System Design: 3-way strong club

[perko90]

I'm trying to find / create a system that has the following characteristics:

 

Must Haves:

1) GCC Legal

2) Strong 1♣

3) Weak NT

4) Unbalanced 1♦

 

Highly Desirable:

1) 5-card majors

2) 2♥/2♠ = weak 2

3) lean toward natural bidding

4) flexible enough to go strong NT (14-16 or 15-17) in 3rd/4th seat (assuming relaxing requirement for 5cM and/or unbalanced 1♦)

 

Wiggle Room:

1) Ok for slightly off shape 1NT (for ex 5-4-2-2)

2) Ok for 2♣ to show 5 club / 4 diamond hands, if needed (but of course, would rather promise 6)

3) 2♦ can be whatever it takes to make the system work

 

Approach:

I'm looking at this as trying to improve 2/1 and Polish Club and not trying to compare to Precision or any other strong/multi club system. As such, I'm not really interested in working in ultra aggressive opening 1 bids and I'm perfectly fine with 11-17 1M openings. When there's a choice, I'd like to have any system weaknesses (hopefully few) tucked into the same places you'd find them in 2/1. If there's an existing system that meets the criteria, I'll gladly look at that. I've already drawn some inspiration from Miles' "Unbalanced Diamond" (UD) and Varvel's An Unassuming Club (AUC).

 

Here's my 1st try:

 

Opening Bids

1♣ = balanced 15-17 OR 15-17 5+ clubs (no 5cM) (also 4=4=1=4) OR 18+ any distribution

1♦ = 11-14 artificial, unbalanced hand (no 5cM) OR 15-17 4+ diamonds, unbalanced (no 5cM)

1M = 11-17 5+ M

1NT = 12-14 balanced

2♣ = 10-14 6+ clubs

2♦ = whatever

2♥/2♠ = weak 2

 

Responses to 1♣ (redone based on feedback)

1♦ = 7+, 4+ hearts (6 & 5+ hearts ok)

1♥ = similar to above w/ spades

1♠ = art. neg., 0-6 OR 10-12 bal GF

1NT = 7-9 bal no 4cM

2♣ = 7+ 5(6)+ diamonds (no 4cM)

2♦ = similar to above with clubs

2NT = 13-14 balanced

 

Also considering an approach very similar to SPRY:

1♦ = 5-9 waiting

1♥ = 10+ unbalanced, artificial, GF

1♠ = 0-4 (no A), artificial, bust

1NT = 10-12 OR 15+ balanced GF

 

Rebids After 1♣-1♦/1♥(Walsh Relay)

1M (accept Xfer) = 3+ M, 18+ GF

... [Responder bids 2M as a general purpose confirmation of 8+ card fit; other bids tend to indicate only 4]

1♠/1♦ = usually exactly 4 spades and a canape bid, 15+

1NT = 15-17 Balanced (not 4 M)

2♣ = natural 5+, either 15-17 w/ exactly 3 M or 18+ w/ 0-2 M

... [Responder can bid 2♦ to ask:

...... 2M = 15-17 w/ exactly 3-card support

...... anything else = strong misfit hand

......... (exception: 2♥ when responder's suit is spades may be as low as 15)

2M (super-accept Xfer) = 4 M, 15-17 (either bal or w/ clubs)

3♣ = natural 6+, 15-17, 0-2 M

Other bids = natural, 0-2 M, 18+ GF

 

Hopefully, that gives a good idea where I'm heading.

 

Questions to ponder:

1) Any glaring errors so far?

2) It seems this forum tends to see a natural 1♦ as a net big plus. Is the artificial unbalanced 1♦, which clears up tremendously after a rebid, still too vague to be useful?

3) Any tips on improving responses and rebids after 1♣ opener

[Zelandakh]

My system is not dissimilar

 

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any

1♦ = 10-17, 4+ diamonds, unbal

1M = 10-17, 5+ suit, unbal

1NT = 12-14, bal or 4414

2♣ = 10-14, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4M

others = preempts

 

There are actually several systems around with approximately this base. Have a look around online.

