Positive Strong Club responses: controls or shape

[Guest Jlall]

garozzo and hamman both played control showing responses, and both have said that it is not the best way to play. These are great players, but when they were in their primes, bidding theory was not advanced as it is today

[1eyedjack]

garozzo and hamman both played control showing responses, and both have said that it is not the best way to play. These are great players, but when they were in their primes, bidding theory was not advanced as it is today

Bidding "theory" in the face of aggressive competitive bidding is not going to develop much. If the prospect of aggressive competitive bidding is the deciding factor ...

[1eyedjack]

There are 3 answers to this

 

1) Playing a full relay system, shape is 100% better than controls. Why? Because your shape shwong bids don't move up and down.

 

2) Playing a non relay system against automatons controls are 100% better than shape. Why, because you know at low levels at what level to play the hand.

 

3) Playing a non relay system agains real live people, shape is 100% better than controls. Why? What would you arther know in a similar auction to the following?

 

1C (P) 2C (4H) where 2C showed some no. of controls OR

1C (P) 1S (4H) where 1S showed a positive with some no. of S

 

As a VERY amusing aside, I was playing in the Victorian open team playoffs and we were discussing weird systems. One Northern Territory pair play a system totally based on points. Apparentlye they get to 3N and know they either have the points to play game or they don't and they have NO idea of either hands shape. They played one board in 4H on a combined 28 count in a 5-0 fit, another in 3N in a 1-1 C fit. So you can see where my sympathies lie. (Their system is apparently called version 52!!)

 

Cheers

Ron

Seems to me that the point numbered 3 has equal application whether playing a relay or non-relay system. Even if playing a relay system, relays will go out of the window following the 4H overcall.

 

Having tried both, I have to say that in the absence of competition there is very little to choose between responses that are based on shape v those based on controls.

[EarlPurple]

I have played my own strong club system whereby you show points (not controls) in response to the opening bid, and this in practice has worked well. The theory is that you know potentially how high you intend to bid, and it should then be relatively easy to find your fit. Of course, if a perfect fit comes to light, you can bid higher, but you can still use the overall strength as a guide.

 

I think points work better than controls, because the strong club hand will tend to hold most of the high cards, and therefore queens and jacks will potentially play a useful part. Yes, it might be useless, but then an ace can be totally useless opposite a void too.

 

In my more recent system (which I have still yet had no opportunity to use, and actually uses a strong diamond rather than a strong club) and also in my old system following any serious level of intervention (at least 1♠), the response is a mixture of shape or strength.

 

Most of the bids show shape, and around 7-10 points (considered the point range you are most likely to hold). (After an intervening bid this range is actually 8-11, simply beacuse they are split into 0-3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12+). With a stronger hand you show this massive strength first.

 

Yes, the opps might sometimes be able to pre-empt you but that will usually only be when they have a big fit, which usually means you will have one too, and at least enough strength to compete with it to the 5-level.

 

This sort of thing might happen:

 

You: 1♦ (strong, could be 1♣ in your system

LHO: 1♠ (some bid that shows spades and perhaps something else)

Partner: 2♦ which we will say shows 8-11 points and 5+ hearts

RHO: 4♠ (pre-emptive raise).

 

Now say you have an unexciting

 

♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ AQxx ♣ AKxx

 

That's a balanced 19-count. Partner might have all the right things and 6♥ might be making but the chances are 5♥ is a good bet by me. It is true, of course, that I have not yet shown my hand. But if this were a standard system (2/1 or SAYC) I'd have opened this hand also with 1♣, and the bidding might have gone the same, except that partner's 2♥ would presumably be a "negative free bid" if we played them. If we don't and partner made a negative double instead, I'm totally stuck on this hand.

 

Partner might have this:

 

♠ x ♥ AJxxxx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx

 

In which case 6♥ is pretty cold. But opps don't always follow Larry's rule and have 10 trumps between them to bid to 4♠ (and they don't always need them, particularly if they are green). Partner could have more points but:

 

♠ Qx ♥ AJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx

 

and we might not make 5♥.

[Free]

Earlpurple, in my region most players use HCP (0-6, 7-8, 9-10,...) as response to a 1♣ opener. It has a huge flaw imo: if you have around 9-12 HCP, you waste more biddingspace than necessary, and most of the time you don't even have slam (where controls make it easier to know this quicker).

