[jw_nl]

2 cases: one concerning an opening, the other an overcall.

case 1, opening:
Player opens 2D. Alert + explanation: 2 5cards suits weak.
Player has 5H+5C

In my country an opening must reveal (at least) one suit.
Multi 2D with a weak 6cM is allowed, but that's the only exception opps don't know the suit.
Muiderberg: 2H/2S is weak with 5H/S + 5+c m. Only guessing the m.

case 2, overcall:
Opp opens 1C, player overcalling 2D. Alert + explanation = 5+5 M+m.
Player has 6S and 5C.

Michaels is clear: at least one suit and and sometimes both suits are revealed to opps.

In both cases the opps have to guess the suits.
a: Is this legal ?
b: Would you allow it in a normal free tournament with only BBO-rules stated?

[Old York]

You are asking the most difficult questions on BBO

Is it legal and should it be allowed?

You might get lots of answers from the "Secretary Birds" (Mollo), but the truth is that it is totally up to the Tournament Host, unless it is forbidden, then it is legal.
If it is forbidden, even if it is perfectly legal, then it is illegal
I attempted to ban artificial pre-empts in my early tournaments, but it was a waste of time and effort

Perhaps the question that you should be asking is:
"Is it ethical to use such agreements against lesser opponents?"

Tony

[hrothgar]

Old York, on Dec 20 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

Perhaps the question that you should be asking is:
"Is it ethical to use such agreements against lesser opponents?"

Tony

Personally, I'd be a lot more pissed off at folks describing me as a lesser opponent than one's opening a Wilkosz 2♦ against me.

[jw_nl]

Tony,

Yes I know that 40D of the Laws are giving the sponsoring organization (the BBO host) the possibility to limit the use of bidding conventions.
In Polish club there are weak openings at level 2 and 3. All giving disclosure about the suit(s). 2D (wilkosz) is clear to opps: 7-11 HCP and 5+-5+ minors. In the two cases I described opps will have to guess.

Maybe I should have asked another question:
Do you know S.O.'s which allow the bidding conventions I described in my first post.

[hrothgar]

jw_nl, on Dec 20 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

In Polish club there are weak openings at level 2 and 3. All giving disclosure about the suit(s). 2D (wilkosz) is clear to opps: 7-11 HCP and 5+-5+ minors. In the two cases I described opps will have to guess.

Wrong... Care to play again?

The Wilkosz 2♦ opening shows 5+ / 5+ shape with at least one 5 card major.
The only two suits that it can't show is both minors.

[hrothgar]

jw_nl, on Dec 20 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

Do you know S.O.'s which allow the bidding conventions I described in my first post.

Poland, would seem like the obvious answer
I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Wilkosz is legal in Oz

[gwnn]

Iceland and I think Denmark.

[jw_nl]

Sorry, of course you are right Hrothgar. I've read the wrong line, the description I gave was belonging to 2NT. An Australian player used the 2D opening and apparently he played Polish club.
I don't know Polish Club at all and I see occasionally that TD's don't allow it in their tournaments. Now it's clear to me.

Thanks !

[hrothgar]

jw_nl, on Dec 20 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

I don't know Polish Club at all and I see occasionally that TD's don't allow it in their tournaments. Now it's clear to me.

Thanks !

This might sound snarky, but you still don't know anything about Polish Club.

The Wilkosz 2♦ is a preemptive opening that is often used with Polish Club; Playing Wilkosz is by no means required if one is playing Polish Club.

The reason that many TDs ban Polish Club is that they are not allowed to ban Poles...

[Old York]

hrothgar, on Dec 20 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

The reason that many TDs ban Polish Club is that they are not allowed to ban Poles...

Ignoring the unfounded racist accusations......

The true reason that Polish Club is banned in many tournaments (inc ACBL) is that 99.99% of pick-up partnerships have never had the opportunity to agree a defense to these systems, this give an unfair advantage to Polish Club users
Of course, many other agreements (inc multi etc) are outlawed for exactly the same reason

The low standard of alerting by the majority, suggests to me that it is a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by confusing opponents

Tony

[blackshoe]

Most jurisdictions these days, including the ACBL, deal with individual conventions, not systems. And the regulations specify what's allowed, mostly, rather than what's not allowed (which is basically anything that isn't either natural or specifically allowed). So ACBL regs, for example don't ban Polish Club (the system), nor individual conventions that make up the system, although the regs may not specifically allow one or more of those conventions. A small and perhaps unimportant distinction, I suppose.

