Strong 1C opening

[Free]

1) What's the basic response scheme you use after a strong 1♣ opening? What are the advantages and/or disadvantages?

 

2) How do you deal with intervention? Is there a difference between interventions at 1-level or 2-level, intervention with or without an anchor suit,...? How do you and p continue the bidding?

 

3) How do you deal with intervention from RHO (so partner responds and opener's RHO bids)?

 

tnx

[inquiry]

Here is something to consider....

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♦ - (bid)

?

 

An interesting question becomes what should a bid by opener be? I like to play a bid is "weak" competitive, and pass is "forcing". The use of double here is optional. It can be a super penalty double (psyche exposing), or it can be something else. Thus,

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♦ - (1♠)

2♥

 

For instance is FREQUENLTY passed out... responder doesn't have to bid.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Somehow, I think that you know my preferred response structure over a strong club opening. :-)

 

1♦ = Game force, denies 5440 shape

1♥ = Semi positive, denies a unbalanced hand with a 5 card major

1♠ = Double Negative

1N = Semi positive, Unbalanced with 5 Hearts

2♣ = Semi positive, 5+ Spades and (4 Clubs or 4 Hearts)

2♦ = Semi-positive with 5+ Spades and 4 Diamonds

2♥ = Semi-positive with 6 Hearts

2♠ = semi-positive with 6 Spades

2N = Game forcing 5440, major suit void

3♣ = Any 7 card suit to the AKQxxxx

3♦ = Game forcing 5440, Diamond void

3♥ = Game forcing 4=4=5=0 shape

3♠ = Game forcing 4=5=4=0 shape

3NT = Game forcing 5=4=4=0 shape

 

The main advantage of this structure is that it is capable of supporting a very light strong club opening.

 

The main disadvantage is that there isn't a direct bid to show a minimum strength balanced game forcing positive. For example, Meckwell precision uses

1♣ - 2♦ to show ~8-11 HCP balanced

[whereagles]

hrothgar, sorry to say this, but that scheme of yours is far too vulnerable to a preempt in 4th seat. The improvement over standard methods after 1♣ is at best marginal and the potential losses are greatly increased. I don't think it's good strategy.

[Free]

I have to disagree with you whereagles. I'm used to play this with Richard, and it works quite well. The big advantage is the semi-positive hands which show shape immediatly. Since these are quite common, you seldom get the double negative anymore. If opps intervene after a semipos bid, opener has a picture of partner's hand, where in case of most strong club auctions 1♣-p-1♦ (neg 0-7(8))-... the system is a lot more vulnerable for preemptive action. We can support immediatly or penalty dbl! The main disadvantage (where you have a point) is with unfav vulnerability and we get an auction 1♣-p-1♦ (GF)-... opps can screw us over by bidding high and get away with it. Since we know 'nothing' (not 5440 isn't much info B) ) about our hands yet, game can be the limit, but we still have to find in what suit or NT.

 

In standard schemes where 1♦ is first negative I think the 1♦ response if overloaded!

 

Btw, could someone move this topic to "non-natural system discussions" plz? Fits better there :D

[the hog]

Having played this - I agree with free and Richard. The semi positives are a huge plus in the system. Far from being vulnerable to pre emption, the exact opposite is the truth.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, sorry to say this, but that scheme of yours is far too vulnerable to a preempt in 4th seat. The improvement over standard methods after 1♣ is at best marginal and the potential losses are greatly increased. I don't think it's good strategy.

Oh, really? Lets looks at some statistics here:

 

Following MOSCITO's Strong Club opening,

 

Responder is dealt a Game Forcing hand ~36.2% of the time

A semi-positive hand approximately 45% of the time

A double negative approximate 18.8% of the time

 

From my perspective, using a 1♦ response to show either a semi-positive OR a double negative means that I'll be responding 1♦ on close to 2/3rds of all bids. Trust me when I say that this presents certain problems. The rebid structure over 1♣ - 1♦ needs to be extremely complicated and the system is much more vulnerable to preemption.

