[Kungsgeten]

Wasn't quite sure if I should start a new thread or post in one of the other recent discussions... Anyway here's an attempt to make a modified version of Polish club, but to me really it is a modified version of a T-Walsh system. The opening bids look like this:

1♣ = 12-14 NT (may be 4-4-1-4) or 14+ unbalanced with 5+♣ or 20+ any.
1♦♥♠ = Natural, 11--19. 1♦ promises four and is unbalanced.
1NT = 15-17 NT, may be 4-4-1-4.
2♣ = Fantunes style. 10--13 with 5+♣, unbalanced.
2♦ = Mexican. 18--19 NT, may be 4-4-1-4.
2♥♠ = Weak.
2NT = Weak with 5-5 minors or 5-5 majors. Could be played as 20-21 NT instead or perhaps other weak meaning.

I have only tinkered with the club opening, where the responses look like this:

1♣---
1♦ = Double Negative (0-4) or 5+♥ 5+ hcp or most GF hands.
1♥ = Transfer. 4+♠, 5+ hcp.
1♠ = No 4+ major, 5-11 hcp. 9-11 if unbalanced with both minors.
1NT = 4♥, constructive but less than INV (about 5-10).
2♣♦ = 4♥ and 5+ minor. Constructive but less than INV.
2♥ = 6+♥ and about 5-8.
2♠ = Unbalanced both minors, about 5-8.
2NT = INV with 4♥.
3♣♦ = INV with 4♥ and 5+ minor.

All INV bids are GF vs 14+ clubs. All 5+ bids are GF vs 20+. More details after 1♣ opening can be found here: http://snortingmarad...m/polished.html

I would really appreciate feedback on the response structure, especially the use of the 1♦ response and 1NT+ responses. I'm worried about 1♦ being overloaded.

The idea isn't really to be a better version of Polish club, but rather to be a better version of T-Walsh, where (as Phil has mentioned), minimum hands with clubs are a burden on the 1♣ opening. It wouldn't be a problem to modify the range of the 2♣ opening, but to me the 10-13 range has a good preemptive effect, while a wider (or higher) 2♣ range often is seen as the Achilles' heel of forcing club system.

[benlessard]

"minimum hands with clubs are a burden on the 1♣ opening"

Thats why we prefer a similar scheme but with weak NT.

1C = 15+bal, 15+ with clubs,any 22+ & one other strong hand of your choice (for us its 15-17 with 5M but something else could easily be better)

[nullve]

As someone who prefers to "pass or bash" opposite a tight 3-point NT range (here: 12-14), I'm wondering if the 1N, 2♣, 2♦, 2N, 3♣ and 3♦ responses to 1♣ can be condensed into one, namely 1N.

[Kungsgeten]

nullve, on 2016-May-29, 16:23, said:

As someone who prefers to "pass or bash" opposite a tight 3-point NT range (here: 12-14), I'm wondering if the 1N, 2♣, 2♦, 2N, 3♣ and 3♦ responses to 1♣ can be condensed into one, namely 1N.

Yes, I thought about that too. Some hands do not really want to play NT though, so I think being able to play 2m is a good thing. One thing I'm thinking about is switching the hearts hands, so that 1D contains 5-11 with exactly four hearts, while 1NT would be 5-11 with 5+ hearts. This would make 2m, 2NT and 3m available for other purposes, since 1NT would be forcing. The bad thing is that responder often can not pass 1C-1D; 1H with weakish hands (I like that 1C-1D; 1H-Pass could be a really bad contract, but may be a good one with good fit and the balance of points).

[yunling]

How will your bid with 4-4 and 4-5 majors？ Is it easy to find 4-4 fit in the other major？

[Kungsgeten]

yunling, on 2016-May-30, 08:28, said:

How will your bid with 4-4 and 4-5 majors？ Is it easy to find 4-4 fit in the other major？

I'm not sure. With INV+ values it should be possible, but I guess the fit can be lost.