Bridge: Two level preempts

Why is Wilkosz banned
- was it too good?

• 2 "Wilkosz": 5-10, 5+/5 with at least one major

  This convention is banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If so, may be replaced with Multi Piotr Radzikowski

• Why is Wilkosz banned ? I suppose it has something to do with the definition of an artificial system, right ? Unfortunately I didn't manage to get my hands on the WBF or polish regulations regarding systems and conventions. Mariusz Kruk

• In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding. yangboy (BY)

• Two comments:

  1, There are several conventions/actions/treatments/whatever that are just "too good" - that is, that are simply impossible to defend against (ethically). It is an open question whether it is better for everyone to adopt them or for no one to adopt them (kinda like the bomb).

  2. I believe the Poles were playing Wilkosz (or something similar) in the recent Spingold. Jeremy Mathers

• It may be good, but too good? That can lead to banning, but there is a better reason, at least for matchpoints or short matches: unfamiliarity in a competitive situation.

  After the 2D opening, what? Good defenses can be found, but they must also be practiced in the heat of battle. Outside its habitat, even top players will seldom have the opportunity to practice defending against the bid. That puts them at a practical disadvantage. Given the weakness of the bid, they will want to defend against it very often. Part of the good results it shows is the result of its unfamiliarity. Bill Spight

• When I was still actively playing tournaments as of a year and a half ago with a regular partnership, we were using a strong club system [of my own devising] and we regularly practice bidding against all strange kinds of nuisance bids over a strong club, even conventions that I had no expectation of meeting over the table; we used generated hands and had teammates play the part of the bothersome opponents. Seldom were the hands played out, but we had the results adjudicated by friends.

  Part of this was to get a feel for unfamiliar situations, and to make ourselves at home on a very important battleground, part was my desire that we, as aspirants to true championship, be genuinely proficient on handling anything and everything that the opponents might throw. If I an apprentice to the wizard could do this, and practice against all of the gadgetry used by many international teams [we were punching bags, both for some of our friends who were practicing their own wares, and for some who were trying out their defenses to others' wares.] which can be classified into about 7 types, each with a fairly good general defense available, I fail to see why other so-called experts cannot. yangboy (BY)

• I have seen this argument for the merit of the Wilkosz 2D before, and don't find it particularly impressive - if I played 2D to show precisely KQJ10/AK/none/QJ109876, I would expect to gain IMPs whenever it came up, but that doesn't make it a good convention.

  I feel that there must be some limits to what agreements about bidding are permitted, certainly when the opponents are likely to want to be in the auction. Which side of the line a popular and readily understandable convention such as the Wilkosz 2D should fall on is another matter of course. Ed Sheldon

• I find BY's numbers very hard to believe. If the convention were really gaining 3 IMPs/board, that is almost prima facie evidence that the opponents either weren't competent to deal with it, or weren't prepared for it, or both. I can't believe that it would be worth anywhere near that much against a well-prepared team of equal skill. I don't even believe it could be worth that much against opponents who had never seen it before, but whom are provided with a complete and appropriate suggested defense.

  If B.Y. really believes that the convention is worth 3 IMPs/board on which it occurs, I'm tempted to propose some sort of set match to test that proposition. (Or would B.Y. agree that these numbers indicate that, for whatever reason, the opponents weren't defending properly against it?) David desJardins

• [Digging through some old paper]
  When I was at the Bridge World HQ one morning in 1988, I went through all records the late EK had for Poles at two different world championships (I think it was 1984 and another one that I don't know which it was) that I was able to count up, and discovered that the Wilcosz 2D opening occurred 44 times out of around 1000 hands in first and second positions (both tables) and totalled about +200 imps. I arbitrarily discounted some hands against teams and pairs which I considered to be second-rate, all of which involved some atrocity by the opponents, and came to 81 IMPs out of 26 tries. I remember that old Harry was in a bit of a hurry to boot me out of the door at the end of the day, having drunk all the Coke he had in the fridge ...

  In 19 cases the opposing team could not open the hand with an appropriate preempt and in 7 it was opened somehow anyway, either with a light 1-bid or with an off-color preempt in general to bad results: 29 IMPs total.

  In 12 cases where the hand passed instead of opening with something, the Poles got generally good results because even though the opponents were good and kept their heads, only once did they go for anything and were +27 IMPs in dribs and drabs, large swings cancelling out. In the remaining 7 cases where the opponents opened some 2-suited preempt of their own, usually a Lucas-2-bid (2M showing major-minor), the Poles were 25 IMPs ahead. Note that in no instance did an opponent make an outrageously bad mistake, at most errors in judgment.

  My theory for the gains of the Wilcosz 2D are:

  1. It is nice to hand a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands; you gain competitive leverage and may enjoy a nice non-competitive auction when you would otherwise have to bid against an enemy opening. If the urge to open these hands is irresistible, it is clearly advantageous not to have misdescribed your hand.
  2. It is very good not to have a specified suit yet often be able to pass it as a non-forcing call because of that threat (this is the same reason that the Minimulti beats the Multi, magnified).
  3. Opening 5-5 hands with a 2-suited bid that has unspecified 4-card or longer suits is a losing proposition. The 5-5 2-suiter breaks even roughly speaking in my simulations no matter how you open it; You can use CRASH 2-suiters, Lucas, or some other combo.
     

     {reposting}I must amend that. There is one bid which, when actually used, is a little better than Wilcosz: an opening bid which showed two specific suits, at least one specified as five-long and one of which is the actual bid suit. A bid which showed two specified suits neither of which is the bid suit does not do very well in comparison.

  4. I compared the efficiency of the Wilcosz 2D to a similar gadget of great popularity in Taiwan: the `CK2' with 2D= H or S+m; 2H= S or H+m; 2S= M's or m's-- the Wilcosz 2D comes out ahead because the CK2 opening 2D and 2H are dominated by the 1-suited component, so it is harder to take care of the 5-5 hands when bidding.
  I freely concur that most people are not defending properly against the Wilcosz 2D and could do a lot better. But then again they are not defending properly against the Standard American or French 1C opening or the Standard American takeout double or ...

  When the opponents were not defending competently, they were not only getting beat, they were getting slaughtered. On the 18 hands which someone did something stupid (i.e. qualifying as not defending against it properly, in my opinion), they lost about 120 IMPs, and the opponents were not Joe Shmoes -- they WERE internationals.