 

Playing this structure, the responder is immediately able to clarify range. The strong club opener is also immediately aware whether or not responder holds an invitational hand with a 5 card major. This makes competitive bidding MUCH easier.

 

For anyone who cares, here is the conditional probability for each hand type opposite a strong club opening

 

1♦ = Game force, denies 5440 shape 35.2%

1♥ = Semi positive, denies a unbalanced hand with a 5 card major 33%

1♠ = Double Negative 18.8%

1N = Semi positive, Unbalanced with 5 Hearts 4%

2♣ = Semi positive, 5+ Spades and (4 Clubs or 4 Hearts) 2.9%

2♦ = Semi-positive with 5+ Spades and 4 Diamonds 1.4%

2♥ = Semi-positive with 6 Hearts 1.9%

2♠ = semi-positive with 6 Spades 1.9%

2N = Game forcing 5440, major suit void .24%

3♣ = Any 7 card suit to the AKQxxxx .3%

3♦ = Game forcing 5440, Diamond void .12%

3♥ = Game forcing 4=4=5=0 shape .04%

3♠ = Game forcing 4=5=4=0 shape .04%

3NT = Game forcing 5=4=4=0 shape .04%

 

Then again, it could be that I'm somewhat biased since the 1♣ - 1♦ GF, 1♣-1♦ -1♠+ reverse relay and 1♣ - 1♠ double negative is one of my few "real" contributions to MOSCITO...

[Chamaco]

Here is something to consider....

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♦ - (bid)

?

 

An interesting question becomes what should a bid by opener be? I like to play a bid is "weak" competitive, and pass is "forcing". The use of double here is optional. It can be a super penalty double (psyche exposing), or it can be something else.

Hi Ben,

similarly to the point you raise,

I have a question on the sequence:

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦ - (bid)

?

 

 

So basically the question is:

after responder to the big club has made a positive response and RHO bids, what should these mean ?

 

1) pass

2) double

3) new suit

4) jump shift

5) cuebid

6) jump cue

 

7) I assume raise/jump raise has the same meaning as without intervention, e.g. simple raise may be a TAB in Wei's Precison. Is that right ?

 

8) I also assume that after a 1NT bid by responder (assuming 1NT is natural balanced 8+, an ugly treatment I know, but let's not start the discussion on this point )- as opposed to a positive SUIT response - double would be penalty. Is that right ?

 

Thanks ! B)

[mikestar]

Here is something to consider....

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦ - (bid)

?

 

 

So basically the question is:

after responder to the big club has made a positive response and RHO bids, what should these mean ?

 

1) pass

2) double

3) new suit

4) jump shift

5) cuebid

6) jump cue

 

7)  I assume raise/jump raise has the same meaning as without intervention, e.g. simple raise may be a TAB in Wei's Precison. Is that right ?

 

8) I also assume that after a 1NT bid by responder (assuming 1NT is natural balanced 8+, an ugly treatment I know, but let's not start the discussion on this point )- as opposed to a positive SUIT response - double would be penalty. Is that right ?

 

 

1) As we are in a GF auction, pass is forcing.

2) Double is always for penalties--with a takeout double type hand, we pass.

3) New suit would be a decent 5 card or longer suit.

4) Jump shift could be an asking bid if you use it that way without intervention. Might be used to show a solid suit and some slam interest.

5) Cuebid is probably best used to show a two-suiter a la Michaels.

6) Jump cue (if below 3N), a command to partner to bid 3N with a stopper.

7) It's playable, but you may want to make some changes over higher level intervention.

8) See #2.

[whereagles]

The natural semipositive responses scheme isn't new. In fact, it was the original precision scheme after the strong club got overcalled by 2nd. It so happens that this only works well when overcalls are sound (responder is likely to be weakish then). Since these days people overcall strong clubs on nothing, most precision pairs went away from the original scheme and bid game forcing hands naturally now.

 

hrothgar's proposal is nothing more than playing the semipositive scheme, even without overcall. I agree semipositive responses makes competitive bidding much easier, but that's just one side of the story. The big advantage of the strong club opening is to be able to bid your games and slams accurately, not your part-scores.

