variations on Polish Club, trying to work out whether you can do better than the way the opening bids are arranged in WJ (or Matula's version which is all but identical). In WJ05 we have 1♣ defined as

- 12-14 HCP balanced / semi-balanced / 4414, not 4 diamonds.
- 15+ HCP with real clubs.
- 18+ HCP any shape.

As it stands, my problem with this is that it seems to be strictly inferior to the same thing but with a weak 1NT opening (at least in the first two seats), so that 1♣ becomes:

- 15+ HCP balanced (may have 4 diamonds)
- 15+ HCP with real clubs.
- 18+ HCP any shape.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me that this is a nicer system, but I'd be interested to know whether it has a name. It's almost the same as Millennium Club (which I have played a few times), but with a lower limit on the "strong" hands and without the transfer responses to 1♣ that you get in MC. So does anyone know what this is called?

Anyway, going back to a strong 1NT opening, this does have the advantage that you can choose to open 1♣ rather than 2♣ on some hands with a weak club suit, say for example ♠AKx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣Jxxxx. The question is, would it be sensible to do this on any hand with that sort of shape, such as ♠Axx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣KQJxx ? Certainly when you have a (43)15 hand it seems you'd be much better placed after 1♣ than if you had to open 2♣, at least for constructive auctions. (And if there is interference, (43)15 is treated the same way as 4414.)

Taking this a bit further, I know there are some Polish-like systems where you always open 1♣ on minimum hands with clubs. But has anyone tried playing something which is in-between, like this:

2♣ = 6+ clubs. may have 4 diamonds or 4 hearts, but not 4 spades.
1♣ = includes all 5♣4M and 6♣4♠, plus all the standard PC hands.

I rather like this: with 5♣4M you always have a sensible rebid except after 1♣:1♠ with a 1435 (where you're stuck with rebidding 1NT, but you would have had the same problem playing Standard American). Of course, a few other inferences would change as well. But what do you think? Does anyone actually play this?

[hrothgar]

david_c, on Sep 15 2005, 06:04 PM, said:

I've been playing around with variations on Polish Club, trying to work out whether you can do better than the way the opening bids are arranged in WJ (or Matula's version which is all but identical). In WJ05 we have 1♣ defined as

- 12-14 HCP balanced / semi-balanced / 4414, not 4 diamonds.
- 15+ HCP with real clubs.
- 18+ HCP any shape.

As it stands, my problem with this is that it seems to be strictly inferior to the same thing but with a weak 1NT opening (at least in the first two seats), so that 1♣ becomes:

- 15+ HCP balanced (may have 4 diamonds)
- 15+ HCP with real clubs.
- 18+ HCP any shape.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me that this is a nicer system, but I'd be interested to know whether it has a name. It's almost the same as Millennium Club (which I have played a few times), but with a lower limit on the "strong" hands and without the transfer responses to 1♣ that you get in MC. So does anyone know what this is called?

Take a look at Don Varvel's AUC (An Unassuming Club). Don's been playing this for at least 10 years... For what its worth, I'm not sure whether I agree with the basic concept behind the system. I think that including the Strong NT hand into the ambiguous club makes it more difficult to unwind hand types during competive auctions. Your Milage May Vary.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Sep 15 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

Take a look at Don Varvel's AUC (An Unassuming Club).  Don's been playing this for at least 10 years...  For what its worth, I'm not sure whether I agree with the basic concept behind the system.  I think that including the Strong NT hand into the ambiguous club makes it more difficult to unwind hand types during competive auctions.  Your Milage May Vary.

Hi Richard,

I completely agree with your assessment of AUC (see my post here, for example). But "Polish Club with a weak no-trump" (or whatever it should really be called) is different because 1♣ promises at least a strong NT in values. Of course, it's still true that if you pick up a strong NT hand you'll wish you were playing a strong NT ... but you won't have the same problems trying to sort it out as you do in AUC.

[Echognome]

I do find it ironic that someone who regularly plays 1♣ showing 15+ any shape would say that they find it hard to untangle a 15+ limited number of shapes in competition. Although it certainly is consistent logically as Richard is NOT saying that it's easy to handle interference over 1♣ in MOSCITO. Just found it funny.

I'm not sure it'd be all that difficult. Presumably in Polish you would pass as opener (or bid as cheaply as possible) with the weak NT variety, bid clubs naturally with the strong clubs variety and double etc. with the 18+ hand. The advantage of 1♣ ALWAYS showing 15+ hcp is that it makes a forcing pass by responder a viable option.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Sep 15 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

I do find it ironic that someone who regularly plays 1♣ showing 15+ any shape would say that they find it hard to untangle a 15+ limited number of shapes in competition. Although it certainly is consistent logically as Richard is NOT saying that it's easy to handle interference over 1♣ in MOSCITO. Just found it funny.