  BTW, I should mention that the frequency above seemed high to me because when I did a Borel simulation later, it appeared to me that a hand eligible for a Wilcosz 2D opening in first or second position comes up once every 50 hands or so, and surely the Poles doesn't open every single one of them. But perhaps it was a statistical fluke.

  I was suitably impressed, to the point that when I later was coaching some friends for the local Junior trials I taught them this convention and stuck samples into their bidding scrimmage (that is, they bid the hands at two tables, and the hand is adjusted after the opening lead is made); it appears to me at the end of the exercises that my friends are scoring about 4 imps a board for each appearance in a set of hands that was rather heavily dosed with the Wilcosz 2D. yangboy (BY)

• I totally agree with B.Y. I am not even close to be an international, but I have my own experience playing and not playing against 2D Wilkosz (not Wilcosh, or whatever; Andrzej Wilkosz is one of the top Polish bridge players). By comparing duplicate games between Canadian clubs and two Polish clubs in Toronto that I have the privilege to direct, I found that 2D two-suiter (used in the latter) is a very powerful tool even when used by not so experienced players. As a responder, you immediately find yourself one or two steps behind the attacking side. They know more what's going on from the beginning of the auction and you, quite often, have to wait and watch before entertaining any effective counter action.

  Should Wilkosz be allowed in NA? By all means, like all DONT's, Raptors, etc. With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve. Some authors will write articles, maybe even books ... I do not see a problem. It's common knowledge, that you a in a driver's seat every time you open the auction. Andrzej Kolinski

• Yes, of course. I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who agrees that it should not be allowed on the ACBL Super Chart. I don't really think there's even a question here.

  By all means, like all DONT's, Raptors,etc.
  With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve.

  Hmm. This is an interesting suggestion, that valid defensive methods are only likely to be devised by players in ACBL events, and not those elsewhere in the world. I can't say I agree with that. David desJardins

• Should Wilkosz be allowed in NA? By all means, ... I do not see a problem.

  Well, so far this has been a problem.

  I've had to play against convention a lot of times and it was almost always a major struggle to get a decent explanation what the bid showed (exact range, can 2D be opened with both majors (some pairs do, some pairs don't), any requirements on suit quality, etc). Some of this was caused by language problems, of course.

  Also, until Matula published his book on Polish Club a couple of years ago, I had not seen one publication in a language other than Polish describing the convention in with enough detail to develop a defence. Henk Uijterwaal

• This is extremely strange because one of the earliest issues of Bridge Today had contained a description of the opening bid and developments; the journal was just starting out in 1989 I believe. I lost my Bridge Today collection to flood damage and have yet to replace it, but I am sure that you as one of the better erudite contributors to this forum has the relevant issue, from the second half of 1989 [may be 90/91]. yangboy (BY)

• For those who might be interested in the description alluded to below, the Sept/Oct 1989 Bridge Today, in an article "The Juniors in Poland" described the 2D bid and developments as:

  "five-five shape, at least one major, and 6-10 points. Two notrump by responder is strong and asks for clarification. Then: 3C=clubs plus another (3D asks); 3D=diamonds and hearts; 3H=hearts and spades; 3S=spades and diamonds. Responder can now try for slam by agreeing on any suit below game. If the suit he likes cannot be bid below game, a new suit is used as the slam try."

  BT didn't say, but one would assume (at least some) other responses are pass or correct. BT also didn't address what was done over interference. Michael Kopera

• Responses to 2D Wilkosz:
  Pass 6+D, less than 2H, less than 3S
  2H = 2+H, pass or correct (P/C)
  2S = 3+S, P/C
  2N = Game-forcing relay
  3C = Natural+not forcing
  3D = Fits in both majors or any 3-suiter, invitational
  3H = Both majors or 3-suiter with short S, pre-emptive
  3S = 3-suiter with short H, pre-emptive
  3N = To play
  4C+ = No fixed meaning, depends on partnership understanding
  
  Bidding after 2D-2N:
  3C = 5+C 5+M, 3D asks for clarification, 3M is natural and forcing
  3D = D+H, 3H sets H, 4D sets D, depending on understaing 3S/4C are either natural or cues agreeing hearts
  3H = H+S, 3S sets S, 4m sets H - cue bid
  3S = H+S, 4C sets H, 4D sets S
  {.. surely 3S=D+S? 4C slam try in spades, 4D in diamonds - CJR/Ed}
  
  Bidding after interference:
  2D (X) Pass 3+D
  - - XX = No D, promises fit in major(s)
  - - 2M = Natural and not-forcing - {ie looks to be system on undisturbed - CJR/Ed}
  - - 2N = GF relay
  - - 3C = Natural and not forcing
  2D (2M) X = P/C; Bid = Natural + not forcing
  2D (3A) X Blood - Michal

• As you have some experience with and against the Wilkosz, could you or other readers suggest a defense to it?

  Looking through this thread I have seen several claim they have encountered very poor defenses. But I don't recall anyone suggesting a reasonable defense. Presumably even these poor defenses must have had some advantages over something like:

  o Direct double of 2D = good OR great opening hand, balanced.
  o Direct or balancing double of pass or correct 2H/2S = takeout.
  o 2NT = strong notrump, balanced.
  o 3NT = solid suit, to play?
  o Maybe 4C or 4D shows a powerful 2-suiter, that minor + a major?
  o Other bids natural.
  

  Or would it be better to incorporate transfers? Is a Wilkosz 2D often passed by responder? Would a double after (2D)-P-(P)-? show a good+ balanced hand? Henry Jones

• Our experiences in the British team, when preparing defences to either/or two-suited openings, have been as described below.

  It is not wise to look for 4-4 major suit fits. Thus, if it is our hand, we try to play in 3NT or something doubled by the opponents, unless we are very distributional. The reason for this is fairly clear: if the opener is 5-5, then either our trump suit will break 4-1 or opener will have a singleton and may get some ruffs.

  It is very dangerous to have to pass with a good hand over a pass or correct response. Tony Forrester in Killarney 1991 had something like: Ax AQ109xx Axx Kx and had to pass over 2D (reds or blacks) - 2H (pass or correct). When LHO unexpectedly bid 3S (though it might easily have gone 2S - 3S), he had no alternative to 4H, and missed a cold slam (facing a well-fitting eight count). Thus, we play double of all P/C bids as two-way - either takeout or penalty. This is not at all as dangerous as it might seem, since the opening bidder dare not attempt a double-cross by passing after 2D - 2H (Double) with the blacks.

