Millennium Club

[david_c]

I've recently been playing Millennium Club as described by Lyle Poe, and the experience so far has confirmed my belief that it's a very playable system.

 

So how come nobody else seems to be playing it? If it's half as good as I think it is, I'd have expected to see it being taken up by a few expert partnerships by now. But I've never seen anyone else playing MC, despite watching far too much bridge on BBO lately.

 

So what's the problem?

 

For anyone who doesn't already know, the 1♣ opening in MC shows one of:

 

- 15+ HCP balanced

- 15+ HCP with primary clubs

- Any game force, or maybe slightly less with a long suit.

 

This means that 1♦ promises four (and an unbalanced hand), 1M promises five, and 2♣ is Precision-style with an upper limit of 14HCP.

[vang]

there are many experts who use a similar system but they call it Polish club ;-)

[joker_gib]

In Polish club, balanced 15-17 hands are 1NT openings, aren't they ?

 

And 1♣ =

 

1) 12-14 HCP, balanced

2) 15-17 HCP, unbalanced with clubs

3) 18+ HCP, any distribution.

[helene_t]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe. This means that the system makes inefficient use of bidding space in uncontested auctions. (Since uncontested auctions barely exist these days it may not be a major problem).

[hrothgar]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe. This means that the system makes inefficient use of bidding space in uncontested auctions. (Since uncontested auctions barely exist these days it may not be a major problem).

Have you taken a look at Precision?

What about Blue Club?

 

For what its worth, "Millenium Club" sounds a lot like Don Varvels' "An Unassuming Club"

[david_c]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe.

Acol weak-NT. I haven't done a simulation to confirm this, but I don't think it's even close. Particularly if you open the major with 4M-4m-3-2, as I was taught to do.

 

Nice point though. I do think that the main strength of MC is that it is resistant to interference. In uncontested auctions your only worry is the 2♣ opener: is it too much of a price to pay? We shall see ...

[GijsH]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe. This means that the system makes inefficient use of bidding space in uncontested auctions. (Since uncontested auctions barely exist these days it may not be a major problem). 

 

 

Have you taken a look at Precision?

Or even worse: Blue Club?

[Free]

What do you open with a 4-1-4-4 (singleton ♥)?

[david_c]

What do you open with a 4-1-4-4 (singleton ♥)?

1♦.

 

More problematic is the hand with singleton in diamonds. Poe's "solution" is to pretend this type of hand doesn't exist, choosing between pass, 1NT and (very occasionally) 1M.

[han]

When you compare this system with precision, then there are some obvious differences:

 

1C should do better in competition, even though it is still vulnerable. As you have fewer possible hands, you should also gain in uncontested auctions when you open 1C.

 

1D shows 4+. I never considered the nebulous 1D opening as a big problem in precision, but this should be a small plus too.

 

1M have a much higher upper limit. Here precision clearly wins when they can open 1M. Of course, they have to open 1C with many hands you open 1M.

 

Although you don't specifically say it, it sounds like 2C has to be bid on minimal hands with 5 clubs and a 4 card major. Ouch!

 

Overall, it sounds like a very playable system, perhaps it needs some more time. After all, the millenium still has a long time to go.

[david_c]

For what its worth, "Millenium Club" sounds a lot like Don Varvels' "An Unassuming Club"

Indeed, I have the AUC notes too, and the systems are fairly similar - the main difference (in terms of opening bids) is that minimum 5C4M hands are opened 2♣ in Millennium Club and 1♣ in AUC.

 

But in my opinion this is a huge difference. Usually the main problem with playing a weak no-trump is that it's difficult to show the strong no-trump type in competition. Millennium Club solves this problem, because if you have a strong no-trump hand you have described it nicely by opening 1♣. If you hold the same hand in AUC then the opening bid leaves some of your values undisclosed (and there is often no convenient way to get back into the auction).

 

Of course, the advantage that AUC has is a respectable 2♣ opener. But I'm prepared to live with the nasty version in Millennium Club because of the effect on the 1♣ bid.

 

(Incidentally, the range for 2♣ in MC is 10-14HCP, but 5-card club suits are not allowed at the lower end of the range.)

[Flame]

Mc is polish club like system, that use both 2c and 1nt to show weak hands, there are top players who use this system when they are non vul (or atleast non vul vs vul) while changing the 1nt and 2c to be the stronger version while vul. The idea is the more vul they are and less we are the better it is for us to have our 1nt and 2c weaker to prempt them, and not less important when they are vul our 1c is less vulnarable to their inferences. An example of such pair are the bulgarian rumen kalin, also boochi dubin played like that before they decided to play strong 2c.

[awm]

Millenium club also bears some similarity to Nightmare (in that 1♣ is forcing but usually shows a hand with clubs unless very strong).

[GijsH]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe.

I ran a quick simulation:

to deal 1000 MC 1C openers to West: takes 25000 deals.

to deal 1000 ACOL (with weak 1NT) openers to West: takes 24000 deals.

 

so the two are very close to each other.

[SteelWheel]

All of this is beating around the bush...I'd like to form a partnership based on one or another of these systems/approaches (Unassuming Club, Millenium Club, some other Polish/Precision hybrid). To start, playing on here would be fine, but eventually would like to start hitting some ACBL events (up until a few years ago, I was almost a "somebody" in NY area bridge circles with about 1700 ACBL attendance points). My primary interest would be in hitting the tourn circuit regionally (with another Northeastener, preferably) with someone at about the same level and experience, who'd be able to committ to going to a few regionals and at least 2 of the three NABCs per year.

