Strong club v standard

[Wackojack]

I have learned and play with one partner a strong club system (precisionish). So far these are my feelings about its comparison with a standard naturalish system.

 

Advantages:

Can open lighter and thus more easily compete. So for part score hands I like it.

More bidding room and thus greater possibility for precision for slam bidding in uncontested auctions.

Disadvantages:

You need to work out very carefully what to do when 1club is overcalled. I found it needed a few pages of agreements specific to the strong club system.

Even after doing this opening a strong club is an open invitation for the opponents to pre-empt, sometimes the first opportunity to show a suit is at the 4 level.

Unless you add a layer of complexity, wrong siding of contracts is more likely.

You have to learn complex bidding tools specific to a strong club system to take advantage of the possibility for greater precision with big hands.

 

Will I discover more advantages/ disadvantages as I continue? At present I feel much more comfortable with a standard system.

[Free]

I suggest you start by searching the forums, there have been a lot of these topics before. The main tradeoff you make is: improved 1M openings for worse minor openings.

[blackshoe]

As you noted, people love to interfere when you open 1♣, so firm agreements about those situations are necessary. Some people try to limit the enemy's opportunities by playing forcing club only when not vulnerable vs. vulnerable (at IMPs) or just not vulnerable (MPs). The rest of the time they play some kind of 2/1. I think Hamman-Soloway used to do this, but have given it up. It's a lot of work.

 

We have a couple here who play Precision exclusively. They've been doing it, as I understand it, for at least 40 years. They do pretty well for themselves.

[hrothgar]

Some people try to limit the enemy's opportunities by playing forcing club only when not vulnerable vs. vulnerable (at IMPs) or just not vulnerable (MPs). The rest of the time they play some kind of 2/1. I think Hamman-Soloway used to do this, but have given it up. It's a lot of work.

 

On occasion, Goldman and Soloway used to play Strong Club when the opponents where vulnerable and Aces Scientific otherwise.

 

I think that the normally trotted this out when they were swinging.

[guido]

disadvantages:

 

The 1♦ opening becomes rather vague. While this can work in its users favor, I think it is a serious negative over all. This is a particular problem playing a Precision type system (5-card majors).

 

The 2♣ opening starts the auction off rather high. The more one tries to reduce the disadvantage of limited room by tightly limiting this bid, the more meaningless becomes the 1♦ opening. Again, this sometimes works in the users favor, but loses overall.

 

The traditional Precision 2♦ opening allows the opponents to defend almost double dummy if the opener becomes the declarer.

 

Advantages:

 

I think you mentioned most of them. One major one is the 1M-4M sequence which can be bid on nothing to a very good hand not interested in exploring for slam. Minimum information given to the defense.

[mich-b]

On occasion, Goldman and Soloway used to play Strong Club when the opponents where vulnerable and Aces Scientific otherwise.

 

I think that the normally trotted this out when they were swinging.

 

I think Martens - Jassem from the Poland Open team in last Bermuda Bowl played Strong Club NV , and Polish Club Vulnerable.

Honestly, even if one thinks this is theoretically profitable, I wonder how many pairs would be willing to study and develop 2 systems?

[blackshoe]

Two distinctly different systems is problematic. If you can limit the differences, you mitigate the problem (which is one of memory, really). Romex does a pretty good job of this: Romex itself limits one of a suit openings to about 18 HCP, and uses several forcing openings (1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2NT). When you play the "two-card" version (Romex and Romex Forcing Club (RFC)) one of a suit openings are limited to 16 HCP, and 1NT and 2♣ are replaced by 1♣ in RFC, and the forcing 2NT is replaced by a preemptive meaning in both systems. You end up with a system in which you need to remember two meanings for only the following opening bids and their follow ons: 1♣, 1NT, 2♣, and 2♥. 1♦ can be on only 2 cards in RFC, as opposed to 3 in Romex, but that's insignificant. The meanings of opening bids 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, 2♦ and 2♠ and above are pretty much the same in both variants. Of course, it's Romex, and that alone is enough to scare off a lot of people.

[whereagles]

Wacko: having played a strong club system for more than 5 years at international level I can tell you the vulnerability of the 1♣ opener to preempts is not really such a big deal. Sure, I had to guess at times, but the percentage actions almost always turned out right.

 

The greatest problem with a strong club is, in my opinion, the 1D and 2C openers. No matter how you try and sort it out, they'll always be a source of problems and require a lot of experience to dodge the traps that inevitably show up in borderline hands.

[hrothgar]

The greatest problem with a strong club is, in my opinion, the 1D and 2C openers. No matter how you try and sort it out, they'll always be a source of problems and require a lot of experience to dodge the traps that inevitably show up in borderline hands.

 

With the (obvious) caveat that this assumes a 5 card majors based system.

 

If you are comfortable playing 4 card majors and a majors first opening style - and I realize that this is a big if - then you don't have any trouble with your minor suit openings.

