Blue Team Club

[wooey]

I played a version of Blue Club (modified for English tastes) for about 10 years. I have studied the books, and at the time thought that getting rid of the 13-17 1NT (in favour of a weak NT structure) and playing a more Precision-style 2c opener (with more elaborate relay structure) were improvements. After a hiatus of almost a decade, I was lucky to acquire a new partner who plays something very close to the original (but with a Precision-style 1c subsystem).

 

From this perspective, I find that the system as originally conceived has more internal consistency than our homebrew "improved" system. The wide-range NT causes little trouble in practice, and the restriction on 2c to be upper range when it contains a 4-card major tightens things up. One thing I find most refreshing about Blue Club is the small amount of conventional baggage that it carries - in stark contrast to a playable 2/1, for example. It is fun to play, works very well on distributional hands, and if I had to play a system that wasn't "anti-field" I would probably give up the game :)

 

--ian

[straube]

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

 

We're talking 4-cd majors within a strong club context I assume?

 

I don't know which is better, but I'm used to 5-cd majors and strong NT and some things I like about the former are...

 

1) 5-cd majors are less preemptive. This allows for better auctions for us (and admittedly our opponents) in many ways. There's sufficient room to relay out opener's entire shape if he promises 5 in the major. I don't think this can be done with 4-cd majors unless many hands are offloaded somewhere else. 5-cd majors provide an "anchor suit" which allows an 1N response to be forcing or semiforcing (contain GI strength) because there is such a likelihood of finding either tolerance (a 5-2 fit) or a better part score. The forcing or semiforcing NT allows for delayed invitations (2N, raise of second suit, jump in responder's suit, or delayed limit raise) which is not possible if 1M-1N shows something like 6-10.

 

2) 5-cd majors allow for easier raises with 3-cd support. Certainly you can always raise with 3, but it will be wrong more frequently.

 

3) 5-cd majors clarify auctions such as 1M-1N, 2m (i.e. which suit is longer) and allow for a false preference to the major which can give opener another chance to bid. Lack of clarity with 1M-1N, 2m (if that sequence doesn't specify which suit is longer) means that we can't make a false preference.

 

4) 4-cd majors induce or require 2/1s to be invitational+ such that responder is trying to describe his hand in a very preempted auction and without necessarily game forcing values. As a rule of thumb, I think it's best when one hand starts to describe shape to let that continue as much as is possible.

 

5) With relays it is really quite possible to open 1D with 0+ diamonds (or possibly 2+ diamonds) and show one's entire shape. Many here have discussed options of how to go about this (look up IMprecision for one) such that we don't have to miss those minor suit slams you were referencing. Imo 0+ diamonds is easiest for relays. If you're not inclined toward relays, then 2+ will probably serve you better.

 

6) If I want relays it makes the most sense to group all of my 5-cd majors into 1M because I have the room to do so and because it's easier for responder to respond when he's aware of that fifth card and can't relay. Were I instead to offload some of my 5-cd major hands into 2M preempts or whatever, I'd have a mix of 4M/5m, 6M, 5M332 etc that might well be "relayable" but would be something of a hodgepodge. I want pd to know of the 5th card right away. I'd also lose my 2M preempts.

 

and about the latter...

 

1) strong NTs get a fairly good hand off my chest. If I open 1D with 14-16 (my strong NT range) and the opponents get in the way my hand is not strong enough to do much but I will regret not doing anything either. We might miss game. If I open a nebulous diamond (containing my weak NT) it allows them an easier entry into the auction but I don't feel like I'm being robbed of anything if partner can't act.

 

2) opening 1D with the weak NT range allows me to find 4-4 major suit fits without getting too high. With 1D weak and 1N strong both support fit-finding in proportion to their offered strength.

