BBO Discussion Forums: Blue Team Club - BBO Discussion Forums

dick payne, on 2014-March-10, 08:19, said:

Are you agreeing with Glen's point? Which I think is that many top pairs successfully use the nebulous diamond? Glen was responding to...

dick payne, on 2014-March-09, 07:06, said:

which sounded rather dismissive.

We've had many discussions on whether 1D nebulous or natural is better and many of us have argued for one or the other, but to compare yourself to the one-eyed king (we nebulous diamond users being blind subjects I take it) would naturally attract a response.

In general, I think you've started off rather badly on this forum. You presented several of your ideas or methods, presented them as one might if he/she were writing a book (educating us in other words), found that they were for the most part rejected and then concluded that we are not open-minded and instead are "antipathic". What if the ideas you've presented so far are just not very good? Quite honestly that's how I feel.

You've already been criticized a bit by one of our most friendly and helpful posters who in fact had previously welcomed you good naturedly to the forum. I felt the same at the time but I didn't want to pile on.

So I rather expect a defensive reaction from you (because that's how these things generally go) and you can have the last word, but there's not much point to winning an argument if you don't change the other fellow's mind.

I accept this criticism. It is fully justified. I suppose I bridled when someone dismissed 45 years of work in five lines. I apologise and will try to be less incisive in future. I accept that many of the people who prefer to be anonymous may be much better players and theoreticians than I am
Returning to technicalities page 6 of Reese's book. " xx / AQx /Axx / KJxxx Holding three fair diamonds, open 1D Qxx / K10x/ Kx / AJ10xx With all round strength and only two diamonds, open 1NT." We went further than that after more accidents and refrained from opening xxx in diamonds when partner led from Kx
I was not referring to myself as a one eyed King. I was referring to precision players, which of course I had no right to do. If there are world class players who play Precision, there must be advantage elsewhere in the system gained from opening a short diamond. That I cannot know, I know Precision but I have never played it

I'm sorry I mistook your one-eyed king reference, and I'm glad that you received my other criticism well. I'm for starting over.

dick payne, on 2014-March-10, 08:19, said:

As already noted, I was replying to your comments on Precision (as you stated, "If a Precision player...").

In Blue (and Orange Club), 1♦ will be 3+ as one opens 1NT with "precisely 3325 distribution" and 13-14.

Some comments on the 13-17 1NT:
- styles that open 1NT with 3-3-3-4 exactly and 13-14 are misguided, as the flat shape should be downgraded, not upgraded into a mostly 15-17 1NT
- the 3-3-2-5 can be upgraded, but 12 counts should not be opened (see your example hand, 12 points)
- it is better to use a (13)14-16 1NT, with 13 being potential upgrades with a five card suit, including upgrading all 3-3-2-5 exactly (3-3-2-5 and 3-3-5-2 has the benefit of getting easily to a nice 5-3 major fit).

If you're referring to my posts, the only thing I'm guilty of is disagreeing with you.

> The 13-17 no trump was mind bogglingly clever with its intricate 2C and 2D responses

I'm sorry but I disagree. My partners and I found it easy to learn and play. Sure, it was a vastly over-engineered solution to a trivial problem (3-3-2-5) but the rules under which the Blue Team played in various Italian and other European tournaments may have required it.

> The 2C bid was another horror...

Again, I'm sorry but I disagree. Your opinion goes against the vast majority of people who have played the system. You may have had bad results from 2C openings but it's wrong to assume that anyone else had the same experience.

And you never answered the question "how the Acol 1NT is different from the Standard American 1NT with non-forcing Stayman, Transfers, etc."

> Mingoni... If you see a book with an author you know and a second author that you have never heard of you can bet your bottom dollar that it was the unknown who wrote it and the expert card player may or may not have checked it carefully.

Attributing the Italian Blue Team Bridge book to Enzo Mingoni is ridiculous. Why do you find it necessary to blow smoke at everyone?

> It appears that the ethos of this website is to dismiss other people’s ideas as summarily as possible...antipathy is the norm on this web site...