 

It's always the same problem however: if opps intervene (in 2nd or 4th hand, whatever) you'll have more problems to find the right contract. I play against these guys every week, and they hate their own 1♣ opening if they have to play against me, since I have a VERY agressive defense against it, and they usually don't get to their optimal contract (which is a problem in MP's ;) )

[whereagles]

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

 

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+

1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

 

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

 

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

[EarlPurple]

Are you sure they have methods to combat intervention?

 

The reason most strong club systems fall to intervention is because their system (try reading one of them) is not based on logic and concepts but on masses of sequences of bids and responses, and any bit of intervention blows it to bits.

 

Let's say the bidding goes:

 

1♣ pass 1♠ 3♦

 

where 1♠ shows 9-10 points. Don't know if it does, but this is an example. Let's say, for the sake of it, that 3♦ shows a 6-card suit, and that's pretty much it.

 

Right: so we have a sort-of limit bid, and the 1♣ opener knows the general strength of the hand, i.e. we are definitely in the game zone, slam will probably need specific cards.

 

So do we have a method to combat intervening bids? What does pass mean? And double? And are 3♥ and 3♠ natural bids? Do we play any kind of forcing bids? What do we do with a shapely 1-suited hand? 2-suited hand? Extremely strong hand? 4♦ can't show everything, but we must have clear methods.

 

We could also double 3♦. In fact that will be the right thing a lot of the time. If none of our methods allow us to do that then of course the opps are going to jump in with it as much as they can. (Much less to lose).

 

I have played against intervention like that. And the number of times the intervention has helped me place the cards (especially at MP for an extra overtrick!) has probably outweighed the rare occasions we reach a bad contract.

 

Having methods to combat intervention is far more important, in my opinion, than having convoluted relay systems (or just long sections of bids and responses which I can't possibly memorise, and no notes of logic or approach) which are best reserved for computers. (I can never learn them and every time someone sends me system notes that's all I ever seem to see, after which I subsequently don't play their system).

 

1st generation: Players brought in strong club systems with control or strength responses and they worked very well.

2nd generation: Opps learned to combat the system with intervention.

3rd generation: Strong club users learn to prepare better against the intervention rather than having pages and pages of system notes for uncontested auctions.

3rd generation again: More players realised the advantages of pre-empts against all systems, not only forcing club.

 

By the way, it's that last point that also emphasises why strong club systems can work so well - sequences when you do not open 1♣ and particularly the ability to play all opening 2 bids as weak.

[Free]

One of the biggest problems imo from the systems played in my region is that they keep showing their HCP's after intervention. This means: Pass = 0-6, Dbl = 7-8, step 1 = 9-10,... So they don't have a penalty Dbl, and with a little luck opps will start bidding their 5 cards at 3-level :D

 

Another thing is that intervention after strong ♣ is mostly destructive, while intervention over anything natural is constructive. I would NEVER play my defense against strong ♣ against a natural system, it's suicide!

This also means your bids don't have to be real.

 

Just to give you one of my favorite bids: 1♠ = any hand with 0-3 ♠s. How can you place some cards in my hand? You don't have a cuebid, you don't know what suit(s) I have, ♠s might as well be YOUR suit,... It's a pure pain in the ass, and we usually find a playable contract (btw, 1♠ is not forcing B) ). I can even overcall on any 4333!

[Free]

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

 

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+

1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

 

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

 

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

 

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

[Chamaco]

Are you sure they have methods to combat intervention?

 

The reason most strong club systems fall to intervention is because their system (try reading one of them) is not based on logic and concepts but on masses of sequences of bids and responses, and any bit of intervention blows it to bits.

 

Let's say the bidding goes:

 

1♣ pass 1♠ 3♦

 

where 1♠ shows 9-10 points. Don't know if it does, but this is an example. Let's say, for the sake of it, that 3♦ shows a 6-card suit, and that's pretty much it.

 

Right: so we have a sort-of limit bid, and the 1♣ opener knows the general strength of the hand, i.e. we are definitely in the game zone, slam will probably need specific cards.

 

So do we have a method to combat intervening bids? What does pass mean? And double? And are 3♥ and 3♠ natural bids? Do we play any kind of forcing bids? What do we do with a shapely 1-suited hand? 2-suited hand? Extremely strong hand? 4♦ can't show everything, but we must have clear methods.