 

In sum, I think 4-cd majors and weak no trumps are slight overbids which tend to impair our constructive auctions while simultaneously preempting the opponents as well. So it's really hard to judge who is hurt most by these overbids. I'd guess you'd find a lot of support on the forum for 5-cd majors and strong NT because so many folks are just used to playing these (especially in North America) and because this is a forum for artificial systems and 5-cd majors are arguably more conducive to relays.

[dick payne]

I take on board all of Straube's arguments for five card majors. If I were to say just one thing in favour of four card majors it would be this. In a competitive auction it is the first side to find their fit that has the advantage. If a side does not find its fit it may lose the board. A good example of this is Wagner, legal in the States and only recently legalised this side of the pond. 2D shows a weak two in either major NOTHING ELSE If responder has four cards in both majors with either a jolly good hand or a load of tram tickets he bids 4D if he wants partner to play the hand, or 4C if he has tenaces and likes the idea of the known hand going down in dummy. This is sound TNT theory. Imagine fourth hand's plight, his side could have more or less any total point count and could have a fit in any one of FOUR suits. I feel that such methods should not be used in the lower echelons of the game just as VFP should be allowed amongst serious players of a better standard.(No weak player has ever objected to playing against VFP, it is not destructive as many modern conventions are (Sorry hobby horse)

If it is so essential to get a natural suit in as quickly as possible, particularly in the majors it seems sensible to bid four and five card majors

 

With regard to a Blue style 2C bid and A Precision style 2C, Blue always believed that it was more essential to introduce a four card major rather than a five card minor into the auction. In reply to a Precision 2C the average responding hand will be about 9-10 points with a four card major and probably a doubleton club. You could be wrong to bid and wrong to pass, which, of course, was the fault in a 13-17 no trump, however kaleidoscopic the continuations might be. Oops sorry! Delete kaleidoscopic and replace it with "well worked out"

My 2C bid is as follows:- With 6-4 choose between 1M and 2C according to the comparative strength of the two suits. 2C denies a four card major shows a six card club suit,and the responses are transfers. 2D is a transfer to hearts opener bids 2H if he would have passed a non forcing Blue Club 2H bid. Other rebids show stronger hands to taste In all sequences if you can incorporate shortage showing bid and splinters you will be ahead of the field. If you bid a new suit over a transfer such as 1H 1NT(clubs) 2D you show five hearts four diamonds and three clubs (and of course a shortage in the unbid suit) By analogy 2C 2D(hearts) 2S shows a shortage in diamonds(repeat cue a void) This 2S bid will normally show a fragment in spades but of course opener could be 2317.

All, but all, jumps are splinters unless defined otherwise( 1D 2S weak two) In the sequence 1H 1S 3m etc 3m game try with primary spade support and shortage in that minor. (you can bid games on combined 22 counts and stay out of games with the magic 25 when you kave KQx or KJx opposite a singletont Of course you cannot do this in Acol or SAYC, but you wouldn't be reading this if you were an acolyte

[rhm]

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

Having made similar experience, I at least enjoy your witty rhetoric. I could live without the "political correctness brigade"

 

With regard to five card versus four card majors are you really interested?

So much has been written about this debate already and at least at the top level it is my impression that four card majors are getting almost extinct.

The same holds true about weak versus strong notrump debate, though weak notrump is certainly not in danger of getting extinct.

 

But since you asked here is just one reference

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/37425-this-is-why-we-play-strong-nt/

 

I found the comments made by Fred Gitelman of particular interest.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[chasetb]

4-card Majors at the top level seems to be non-existant. I know van Prooijen-Verhees use a canape-style Precision, while Helness-Helgemo play 1♠ as usually 5 and 1♥ as 4. In Building a Bidding System, Roy Hughes argued that 4-card Majors are more pre-emptive and better for contested auctions, while 5-card Majors were more constructive and better for bidding and slam auctions.

 

I don't know where I read it, but I know in some bidding book it said that 4-card Majors are best suited for Strong NTs, while 5-card Majors were best for Weak NTs. I have no experience with that though, and I don't honestly remember if that just applied to our auctions, or if it included contested auctions.