 

By adopting a semipositive response scheme, you're making it much easier for opponents to obstruct you, consequently losing much of the advantage of playing a strong club. I don't believe this is a winning strategy.

[mishovnbg]

This is from my NTC version of precision:

 

1♣-(p)-?

 

1♦: 0-4 or 5-7 without 4M

1♥: 5+, 4+♠

1♠: 5+, 4+♥

1NT: 5+, 4+♥-4+♠

2♣: 8+, bal or bad hand with minors

2♦: 0-4, 6+♥ or 8+, 5+♥ unbalanced

2♥: 0-4, 6+♠ or 8+, 5+♠ unbalanced

2♠: 8+, 5+♣ unbalanced, on 2NT relay like above bids with ♦

2NT: 8+, 5+♣-5+♦

3♣: 8+, 6+♦

3♦: 8+, 6+♦-4+♣

3♥: 8+, singleton/void♥, 5+♦-4+♣-3♠

3♠: 8+, singleton/void♠, 5+♦-4+♣-3♥

3NT,4♣,4♦,4♥: transfer for solid suit

 

Note: Depend of strength of 1♣ opening, responses can be corrected

 

Intervention:

 

RHO after semipositive+: Garozzo 2/3 double, pass is for penalty or take out

 

RHO after negative: std overcall structure, dbl is 2 zone of bal hand or opps suit with 2+ zone, pass is 1 zone of bal hand or trap pass with same zone

 

LHO nat or nebulous bid: std overcall stucture with semipositive hand; dbl include 8+ with bal or semi bal hand(optional); cue bid show 8+ with shortness in overcall

 

LHO 2 suited bid: UVU

 

LHO alternative bid: use 1 suted hand as base of bidding.

 

Misho

[the hog]

"By adopting a semipositive response scheme, you're making it much easier for opponents to obstruct you, consequently losing much of the advantage of playing a strong club. I don't believe this is a winning strategy. "

 

You have responded by paying no attention to Richard's table of frequency at all. What is your experience in playing this structure, incidentally?

[hrothgar]

The big advantage of the strong club opening is to be able to bid your games and slams accurately, not your part-scores.

Anyone who believes this doesn't understand Strong Club systems.

 

The "big advantage" of a Strong Club openings is the negative inferences available when you open something other than 1♣. Strong Club systems are designed from the ground up arround the light and limited constructive opening structure. The 1♣ opening is a necessary evil that we tolerate.

 

My goal in designing the 1♣ structure is to minimize the systemic loses.

In turn, this requires optimizing the structure for competitive part score auctions.

 

As I noted earlier, the conditional probability that we're dealt a game forcing hand opposite a strong club opening is only about 36%. Lets assume for the moment that bidding space opposite a strong club opening should be allocated using a Fibonacci sequence. Furthermore, I'll assume that our responses are going to be allocated along the interval [1D - 3N] (Sorry about the formating)

 

Bid Number Percentage

3N 1 .1%

3S 1 .1%

3H 2 .2%

3D 3 .3%

3C 5 .5%

2N 8 .8%

2S 13 1.3%

2H 21 2.1%

2D 34 3.4%

2C 55 5.6%

1N 89 9.0%

1S 144 14.6%

1H 233 23.6%

1D 377 38.2%

Total

986

 

This suggests that the 1D response should be used to describe about 38% of all hands. Using this bid to show either a semi-positive or a double negative is extremely inefficient. Please note: I used the Fibonacci sequence as a simplifying assumption. If we include the possibility of competitive bidding, it flattens the frequency distribution. The 1D response should be even less frequent.

 

With this said and done, the 1♣ - 1♦ artifical game force does not significantly hurt our constructive bidding. I certainly agree that this structure gives the opponents the opportunity to throw in a cheap overcall after 1♣ - 1♦. At the same time, if the opponents bid at the one level, we don't lose bidding. If the opponents bid at the two level, then they are sandwiched between two strong hands with a clearly established game force. This isn't always a good thing.

[Chamaco]

Here is something to consider....

 

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦ - (bid)

?

 

 

So basically the question is:

after responder to the big club has made a positive response and RHO bids, what should these mean ?