 

For example, playing MOSCITO

 

The 2♣ opening explicitly promises 6+ clubs (and denies a good 4 card major)

The 1♠ opening explicitly promises an unbalanced hand with 4+ diamonds (and denies a good 4 card major)

Your three level minor suit preempts show constructive hands

There is the option to use either 2NT or 3♣ to show 5+/5+ in the minors and 8-12 HCPs

 

I think that we get amazing amounts of definition for our minor suit openings.

Further more the 1S opening (showing Diamonds) is extremely preemptive

 

And, before you go there I am perfectly happy playing 4 card majors.

I don't consider this a systemic "loss"

[whereagles]

Indeed 4-card majors help de-clouding the 1D and 2C openers. However, it usually does so by stuffing the 5m-4M hands into 1M (at least the version of moscito I saw did it - might be out of date).

 

If one insists on 5-card majors I think it's best to swap the 1C and 1D openings (i.e. play a strong diamond system instead). The nebulous 1D is now 1C and you can incorporate both the 1D and 2C openers into it. That little extra you get by opening 1C step makes a lot of difference. For instance, you can play transfer-walsh over it, something that can help a lot.

 

I've been toying with both ideas above but never managed to get my regular pard interested. I even got to write down a full strong diamond system designed as above mentioned and with ultra-light 1M openers (where 1M-2C was either nat GF or Drury!), but never tested it at table. What a shame :)

[rbforster]

If you want to minimize the extra work of dealing with nebulous minor openings, I suggest natural 2m bids. This just leaves 1♦ as a catchall for 2 and 3-suited hands with a 4 card major. For example,

 

2♦ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♦ or 5/4+ minors)

2♣ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♣ or 5/4+ minors)

1N 12-14 balanced

1M 5+ 10-14, includes 5M/6m hands

1♦ 0+ unbalanced 10-14, promises at least one 4 card major (4441s, 4M/5+♣, 4M/5+♦)

1♣ 15+

 

There are a lot of inferences after 1♦-1M here. For example, if you don't raise partner's major, you promise 4 of the other major. Also, you can't have both minors, so if you rebid either minor it shows 4OM/5+m. You could even use 1N rebid to show a minimum misfitting partner's major, while 2m (natural) could show extras with the other major.

[whereagles]

I would very much prefer that 2m were WEAK TWOS :)

[rbforster]

I would very much prefer that 2m were WEAK TWOS :)

In my Silent Club version of precision, they are weak twos (although we play them as 5+m/4+M rather than 1 suiters). Just play vanilla precision with 1♦ natural or balanced (2+), and pass with all the hands that would open 2m in standard Precision (clubs, clubs + major, or 3 suited short diamonds). It works well, even if you have to pass some 15 counts. :)

[Wackojack]

Thanks for all your contributions.

 

My post was to give you my experience in comparing a standard system to a strong club system in general. The strong club system that I play has the following opening bids:

Pass Usually 0-9

1♣ 17+ points, any shape, forcing

1♦ 10-13 balanced

1♥ 10-16, 5+ ♥ or 13-16, 4441

1♠ 10-16, 5+ ♠ or 13-16, 4144 (1♥)

1N 14-16 balanced

2♣♦ 11-16, 6+ cards or 5m431/440

2♥ 9-14, 5-5+ ♥ & a minor (or 6 ♥ and 5 ♠, 8-13)

2♠ 9-14, 5-5+ ♠ & another

2N 9-14, 5-5+ minors

.

Open lighter if more playing strength.

 

My partner who is a "system nut" devised this system wanting to open as light and as often as feasible. Its evolution has been a continuous iteration with partner suggesting alternatives following my objections.

 

I have learned to live with the 1♦ opening bid (the most common)and now quite like it.

The 2♣ and 2♦ opening bids make me feel insecure, but I think their destructive effect on the opponents just about compensates for the possibility of missing major suit fits when there is no intervention.

Opening 1M with a 4441 distribution is playable when the rebids define this.

Intervention over 1♣ has been worked out in detail, but is an extra memory load.

 

At present partner has suggested certain changes that increase the right-siding chances, following my grumbling about wrong siding. There is some stuff to look at on this in the "non natural system forum" and I was thinking that I might make a post there soon.

[Cyberyeti]

If you can live with passing a flat 12 count (with a 13-15 no trump), or playing a 12-15 1N, you can play a very simple strong club with a natural 4+ card 1♦, 5 card majors etc. This is my favourite introductory strong club and very natural and easy to play.

 

It has pretty much all the advantages of a standard strong club, and loses the disadvantage of the nebulous diamond.

[Tomi2]

I think Martens - Jassem from the Poland Open team in last Bermuda Bowl played Strong Club NV , and Polish Club Vulnerable.

Honestly, even if one thinks this is theoretically profitable, I wonder how many pairs would be willing to study and develop 2 systems?