[glen]

Having made similar experience, I at least enjoy your witty rhetoric.

As the poster who first mentioned "rhetoric", I should mentioned that I also found it entertaining, and there is certainly no reason to stop doing it.

 

To five/four card majors, current theory (which might be wrong) is that it is hard to judge competitive auctions when openings have a mix of high frequency balanced and unbalanced hand types.

 

Thus, according to the theory, the problem with the Blue Team major suit openings are not four or five card majors, but that the four card major openings can often be balanced, and in this case minimum opening values.

[johnu]

To five/four card majors, current theory (which might be wrong) is that it is hard to judge competitive auctions when openings have a mix of high frequency balanced and unbalanced hand types.

 

Thus, according to the theory, the problem with the Blue Team major suit openings are not four or five card majors, but that the four card major openings can often be balanced, and in this case minimum opening values.

 

Just curious as to who is coming up with these theories and where can I read them?

 

As to the general question about why 4 card majors are not played by many top players (what about ACOL which uses 4 card majors, or have the top players abandoned ACOL?), that has more to do with the current popularity of 2/1 GF systems, and to a much lesser extent Precision which is based on 5 card majors. Blue Team Club is a very unfamiliar system for those who have only played 5 card majors and the Blue Team specific canape concepts are downright strange until you get the gist of what they are trying to accomplish.

[Balrog49]

Here's a hand that Garozzo and Forquet bid in a Challenge the Champs contest. You are Forquet (responder).

[hv=pc=n&e=saq832hj85daqtca8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dp2cp2dp2sp3sp4dp4hp4np5cp]133|200[/hv]

When opener bids 5♣, you can count 12 tricks off the top, barring bad splits: five spades, five diamonds, and two clubs. Opener has shown a heart control but is it first or second round control?

 

I would bid 5♦ hoping opener will bid 5♥. A repeat cue bid guarantees first round control. But Forquet bid 5NT and the auction proceeded 6♠ - 7♠. So what was 5NT?

 

General grand slam try? I don't think so because Garozzo would bid 5♥.

 

Grand slam force? Maybe. The Italian version of the grand slam force (aka "Josephine") works like this:

 

If spades will be trump:

with J or less, partner bids 6♣

with the Q, partner bids 6♦

with the A or K and less than five cards, he bids 6♥

with the A or K and at least five cards, he bids 6♠

with AK, KQ, or AQ he bids 7♠

 

Garozzo couldn't have had five spades, but perhaps the responses are different when the 5NT bidder has the long trump holding. Here's the full layout:

[hv=pc=n&w=skt9hadk9542ck743&e=saq832hj85daqtca8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dp2cp2dp2sp3sp4dp4hp4np5cp5np6sp7sppp]266|200[/hv]

7♠ was the best contract, of course. Has anyone had a similar auction?

[glen]

Just curious as to who is coming up with these theories and where can I read them?

For this particular theory, a lot of the discussion has been around whether one diamond should be unbalanced or not, and some discussion in a big club context whether one diamond should be only quasi-balanced (a style I played over 3 decades ago), and shapely minor hands open 2 of a minor. For example KRex wrote about it in 2008, about a system he had played for 20 years:

 

http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.ca/2008/01/unbalanced-diamond-opening.html

 

However note that KRex in his Modified Italian Canape System has balanced hands in his major openings (on a technical note he should flip the ranges, having a major in the weak notrump only when minimum, and opening 1H/S when 13-14, not 11-12, this would be Modified Modified Italian Canape System until his lawsuit)

 

Miles wrote about in My System, The Unbalanced Diamond, in his conversational style, and a summary/experience is here:

 

http://web.mit.edu/mitdlbc/www/articles/Unbalanced_Diamond.pdf

 

There was debate about the Polish club versions, such as changes between WJ2000 and WJ2005, and when balanced hands should opening 1♦

 

Likewise a discussion of the Fantunes system, where 1NT handles all minimum balanced hands, included 5-4-2-2s with a five card major and a four card minor

 

The Auken-Welland system (quick guess to what country they are now playing for), based on Roy's partnership with Fallenius, and Swedish bridge ideas, focused on the one club opening being most often balanced or close to it.