 

1) pass

2) double

3) new suit

4) jump shift

5) cuebid

6) jump cue

 

7)   I assume raise/jump raise has the same meaning as without intervention, e.g. simple raise may be a TAB in Wei's Precison. Is that right ?

 

8) I also assume that after a 1NT bid by responder (assuming 1NT is natural balanced 8+, an ugly treatment I know, but let's not start the discussion on this point )- as opposed to a positive SUIT response - double would be penalty. Is that right ?

 

 

1) As we are in a GF auction, pass is forcing.

2) Double is always for penalties--with a takeout double type hand, we pass.

3) New suit would be a decent 5 card or longer suit.

4) Jump shift could be an asking bid if you use it that way without intervention. Might be used to show a solid suit and some slam interest.

5) Cuebid is probably best used to show a two-suiter a la Michaels.

6) Jump cue (if below 3N), a command to partner to bid 3N with a stopper.

7) It's playable, but you may want to make some changes over higher level intervention.

8) See #2.

1) pass - FORCING

This is straightforward, and even myself could figure that :angry:

But is it forcing in which way ?

- minimum hand or may be 19+ ?

- always balanced or can be unbalanced ?

- does it suggest or reject penalty (linked to 2) ?

 

 

2) double - PENALTY

Simple enough, but I have some uncertainties on the suggestion that with a T/o type hand we pass. Se doubts in other points.

 

 

3) new suit= a decent 5 card or longer suit.

This is also strightforward, but which strength does it imply ?

Does new suit show only shape or hcp range ?

The difference between new suit immediately and PASS(for takeout as u suggested)+ new suit at later round ?

 

Thanks !! :angry:

[whereagles]

Hog: you have no right to accuse me of not having read someone else's post.

 

hrothgar:

 

> "Anyone who believes this doesn't understand Strong Club systems."

 

That's a rather dogmatic accusation as well. I guess people who developed bidding tools, like asking bids, relay schemes and all that didn't understand a thing of strong club systems?

 

In any case, while your effort to maximize bidding efficiency after a strong club is commendable, you must realize bridge is a game where tactical considerations play a big role. You cannot forget that

 

1. Bidding accurately to the correct game or slam is worth more IMPS than a bunch of impeccably bid part-scores.

 

2. Opponents are aching to disrupt your bidding. When a game is on, it's 10 IMPS that are at stake. You already lost time by opening a strong club, so now so you must start bidding suits as soon as possible.

[Free]

1. Bidding accurately to the correct game or slam is worth more IMPS than a bunch of impeccably bid part-scores.

 

2. Opponents are aching to disrupt your bidding. When a game is on, it's 10 IMPS that are at stake. You already lost time by opening a strong club, so now so you must start bidding suits as soon as possible.

1. what's the frequency of slams opposite part scores? I think if you score -200 every time you're in a wrong partscore, you'll lose a lot more than when you miss a slam now and then. Btw, the response structure does find the slams...

 

2. isn't this exactly what we are doing?? Frequency of semi-positives is high, and game is on in many cases. When GF, opps can intervene but take a huge risk getting slaughtered. What happens when opps intervene after 1♣-p-1♦ negative? You don't find your 4M as easy as this scheme does, because you lose time with 1♣, and you lose even more time by bidding 1♦ 60% of the time. :angry:

[hrothgar]

>That's a rather dogmatic accusation as well. I guess people who developed >bidding tools, like asking bids, relay schemes and all that didn't understand a >thing of strong club systems?

 

Take a look at a modern strong club system like MOSCITO or some of the Precision variants. Auctions like 1M - 4M or 1M - 2M are the bread and butter of these systems. Asking bids, relay sequences and the like just don't come up that often. (From my perspective, the less often that they come up, the better my score is going to be)

 

Case in point, playing MOSCITO the ONLY reason that we use relays after 1M openings is to free up other bids for the "constructive" response structure.

 

>1. Bidding accurately to the correct game or slam is worth more IMPS than a

>bunch of impeccably bid part-scores.

 

Who says I want "impeccably" bid part scores, or even impeccably bid games.