  Our defensive scheme is therefore:
  o Double 13-16 or 20+- balanced, or a one-suited monster hand
  o 2NT 17-19 balanced, with Stayman for five-card majors only
  o Overcalls are natural, jump overcalls are strongish
  o 4m that suit plus a major (the major is deemed to be known)
  o 3N to play, source of tricks type hand (but not a solid suit)
  
  After 2D-2H:
  o Double hearts in a good hand or takeout of hearts
  o Overcalls (including 3H) are natural
  

  If a P/C bid is passed by opener, sixth hand's double is for takeout. If a P/C bid is corrected by opener, eighth hand's double is for takeout. Delayed doubles cannot conceal good hands, which would have acted earlier. In response to takeout doubles, we do not use Lebensohl (in keeping with the aim of trying to play balanced hands in no trumps by us our something doubled by them).

  If an opening bid is doubled and third hand passes for correction, it is right far more often than you think for fourth hand simply to pass. David Burn

  {Link to further defenses}

• When I was at the Bridge World HQ one morning in 1988, I went through all records the late EK had for Poles .. B.Y

  Now what about the hands where the opponents opened 2D (e.g., Flannery, Multi, weak with diamonds, etc.) and the Poles couldn't because it would have been Wilkosz? One would expect them to lose IMPs on those hands. Did they? Did it make up for the 81 that they gained? Alan Frank

• I once checked the 19:53,55,61,63,64,65,66,67,68,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78 tournament books for the effect of a weak (12-14) opening notrump vs a strong (15-17,16-18,17-20,Arno). This is not really a good comparison as the Roman Club and Arno behave like a weak notrump in some ways. The weak notrump was worth about 2 imps per board (scaling the 53 and 55 scores). This includes boards where weak notrump was opened as well as those where strong notrump was opened. There was a gain for the weak notrump on both types.

  The results may be misleading as the British team did very well in 1955 playing ACOL mostly. In the same study the weak club (vs strong club and natrual club) looked good but there were lots of Blue Team hands. Tony Warnock

• Hmm. It's my opinion you're better off never opening 2D than using Flannery or Mini-Roman, and 17+ Roman occurs so seldom as to be essentially the same as never opening 2D. (My recent experience with M-R includes getting to a totally hopeless game because partner evaluated his 11-pointer in an 11-14 range as a maximum. That doesn't say anything about the method, I suppose.) Mini-Multi isn't as good for bidding weak-two hands as weak 2's are, so the question has to be what 2H and 2S are used for here, and the investigation gets even farther from the 2D opening.

  Still, I suspect part of the gain from Wilkosz comes from not doing something really silly with 2D. Don Varvel

• Flannery is another topic, but I will agree that MiniRoman (and its variants) seems like a loser to me. I'm always quite happy when I see that my opponents are playing it, since they never seem to get a good result from it. Jeremy Mathers

• Although some people play MiniRoman for the fun of it, others play it in the context of a strong club system, where no 1-level bid is available with a 4x1 hand. My personal belief is that it's superior to open 1H with 4=4=1=4 and 1D with other 4x1s, but there are certainly some fine theoreticians who think otherwise. Alan Frank

• Of course different people have different experiences, but the opening 2C (not 2D) in a strong club system as a three-suiter worked very well for me. Does that extra bid make a difference? Well having a 2D relay to identify major-suit lengths at the 2-level did seem important. It was also a great bid to psyche incidentally. Barry Rigal

• I kept getting dealt KJxxx Kxx Qxx xx and having to decide, over 2D, whether the risk of playing 3H opposite x Jxxx AKxx Kxxx was greater than the risk of playing 2H opposite AQxx QJxx AJxx x. I can see how opening 2C, allowing a 2D relay, might help a lot.
  Note that not using Mini-Roman, the bidding will go 1D-1S; 2C-2D with the first hand, and 1D-1S; 3S (probably) with the second. That's bridge. Don Varvel

• Personally I would expect the 2D Flannery to lose IMPs, and those opening 3D as opposed to 2D to gain. But that is naked prejudice. Multi vs Wk2H/2S starts getting more complex to value. what about thwe 2H/S bids the Multiers used...etc etc... Barry Rigal

• Those are pretty much my thoughts, in general. I would be a lot more confident in my opinion of Flannery if Chip Martel weren't so certain I'm wrong. The weak 2D is another matter. I like it, a lot.

  i have a vague recollection of number hands from world championship competition where the side that could open weak 2d (a substantial minority at level did very well it has advantage taking up space without telling opponents (as 2m does there's major suit they need not consider using as their trump also matter principle would think effectiveness 3d be reduced with decreased sharpness definition>

  Let's say you're happy to open 3D on x xxx KQTxxxx xx. Are you also happy with xx xxx KQTxxx xx? How about xx Kxx KQTxxx xx? Ax xxx KQTxxx xx? Or is that a 1-bid? And then there's x xxx AQJxx xxxx, which I'd love to open 2D, but opening 3D is kind of scary, at least for me. For me, 3D is a long suit with very little defense. 2D is a shorter suit and/or more defense. Opening all of them 3D (or even some of them 1D) seems less effective. (Using a weak 2D, I open the first two 3D and the rest 2D, at least at suitable vulnerability.)

  I believe mini-Multi is a better preempt than Multi with a strong component because responder is more able to pass with some diamonds. This forces second hand to act immediately, rather than waiting a round. Still, unless holding both majors, responder can't bounce the bidding. Given a relatively good defense to Multi, and I believe several exist, I believe it's clear that being able to open these hands 2M is an advantage, and attention must turn to the alternate uses of 2M when using Multi. That is, Multi < Mini-Multi < weak 2M, for bidding weak-2-type hands.

  If the alternative uses of 2M are Wilkosz hands, we have a clear choice, though.

  Multi: o 2D shows a weak 2 in either major. o 2H shows hearts and another suit. o 2S shows spades and a minor.

  Wilkosz: o 2D shows a 2-suiter including at least 1 major. o 2M shows a weak 2 in the bid suit.

  Assuming both suits must be 5-5 in the second scheme, these two cover the same ground. I believe the Wilkosz scheme has a slight advantage for all of these hands! Weak 2's are more effective than Multi, and Wilkosz is harder to defend, intrinsically, than 2-suited 2M bids.