 

Your questions:

1. You need to be careful in the setup you have so far about how the bidding goes on opening hands with both minors. There are a few potential fixes for this but you might find it useful to at least consider using a 2♦ opening to cover this hand type. Certainly you are going to need to consider the auctions over the 1♦ opening carefully. I also do not particularly like your structure after 1♣ - 1♦, which seems more suited to a traditional strong club than your multi-way. You also need to define 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ as 15+ rather than "strong" since otherwise you have no rebid with 6+ clubs, no 4M and 15-17.

 

2. A natural 1♦ is a plus but for many strong club systems it is less of a plus than making the 2♣ opening more precise. There are systems played by world class pairs with a 1♦ opening that is at least as nebulous as yours so it should be workable providing you are careful with the follow-ups. You have the 2♦ opening available if you run into problems too, as suggested in A1.

 

3. There are lots of different options here and it would be wrong of me to say method X is the best. I can tell you what I use (1♦ = negative; 1♥ = GF with spades; 1♠ = GF with no major; 1NT = GF with hearts or hearts and clubs; 2♣ = GF with hearts and diamonds; 2♦ = GF with hearts and not spades, bal or 3-suited; 2♥ = bal with spades and not hearts; 2♠ = 3-suited with short hearts; 2NT = solid suit); or I can direct you to several discussions about possible alternatives, mostly concerned with getting semi-positives or an immediate double-negative into the response structure; or I can point you to other systems where the 1♣ opening can be as light as 15 for inspiration. At the end of the day, how you design the follow-up system will have a strong bearing on what works best and you should probably just play what feels most natural for you, at least while ironing out the major flaws in what you come up with.

[straube]

How about 1D including your (41)35s as well? There's plenty of room to sort out how many diamonds you have later. Then your 2D can be short diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

How about 1D including your (41)35s as well?

His 1♦ opening is any hand in range 11-14 without 6 clubs or a 5 card major, plus unbalanced 15-17 point hands with 4+ diamonds and no 5 card major or (5)6+ clubs. So 11-14 point (41)35s are already included and 15-17 (41)35s are in the 1♣ opening.

[straube]

His 1♦ opening is any hand in range 11-14 without 6 clubs or a 5 card major, plus unbalanced 15-17 point hands with 4+ diamonds and no 5 card major or (5)6+ clubs. So 11-14 point (41)35s are already included and 15-17 (41)35s are in the 1♣ opening.

 

I see. I thought his 1D promised 4. If it promises 3 then it seems pretty playable to me. Compared to Precision, he's trading an underpowered club (a minus imo) for a more descriptive diamond opening (a plus).

[perko90]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Love it!

 

I'm definitely flexible on my approach to the unbalanced 1♦ opening (thus the poll). I figured I would start w/ a Miles style suggestion and see where the discussion went. But let's say I adopt the Precision 2♦ opening, and thus have an unbalanced 1♦ that promises 3+ (and 4+ if 15-17). I know I'm breaking my own rules, but now comparisons to Precision are inevitable. To me, I see the 1♣ bids as a wash. My system has a wider range of NT to deal with (neg) and a weaker club rebid (neg), but has stronger Major rebids (pos) and better ways to handle canape and 4-4-4-1 hands (pos). I see the unbalanced 1♦ as a big upgrade to the nebulous Precision one (I love having a 1NT rebid available, for ex, when holding (31)(54) shape and ptr bids the singleton). And I'm a big fan of the advantages of weak NT (another big plus, IMO). Of course, my 1M bids aren't as limited as Precision (neg), but I'm content with them.

I believe the make or break part of the system is establishing the responses to 1♣. It's been pointed out in these forums and elsewhere that strong club system results from 1♣-1♦ auctions often can't match the results of natural systems. If I simply expand the range of the 1♦ negative, it makes the problem worse. That's why I was thinking I need to do 1 of 2 things:

1) Adopt Polish Club style responses, where any non negative response is only GF opposite the 18+ hands (it may wrong-side more contracts, but it should be "with the field" more often than not)

2) Improve the 1♦ negative with an immediate 2nd negative. I know the HUGE advantage of having an immediate 2nd negatvie available in 2/1 2♣ auctions, but I have no experience with using it in strong 1♣ auctions.

