Blue Team Club

[Balrog49]

Here's one of the strangest situations I've ever found myself in playing Blue Team Club. It was a regional Flight A Swiss against a top seed.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqt32hk8dk832ct&w=sj987654ha93dck43&n=shjt762dqt95caq96&e=shq54daj764cj8752&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1s2hp4h4sdppp]399|300|2♥ was not forcing

X showed a preference for bidding rather than defending[/hv]

I had no idea what to do. I tanked for a while and bid 4♥, hoping partner had a good six-card suit. I didn't realize that the opponents would assume I had a reverse with diamonds and hearts, not diamonds and spades! We collected 800 at our table (dropped a trick) and 50 at the other table when declarer went down in 3♠.

 

I wasn't thrilled with partner's 2♥ "negative free bid." I would have doubled, leading to a very different result. Fortunately, we were playing "high-tech" doubles in forcing pass situations in which the meanings of pass and double are reversed.

 

Oddly enough, the only makable game our way is 3NT. In retrospect, it would have been a reasonable decision, even with a club void.

[dick payne]

I started playing Blue Club when Reese's book came out and have been playing it ever since. Over 45 years a system does not remain static. All systems have their strength and weaknesses. If there is something that Acol does better than Blue Club why not use it? People are agonising what to do with 5-4 in the majors, Acol has no problem. The 13-17 no trump was mind bogglingly clever with its intricate 2C and 2D responses. That was until you had picked up a few 8-9 counts (not a surprising hand for responder to hold) and done the wrong thing. Then you began to realise that you were being outbid by a simple Acol no trump. The 2C bid was another horror Kxx / x / xxx / AKJxxx and AJxxx / x / x AKQxxx were both 2C bids If responder held four spades to Axxx or Kxxx the first hand wants to play in 2C and the second in 4S.

For about eight years I refused to change anything from the Blue Club book. Everyone wants to paint some go faster stripes on his new car after he has had it for a couple of months. Personalising the system is almost de rigueur

[Balrog49]

I started playing Blue Club when Reese's book came out and have been playing it ever since. Over 45 years a system does not remain static. All systems have their strength and weaknesses. If there is something that Acol does better than Blue Club why not use it? People are agonising what to do with 5-4 in the majors, Acol has no problem. The 13-17 no trump was mind bogglingly clever with its intricate 2C and 2D responses. That was until you had picked up a few 8-9 counts (not a surprising hand for responder to hold) and done the wrong thing. Then you began to realise that you were being outbid by a simple Acol no trump. The 2C bid was another horror Kxx / x / xxx / AKJxxx and AJxxx / x / x AKQxxx were both 2C bids If responder held four spades to Axxx or Kxxx the first hand wants to play in 2C and the second in 4S.

For about eight years I refused to change anything from the Blue Club book. Everyone wants to paint some go faster stripes on his new car after he has had it for a couple of months. Personalising the system is almost de rigueur

Please describe how the Acol 1NT is different from the Standard American 1NT with non-forcing Stayman, Transfers, etc.

 

I've never had a problem with the Blue Team 13-17 notrump other than convincing people to play it, which I gave up a long time ago. Having a 1♦ opening guarantee three cards is nice but I'm happy give it up in order to play a notrump structure that everyone understands. In these days of the nebulous 1♦, which some people play as a possible void, who really cares whether or not 1♦ can be 3-3-2-5 once in a blue moon?

 

And I've never had a problem with the 2♣ opener. In fact, the auction 2♣-2♦-any-4♣ (forcing to 5♣ or slam) often results in slam swings on hands where the natural bidders stop in 3NT. 2♣ also has a preemptive effect. Responding to 2♣ is an area where the World Championship books provide great examples.

 

A few awkward auctions occur when opener has something like ♠Kxxx ♥Ax ♦x ♣AJxxxx and the auction goes 1♠-2♦. You have to bid a space-consuming 3♣ and hope for the best.

 

Not meaning to pick nits, Terence Reese didn't write the "Blue Club" book. He "adapted" the Garozzo-Yallouze book, which was probably written in Italian. Leon Yallouze was a member of the famous "Omar Sharif Bridge Circus" team along with Garozzo, Belladonna, and Claude Delmouly.

[johnu]

Personalising the system is almost de rigueur

 

The core of the system is still world class, but after 50 years, some of the treatments have seen better days for sure.

 

Some things I consider almost mandatory to change to have a competitive system these days:

 

• Responder canapes - Preempts your own bidding, opener's rebid can mess up your planned reverse, IMO no reason why you shouldn't bid your longest suit first.
  