 

We could also double 3♦. In fact that will be the right thing a lot of the time. If none of our methods allow us to do that then of course the opps are going to jump in with it as much as they can. (Much less to lose).

 

I have played against intervention like that. And the number of times the intervention has helped me place the cards (especially at MP for an extra overtrick!) has probably outweighed the rare occasions we reach a bad contract.

 

Having methods to combat intervention is far more important, in my opinion, than having convoluted relay systems (or just long sections of bids and responses which I can't possibly memorise, and no notes of logic or approach) which are best reserved for computers. (I can never learn them and every time someone sends me system notes that's all I ever seem to see, after which I subsequently don't play their system).

 

1st generation: Players brought in strong club systems with control or strength responses and they worked very well.

2nd generation: Opps learned to combat the system with intervention.

3rd generation: Strong club users learn to prepare better against the intervention rather than having pages and pages of system notes for uncontested auctions.

3rd generation again: More players realised the advantages of pre-empts against all systems, not only forcing club.

 

By the way, it's that last point that also emphasises why strong club systems can work so well - sequences when you do not open 1♣ and particularly the ability to play all opening 2 bids as weak.

Agree on all the post by Earl.

 

The point is that too many players seem to claim that preemptive overcall is damaging, without discussing the difference in different situations.

 

We should not discuss here the policy on overcall in DIRECT seat [e.g. 1C-(3S)], since it is not the subject of the original post.

We should discuss the sequence where the responder bids undisturbed and the interference occur before opener's rebid.

 

After a strong club opening and a response based on controls (or hcp), despite not having idea of the shape, overcalling is FAR more dangerous at IMPS (I won't discuss Matchpoints here, where it might have a point).

 

The discussion should obviously focus on the case where both pairs have adequate methods, e.g. the strong clubbers have methods for handling jump overcalls.

 

And I think that we' find out that most of the time, doubling opps and defending will in the long run payoff much more than anything we have lost for the extra preemption by opponents cause by our choice of using step-responses to 1C instead of shape-showing bids.

[whereagles]

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

 

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

You're just not used to it, lol B) When my pard came up with 1D = 0-8 or 13+, I also disliked it. But after using it in practice, it turned out to be quite ok. And much more relaxing to opener, who very much knows what to do after a limited 9-12 positive.

 

Using 1D as 0-5 or 9+... well, that's quite stressing for opener when opps compete before responder has a chance to bid again. Any action by opener can turn out to be an overbid or a gross underbid, even though the 9+ variant is more likely.

[hrothgar]

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

 

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+

1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

 

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

 

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

 

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

The first time that I saw 1♣ - 1♦ as either game force or negative was in the context of Magic Diamond. Its a very interesting concept with some very elegant possibilities. I originally tried to get this to work in the context of MOSCITO. While this was not successful, it did lead to the current 1♣ - 1♦ artificial game force...

 

(It should be noted that playing MD< the 1♣ opening shows ~12-17 HCP)

[EarlPurple]

I don't like a negative response being 0-8 either. The most common range is probably 7-10 and if the strong club is 17+ rather than 16+ it is not that unreasonable to suggest that any positive response should be game forcing even if though there might be only 24 combined points. (Hey, a lot of the time game makes with 24 points!)

 

I therefore have a liking for most of the rebids to be 7-10 because this is what will probably occur most of the time.

 

Perhaps some 6-point hands can also be allowed into positive responses, of course. KQJxxx and nothing else, for example, if you play that jump-response shows a one-suited hand, then you can make one with such a holding.

 

I hadn't thought of using 1♦ also to show the super+ response, but I guess there is a lot of attraction in it.

 

As you will see, with this general type of system, most of the positive responses are limit bids, i.e. 7-10 (or your own preferred range) and shape-showing. Intervention is thus far less effective as one of the opponents has now pretty much shown their hand, and therefore the strong club opener is well placed to judge the situation based on his own hand.

 

Of course, there will still be times when pre-empts are effective - there always are. But we have reduced it down now much further.

[EarlPurple]

And to Free's point, which I think we have discussed before.

 

Let's consider 4 cases:

 

1. Their opening 1♣ is strong.

2. Their opening 1♣ is Standard American style i.e. could be prepared and a wide range

3. Their opening 1♣ shows one of many hand types which could be weak and balanced or could be strong.

4. Their opening 1♣ is natural and promises at least 4, and will not be a weak balanced hand because the opps play a weak NT.