[straube]

I don't really like the idea of 1D being natural and unbalanced because the frequency for this is pretty low considering that 1D is your second most important opening bid. I was curious, however, how Miles' diamond faired because it promises an unbalanced hand that contains at least one four+ minor suit (so could be void diamonds). I ran 100 opening hands and here is the tally...

 

1C...17

1D...26

1H...16

1S....24

1N...12

2C....3

2D....2

 

so looks pretty good to me. I would personally rather separate the 6-cd minor openings from 1D so something like....

 

1C-15+

1D-3-suited or both minors

1H-5H

1S-5S

1N-12-14

2C-6C

2D-6D

 

Does this resemble Zelandakh's system?

[glen]

1C-15+

1D-3-suited or both minors

1H-5H

1S-5S

1N-12-14

2C-6C

2D-6D

what we played over three decades ago:

1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal

1D-3-suited or both minors or 15-16 bal

1H-5H

1S-5S

1N-(11)12-14

2C-6C

2D-6D

[straube]

what we played over three decades ago:

1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal

1D-3-suited or both minors or 15-16 bal

1H-5H

1S-5S

1N-(11)12-14

2C-6C

2D-6D

 

Looks like Adam's system except for the inversion of the strong and weak NT. Ours is

 

1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal

1D-weak NT, 3-suited, 4M/6D, minors

1H-5H

1S-5S

1N-14-16

2C-6C, not 4H

2D-6D, no major

2N-6C/4H

[dick payne]

there have been comments with regard to distinguishing between distributional hands and quasi-balanced hands at the first bid. I have never heard of this at the one level, but for me it sounds good technique and it is essential at the two level 2H,2S,2NT are opening bids judged on the losing count showing 5-5 or better in two suits 8-15 points.which restricts one bids to no more distributional than 6-4 I have mentioned these elsewhere and someone pointed out that with this wide range you may be in trouble with a big misfit. Quite so. The perfect bidding system is a will o' the wisp which seduces and deludes us all. A more pragmatic criterion of any treatment is whether it gains more than it loses against good players.

The reason for distinguishing between distibutional and quasi-balanced hands is because responder's technique is quite different If partner opens one cabbage or one brussel sprout a nine count is a nine count Here is a run of the mill nine count xx / Kxxx/ Qxxx / Axx. Suppose partner has 5-5 or better in the reds or perhaps 5-5 or better in the reds, this nominal nine count becomes a beast of a different hue according to partner having the reds or the blacks. If he has the blacks we must bid 3C and hope the weather stays fine, but if he has no more than six losers in the reds we want to be in 4H even if he has only a ten count

Although it is not entirely relevant, and at the risk of using up the gigabites of the ether I will relate an unusual hand which came up ten days ago in our winter league. The hands are computer dealt for us by a friend and we suspect his computer has a sense of humour

Board 23 Dealer South Game all

-

A107643

K765432

-

K743

[dick payne]

sorry pressed the wrong button again

K743 AQ108

K8 QJ52

QJ98 A

A52 8743

J9652

9

10

KQJ1096

 

Partner pushed out a 2S bid , acceptable in our system, well nearly, next hand passed and I did not see any merit in bidding so we played 2S, two off

In the other room South passed, (more to most people's taste) West bid a Blue Club 1D. It might be kindest to draw a veil over the subsequent bidding, but that would leave the story untold. North, a Grand Master made three bids on his hand, and out team-mates subsided in 4S undoable. It's a funny game though many treat it seriously

[hrothgar]

I am highly skeptical that technical merit has a significant impact on the decision to adopt four card majors or five cards majors. Rather, I think that network effects and field protection have a dominant effect.

