[rhm]

---

This is a deal from the Bundesliga
Strong diamond hands are an achilles heel in Polish club.

1♦ is either 0-6 when holding a 4 card or longer major and 0-11 with no 4 card major.
3♦ shows 18+ and a diamond suit. (2♦ as a rebid by North would be an artificial game force).

Is 3♦ the right rebid? How do you handle this situation?
3♦ makes 8 tricks while 4♥ makes 11 tricks.

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Strong diamond hands are a problem in Polish Club, especially after 1C - 1D. That's the reason some polish club pairs here play 1D as 11-21 but that comes with its own set of problems.
Anyway, now assuming 3D bidder is 18-21 unbal with 6-7 diamonds (without 4M as that could bid 1M instead of 3D) and bid 4H with support and 3N without after 3H, passing is a big blunder (1.88imp/hand double dummy).
I realize those assumptions aren't exactly representing 3D range (some of those hands bid 2D, some probably 2N) but I think it's still worth something.
I tried eliminating hands with stiff A/K/Q and making it 18-19 instead of 18-21. 3H is even bigger winner then.

[PhilKing]

One can easily tag on a flexible 1♦ opening onto a Polish framework. Since balanced hands can be opened 1♣, you can play 1♦-1M-1NT as unbalanced and forcing (16+). This way, you clean up the 1♣-1♦-GF diamond sequences. Over 1NT:

2♣ - weak relay
2♦ - 9+ relay

[bluecalm]

Quote

One can easily tag on a flexible 1♦ opening onto a Polish framework. Since balanced hands can be opened 1♣, you can play 1♦-1M-1NT as unbalanced and forcing (16+)

Yeah but that means opening 1C with 5D332's 12-14 and also 1453 still lacks a rebid after 1S. Some people are doing it here but it's not very popular.

[Kungsgeten]

I play a Swedish Club system (1C is 11--13 NT or 17+, but not 20--21 balanced), so its not quite Polish. Our structure after the 1C opening has some inspiration of Polish though. We play:

1C--1D; (0--7 any or 8--11 4333 / 4432 without four card major)
1M = 3+ suit 11--13 bal or 4+ suit about 17--19, possibly canapé
1NT = 17--19
2C = 5+ suit, no 4 card major, about 17--19
2D = Game force (like Polish club) or 22--24 balanced
2M = 5+ suit, considered too strong for 1M but not enough for 2D
2NT = 5+ diamonds, no 4 card major, about 17--19
3m = 5+ suit, considered too strong for 2C/2NT but not enough for 2D
3M/3NT = GF 5-5 hands

Having our 2NT opening as 20--21 makes 1C--1D; 2NT available to show diamonds. This is still high, but leaves two bids to show diamonds and offer some flexibility:

1C--1D; 2NT---
3C = Puppet to 3D. Sign off in 3D or game forcing (bids 3M to show stopper next or 3NT to show 8--11 with 3+ diamond support)
3D = Invitational, non-forcing
3M = Natural, non-forcing (we've defined this as about 5--7 hcp and a 5+ suit, but a 6+ suit is recommended)
3NT = About 7--11 hcp with bad support

We also include 11--13 5D332 in our 1C opening, so 1D is always unbalanced (11--16 hcp, but I've proposed changing it to 11--19 if not holding a 4 card major).

1D--1S;
1NT = 6+ diamonds, may have 3 spades
2C = 5-4 minors
2D = 5 diamonds and 4 hearts
2H = 3 spades (not 6+ diamonds)
2S = 4 spades, min
2NT = 4 spades, max
3C = 5-5 minors
3D = Good diamonds, extras

If 1D were 11--19 (or even 11--21) I guess you could include 16+ hands into the 1NT response, making it 6+ diamonds or 16+:

1D--1S; 1NT = 6+ diamonds or 16+
2C = Artificial. GF vs 16+. Opener bids 2D with 6+ diamonds 11--15.
2D+ = Natural and NF, not enough to force game vs 16+

[mgoetze]

One possiblity is 2♦ = weak 2 in hearts or strong with diamonds. Combines nicely with 2♥ = both majors.

I guess you have to rebid 2♦ GF playing "standard" PC methods, but certainly some blame must go to the system rather than North.

[kenrexford]

I have absolutely no experience with Polish Club. However, the problem I think I am reading seems similar to a problem with Roman Club. The loose parallel might merit consideration of the Roman Club solution.

The Roman Club problem is the one suited club hand. Neapolitan solved that the same way Precision did, but Roman went another way, tossing the unbalanced long club hands into 1NT, with some sort of unwind.

The parallel might be to treat unbalanced diamond length hands by putting them into the normal sequence for strong balanced hands and perhaps enabling an unwind from there?

This may make no sense, because I don't know the system. But sometimes solutions from other unrelated systems tend to translate. My gut thought was that treating the hand as balanced even without any unwind seems better than a non forcing 3D.