  And shouldn't we all be encouraged to play better bridge? Yeah, I know. We shouldn't be forced to face unfamiliar methods with insufficient preparation time. Don Varvel

• Isn't that the point of this thread? It all started as a question why was Wilkosz banned? Don Varvel says that no one should be forced to use unfamiliar methods. OK, what the hell is the definition of unfamiliar? Wilkosz the convention was devised by Wilkosz the player in the 60s - it has been played in both domestic (Polish) and international competition ever since. Isn't 30 years really enough to familiarise with arguably a good convention? Michal

• There are thousands of conventions about which one could say exactly the same. The fact is that the typical pair in your typical low-level matchpoint event isn't going to be prepared for every one of those thousands of conventions---even though you might wish otherwise.

  My view is that the most sensible approach is to allow a broad range of conventions in long knockout events, in which players have a reasonable time to prepare defenses. And then to take the most successful and widely used conventions from those events, and use that to indicate which players should be expected to be prepared for in lower-level events.

  That is more or less what the ACBL does, although their implementation of this ideal can often be faulted. I don't think you will find anyone defending the exclusion of the Wilkosz 2D from the ACBL Super Chart. But the fact that it's not on the GCC, and allowed in every single club game and novice game, makes perfect sense to me. David desJardins

• OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not the question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad nauseam... The problem here lies, in my opinion, with the American bridge-xenophobe. A quick look at standard American bidding methods clearly shows that not a single non-American convention or system is popular over there. It would appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have decided a long time ago that there is nothing more to be invented in bridge - the development stopped just after Roth invented his negative double.

  Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding :) Michal

• As I wrote, a convention might enjoy success in less restrictive events, and therefore become a good candidate for inclusion in more restrictive events. Was there something unclear about that explanation?

  Hmm. One sees top US pairs playing strong club systems, even relay systems. I've played against quite a few pairs playing various sorts of artificial preempts. (I had an unpleasant experience in the LM Pairs where I ended up defending against a two-suited preempt using a totally unsatisfactory "suggested defense"---in fact, very reminiscent of the suggestion in this newsgroup to defend against the Wilkosz 2D with "whatever you do against Multi 2D".) Your statement seems to lie in the realm of "gross exaggeration".

  Given the range of what is permitted in the top events, one might well draw the opposite conclusion---that the failure of many conventions to appear even where they are permitted is evidence that their primary virtue comes from beating up weak players and/or those who don't have time to prepare for them.

  Hmm, it seems that the details of the US Constitution have been a bit garbled in transmission. The Second Amendment is the one that says that I have the right to shoot you if you look at me funny. David desJardins

• Well, as far as I know, Strong Club is an American invention! And I stand by my point, please name one popular convention that is widely played in America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess. The point is that the Americans were always slow and reluctant when it came to adopting new bridge idea, let's just look at the opposition that was created by many top players when Roth-Stone was unleashed.

  Sorry. The Second One, the First One - I meant the one about freedom of speech. Sorry if I offended anyone by my lack of knowledge of the American Constitution. Michal

• {snip side-thread on conventions and American re-invention of the wheel - CJR/Ed} ..

  Let me get back to my point. I think that most America bridge playing public is much more conservative than their English/European/Australian, etc counterparts. It is reflected in their choice of systems (or rather of their choice of one system!) and their choice of conventions. I would like to see the result of an interesting experiment: to compare the number of systems and conventions used in a big American event and its European "equivalent".

  Without taking anything from American players and theoreticians who have contributed immensely to the game, its is obviously clear that the development of bridge in that part of the world has stopped some years ago and there are absolutely no signs of that changing any time soon. American experts, safe in their seats, basically rehash some old concepts and ideas, develop theories invented by others ("the LAW") and see no reason why that should ever change.

  I am not even trying to take a shot at the ACBL and/or America - what they do in their own country is their bloody business, I just hate to see that backwardness being forced onto others! Michal

• {vicious pruning of a further parochial side-thread - CJR/Ed} ..

  While I think there is some truth to these remarks, I would like to defend the exclusion of Wilkosz.

  The usual defenses to weak openings and overcalls involve using a cuebid at some point, possibly in a later round. The ACBL has therefore been reluctant to include on the GCC any opening bid that does not allow an obvious cuebid (and allows such overcalls only over notrump openings and forcing clubs). That's why Multi is excluded, as well.

  That is, there's reasoning behind their position, and they have applied it with at least some consistency. We can argue whether the reasoning is correct (I have no strong opinion either way) and whether inconsistencies favor American inventions (I suspect this is the case). Don Varvel

• American players should not be blamed for all those system/convention restrictions they are in place in NA. It is ACBL that poorly represents true interests of the American bridge community.

  Take this very thread as an example. The discussion on Wilkosz 2D, but in reality on upgrading and modernizing bidding systems, lasts for at least two weeks. I assume, that all very important bridge gurus affiliated with the ACBL headquarters have had the opportunity to follow this discussion and to present their (updated) positions. Did they? Bien sure que no. Andrzej Kolinski

• Unfortunately, part of the problem is the age gap. In my experience younger players are much more likely to enjoy experimenting with systems and not mind playing against unusual bidding methods. Since the ACBL is much more heavily dominated by older players than bridge leagues in other nations, the result, very strict restrictions on system, is predictable.

  One of the standard arguments against odd systems is that "we need to protect the new players". I find this laughable; it's the new players who have the least investment in the highly complex and coded system known as (1998-era) Standard American! My officemate (age 27) knows the rules of bridge but never plays; she's frightened off because "the bidding is so weird, there's so much to know".

  But you don't have to know anything! You don't have to read any book, you don't have to study! You just have to agree on something with partner; sure, some methods are better than others, but at the level I'm talking about, that gets washed out in the noise. Besides, who on earth honestly believes that the methods that are best for players with many years experience must be best for players who picked up the game a few weeks ago?

