Balrog49

Just to clarify, after 1♦-1♥ opener would bid 2♠ to show that hand. Although we call it a jump shift, the Italians used the term "reverse" to mean pretty much any strong canape. The auction 1♦-1♥-1♠ shows a hand something like: ♠KQJx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣QJx where a 1♠ opening would leave opener with no good rebid over a 2♣ response. A rebid of 3♣ would show five (or four very good) clubs because responder may be bidding a fragment in preparation for a reverse.

I've seen many strong pairs who win consistently playing what I consider to be absurd methods. Good bridge is what wins tournaments, not systems. I remember buying a copy of Simply Blue and being disgusted with it. Unfortunately, my bridge books are in storage so I don't know whether or not I kept it. The best sources of information about Blue Team Club are: 1. The "Bible" (The Italian Blue Team Bridge Book by Garozzo and Forquet). It's difficult but not impossible to find a copy at a reasonable price. It contains more examples and more detail than the Garozzo - Yallouze book, which is really more like a simplified summary. Sometime in the late '60s, a well known player/director learned to speak and read Italian just so that he could read the original "Bible," which included things left out of the English translation. There were also a few things that Garozzo and/or Forquet admitted having left out of the "Bible" because they were too complicated for average players. I've never been able to get my hands on that information. 2. The ACBL World Championship books from the years the Blue Team played Neapolitan or Blue Team Club. There's nothing better than seeing how the system was actually played (there were a few surprises) but those are almost impossible to get these days. The World Championship books show example after example of very long auctions in which the Italians cue-bid their way to slams, particularly grand slams, missed at the other table. It's worth studying the Roman Club and Little Roman Club slam auctions as well as Garozzo-Forquet's to understand the amazing subtlety of Italian cue-bidding. Omar's book is a fun read but not nearly complete enough to learn the system.

One of the first mistakes a beginner makes is a strong canape (reverse or jump shift) with 15-16 HCP, nine cards in two suits, and scattered values. A strong canape normally promises ten cards in the two suits. When made with only nine cards, the values must be very concentrated. Responder knows that aces in the side suits are valuable cover cards but kings are of questionable value unless the lead is coming up to them. With those unsuitable hands, describe your distribution as if you held a minimum and show your extra values later. If responder makes a two over one there will be no problem. If responder bids on the one level and his hand is worth only one bid, you probably aren't missing a game. And if you play Reverse Flannery, you never have to make a bad reverse with 5♠-4♥.

Every systemic agreement is a tradeoff. You give something to get something. In Blue Team Club, the ambiguous major-minor and 1♦-1x-2♣ sequences are designed to occur in auctions that end in partials. When it goes 1♠-1NT-2♦ (nine+cards in two suits), responder may guess wrong and play in a 4-3 fit instead of a 5-3. Big deal. It's occasionally disastrous at matchpoints but the system was designed to win team events and that's why it's a good tradeoff. Accuracy in game and slam auctions is much more important than partials. The exception, as everyone points out, is 1♠-1NT-2♥. That ambiguity can cost you a game when you have a 5-3 major fit and don't know it. That's why I play 2♦ Reverse Flannery. In my experience, it works better than normal Flannery because knowledge of opener's 5-4 shape gives responder a huge advantage in competitive auctions. And when it goes 1♠-1NT-2♥, responder knows that opener has at least five hearts. The sequence 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥-4♥ often results in a game swing. The standard and 2/1 bidders' auctions go 1♥-1NT (forcing)-2♣ because they don't have enough to reverse and responder can't evaluate his spade holding. There are a few other modifications that make the system more playable than it was in the past: INT is 15-17 with your normal structure. With 12-14 and 3-3-2-5, open 1♦ and announce "could be only two." Big deal. 1♠-2♥ promises five hearts with no longer suit. Interference Over 1♣: Pass = negative Double = semipositive Suit = natural, GF (may or may not promise 3+ controls per agreement) Notrump = balanced, GF, stopper Cue = balanced, GF, no stopper When there's interference, you don't want to make your first natural bid on the five-level.