 

1. In the first case, your methods may be primarily destructive, because you do not expect a game on for your side. But of course there will be occasions when your side does have game, and cases where your intervention will now prevent you finding a good sacrifice because you cannot show such a constructive (yet weak) overcall.

 

2 & 3. Here you need to have methods for when you have a good hand. And you may decide to defend differently depending on whether or not partner has shown a passed hand. However you should have semi-destructive/semi-constructive methods, in my opinion.

 

When partner has not passed, you can overcall aggressively but within limits, eg a 6-9 point range (approximately) for weak jump overcalls or 2-suited pre-emptive overcalls. When the opponent does have a strong hand (which includes an 18-19 balanced hand in Standard American systems, or such strong hands with clubs), 6-9 will be your most common point range.

 

When partner has passed, you can stretch this a bit more, either by being a little stronger or a bit weaker or either. Here you will be giving up chances of game, although you might stumble into one as a sacrifice which happens to make (or getting doubled into game).

 

Your 1-level overcalls should be sound, but there is something to be said for giving a conventional meaning to a 1♦ overcall of 1♣. You give up the natural bid, but this might not be a great loss and the purpose is to show a hand which cannot bounce to a high level but invites partner to do so with the right fit. For example, a 6-9 point hand with at least 4 cards in both majors.

 

These are just ideas. Haven't tested them. But I will tell you that intervening their 1♣ in these auctions will also cause disruption, whilst still enabling you to reach your own best contract when it is your hand.

 

In (4) the same applies to some extent but exercise more caution here.

[cwiggins]

I have played my own strong club system whereby you show points (not controls) in response to the opening bid, and this in practice has worked well. The theory is that you know potentially how high you intend to bid, and it should then be relatively easy to find your fit. Of course, if a perfect fit comes to light, you can bid higher, but you can still use the overall strength as a guide.

 

I think points work better than controls, because the strong club hand will tend to hold most of the high cards, and therefore queens and jacks will potentially play a useful part. Yes, it might be useless, but then an ace can be totally useless opposite a void too.

 

In my more recent system (which I have still yet had no opportunity to use, and actually uses a strong diamond rather than a strong club) and also in my old system following any serious level of intervention (at least 1♠), the response is a mixture of shape or strength.

 

Most of the bids show shape, and around 7-10 points (considered the point range you are most likely to hold). (After an intervening bid this range is actually 8-11, simply beacuse they are split into 0-3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12+). With a stronger hand you show this massive strength first.

 

Yes, the opps might sometimes be able to pre-empt you but that will usually only be when they have a big fit, which usually means you will have one too, and at least enough strength to compete with it to the 5-level.

 

This sort of thing might happen:

 

You: 1♦ (strong, could be 1♣ in your system

LHO: 1♠ (some bid that shows spades and perhaps something else)

Partner: 2♦ which we will say shows 8-11 points and 5+ hearts

RHO: 4♠ (pre-emptive raise).

 

Now say you have an unexciting

 

♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ AQxx ♣ AKxx

 

That's a balanced 19-count. Partner might have all the right things and 6♥ might be making but the chances are 5♥ is a good bet by me. It is true, of course, that I have not yet shown my hand. But if this were a standard system (2/1 or SAYC) I'd have opened this hand also with 1♣, and the bidding might have gone the same, except that partner's 2♥ would presumably be a "negative free bid" if we played them. If we don't and partner made a negative double instead, I'm totally stuck on this hand.

 

Partner might have this:

 

♠ x ♥ AJxxxx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx

 

In which case 6♥ is pretty cold. But opps don't always follow Larry's rule and have 10 trumps between them to bid to 4♠ (and they don't always need them, particularly if they are green). Partner could have more points but:

 

♠ Qx ♥ AJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx

 

and we might not make 5♥.

This approach (separation by HCP) is a variant of what Hamman and Soloway do. Their 1♣ is 17+ HCP.

 

If there is no interference, the responses are:

1♦ = 0-7 HCP

1♥ = 8-11 HCP any shape

1♠ = 12+ without 5+ hearts or 5+ in a minor

1NT = 12+ with 5+ hearts

2m = 12+ with 5+ in bid minor

2♥ = 8-11 HCP, 4441 any

Higher responses show solid suits, broken suits, etc.

 

Over interference, they attempt to separate 8-11 HCP hands from 12+ HCP.