[the hog]

mgoetze, on 2014-April-09, 16:35, said:

One possiblity is 2♦ = weak 2 in hearts or strong with diamonds. Combines nicely with 2♥ = both majors.

I guess you have to rebid 2♦ GF playing "standard" PC methods, but certainly some blame must go to the system rather than North.

I don't have the Matula book handy, but was this not a suggestion he made in the Appendix to the book? It is not in the Matula notes on Dan's web site, but they are an abbridged version anyway.
This seems like a good idea to me.

[Kungsgeten]

the hog, on 2014-April-10, 01:23, said:

This seems like a good idea to me.

Yeah I like this idea too. We currently play multi (weak major only) and I've been thinking about putting some strong diamond hands there, which is probably possible. Having 2D as weak major or GF with diamonds is pretty popular in Sweden, but in Swedish/Polish club the diamond hands are weaker than that. Removing the weak spades option leaves some extra room. The main disadvantage is probably that transfer preempts are "easy" to defend.

[dake50]

Should the GF 2D include "some other games are discussable" - here 4H if 5xH or strong 4xH or 3NT if S-stop?
Maybe some D-invites force too high is that price to pay.
Thus 3D is much stricter "this suit only"?

[straube]

I don't like the idea of combining a weak 2 bid in hearts with a strong diamond hand. You won't be able to further the preempt in hearts too high for fear of partner having the strong diamond hand.

I also don't like the idea of 1D-1M, 1N as strong with 6 diamonds. 1N is way too low in the bidding to announce a strong diamond hand. Contrast this with a 1S opening one step lower promising only five spades and a more frequent range of strength. Something is wrong with that.

Just asking because I don't know, but what does 1D-1M, 2C show in Polish? Both minors? Can it be 4/5 as well as 5/4? It used to be that certain systems used Cole in which 1D-1M, 2C was either or artificial and forcing or like a reverse and practically forcing. With a lesser 5D/4C hand one just rebid 2D. So I'm not wild about that, but it's an idea. I think those folks also used 1D-1M, 3C as a pretty minimum 5D/5C hand. So you could use 1D-1M, 2C as possibly an "underreverse" which ostensibly could be a good hand with both minors or just diamonds. Lots of room to sort it out later. Or you could go a different direction and put your strong diamond hands into 2S, 2N, 3C as well as 3D jump rebids.

[Kungsgeten]

straube, on 2014-April-10, 02:23, said:

1N is way too low in the bidding to announce a strong diamond hand.

What about making it two-way, as I suggested over 1D--1S? This would be like a Gazzilli type of bid:

1D--1H;
1S = Natural
1NT = 16+ (perhaps not hands with 4 spades) or 6+ diamonds
2C = 5-4 minors
2D = 3 card raise
2H = 4 card raise
Higher = Various, perhaps 5-5 minors, long diamonds, 15--17 with 6 diamonds and 3 hearts etc.

1D--1S;
1NT = 16+ or 6+ diamonds
2C = 5-4 minors
2D = 4 hearts
2H = 3 card raise
2S = 4 card raise
Higher = Various

1D--1M; 1NT---
2C = GF vs strong hand (about 8+)
...2D = 6+ diamonds, 11--15
...2M = 16+, 3+ support
...Other = Naturalish 16+
2D+ = Naturalish, not enough to force game vs strong hand

The most problematic hand would be 1-4-4-4 after 1D--1S.

[helene_t]

I would have opened 1♦ but I think South's pass is a bigger mistake.

The biggest mistake was agreeing to play a system with no better rebid for North. It could even be worse: Give North a slightly stronger hand (but not enough to GF) with 5-4 in the minors.

Blame goes to 60% system, 30% South, 10% North.

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2014-April-10, 02:23, said:

I don't like the idea of combining a weak 2 bid in hearts with a strong diamond hand. You won't be able to further the preempt in hearts too high for fear of partner having the strong diamond hand.

You might not be able to, but I certainly am. "Fear" is not really an appropriate emotion at the bridge table.

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2014-April-10, 04:46, said:

You might not be able to, but I certainly am. "Fear" is not really an appropriate emotion at the bridge table.

Made me laugh. Thanks.

[Jboling]

I thought 1♣-1♦-3♦ is more narrowly defined, something like 21-23. With 18-20 you have to choose between 1♥, 1♠ and 1NT, in this case probably 1♥. Of course change one of the hearts to a minor card, and you have to bid a very non-ideal 1NT.

[antonylee]

I like the suggestion. In my old WJ partnership we also canapé with 4M5D, ~18-20 (which is relatively safe as partner should not pass with 5HCP). To be honest I wouldn't have thought about 1M on 3 but given that 1♣-1♦-1♥-1any-2♦ shows 4♥5♦, 18-20 (with 5♥-4♦, bid 2♥ then 3♦), perhaps being a full level lower compensates the mis-description...