I'm pretty sure Zelandakh does not approve of option 1, but that was my thought process.

[straube]

I wouldn't use Polish Club responses. You have a strong (if not very strong) club and you should not cater to the possibility of opener having a weak hand.

 

I experimented with...

 

1D-semipositive

1S-double negative

1H, 1N+-GF

 

Wonder if that might work for you. Seems more attractive for an underpowered club, but obviously you're concerned with having too many 1C-1D auctions.

[PrecisionL]

I vote none of the above!

 

I use the Diamond-Major with two partners and find it works well at either pairs or teams.

 

1♦ = 10-15 hcp and promises at least one 4-card major.

2♦ = 10-15 hcp and 6♦ or 5♦ and 4♣

2NT = 10-14 and 5-5 in the minors.

 

More details:

 

http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm

[dake50]

Let 1D be a 2nd step in your NT ladder:

1NT opener: 12-14

1D, 1NT rebid: 15-17

1C, 1NT rebid: 18-20

Also systemically take eg. 4441 w 15-18 to be shown

by 1D opener and jump to show short.

Or what ever else pains after 1C-force: eg. 15-18; mm, H+m.

The jist being to clarify 1C rebids by putting some types

of middling bal, 1-suiter, 2-suiter, 3-suiter into opening 1D.

So making use of 1D rebids (esp. jumps) that lie undefined.

[straube]

Let 1D be a 2nd step in your NT ladder:

1NT opener: 12-14

1D, 1NT rebid: 15-17

1C, 1NT rebid: 18-20

Also systemically take eg. 4441 w 15-18 to be shown

by 1D opener and jump to show short.

Or what ever else pains after 1C-force: eg. 15-18; mm, H+m.

The jist being to clarify 1C rebids by putting some types

of middling bal, 1-suiter, 2-suiter, 3-suiter into opening 1D.

So making use of 1D rebids (esp. jumps) that lie undefined.

 

He's specified an unbalanced 1D opening.

[perko90]

I vote none of the above!

 

I use the Diamond-Major ...

Vote away - your choice now available :)

 

However, I may have more trouble with a wider range 2D, which in my proposed system would have a 17 upper bound.

[perko90]

I looked into semi-positive responses to 1♣ some more. I found 2 suggestions that seemed interesting but I don't think are viable under the GCC:

1) 1♦ = double negative or GF with most of other responses showing the semi-positive.

*** I believe this won't work because an integral part of that proposal was a 1♥ rebid by opener essentially asking responder to clarify (which is not allowed under the "no relay" clause of the GCC)

 

2) Another one included transfers where 1♦ = double negative or hearts, 1♥ = Xfer to spades and 1♠ = semi-positive or some such approach

*** This gets a bit murky as to whether the 1♦ response would be allowed under GCC or because the response doesn't actually promise Hearts this too would be considered a relay. I'm not sure.

 

So, I might be constrained to:

1♦ = 5-9 semi-positive

1♥ = unbal GF

1♠ = double negative

1NT = bal GF

or some such more straight-forward approach

[relknes]

I looked into semi-positive responses to 1♣ some more. I found 2 suggestions that seemed interesting but I don't think are viable under the GCC:

1) 1♦ = double negative or GF with most of other responses showing the semi-positive.

*** I believe this won't work because an integral part of that proposal was a 1♥ rebid by opener essentially asking responder to clarify (which is not allowed under the "no relay" clause of the GCC)

 

The GCC allows "All constructive methods starting with the opener's second call", (#8 on the GCC)

[benlessard]

AFAIK over a strong club or any strong opening you can play whatever you want.

[relknes]

AFAIK over a strong club or any strong opening you can play whatever you want.

I think you are allowed to play anything EXCEPT a "relay system," which is defined as a sequence of relays that starts with opener or responder's first call.

(definitions #5 and disallowed #5)

[steve2005]

I think your system is workable. May be easiear to overcome interference, as you will have a bigger hand if strong than in precision.

