Polish Club International (wj2010)

[neill...@gmail.com]

Hi all,
Thanks to working for the author as translator, the book is available now from my site for a reduced price.

http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

Thanks,
Dan

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-08-20 3:38 PM, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks to working for the author as translator, the book is available now from my site for a reduced price.
> http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

Can you tell us a little more about this? What exactly are we getting
for our $10, a pdf file or something else? And what is in the book
that's an improvement on WJ2005? Is it a complete top-to-bottom rewrite
or a modest update or somewhere in between?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[neill...@gmail.com]

Hi,
The main value in the book is
a) *lots* more examples, quiz-style, to test your knowledge, including competition and slam
b) some holes and omissions fixed/explained
c) the "Pro" version - aggressive openings/responses, yet-again-reworked odwrotka, complicated checkback mechanism - to conform to today's Light Initial Action environment

The WJ2010 poll is a mix of true poll and personal preference of the author, but it is accurately described as thus.

It's a pdf that I email, no security (obv don't resell). I am not sure I'm licensed to provide a summary. Here is what someone else said:

"I bought the book from this years Swedish Bridge Festival. The store got it when they visited the Junior European Championship in Poland. I haven't read any of the previous material on Polish Club.

The book's layout is pretty hard to follow, in my opinion. There's an index in the front of the book, but the book itself doesn't have page numbers (so its hard to lookup specific topics). I liked many of the ideas in the Pro version, such as "Cheap Transfers" (a form of Bourke relay) and the Odwrotka proposed. The quizzes are good and they show that hand evaluation is very important, instead of hcp ranges.

I haven't read all of the book yet, but from what I've seen it looks like it is more of a framework described. I was curious on auctions like 1D-1M; 1NT (since opening 1D is unbalanced) or 1X-1Y; 2NT. There's some info about competition over the club opening, but there could have been more. I think that the book would work as a good base for a system (which it is probably intended to be, since it is a standard system described), and that it is up to the partnership to extend it.

Even though I might not play the system (but perhaps in the future, who knows?) I think the book is useful anyway. The ideas of cheap transfers, some of the 1NT-system, some parts of the multi opening, the pro version of Odwrotka (we're actually going to use that in our Swedish Club system)...

I guess buying this as an e-book could be a good idea, since it will probably have a working index. "

Thanks,
Dan

[neill...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:10:39 AM UTC-7, Steve Willner wrote:

Another random review:

"I have received the book.
My first impression is, the book is well done, though the book might have profited from some proof reading.
It is definitely worth the money for anybody interested in Polish club. Many modern aspects of bidding are covered, though often not in detail, which can be played irrespective of system.
I do not find the book hard to follow, but I may be biased since I have worked with WJ2005. The book assumes some background Bridge knowledge. It is for advanced players.

The one thing I miss, among many nice new features, is that there is a lack of reasoning what motivated changes in WJ2010 in comparison to WJ2005.
In WJ2005 there were reasons and arguments what motivated changes to WJ2000.
For example the 1♦ opening went full circle. It changed from WJ2000 to WJ2005 but is now back where it was in WJ2000. "

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-08-20 3:38 PM, neill...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks to working for the author as translator, the book is available
> now from my site for a reduced price.
> http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

I bought the ebook but so far have only given it a brief scan. It's a
nicely-formatted pdf file with a hyperlinked table of contents but no
index. The page format is 5.83x8.26 inches, 189 pages altogether.
Printing on US letter paper produces an easy "large type" edition.

Changes I noticed since WJ2005, probably not complete:
1. 1C includes balanced 12-14 with xx4x shapes. (I _think_ that was in
WJ2000, so this is a return to the old way. I like it.)
2. 1H-1S-2H-2NT is now non-forcing, natural.
3. 1C-2NT is now natural and non-forcing. A 3NT response is used with a
balanced 13-15. (I consider these inferior, but what do I know?)
4. 1M-1NT _may_ have changed. (I need to read more carefully.)

As the reviews said, there are many quizzes. The answers are right next
to the questions but easy to cover up. The point of the quizzes is to
reinforce the text, not to test one's knowledge, so they seem (based on
my brief scan) to be pretty easy.

