[bluecalm]

We play that in Poland a lot (as it's part of standard pc) and I think it sucks
Imo the best option for 2M responses is NF but responder only pass with 2 cards (he raises with 3, bid 3D with very good raise and bid something natural with stiff be it 2S/2N/3C). That means you have to pass with weak hand and 6carder but you are no better off if you play it as forcing.
This way you may play 2M as quite wide range knowing partner won't pass with support thus you won't miss many games.

As to stronger hands with 6+carder I like:
2C - 3D = 6+hearts, invite+
2C - 3H = 6+spades, invite+

Which removes hands with 6+cards from 2C-2D making it possible to find majors 5-3.

[bluecalm]

We play that in Poland a lot (as it's part of standard pc) and I think it sucks
Imo the best option for 2M responses is NF but responder only pass with 2 cards (he raises with 3, bid 3D with very good raise and bid something natural with stiff be it 2S/2N/3C). That means you have to pass with weak hand and 6carder (without club support) but you are no better off if you play it as forcing.
This way you may have quite wide range 2M knowing partner won't pass with support thus you won't miss many games.

As to stronger hands with 6+carder I like:
2C - 3D = 6+hearts, invite+
2C - 3H = 6+spades, invite+

Which removes hands with 6+cards from 2C-2D making it possible to find majors 5-3.

[benlessard]

For me its simple.

If you use 2M as to play or forcing you have problems with INVs hands, IMO in imps you must be able to invite and play at the 2 level. It allow you to invite more agressively knowing you can land safe. If 2M is used for exactly inv with 5/6 the frequency is too low (it will be overcrowded elsewhere) & you risk playing in 5-1 fit, however if partner need 2 to pass than you wont be able to stop in 2M in 6-1,7-1).

Quote

Imo the best option for 2M responses is NF but responder only pass with 2 cards (he raises with 3, bid 3D with very good raise and bid something natural with stiff be it 2S/2N/3C). That means you have to pass with weak hand and 6carder but you are no better off if you play it as forcing.
This way you may play 2M as quite wide range knowing partner won't pass with support thus you won't miss many games.

As to stronger hands with 6+carder I like:
2C - 3D = 6+hearts, invite+
2C - 3H = 6+spades, invite+

Which removes hands with 6+cards from 2C-2D making it possible to find majors 5-3.

Rather than play 5 or 6 why not play 4 or 5. So responder need 3 or 4 to pass. That way you free up 2D one suiter. My preference is 2D invite with a long M or no M but you can use 2D to stop in 2M/ or other GF hands if you like.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Rather than play 5 or 6 why not play 4 or 5. So responder need 3 or 4 to pass. That way you free up 2D one suiter.

So how do you find 4-4 fits if responder has GF values ?

Btw, the most standard way to play in my country is 5+NF but people vary if passing with singleton is acceptable.

[benlessard]

bluecalm, on 2012-April-26, 13:37, said:

So how do you find 4-4 fits if responder has GF values ?

Btw, the most standard way to play in my country is 5+NF but people vary if passing with singleton is acceptable.

2D can be GF with both M
3C is GF with club fit (but may have 4/5M)
2Nt is preempt to 3C or GF with D+M (no club fit & at least 9 cards in both suits). This here is the weakness of our system, it lead to sometimes we are not well placed for slam bidding but slam with no club fit are rather rare.

[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2012-April-26, 05:38, said:

We play that in Poland a lot (as it's part of standard pc) and I think it sucks
Imo the best option for 2M responses is NF but responder only pass with 2 cards (he raises with 3, bid 3D with very good raise and bid something natural with stiff be it 2S/2N/3C). That means you have to pass with weak hand and 6carder (without club support) but you are no better off if you play it as forcing.
This way you may have quite wide range 2M knowing partner won't pass with support thus you won't miss many games.

As to stronger hands with 6+carder I like:
2C - 3D = 6+hearts, invite+
2C - 3H = 6+spades, invite+

Which removes hands with 6+cards from 2C-2D making it possible to find majors 5-3.

Invitational bids one below game, though quite common also in standard systems, are a sure sign of overall bad bidding design. The reason is simple:
Opener will often raise on the slightest excuse, because you are already at the three level, only for declarer to need miracles to make game, which rarely materialize.
If opener passes, he most often has no fit and you are too high already, unless you have an excellent suit, which might play for game even opposite shortage.
But then opener will not be in a position to know when to raise.
If you insist making this bid only with an excellent suit, it will rarely come up and it will be no help for invitational hands with run of the mill six card suits.

Good bidding systems make the invitational decision, whether to play for game, 2 tricks below game, so that you really protect your plus score when you decline.

That's why I think all these suggestions for playing 2M as anything else, but constructive and non forcing, are no improvement.
They tend to make a bad situation worse. Nothing can give you back a round of bidding.
The idea to narrow down 2♣ to a six card suit, however, is sound, even if it makes your one-level opening bids slightly more nebulous.
One level bids have more room to sort things out.
It of course does not solve the problems over 2♣, for example when to run from 2M, only reduces them and gives responder better scope for judging right.
The transfer schemes seem only to introduce artificiality and complexity for no obvious overall gain.

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Quote

Invitational bids one below game, though quite common also in standard systems, are a sure sign of overall bad bidding design.

I agree with you in principle but here cost is low and invites could still be useful if we have "pass with junk and trump stiff partner" kind of hand.
The system I described is designed to make 2M wide ranging with compulsory raises with support and good raise available (3D) to reduce the very problem you describe. Also even with slammish hands it's useful to know what kind of hand opener has which 3D/3H transfer allows you to while 3M as forcing don't.