AUC's 1C opening is actually better defined that MOSCITO

Playing AUC 1♣ =

Any 15+ Balanced
Any 16+ with 6+ Clubs
Any 18+

Playing MOSCITO, 1♣ = any 15+

With this said and done, I'm willing to tolerate MOSCITO's 1♣ in order to facilitate the rest of the opening structure. I'm not sold on the same tradeoff if I'm "just" getting 5 card majors with a 12 - 17 HCP limited opening range and a 4+ card 1♦ opening.

[MickyB]

Maybe it has changed recently, but last time I checked AUC used a 6 card 2♣ opener and put minimum 5♣4M hands into the 1♣ opener. It is this that David and I disagree with because it is now hard to show your flat 16 count in many auctions.

[awm]

The semi-natural but always strong 1♣ idea sounds a lot like Nightmare, where we have:

1♣ = 15-17 balanced, or 15+ with clubs, or any 21+

The nice thing about this structure is that the 21+ hands are relatively rare. In competition, responder can assume that opener virtually always has either the balanced hand or clubs, and opener holding 3+♣ is virtually a lock. It also removes the annoying "balanced slightly more than minimum" hands from the 1♣ -- these hands tend to be very annoying in a strong club method after you receive some interference (in fact Meckstroth/Rodwell have gone so far as to play strong 2NT openings to avoid this problem).

Once you go to the structure you suggest:

1♣ = 15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 18+ any

It seems like the "18+ any" option is starting to become pretty common. It's not clear how much you've gained over just playing 1♣ = 15+ any straight up, since you are basically playing a strong club system (opponents will intervene very aggressively) and the frequency of opener having clubs isn't all that high. Of course, strong club systems aren't necessarily a bad thing.

[david_c]

awm, on Sep 15 2005, 08:12 PM, said:

Once you go to the structure you suggest:

1♣ = 15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 18+ any

It seems like the "18+ any" option is starting to become pretty common. It's not clear how much you've gained over just playing 1♣ = 15+ any straight up, since you are basically playing a strong club system (opponents will intervene very aggressively) and the frequency of opener having clubs isn't all that high. Of course, strong club systems aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Well, this is a different discussion to the one I was hoping to have, but it's interesting anyway, so here we go ...

I'm not totally convinced by "18+ any" either. My instinct is that with a hand like

♠x
♥AKxx
♦AKTxx
♣KQx

you'd be better off opening 1♦ than 1♣, in any Polish-type system. But if you've got spades instead of diamonds,

♠AKTxx
♥AKxx
♦x
♣KQx

now it seems much more attractive to be able to open 1♣.

So I like playing 18+ for spades and 21+ for diamonds. For hearts I could be persuaded either way. Balanced hands have no choice of course.

But anyway, I do think that this sort of 1♣ opening is much easier to handle than a general 15+ strong club. It's still fairly safe for responder to assume that opener has clubs/balanced, like in Nightmare, because when that's not the case the extra strength is usually enough compensation.

[Flame]

I had almost same ideas going to bed a week ago, didnt sleep for hours.
Also thought about some kind of positive 1D respose to polish 1c.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

I'm not totally convinced by "18+ any" either. My instinct is that with a hand like

♠x
♥AKxx
♦AKTxx
♣KQx

you'd be better off opening 1♦ than 1♣, in any Polish-type system. But if you've got spades instead of diamonds,

♠AKTxx
♥AKxx
♦x
♣KQx

now it seems much more attractive to be able to open 1♣.

This concept (that the ceiling for a 1♦ open should be substantially higher than that for 1♥/1♠ in a strong club system) vaguely reminds me of the "American Forcing Minor" system by Joe Lutz & Jerry Fink--now out of print, I believe. It was a strong club system with a 12-14 NT open.

In that system, 1♦ is "98% forcing"--showing either natural with diamonds, natural with diamonds and a longer major (this was a canape system), or a 15-17 NT hand.

1♣ openings are strong, but the minimum required for the open depended on the hand type. With clubs, 16+, with diamonds 21+, hearts/spades 17+, and a balanced hand 18+.

Interesting system, although it never seemed to catch on at all.

[marcinpu]

You can check CC of Jassem-Martens for Bermuda Bowl. When NV they play 1♣ as strong (15-17 NT, 15+ clubs, 16+ any GF) and 1M 9..15, when Vul they play standard Polish Club