[Christopher]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 8:50:15 PM UTC-5, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2013-08-20 3:38 PM, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks to working for the author as translator, the book is available
>
> > now from my site for a reduced price.
>
> > http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/
>
>
>
> I bought the ebook but so far have only given it a brief scan. It's a
>
> nicely-formatted pdf file with a hyperlinked table of contents but no
>
> index. The page format is 5.83x8.26 inches, 189 pages altogether.
>
> Printing on US letter paper produces an easy "large type" edition.
>
>
>
> Changes I noticed since WJ2005, probably not complete:
>
> 1. 1C includes balanced 12-14 with xx4x shapes. (I _think_ that was in
>
> WJ2000, so this is a return to the old way. I like it.)
>
> 2. 1H-1S-2H-2NT is now non-forcing, natural.
>
> 3. 1C-2NT is now natural and non-forcing. A 3NT response is used with a
>
> balanced 13-15. (I consider these inferior, but what do I know?)

A 3NT response to an unlimited opening bid to show 13-15 balanced is not just inferior, it's batshit crazy.

Christopher Monsour

[RonfromLao]

Chris, I assume you realise that in PC the 1C opening is a weak NT hand abut 70% of the time?
Ron

[Christopher]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:40:36 AM UTC-5, RonfromLao wrote:
> Chris, I assume you realise that in PC the 1C opening is a weak NT hand abut 70% of the time?
>
> Ron

Ron, of course I know that.

Ron, do you think you should raise 1S to 4S with a 12 count in SA because 70% of the time partner will have less than 16 points?

Chris

[rhm]

In general I do not like the new notrump responses to 1C.
Nevertheless the question remains what 3NT in response to a Polish club should show.
If you make it specific say 4333 (13-15) with a 4 card minor and below average in controls (lots of secondary honors) it might be quite useful to stay out of poor slams or more likely avoid major suit games when 3NT is superior.

Just saying 13-15 balanced no 4 card major is more likely to create problems.

The book says: 3N = 13-15, any 4333 ("no 4 card major (as a rule)"), good for NT (secondary honors)

If this properly understood and unless someone comes up with something clever for a 3NT response I do not see what is so terrible about this response.

Rainer Herrmann

[Christopher]

It's not as bad as what it sounded like from Steve's original post. On the other hand, surely some cheaper (non-notrump) bid should show that hand, so that the defense to 3NT is less double dummy.

Christopher Monsour

[neill...@gmail.com]

This 3N (all soft, 4m333 typically, very minimum) is not bad practically. It helps define the other ways of showing 13-15 too:

1C-1D-1M-2N = 13-15, good for declaring, leaves room for constructive bidding (most common)
1C-1D-1M-3oM = 13-15, bad for declaring (helpful)

Showing the soft nature of the hand is a great way to avoid slam, or get to the right slam even with a 5-3 fit.

For a standard system, it's a nice bid to have in the toolkit.

[Martin Carpenter]

Or, more importantly, so that when partner does have one of the big
hands you can have a sensible auction.

No, it isn't frequent, but it will happen and when it does you're in the
slam zone so you want the space to investigate. Opener has an awful lot
more potential shapes to try and show here than in a natural structure
so tightly defining responders hand doesn't help all that much.

I can actually only imagine this being at all playable if the 3NT
response is treated as a slam force vs the stronger types. Maybe they're
strong enough for that to work.

Still bad for grand slams, choosing the right suit at the 6 level etc.
--
MartinCarpenter

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 2:19:35 PM UTC-4, Martin Carpenter wrote:
>
> No, it isn't frequent, but it will happen and when it does you're in the
> slam zone so you want the space to investigate. Opener has an awful lot
> more potential shapes to try and show here than in a natural structure
> so tightly defining responders hand doesn't help all that much.
>
>
>
> I can actually only imagine this being at all playable if the 3NT
> response is treated as a slam force vs the stronger types. Maybe they're
> strong enough for that to work.
>
>
>
> Still bad for grand slams, choosing the right suit at the 6 level etc.
>
> --
>
> MartinCarpenter

The 1C bid is three-way, 12-14 balanced, 15-17 clubs, or and any 18+ hand. The 3NT response shows 13-15 balanced and denies a four-card major, so it tells partner much of what he/she wants to know. With the most common 12-14 balanced opener passes. If opener bids a suit then responder cue bids lowest ace or king. 4NT would be an invite to a slam in notrump. If looking for a grand you have several rounds of cue bidding. It is possible to stop at the five level. It seems workable to me.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-09-03 8:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> A 3NT response to an unlimited opening bid to show 13-15 balanced is
> not just inferior, it's batshit crazy.