Would have to agree that you should treat as a strong club for purposes of responses to 1♣

 

One question: What do you plan on doing over interference (like 1♠ or 2♠) after 1♣-1♦ to differentiate between 15-17 balanced and 18-19 balanced if you dont have Kokish 1♥ relay available?

[perko90]

I think your system is workable. May be easiear to overcome interference, as you will have a bigger hand if strong than in precision.

Would have to agree that you should treat as a strong club for purposes of responses to 1♣

 

One question: What do you plan on doing over interference (like 1♠ or 2♠) after 1♣-1♦ to differentiate between 15-17 balanced and 18-19 balanced if you dont have Kokish 1♥ relay available?

Well, you do a few things. Similar to Precision, you divide your range, so that pass is weak, Dbl is semi-positive and up. The higher the interference, the stronger the minimum for your Dbl needs to be. It's no fun having the 15-17 balanced without a stopper when ptr doubles, but that's just life.

However, unlike Precision, you can't reserve suit/NT action for GF hands. You gotta get in there. So, a min NT bid is whatever would be enough to play it there opposite a 15-17 balanced hand (which is the case, as I calculate it, 42% of the time). So, 1NT = 6-9 or over 2-level interference, 2NT = 8-9. Always try to bid NT instead of doubling when holding a stopper to avoid putting ptr in a bad spot. Minimum suit bids at the 2 level are 8+ and if at the 3 level, it's GF (but usually it's right to stretch a little, so 9+).

Over 1-level interference, when opener holds 17-19, you can bid 1NT even if ptr passed, and bid 2NT when ptr doubles. Over 2-level interference, if it's passed around, double (takeout) is the only active option or just pass and sulk quietly as you defend. If ptr doubled, you can bid 3NT or cue-bid their suit without a stopper/5-card suit.

[perko90]

I think I may have more leeway than I thought to comply w/ the GCC. Seems like the ACBL has a limited definition of what a relay system is, and therefore, opener's rebids and after can cooperate with what most would call relays. That said, and researching/thinking a lot more, I think I may have discovered a workable framework for responses to 1♣. I admit I haven't worked out all the kinks / bidding sequences, but I'll share the framework to be enough for people to throw darts at. As I implied before, just expanding the range of 1♦ response to cover all non-GF hands, to me, is a total failure. So here's my idea after 1♣:

1♦ = 5+ pts, 4+ H's

Opener has choices: With 15-17, choose between 1NT and 2♣ w/ < 4 H's and 2♥ = 4+ H's

With 18+, you can complete the transfer w/ 1♥ (promising at least 2 H's) or bid your suit (implying no great fit (but could have 3). With Bal 18-19 bid 2NT or, if holding 4 H's, 3♥ as picture bids.

After opener's 1♥ rebid, responder can continue with responses like the Polish Club auctions of 1♣-1M; 2♦ or some other scheme to work out length and strength.

1♥ = 5+ pts, 4+ S's, continuations similar to the 1♦ auctions above.

1♠ = 0-4 double negative or 8-9 no 4cM

A 1NT rebid by opener (15-20) would be the most common continuation; other rebids can follow what others proposed elsewhere (multi-Landy and such)

1NT = bal 10-12 or 15+, GF

2m = 10+, 5+ suit, GF

And then there's the hole ... what to do w/ 5-7 no 4cM? If I add it to 1♦, I think that overloads it. I can't add it to 1♠ because it wouldn't know what to do after a 1NT rebid, and if I put it in 1NT, the wrong-sider posse would get me. Maybe put it w/ 1♦ and have the other possiblity be 5+ H's? It would make jump accepts awkward and the 1♠ response w/ 8-9 would have to include 4cM's, but it's a thought. Any others? Maybe 1NT is the least of evils?

Before I go nuts on these responses, I thought I'd check if I'm on the right track.