My goal is to blast to an acceptable contract as quickly as possible and force the last guess on the opponents.

 

With this said and done, part score swings really add up over time.

[whereagles]

Free:

 

1. There are many satisfactory ways to bid after 1♣-1♦ (negative 0-7). I really don't think you're going -200 every time this happens.

 

2. When opps intervene after 1♣ (p) 1♦ (game-force), you run a serious risk of misguessing your strain and lose 10 imps. That's worth 2-3 well-bid part scores, and about 15 or so normal part-scores that you would have reached anyway playing standard methods.

 

The risk of opps getting caught is overrated. Misfits happen only about 25% of the time, and even then you don't always manage to diagnose it and penalize the opponents.

 

 

hrothgar:

 

1. We're not talking 1M-4M or 1M-2M here. We're talking 1♣ (p) ??

 

2. To blast to an acceptable contract when it rates to be your side's hand doesn't sound good strategy to me. That's the sort of thing you do when it's the opponents' hand.

 

 

Finally, I have expressed my PERSONAL opinion on the subject of responses to a strong club because, and only because, I was invited to do it by the original poster. I can do without derrogatory and dogmatic statements.

[Atul]

Free:

 

1. There are many satisfactory ways to bid after 1♣-1♦ (negative 0-7). I really don't think you're going -200 every time this happens.

 

2. When opps intervene after 1♣ (p) 1♦ (game-force), you run a serious risk of misguessing your strain and lose 10 imps. That's worth 2-3 well-bid part scores, and about 15 or so normal part-scores that you would have reached anyway playing standard methods.

 

The risk of opps getting caught is overrated. Misfits happen only about 25% of the time, and even then you don't always manage to diagnose it and penalize the opponents.

 

 

hrothgar:

 

1. We're not talking 1M-4M or 1M-2M here. We're talking 1♣ (p) ??

 

2. To blast to an acceptable contract when it rates to be your side's hand doesn't sound good strategy to me. That's the sort of thing you do when it's the opponents' hand.

 

 

Finally, I have expressed my PERSONAL opinion on the subject of responses to a strong club because, and only because, I was invited to do it by the original poster. I can do without derrogatory and dogmatic statements.

Well, I too am a fan of the 1D positive / many SP responses scheme over 1C and what you seem to be suggesting that this structure is for some reason inferior to the traditional 1C - 1D structure because it's susceptible to inference by the opps.

 

Do you have any data to support this conjecture?

 

From a purely statistical viewpoint, the 1D response constitutes only 38% of all of responder's hands. Therefore, for this scheme to lose, the opps must be able to effectively interfere at a level that prevents us from reaching our own game or forces us to guess too high.

 

Can you post some hands and the vulnerability where you deem this possible and maybe someone can run a dealer script to compute the likely frequency of this happening?

 

Atul

[mikestar]

I'll give you guys a good laugh. This is what my favoriter partner and I used at the club level 10-15 yeras ago.

 

In response to a 17+ big club:

 

1D = 0-7

1H/1S = 8+ GF, 4+ cards

1N = 8+ GF balanced, no 4 card major

2C/2D 8+ GF, 5+ suit unbalanced, no 4 card major.

2H/2S/3C/3D = GF, solid suit

2N = GF, 5-5 or better minors, extra values.

 

Over LHO's intervention:

 

P = 0-4

X or XX = 5-7

Bid of anchor suit=GF takeout

All others natural and GF.

 

But if the intervention had two known suits:

X or XX = penalty

Cheaper anchor suit =5-7

More expensive anchor suit = GF takeout.

All others natural and GF.

 

 

Over RHO's intervention over 1D response:

X = takeout

P = balanced minimum

All others natural, jumps are forcing.

 

Over RHO's intervention over a positive:

X = penalty

P = forcing.

All others natural, jumps are excellent suit and extras.

[Rado]

Hi all friends,

Have asked several times in different trends, why some are quoting MOSCITO in every post of them but still nobody announced some good major international MOSCITO success?

Many systems look quite well on paper, but life is another story.