  Maybe you'll eventually decide that you'll do better to go study and learn the approved standard methods; maybe you'll refine your methods and make them good; maybe you'll continue to fumble around; but at least you'll be playing. And you'll be bidding in ways that make sense to you, which is a lot more fun than following arbitrary rules. Unfortunately, in the ACBL, that's illegal. Alan Jaffray

  {prune more ACBL parochial stuff}

• {snip}

  Isn't that the point of this thread? It all started as a question why was Wilkosz banned? Don Varvel says that no one should be forced to use

  unfamiliar methods. OK, what the hell is the definition of unfamiliar? Wilkosz the convention was devised by Wilkosz the player in the 60s - it has been played in both domestic (Polish) and international competition ever since. Isn't 30 years really enough to familiarise with arguably a good convention? Robert Nordgren

• There is a saying, "Science marches on, funeral by funeral." Maybe the ACBL needs some funerals. Bill

• 1. It is nice to hand a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands; you gain competitive leverage and may enjoy a nice non-competitive auction when you would otherwise have to bid against an enemy opening. If the urge to open these hands is irresistible, it is clearly advantageous not to have misdescribed your hand.

  2. It is very good not to have a specified suit yet often be able to pass it as a non-forcing call because of that threat (this is the same reason that the Minimulti beats the Multi, magnified). B.Y

  These are certainly substantial advantages. I just think that +3 IMPs/board seems like a very large number. (From your description, it sounds like the Poles might well have been plus on average against the opponents they were playing, regardless of the opening. If they were +1 IMP/board on general skill, and +2 IMPs/board additional after the Wilcosz 2D opening, I would find that more reasonable.)

  I freely concur that most people are not defending properly against the Wilcosz 2D and could do a lot better. But then again they are not defending properly against the Standard American or French 1C opening or the Standard American takeout double or ...

  Perhaps a valid point. However, the "unfamiliarity" factor can be measured in other ways. The question in my mind is: suppose that you told the same opponents that they were going to play an entire match where their opponents would be dealt a Wilcosz 2D opening every time, and gave them a day or two to prepare for that. Would they still lose 3 IMPs/board, or would that loss be substantially reduced? If it's much less, then some amount of the difference is the advantage that the convention gains by unfamiliarity or unpreparedness, rather than intrinsic merit. It would be interesting to know how large those numbers are.

  (As I've said, I certainly believe that the Wilcosz 2D should be allowed in any event where the opponents have a reasonable chance to prepare a defense against it. I just want to make that clear, that the fact that I suspect some amount of its gains come from unfamiliarity is not itself a reason to ban it.) David desJardins

• You are quite correct-- this is a common fallacy that I fall into sometimes myself. The late EK once said, in an analysis of various artificial 2D bid then in use, that when he analysed all the hands played by the U.S. against the Blue Team over 15 years, they were losing out on all opening bids, so a casual analyst might suggest that the Americans just pass all hands out :)

  But the opponents included some of the best pairs in the world at the time so despite the Poles being world championship class, surely their advantage in this aspect could not have been too large. A full IMP a board is a big advantage in the Olympiad against all but the worst teams said Jeff Rubens.

  My best guess is that the Wilcosz opening is worth at least 1.5 IMPs/bd; I believe I have taken into account the Poles' prowess and familiarity here. I also have factored in the usage factor of the 2D opening call-- there is simply very few good options to use for this bid. I have even toyed with such terrors as the Bloody Mary (2D= 4+D 4+H, 0-10), the Red Flash (a weak 2D or weak 2H), either of which is better than Multi, and still I cannot in conscience recommend either over Wilcosz. [I may simply have a fixation!]

  However, I will freely concede that a huge advantages of Wilcosz in a large and mixed field is its sucker killing effect. In general, the weaker pairs and even strong pairs who did not have either a feasible generic defense or a specific defense to Wilcosz were getting murdered, to a scale that is far worse than anything else I have seen [per appearance], even Fert openings.

  I will dig up some old notes and do more analysis on how my team dealt with various germ warfare weapons and get back to you. My guess is that this is not an easy experiment to do. For example, people would resort to opening light in first chair just so that a Wilcosz 2D opening cannot take place!

  (As I've said, I certainly believe that the Wilcosz 2D should be allowed in any event where the opponents have a reasonable chance to prepare a defense against it. I just want to make that clear

  Although this is old news for most, I still say that "Those aspiring to the highest level should form tight partnerships with prepared defense against all comers". Allow everything and they will soon be forced to do that.

  I would like to apologise to all Poles and others for being so stupid as to continue to misspell the name of Polish expert and former World Champion, Andrzej Wilkosz, whose name does not contain the letter C!! But is pronounced pretty much like Will Cosh, IIRC. yangboy (BY)

• I's pronounced much like Vill Cosh (whatever vill means :). Konrad Ciborowski

• I would say it's rather VEEL COSH. Andrzej Kolinski

• My best guess is that the Wilcosz opening is worth at least 1.5 IMPs/bd; I believe I have taken into account the Poles' prowess and familiarity here. I also have factored in the usage factor of the 2D opening call-- there is simply very few good options to use for this bid. B.Y.

  I don't understand what this means. There is some number X such that the Wilkosz 2D opening is worth X imps when it occurs to the opening side (i.e., on average, that side expects to win X imps from the other side). I believe that X is what we have both been discussing. This number is completely independent of what other uses do or don't exist for the 2D opening.

  Anyway, 3.0 IMPs is a lot different than 1.5 IMPs. I don't have any trouble believing the latter.

  My guess is that this is not an easy experiment to do. For example, people would resort to opening light in first chair just so that a Wilcosz 2D opening cannot take place!

  Obviously, as in any other set match to test a proposition, you would enforce the conditions of the proposition (i.e., give the hand in first seat only hands with which that player would systemically pass, and then require that player to in fact pass). If some hands are accidentally included which the dealer believes should be opened, you can just throw out those boards.

  I don't believe there's any difficulty at all in conducting such experiments, so long as all of the participants have the same goal (to determine the actual value of the opening, as opposed to screwing around to intentionally break the experiment). No difficulty, of course, except for the time required.

  Although this is old news for most, I still say that those aspiring to the highest level should form tight partnerships with prepared defense against all comers.

  Whatever. Fortunately (imho) most people don't agree with you about what the nature of the game should be. You could certainly run bridge tournaments which test, for example, the ability of the players to react to and defend against new and unexpected conventions and agreements. Much as, for example, chess players have to prepare to defend against new and unexpected variations. It's just that most of the people involved in tournament bridge don't think that that particular aspect of the game is what should be emphasized. Since it's a matter of pure opinion (there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" answer), there seems little more to say. David desJardins

• My bad; something like this often happens when I go without sleep for a night - I was thinking of something quite different than X, such as

  Y =	[Gain of imps using Wilkosz] - [loss of imps not using something else] [Total number of boards on which Wilkosz occur]

  So I was referring to the difficulty of increasing that second term.

