[Oren Goren]

The WJ2005 1C includes 12-14 HCP flat hands, club suit not required.

And, the opening NT is 15-17, 18+ being part of the 1C.

Why not the reverse?

Strong NT part of 1C, and open weak NTs?

Actually, why the way it is?

Thanks

oren

[Ant590]

According to some theories (for instance see David Collier's essay http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/dav...roduction.html), it is better to have your strong opening containing a much weaker option than an intermediate one:

<12-14 bal>| GAP |<Strong hands>
GAP |<15-17 bal>|<Strong hands>

This is because in competition responder will take actions opposite the weaker option, and if partner makes a move (showing the stronger option) there is a *real* difference. However if there is less of a gap between the strong and less strong options responder has a real problem when he is invitational opposite the less strong option.

[Oren Goren]

Ant590, on Dec 23 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

According to some theories (for instance see David Collier's essay http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/dav...roduction.html), it is better to have your strong opening containing a much weaker option than an intermediate one:

<12-14 bal>| GAP |<Strong hands>
GAP |<15-17 bal>|<Strong hands>

This is because in competition responder will take actions opposite the weaker option, and if partner makes a move (showing the stronger option) there is a *real* difference. However if there is less of a gap between the strong and less strong options responder has a real problem when he is invitational opposite the less strong option.

Thanks.

I'll check out that article.

Curiously, my system's structure - the whole shebang - is based on that concept. So that a one is 8-11 or 15+.

oren

[bluecalm]

Some polish pairs actually play that way.
There are few problems :
a)you have a problem with 4-4-1-4 shape and 12-14pc
b)weak nt have some implicationf for competetive auctions which some people don't like (like support doubles being on that good)
c)Some auctions should be redefined. For example :
1C - 1H
2H doesn't really make sense as not forcing, not invitational if 1H is typical polish style (8+, good 7).

Those problems may be serious or not. The real real reason for designing the system that way is how people in Poland play. wj2005 is an attempt to standarize some agreements which are the most popular among polish players so that two people can agree on one version of polish club easily.
Weak NT is not popular in Poland so it will never be in "official" wj version.

[Oren Goren]

bluecalm, on Dec 23 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

Some polish pairs actually play that way.
There are few problems :
a)you have a problem with 4-4-1-4 shape and 12-14pc
b)weak nt have some implicationf for competetive auctions which some people don't like (like support doubles being on that good)
c)Some auctions should be redefined. For example :
1C - 1H
2H doesn't really make sense as not forcing, not invitational if 1H is typical polish style (8+, good 7).

Those problems may be serious or not. The real real reason for designing the system that way is how people in Poland play. wj2005 is an attempt to standarize some agreements which are the most popular among polish players so that two people can agree on one version of polish club easily.
Weak NT is not popular in Poland so it will never be in "official" wj version.

Thanks for the background and info.

From what you say, I'd say the real structural problem is the insistence on 5Ms.

Maybe play Polish Quatro: Polish w/4-card majors and weak NT.

A somewhat relevant note: This re-entry of mine into bridge has exposed me to quite a lot of ... yucky stuff about choice of suit by 4M types. Seems no one knows about prepared rebids anymore.

I understand the emphasis on majors vs possible interference, always did, but minors are useful in competition also.

oren

[david_c]

Ant590, on Dec 23 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

According to some theories (for instance see David Collier's essay http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/dav...roduction.html), it is better to have your strong opening containing a much weaker option than an intermediate one:

<12-14 bal>| GAP |<Strong hands>
GAP |<15-17 bal>|<Strong hands>

This is because in competition responder will take actions opposite the weaker option, and if partner makes a move (showing the stronger option) there is a *real* difference. However if there is less of a gap between the strong and less strong options responder has a real problem when he is invitational opposite the less strong option.

I'm slightly surprised to see this attributed to me, because I don't agree with it

It's true that a separation between the hand types can help in some auctions, but I view this as a "second-order" kind of effect. And having no gap can be helpful sometimes too as it gives opener some flexibility. For a multi-way opening (one with some weak options and some strong options) what you really need is:

- The weak option should be descriptive (homogeneous).
- The strong option should be strong enough that it is safe for opener to bid again to distinguish it from the weak option.

(See 10. breaking homogeneity.)

Changing the NT range makes no difference to either of these things. It's a fine system and I'd play it myself in 1st seat non-vul, except that I prefer to play a single system throughout.

The place where I think a gap does help is with responder's negative free bids, things like 1♣ : (2♦) : 2♠. In Polish club this is to play opposite a weak NT* but shows enough for game if opener has the strong type. This is one of the highlights of the Polish Club system, because it works very well when it comes up and it's very frequent. You can do the same thing in Millennium Club (the weak NT system) and it still works very well when it comes up - but it will come up much less frequently, because many of these hands are now game forces or invites. Indeed if you play NFBs you're now getting in the way of the game forcing types (which are much more common than in Polish Club); you can switch to transfers but that doesn't come for free either.

[*Unless opener has a super-accept type of hand.]

[hrothgar]

Don Varvel has a good write up of a Polish system with a weak NT titled AUC (And Unassuming Club)

Good stuff

http://www.ocf.berke...b/auc-notes.txt

[Oren Goren]

david_c, on Dec 23 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Ant590, on Dec 23 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

According to some theories (for instance see David Collier's essay http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/dav...roduction.html), it is better to have your strong opening containing a much weaker option than an intermediate one:

<12-14 bal>| GAP |<Strong hands>
GAP |<15-17 bal>|<Strong hands>

I'm slightly surprised to see this attributed to me, because I don't agree with it

lol

Well, I did ask you in the middle of the night, on your site, if I had missed where you said that!

thanks

oren

[Oren Goren]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

Don Varvel has a good write up of a Polish system with a weak NT titled AUC (And Unassuming Club)

Good stuff

http://www.ocf.berke...b/auc-notes.txt

Thanks for the link. I've downloaded the file and also passed through it quickly.

I didn't see the word "Polish" but did see the Club was being asked to carry a huge load.

Is that contrary to the spirit of WJ2005?

oren

[SteelWheel]

See also "Millennium Club"--another Polish-like system with a 12-(a poor)15 1NT opening with some similarities to AUC. Unlike AUC or most strong club systems, responses to 1♣ opens are nearly always shape-showing rather than strength showing: Most immediate replies are transfers, so a 1♦=4+ ♥s with 0+ HCPs, 1♥=4+♠s with 0+ HCPs, etc.

There is a book on Millennium, fairly recent, should be available from Baron/Barclay and similar sources. Super-condensed version of Millennium available here:

http://www.bridgewit...lenium_Club.txt

I have been intrigued by both of these systems for some years now, and would welcome the opportunity to play either with anyone willing to do so either on BBO or IRL.

[Ant590]

david_c, on Dec 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

- The strong option should be strong enough that it is safe for opener to bid again to distinguish it from the weak option.

Sorry, David, I'd wrongly inferred that the quoted passage implied that a gap between strong and weak options was preferable.