• Wide range 1NT opening (a weak NT with clubs only or a strong NT) - What were they thinking when they put that into the system? You could switch to strong only NT, or weak NT's.
  
• 2♦ 17-24 4441 hands - Very complex system of responses for a less than .2% chance you'll be able to open. Comes up once in a blue moon, good chance of a system forget, could be used for a much more common opening bid. 1♣ should take care of almost all of these hands.
  
• 3♣ opening bid showing opening bid and very strong clubs - Open 2♣ or 1♣ if top of range.
  
• 2/1 responses - I recommend game forcing 2/1 responses instead of the nonforcing responder rebids of the suit or 2NT.
  
• Change the 2NT response to a forcing raise (e.g. Jacoby 2NT)
  
• Change to semi-forcing 1NT response to 1 of a major
  
• 
  

 

Anybody have other favorite changes?

[dick payne]

Johnu makes the point that one must appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of Blue club and give a lot of thought to such weaknesses as are bound to occur. That is the point. Not everyone will agree as to what those changes should be. For example transfers in response to 1M are about 57 times better than Jacoby, I have given a glimpse of these elsewhere on this site. According to the cognoscenti these can only be used if RHO doubles 1M. I hope their opponents are more obliging than mine

[dick payne]

Mingoni

People speak highly of the Italian Blue team book. If you see a book with an author you know and a second author that you have never heard of you can bet your bottom dollar that it was the unknown who wrote it and the expert card player may or may not have checked it carefully, Bertie Bloggs may or may not be a good theoretician. When I read Vernes’ “levees totales” and wrote my “TNT” in English. I sent it to Reese knowing that if he liked it he would publish it under his own name and perhaps offer me 10% of the proceeds. He did not go that far, he wanted me to pay him to read it

The “Sunday morning bus to West Kilburn” has the meaning that you can’t remember what you did the previous night and you don’t remember where you were, but you do know where you are going because it says that on the front of the bus. Italian cue bidding takes about twenty years to learn, and requires digging yourself out of dozens of elephant traps before you graduate.

In Reese’s book on the the Blue Club he alludes briefly to “ uneconomical cue bidding2 suggesting that this is something which the expert bidder might aspire to. Take my word for it, it is a recipe for total disaster

Mingoni has two excellent Sunday morning buses in his book

Kxx Axxx

Kxx Ax

Ax Kxx

AJxxx KQxx

1NT 2D

2NT 3C

4C 4D

4H 4S

5D 5H

5S 6C

Opener with his first three bids has shown 15 points with 3325 distribution. Thereafter we have cue bidding. Junior hand’s bid of 5D is suggesting a grand (partner is the boss) 5H CONFIRMS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GRAND. (partner is perfect and a grand has a snowball’s chance in hell This is not up for discussion as one might argue the merits of Flannery and Reverse Flannery. This is CARVED IN STONE.. If you do not understand or disagree go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go do not collect £200.

One could be forgiven for assuming that Mingoni has made a mistake. Let us be generous and look at his next example of a slam after a 1NT opening bid

Axx QJx

Kx AJxx

Kxxx Ax

AKxx QJxx

1NT 2D

3C 3D

3NT 4C

4D 4H

4S 5D

5H 6C

As before, and as always, junior hand has shown the boss what he has got. In this case up to 3NT he has shown 16-17 and two four card minors. The bid of 5D which forces the partnership to a small slam but does not bid it Is A GRAND SLAM TRY. If you do not believe it you have just landed on a snake and must start again.

It appears that the ethos of this website is to dismiss other people’s ideas as summarily as possible in order to mount one’s own hobby horse as quickly as possible. These examples are on pp 242,243 of Mingoni’s book. Judge for yourselves

[hrothgar]

 

 

Anybody have other favorite changes?

 

Playing MOSCITO instead

[Balrog49]

> Some things I consider almost mandatory to change to have a competitive system these days:

 

Two-over-over with four-card majors? Please.

 

What you're describing sounds a lot like modern Precision, which is essentially two-over-one over a five-card major. That's a competitive system but it's not Blue Team Club, even if you replace the responses to the Precision 1♣ with control responses.

 

> People speak highly of the Italian Blue team book. If you see a book with an author you know and a second author that you have never heard of you can bet your bottom dollar that it was the unknown who wrote it and the expert card player may or may not have checked it carefully...

 

I don't know anything about Enzo Mingoni but I think it's safe to assume that he was the editor or "ghost writer," who is a necessary participant in virtually all books ostensibly written by people who aren't writers and may not be able to write at all.

 

> It appears that the ethos of this website is to dismiss other people's ideas as summarily as possible in order to mount one's own hobby horse as quickly as possible.

