Color-first 5cM system

[helene_t]

Roy Hughes writes in his book that the openings should show distributional features, not points. Then disappointingly he proceeds to reinvent the SA wheel plus a few gadgets such as T-Walsh.

 

I have been puzzling with a color-first system. Requirement: all openings must be wide-ranging, showing distributional features beyond "3+ clubs" or that kind of nonsense. Here is what I came up with:

 

1♣: bal or 3-suited (5m possible) short in a minor, denies 5M.

1♦: 5+hearts

1♥: 5+spades

1♠: 6+ clubs or 55 minors

1NT: 6+ diamonds

2♣: 3-suited short in spades (5m possible but not 5 hearts)

2♦: 3-suited short in hearts (5m possible but not 5 spades)

 

2♣/♦ must be sound (11+ points or such) to be playable I think, and also to avoid BSC-complaints.

 

I won't bother you with the responses, at least not for now.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest Jlall]

I think that the 1C opener would become unplayable because it includes all balanced ranges. There are too many ranges to be covered, especially in a competitive bidding atmosphere, if you aren't going to use another bid to show one of the ranges (such as 1N).

[helene_t]

I've been playing a system with all balanced hands in 1♣ for a couple of years in one partnership. It works fine when opps don't interfere, although the system is quite complex and there could very well be some holes we havent discovered.

 

Anyway, it's true that in competition it's sometimes a gamble to bid 3N (or not to bid it).

[kenrexford]

I have not thought through this idea, not do I really understand where you are going at the most basic level. However, from some experience with a few pattern-based systems, and solutions thereto, I would suggest considering grouping of unrelateds to gain structure.

 

A simple example is what a friend of mine called a "Flamingo" bid. It is a call that shows one or the other of two completely different hand types. A simple example is for a 1♦ opening to include a minor one-suiter, never both minors, but with either minor. Thus, you would open 1♦ with either clubs or diamonds (6+ or so), but never both minors. I don't know whether this would help the structure, but it was very playable.

 

Canape bidding typically has this element, as well. For instance, a 1♥ opening will always deny having four spades. You will either have four hearts and a longer second suit, or six+ hearts. Never five hearts. (This is impure because of a problem with 5-5 majors, but...)

 

Combining these works also. A flamingo canape 1♦ opening will deny a four-card major. You could have a longer major (5+) or a shorter major (0-3), but never precisely four. You would have either 5+ in a major and 4+ (3?) diamonds, or 6+ in one or the other minor. The use of unrelated meanings, again, is workable for pattern development. Simply put, it is easier to fine tune, or to even "guess," when partner's patterns are as different as (1) 6+ clubs, no side four-card suit, (2) 6+ diamonds, no side 4-card suit, or (3) 5+ of a major, 4+ diamonds.

 

The canape approach I used was able to handle any pattern fairly well. The loss was weak two's. But, early pattern development was magnificent.

 

The basic structure:

 

1♣ (strong)

1♦ (diamonds, or clubs, or MAJOR+diamonds)

1♥/1♠ (6+ in major, or 4-card with longer second suit)

1NT (balanced)

2♣ (any 4X1; 2♦ asks for clarification)

2♦ (minors)

2M (5+ in that major, 4+ clubs)

2NT (minors, weaker but shapely)

 

The gain of canape over standard is in this divergent meaning aspect. Whereas a standard 1♥ opening might have typical values of 5-6 hearts and 0-5 of any side suit, the canape opening makes side suits 0-3 or 5+ in length and hearts usually 4 or 6+, with a grouping of the 0-3 with the 6+ and the 5+ with the 4. Much easier to read in competition, earlier, etc.

[david_c]

Roy Hughes writes in his book that the openings should show distributional features, not points.

Does he?

 

... in a wide range of situations, the information that should be given first is what suits are long ... ColoursFirst is not a theorem, or even an exact statement, just a principle or tendency.

So I think Hughes (rightly) stops well short of saying that this principle is the most important thing. It's something to bear in mind, but it's not the whole story.

 

I've got to agree with Justin about needing more than one opening bid for balanced hands.

 

I've been playing a system with all balanced hands in 1♣ for a couple of years in one partnership. It works fine when opps don't interfere

You could say the same thing about just about any 1♣ opening.