Simply Blue is a bad joke written by someone who never came close to understanding the system. Don't waste your money on it. Anyone can publish a crock of ***** that looks authoritative and convince people to buy it.

I learned how to play bridge in 1970. At one of my first tournaments, I heard some top players talking enthusiastically about Blue Team Club. There was a pile of Garozzo-Forquet books on the bookseller's table so I bought one. I was blown away by it and have loved the system ever since. Not long after I started playing Blue Team, my partner and I had an auction I'll never forget: (silent opponents) 1♣-1♠-7NT. I claimed before the dummy came down. The opponents looked at the cards, shook their heads, and put their cards back in the board. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the pros and cons of the system in today's world of hyperactive bidding, there's one thing that will never change: it's fun to play and that can be very valuable in maintaining your partnership morale when things aren't going well. Even if you and your partner aren't playing your best bridge, you both know that you'll have system victories sooner or later. Here's an example. I was playing in a regional open knockout against a team considered vastly better than mine at the time. They picked up many small gains against us and were smiling smugly as we neared the end of the match. Then we had a beautiful one club auction to reach a cold vulnerable slam in spades. Suddenly, they weren't smiling any more. The declarer at the other table tried a safety play that actually caused him to go down in four spades. We eventually lost the match but watching their faces was worth more than any number of master points we might have won. At matchpoints, Blue Team Club is very much anti-field, which can work for you or against you, depending on the boards you're dealt. But it can be devastating at IMPs. Very few players these days have experience playing against four-card majors and constantly find themselves unable to get into the auction when they own the hand. Garozzo's statement that the system that won him so many world championships "is not good enough for top-level play today" is disappointing but doesn't change the fact that I will always love the system. I think Benito has forgotten how much fun he had playing it and would change his mind if he tried it again today.

Vampyr and Mbodell, With all due respect, my own experience conflicts with what you say, so I feel compelled to continue to ask the ACBL for their official stance on the question. Until they respond (which may be never) I'll take the word of the director as law. Accordingly, I just posed the question to the world-class player who directs some of the games at a nearby club. He said the correct way to handle the problem is: 1. Call the director before asking anyone to leave the table. 2. Use one set of methods or the other. So for the present, partner and I will comply with both answers. We'll use our runout structure for DONT (one-suited) doubles. Pass forces opener to redouble after which responder can pass or double the opponents with a good hand. Thanks to everyone who responded!

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm tired of being fixed by opponents who agree to play some convention but have no real understanding of it. It's like tossing a hand grenade up in the air with no idea of who it will land on. It creates unpleasant UI situations and randomizes the result. There's nothing to be done about Suction over a strong club. Advancer clearly has no obligation to do anything other than make the best tactical call. I think it should be illegal in ACBL General Chart events for the same reason that it's illegal over an opening 1NT - in spite of the fact that the ACBL has always had a policy of "anything goes" over 1NT. But it's not illegal, so partner and I have decided to play it. The DONT double of 1NT, however, is another story. Partner and I have agreed to counter it with two different methods. Which one applies depends on whether or not the advancer in any particular set of opponents believes he or she has the option to convert the double to penalty. Some of them think it's 100% forcing, no matter what's in their hand. Yes, of course anyone can decide to pass a forcing bid, but the probability of that is low enough to eliminate the need for a complex set of runouts, in which case we play our normal lebehsohl-based methods in order to punish the opponents when responder has most of the outstanding values. We don't want the doubler to know whether his partner bid two clubs out of necessity or blind obedience. In other words, we have an agreement that reduces the probability of getting randomized by these one-suited doubles, which seem to be coming up more and more often. As to who has the right to ask an opponent to leave the table for a moment, I don't know who has the authority to say whether or not it's allowable. I live in ACBL land, where, as I mentioned before, it seems to be quite normal. I suspect that it depends on the governing body or the head director. Because the ACBL has no official stance on the topic (they haven't responded to my inquiry) and because it's been allowed by the head director whenever I've made the request, I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it's okay here but not in England. Typical American lack of manners, right?