 

Let's start with network effects. If you are playing the same bidding system as almost everyone else around you

 

1. Its much easier to learn the bidding system in question. There are plenty of books, teachers, what have you to learn from. It's relatively easy to discuss hands.

2. There is a large and active community working to improve the bidding system

 

In contrast, if you're playing an idiosyncratic bidding system (MOSCITO, Blue Club, what have you) its a lot more difficult to learn the system. Look back earlier in this thread. People are talking about the need to get books in the original Italian and 50 year old World Championship Books in order to figure out the nuances of the bidding system. In a similar vein, I've probably written the best treatment on MOSCITO and this is grossly inadequate.

 

Balanced against this, there are some very significant advantages to playing something weird.

 

1. Until you reach the most rarified levels of play, your antifield system will improve the frequency with which you place in events. It will also increase the chances that you do very poorly. However, if you're "only" concern is maximizing the frequency that you score in the money, high variance methods are your friend.

 

2. Equally significant, because your side will have much more experience with various "unique" sequences, you'll probably be much better positioned when these come up. As a practical example, if you are playing MOSCITO, you're going to play a LOT of Moysian 2M contract. You'll either need to get good at the various ways to bring these homes or score quite poorly. In contrast, I doubt that your opponents will have as much experience defending against a Moysian.

[kenrexford]

For this particular theory, a lot of the discussion has been around whether one diamond should be unbalanced or not, and some discussion in a big club context whether one diamond should be only quasi-balanced (a style I played over 3 decades ago), and shapely minor hands open 2 of a minor. For example KRex wrote about it in 2008, about a system he had played for 20 years:

 

http://cuebiddingatb...nd-opening.html

 

However note that KRex in his Modified Italian Canape System has balanced hands in his major openings (on a technical note he should flip the ranges, having a major in the weak notrump only when minimum, and opening 1H/S when 13-14, not 11-12, this would be Modified Modified Italian Canape System until his lawsuit)

 

Miles wrote about in My System, The Unbalanced Diamond, in his conversational style, and a summary/experience is here:

 

http://web.mit.edu/m...ced_Diamond.pdf

 

There was debate about the Polish club versions, such as changes between WJ2000 and WJ2005, and when balanced hands should opening 1♦

 

Likewise a discussion of the Fantunes system, where 1NT handles all minimum balanced hands, included 5-4-2-2s with a five card major and a four card minor

 

The Auken-Welland system (quick guess to what country they are now playing for), based on Roy's partnership with Fallenius, and Swedish bridge ideas, focused on the one club opening being most often balanced or close to it.

 

No lawsuit would be filed. That said, I considered that alteration, but it causes some problems.

 

First, with an opening 1NT range of 13-16, you cannot include balanced 11-12 HCP hands without unduly expanding the range. Most 11-12 balanced hands are just passed, but not opening these with a four-card major seems bad. Hence, the question was whether to have the balanced hands impure/unwieldy or to have the canapé openings impure/unwieldy. The structure of responses for the canapé hands was more suited to messing with these auctions except in the event of interference. Interference obviously causes a problem when Responder cannot be assured that Opener has an unbalanced hand and in fact might be light, as you noticed. However, the experience, albeit painful in these circumstances, was not as bad as the wild ranging 1NT. That said, it is a close call. I would not be entirely opposed to the switch, especially when Opener is 4432 with a major and a minor (where Opener can pretend he is a major-MINOR canapé).

 

Second, technically my add-on of the 11-12 balanced 4-card major holding is already a modification of MICS. Pure MICS simply passes 11-12 balanced hands unless they can be upgraded to 13.

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

I don't really like the idea of 1D being natural and unbalanced because the frequency for this is pretty low considering that 1D is your second most important opening bid.

 

 

There is a notable difference, however, between 1♣ and 1♦ openings and "useful space." The difference might seem small, but it is powerful (from experience).