 

I thought it was a discussion about Blue Team Club, not a discussion of ways to change Blue Team Club into something it's not. I think of the system as a 1969 Ferrari 312P. If you've never seen one, take a look at http://wall.alphacod...g.php?i=270549.

 

An original 312P wouldn't be able to compete with today's Le Mans prototypes. Of course there have been advances in automotive technology. You could modify the car to the point where it's competitive but it wouldn't be a 312P any more.

 

If I owned a 312P (fat chance), I'd keep it 100 per cent original because it's a work of art. If I intended to race the car, I'd replace some parts, but I wouldn't try to make it into an Audi R18.

 

As to Italian cue bidding, the historical record stands for itself. Read the World Championship books and you'll see how it actually worked. Yes, it required a great deal of situational logic, judgment, practice, and experience. That's an investment very few players are willing to make these days.

[johnu]

Playing MOSCITO instead

 

I thought you pretty much stopped playing because this wasn't a "legal" system :unsure:

[johnu]

> Some things I consider almost mandatory to change to have a competitive system these days:

 

Two-over-over with four-card majors? Please.

 

What you're describing sounds a lot like modern Precision, which is essentially two-over-one over a five-card major. That's a competitive system but it's not Blue Team Club, even if you replace the responses to the Precision 1♣ with control responses.

 

4 card majors and canape don't sound anything like Precision to me :)

 

Incorrect or not, I still call my system Blue Team Club, because it's too complicated to say Blue Team Club except for a).... b).... c)..... d)..... etc

 

If you think I've made changes, they seem mild compared to the changes to original BTC that Arturo Franco and Marco Pancotti have made to their version Franco-Pancotti Blue Team Club.

[nige1]

Mingoni

People speak highly of the Italian Blue team book. If you see a book with an author you know and a second author that you have never heard of you can bet your bottom dollar that it was the unknown who wrote it and the expert card player may or may not have checked it carefully, Bertie Bloggs may or may not be a good theoretician. When I read Vernes' "levees totales" and wrote my "TNT" in English. I sent it to Reese knowing that if he liked it he would publish it under his own name and perhaps offer me 10% of the proceeds. He did not go that far, he wanted me to pay him to read it

Presumably, Joe Amsbury was 2nd choice :) I learnt about total tricks from your excellent book. I hadn't heard of Segal before reading Segal and Robson's book but it impressed me. I haven't read Mingoni's effort and I'm prepared to take your word for it; but perhaps that book is an exception.

It appears that the ethos of this website is to dismiss other people’s ideas as summarily as possible in order to mount one’s own hobby horse as quickly as possible.

Most discussion-sites adopt that ethos :)

[dick payne]

Thank you nige1 for telling me that antipathy is the norm on this web site. Without that knowledge one could easily become discouraged

[dick payne]

Diamonds

If a Precision player tells you that he is quite happy that his 1D opening bid may hold 1-7 diamonds, there is nothing to be said, but one cannot help thinking that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King

I gave up opening two card diamond suits largely as a result of the following amusing specimen from the archives

Dealer North, E W vul Pairs scoring

 

652

K73

98

AKQ108

K7 AJ943

65 QJ984

1075432 AK6

J43 -

Q108

A102

QJ

97532

W N E S

1D 1S 1NT

Pass Pass 2H Pass

Pass 2NT 3H Dble

3S Pass Pass Dble

All pass

On an apparent misfit it is often good technique to lead a trump. If it loses a trick, that trick often comes back. I led a trump. Not in my wildest nightmares could I have imagined that the opponents would make 3Sx +2 with the aid of six tricks in partner’s “suit” It was not very amusing at the time

Your average common or garden expert is proficient in counting up to the magic figure of 25. But if he is playing an amorphous 1C or 1D he is floundering like a stranded fish if there is a minor suit slam. Learned treatises on Slam Bidding will contain 70% of slams in spades, 25% in hearts and the occasional carefully contrived oddity which comes to peaceful rest in six of a minor

My legal club system has 1D as 4+ diamonds. The response of 2D is forcing with primary support, a game or slam try, asking first for a shortage (Do not dismiss this with a knee jerk reaction. It is sound theory ) In my illegal variable forcing pass system progey of the same club system I have a natural club and a natural diamond bid. That takes a bit of doing. It requires a bit more imagination than the agony of deciding between Flannery and Reverse Flannery. On the assumption that it is improbable that people will be interested, I will refrain from the boring details

[glen]

... Not in my wildest nightmares could I have imagined that the opponents would make 3Sx +2 with the aid of six tricks in partner’s “suit” ...