There's an interesting discussion of the topic here. http://iblf.matthew.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=3664 When it's come up in sectional events, the director has had no problem with my asking an opponent to leave the table. I've been asked by opponents to leave the table many times in similar situations and never thought twice about it. I've also voluntarily left the table when I knew that UI was forthcoming in order to eliminate any doubt.

It's not at all the same thing. If you sit down against a pair playing DONT, there's a distinct possibility that they treat the double as 100% forcing. In my experience, about half the people in a club game play that way. They love the idea of interfering with 1NT but they don't bother with the details (no pun intended). Obviously, in a strong field, the percentage is much lower, but I certainly would not assume anything in a stratified regional event. If the double is forcing, you can pass and find out the doubler's suit with all sorts of hands without the risk of playing in 1NT doubled. Asking the doubler to leave the table eliminates the UI. Now and then, it may create resentment on the part of players who don’t understand the rules of the game and a director call may be necessary. Too bad.

That makes perfect sense to me but people play conventions differently. Some may consider a Suction bid to be forcing while others don't. It certainly makes a difference to responder. It's similar to a double of an opening 1NT that shows a single-suited hand. Is advancer required to bid 2C or can he pass for penalties? My partner and I play runouts when the double can be passed, but system on otherwise. This has come up so many times that we always ask overcaller (doubler) to leave the table before asking advancer. Whatever the answer, it would otherwise create UI for the doubler and some players would use it.

A valid point but the semantics are a bit slippery. "Partner's (advancer's) first duty is to assume the Suction bidder has the one suiter and bid that suit, even with a void." What exactly does "first duty" mean? Is advancer is required by system to bid something? If so, passing is anti-systemic and a breach of discipline. In that case, the bid must be considered forcing. It seems to me, however, that passing might be a good tactical move, creating even more confusion, if advancer is willing to give up all the -50s or -100s the opponents can take.

I've posed this question to the ACBL but would like to know what people here think, particularly Suction players. In Suction, a bid in a suit at any level over a strong one club shows EITHER the next suit OR a 2-suiter in the next two higher suits. The overcaller NEVER has the suit he is bidding. Partner's (advancer's) first duty is to assume the Suction bidder has the one suiter and bid that suit, even with a void. Obviously, advancer must alert the Suction bid and explain what it means in terms of distribution. But must he also explain that the bid is forcing if responder passes? Or is it responder's responsibility to ask whether or not it's forcing?

Thanks to everyone who answered! There's another reasonable line in which you play West for four spades. Come down to a three card ending and throw West in to play a heart. I'm using the hand in my bridge column in the local Sunday paper and will post it when it's done.

This hand is from a local club game. You are declarer in 6NT. West leads the ♠4. [hv=pc=n&s=s98haq974dakckq52&n=sakq7h65dqt5caj93]133|200[/hv] The heart finesse is 50% and if it loses, there may be a major suit squeeze. Or you can cash the ♥A and then lead toward the queen. A throw-in works when West has no more than three spades, three diamonds, and four clubs. Cash all your winners, ending in dummy, and play a heart covering whatever East plays. Which would you choose and why? As the cards lay, the throw-in was the winning line of play.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt2h432daqjt6ct8&w=saqj9hdk953ca9652&n=s6hakjt96d874ckq4&e=s87543hq875d2cj73&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1nd2h2sp4sppdppp]399|300|1NT was forcing[/hv] Down two against excellent defense. Could have held it to one. We had the only minus score in the room. +110 or +140 would have been an average minus because NS was getting doubled in 4♥. Who is most to blame and what was the worst call made?