  Anyway, 3.0 IMPs is a lot different than 1.5 IMPs. I don't have any trouble believing the latter.

  I still think that X is closer to 2; but I am glad that you can agree that X can at least be 1.5, and that Wilkosz and weak two's are likely to be better than Multi and Lucas 2-suited two's :) Point that I was trying to make is that I do not see unfamiliarity and inexperience as accounting for as much as half of the net value of X.

  My guess is that this is not an easy experiment to do. as in any other set match to test a proposition, you would enforce the conditions of the proposition [...] don't believe there's any difficulty at all in conducting such experiments, so long as all of the participants have the same goal

  I was thinking more along the lines of `some people opened 1S instead passing with S:AQxxx H:x D:Kxxxx C:xx and got into trouble on a misfit hand; if partner KNEW that this was a Wilkosz hand, s/he can hardly be blamed for some innocent and unconscious but relevant use of UI.' I'm sure that given enough incentive people can get around it.

  Those aspiring to the highest level should form tight partnerships with prepared defense against all comers. Whatever. Fortunately (imho) most people don't agree with you about what the nature of the game should be. You could certainly run bridge tournaments which test, for example, the ability of the players to react to and defend against new and unexpected conventions and agreements.

  But I never claimed that the game should be about how to handle new and unexpected conventions and agreements. What I have always said is that (A) innovation is good and should not be restricted, and if some pairs were to get the worst of the process that's unfortunate; but (B) they should have been prepared anyways with a generic countermeasure, such any disruptive convention would have enough of its unfamiliarity and novelty offset to the point that intrinsic unsoundness shows; and (C) such generic methods do exist and can be mastered reasonably fast.

  Anyway, I am sure that as reasonable people we can agree to disagree! yangboy (BY)

• There are a couple of problems with using Y as a measure of goodness. Mostly, that Y depends on the system you are playing. Because the value of using "something else" as your 2D call depends on what other hands you are/are not able to describe using calls other than 2D. So you get complicated interactions.

  But, of course, the decision of whether to use Wilkosz or "something else" must ultimately be based on one's assessment of (the sign of) Y.

  I'm sure that given enough incentive people can get around it.

  As I said, such an exercise should include participants whose goal is to determine the truth, not to "get around" it.

  If you agree that the difference between a typical defense and a well-prepared defense can be 1 IMP/board or more, then certainly it's not the case that "intrinsic unsoundness" will show---there will be lots of substantially unsound conventions which nevertheless lose less than 1 IMP/board, and therefore actually gain against unprepared opponents.

  But the bigger problem is that you ignore the fact that in the common forms of bridge (matchpoints, swiss teams, round robins) the competitors don't play directly against one another, for the most part. Instead, they are primarily ranked on their respective performance "against the field". And if the field can't be expected to be "prepared anyways with a generic countermeasure", as we know that in fact the typical field will not (and you just posted further evidence to support that, even at the world championship level), then such forms of competition introduce an enormous bias in favor of unfamiliar methods which gain by lack of preparedness rather than intrinsic merit. I see no reason at all to believe that "intrinsic unsoundness" will be punished in such settings. David desJardins

• As I said, I was confused at the time. However, I will restate that a factor making Wilkosz much more attractive is that: of the reasonably frequent alternatives, the only other which isn't a loser when opened is the good old weak two, and Wilkosz improves the rest of your system (relieving stress) quite a bit more than the weak 2D (IMNSHO, YMMV).

  As I said, such an exercise should include participants whose goal is to determine the truth, not to "get around" it.{DdJ}

  Sorry if I was confusing again; I was hoping to say that if people are determined enough, they can filter this out. If you remember, several articles ago I said I made my friends practice on a set of hands dosed heavily with, not consisting primarily of, Wilkosz openings. That is one of the ways to `get around' the problem of UI in the experiment.

  If anyone except Nick S, (hi Nick!) remembers, I never said that it is not in principle a bad thing to restrict the game based on playability concerns, only if it's unnecessarily and clearly out of self-interest.

  I consider it unnecessary because of all the conventions employed in a typical ACBL event so very few are actually defended correctly, by the `typical field' (think Cappelletti/Hamilton, DONT, Unusual No-trump as usually played, Flannery, Mini-Roman, even the takeout double!); it is not just conventions-- the single most common preempt (the 1NT opener) gains quite some edge from unpreparedness [not unfamiliarity], and one that is likely to be comparable to if not greater than an IMP a board.

  The disagreement, if any, focuses on short rounds in matchpoint and similar events. DdJ

  I agree with your premises; I know as everyone else does that I am an out-and-out extremist, and arguing with you (of all people) really is not my intention, although I have posted more to this thread than I'd done for the rest of 1997, and so perhaps I should shut up now! :-) yangboy (BY)

• Well, I think you are exaggerating a bit. There's quite a bit of room between "correctly" and "hopelessly". The current system does work to cause the evolution and broadspread adoption of "reasonable" methods in most cases: you don't see many pairs playing penalty doubles of Weak 2D, for example. Whereas I have no doubt that if you sprung the Wilcosz 2D on the typical field, you'd see stuff much worse than that.

  You yourself said that in examining the records of world championships you saw several gross abortions perpetuated in "defending" against the Wilcosz 2D. I think if you took a similar sample of hands where the Takeout Double was employed (or even the Weak 2D), you simply wouldn't see the defenders quite so much at a loss for what to do.

  Now, there's a chicken and egg problem. If you don't generally force players to play against new and unfamiliar stuff, then they won't be prepared for it, which makes them look bad when they do play against it, thus supporting the argument that it shouldn't be sprung on them with little warning. Whereas you might claim that in an environment where players are routinely faced with all sorts of new stuff all the time, they would develop more skills for dealing with it, and thus fewer restrictions would be necessary. The well-known effect of ACBL players faring relatively poorly (compared to players from other nations) in events where they face a large number of different systems in a short time, is evidence supporting this effect. But it's equally possible to come to opposite conclusions about which conclusion this supports.

  There's probably no way to make the typical ACBL event a "meaningful" evaluation of system merit. If you let people play whatever they want, the people who play wild stuff will get a disproportionate edge. (I've certainly seen that on the occasion when I've played fairly "tame" stuff, like a 10-12 1NT.) If you don't, then of course you won't give superior but proscribed systems a chance to prove themselves---but so what since it wouldn't have been a "real" test?