 

I.e. with game only hands (absent an exceptional fit), announce the strength not shape.

 

With 12+ HCP (i.e. slam is in the air with a fit or only a little more HCP from opener or responder), start showing shape. Sort of.

[Chamaco]

This approach (separation by HCP) is a variant of what Hamman and Soloway do.  Their 1♣ is 17+ HCP.

 

If there is no interference, the responses are:

1♦ = 0-7 HCP

1♥ = 8-11 HCP any shape

1♠ = 12+ without 5+ hearts or 5+ in a minor

1NT = 12+ with 5+ hearts

2m = 12+ with 5+ in bid minor

2♥ = 8-11 HCP, 4441 any

Higher responses show solid suits, broken suits, etc.

 

Over interference, they attempt to separate 8-11 HCP hands from 12+ HCP.

 

I.e. with game only hands (absent an exceptional fit), announce the strength not shape.

 

With 12+ HCP (i.e. slam is in the air with a fit or only a little more HCP from opener or responder), start showing shape.  Sort of.

 

Is this (hamman-Soloway) approach documented/commented in some detail somewhere else besides their CC (which tells something but does not seem inclusive of all sequences- or maybe it0's just me who cannot find them in the CC :( ) ?

 

Thanks !

 

:(

[cwiggins]

Is this (hamman-Soloway) approach documented/commented in some detail somewhere else besides their CC (which tells something but does not seem inclusive of all sequences- or maybe it0's just me who cannot find them in the CC  :( ) ?

 

Thanks !

 

:(

Not really.

 

The notes in their convention card for 2003 (see Hamway 2003 Monaco) have a few pages on how they handle competition after a 1♣ opening but nothing more on their sequences after the positive responses.

[Free]

And to Free's point, which I think we have discussed before.

 

Let's consider 4 cases:

 

1. Their opening 1♣ is strong.

~snip~

1. In the first case, your methods may be primarily destructive, because you do not expect a game on for your side. But of course there will be occasions when your side does have game, and cases where your intervention will now prevent you finding a good sacrifice because you cannot show such a constructive (yet weak) overcall.

~snip~

I have both destructive and constructive methods over 1♣, but I've never needed my strong bids. That's why there are very few strong bids, some pure destructive ones, and some weak but constructive bids.

We did play some games as a sacrifice with success tnx to our overcalls B) We never needed to find a game to make, because there simply hasn't been any game available for our side after a strong ♣ opening as far as I remember. So don't stare blind at these extremely-low-frequency games, just make sure your defense finds playable contracts, the good sacs and keeps opps out of their optimal contract ;)

[Little_major]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but not this topic. My preferred partner and I play something we call the Sandwich Club which is Blue Team Club with weak NT. We have done a lot of homework, simulations and experimentation with responses to 1C. Shape or control which is better? Answer, both. If partner open 1C=17+ and my RHO passes then getting in the control bid is wonderful. Obviously, RHO stretches to enter the bidding, now you can't afford to lose a round of bidding with control shows. We try to show a bit of both. Our scheme is dble= weak balanced hand with stopper(s) in known suits 4-7 hcps, pass= 0-7 or 3 controls with very good suit or any 4 + controls, cheapest NT= 1H or 1S control response with two 4+ card suits, new suit=1H or 1S control response with decent suit, 3Nt is to play based on a stopper and a single suit too shapely to double.

 

Opener over my LHO interference, doubles with strong NT hand, passes as a takeout bid, bids a new suit. In a suction interference auction double always means that is my suit.

 

He is the kicker, interference over our 1C gives us two bids we didn't have before, pass and double. Since we can fork the pass as weak or strong it does double duty. Most of the time interference actually helps us. I welcome it. It is a myth that 1C systems are too susceptible to interference. It just takes some work. We get a fair share of juicy penalties too that weren't available at the other table.

[1eyedjack]

Hi

interference over our 1C gives us two bids we didn't have before, pass and double.

That is true as far as it goes, but I would not be too optimistic about the benefit of that extra space. If someone doubles 1C in the knowledge that it provides extra bidding space then he will be doing so in the expectation that whatever extra bidding space he has given to you will be taken away again, and then some, by his partner, in light of the shape definitions included in the double.