[helene_t]

You could say the same thing about just about any 1♣ opening.

Yes, of course! By no way am I claiming that this is a superior system. In fact, like all home-grown systems it is likely to contain much more flaws than more established systems.

 

Just saying that so far it seems reasonably playable. I realize that that claim is made about all kind of hopeless systems that have been tried out at low-level events only, so if you are not impressed I won't blame you :)

[awm]

I still like the following structure:

 

1♣ = balanced 11-13 or 17+; or clubs 15+; or any three-suited hand w/o a 5cM

1♦ = 5+♥, 11+

1♥ = 5+♠, 11+

1♠ = 6+♦ or 5+♦ with "reverse" values or with 5/5 minors

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 10-14 with 6+♣

2♦ = 5cM "weak two" denying four cards in the other major

2M = 6cM weak two

2N = weak with 5-5 minors

 

Basic responses:

 

Over 1♦/1♥, accepting the transfer shows a fairly weak hand (say 0-9). If in the 5-9 range, it also denies a fit for partner and denies a good six-card suit. 1♦/1♥-1NT is natural (but could be singleton in partner's major) forcing and unlimited, and could potentially start relays. 1♦/1♥-2x is natural and invitational or better, 1♦/1♥-3x is natural and weak but constructive (5-8 typical).

 

Over 1♠, 1NT shows 4+♠ or any GF, 2♣ shows 4+♥, 2♦ shows a weak hand w/o a major, 2♥ is like reverse flannery (both majors, NF), 2♠ is a forcing club bid, 2NT is a forcing (constructive or better) diamond raise, 3♣ is an invitational club bid, and 3♦ is a preemptive diamond raise.

 

Over 1♣, it seems like some combination of transfer advances would work okay, or one could use a 1♦ negative.

 

The main ideas behind this:

 

(1) There is some advantage to showing a suit right away, especially in competitive auctions. I agree with Roy Hughes about this one. Note that while showing a five-card suit is really handy, showing a suit that "might be three cards" probably doesn't help much in competition and it might be better to show a "balanced hand" right away instead. This is something that natural systems have right and strong club systems have wrong.

 

(2) On the other hand, natural systems have a lot of trouble limiting the hands. There are hands where people open one and responder passes and a game is missed. It's also often the case that even after opener's rebid, both hands have extremely wide range (i.e. 1♠-1NT(F)-2♣ and responder has a range of 5-12 or even wider, opener has a range of 10-18, and opener might not even have clubs). The need to describe both strength and shape in a constructive auction is tough in these systems, and a place where strong club really wins.

 

(3) Fantoni-Nunes methods try to get the best of both by using sound one-level openings. But there are still issues here. You can't play in one of opener's suit any more. You have to open at the two-level with many hands other people open at the one level (i.e. 11-13 hcp hands). You lose all your two-level preempts. You basically have to play weak notrump (okay some people like weak notrump, but it seems risky at vulnerable and it's hard to play a F-N style system without it).

 

This method is an attempt to get the best of everything, playing forcing one-level openings that can still get out in one of opener's major. It allows responder to distinguish between a "bad hand" and a "good hand" and even his response on 10+ hcp describes pattern right away. It also allows you to have "optional relays" since relay bidding works really well when relayer is strong and balanced and not so well when relayer has a minimum GF with a lot of shape.

[helene_t]

Tx, Adam. Do you think it's essential to play 14-16 notrump in this system or would it also work with a weak 1NT?

[awm]

You can always play whatever you want, but I've found that there are some advantages to the strong notrump. In particular:

 

(1) 1♣ with a minimum three-suiter has the same point range as the weak notrump. This means that you can sometimes show the balanced hand with a misfitting three suiter.

 

(2) It helps somewhat in competitive auctions when there is a gap between the notrump ranges, and when the "worst possible hand" that opener could have is also the most frequent. Because balanced hands are much more common than other types, playing weak notrump you end up in a situation where opener "usually but not always" has mild extras. This either causes responder to overbid (assuming the mild extras, getting into trouble when opener hasn't got them) or causes opener to balance too aggressively with the "strong notrump" hand type.