  My own attitude is that the right thing to do is whatever gives the greatest enjoyment to the greatest number of participants, since no alternative really stands out as more "meaningful". No doubt there are some potential participants who would prefer a more wide-open format, and there are others who would hate it. What little data we have indicates that there are certainly a lot of the latter in the ACBL. (For example, some regionals have run simultaneous events with heavy and loose restrictions on conventions; the former are invariably much more popular.) Of course, that could well be an effect of the years of adjustment to the status quo. There seems no obvious way to "know" what would work best in the long run. David desJardins

• It is an easy convention both play and defend against basically the same as a 2 major overcall al a Capp. and that is legal still i or?? :) you never know it might get banned someday when they find out it is close too the same convention :)

  Why not play with 13 cards face up ? will solve all psyches and similiar things.

  And for my own opinion I'm an X ACBL member since the game they promote is not bridge. Think they should be more careful with the few players under 60 they have. They lost me because of the crazy system, convention rules they enforce on people .. and i doubt i am the only one that have left the ship for this reason. Robert Nordgren

• What is your recommended defense? Bill

• Seems like the right defense is whatever is played against a multi 2D. (The ACBL has 2 suggested defenses) Mike Kopera

• I think that attitudes like this are why the convention can be observed to gain 3 IMPs/board. If one goes up against it with the attitude that one can just casually adopt some generic, inappropriate defense, then of course one is going to get bad results. (It seems completely obvious to me that you can't defend against a 2D bid that might or might not show diamonds in the same way that you defend against a 2D bid that never shows diamonds.) And I think a lot of people do just that. I'm also skeptical---based on my admittedly limited experience---that most players provide decent "recommended defenses" to their own systems. I don't have an ideal solution to these problems. Sometimes (ok, often) the ACBL makes bad specific decisions about what to allow or not allow, but I don't think their fundamental approach is so bad. David desJardins

• It's really obvious, but why people must not pay for their ignorance?

  IMHO, "recommended defence" is ill-brained rule, unimaginable in any other intellectual game ! In any other game, for example, in chess, inventor gains for his skill, but in bridge he must battle his own invention! Unbelievable! Yury Buzjko

• I would suggest that it is not the right defense. Imperative as it is to make your double a semi-balanced-type against the multi, it is even more so when the opponents' passing out in 2D is more likely.

  Indeed, some of the disasters incurred that I referred to in a post earlier came from [2D]-X-[P] with the advancer was in a quandary. It can be minimised if doubler promises the equivalent of a strong NT in defense of any suit.

  My personal defenses includes 3 of a suit to show a lightish 1-suiter with a good suit, 2NT with a same strong single suit, more high cards, or a hand too strong to make a non-forcing bid, short in diamonds; 2 of a major to show at least 4 of the bid major and an unbalanced hand, double to show a balanced/semibalanced, or a hand too strong to pass or take some other action with at least a few diamonds.

  This general approach can be used against most unspecified 2-suited or 1-suited bids, with a few exceptions. However, experience both at the table and in bidding practice reveals fourth and sixth seat actions to be substantially different for artificial preempts whose dominant handtype is a real 1-suiter (6+ cards) and ones not in this category. yangboy (BY)

• Your point that any defense must take into account that the opener may well have diamonds is well taken. However, each ACBL suggested defense has some reference to diamonds. Their "simple" defense plays a double as takeout of spades (presumably with some d length) and their "complex" defense plays a double as 13-15 balanced (presumably at least 2 d) or any strong hand. Maybe the latter defense should be modified to require at least 3 d, but it does seem like a starting point. Given the issue of diamonds being a more likely spot than with say a multi 2D, the Granovetter defense of double showing a major suit overcall probably isn't a good idea :)

  BTW, I do have all the issues of Bridge Today--I looked through the table of contents and couldn't see any titles of articles about Wilkosz 2D (I looked thru some articles I thought might have contained reference to the 2D opening, but didn't find anything). If you happen to remember anything more about it, I would be happy to look thru them again, and post whatever I can find. Mike Kopera

• Yup; IIRC, something like this happened to two Brits: [2D*]-X-[P*]- and responder was looking at a 10 count with 4 diamonds. He passed and partner had a strong 2-4-1-6. 2Dx=2 when it was their game. I remember this one very vividly, because EK remarked that this was a known hazard way back when (an American) Wagner invented Mini-Multi. Actually, I have discovered that if you require a medium-to-strong no-trump (good 14 up) for doubling all the multi 2D variants, you can often get by doubling on two and leaving in on three, because you can often force declarer out of using hir second suit. YMMV, of course. The point is that if you could have a stiff it really is dangerous. yangboy (BY)

• Defending against Wilkosz is a bit tricky. Part of the problem lies with the fact that Wilkosz seems to have an in-build anti-defence feature - basically, no matter what the interference, it's quite easy for Wilkosz players to get out of trouble. Let me illustrate, we open Wilkosz 2D and than opps:

  Double (no matter what the meaning) - pass 3+D, pass with D big without, xx - i have no diamonds pls bid your suit, 2M natural, please pass. Overcall with 2H/S - double, pass or correct (this sequence means, most of the time +420/+620 or +500/800) etc...

  The only sensible defence I can recommend is to keep it reasonably simple (probably the simplest part of my system):

  X - T/O, i would suggest 4+ 4+ in both majors or 5+major
  2M - natural, not-forcing. Dont overcall on rubbish,
  remember that most of the time if you'll find a 5-3 fit trumps will break 5-nil...
  2N - natural, 16-18 or so. michal

  {Link to further defenses}

• Why is Wilkosz banned?.. In short, it was too good AMcK

  As an even more egregious example, we are generally not allowed to play the Stauber 2D opening bid in ACBL sanctioned events: 4-10 pts, 9+ cards in the majors, suits differ by at most one in length. My experience with this bid was so favorable that I find the claims for the Wilkosz 2D to be plausible. Some conventions have been banned by the ACBL unless at least one suit is known. Here, BOTH are known. Arch McKellar

• I don't know what "generally not allowed" means. This convention is on the Mid Chart, which means you should be able to play it in any reasonable event assuming the organizers are sensible. If your problem is that in your area the tournament organizers aren't using the Mid Chart, that's their fault, not the ACBL's. David desJardins

• If I am to develop a coherent bidding system and include 2D Wilkosz, I would like to practice it in not just NABC events where such a system would be allowed. Id doesn't make much sense for an aspiring player to use two different systems, one for club games and another for a very occasional top level events.

