[benlessard]

Our setup is this


1D waiting 0+
1H 5H 0+
1S 5S 0+
1Nt 6c 0-4 or GF
etc


1D opening is natural unbalanced 12-22
1H opening is natural unbalanced 12-14 or 18-22
1S opening is natural unbalanced 12-14 or 18-22
1Nt is 10-14 or 12-15 may have 5M
2C is 11-16 6C or 5C + 4M



For handling interference we do much better then those playing regular Strong Club because as long as you show responder shape early ur ok. The strong hand is more often balanced then unbalanced so the big preemption problem is around the responder not the opener.

[RogerGe]

our system of a variation to Blue Team Club is working like this:
1♣ : response
1♦=0-5pts
1♥=6+pts, max 2 controls, FORCING up to 2NT
1♠=3 controls
1NT=4controls
2♣=5 controls
2♦=transfer in hearts
2♥=transfer in spades
2♠=6 controls
Also, we employ a 1NT opening with a large spectrum of hands, between 1-17 points, where in the lower range the majors are exactly 3 - 3 and minimum 4 clubs
i can send anyone a nice presentation of our system, free of course

[Tcyk]

Revision by John Montgomery uses 1D as a positive response or a hand that does not meet the criteria for another bid
1C 1D = Weak with no biddable suit or 8+ HCP any shape
1H = 5 hearts, 0-7 points
1S = 5 spades, 0-7 points
1N = 4/4 in the majors, 0-7 HCP
2C, 2D = 6+ clubs 0-5 HCP
2H = 5/5 or better in the majors 3-7 HCP
2S = super-unusual positive 8-11 HCP
2N = super-unusual positive 12+ HCP
3C, 3D = good suit, few points
3H, 3S = 1 loser 6-card suit, no outside control (ace or king)
3N = some solid 6-card suit, not more than a queen outside
4C = 8 hearts headed by AQJ or better (1 loser)
4D = 8 spades headed by AQJ or better (1 loser)
4H, 4S = solid 7-card suit, nothing higher than a queen outside.
I named all of these so that you can see the broad range that a 1D response must cover; you don't have a 5-card major or a 6-card minor or two 4-card majors and you don't have 8+ HCP. This occurs very often and your system must be able to handle these situations.

Transfer responses are a possibility but I am unsure of the legality of such systems within the ACBL. If anyone is interested, John's book can be found at Daniel's Systems Page. His system is 100% GCC and provides an interesting approach to strong club systems. It is designed for IMPs.

[Hilver]

Tcyk, on Nov 20 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Revision by John Montgomery uses 1D as a positive response or a hand that does not meet the criteria for another bid
I named all of these so that you can see the broad range that a 1D response must cover; you don't have a 5-card major or a 6-card minor or two 4-card majors and you don't have 8+ HCP. This occurs very often and your system must be able to handle these situations.

It is designed for IMPs.

Since June 2006

Since June 2006 my pard and I play (a modified version of) John Montgomery's Revision Club. We use his basic princples as outlined.

I can confirm that many times you respond 1D after a 1C-opening bid. That's no problem at all. After the openingbid of 1C and the 1D response most rebids are quite natural.

All I can say is, playing this system is a pleausure. It's a well-thought-out bidding system and worthwile more then just a fast glance. At least Foreword and Inbtroduction of his free book (over 350 pages) should be read by any bridgeplayer, whatever biddingsystem You may use! Just give it a try.

[Tcyk]

Hilver, on Nov 20 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Nov 20 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Revision by John Montgomery uses 1D as a positive response or a hand that does not meet the criteria for another bid
I named all of these so that you can see the broad range that a 1D response must cover; you don't have a 5-card major or a 6-card minor or two 4-card majors and you don't have 8+ HCP. This occurs very often and your system must be able to handle these situations.

It is designed for IMPs.

Since June 2006

Since June 2006 my pard and I play (a modified version of) John Montgomery's Revision Club. We use his basic princples as outlined.

I can confirm that many times you respond 1D after a 1C-opening bid. That's no problem at all. After the openingbid of 1C and the 1D response most rebids are quite natural.

All I can say is, playing this system is a pleausure. It's a well-thought-out bidding system and worthwile more then just a fast glance. At least Foreword and Inbtroduction of his free book (over 350 pages) should be read by any bridgeplayer, whatever biddingsystem You may use! Just give it a try.

I agree. The Introduction and Foreword are worth the price of the book I just have a hard time finding anyone to play it with me.

One of the advantages of having the 1D response being either weak or 8+ HCP is that fourth hand can't decide to jump into the bidding because of a 1D negative response to a strong club opening bid. He doesn't know if it is negative or not until later rounds of bidding. The true negative responses, 1H through 2H, have the advantage that they have told opener something about the shape and strength of the hand. If fourth hand enters the auction, opener is better able to judge what action should be taken.