I might put it slightly more mildly, but basically I agree.
Nevertheless, this is what most (or at least a great many) 2/1 players
play. (The one-bids in 2/1 are basically unlimited, especially 1m.) I
suppose it could be OK, as Rainer indicates, if you limit the
distribution and high card dispersion enough, but even then it can
create problems if opener has certain hand types.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-09-04 8:58 AM, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> This 3N (all soft, 4m333 typically, very minimum) is not bad
> practically. It helps define the other ways of showing 13-15 too:
>
> 1C-1D-1M-2N = 13-15, good for declaring, leaves room for constructive
> bidding (most common)

As I wrote, I have only briefly scanned the new book. The above is a
change I missed. It means the 1D is not strictly negative. In WJ2005,
the above sequence shows both minors, about 9-11 points. An immediate
2NT would show 12+ to 15- good for declaring or 18+ (as in old-
fashioned standard American, which has a lot of advantages).

> 1C-1D-1M-3oM = 13-15, bad for declaring (helpful)

Yes, that's OK. It will be a hand with good controls or perhaps
concentrated values, so if partner has one of the strong types, slam is
a lively possibility.

I might add that one problem the book doesn't deal with (unless I missed
it) is the 1M-2C sequence. The (unchanged) WJ meaning is _either_ clubs
_or_ a GF isn't legal on the ACBL GCC. (It is legal on the Midchart.)
The solution is to make 2C always GF, but then you need to change lots
of other things to deal with the invitational hands and sort out which
type of GF responder has. That's all OK, I think, in the end, but it
takes some work and some artificiality.

[rhm]

Is being not compliant with ACBL GCC a serious drawback of a book or bidding system?

Rainer Herrmann

[neill...@gmail.com]

It is a drawback depending on how easy it is to get it to be GCC. In the case of WJ, the 2D Multi and 2M 2-suiters can just be switched to weak two's. The 1M-2C is just naturalish, GF unless suit rebid, and not a relay system or shorter than 2 cards (so 1M-2red can be 5 cards), so is not an issue.

[Christopher]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:58:31 AM UTC-5, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> This 3N (all soft, 4m333 typically, very minimum) is not bad practically. It helps define the other ways of showing 13-15 too:
>
>
>
> 1C-1D-1M-2N = 13-15, good for declaring, leaves room for constructive bidding (most common)
>
> 1C-1D-1M-3oM = 13-15, bad for declaring (helpful)

Interesting. Wouldn't "good for declaring" be rather similar to "bad for slam"? (Honors in each suit and considerable quacks.) I wouldn't ever respond 3NT if I could bid 1D with the same hand and still get across the basic nature of the hand.

And that would free up direct 3NT for another meaning.

Christopher Monsour

[Martin Carpenter]

On 05/09/13 00:40, patmp...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> The 1C bid is three-way, 12-14 balanced, 15-17 clubs, or and any 18+ hand.
> The 3NT response shows 13-15 balanced and denies a four-card major, so it tells partner much of what he/she wants to know.
> With the most common 12-14 balanced opener passes.
> If opener bids a suit then responder cue bids lowest ace or king. 4NT would be an invite to a slam in notrump.
> If looking for a grand you have several rounds of cue bidding. It is possible to stop at the five level. It seems workable to me.

It might be just barely workable but it is definitely far from optimal.

Fine vs the 12-14 and 15-17 types of course. Vs 18+ would be relatively
rare but genuinely pretty horrible when it did come up.

For starters Driving to the 5 level with a misfit and a 'slow' 13 vs a
nice, shapely 18 count isn't at all ideal - you'll be one off a chunk of
the time.

Then you have no room to define the degree of trump fit properly -
opener is allowed to have a two suiter :) Finally there's no chance of
working out which of responders values are wasted vs openers potential
shortages and which are in his long suits.

And all of this comes after a start to the auction where you had the
chance to get yourself into a game force at a much lower level and then
explore the hands properly.

Ideally, flat hands vs unspecified shapes should get out of the way of
partner and let them describe their shape properly.

They must, I presume, reckon to get the losses back somehow on other
auctions/the more frequent 1C hand types but I genuinely can't imagine
playing it this way myself. Objectively I can tell that isn't that bad,
but purely subjectively, I find it a truly horrible idea.
--
MartinCarpenter

[neill...@gmail.com]

I haven't playtested the WJ10 flavor specifically, but I've played Polish club enough that 1C-3N as even a 13-15 with 4-4 minors has not made a big difference. I view this restricted version as an improvement (though maybe not perfect) on the prior more fluid 3N.

I suspect that "soft 13-15 bad for slam" would be something like
QJx KTx QJxx KQx - imagine all the great MP results angling towards NT when it is right.

It's not going to come up that often, thus making everyone that hates it happy, anyways, if you are disciplined enough to play it that specific.

I wonder what 3N *should* be opposite such a wide-range-meaning 1C opening. The ballot's open.