[borag]

Your current system is very close to Nightmare version that I played(and still think it was best)

 

1♣ = art, 15-17 hp bal 2+♣, 15-21 unb 4+♣ or game-forsing any

1♦ = art, 18-19 bal 2+♦, 10-21 unb 5+♦ or 4441

1♥ = nat, 15-19 bal 5♥, 10-21 unb 5+♥

1♠ = nat, 15-19 bal 5♠, 10-21 unb 5+♠

1nt = nat, 11-14 bal 5M, 5422, 4414 , (43)15

2♣ = nat, 8-14 unb 6+c

2♦ = very weak major or 20-21 bal only 5♣ possible

2M = 7-10 unb 6+M

2nt = 20-21 bal with 5♦/♥/♠

3x = transfer weak or 6-5 two suiters

3♠ = transfer solid 7 card any

3nt = gambling minor + plus stoppers queen or king

 

Now the missing/interesting parts

1) 10-14 hp (41)35 you can open 1♦ (bad clubs), 2♣ (good clubs), PASS give it a try and upgrade 14 hp to 1♣

2) 10-14 hp (43)15 open 1NT best win

3) 10-14 hp 4414 open 1NT best win

4) 10-14 hp 4405, PASS is not a bad option, upgrade 14hp to 1♣

5) We PASS ed safely because opening was an obligation with unb hands at 3.rd position

6) PASS with bad 6+c preemptives and upgrade good ones to 2♣

 

So consider PASS with some of them and 1NT with (43)15 or 4414

I still love this system and trying to convince partners to play it

 

Bora

[perko90]

Your current system is very close to Nightmare version that I played(and still think it was best)

Good to hear, Bora!

 

1♥ = nat, 15-19 bal 5♥, 10-21 unb 5+♥

1♠ = nat, 15-19 bal 5♠, 10-21 unb 5+♠

I would miss the advantage of having limited 1M openings. I want to leave behind the bad parts of 2/1, like fake reverses and jump shifts into 3-card suits and such.

 

2) 10-14 hp (43)15 open 1NT best win

3) 10-14 hp 4414 open 1NT best win

Opening 1NT w/ a singleton just isn't my style, but it's good to hear it's working for you.

 

Thanks for the suggestions!

[perko90]

Ok, so after some more thought, it looks like I'm leaning toward something like this:

 

Opening Bids:

1♣ = balanced 15-17 OR 15-17 5+ clubs (no 5cM) (also 4=4=1=4) OR 18+ any distribution

1♦ = 11-17 3+ diamonds, unbalanced hand (no 5cM) [if 15+ will have 4+ diamonds] (sometimes stronger than 17 with a 5D-4M hand that would be easier to bid as a pure reverse)

1M = 11-17 5+ M

1NT = 12-14 balanced

2♣ = 10-14 6+ clubs

2♦ = Precision style w/ short diamonds

2♥/2♠ = weak 2

2NT = 20-22-, bal

 

Responses to 1♣:

1♦ = 0-6(7) any distr. OR 8-9 no 4cM

1♥ = 5+ spades and 7(6)+ HCPs or balanced 8-9 HCPs and exactly 4 spades

1♠ = 5+ hearts and 7(6)+ HCPs or balanced 8-9 HCPs and exactly 4 hearts

1NT = 10+ HCPs 5+ diamonds

2♣ = 10+ HCPs 5+ clubs

2♦ = 10-14 HCPs balanced

2♥ and above = various 4-4-4-1 GF hands and stronger balanced hands

 

Rebids by opener aafter a positive response:

1NT = 15-17 balanced; if 2NT is minimum NT, then 15-19. If responder showed a major, < 4-card support or if 18-19, < 3-card support [responder assumes 15-17 and opener takes another bid w/ 18-19 (usually 4NT) if there's an attempt to sign-off in game]

minimum club bid shows 15+ and 5+ clubs

Beta (CAB) accepts of the suit transfers (promise fit and GF values) (after an accept of the major, responder bids NT if 8-9 HCPs and only 4-card suit, otherwise answers CAB, not counting NT as a step)

New suits (other than clubs) show 18+ and tend to deny a fit, but 3-card support possible

 

So, my system looks a whole lot more like Precision than I ever intended at the start. Is it as good (or even better)?

 

I like that the 15-17 intermediate 1♣ hands show themselves right away and therefore any other bid shows 18+. Also, because of this, I can actually start to show shape in the majors lower than Precision, but hopefully still gain the benefits.