It's important to realize that the modern Precision 1♦ nebulous opening is very often a weak notrump, and has no suit much like opening 1NT has no suit. See Meckwell Lite and other versions that are played by most of the top big club partnerships, your rhetoric (in the land of the blind, not in my wildest nightmares, floundering like a stranded fish) notwithstanding.

[dick payne]

Glen, I am sure you will know that 1D on a non-existent suit is common in Precision, because they play five card majors In Blue 1D on a doubleton is very rare. It has to be precisely 3325 distribution. Previously I would have apologised for my imaginative metaphor, but Nige1 has warned me that I must expect caustic comment

[straube]

Glen, I am sure you will know that 1D on a non-existent suit is common in Precision, because they play five card majors In Blue 1D on a doubleton is very rare. It has to be precisely 3325 distribution. Previously I would have apologised for my imaginative metaphor, but Nige1 has warned me that I must expect caustic comment

 

Are you agreeing with Glen's point? Which I think is that many top pairs successfully use the nebulous diamond? Glen was responding to...

 

If a Precision player tells you that he is quite happy that his 1D opening bid may hold 1-7 diamonds, there is nothing to be said, but one cannot help thinking that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King

 

which sounded rather dismissive.

 

We've had many discussions on whether 1D nebulous or natural is better and many of us have argued for one or the other, but to compare yourself to the one-eyed king (we nebulous diamond users being blind subjects I take it) would naturally attract a response.

 

In general, I think you've started off rather badly on this forum. You presented several of your ideas or methods, presented them as one might if he/she were writing a book (educating us in other words), found that they were for the most part rejected and then concluded that we are not open-minded and instead are "antipathic". What if the ideas you've presented so far are just not very good? Quite honestly that's how I feel.

 

You've already been criticized a bit by one of our most friendly and helpful posters who in fact had previously welcomed you good naturedly to the forum. I felt the same at the time but I didn't want to pile on.

 

So I rather expect a defensive reaction from you (because that's how these things generally go) and you can have the last word, but there's not much point to winning an argument if you don't change the other fellow's mind.

[dick payne]

I accept this criticism. It is fully justified. I suppose I bridled when someone dismissed 45 years of work in five lines. I apologise and will try to be less incisive in future. I accept that many of the people who prefer to be anonymous may be much better players and theoreticians than I am

Returning to technicalities page 6 of Reese's book. " xx / AQx /Axx / KJxxx Holding three fair diamonds, open 1D Qxx / K10x/ Kx / AJ10xx With all round strength and only two diamonds, open 1NT." We went further than that after more accidents and refrained from opening xxx in diamonds when partner led from Kx

I was not referring to myself as a one eyed King. I was referring to precision players, which of course I had no right to do. If there are world class players who play Precision, there must be advantage elsewhere in the system gained from opening a short diamond. That I cannot know, I know Precision but I have never played it

[straube]

I'm sorry I mistook your one-eyed king reference, and I'm glad that you received my other criticism well. I'm for starting over.

[glen]

Glen, I am sure you will know that 1D on a non-existent suit is common in Precision, because they play five card majors In Blue 1D on a doubleton is very rare. It has to be precisely 3325 distribution. Previously I would have apologised for my imaginative metaphor, but Nige1 has warned me that I must expect caustic comment

As already noted, I was replying to your comments on Precision (as you stated, "If a Precision player...").

 

In Blue (and Orange Club), 1♦ will be 3+ as one opens 1NT with "precisely 3325 distribution" and 13-14.

 

Some comments on the 13-17 1NT:

- styles that open 1NT with 3-3-3-4 exactly and 13-14 are misguided, as the flat shape should be downgraded, not upgraded into a mostly 15-17 1NT

- the 3-3-2-5 can be upgraded, but 12 counts should not be opened (see your example hand, 12 points)

- it is better to use a (13)14-16 1NT, with 13 being potential upgrades with a five card suit, including upgrading all 3-3-2-5 exactly (3-3-2-5 and 3-3-5-2 has the benefit of getting easily to a nice 5-3 major fit).

[Balrog49]

If you're referring to my posts, the only thing I'm guilty of is disagreeing with you.

 

> The 13-17 no trump was mind bogglingly clever with its intricate 2C and 2D responses

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. My partners and I found it easy to learn and play. Sure, it was a vastly over-engineered solution to a trivial problem (3-3-2-5) but the rules under which the Blue Team played in various Italian and other European tournaments may have required it.

 

> The 2C bid was another horror...

 

Again, I'm sorry but I disagree. Your opinion goes against the vast majority of people who have played the system. You may have had bad results from 2C openings but it's wrong to assume that anyone else had the same experience.

