[gwnn]

I searched the forums for about an hour and haven't found a thread specifically about this...

Which methods do you prefer?

Option A: treat polish ♣ as strong. I.e. evil lead directing overcalls on KJTxx xx xxx xxx. Or suction on xxxxx Jxxx x xxx.

Option B: treat polish ♣ as natural. ie t/o X, michaels, etc etc

Option C: treat polish ♣ as weak NT. ie sound overcalls, penalty-oriented X.

Option D: specify.

I think I heard all three suggested by reasonable people... Which one do you think works best? Which one would you suggest?

[Gerben42]

I think constructive overcalls on the 1-level, annoy the heck out of them on the 2-level works well. Here is the defence that I play with my regular partner.

Dbl = constructive ♥ overcall
1♦ = constructive ♠ overcall
1♥ = 4♥ + longer side suit
1♠ = 4♠ + longer side suit
1NT = constructive minor 1-suiter

Rest preemptive, natural or "confusing":
2♣ = ♣ or reds
2♦ = ♦ or majors
etc.

Strong hands PASS first! You can then wait for 1♣ 1♦ 1M then either Dbl or 1NT.

1♣ p 1♦ ?

Dbl = majors
1M = natural
1NT = 4M + 5+m
2m = natural

Again higher bids are preemptive.

Also here strong NT pass! If it is your hand the auction will make this clear.

[P_Marlowe]

C

- defences belonging to A, is what a polish club
player really loves, destructive overcalls, destroying
your own chances to find your own game
- B makes some sense, but only if you play the
overcalls as sound, and if you do, we are at option C
- I dont play a penalty double against a weak NT,
and I dont think that it is a great idea against 1C,
afterall, how much down we need to beat their 1-level
contract? -4? => the same number of tricks to make
make 4H?


With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Chip Martel has claimed that

1. Polish type 1♣ openings are theoretically flawed
2. He has devised an overcall structure that exploits these flaws

To back this up, Martel and Lew Stansby have had some very good sets against strong Polish pairs. Admitted, in some cases, the set of hands was felt to favor more natural methods.

Here's a couple quotes from Martel from the rec.games.bridge archives:

>General philosphy (quoting now)
>
>Now for a short discussion of planning a defense to this type of forcing
>multi-way club. I won't give my defense, but this will tell you how I
>formed it:
>
>The defense to the Polish club has three goals:
>
>1) Be able to get into the auction to compete for a game or
>partial when you have a decent hand
>
>2) Get in on light hands to disrupt the auction for the other
>side (this disruption can be effective against both the
>weak NT and strog club hands. It will be very effective
>when the 1C bidder is strong, since responder cannot
>assume a strong hand).
>
>3) Extract a penalty when the opponents have a weak NT opposite
>a weak hand (particularly when you are at favorable).
>
>The low level opening (1C) combined with the fact that
>1C is forcing (so you can pass with some good hands),
>allows you to do all 3 fairly effectively if you structure your bids properly.

This is all fine and dandy. I don't think that anyone would necessarily disagree with these comments. Here's where things get a bit dicey. Martel also notes the following

>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to discourage
>others from playing these methods after all.

Guess full disclosure really only needs to go in certain directions...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...97ca67555bc4776

[Gerben42]

In the Dutch top division many pairs play a special defense against the popular (forcing) short 1♣ opening which is also used vs Polish ♣.

Something like Holo Bolo

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 5 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

...I won't give my defense... Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. ...

See page 12 (last page) of:

BridgeMatters Chip Martel Interview

(Thanks again Chip!)

As to my preference, see ETM Gold, the "ETM Gold Particular Defenses" section, "Vs. Hybrid 1C (like Polish, ETM Gold)". Key here is that 1♦ shows a real takeout double of ♣s, but limited so 1♦ can be passed, pass can be 17+ balanced (double at next turn shows this hand type), and that 1♣ can be:

1) 14-16 balanced/semi-balanced with 3+Cs;
2) 4-4/4-3/3-4 in majors with 12/13+ and 3+Cs;
3) Good 5+Cs, and 11+.

Generally with 14+ balanced we would like them to bid a bunch and get into trouble.

[marcD]

hrothgar, on Feb 5 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

Chip Martel has claimed that

1. Polish type 1♣ openings are theoretically flawed
2. He has devised an overcall structure that exploits these flaws

To back this up, Martel and Lew Stansby have had some very good sets against strong Polish pairs. Admitted, in some cases, the set of hands was felt to favor more natural methods.

Here's a couple quotes from Martel from the rec.games.bridge archives:

>General philosphy (quoting now)
>
>Now for a short discussion of planning a defense to this type of forcing
>multi-way club. I won't give my defense, but this will tell you how I
>formed it:
>
>The defense to the Polish club has three goals:
>
>1) Be able to get into the auction to compete for a game or
>partial when you have a decent hand
>
>2) Get in on light hands to disrupt the auction for the other
>side (this disruption can be effective against both the
>weak NT and strog club hands. It will be very effective
>when the 1C bidder is strong, since responder cannot
>assume a strong hand).
>
>3) Extract a penalty when the opponents have a weak NT opposite
>a weak hand (particularly when you are at favorable).
>
>The low level opening (1C) combined with the fact that
>1C is forcing (so you can pass with some good hands),
>allows you to do all 3 fairly effectively if you structure your bids properly.

