[Rossoneri]

The following system was described as "Standard American SIMPLE Variation
(aka 1C-Stayman Variation)"

1.	Stayman 1C
This is a query from the Opener, similar to an NT-Stayman convention.
Responder just answers whether he has a 4-card Major or not.
The distribution of the Opener’s hand is not really known.
Some common distributions for Declarer are : -
a)	Declarer has a ≥5-card Club, 12-22HCP (re-bids Clubs)
b)	Declarer has a 4-card Major, 12-22HCP. Should not be a standard NT opening hand.
c)	Declarer may have 5-card Diamond, 4-card major. 12-22HCP (will re-bid Diamond if no major suit agreement).
d)	Declarer could even have a 5-4 in Majors, 12-22HCP (voluntarily re-bids a new Major)
e)	Declarer has a 4-3-3-3 hand and prefers to play in NT. 12-15HCP.
f)	Declarer has flat-hand, 19-20HCP (re-bids 2NT).

2.	1D
Declarer is telling the responder not to bid any 4-card Majors.
Responder either answers his 5-card Major, 5-card Minor, or heads for NT.
Possible distributions for Declarer are: -
a)	Both Declarer’s Majors are less than 3-cards. He should have ≥3-card Diamonds.
b)	Declarer has 5-5 in Majors, 12-15HCP. (5-5 Majors, ≥16HCP are covered under RCO 2H Opening).

3.	1H or 1S
Declarer has 5 or more of the bid Major, 12-22HCP.
Declarer should not be holding 5-4 in Majors (else will bid 1C).
Declarer should not be holding 5-5 in Majors (else will bid 1D or RCO 2H).
If declarer re-bids the other Major, it is probably a 6-5 Major distribution, 12-15HCP.
(6-5 Distributions with ≥16HCP are covered under the RCO 2H Opening).
Proceedings are similar to Standard American.

4.	1NT
Declarer has Flat-Hand, 16-18HCP.
Proceedings are similar to Standard American.

5.	2C
Declarer has one of the following distributions: -
a)	≥5-card major, ≥19HCP, ≤4 loser hand.
b)	≥23 HCP, no double-suited hand (else will bid RCO bids).

6.	Multi-Tiered 2D (aka Multi-2D)
Declarer has one of the following distributions: -
a)	Weak, pre-emptive hand, ≥6-card major. (re-bids Majors)
b)	Flat-Hand, 21-22HCP (re-bids NT)
c)	Strong Hand with ≥5-card Minors. ≥9 playing tricks. (re-bids Minors)

 
7.	“Rank-Colour-Others” 2H (aka RCO 2H)
RCO bids describe strong 2-suiter hands (≥16HCP).
RCO 2H describes 2-suits of the same Rank (Majors or Minors)
Responder should relay with 2S.
The following are the interpretations to the re-bids: -
a)	2NT: 5-5 in Minors, 16-18HCP.
b)	3C: 5-5 in Minors, ≥19HCP.
c)	3D: 5-5 in Majors, 16-18HCP.
d)	3H: 5-5 in Majors, ≥19HCP.

8.	RCO 2S
Describes Strong hand with 2-suits of the same Colour.
Responder should relay with 2NT.
Re-bid interpretations as follows: -
a)	3C: 5-5 in Black suits, 16-18HCP.
b)	3D: 5-5 in Red suits, 16-18HCP.
c)	3H: 5-5 in Red suits, ≥19HCP.
d)	3S: 5-5 in Black suits, ≥19HCP.

9.	RCO 2NT
Describes Strong hand with 2-suits not covered by 2H or 2S openings.
Responder should relay with 3C.
Re-bid interpretations as follows: -
a)	3D: 5-5 in Diamonds and Spades, 16-18HCP.
b)	3H: 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts, 16-18HCP.
c)	3S: 5-5 in Diamond and Spades, ≥19HCP.
d)	3NT: 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts, ≥19HCP.

10.	3C, 3D, 3H, or 3S
Typical Standard-American 7-carder pre-empt hand.

1) Not that it really matters, but I think this is not GCC Compliant. Going by what I saw in Orange book, I don't think it is legal in EBU territory as well?

2) What would be a good defense to the various artificial bids?