I'm not sure on which chart Polish Club (the convention) is allowed, might be GCC, might be MidChart. I suspect it's GCC - which would mean that some other part of Polish Club (the system) is the problem at that level.

"Never had the opportunity" is an overbid. Rather "never taken the opportunity" — although I grant you there's no pressing reason they should have done, if no one is playing it where they play. Chicken or egg, anyone?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Dec 21 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

Most jurisdictions these days, including the ACBL, deal with individual conventions, not systems. And the regulations specify what's allowed, mostly, rather than what's not allowed (which is basically anything that isn't either natural or specifically allowed). So ACBL regs, for example don't ban Polish Club (the system), nor individual conventions that make up the system, although the regs may not specifically allow one or more of those conventions. A small and perhaps unimportant distinction, I suppose.

I'm not sure on which chart Polish Club (the convention) is allowed, might be GCC, might be MidChart. I suspect it's GCC - which would mean that some other part of Polish Club (the system) is the problem at that level.

"Never had the opportunity" is an overbid. Rather "never taken the opportunity" — although I grant you there's no pressing reason they should have done, if no one is playing it where they play. Chicken or egg, anyone?

Thanks for beating me to this one...

A Polish style 1♣ opening is perfectly legal at the GCC level, as are all of the standard responses to the 1♣ opening. The GCC sanctions all constructive rebids by opener, so once you're past the opening and the responses, pretty much anything goes including

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ on a three bagger
1♣ - 1M - 2♦ as a relay
and whatever else you want.

The 1♦ - 1N openings are (essentially) the same as standard The 1♦/1♥/1♠ openings are limited, but they are completely legit at the GCC level.

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legel.

2NT is used to show a weak hand with both minors. Also, GCC legal.

Where Polish Club runs into trouble is the 2♦ --> 2♠ openings which are normally 2 suited hand patterns. However, I know plenty of people (TimG included) who play Polish club in GCC by tweaking the opening structure. As I recall, Tim and IdiotVig use 2♦ to show various strong minor oriented hands and 2M as weak twos...

[TylerE]

Polish Club is totally legal in ACBL events. You can't play the 2♦ opening, but playing it as weak, or Mini-roman, or whatever doesn't break the system.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

old york said:

The true reason that Polish Club is banned in many tournaments (inc ACBL) is that 99.99% of pick-up partnerships have never had the opportunity to agree a defense to these systems, this give an unfair advantage to Polish Club users

If Polish Club is banned in any GCC ACBL events, it is news to me. I've been playing it in ACBL speedballs for over a year (maybe 25-30 events) without anyone expressing concern about whether it was legal.

As hrothgar has pointed out, I do not use the 2♦/2♥/2♠ openings suggested, but they are not essential to the system (as TylerE pointed out).

Tim

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on Dec 20 2009, 05:30 AM, said:

Personally, I'd be a lot more pissed off at folks describing me as a lesser opponent than one's opening a Wilkosz 2♦ against me.

I could swear that you described yourself as such a while back, even though your posts indicate otherwise.

[Old York]

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

old york said:

The true reason that Polish Club is banned in many tournaments (inc ACBL) is that 99.99% of pick-up partnerships have never had the opportunity to agree a defense to these systems, this give an unfair advantage to Polish Club users

If Polish Club is banned in any GCC ACBL events, it is news to me. I've been playing it in ACBL speedballs for over a year (maybe 25-30 events) without anyone expressing concern about whether it was legal

I was simply following OP's example and using the name "Polish Club" as a generic term, which includes many variations used by players from all over the world

I have no problem with any system of bids used in high level tournaments, my main concern is their use in low level events [free bbo tourneys etc], especially when correct alerting procedure is ignored. I am still waiting to see 1♣ alerted as "forcing" for example

Tony

[TimG]

Old York, on Dec 21 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

I have no problem with any system of bids used in high level tournaments, my main concern is their use in low level events, especially when correct alerting procedure is ignored. I am still waiting to see 1♣ alerted as "forcing" for example

I would not call speedballs "high level tournaments"...

My Full Disclosure description of 1♣ includes "forcing", though on the occasions that I type an explanation (FD doesn't always work) I do not include "forcing" in the description.

[TylerE]

Don't even get me started. From my expirience even the more..brief WJ players alert more fully than many "natural" bidders who assume everyone plays their regionally quirked version of SA, and don't bother to alert stuff like 1M-2♣ as a potential 2 card suit (Because 2♦ promises 5 obv).

[barmar]

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation.

[TimG]

barmar, on Dec 21 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation.

I don't think "it's a consequence of other systemic choices" makes it any less conventional (even though that is no longer defined).