4 Card Majors Big Club

[mikestar]

My latest experimental big club system.

 

 

The Opening Bids

 

1♣=18+ balanced, around "rule of 26" unbalanced

1♦=limited, 4+♦ unbalanced or 15-17 balanced

1♥=limited, 4+♥ unbalanced

1♠=limited, 4+♠ unbalanced

1NT=12-14

2♣=limited 6+♣

2♦+=as you please

 

 

Limited Openings

 

Choice of opening

• With balanced distribution (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2) open 1NT or 1♦, even with a 5 card major.
  
• With a one suited hand (6+ suit) open the suit.
  
• With a two suited hand where the longest suit is at least 2 cards longer than the second suit (6-4, 7-5, etc.), open the long suit.
  
• With spades and a red suit, open the longer suit (spades if equal).
  
• With spades and clubs, open 1♠.
  
• With hearts and a minor open 1♥.
  
• With both minors, open 1♦.
  
• With a three suiter with 5 spades, open 1♠.
  
• With a three suiter with short hearts, open 1♦.
  
• With any other three suiter, open 1♥.
  

Choose the first alternative that fits your hand.

 

 

The 1♦ Opening

 

1♥=4+♥

...1♠=4♠, spade diamond two-suiter or three suiter with short hearts.

...1NT=15-17 balanced, denies 4♥.

...2♣=5-4 either way in minors.

...2♦=6+ diamonds.

...2♥=four card support, or three card support with a stiff.

...2♠=6-5 or better, strong

...2NT=exactly three card support, strong. May have long diamonds or minor two-suiter.

...3♣=minor two-suiter (5-5 or better), strong. Denies three hearts.

...3♦=6+ good ♦, strong, denies three hearts.

...3♥=four card support, strong.

...3♠=four card support, very strong, unspecified stiff.

...3NT=four card support, very strong, ♠ void.

...4♣=four card support, very strong, ♣ void.

...4♦=four card support, very strong, ♦ void.

1♠=4+♠

...1NT=15-17 balanced, denies 4♠.

...2♣=5-4 either way in minors.

...2♦=6+ diamonds.

...2♥=6-4 in red suits, strong.

...2♠=four card support, or three card support with a stiff.

...2NT=exactly three card support, strong. May have long diamonds or minor two-suiter.

...3♣=minor two-suiter (5-5 or better), strong. Denies three spades.

...3♦=6+ good ♦, strong, denies three spades.

...3♥=four card support, very strong, unspecified stiff.

...3♠=four card support, strong.

...3NT=four card support, very strong, ♥ void.

...4♣=four card support, very strong, ♣ void.

...4♦=four card support, very strong, ♦ void.

 

To be continued...

[gwnn]

I must admit I like this system. The only problem I can see with it is that you must open 1m when the field opens 1N so you have the same little unpleasant situations you would get playing standard+weak NT.

[rbforster]

The only problem I can see with it is that you must open 1m when the field opens 1N

You could always swap the NT ranges if you want to match the field. 1♦ as 4+ or 12-14 balanced, and 1N as 15-17 should work quite similarly.

[jdonn]

Isn't this just precision with 4-card majors, and I guess a higher minimum for 1♣?

[awm]

With this particular approach, your 1M openings will usually be five (1♠ is only four if you have precisely 4♠-5♣; 1♥ is only four if you have 4♥-5♣ or 4414).

 

A point that needs to be considered is, your 1♦ opening in this system doesn't really show diamonds anyway. It could easily be 2♦ or 3♦ in a balanced hand (in fact this will often be the case) so you can't really raise freely on four-card support or anything like that. It seems like adding 4414 and 4M-5♣ hands into the 1♦ opening probably won't hurt you all that much -- after all it's an artificial bid anyway. And moving these hands to 1♦ will probably help your 1M auctions substantially (1M now guarantees five).

 

It seems like if you are going to take the step of playing four-card majors in order to deal with the rare 4M-5♣ hand types, then you want to be substantially improving the definition of your 1♦ opening. In order to do this, it makes sense to consider playing only one notrump range and letting 1♦ promise four, something like:

 

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 4+♦ unbalanced

1♥ = 5+♥ or 4414 or 4♥/5♣

1♠ = 5+♠ or 4♠/5♣

1NT = 12-15

2♣ = 6+♣

[Stephen Tu]

Change NT to 15-17, Schenken club anybody? My feeling is that it's better to play 4cM/strNT/big club, give more integrity to the diamond opening. Otherwise you might as well play 5cM and Precision, you haven't gained much here except the better defined 2c opener. 1M preempts almost as well as 1nt, you don't miss your 4-4 major fits, and it's harder to penalize.