Quote

The idea to narrow down 2♣ to a six card suit, however, is sound, even if it makes your one-level opening bids slightly more nebulous

While it's great idea in precision you can't do that in polish club because 1D is 5+cards there (or 4 in rare cases of 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors).
You could put (3-4)-1-5 hands in 1C but adding (1-4)-3-5 would ruin the system.

Quote

2D can be GF with both M
3C is GF with club fit (but may have 4/5M)
2Nt is preempt to 3C or GF with D+M (no club fit & at least 9 cards in both suits). This here is the weakness of our system, it lead to sometimes we are not well placed for slam bidding but slam with no club fit are rather rare.

So what do I bid with Axx KQxx KJxx xx ?

[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2012-April-27, 04:20, said:

While it's great idea in precision you can't do that in polish club because 1D is 5+cards there (or 4 in rare cases of 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors).
You could put (3-4)-1-5 hands in 1C but adding (1-4)-3-5 would ruin the system.

I play a fair amount of WJ05, which deviates from traditional polish club, by opening 1♦ with any hand(12-14) with 4 cards in ♦ and no 5 card major.
I never really understood, why 1♦ should show 5+ cards, in particular when everybody admits to not so rare exceptions anyway.
(4♦s-5♣s, occurs about twice as often as (1-4)-3-5)
Accordingly I have put (1-4)-3-5 into 1♦ and had never any problem with them. Partner assumes you have 4 cards in diamonds when you open 1♦, because these precise distributions 1=4=3=5 and 4=1=3=5 occur quite infrequently (about one in 25 hands you open 1♦).
The fact that you have one diamond less than expected, is at least partially compensated by the good ruffing value these distributions provide.
That a missing diamond card could cause me potential trouble (I never had one) is nowhere a match to the risk that my potential major suit fit might get lost by opening 2♣ with these hands(1-4)-3-5. (Missing potential major suit fits after 2♣ is a serious defect, for example when partner is not strong enough to respond to 2♣, where any bid but a raise promises at least invitational values)

Even if I played traditional polish club, putting (1-4)-3-5 into 1♦ seems to me not that much of a distortion, given that you open 1-4-4-4 also with 1♦, though I agree having 3 diamonds instead of five would cause trouble and since traditional polish club opens infrequently 1♦, a higher proportion of 1♦ openings would have this distribution. It seems to me that traditional polish club makes 1♦ precise at the expense of overloading 1♣ and 2♣.

I agree that you can not put (1-4)-3-5 into 1♣ without changing the philosophy of the entire system.

Rainer Herrmann

[MickyB]

rhm, on 2012-April-27, 06:19, said:

I play a fair amount of WJ05, which deviates from traditional polish club, by opening 1♦ with any hand(12-14) with 4 cards in ♦ and no 5 card major.
I never really understood, why 1♦ should show 5+ cards, in particular when everybody admits to not so rare exceptions anyway.

Given the choice between opening 1♣ [assumed to be "any weak NT"], or 1♦ [4+cards], I'd sooner open the former. That this leaves us better placed on hands other than weak NTs with 4♦ is just a bonus.

[rhm]

MickyB, on 2012-April-27, 06:40, said:

Given the choice between opening 1♣ [assumed to be "any weak NT"], or 1♦ [4+cards], I'd sooner open the former. That this leaves us better placed on hands other than weak NTs with 4♦ is just a bonus.

To each his own.
But frankly your preferences are not that interesting - there are more than enough weird systems out there- reasoning underlying your preferences maybe...

I still have to see the deals, where 1♣ happens to have a big advantage when opened with a 4 card diamond suit or where traditional polish club pairs open 1♦ and find contracts, you would not find if you open 1♦ with a 4 card diamond suit in a balanced hand.

Most in polish club open 1♦ with 5♦332 and 12-14 HCP. So weak notrump is not the criteria and Polish club is not so much different in this respect to standard.
In standard when you open 1♣ you either have a hand with clubs or a balanced hand. (Same as in WJ05, except for 18+ HCP hands.)
Nevertheless only a small minority in standard decide to open 1♣ when holding 4 cards in diamonds and and a balanced hand.
In standard I can see arguments to open 4♠-4♥-3♦-2♣ with 1♣.
I wait to hear why I should open 1♣ with 4 diamonds and 2 clubs though or why it hurts to open this 1♦....

In polish club and WJ05 1♦ limits my hand, 1♣ does not.

Rainer Herrmann

[MickyB]

rhm, on 2012-April-27, 07:28, said:

In standard when you open 1♣ you either have a hand with clubs or a balanced hand. (Same as in WJ05, except for 18+ HCP hands.)
Nevertheless only a small minority in standard decide to open 1♣ when holding 4 cards in diamonds and and a balanced hand.

A Polish Club is assumed to be a weak NT in competition. While a "standard" short club is likely to be a weak NT, assuming it is so is more risky, due to the presence of unbalanced minima that may be presented with a tricky guess after 1C (2H) 2S NF.

IMO, Polish [and Swedish] Club are designed primarily around having the 1C opening "show" a weak NT. To open 1D because you happen to have four cards there is to not take full advantage.

BTW, I know the Poles play negative freebids at the two-level in competition after all one-level openings, but I think they are useful only when opener is likely to have a weak NT. When I played Polish Club, we opened 1C on all weak NTs [even with five diamonds], 1C (2H) 2S was NF, but 1D (2H) 2S was F1. I think it is slightly better to open 1D on 5D332 for competitive reasons, but I'd rather not have to devote my 1NT rebid to this handtype.