[gwnn]

Tcyk, on Nov 21 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Hilver, on Nov 20 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Nov 20 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Revision by John Montgomery uses 1D as a positive response or a hand that does not meet the criteria for another bid
I named all of these so that you can see the broad range that a 1D response must cover; you don't have a 5-card major or a 6-card minor or two 4-card majors and you don't have 8+ HCP. This occurs very often and your system must be able to handle these situations.

It is designed for IMPs.

Since June 2006

Since June 2006 my pard and I play (a modified version of) John Montgomery's Revision Club. We use his basic princples as outlined.

I can confirm that many times you respond 1D after a 1C-opening bid. That's no problem at all. After the openingbid of 1C and the 1D response most rebids are quite natural.

All I can say is, playing this system is a pleausure. It's a well-thought-out bidding system and worthwile more then just a fast glance. At least Foreword and Inbtroduction of his free book (over 350 pages) should be read by any bridgeplayer, whatever biddingsystem You may use! Just give it a try.

I agree. The Introduction and Foreword are worth the price of the book I just have a hard time finding anyone to play it with me.

One of the advantages of having the 1D response being either weak or 8+ HCP is that fourth hand can't decide to jump into the bidding because of a 1D negative response to a strong club opening bid. He doesn't know if it is negative or not until later rounds of bidding. The true negative responses, 1H through 2H, have the advantage that they have told opener something about the shape and strength of the hand. If fourth hand enters the auction, opener is better able to judge what action should be taken.

I hope you do realize that the opposite can also be stated: the disadvantage of an ambiguous 1♦ is that opener will not know how strong it is. At least after a positive bid opener will know of some distributional feature!

[Hilver]

gwnn, on Nov 21 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Nov 21 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Hilver, on Nov 20 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Nov 20 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Revision by John Montgomery uses 1D as a positive response or a hand that does not meet the criteria for another bid
I named all of these so that you can see the broad range that a 1D response must cover; you don't have a 5-card major or a 6-card minor or two 4-card majors and you don't have 8+ HCP. This occurs very often and your system must be able to handle these situations.

It is designed for IMPs.

Since June 2006

Since June 2006 my pard and I play (a modified version of) John Montgomery's Revision Club. We use his basic princples as outlined.

I can confirm that many times you respond 1D after a 1C-opening bid. That's no problem at all. After the openingbid of 1C and the 1D response most rebids are quite natural.

All I can say is, playing this system is a pleausure. It's a well-thought-out bidding system and worthwile more then just a fast glance. At least Foreword and Inbtroduction of his free book (over 350 pages) should be read by any bridgeplayer, whatever biddingsystem You may use! Just give it a try.

I agree. The Introduction and Foreword are worth the price of the book I just have a hard time finding anyone to play it with me.

One of the advantages of having the 1D response being either weak or 8+ HCP is that fourth hand can't decide to jump into the bidding because of a 1D negative response to a strong club opening bid. He doesn't know if it is negative or not until later rounds of bidding. The true negative responses, 1H through 2H, have the advantage that they have told opener something about the shape and strength of the hand. If fourth hand enters the auction, opener is better able to judge what action should be taken.

I hope you do realize that the opposite can also be stated: the disadvantage of an ambiguous 1♦ is that opener will not know how strong it is. At least after a positive bid opener will know of some distributional feature!

In reality it's no problem.
1. The 1C-bidder has either an unbalanced hand with 16+ HCP or has a strong balanced hand (21+ HCP). If he has a minmum hand the 1C-bidder may pass.
2. The 1D-bidder knows his partner has a balanced strong or unbalanced hand.
So he can very well judge the situation.

After an experience of almost one year and a half, no problem at the table.

[PrecisionL]

Tcyk, on Nov 20 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

[snip]

Transfer responses are a possibility but I am unsure of the legality of such systems within the ACBL. If anyone is interested, John's book can be found at Daniel's Systems Page. His system is 100% GCC and provides an interesting approach to strong club systems. It is designed for IMPs.

Yes, Transfer responses to a Strong Club (15+) are GCC Legal in ACBL. I have been playing several versions the past two years in many events including the 0-5000 Spingold in Nashville this summer.