[luke warm]

i think interference can help the overcalling side, but i also think too many strong club pairs eschew the penalty double, for no good reason

[keylime]

I don't mind the interference personally - tells me when to get the hand rightside more often than not. Furthermore, sound agreements in comp leads to a winner proposition. So what if they drop the proverbial hand grenade of four spades once in 20 hands - it's just like we started life with one of a minor BAM! 4♠ WJO.

 

What many strong club pairs can't handle well at all is the three level preempt. One and two bids they manage but three level bids.....ouch, watch the wheels come off. Yes we have a way to counter that via the thrump double, cuebids a la Michaels, and <gasp> natural bidding - we treat it as if we had opened naturally and they jumped in to preempt.

 

The Mrs. and I use a form of Rubensohl in comp, alongside with the usual multiplexed items out of comp. Many espouse the vulnerability of the 1♣ opening due to its cheapest nature in the bidding box; I however feel that the lack of competition over a strong TWO ♣ is sickening, alongside some player's definition of a "good" 2♣ opening.

 

I am a shape guy, by far - showing controls just muddles the auction at the wrong times. I rather be able to show my hand's shape within the bidding and then entering/exiting the various tools for pinpointing controls once the hand is truly known .

 

The penalty double is simply "taking the sure profit" - if you can't defend well then don't subscribe to it and use the double as pure takeout. We don't have that problem. Players frankly need to junk the "competitive" double and instead hammer their opps to the wall more often.

 

Then again, with the transfer positives implemented using the controls concept is almost impossible! :D

[Little_major]

Oh one other thing, Blue team Club 2000 introduced a new tool for slam bidding (or slam avoidance to be more accurate) called Turbo. Bidding beyond 4NT shows odd number of keycards and bidding 4NT shows an even number. We only use this when partner has opened 1C and the control response was not available (e.g. 1D/H response or interference). Helps when under a barrage.

 

No system does well in the midst of 3 level preempts. In standard system the overloaded one bids can be anything from crappy 11 to a powerful 19+, minors can be 3 to 6+ length and often opener has the dreaded balanced 12-14 (not playing weak NT). At least when my partner opens 1C and the next hand drop a 3 level bid, I know it is almost always right to bid or double. The standard player has a lot of guessing to do too.

 

I welcome interference because we are going to probably play the hand or defend doubled. The more the opps can tell me about their hands the happier I am. This is a similar reasoning as to why you shouldn't bid unusual NT unless you are so distributional that you are determined not to defend the hand. All it does is help the declarer anticipate the bad breaks and makes end plays easy.

[cwiggins]

Shape can be shown different ways. Precision uses longest suit first.

 

What about those schemes that show 4+ long majors before longer minors in some or all cases? Moscito shows 4+ long suits in ascending order, regardless of which is longest, and uses relays to sort the length issue out. MAFIA bids any 4+ major before a longer minor but, unlike Moscito, with both majors bids the longest first regardless of rank with 5+ in the longest major.

 

If you elect to show shape first and are not permitted to use relay systems (translation: subject to ACBL GCC), does it make sense to use either of those approaches that show a 4CM ahead of a 5-card minor?

 

A third alternative might be a canape style. Here is a quick stab at that:

 

Initial responses:

1M = 4+ long (if 4, unbalanced)

1NT = balanced

2m = 3+ minor (usually 4+ unless 5M332); may be canape major if strong

2M, 3m = 1-suited, 12+

2NT = 2-suited in minors, 8-11

 

 

After 1C-2C, 2D = relay and then:

2M = 5+ in bid major, 12+ HCP

2NT = Good 5-card clubs suit, 12+

3C = 1-suited, 8-11

3D = clubs + diamonds, 12+

3M,3NT = SPL, 1-suited in clubs, 12+

 

After 1C-2D, the scheme would be similar except that 2NT = diamond-heart canape with 12+.

 

This scheme of 2m responses is taken straight from Blue Club 2000.

[Chamaco]

Oh one other thing, Blue team Club 2000 introduced a new tool for slam bidding (or slam avoidance to be more accurate) called Turbo. Bidding beyond 4NT shows odd number of keycards and bidding 4NT shows an even number.

In Italy this is not new, actually it is frequent as much as using RKCB.

But it is used at the 3NT level (sort of serious/unserious 3NT):

 

When a major fit is found, 3NT shows even key cards, cuebid past 3NT shows od keyacrds; in the subsequent auction, bidding 4NT promises (or denies, up to you) the trump queen, whilst bypassing 4NT denies (/promises) the trump Q.