[mikestar]

The only problem I can see with it is that you must open 1m when the field opens 1N

You could always swap the NT ranges if you want to match the field. 1♦ as 4+ or 12-14 balanced, and 1N as 15-17 should work quite similarly.

Quite correct. In the notes as I give them, only the 1NT opener and the minimum NT rebid after 1♦ need to be switched.

 

My own reason for preferring the weak NT is so 1♦ is natural or strongish, as in 1m openings in KS.

[mikestar]

...

A point that needs to be considered is, your 1♦ opening in this system doesn't really show diamonds anyway. It could easily be 2♦ or 3♦ in a balanced hand (in fact this will often be the case) so you can't really raise freely on four-card support or anything like that. It seems like adding 4414 and 4M-5♣ hands into the 1♦ opening probably won't hurt you all that much -- after all it's an artificial bid anyway. And moving these hands to 1♦ will probably help your 1M auctions substantially (1M now guarantees five).

...

I have played the way you suggest, and it works fine except for the wide range 1NT, though this can be a price worth paying.

 

I find that the ambiguity in 1♦ is much less when the only non natural possibility is a strong NT as opposed to when it might well be short diamonds and primary clubs and any range. The weak raise to 3♦ can be made on six cards or five with a stiff and you stand no worse than 2/1 players who sign off in ♦ over partner's 1NT opening. The strong raise to 2♦ on four is no problem.

[whereagles]

I used to play strong club with 4 card majors and an ultra-nebulous 1♦ (included ALL 2♣ openers, so that 2♣ became a weak 2) and the result was that:

 

- the 1♦ opener needed artificial follow-ups badly. It worked ok with those, but they required a lot of homework and experience to use properly.

 

- the 4 card major didn't prove to be that much of an advantage. The old "should I support with 3 cards?" problem kept coming in and it wasn't easy to solve as it is in, say, Acol. The preemptive value of 1M didn't really pay for this loss in precision.

 

The funniest thing was pard's lust for opening a 3rd seat 1M on xxx and psyching opps out of their game in that suit :P

[mikestar]

The 1♦ Opening continued

 

1NT=about 6-9, no game opposite 15-17 balanced.

...2♣=5-4 either way in minors or 4=1=4=4.

...2♦=6+♦.

...2♥=4-6 in ♥ and ♦, strong.

...2♠=4-5 or longer in ♠ and ♦, strong.

...2NT=6+♦, majors stopped, strong.

...3♣=5-5 or better minors, strong.

...3♦=6+♦, at least one major unstopped, strong.

2♣=10+, usually 5+♣, no 4CM.

...2♦=<15, unbalanced.

...2♥=15+, unbalanced, ♥ stop.

...2♠=15+, unbalanced, ♠ stop.

...2NT=15-17 balanced.

...3♣=15+, ♣ support.

...3♦=15+, 6+♦, at least one major unstopped.

...3♥=15+, ♣ support, ♥ stiff.

...3♠=15+, ♣ support, ♠ stiff.

...3NT=15+, 6+♦, both majors stopped.

2♦=10+, 4+♦

...2♥=unbalanced, ♥ stop.

...2♠=unbalanced, ♠ stop.

...2NT=15-17 balanced.

...3♣=15+, minors.

...3♦=<15, unbalanced.

...3♥=15+, ♥ stiff.

...3♠=15+, ♠ stiff.

...3NT=15+, 6+♦, both majors stopped.

2♥=weak jump shift.

2♠=weak jump shift.

2NT=13-15 or 19+ balanced. Forcing to game.

3♣=weak jump shift.

3♦=weak raise, 5♦ with stiff or 6♦.

3♥=♦ support, ♥ stiff.

3♠=♦ support, ♠ stiff.

3NT=16-18 balanced.

 

To be continued...

[mikestar]

The 1♥ Opening

 

1♥ is always unbalanced or semibalanced, so NT rebids can be used artificially.

 

1♠=Artificial 1 round force, less than 4 spades (Kaplan Interchange).

...1NT=4♠, either 5+♥ or 3 suited with short minor.