Larry

[kes]

------------------------------------------
1C with 13+ P , each distribution
May be , you prefer another strength - you may transfer the following answers
------------------------------------------
1C 2C with 5-7 P and 5= Hearts , non-forcing
1C 2D with 5-7 P and 5= Spades , non-forcing
1C 2H with 5-7 P and 6+ Hearts , non-forcing
1C 2S with 5-7 P and 6+ Spades , non-forcing
1C 1D with 0-7 P , other hands , non-forcing
------------------------------------------
1C 1H with 8-10 P , each distribution , (nearly) forcing
------------------------------------------
1C 1S with 11+ P and an unknown 5+ M , also 54+ both Ms
1C 1N with 11+ P and no 5+ M , forcing up to 2N
------------------------------------------

[Zelandakh]

How about combining this with transfer relays, something like...

1♣: 15+ ♣/bal, or 18+ any - (Pass) ?

* 1♦: 0 - 6 any; or 3-suited with short ♥ INV
* 1♥: 4+♠s, INV+ (not 3-suited with short ♥)
* 1♠: no 4-card major, INV+
* 1NT: 6+♥s, or ♥ +♣, INV+
* 2♣: ♥ + ♦, INV+
* 2♦: 4-5♥s, balanced or 3-suited with short ♠, INV+
* 2♥: 4-5♠s, balanced, INV+
* 2♠: 4-5♠s, 3-suited with short ♥, GF
* 2NT+: whatever you like (eg weak and/or GF 1-suited transfer)

Opener simply relays with 18+ (GF) or bids naturally with 15-17. I think this sort of structure works best when the 1♣ opening is not simply 15+, since you can optimise the higher responses to cater for the ♣-based hand.

Since I know Gerben is already well aquainted with symmetric relay, the above (or some variation) would seem to be a simple transition.

(-: Zel :-)

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on Dec 19 2007, 11:47 PM, said:

How about combining this with transfer relays, something like...

1♣: 15+ ♣/bal, or 18+ any - (Pass) ?

* 1♦: 0 - 6 any; or 3-suited with short ♥ INV
* 1♥: 4+♠s, INV+ (not 3-suited with short ♥)
* 1♠: no 4-card major, INV+
* 1NT: 6+♥s, or ♥ +♣, INV+
* 2♣: ♥ + ♦, INV+
* 2♦: 4-5♥s, balanced or 3-suited with short ♠, INV+
* 2♥: 4-5♠s, balanced, INV+
* 2♠: 4-5♠s, 3-suited with short ♥, GF
* 2NT+: whatever you like (eg weak and/or GF 1-suited transfer)

Opener simply relays with 18+ (GF) or bids naturally with 15-17. I think this sort of structure works best when the 1♣ opening is not simply 15+, since you can optimise the higher responses to cater for the ♣-based hand.

Since I know Gerben is already well aquainted with symmetric relay, the above (or some variation) would seem to be a simple transition.

(-: Zel :-)

Lets assume that I open 1♣ on a flat 15 count and you respond 2♦ showing a balanced hand with 4-5 Hearts.

I want to be able to bid 2♥ to say lets play 2♥. Your scheme requires that we play 3♥.

I think that a response scheme based on semi-positives needs largely natural responses. At the very least, a reponse should typically deny reply a reall holding in the relay reponse.

[Zelandakh]

Think about this a moment though. If I have a balanced 15 count I will usually either open or rebid 1NT. Over a 1NT opener responder with an invitational balanced hand of 4-5♥s will presumably bid either 2♣, 2♦ or 2NT. All of these sequences commit the partnership to 2NT/3♥.

If instead opener rebids 1NT, responder will probably rebid 2NT or use some form of checkback. Checkback might keep you at 2♥, but most of the time you will again be playing 2NT or 3♥ where game is not available.

So what have you lost?

Against any that have designed their system around these specific hands we might go down in 3♥ where they are in 2♥, but most of the time 9 tricks will be there. Against other weak no-trumpers we are in the same contract but if there is a ♥ fit we've right-sided it. And against the strong no-trumpers we're essentially even.

Several other posters have explored the idea of using a single GF (or 2-way) response and higher bids as invitational. I do not feel I can add anything to that discussion other than to express surprise that noone has mentioned using 1♣ - 2♦ as invitational with 1 major, a method I have seen bandied about a few times, often combined with 1♣ - 2♥ invitational with both majors.

The point about my previous post was to look at INV+ responses. These are going to be forcing whether you play them as natural or artificial. Perhaps some others have some insight into this subject too. As I said, my own finding is that this structure works best when the 15-17 hands are restricted in the 1♣ opening, but others may have differing experiences with pure 15+ methods.

(-: Zel :-)

[joshs]

Zelandakh, on Dec 20 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Think about this a moment though. If I have a balanced 15 count I will usually either open or rebid 1NT. Over a 1NT opener responder with an invitational balanced hand of 4-5♥s will presumably bid either 2♣, 2♦ or 2NT. All of these sequences commit the partnership to 2NT/3♥.