Regards, Rado

[the hog]

I won't accuse you of not having read Richard's post if you address the issues he raised in his response - something you conveniently chose to ignore.

 

"Finally, I have expressed my PERSONAL opinion on the subject of responses to a strong club "

 

Then don't make dogmatic assertions which are not supported by any evidence apart from conjecture. Strong international players have used these methods with success while playing for their country. If you want to argue a case, produce statistics or simulations or examples from major championships which support your claims. Can you produce any hands from the 2003 Far Eastern where this method was last played? How many times did the auction 1C 1D (?)

pre empt the clubbers out of their correct contract?

 

Furthermore, don't tell me the auction 1C (3M) X is easier to cope with than

1C (P) 1D (3M). At least in the second auction I know we are in a GF situation. The semi positive responses have full relays which get you to good games/slams if the combined strength/shape is there. In other cases the semi positives provide a huge bulwark against pre emption. How much better off am I when I KNOW my pd has 5-8 with 5S in response to my bid C, rather than 1C (P) 1D (3H), where I know my pd has 0-8 with anything?

[hrothgar]

Hi all friends,

Have asked several times in different trends, why some are quoting MOSCITO in every post of them but still nobody announced some good major international MOSCITO success?

Many systems look quite well on paper, but life is another story.

Regards, Rado

We'll there's Marston and Burgess...

They've had some degree of success through the years.

 

With this said and done, from what I can tell use of adoption of bidding systems is more related to geography and language groupings than anything else.

 

Consider the following:

 

The French and the Poles are two of the strongest bridge playing nations in Europe. The methods used by these two countries are very different. The most popular methods used in Britain are far removed from either of these. If people were really interested in searching out the "best" methods, one would expect that Poland would look like France which would look like Britain. I'm not suggesting that a single bidding system would be adopted universally, but rather that the population of bidding systems that one encountered in a Polish tournament would look like that used in Britain, France, etc.

 

The fact that this hasn't happened suggests that for whatever reason, people don't seem inclined to change. Given that the systems aren't spreading much within Europe, I don't find it particularly surprising that a set of methods that evolved in Australia haven't been adopted in oher parts of the world.

 

Equally significant, MOSCITO is banned outright by several Zonal authorities. Here in the US, the ACBL conventions committee refuses to approve any defenses to the methods. This might explain why relatively few pairs are using the methods on this side of the pond. The same holds true in Britain. I'm told that the system regulations in France are fairly restrictive as well.

[the hog]

Rado,

You comment is a bit odd, as these methods are disallowed in practically all events in the US and in many European countries. Why would anyone play a system the can't play in most Open competitions?

 

Anyway, to quote Richard:

"We'll there's Marston and Burgess...

They've had some degree of success through the years."

 

Marston and Burgess have had excellent results in the Cavendish. They also took, as the anchor pair - Australia to the last 4 in the BB- best ever result. They have also had a lot of other success internationally - Far Easts, etc. Not bad for a country that has only a small no of bridge players. In their heyday, they were regarded as one of the stronger pairs in the world.

 

Also Hans and Marston have done well playing this in the Far East - won the pairs.

 

Also it has had a lot of success nationally. Further, Ron Klinger, who does NOT play this, but plays a similar system, (big C, transfer openings), is winning a lot at the moment.

[Free]

Finally, I have expressed my PERSONAL opinion on the subject of responses to a strong club because, and only because, I was invited to do it by the original poster. I can do without derrogatory and dogmatic statements.

I accept that you have a personal oppinion about something, but I didn't ask for specific opinions. I asked what your favorite answers are, and most important HOW you deal with intervention. However, you didn't give us ANY sollutions, any way you deal with intervention, but you only gave negative comment on a structure some people use, which has been proven to be succesfull by playing it.

 

What's YOUR favorite structure and how do YOU deal with intervention??? This was meant as a constructive post, and I'd like everybody's habbits on the subject.

 

Same goes for Rado, since his post had nothing to do with the topic subject. This isn't meant as a thread about MOSCITO, just about every big ♣ opening. Too bad only MOSCITO players respond (and Misho and Mikestar - tnx)...