Disclaimer: I did not come up with this system.

Further Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any person, dead or living is purely coincidental.

[jtfanclub]

Eveything's legal in this for GCC except the Multi (which is midchart), as far as I can see.

[TylerE]

My defense to this system is that the opponents are required to play it.

[Rossoneri]

jtfanclub, on May 16 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

Eveything's legal in this for GCC except the Multi (which is midchart), as far as I can see.

Correct me if I am wrong (since I am nowhere remotely near ACBL-land), but I looked at the GCC and saw:

Quote

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the
suits

Wouldn't this effectively void the 2♥/♠/NT openings since LHO of opener does not immediately know what suits opener is holding?

[Mbodell]

They are all strong bids 16+ so the rules may be different. The needing to know the two suits is for the 10+ bids, I believe.

[jtfanclub]

Mbodell, on May 16 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

They are all strong bids 16+ so the rules may be different. The needing to know the two suits is for the 10+ bids, I believe.

Yeah, I loosely interpreted those as "strength showing opening at the two level or higher that asks for aces, kings, queens, singtons, voids or trump quality and the responses thereto".

16+ is certainly strength, so you'd have to have the responses be, I dunno, next bid up denying an ace and the one bid higher promising an ace. Woo.

[FrancesHinden]

The 1C/1D openings aren't legal in EBUland. You can make them legal by removing the 5-4 /5-5 major options (1d and 2b). As (IMO) putting those openings into the 1H/1S openers would improve the system I don't see that as a major handicap.

[Rossoneri]

Ok. Just as I thought. But that's still not the most important point.

Suggested defence? Or ideas?

[TylerE]

Preempt frequently and aggressively over the 1m openings.

[jtfanclub]

Rossoneri, on May 16 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

Ok. Just as I thought. But that's still not the most important point.

Suggested defence? Or ideas?

I have no idea why you'd open 1♣ with long clubs and no 4 card major. Why wouldn't you open 1♦ with that?

So 1♦ is one of....
-Long minor, no 4 card major.
-Balanced 12-15, no 4 card major or 4333
-Both majors, 12-15.

1♣ would end up being one of....
-12+ with 4 card major, or
-Balanced 19-21

So if it's SIMPLE, I guess I'm not using transfers, so
1♦ response....0-9 no 4 card major.
1♥/1♠ Natural, 1 round forcing.
1NT: 10+, no 4 card major, 1 round forcing

or suchlike.

Actually, I do have an idea why you include clubs hands in your 1 club opener regardless of whether you have a 4 card major. Frankly, if you're going to include the RCO bids in the system, I think you can handle 1♦...something...2♣ showing a one suited club hand.

[mikeh]

Rossoneri, on May 15 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

The following system was described as "Standard American SIMPLE Variation
(aka 1C-Stayman Variation)"

1.	Stayman 1C
This is a query from the Opener, similar to an NT-Stayman convention.
Responder just answers whether he has a 4-card Major or not.
The distribution of the Opener’s hand is not really known.
Some common distributions for Declarer are : -
a)	Declarer has a ≥5-card Club, 12-22HCP (re-bids Clubs)
b)	Declarer has a 4-card Major, 12-22HCP. Should not be a standard NT opening hand.
c)	Declarer may have 5-card Diamond, 4-card major. 12-22HCP (will re-bid Diamond if no major suit agreement).
d)	Declarer could even have a 5-4 in Majors, 12-22HCP (voluntarily re-bids a new Major)
e)	Declarer has a 4-3-3-3 hand and prefers to play in NT. 12-15HCP.
f)	Declarer has flat-hand, 19-20HCP (re-bids 2NT).

2.	1D
Declarer is telling the responder not to bid any 4-card Majors.
Responder either answers his 5-card Major, 5-card Minor, or heads for NT.
Possible distributions for Declarer are: -
a)	Both Declarer’s Majors are less than 3-cards. He should have ≥3-card Diamonds.
b)	Declarer has 5-5 in Majors, 12-15HCP. (5-5 Majors, ≥16HCP are covered under RCO 2H Opening).