 

And you never answered the question "how the Acol 1NT is different from the Standard American 1NT with non-forcing Stayman, Transfers, etc."

 

> Mingoni... If you see a book with an author you know and a second author that you have never heard of you can bet your bottom dollar that it was the unknown who wrote it and the expert card player may or may not have checked it carefully.

 

Attributing the Italian Blue Team Bridge book to Enzo Mingoni is ridiculous. Why do you find it necessary to blow smoke at everyone?

 

> It appears that the ethos of this website is to dismiss other people’s ideas as summarily as possible...antipathy is the norm on this web site...

 

If you've ever been in a typical Usenet forum, you would know that the best way to provoke a flame attack on yourself is to whine when people disagree with you. These BBO forums are like a formal tea party in comparision.

[ArtK78]

Personally, I think that the 13-17 1NT opening of Blue Club was almost unplayable. And the 2♣ opening of Blue Club, while superior to that of Precision, is a weak point of the system.

 

I base my opinion on years of playing the system. With one partner, I played the 13-17 1NT as presented in the Reese book. With another partner, we ditched the 13-17 1NT entirely in favor of a more traditional strong NT opening, and opened 1♦ or 2♣ on the impossible 13-14 point hands as we deemed necessary.

 

Back when I used to play Precision (which was a LONG time ago), I used to hate having to open 2♣. I was always relieved when we arrived at a normal contract after that opening.

 

So I disagree with the assertion that bad experiences with 2♣ openings (Blue Club or Precision Club) are not consistent with the opinions of a vast majority of those who have played the system. In my personal experience, and from what I have heard from others whose opinions I respect, I find the 2♣ opening to be a problem bid.

[dick payne]

I am pleased That my apology, sincerely meant, has been largely accepted. The whole thing seems to have generated a rash of comment, which I suppose is to be welcomed.

I have always played a weak no trump and four card majors. In the present climate there is a huge weight of opinion in favour of a strong no trump and five card majors. I would be very interested to hear the argument in favour of this

[dick payne]

I am totally in agreement with ArtK78. This has been exactly my experience after playing Blue club for many years

[Balrog49]

I agree that a natural, limited 2♣ opening bid is a tradeoff and can be problematic in any strong club system. It's something you have to accept. But 2♣ has advantages as well and is not much of a handicap when played properly.

 

There's a big difference between what strong club system books say about 2♣ and how it's actually played by top experts. The books show you examples of easy situations, not difficult ones.

 

We all know that experience is the best teacher and that reading bridge books is important, but there are lessons that can be learned only by studying how the best players play and that's particularly true of Blue Team Club. Unfortunately, that can be costly in terms of time and effort.

 

There's not much material available these days unless you're really determined and dig for it. I wish the ACBL would republish the World Championship books from the 60s but that would not be profitable and thus will never happen.

 

There are however, collections of The Bridge World from that era that appear on the market now and then. Forquet's book "Bridge With the Blue Team" has some examples. And even the Bulletin has some.

 

Lastly, I stongly recommend kibbizing world-class players who play strong club systems. You can learn a lot.

[johnu]

And the 2♣ opening of Blue Club, while superior to that of Precision, is a weak point of the system.

 

I base my opinion on years of playing the system.

 

Superior is a slight understatement. There's no comparison between BTC 2♣ and Precision 2♣. When you take out minimum hands with a 4 card major and 5+ clubs by opening 1M, you can better afford to investigate other contracts because opener will have a maximum or 6+ clubs.

 

That being said, the standard BTC 2♦ relay system leaves a little to be desired because there aren't any bids to distinguish between a minimum and a maximum single suiter when trying to decide whether to go past 3♣.

 

Standard response system:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2NT                               Minimum or maximum with clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Minimum or maximum with clubs only, 1 outside stopper

 

with 3♦ asking for stopper locations. You may want to stop in 3♣ if opener has a minimum, but there's no way to tell.

 

 

My response system:

If opener has a maximum, the bidding would go:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2[hearts]                         Hearts or a maximum, clubs only hand
              2[spades]          Asking
2NT                               Maximum, clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Maximum, clubs only, 1 outside stopper
3[diamonds]                       Maximum, 4 hearts, diamond fragment
3[hearts]                         Maximum, 4 hearts, 2=4=2=5, do not stop spades and diamonds
3[spades]                         Maximum, 4 hearts, spade fragment
3NT                               Maximum, 4 hearts, 2=4=2=5  At least partial stoppers in spades and diamonds

or this way with a minimum:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2NT                               Minimum, clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Minimum, clubs only, 1 outside stopper