You lead the Q from QJ10xx against 1NT-3NT. Dummy has Kxx and everyone ducks, partner playing the two. Assuming that you continue the suit, which card do you lead at trick two and what does it mean? I was declarer in 3NT with Kxx in dummy and Ax in hand. LHO continued with the jack. After the hand, my opponents (friends) told me that the jack was suit preference for the higher of the possible side suits, telling partner (and declarer if aware) where your entry is. I've always thought that in standard carding, you continue with the bottom of the sequence, in this case the ten. I'd like to know the "standard expert" treatment of this situation and whether or not to ask when it occurs.

You're right. I wasn't talking about any specific pair, but just that type of player in general. The type of auction I mentioned in the original post is just one particularly annoying example of people deliberately playing bad bridge in order to get a top or a bottom. Since I started playing again after a 20 year retirement (raising a family), it seems like club games are now even more random than I remember. It's as if the players who have little or no chance of winning deliberately try for top or bottom scores so that they actually can win once in a while if they have a hot streak. The rest of the time, they couldn't care less whether they have a 55 per cent game or a 25 per cent game. My local club runs a 5-6 table Howell once a week and it seems like almost every board has at least two impossible results. No matter how well you bid, play, or defend a hand, you can't get a top because someone else was handed a better result on a silver platter. Sometimes I wonder whether or not this is a reflection of the change in American culture over the last 20 years with respect to lack of patience. The way people drive certainly is. Everyone is in a big hurry these days, tailgating, speeding, running red lights and taking awful risks that result in being one car closer to an intersection when waiting for a red light to turn green.

There are many ways to get fixed In club games but this is the one I hate the most. My partner and I often push weak opponents into cold games when allowing them to play in an undoubled partial would get most or all of the matchpoints. Is there a way to detect this during the auction? We're not overly aggressive in competitive bidding but consistently get suckered by little old ladies who get dealt strong, one-suited hands and make ridiculous underbids. Their strategy is to keep bidding their suit until they get doubled. They don't worry about missing a game because they know the good players will compete and they'll get another chance to bid until someone doubles. No one I've asked has ever had a useful suggestion, but every time it happens I feel sure that better players would sense what's going on and pass it out. Am I missing something? Any other ideas about avoiding common fixes would be welcome.

I love playing 2♦ positive (1+ controls) and 2♥ negative (0 controls), but that doesn't change the fact that a strong five-card suit across from a 2♣ opener can be a huge asset. If opener has Kxx of the suit, he can start counting tricks instead of searching for a fit. This is something that Precision players know very well. A strong 1♣ system can give you a different perspective on some strong 2♣ auctions.

Same here. My partners have convinced me to overcall with these hands and so far, the results have been as good or better than double.

> I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand. Nonsense! ahydra is correct that a losing trick count of one is a 2♣ opener. Anything else is ludicrous. I open most four-loser hands 2♣ if all I need from partner is a tolerance for my major suit and one cover card. In this case, all you need to find in partner's hand to make a game is a zero-count and a four-card major. Maybe a three-card major. Presumably, a 2♦ response is artificial so partner's 3♦ response shows nothing more than a good five-card suit and does not preclude a 4-4 major fit. Partner has a diamond suit so you probably don't to have to worry about being tapped. So I would bid 3♥ on the second round. If partner bids 4♦, I'll try 5♦ and hope he has a solid or semi-solid suit. 3NT may be our only game but with a void in his suit, I'm not going to bet the bank on it.

I intended this to be a question about expert bidding methods, not a "you hold" problem. Most of the people I've asked use a delayed cue bid to show opener's suit but none have any specific agreements about length, strength, or continuations.

Yes, a direct 2♣ would have been Michaels.

What are "standard expert" methods in this situation? Anyone have a better idea? [hv=pc=n&w=saq5ha3d2ckqt8742&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cp1sp1n]133|200[/hv]