  It is not practical to enter highest possible competition with a bidding system that hasn't been tested and experimented sufficiently. That's why players in NA are generally not so good in developing and implementing bidding systems and conventions, unless they fit into the most basic ACBL Chart. There are some exceptions, of course. Andrzej Kolinski

• You may say it's not practical, but in fact, many of the top players in the USA do in fact play most of their tournament bridge only at the top levels of competition. And they do seem to enter and even win that "highest possible competition" from time to time.

  Is 30 days per year of top-level competition really so little? In a typical European country (e.g., Poland), can a top-level pair really enter more than 30 days per year of top-level tournament competition against all of the other best players in the country? If not, why is the USA any worse off? David desJardins

• SO, we have a problem. An aspiring player (but not strong enough) has no place in the ACBL system. He should play frequently, but the level of an average duplicate game and its restrictions are not good for him. How can he then become a strong player, equipped with an efficient (aggressive) bidding system? All clubs I know  do not  adopt the Super Chart by definition, period. They have their reasons not to.

  In Poland, in addition to regular weekly games at clubs and regular "Regionals" there are enormously popular Bridge Leagues: First Division (National level) with all Balickis, Zmudzinskis, Kwieciens and Pszczolas, Second Division, Regional and Sectional Divisions. It is like English soccer, if you know what I mean. Player at any levels compete with equals frequently, many times a year playing IMP matches.

  Why don't we the same situation in NA, beats me. To me, lack of team competitions is one of the sources of ACBL weaknesses. Anybody, who at least once participated in such a form of competitive bridge would tell you that being a team member and playing weekly or biweekly matches is the best a bridge player can think of. In Toronto, for example there are bridge leagues organized by individual clubs. They are not so popular, there are drastic differences between in levels of teams and players. Neither them nor Canadian or American Nationals are not the same, believe me.

  I live for to short here to know what has been or what is an official position of ACBL in reference to truly national, regional, sectional, etc. bridge leagues. Andrzej Kolinski

• .. regarding carding for instance in some tournaments i was allowed playing Vinjes trump discards and in others they are banned. Robert Nordgren

• The general method of 'multi way X over multi way bids' seems to work well here:

  X = Sound overcall in H or S, responses as to a multi 2D or a big hand (not big, 3 suited tho)
  2H = balanced, 15-18, stops in both majors -> 2S, invitational or a big 3 suited hand
  2S = Sound overcall in C -> 2N, invitational
  2N = Ditto for D -> 3C, invitational
  3C = preemptive
  3D = preemptive
  3H = Good, but shape one suit hand- intermediate JO with a good suit
  3S = ditto, with S
  3N = Both minors, about 10hcp
  Pass on all 3 suiters, and most 2 suiters, with no other bid available.
  Robin Michaels

  {Link to further defenses}

• There likely exist some other people than I, who have more experience designing systems and countermeasures to conventions. However, I will state categorically that any double against an artificial preempt with no promise of length (AT LEAST two cards) in the suit actually opened is inferior, on my own personal experience and bidding theory work. yangboy (BY)

• You mean that the double does not promise at least 2 cards in the suit, right? Not that the preempt does not promise at least 2 cards in the suit. Bill

• Bill - I do think you misinterpret B.Y. I have also come to the same conclusion, and play a direct double as a balanced/semi-balanced hand. Jan Kamras

• Why is Wilkosz banned? I suppose it has something to do with the definition of an artificial system, right ? Unfortunately I didn't manage to get my hands on the WBF or polish regulations regarding systems and conventions. Mariusz Kruk

  I don't have any special information, just what I can find on the web. What I am about to say may therefore be from outer space. The WBF Systems Policy can be found for example at

  URL http://www.bridge.gr/dept/systems/policy.htm
  
  The WBF web site has a couple of servers with links at
  URL http://www.bridge.gr/

  Nothing in the definition of the Wilkosz 2D makes it a HUM. The Wilkosz is close to being non-Brown Sticker except for the extra inference that in addition to the major there is another side suit. Therefore Wilkosz does not qualify for the Multi 2D exemption which allows 2D "showing a weak two in either major".

  Wilkosz isn't singled out for special discrimination in the sense that it isn't mentioned specifically by name. The WBF Systems Policy applies the label of Brown Sticker uniformly to any opening bid from 2C through 3S that "could be weak" and "does not promise at least four cards in a known suit", with an exemption for the Multi.

  As a Brown Sticker convention, the Wilkosz can be played in Category 2 events which include the following: Bermuda Bowl including the initial round robin stage; Olympiad, including the initial round robin stage; Rosenblum Cup, knockout stage only. That is, the only one of the top World Championship team events where a Wilkosz would be banned is the initial qualification phase of the Rosenblum Cup.

  I think the assertion the Wilkosz is banned at "many international events" is somewhat of an exaggeration. I haven't found an explicit reference on the web, but I doubt the Wilkosz or other Brown Sticker conventions are banned at either the European Championships or Cap Gemini World Top.

  I also believe that whatever restrictions are placed on the Wilkosz or similar conventions aren't having a practical negative effect on the placing of Polish pairs/teams in international events. The Wilkosz as a Brown Sticker convention is banned in pairs events as high as World Open Pairs; however, Polish pairs completely dominate such events having won the last two World Open Pairs, one in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA in 1994. The top Polish teams also don't seem to have much problem surviving the qualification phase of the Rosenblum Cup, the Zakrzewski team for example this year totally demolishing its group.

  In my opinion, whatever restrictions are placed on the Wilkosz probably benefit Polish teams/pairs. The Polish players are perfectly free to play and learn from such preemptive conventions in their own country. That gives them more experience in difficult areas such as when to overcall at the 2 or 3 level and when to penalty double an opponent at the 2 or 3 level. The Polish pairs with freer experimentation can learn which hands are best suited for opening at the two or three level. The adjustment of playing 2D as Multi and 2H/2S showing that suit and another still gives Polish pairs arguably better preemptive methods than those pairs from say the US or France whose preemptive style would have developed in a less diverse environment. Henry Jones

"" Style sheet control has failed. Pages on this site should still be readable, but layout may be spoiled. Your browser may be out of date, or style sheets disabled !!

www.chrisryall.net/bridge/debates/wilkosz.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008