[Gerben42]

I tried singing in the shower but people complained, so now I tried thinking of new systems there (quietly). This came out - is it crazy or great?

Basically it's a cross between Acol and Polish Club: Polish Acol.

The BIG minuses of Acol are that you use 1♣ on far too few hands and that 1M are too badly defined (both strength and shape). So here is the new system:

* Use 1♣ for more hands
* Limit 1M in strength

1♣: 4+♣ (if 4M then 5+♣), 10 - 17 OR 18+ any
1♦♥♠: 10 - 17, 4+card
1NT: (11) 12 - 14 balanced
2♣: 10 - 14, 6+♣
Other: Preempts

1♦: Like Polish Club
1♥♠: like Acol, but lower upper limit - 15-17 if balanced.

1♣ - ?
* 1♦: 0 - 5 any or invite without 4M
* Most other bids 6+ natural

1♣ - 1♦ - ?
* 1M: Natural
* 1NT: 15 - 19 bal.
* 2♣: 15+ with ♣

[rbforster]

I'm no expert on either Polish or Acol, but that won't stop me from commenting

1♣-1♦-1NT
* 15-19 seems like a pretty big range, but I guess the 0-5 1♦ hand is passing or signing off opposite the full range.
* the various invites with no 4M in 1♦ might have trouble opposite the wide range
* could also have a 5M with 18-19, which might get a major fit buried, or does 5M332 bid 2M over 1♦?

So 1♣-1♦-1M now promises an unbalanced hand, 10-17, 5+♣s, 4+M? This seems like an improvement over having to rebid a 3 card major in Polish Club sometimes.

[Blofeld]

Interesting idea.

What do minimum 5♣4♦ hands rebid after 1♣:1♦? Or are these opened 1♦ to avoid that difficulty?

[david_c]

I suppose it might be an improvement on Acol, but that's not saying much

The worst thing about Acol is having to open 1M on 4 cards with a balanced 15-16 HCP. If I was going to choose one thing from Acol to add to PC, this certainly wouldn't be it.

Also, compared to standard PC, you're changing the hands on which responder wants to compete on. In PC responder bids in competition on any hand with a long suit, and this works nicely because it is also useful information when opener has the strong type. In "Polish Acol" responder will want to compete a lot in clubs and will not be so keen to bid new suits: this is less useful for a strong opener. So I don't think the options fit together so well.

[hrothgar]

Take a look at a system called Scanian Super Standard by Nilsland/Wirgren

They're top notch theorists...

[glen]

The problem with an Ikea bidding system is the assembly.

Systems invented in showers are wet.

The Acpolish system is workable as presented, though I would not be a big fan of it, as I'm not a big fan of Acol. Also my tendency in recent years is not to disperse a particular balanced range over a set of 1 bids - as mentioned above having to open the 1♣/1♦/1♥/1♠ complex on 15-17 - I feel the field opening 15-17 1NT has a big head start on these hands.

[Gerben42]

I usually don't shower for half an hour, maybe I should and a better system comes out Thanks for the input.

[cherdano]

I have no idea about either ACOL or polish club (nor have I played precision), so I am sure I am well qualified to comment.

I don't like the 1♣ opening. Over a preempt you have to sort out between minimal unbalanced hands, strong NTs, and any 18+. Passing is uncomfortable with any of these. I think this opener is more vulnerable to preemption than any 1♣ opening I am familiar with.

[Jboling]

I designed a similar system a couple years back, I called it EHAA+, I have a description on my web-site http://www.abo.fi/~j...ridge/ehaap.pdf. Main problem seemed to sort out the strong hands after a 1♣ opening, but that is probably the main problem with Polish Club. I had an even wider ranging 1♣, as 2♣ was a weak two in clubs, and 1NT was 10-13. You probably lose when you have a 15-17 balanced hand and the others open 1NT, but you probably win when you have your own range. And 10-13 and 12-14 are more common than 15-17, so this is not that bad in a long run. But you get more variation in the results, which can be annoying.

[Gerben42]

Interesting, I'll take a look!
NT range is not the deciding point. Whatever range you play you do well when your range come up and do badly when the other range comes up. That discussion will not be solved in this century.