3.	1H or 1S
Declarer has 5 or more of the bid Major, 12-22HCP.
Declarer should not be holding 5-4 in Majors (else will bid 1C).
Declarer should not be holding 5-5 in Majors (else will bid 1D or RCO 2H).
If declarer re-bids the other Major, it is probably a 6-5 Major distribution, 12-15HCP.
(6-5 Distributions with ≥16HCP are covered under the RCO 2H Opening).
Proceedings are similar to Standard American.

4.	1NT
Declarer has Flat-Hand, 16-18HCP.
Proceedings are similar to Standard American.

5.	2C
Declarer has one of the following distributions: -
a)	≥5-card major, ≥19HCP, ≤4 loser hand.
b)	≥23 HCP, no double-suited hand (else will bid RCO bids).

6.	Multi-Tiered 2D (aka Multi-2D)
Declarer has one of the following distributions: -
a)	Weak, pre-emptive hand, ≥6-card major. (re-bids Majors)
b)	Flat-Hand, 21-22HCP (re-bids NT)
c)	Strong Hand with ≥5-card Minors. ≥9 playing tricks. (re-bids Minors)

 
7.	“Rank-Colour-Others” 2H (aka RCO 2H)
RCO bids describe strong 2-suiter hands (≥16HCP).
RCO 2H describes 2-suits of the same Rank (Majors or Minors)
Responder should relay with 2S.
The following are the interpretations to the re-bids: -
a)	2NT: 5-5 in Minors, 16-18HCP.
b)	3C: 5-5 in Minors, ≥19HCP.
c)	3D: 5-5 in Majors, 16-18HCP.
d)	3H: 5-5 in Majors, ≥19HCP.

8.	RCO 2S
Describes Strong hand with 2-suits of the same Colour.
Responder should relay with 2NT.
Re-bid interpretations as follows: -
a)	3C: 5-5 in Black suits, 16-18HCP.
b)	3D: 5-5 in Red suits, 16-18HCP.
c)	3H: 5-5 in Red suits, ≥19HCP.
d)	3S: 5-5 in Black suits, ≥19HCP.

9.	RCO 2NT
Describes Strong hand with 2-suits not covered by 2H or 2S openings.
Responder should relay with 3C.
Re-bid interpretations as follows: -
a)	3D: 5-5 in Diamonds and Spades, 16-18HCP.
b)	3H: 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts, 16-18HCP.
c)	3S: 5-5 in Diamond and Spades, ≥19HCP.
d)	3NT: 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts, ≥19HCP.

10.	3C, 3D, 3H, or 3S
Typical Standard-American 7-carder pre-empt hand.

1) Not that it really matters, but I think this is not GCC Compliant. Going by what I saw in Orange book, I don't think it is legal in EBU territory as well?

2) What would be a good defense to the various artificial bids?

Disclaimer: I did not come up with this system.

Further Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any person, dead or living is purely coincidental.

I am sorry to sound rude, but this is an appalling atrocity... probably the worst idea I have seen proposed on this forum.

Where to start?

1stly, the system outline doesn't appear to even cater to some not-unusual hands. This is a common failing of inept system designers. The system is designed to cater to the hand types the designer thought of, and he/she failed to think of enough. Thus, we are told that a hand with a 4 card major and 5 diamonds opens 1♣. We are not told how to open 4=4=5=0, but we can infer that 1♣ is still the opening. That's easy, but what about 4=3=6=0? Again, 1♣??

And look at the response structure to 1♦, which may be on 5-5 in the majors... responder is to ignore any 4 card major and is to instead head to notrump or a 5 card minor. But we are not told the strength requirements for 2♣... presumably this is not a 5 count.. presumably it is at least a 10 count. So I pick up Kxxx Jxxx void Kxxxx. The auction starts 1♦ 1N and opener has 5=5=3=0 12 count.

I suppose one could muddle through, but surely we can accept that an auction that began with 1♠ has a certain advantage?

And what if responder has 2=2=4=5 with a 6 count?

But the worst sin of all is for the system designer to assume that the opponents are either trappist monks or have otherwise given up bidding for the session.

I can just see how accurate our methods are going to be.

Partner opens 1♣ and RHO bids 2♥. Well, partner could be 4=3=6=0 with 19 high or 3=1=3=6 with 12 high, or virtually any other shape. Boy, do I love my ability to move forward now!