 

Of course, these problems come up in most "weak notrump" systems, but they are more problematic when playing "natural with weak notrumps" than "strong club with weak notrumps."

[Echognome]

I still like the following structure:

 

1♣ = balanced 11-13 or 17+; or clubs 15+; or any three-suited hand w/o a 5cM

1♦ = 5+♥, 11+

1♥ = 5+♠, 11+

1♠ = 6+♦ or 5+♦ with "reverse" values or with 5/5 minors

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 10-14 with 6+♣

2♦ = 5cM "weak two" denying four cards in the other major

2M = 6cM weak two

2N = weak with 5-5 minors

What do the 5♣ or 5♦ hands with 5431 shape and minimum openings bid? Or is this part of the 3-suited hands without a 5cM?

[helene_t]

Can't answer for Adam but I refer to 5431 as 3-suited. Should have clarified that.

 

Some Dutch pairs in the national 2nd league (what they call 1st division) play "Boring Club" which is a natural system except that 1NT shows clubs and 1♣ is balanced. The play transfer responses with 1♠ primarily a weak (0-6(7)) balanced hand, so the 1♦ and 1♥ responses show values. I suppose that makes up for parts of the lost strong 1NT opening because opener can safely take action with his 15-16 points after a 2-level overcall if responder has shown values.

 

I do have the feeling that we lose on the 15-17 balanced hands, although we occasionally manage to find a better partscore while the field plays 1NT.

[dake50]

SOME partition other than by hcp (eg Pre) must be effective.

I partition 1C has Spades or bal big or some 2-suiters. Whereas 1D has bal mid or 1-suiter H,D,C or a few 2-suiters.

The test I use is this/similar auction 1C <3D> ?? How many bids do I need to get partner reasonably on board. I have X,3H,3S,3N before so much space is used that higher need to be 'unilateral' hands: trumps solid, massive controls, etc.

Develop this 'colors' partition. Forum where it leads you.

[helene_t]

lol, 1♣ (3♦) is quite nasty in most systems, probably Acol and Fantunes are most robust. Actually in this system it would be horrible, responder cannot do anything with many 9(10) point hands and opener cannot do anything with most 16(17) hands.

[benlessard]

Transfers openings are great for relay but allowing the cue-bid, the X and the pass & bid to show a powerhouse is a too big price to pay. You have to remember that the gain are only the slam that reyour regular relay will fail to find. Its sure fun to ask for Aces at 3C and bid 6H after the responses but you gain nothing compared to the regular relay that ask for aces at 4C and endup in 6H too. Having too efficient relays means the 4-5 level become idle or unused

 

However here are some possible structure.

 

1S---Nt or clubs

1Nt diamonds

2+ preemptive whatever.

 

1S---C

1Nt--balanced

2C---D

2D---D 2nd types

 

1S---balanced

1Nt--1 or the other minors type 1

2C---C type 2

2D ---type 2

 

Another interesting thing is to play that 1D could be 4H, so many 4H +m or 4441 are in the 1D opening.

 

My feeling is that if in 1C there is only balanced hands 12+ its playable. If you had some clubs or 4441 in it then its not that playable anymore.

[benlessard]

You can always play whatever you want, but I've found that there are some advantages to the strong notrump. In particular:

 

(1) 1♣ with a minimum three-suiter has the same point range as the weak notrump. This means that you can sometimes show the balanced hand with a misfitting three suiter.

 

(2) It helps somewhat in competitive auctions when there is a gap between the notrump ranges, and when the "worst possible hand" that opener could have is also the most frequent. Because balanced hands are much more common than other types, playing weak notrump you end up in a situation where opener "usually but not always" has mild extras. This either causes responder to overbid (assuming the mild extras, getting into trouble when opener hasn't got them) or causes opener to balance too aggressively with the "strong notrump" hand type.

 

Im thinking exactly the opposite.

(1) yes but when the 3 suiter is fitted or semi-fitted ?

1D---1S

 

AQxx

Kxx

Axxxx

x

 

vs

AQxx

Kxx

Axx

xxx

 

You may bid 3S with the 1st if you like but i dont like it.