If you've ever been in a typical Usenet forum, you would know that the best way to provoke a flame attack on yourself is to whine when people disagree with you. These BBO forums are like a formal tea party in comparision.

Personally, I think that the 13-17 1NT opening of Blue Club was almost unplayable. And the 2♣ opening of Blue Club, while superior to that of Precision, is a weak point of the system.

I base my opinion on years of playing the system. With one partner, I played the 13-17 1NT as presented in the Reese book. With another partner, we ditched the 13-17 1NT entirely in favor of a more traditional strong NT opening, and opened 1♦ or 2♣ on the impossible 13-14 point hands as we deemed necessary.

Back when I used to play Precision (which was a LONG time ago), I used to hate having to open 2♣. I was always relieved when we arrived at a normal contract after that opening.

So I disagree with the assertion that bad experiences with 2♣ openings (Blue Club or Precision Club) are not consistent with the opinions of a vast majority of those who have played the system. In my personal experience, and from what I have heard from others whose opinions I respect, I find the 2♣ opening to be a problem bid.

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

I am totally in agreement with ArtK78. This has been exactly my experience after playing Blue club for many years

I agree that a natural, limited 2♣ opening bid is a tradeoff and can be problematic in any strong club system. It's something you have to accept. But 2♣ has advantages as well and is not much of a handicap when played properly.

There's a big difference between what strong club system books say about 2♣ and how it's actually played by top experts. The books show you examples of easy situations, not difficult ones.

We all know that experience is the best teacher and that reading bridge books is important, but there are lessons that can be learned only by studying how the best players play and that's particularly true of Blue Team Club. Unfortunately, that can be costly in terms of time and effort.

There's not much material available these days unless you're really determined and dig for it. I wish the ACBL would republish the World Championship books from the 60s but that would not be profitable and thus will never happen.

There are however, collections of The Bridge World from that era that appear on the market now and then. Forquet's book "Bridge With the Blue Team" has some examples. And even the Bulletin has some.

Lastly, I stongly recommend kibbizing world-class players who play strong club systems. You can learn a lot.

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 12:07, said:

Superior is a slight understatement. There's no comparison between BTC 2♣ and Precision 2♣. When you take out minimum hands with a 4 card major and 5+ clubs by opening 1M, you can better afford to investigate other contracts because opener will have a maximum or 6+ clubs.

That being said, the standard BTC 2♦ relay system leaves a little to be desired because there aren't any bids to distinguish between a minimum and a maximum single suiter when trying to decide whether to go past 3♣.

Standard response system:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2NT                               Minimum or maximum with clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Minimum or maximum with clubs only, 1 outside stopper

with 3♦ asking for stopper locations. You may want to stop in 3♣ if opener has a minimum, but there's no way to tell.


My response system:

If opener has a maximum, the bidding would go:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2[hearts]                         Hearts or a maximum, clubs only hand
               2[spades]          Asking
2NT                               Maximum, clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Maximum, clubs only, 1 outside stopper
3[diamonds]                       Maximum, 4 hearts, diamond fragment
3[hearts]                         Maximum, 4 hearts, 2=4=2=5, do not stop spades and diamonds
3[spades]                         Maximum, 4 hearts, spade fragment
3NT                               Maximum, 4 hearts, 2=4=2=5  At least partial stoppers in spades and diamonds

or this way with a minimum:

2[clubs]       2[diamonds]        Asking for clarification
2NT                               Minimum, clubs only, 2 outside stoppers               
3[clubs]                          Minimum, clubs only, 1 outside stopper

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

dick payne, on 2014-March-10, 12:27, said:

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.

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

dick payne, on 2014-March-10, 12:27, said:

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.bridgebas...play-strong-nt/

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

Rainer Herrmann

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.

rhm, on 2014-March-11, 06:52, said:

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.

glen, on 2014-March-11, 11:15, said:

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.

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

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:

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

johnu, on 2014-March-11, 12:18, said:

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.

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?