Or partner opens 1♦ and I eschew my majors to bid 1N (heck maybe I get to play it), and LHO preempts 3♦. Partner has a 5-5 major hand. How does he show it? Why should I hold either major, if he does show it? Heck, partner could be VOID in diamonds.

I am sorry to sound brutal.. I know how interesting it is to mess around with system design and I have in the past developed and been proud of bidding ideas that, with the passage of time, now seem to me to have been fundamentally misguided. But this truly is a horrible method.

Let me add a word of general advice. There is still room for innovative methods... look at the Italians... but most methods are modifications of tried and true approaches. Bidding systems have undergone and continue to undergo a Darwinian evolutionary process. System designers, acting like mutagens, develop new ideas and natural selection, through the choices made by players and the results of tournaments, winnows out the failures. Methods that once dominated are cast aside as outdated... and this is not a 'fashion' matter, akin to the width of the lapel on a suit. No-one is ever going to play Culbertson successfully in a major event ever again, while I can hold on to my old ties in the hope that they will come back into style if I live long enough!

Most mutations give rise to unsuccessful variants... this one wouldn't last a day in a serious event.

[DrTodd13]

What got me laughing is the use of the word "simple" in conjunction with Multi. Not that multi is complex but the people who would be interested in an even more dumb-downed version of SAYC would have their head explode if you told them that one bid could include multiple hand types.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on May 16 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Partner opens 1♣ and RHO bids 2♥. Well, partner could be 4=3=6=0 with 19 high or 3=1=3=6 with 12 high, or virtually any other shape. Boy, do I love my ability to move forward now!

Sorry, but I certainly don't buy that one.

Partner opens 1♣ and the next player bids 2♥.

-In SAYC, this shows 3+ clubs and almost nothing else about shape (well, usually no 5 card major), and any 12+ for strength.
-In this system, this shows either 4 hearts or 4 spades, or in the variant I mentioned it could also be a very strong balanced hand (19+)

Now, are you seriously going to argue that knowing opener has three clubs makes this a piece of cake, while knowing that he almost certainly has a 4 card major makes it impossible?

Heck, there's a whole raft of hands that can double 2♥ in this system (either opener can defend or you have fit) that are screwed in SAYC (since if partner doesn't have 4 spades for you you'll probably end up in some horrible place).

For 1♦ (2♥), it's even easier. The hands are basically
1) Hands that could open 3 of a minor but are too strong
2) Hands that are 5-5 in the majors
3) Balanced 12-15s.

Quote

Or partner opens 1♦ and I eschew my majors to bid 1N (heck maybe I get to play it), and LHO preempts 3♦. Partner has a 5-5 major hand. How does he show it? Why should I hold either major, if he does show it? Heck, partner could be VOID in diamonds.

This argument is even worse. In 2/1, the opener bids 1♠, partner bids 1NT, next player bids 3♦. If opener bids 3♥, you're now in a worse situation than you are in the new system (since for the 1♦ 5-5 opener you're limited to 15 hcp, while for 1♠ you'be got an upper limit of 18 or so). And of course, if you don't bid 3♥, who knows how big a fit you just missed?

I'm sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. Which would you rather know in interference? Which minor suit is longer (but could be only a 3 card suit), or whether opener has a 4 card major?

[awm]

Well anything could work. System matters, but not as much as some people seem to think.

But I don't get calling this a Standard American SIMPLE Variation. It is far from simple, including both things that are moderately complex (2♦ multi) and things that are downright weird (RCO bids).

It seems like the 1♣ opening could be any of: (1) A balanced hand not in the 1NT range (2) A hand with clubs (3) A hand with diamonds and a four-card major (4) Some hands with 5-4 in the majors. This is going to be tougher to sort out in competitive sequences than a standard 1♣, which includes only the first two possibilities. It doesn't appear that opening 1♣ "shows a four card major" necessarily.

There is also some question as to what happens when responder has a bad hand. Do bids over 1♣ show any values? If not, then this puts a lot of pressure on opener since his reverses, jump shifts, etc. are probably no longer forcing. If it does show values, then you get to play 1♣ when opener has a strong 4450 and responder some balanced 2-count?