 

Only when 1444 its annoying to rebid 2C. But still im not convinced rebidding 1nt is better.

 

(2) Trust me it doesnt help that the worst possible hand is the most frequent, what is helping is that the worst hand more frequent hand is out of the way.

 

1C----2S-----??? much easier to compete knowing partner is unbalanced or that hes got extra values.

 

playing weak notrump you end up in a situation where opener "usually but not always" has mild extras. This either causes responder to overbid (assuming the mild extras, getting into trouble when opener hasn't got them) or causes opener to balance too aggressively with the "strong notrump" hand type.

 

Again im thinking exactly the opposite, weak ntromper will fare much better in those situation & its not close at all. When opening 1 of a suit with 12-14 then its possible to see good unbalanced 15 and garbage 12 count. When you play weak nt and open 1m then its either 15-17 balanced or shapely minimums that are the worst hands. With the shapely 13 and the balanced 15 opener has no extras. But if you play Strong Nt where the range is balanced crap and + Do you consider a shapely 13 to be extra values ?

 

To have a strenght gap you need to have similar strenght of hand in 1 place and other strenght type of hand elsewhere. Clearly the most probable hands are the worst 12-14 balanced. Once you get them out the only remaining are + values (more HCP or a 5 card suit) the only annoying hand are lousy misfitted 4441 hands where you can lie showing them as 54.

[PrecisionL]

Roy Hughes writes in his book that the openings should show distributional features, not points. Then disappointingly he proceeds to reinvent the SA wheel plus a few gadgets such as T-Walsh.

Benito Garozzo's Strong Club Theory: (from google.rec.games.bridge)

 

World Cllass by Marc Smith, 1999, pg. 66:

in the section on Benito Garozzo subtitled 'Systems'

 

"The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough

for top-level play today. Lea du Pont and I have improved on it a

lot, and it's now ten [10] times better than the old one. The old

system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to

realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing

and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first. When

we played C. C. Wei and the Precision Team, we developed Super

Precision. That was a fairly good system, but still at that time we

were focusing too much on controls and not enough on the shape of the

hands. First it should be distribution, and only when you know enough

about partner's shape should you worry about controls."

 

"In pairs competitions, you can effectively forget all about slam

bidding. You need to concentrate on declarer play and defense - that

is where most of the points are lost. At teams, you need to have more

system, particularly for competitive bidding. More than 70% of the

auctions nowadays are competitive, and you have to know what you are

doing. Even when we were winning regularly, out slam bidding was not

good enough. We didn't study enough. You should never stop studying,

no matter how many times you win. Thee are always new things you can

learn, and ways for you to improve your performance. I accept that

there are those people who love to study, and those who hate it. I do

not love to study, but of course it is much easier when you create the

system yourself. In my early days though, I had to learn what someone

else had created. I forced myself to do it because I wanted to be a

winner."

 

Garozzo & Lea only seem to play Ambra, a 2-over-1 system with 4-card

diamond suit openings, 5-card majors, and 15-17 NT. Ambra is not a

Strong Club system.

 

Is Benito Garozzo saying that Ambra is the system "10 times better"

than Blue Team Club?

 

Does Benito believe that "The Roman Club" meets much of his criteria?

 

What are some other distributional bidding systems that meet his

criteria?

 

System geeks want to know!

 

Larry Lowell

Knoxville, TN, USA

[helene_t]

As for Adam's system compared to mine, I think the inclusion of a 14-16 1NT opening is a big advantage, since those hands are the ones we lose on when LHO preempts or when RHO makes a 2-level overcall before p has provided any helpful information.

 

I'm less happy about including the 3-suited hands short in a major in the 1♣ opening. If it were only (41)44 I would not worry, but since it's also 8 different 5431-distributions plus (40)(54), responder cannot safely assume opener to have a doubleton in his suit (when making WJS, NFB or transfer freebid if you like) or in opps' suit (when leaving in opener's double). Those are exactly the strong points of the Boring Club system.

 

Yet of course it's a huge price to pay to allocate both 2m openings to those hands. I suppose there is no easy solution to this dilemma. Maybe better to loosen the requirements for the 1♠ opening (and the natural 2♣ opening in Adam's version).