 

If anyone is interested, please send a pm to stwheel@optonline.net

 

Thanx.

[PrecisionL]

I know of no bidding system in which the 1♣-opening is as infrequent as in the system you describe.

I ran a quick simulation:

to deal 1000 MC 1C openers to West: takes 25000 deals.

to deal 1000 ACOL (with weak 1NT) openers to West: takes 24000 deals.

 

so the two are very close to each other.

STRANGE!?

 

My long time usage of Millennium Club type opens 1 ♣ 6.5% of all hands, not 4%.

 

Larry

 

Revised 2/25/08: Millennium Club = 6.8%

 

Balanced = 5.0%

5+♣ Only = 0.4%

5+♣ & 4-card suit = 1%

All G.F. hands = 0.3%

 

Blue Team Club is 6.4% of all hands = 1♣ (17+ hcp)

Precision is 9.8% of all hands = 1♣ (16+ hcp)

Moscito is 14.2% of all hands = 1♣ (15+ hcp)

[lowerline]

I've recently been playing Millennium Club as described by Lyle Poe, and the experience so far has confirmed my belief that it's a very playable system.

 

So how come nobody else seems to be playing it? If it's half as good as I think it is, I'd have expected to see it being taken up by a few expert partnerships by now. But I've never seen anyone else playing MC, despite watching far too much bridge on BBO lately.

 

So what's the problem?

 

For anyone who doesn't already know, the 1♣ opening in MC shows one of:

 

- 15+ HCP balanced

- 15+ HCP with primary clubs

- Any game force, or maybe slightly less with a long suit.

 

This means that 1♦ promises four (and an unbalanced hand), 1M promises five, and 2♣ is Precision-style with an upper limit of 14HCP

And a 12-14 1NT opening I presume? MC looks the same as the Nightmare system from Buratti-Lanzarotti who played this with great success on the highest level before the cheating scandal. Take a look: http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/NightmareSystem.pdf

 

Steven

[joshs]

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

[Codo]

I don´t see why you should play MC.

 

From polish club to MC you switch the strong NT to the weak NT and make the 1 Club opening stronger.

I prefer the weak NT myself, but the advantages are questionable.

And the disadvantages of a pure strong 1 Club opening are long discussed, so where do you win?

 

The system is surely playable, but so is precission or PC and I cannot see how the changes in MC make it superior to these systems.

[Flame]

I don´t see why you should play MC.

 

From polish club to MC you switch the strong NT to the weak NT and make the 1 Club opening stronger.

I prefer the weak NT myself, but the advantages are questionable.

And the disadvantages of a pure strong 1 Club opening are long discussed, so where do you win?

 

The system is surely playable, but so is precission or PC and I cannot see how the changes in MC make it superior to these systems.

As david said MC does have a big advantage over some of the other systems and this is by takeing the advantage of weak 1NT while not taking one of the biggest disadvantage of the weak 1NT which is the problems in showing the strong 1NT later in competitive action.

[david_c]

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure.

 

My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout.

[PrecisionL]

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure.

 

My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout.

Interestingly, I have been playing my version of MC for 3 years. I like our revisions, but others may not.

 

1♣ = same as MC, but rebid of 2♦ asks for controls, not 2♣ so we avoid rebidding 3♣ with a 15+ hcp hand and 5 or 6 clubs and unbalanced.

 

Responses to 1♣: I play 2♣ as the main G.F., artificial, opener rebids 2♦ with 15-18 balanced and natural bidding from there. 2NT rebid = 19+ hcp. Suit rebids are two suited with 5+♣ or very strong (rebid the suit to show 5).

 

Other responses to 1♣:

1NT = 5-5 and G.F., opener can discover both suits under 3NT

2♦ > 2NT = transfer to good 6-card suit and G.F.

3X = G.F. 1-under splinter, either 4441 or 54 in minors or 6-cd minor with slam

interest

 

Other opening bids:

1♥/♠ = 4 or 5 card major

1NT = 11-14

2♣/♦ = 10-14 and good suit, no 4-card major (Qxxx+)

2♥/♠ = 6-10 & 6-cards in 1st & 2nd seat, 10-14 and 5M332 in 3rd 7 4th seats

2NT = 5-5 minors, rare 5-4 with good 4-card suit and poor 5-card suit

 

Also: 1M - 2♣ = A. G. F. asking for major suit distribution

 

Larry

[Flame]

Glad someone brought back this link,because i desided to play it at our next nationals

[benlessard]

Comparaisons between what i play and MC for the opening structure.

 

2D---weak so we have no way for 4414.

2C same thing except we prefer 11-15 instead of 10(11)--14

1Nt--- we play 10-14/12-15 instead of 12-14

1M we have 12-14+ 18-22 always unbalanced vs 12-22

1D--- at least 4D unbalanced

1C--- 15+ balanced, 15+ clubs, 15-17 with 5M unbalanced. All GF hands

 

The frequency of our 1C opening is lower then in precision but higher then in MC. The key is that the 5M hand are splitted into 4.

 

weak or 18--22 its 1M , 15-17 or Gf its 1C.

 

So we have a part precision with natural D. Our system might have legality issues since some 5M are upgraded into 1C withouth having their full 15 HCP