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on May 16 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but this is simply ridiculous.  Which would you rather know in interference?  Which minor suit is longer (but could be only a 3 card suit), or whether opener has a 4 card major?

Did you actually read the proposed system notes or merely decided to be as aggressive in your criticism of me as I was of the system?

Just where do you get the inference that the 1♣ opener promises a 4 card major?

And exactly how do you think that opening 1♣ on AKJx KQxx AJxxx void and on Kxx AJx x AQxxxx and KQx AQx KJx Axxx and on AQJxx AJxx xxxx void makes the least bit of sense? Yet all 4 seem to fit in the definition of 1♣.

Or opening 1♦ on AKJxx AQxxx void xxx or Jx Ax KQJxxx Kxx: again, both seem to be 1♦

If you don't see these as issues in competitive bidding, you are either a much, much better player than I will ever dream of being or extremely inexperienced or just love to argue (not that there is anything wrong with that:P)

Have you never played a minor suit contract in your life? Wouldn't you like to? HTF do you compete in the minors, as responder, when you can't tell within 7 cards what partner's length is?????? The nebulous 1♦ is one weakness in most big club methods, but they have compensating values elsewhere. I fail to see the compensating values for the nebulous minor openings in this method.

And I note that, perhaps not surprisingly, you didn't comment on my criticism of the response structure to 1♦... bid 1N or a 5 card minor... bearing in mind that raising diamonds seems a tad optimistic even with 5 when partner may have a void And our 9 card major suit fits can't be identified until the 3-level at the very lowest: 1♦ P 1N P 2Major P 3Major

Now, we don't know how opener is to show the 5-5.. does he always bid hearts or does he bid spades? Does a 2♥ bid promise 5 spades as well as 5 hearts? If so, then we are opening 1♥ with all 5 card heart suits even with 6 good diamonds... so x AKJxx AKQxxx x is a 1♥ opener.... because 1♦ then hearts shows 5-5 majors and 0-3 diamonds, and so on.

And I didn't even get into the self-preempting 2N bids and the 'simple' version of multi

If you really think my criticisms are ridiculous, I have a challenge for you. You find any player you like (excluding someone you have to pay... I'd hate to play Lauria and Versace even if they are hobbled by this method ) and we'll arrange a match... you play the method and I'll play one with one of my regular partners... and we'll put a little money on it... better yet, see if you can find 3 others to play it, and we'll get a team game together

[jdonn]

mikeh, on May 16 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

If you really think my criticisms are ridiculous, I have a challenge for you. You find any player you like (excluding someone you have to pay... I'd hate to play Lauria and Versace even if they are hobbled by this method ) and we'll arrange a match... you play the method and I'll play one with one of my regular partners... and we'll put a little money on it... better yet, see if you can find 3 others to play it, and we'll get a team game together

If I don't have to put any money up I'd be his partner and play that match. If I lose so what, but if I win I'm g000000d.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Did you actually read the proposed system notes or merely decided to be as aggressive in your criticism of me as I was of the system?

I played a very similar system once...where 1♣ promises a 4 card major or 19+ any, 1♦ is a one or two-suited hand or 11-14 balanced, and 1NT was 15-18, or somesuch. Same basic concept. I wasn't real impressed, but it was workable. (Yes, I read it).

Quote

And exactly how do you think that opening 1♣ on AKJx KQxx AJxxx void and on Kxx AJx x AQxxxx and KQx AQx KJx Axxx  and on AQJxx AJxx xxxx void makes the least bit of sense? Yet all 4 seem to fit in the definition of 1♣.

Like I said in an earlier reply, I can't imagine why you'd put the long clubs without a 4 card major in 1♣. I'm kinda hoping that was a typo, to be honest. I don't think the 5-4-4-0 fits in 1♣, though I may have missed it.

Quote

Or opening 1♦ on AKJxx AQxxx void xxx or Jx Ax KQJxxx Kxx: again, both seem to be 1♦

Simply defining 1♦ as 12+ shapely or minimum balanced is workable, as long as 'shapely' is defined as 'able to rebid at the three level', ie. a hand that's too strong but the right shape to be opened as a pre-empt. This is narrower than that.