By definition, easy to remember standard systems are not optimal. They are designed to let you play the best you can out of the box and handle most hands. Maybe that has something to do with the casual interpretation of 3N.

[Martin Carpenter]

On 05/09/13 22:27, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> I haven't playtested the WJ10 flavor specifically, but I've played Polish club enough that 1C-3N as even a 13-15 with 4-4 minors has not made a big difference.
> I view this restricted version as an improvement (though maybe not perfect) on the prior more fluid 3N.

Anything that makes it more specific will be good.

> I suspect that "soft 13-15 bad for slam" would be something like
> QJx KTx QJxx KQx - imagine all the great MP results angling towards NT when it is right.

I think it still qualifies without the SJ, so say:
Qxx
KTx
QJxx
KQx

Opposite say:
AKxxx
AQJx
xx
Ax

Seems to commit you to playing 5S. Not the worst 'bad' result for a
system ever but not a nice one either. You'd really hate it if you went
one off.

Or is there some way for opener to sign off in 4 major over 3NT?

> I wonder what 3N *should* be opposite such a wide-range-meaning 1C opening. The ballot's open.

Suspect I'd just not use it. Too much bidding space lost.

If you do use it then it'd be because you can't show the hand
sensibly/easily later on either but can directly. Or some major,
'practical', side benefit from doing it directly.

I can see why it ends up this way round in a universal standard system.
Personally I'd rather throw stuff at the response structure to make it
work without it :)
--
MartinCarpenter

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-09-05 6:00 AM, rhm wrote:
> Is being not compliant with ACBL GCC a serious drawback of a book or
> bidding system?

It is for those of us who play in the ACBL. I agree it's irrelevant to
everyone else.

On 2013-09-05 7:15 AM, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the case of WJ, the 2D Multi and 2M 2-suiters can just be
> switched to weak two's.

Yep. And the WJ bids are fine on the Midchart. I like the "Wagner" 2D
(multi with no strong option) but am not so fond of the two-suited 2M
bids. We use 2M for something else when we play Midchart.

> The 1M-2C is just naturalish, GF unless suit rebid, and not a relay
> system or shorter than 2 cards (so 1M-2red can be 5 cards), so is not
> an issue.

If it were never shorter than 3 cards, it would be considered natural
and therefore OK. Any GF would be OK. The combination of possibly 2
cards and non-GF is not OK. It wouldn't surprise me if some Directors
let you get away with it, though. My partner and I played it for awhile
and were never challenged, but we gave it up when we read the rules more
carefully. Our solution was to make 2C GF. We use an immediate 3C for
the invitational hands, but that means we have to put the club jump
shifts into the artificial 2C. That's inferior but not fatal.

The standard WJ 2C bid is just fine on the Midchart.

> I wonder what 3N *should* be opposite such a wide-range-meaning 1C
> opening. The ballot's open.

In WJ2005, 3NT didn't exist. That is not a bad answer. Other than
that, perhaps it should show some extreme two-suiters. (Say put three
of them into 3NT, two into 4C, and one into 4D.) Whatever it is, it
should be rare and specific.

> By definition, easy to remember standard systems are not optimal.
> They are designed to let you play the best you can out of the box and
> handle most hands.

That's a very fair comment! We need to keep in mind the purpose of the
system and the book.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-09-05 6:26 PM, Martin Carpenter wrote:
> Qxx
> KTx
> QJxx
> KQx
>
> Opposite say:
> AKxxx
> AQJx
> xx
> Ax
>
> Seems to commit you to playing 5S.

Why not 4NT?

> Or is there some way for opener to sign off in 4 major over 3NT?

No, opener bids 4S but passes responder's expected negative 4NT. Or
maybe opener passes 3NT. I'm not sure opener should be bidding on with
a major-oriented 18-count.

On further thought, opener can see that if there's a slam (opposite the
loose version of 3NT), it will almost certainly be 6H in a 4-4 fit.
Maybe methods should cater to that (say Baron or just bid 4c suits up
the line) if you are going to allow 3NT at all.

[rhm]

A 4-4 heart fit can not exist if 3NT denies a four card major.
I am convinced that the bid is rare but quite useful in matchpointed events and the above example is a good one.
Just pass 3NT and score your good matchpoint result. It is not so easy to stop in 3NT if you go slow. For example:

WJ2010 without a 3NT repsonse: 1C-1D
1S-2NT
3S

(3H would show 5 cards since responder denied a four card major)
or

WJ2005 1C-2NT
3S-


and what is responder now supposed to do?
Standard systems may or may not be in a better position

Could you miss slam? Of course you could. Maybe the solution is to limit the number of controls an immediate 3NT response should show. If 3NT shows a maximum of 2 controls I would not be tempted to disturb 3NT at any form of scoring.