 

So, I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. Assuming the weak NT is a big plus (I know there's plenty of room for debate, but that's my firm opinion), and that I actually prefer to show shape 1st with the 16-17 5+ major hands, have I built a better mousetrap than Precision??

[Cthulhu D]

 

minimum NT = 15-19 balanced. If responder showed a major, < 4-card support or if 18-19, < 3-card support [responder assumes 15-17 and opener takes another bid w/ 18-19 (usually 4NT) if there's an attempt to sign-off in game]

 

Why not do whatever you are doing with 20-21 with the 18-19 hands and put the 20-21 in with the 15-17 after a positive response. Then there a greater chance responder will want to move again over 4NT.

[perko90]

Why not do whatever you are doing with 20-21 with the 18-19 hands and put the 20-21 in with the 15-17 after a positive response. Then there a greater chance responder will want to move again over 4NT.

 

Thanks for the suggestion; I appreciate what you're trying to do. I edited the previous post for clarity. 20-21 is in the 2NT opening.

I did that for 2 reasons: 1) I'm not dying to use 2NT for say 5-5 minor preempt or other such bids 2) I've stuffed 1 more NT range into 1♣ than other systems and so I want to relieve a bit of that burden.

 

After a 2-level positive response, I don't know a good way to separate the 15-17 range from the 18-19, although I would definitely like to!

After say 1♣-2♦ (10+bal), I think I have to make 2NT carry the wide NT range in order to leave room for Stayman.

 

FWIW, I also considered leaving 1NT as the natural 10+ bal response to 1♣ and 2♦ as natural 5+ diamonds, but rejected it because I wanted to leave room for a cheap 2♣ rebid (possibly only 15-17) when responder shows diamonds, and eliminate the need for a 3♦ raise by opener as the Beta ask, as that seems quite high for an uncontested auction.

 

However - and I just thought of this now - maybe I could keep the 1NT response as natural and swap the minor suit responses, so that 2♣ = 5+ diamonds and 2♦ = 5+ clubs. At least there the diamond agreement/Beta ask can be at the 2 level (but unfortunately not the club rebid). But now Stayman is available at the 2 level which may be more important w/ needing to unwind the NT ranges. It's a thought(?).

[PrecisionL]

After wrong siding 1NT two times this week (Playing Precision with a natural NT positive as per Berkowitz-Cohen) for poor match point pair scores, I don't like 1♣ - 1NT showing diamonds in your posting (or 8-10 hcp balanced).

 

The 1NT positive response should NOT be a hand that likely will play in NT and thus put the strong hand in dummy making the defense so much easier.

 

Slightly better would be that 1♣ - 1NT shows a 5-cd or better Major. BIL uses it to show 5+ ♠.

Reference: http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/1c.php

 

Other approaches are to make a 1NT response stronger, or artificial:

 

(1) 1

♣

- 2

♦

response as 8-10 balanced (Meckwell like) and make the 1NT response natural but 11-14, or

(2) 4-4 Majors as proposed by Timm in Precision Simplified, 2010, or

(3) 5-4 in the Majors (C3 System, unpublished), or

(4) Put balanced hands into one of the Major hands, 1

♥

or 1

♠

per Meckwell, or

(5) Put balanced hands into the 2

♣

or 2

♦

response, or

(6) Make-up your own treatment

[PrecisionL]

However - and I just thought of this now - maybe I could keep the 1NT response as natural and swap the minor suit responses, so that 2♣ = 5+ diamonds and 2♦ = 5+ clubs. At least there the diamond agreement/Beta ask can be at the 2 level (but unfortunately not the club rebid). But now Stayman is available at the 2 level which may be more important w/ needing to unwind the NT ranges. It's a thought(?).

 

Interesting ... I am in the process of designing a simple Transfer Precision system for an old partner and decided to use:

 

1♣ - 2♣: (a) 5+♦, or (b) Balanced and 11-14 hcp

 

1♣ - 2♦: (a) 5+♣, or (b) Balanced and 8-10 / 15+ hcp

 

Thus, 1♣ - 1NT is available for something else that fills a system gap.

 

I have generated hands to look for problems, but none found yet - they usually appear at the table.