 

If 1♦ is unbalanced, you end up opening 1♣ only with the balanced hands not appropriate for a 1♦ opening. That means, roughly, balanced hands with 3♦/2♣ or with 4-5 diamonds. That small subset of balanced openings is not much to move down to 1♣ in comparison with the space gain advantage of the 1♣ opening.

 

 

 

 

Consider this another way. Opening either minor standard style makes 1D less efficient than 1C. If 1D unbalanced loses efficiency, the loss of efficiency will be less than a restriction from equal starting points.

 

 

 

 

 

[straube]

There is a notable difference, however, between 1♣ and 1♦ openings and "useful space." The difference might seem small, but it is powerful (from experience).

 

If 1♦ is unbalanced, you end up opening 1♣ only with the balanced hands not appropriate for a 1♦ opening. That means, roughly, balanced hands with 3♦/2♣ or with 4-5 diamonds. That small subset of balanced openings is not much to move down to 1♣ in comparison with the space gain advantage of the 1♣ opening.

 

 

 

 

Consider this another way. Opening either minor standard style makes 1D less efficient than 1C. If 1D unbalanced loses efficiency, the loss of efficiency will be less than a restriction from equal starting points.

 

I think I understand you. You might be pointing out (for example) that opening 1C natural/balanced allows for transfers while the 1D opening does not. Ergo 1D ought to be very special. Here's the deal count for Fantunes as reported by Bill Jacobs....

 

........................imps per deal

1C....22.............0.5

1D.....6..............0.91

1M....19............0.79

1N.....28...........0.61

2L.....25............0.73

 

such that the 1D opening occurs as frequently as a 2L opening and almost four times less than the 1C opening. The imps per deal also suggests that the bid is too specialized for its "lowness". I would think that the higher the bid, the more preference (distribution) ought to be being shown and the more imps per deal ought to be won.

 

I think Moscito would have one of the better distributions (though I haven't tabulated it)

 

1C-15+

1D-4+H

1H-4+S

1S-4+D

1N-12-14

 

but that's illegal in the ACBL. So for me it's a choice between

 

1C-16+

1D-nebulous

1M-5+

1N-14-16 (or weak)

 

and

 

1C-nebulous

1D-16+

1M-5+

1N-14-16 (or weak)

 

the latter having the better distribution graph except that that's not everything. If you open good hands with every distribution with one bid that bid ought to allow about as much room for finding fits as do all the limited openings.

[kenrexford]

I think I understand you. You might be pointing out (for example) that opening 1C natural/balanced allows for transfers while the 1D opening does not. Ergo 1D ought to be very special. Here's the deal count for Fantunes as reported by Bill Jacobs....

 

........................imps per deal

1C....22.............0.5

1D.....6..............0.91

1M....19............0.79

1N.....28...........0.61

2L.....25............0.73

 

such that the 1D opening occurs as frequently as a 2L opening and almost four times less than the 1C opening. The imps per deal also suggests that the bid is too specialized for its "lowness". I would think that the higher the bid, the more preference (distribution) ought to be being shown and the more imps per deal ought to be won.

 

I think Moscito would have one of the better distributions (though I haven't tabulated it)

 

1C-15+

1D-4+H

1H-4+S

1S-4+D

1N-12-14

 

but that's illegal in the ACBL. So for me it's a choice between

 

1C-16+

1D-nebulous

1M-5+

1N-14-16 (or weak)

 

and

 

1C-nebulous

1D-16+

1M-5+

1N-14-16 (or weak)

 

the latter having the better distribution graph except that that's not everything. If you open good hands with every distribution with one bid that bid ought to allow about as much room for finding fits as do all the limited openings.

 

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

 

 

 

[straube]

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

 

Yeah. I've never played a strong diamond so I appreciate hearing your experience. I know Adam has a strong diamond system that he feels is playable, but he prefers a strong club, too. I feel the room I have with a strong club is adequate but I'd be happy for a bit more.