Rainer Herrmann

[Christopher]

I assume all of this information will be appropriately disclosed to the opponents so that they can use it when they defend 3NT?

Christopher Monsour

[Martin Carpenter]

On 06/09/13 09:37, rhm wrote:

> A 4-4 heart fit can not exist if 3NT denies a four card major.
> I am convinced that the bid is rare but quite useful in matchpointed events and the above example is a good one.
> Just pass 3NT and score your good matchpoint result. It is not so easy to stop in 3NT if you go slow. For example:
>
> WJ2010 without a 3NT repsonse: 1C-1D
> 1S-2NT
> 3S
>
> (3H would show 5 cards since responder denied a four card major)
> or
>
> WJ2005 1C-2NT
> 3S-
>
>
> and what is responder now supposed to do?
> Standard systems may or may not be in a better position

I dunno about them :) But after say 1C - 2NT(13-15) - 3S then 4S should
be very regressive so very easy to stop there.

A few specific issues really.

Firstly a regressive 13 count vs a minimum 18 count basically belongs in
4major not 5. Not so hard to fix in fact - just make openers 4D/H rebids
transfers with acceptance being negative.

Actually absolutely no reason not to do that.

The other issues I think come when opener has a some very distributional
(55+, 64) two suiter. Basically I can't see how opener is ever going to
be show their second suit.

That's rather bad for making decisions for 5 vs 6 and, to be honest,
pretty awful when you're in the potential grand slam zone.

Also some risk of getting overboard in 5 major when responders
concentration of values face openers short suits. Standard stuff does
this rather well.

I just couldn't bear this, even if it is all rare and you might get some
of it back by stealing overtricks in 3NT :) Just how I am.
--
MartinCarpenter

[neill...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:38:27 PM UTC-7, neill...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi all,

>
> Thanks to working for the author as translator, the book is available now from my site for a reduced price.
>
>
>
> http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/
>
>
>

> Thanks,
>
> Dan

Any more reviews?

[rhm]

you seem to be missing my point.
If you hold a notrump suitable 4333 hand with a 4 card minor and few controls, once the partnership has 31 (or 32) HCP with opener (18+) having a 5 card major, you are likely to make as many tricks in notrump as in a major suit contract.
At matchpoints this is as important as bidding a good slam.
In fact 3NT is likely to be the safest game contract at IMPs as well.
At IMPs you would need to take two tricks more in a major, before game in a major can show a profit over 3NT.
Granted that neither game is likely to go down a seemingly impregnable suit contract can be subject to bad trump breaks and/or side suit ruffs.
This is much more frequent than 3NT going down when you have more than 30 HCP,

Rainer Herrmann

[Martin Carpenter]

> you seem to be missing my point.
> If you hold a notrump suitable 4333 hand with a 4 card minor and few controls, once the partnership has 31 (or 32) HCP
> with opener (18+) having a 5 card major, you are likely to make as many tricks in notrump as in a major suit contract.

Unqualified, this is plain wrong :)

With a 5422 maybe - although I'd want to see simulation/empirical
results before admitting it was large - but I mean opener can be 5530 or
7330 or.....

I don't honestly think opener can pass 3NT with a shortage on this
auction. A bit different with 5431 if you know partner has a solid stop
but Qxx is very possible here.

> At matchpoints this is as important as bidding a good slam.
> In fact 3NT is likely to be the safest game contract at IMPs as well.
> At IMPs you would need to take two tricks more in a major, before game in a major can show a profit over 3NT.
> Granted that neither game is likely to go down a seemingly impregnable suit contract can be subject to bad trump breaks and/or side suit ruffs.
> This is much more frequent than 3NT going down when you have more than 30 HCP,

Opener can't pass 3NT with a shortage, and also can't really pass with a
decent 19+ due to the slam equity. So you're after 18 count 5422's which
take the same number of tricks as 4major and so score better at pairs.

That is actually really quiet rare :) (And, unless playing a serious
3NT, it'll generally be quite easy to arrange to play 3NT anyway.).

The fast auction doesn't help you much because you've described
declarers hand so precisely. Maybe on opening lead.

To be honest though, a lot of this is down to philosphy - its what
you're prepared to put up with your bidding system (not) doing. I'd
never compromise my constructive structure this 'badly' for over trick
gains at pairs.
--
MartinCarpenter