...2♣=5-4 or better either way or 1=4=4=4.

...2♦=5-4 or better either way.

...2♥=6+♥.

...2♠=4♠. 5+♥, strong.

...2NT=6+ good ♥, strong, good for NT.

...3♣=5-5 or better, strong.

...3♦=5-5 or better, strong.

...3♥=6+ good hearts.

1NT=4+♠, 1 round force.

...2♣=5-4 or better either way or 1=4=4=4.

...2♦=5-4 or better either way.

...2♥=6+♥.

...2♠=3+♠ support.

...2NT=exactly 3♠, strong.

...3♣=5-5 or better, strong, <3♠.

...3♦=5-5 or better, strong, <3♠.

...3♥=6+ good hearts, <3♠.

...3♠=4+♠, strong.

...3NT=4+♠, very strong, minor suit stiff.

...4♣=4+♠, very strong, ♣ void.

...4♦=4+♠, very strong, ♦ void.

2♣=5+♣, game force unless 3♣ rebid after 2 level rebid.

...2♦=5-4 or better either way, or 4=4=4=1.

...2♥=5+♥.

...2♠=4♠, 5+♥.

...2NT=only 4 ♥, minimum.

...3♣=3+♣, game force.

...3♦=5-5 or better, strong.

...3♥=Semisolid or solid ♥, game force.

...3♠=♣ support, ♠ splinter.

...3NT=to play, minimum.

...4♣=♣ support, slam interest.

...4♦=♣ support, ♦ splinter.

...4♥=very long ♥, minimum.

 

To be continued...

[Gerben42]

Any reason to reinvent the wheel?

 

http://www.zarpoints.com/CC/auken-vonarnim.pdf

[mikestar]

This is a good system with some differences from what I'm trying out. As for reinventing the wheel, if there's anything wrong with that, why do we have a Non-Natural System Discussion?

[NickRW]

As for reinventing the wheel, if there's anything wrong with that, why do we have a Non-Natural System Discussion?

Because evolution in the game of bridge is slow - understandably given the investment in time it takes to thoroughly learn a new system (even without the inertia of regulating authorities). However, we keep pushing the ideas around and sooner or later someone will find something that makes it into a system that real people play - er - well - I guess anyway :blink:

 

Nick

[SteelWheel]

Anyone for American Forcing Minor? Similar ideas--book is now out of print, but probably available from the usual used bridge bookseller sources. In brief:

 

1♣=always strong, but strength varies based upon hand type. Generally, 15+ if primarily a club or notrump hand, 21+ if primary diamonds, 16+ if primary feature is a major suit hand

1♦=15-17 NT, or 15-20 with diamonds, or 15-20 with diamonds and a longer(!) major (system uses a lot of canape sequences)

1♥/♠=natural four+ in the bid suit, 11-15

1NT=12-14

2♣/2♦=natural, 11-14(15), with no four card major

 

This system has always intrigued me, although I have found it difficult to learn and even more difficult to persuade someone else to give it a whirl. The canape tendencies are hard to get used to. Also, the authors' presentation doesn't help; the book presenting their system does not set out principles, and then move to sample hands. They just start right out with sample hands and expect the reader to "intuit" the system from the examples given. It's all a little bit murky.

 

As far as I can tell, the system is still played by its authors, Joe Lutz and Jerry Fink, who are in the Cincinnati area. If anyone knows these guys and can get them to give up a present day copy of their system notes, I'd love to sneak a peek...

[dake50]

Consider if you are clever with 4cM, 1NT won't need Stayman to check for 4-4M only 5-3M(would have opened 4cM). Either so scattered honors or 4333 that NT likely superior even if 4-4M exists. But no blab 4cM to Stayman leaves defenders in the dark.

 

Turn your mind then to nefarious 2-bids, 3-bids responding to 1NT.

 

Further, many auctions won't need negative double, another freed call.

 

Then, seeing 4cM handled /experienced, try 4c overcalls! That way lies madness. Totally foreign to bridge authority --can't be right/ winning! Or can it?

[Tcyk]

After an opening bid of 1H, it looks like there is no way to show a hand with five spades and two hearts, and no second suit playing this method. I suppose you would be forced to forget that you had spades even if it were a nice suit. Oh but we love spades.

[Tcyk]

Sorry, I was looking at the 1D-1H sequence by mistake.