This is all fine and dandy. I don't think that anyone would necessarily disagree with these comments. Here's where things get a bit dicey. Martel also notes the following

>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to discourage
>others from playing these methods after all.

Guess full disclosure really only needs to go in certain directions...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...97ca67555bc4776

Having played polish club for a couple of years i can only agree with Chip Martel's comments. I think it is best to pass strong balanced hands (when they are vulnerable). I tend to play 1H,1S natural somewhat constructive, 2C,2D,2H,2S natural freewheeling 1NT 4H+minor 1D 4S+minor reasonnably constructive

[dake50]

Vs 1C that can be anything, usu weak bal, look at your spades: 0-1S = obstruct with distr defined (with H, not. RJO type)2-bids; 2-4S look at hcp <11 get suit OC in; 4+S = 1S, >12= pass letting partner get his suggestion in.
Not just Polish 1C, the 'May be short' also.

[the hog]

I don't understand the above comment, but in my exxperience of playing PC and against it. I love those who try to disrupt at the 1 level on garbage hands. This is such a losing strategy.

[Edmunte1]

I've played both ways, and it's obvious better playing as the weak NT type, for simple reason that it's the most frequent. So sound overcalls, pas followed by double showing a strong balanced hand seems best.

[FrancesHinden]

Right now, my defence against polish club is to treat it as "natural", but the take-out double focusses on the majors.

I agree that isn't best, but I would still stick to sound overcalls at the 1-level and pre-emptive jumps.

There is some logic for passing on strong-NT hands (rather than bidding 1NT) but you really need to work out all the continuations carefully: if you pass on the first round, then what does 1C - p- 1D- p - 1H - x mean? strong balanced, or t/o of hearts?

However, I'm dubious that that is definitely best: the world plays a 1NT overcall of a SAYC 1C opening as strong balanced even though the 1C opener often has a weak NT; in standard methods he's going to have to rebid 1NT while in Polish methods they can scramble out in 1Major so on probability grounds you are probably more likely to get a penalty by passing over a natural 1C - particularly with the standards for a response getting lower and lower!

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 7 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

However, I'm dubious that that is definitely best: the world plays a 1NT overcall of a SAYC 1C opening as strong balanced even though the 1C opener often has a weak NT; in standard methods he's going to have to rebid 1NT while in Polish methods they can scramble out in 1Major so on probability grounds you are probably more likely to get a penalty by passing over a natural 1C - particularly with the standards for a response getting lower and lower!

Nice point.

[Gerben42]

Quote

However, I'm dubious that that is definitely best: the world plays a 1NT overcall of a SAYC 1C opening as strong balanced even though the 1C opener often has a weak NT; in standard methods he's going to have to rebid 1NT while in Polish methods they can scramble out in 1Major so on probability grounds you are probably more likely to get a penalty by passing over a natural 1C - particularly with the standards for a response getting lower and lower!

Good point, but the main reason to bid 1NT with a natural 1NT and not pass over a standard 1♣ opening is

1. getting passed out when game is making our way.
2. getting to 1NT faster than the opponents.
3. getting preempted upon.

#1 is not going to happen in Polish Club
#2 is diminished in Polish Club because if they go to 1NT or higher on opener's rebid it is less often your hand than in standard.
#3 is just rarely going to happen as opener has not shown a suit.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2007, 05:04 PM, said:

Quote

However, I'm dubious that that is definitely best: the world plays a 1NT overcall of a SAYC 1C opening as strong balanced even though the 1C opener often has a weak NT; in standard methods he's going to have to rebid 1NT while in Polish methods they can scramble out in 1Major so on probability grounds you are probably more likely to get a penalty by passing over a natural 1C - particularly with the standards for a response getting lower and lower!

Good point, but the main reason to bid 1NT with a natural 1NT and not pass over a standard 1♣ opening is

1. getting passed out when game is making our way.
2. getting to 1NT faster than the opponents.
3. getting preempted upon.

#1 is not going to happen in Polish Club
#2 is diminished in Polish Club because if they go to 1NT or higher on opener's rebid it is less often your hand than in standard.
#3 is just rarely going to happen as opener has not shown a suit.

On the other hand, a direct natural 1NT vs Polish club is more preemptive, because they don't know whether they can raise clubs.

[glen]

cherdano, on Feb 8 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

On the other hand, a direct natural 1NT vs Polish club is more preemptive, because they don't know whether they can raise clubs.

So the preemptive nature of the direct natural 1NT over the Polish ♣ is a significant advantage?



Edit: look at the post below - it shows my post at a time before the post I was replying to

[cherdano]

officeglen, on Feb 8 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

cherdano, on Feb 8 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

On the other hand, a direct natural 1NT vs Polish club is more preemptive, because they don't know whether they can raise clubs.

So the preemptive nature of the direct natural 1NT over the Polish ♣ is a significant advantage?

I would claim yes, but what do I know...

[MickyB]

cherdano, on Feb 8 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

On the other hand, a direct natural 1NT vs Polish club is more preemptive, because they don't know whether they can raise clubs.

A Polish Club is less likely to be unbalanced with clubs than a standard 1♣ opening is, because the 11-14 hands have been opened 2♣ instead.