[PrecisionL]

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

I am also currently playing a strong 1♦ system mostly for Match Point Pairs competition. Our bidding has improved with 1♣ being the catch-all and we have simplified some responses to the 1♦ opening bid, thus less memory work: 1♥ being 0-4 hcp or 8+ hcp and 1♠ being 5-7 hcp, 1NT = the majors, 2♣ = 1 or both minors, 2♦ = 8-11 balanced and 2 Major = 5M + 4♣/4♦. We (Keylime and I) also play canape with 4-card majors.

 

Thus, opening bids have the following ranges:

8-12 hcp Open 1M or 2 of a suit or 2NT (minors)

11-14 hcp Open 1NT

12-16 hcp Open 1

♣

17+ hcp Open 1

♦

[dick payne]

It strikes me that the defining characteristic of various 1C systems is their responses to the strong club, controls, natural positives or point count. I would be interested to know the relative popularity of these three

[mycroft]

Heh. The most popular is "we know what we play, but it doesn't matter because we never have the auction go 1♣-p. So here's what we actually play at the table."

[straube]

It strikes me that the defining characteristic of various 1C systems is their responses to the strong club, controls, natural positives or point count. I would be interested to know the relative popularity of these three

 

I think the primary division depends on how strong club systems separate negative, semipositive and positive responses. Advancements in relay have allowed some creativity here.

 

Schenken,Blue Team, Precision, TOSR, etc...

1D-negative and semipositive

etc-GF

 

SCREAM

1D-GF

1H-semipositive

1S-negative

etc-GF

 

Moscito

1D-GF

1H-semipositive

1S-negative

etc-mostly semipositive

 

IMprecision

1D-negative or strong GF

etc-semipositive or light GF

 

Silent Club

1D-GF hearts or negative or semipositive

etc-GF

 

I think responding with hcp ranges is extinct and with controls ought to be.

[dick payne]

Controls/points

Straube says “I think responding with hcp ranges is extinct and with controls ought to be”

I don’t understand how to distinguish between a negative and a semi-positive if it is not defined in points, and is a positive not defined as x+ points?

I understand the case for controls being extinct. Any ambitious player who is thinking of using them should be warned off. The trouble with controls is that with all the Aces and Kings all you can guarantee to make is 2NT. A Blue Club heart response is 6-16 points and a 1S response is seven to the rest of the deck. The way to investigate the hand is cue bidding. It is very accident prone and not properly explained either by Reese or Mingoni. Their explanation of uneconomical cue bidding may sound fine, but over the years it is a recipe for disaster. Over the course of twenty-five years partners and I persisted with cue bidding and in spite of all the disasters, We gained sufficient confidence to use Blackwood no more than once a year. It is very , very complicated. I have already drawn people’s attention to two flawed examples of cue bidding in Mingoni’s book. If he does not understand it how can we be expected to do so

For the last twenty odd years I have played natural positives and point count responses, and have come to the conclusion that point count is simplest The following framework is efficient 1C 16+

responses 1D 0-6, 1H 7-8, 1S 9+, 2 any 5-6 points with a six card suit.

At the risk of using up the ether and boring the readers I will explain my use of the response of 1NT. I f the bidding is 1C 1D 1NT opener shows 16-19 and responder 0-6. If responder feels like bidding Stayman he is practically always wrong to do so The response of 1NT shows 5-6 points with 4-4 or better in the majors. If Stayman is not needed 2C can be Gladiator and an immediate 2M is another golden negative 5-6 points decent five card suit

After the point count response of 1D/ 1H/ 1S the next suit up rebid of 1H/1S/1NT is conventional and strong 1H over 1D is A Kokish bid showing 20+ and asking fo 0-4 or 5-6. 1S over 1H is 18+ points and it follows that 1NT,2C,2D,2H,2S promise 16-17 and the sequences are freewheeling. 1NT over 1S shows 19+ points and asks for range. With 16-18 make any other bid. Partner becomes senior hand and is free to look for the less likely slam