 

I do think that they in fact play the same system all the time, but only adjust a) their NT ranges and b) their openings become lighter, from 12-17 to 10-15.

vuln:

1NT 15-17

opening 12-17

1club 12-14 bal or some strong hands

 

non vuln

1nt 12-14

opening 10-15 (their 1dia still shows real dias, they seemed not to have some lower nt range in 1 dia)

1club: 15-17 nt or hands too strong to open 1suit

 

follow ups as in polish club but of course with different ranges

[mikestar13]

If you can live with passing a flat 12 count (with a 13-15 no trump), or playing a 12-15 1N, you can play a very simple strong club with a natural 4+ card 1♦, 5 card majors etc. This is my favourite introductory strong club and very natural and easy to play.

 

It has pretty much all the advantages of a standard strong club, and loses the disadvantage of the nebulous diamond.

 

Just like my favorite system: Real Diamond Precision. See Real Diamond Precision here.

[Free]

That little extra you get by opening 1C step makes a lot of difference.

The little extra step you lose by opening 1♦ with strong hands also makes quite a difference imo. <_<

[Free]

2♥ 9-14, 5-5+ ♥ & a minor (or 6 ♥ and 5 ♠, 8-13)

2♠ 9-14, 5-5+ ♠ & another

Why don't you play 2♥ as ♥+another and 2♠ as ♠+minor? I mean, you already include 6♥-5♠ in the 2♥ opening anyway... After 2♥ you have more space, and you can even use 2 P/C bids (2♠ and 3♣) which makes it possible to invite ♠ quite easily. I use this as a preemptive structure and works quite well imo.

[whereagles]

The little extra step you lose by opening 1♦ with strong hands also makes quite a difference imo. <_<

 

Here's how I would solve that: me and pard had a special bid after strong 1♣ auctions which was 4♦. It basically meant

 

"Pard, I have no clue what's going on! Please tell me what's the fit."

 

You just skip this step and there you have it :)

[Wackojack]

Why don't you play 2♥ as ♥+another and 2♠ as ♠+minor? I mean, you already include 6♥-5♠ in the 2♥ opening anyway... After 2♥ you have more space, and you can even use 2 P/C bids (2♠ and 3♣) which makes it possible to invite ♠ quite easily. I use this as a preemptive structure and works quite well imo.

 

Interesting that you should say this. The original devised by my partner was 2♥ = 5+ ♥ & 5+ another; and 2♠=5+♠& 5+minor or 6 ♠+5 ♥ and max/min with precise shape after 2N enquiry. Then he changed it to the way it is now with slightly easier to remember system of responses. This was not prompted by me.

 

The 9-14 range is about as large as practical for reasonable accuracy. So 15+ you open 1♣ and 0-8 you pass. It also means that 1M-2y-2z and z has to be a 4 card suit and is never 5.

[chasetb]

Before I talk about the subject, I would like to end the debate in that Jassem-Martens play Precision @ NV and Polish @ Vul. There is a difference between both in that the Precision is always strong (15-17 NT or 17+) whereas Polish you have the weak NT thrown in. It is fundamentally different enough to defend against. Here's the link to the CCs: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=Poland&start=c%3A\inetpub\wwwroot\ecatsbridge\documents\files\ConventionCards%2F2011Veldhoven%2FBermudaBowl

 

I like most of your system, but the 2♦ bid I don't agree with. It seems that if you are weak with both Majors and little to no Diamond support or have an invitational hand, you pre-empt yourself with the bid. I would go the Bertheau-Nystrom route, and make 2♦ either a great 5♦-bad 4♣ or 6+ ♦, denies a 4-card Major, 10-15 (A hand you wouldn't want to jump with). I have a write-up of my version of that, but it's on a friend's computer and she's in Vegas playing in their sectional with a few of her friends.

 

If you wanted to deviate more, just scrap the natural bid and make 2♦ the mini-Multi with one of the Majors. No matter which way you go, take the other hands that used to open 2♦ and open them 1♦.

[Vampyr]

The little extra step you lose by opening 1♦ with strong hands also makes quite a difference imo. <_<

 

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

[Mbodell]

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

 

Maybe in better/stronger fields. But I've found that I get no more, and possibly less, interference over a strong club then over a natural 1 opener. Certainly when there is interference it is almost certainly "my" hand so the interference is more troubling, but lots of people will stay out of the way without shape and/or a good suit. And really, against a lot of non-expert strong club pairs, staying out of their way is fine as the 1♣ auctions aren't always fantastic.

[Free]

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

Same goes for a nebulous 1♣ opening don't you think?

 

Opps interfere constructively over the nebulous opening. Since the opening is weaker, chances are much bigger that our opps have something to bid.

Over our strong 1♣ opening, opps overcall rather preemptively. But in my experience, the higher the level of play (especially at imps) the less interference you get.

 

So I prefer my nebulous opening to be 1♦.