Quote

If you don't see these as issues in competitive bidding, you are either a much, much better player than I will ever dream of being or extremely inexperienced  or just love to argue

If you don't see these as issues in NON-competitive bidding...

Seriously, one of the great flaws of 2/1 and SAYC is that it's so very easy to pre-empt against one of a minor. In fact, it's such a huge flaw that they make special rules just to protect these systems (eg. I can use a fert over a Precision 1♣ but not an SAYC 1♣). Frankly, I think the special rules are the only reason why these systems survive...there are some *really* destructive things you can play over a SAYC 1♣. Ask the Poles.

Quote

Have you never played a minor suit contract in your life? Wouldn't you like to? HTF do you compete in the minors, as responder, when you can't tell within 7 cards what partner's length is??????

Sorry, I lost you there. Are you talking about SAYC, and how you can't tell whether a 1♣ opening is a 3 or 11 card suit? Or the new system.

My point was that you should remove the beam in your eye, before you complain about the mote in his. 2/1 and SAYC are so very bad at handling competition over 1 of a minor that it seems foolish to reject something else in favor of them for its inability to handle pre-empts over 1 of a minor.

Quote

And I note that, perhaps not surprisingly, you didn't comment on my criticism of the response structure to 1♦... bid 1N or a 5 card minor... bearing in mind that raising diamonds seems a tad optimistic even with 5 when partner may have a void   And our 9 card major suit fits can't be identified until the 3-level at the very lowest: 1♦ P 1N P 2Major P 3Major

That's because I agree with you there. And that I don't see a lot of compensating factors either.

IIRC, and it's been a LONG time, what I played before used a strength showing response over 1♦...1♥ was weak, 1♠ was medium strength, 1NT was GF and strong. Then the opener bid 1NT or 2 of a suit most of the time. When responder was weak and opener had a two-suiter, you often ended in the wrong suit, but at least you stopped at the 2 level.

Something like that. Meanwhile, it used transfers over 1♣. An auction like 1♣-1♥-2♥ showed 5+ clubs, 4 spades, and a minimum. Or maybe something completely different. All I know is that every bid showed something very exacting, and that the meanings of auctions were completely different- it was like you were playing different systems depending on what was opened. I'm sure it was a great and wonderful system, if you could put that much brainpower into it.

Quote

And I didn't even get into the self-preempting 2N bids and the 'simple' version of multi

If you really think my criticisms are ridiculous, I have a challenge for you

You missed my point. I think your criticisms are ridiculous not because I thought the system was wonderful, but because you picked something both odd and a huge weakness of the original system to criticize. There are so many low hanging fruit here, why did you need to bring a ladder and sway dangerously in the breeze while you stretched for that one golden apple on the top? Why not stick to the self-pre-empting 2N bids and the 'simple' version of multi?

I would pay Lauria and Versace to kick my ass. I paid a great deal of money (at least for me) to get a team to Detroit so that we'd be able to compete in the Vanderbilt, and I said in advance that I considered the money well spent if we made it past the Round Robin to lose to some great team in the first round of the elimination.

I would consider it an honor to play against you, or with you. And to have jdonn as my partner even in a joke team game...I'd be happy to pay for the privilege.

[Rossoneri]

Clarifications:

1) These are not "proposed system notes", someone actually played it. Neither do I have any wish to play it. I just find it truly bizarre.

2) Nothing wrong with the comments...pretty good criticism, but suggested D?

3) If you wish to know the full story, PM me.

[jtfanclub]

Rossoneri, on May 17 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

2) Nothing wrong with the comments...pretty good criticism, but suggested D?

Defend the 1♣ like it was a Polish Club.
Defend the 1♦ like it was a Precision Diamond
Defend the 2 level bids by thinking about dead puppies so you don't laugh hysterically as they end up in some insane contract.

[Rossoneri]

jtfanclub, on May 18 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on May 17 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

2) Nothing wrong with the comments...pretty good criticism, but suggested D?

Defend the 1♣ like it was a Polish Club.
Defend the 1♦ like it was a Precision Diamond
Defend the 2 level bids by thinking about dead puppies so you don't laugh hysterically as they end up in some insane contract.

Why Polish Club? The 1C opening seems rather different from PC.

I wasn't aware of a special defence against Prec 1D.