If instead opener rebids 1NT, responder will probably rebid 2NT or use some form of checkback. Checkback might keep you at 2♥, but most of the time you will again be playing 2NT or 3♥ where game is not available.

So what have you lost?

Against any that have designed their system around these specific hands we might go down in 3♥ where they are in 2♥, but most of the time 9 tricks will be there. Against other weak no-trumpers we are in the same contract but if there is a ♥ fit we've right-sided it. And against the strong no-trumpers we're essentially even.

Several other posters have explored the idea of using a single GF (or 2-way) response and higher bids as invitational. I do not feel I can add anything to that discussion other than to express surprise that noone has mentioned using 1♣ - 2♦ as invitational with 1 major, a method I have seen bandied about a few times, often combined with 1♣ - 2♥ invitational with both majors.

The point about my previous post was to look at INV+ responses. These are going to be forcing whether you play them as natural or artificial. Perhaps some others have some insight into this subject too. As I said, my own finding is that this structure works best when the 15-17 hands are restricted in the 1♣ opening, but others may have differing experiences with pure 15+ methods.

(-: Zel :-)

Well over a 15-17 NT I am not inviting with less then 8.

Over a strong club I am forcing game with 9. It would seem that only making your semi-positives with exactly 8 doesn't seem efficient. So lets assume your semi-positives are something like 5-8 or 6-8. Hence you are too high on 15 opposite 6. And this is a frequent occurance....

[Zelandakh]

joshs, on Dec 20 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

Well over a 15-17 NT I am not inviting with less then 8.

Over a strong club I am forcing game with 9. It would seem that only making your semi-positives with exactly 8 doesn't seem efficient. So lets assume your semi-positives are something like 5-8 or 6-8. Hence you are too high on 15 opposite 6. And this is a frequent occurance....

You don't invite over a strong NT with a shapely 6-7hcp? I'm no expert but that does sound...unusual!

Your second paragraph just seems to state the reason for this thread in the first place. If your semi-positives are wider in range than you would invite over the strong balanced hand, whether that be 15-17/16-18/17-19, then you lose the ability to make a normal invite in some cases. That is why I am a little skeptical about pure semi-positive bids and thought to open up the discussion to INV+ responses.

I guess the point here is that while you dislike the narrow range of the invite, this is its biggest strength in this context - if you end up stretching for game over enemy preemption you won't be that far short. And of course taking some hands out of 1♦.

Is the trade-off worth it? I have no idea (probably not I guess or more would play this!) but I'd like to hear what some of the better players think.

(-: Zel :-)

[awm]

There are several problems here.

First, as Josh commented, the invitational range opposite a 15-17 notrump is quite narrow. Basically it's "good 8 to bad 9." With some distribution like 2515 or 5314 and less than 8 hcp, the normal thing to do is to transfer to your five-card major. If partner has a nice hand with a four-card fit, he will super-accept and you will get to game. But you don't really "invite" with these hands and you certainly want to maintain the ability to play 2M. Hands with decent six-card suits are different, but part of this is that you have a guaranteed fit on such hands opposite partner's balanced hand. This doesn't really apply opposite the strong club.

So if your plan is that "inv+" means "good 8+ hcp" instead of the "good 9+ hcp" where you would game force, you haven't really gained much (one point difference) and your follow-up auctions become a lot more complicated.

Most people who are playing "inv+" responses to a 15+ club have a range more like 6+ hcp, which includes many hands that would not normally invite opposite a strong notrump, and where you're not particularly happy playing 2NT opposite a 15-count.

The second problem is that opener doesn't always have a balanced hand. If I have some distribution like 5224 with invitational values opposite a 1NT opening, I can pretty much guarantee that we belong either in spades or notrump (yes on rare occasions a 5-4 club fit will be right). I can also pretty much guarantee that 2♠ will be a decent partscore if we have no game. But opposite a big club, we could easily have an eight card fit (or even more) in either red suit. I can't really take control and say "you pick spades or notrump" anymore. Partner needs to be able to introduce suits of his own. This potentially makes follow-ups more complex.

On the other hand, I disagree that responses should be natural. I don't think playing "exactly INV" responses is really a big win -- you end up lumping a wide range of common game-force hands into 1♦, falling behind in showing shape, and opener will almost never want to pass the "exactly INV" response anyway since you may have a better fit in some secondary suit. What I've found to work pretty well is artificial responses which are substantially below the likely "signoff" spot. For example, Sam and I play 1♣-1NT as INV+ with five-plus hearts and no four spades. This enables opener to bid 2♥ on a balanced or semi-balanced minimum with 2-3 hearts, which will often be a reasonable stopping place when we have no game. It also gives opener space for both 2♣ (GF relay) and 2♦ (showing 5+♠, looking for a fit in the other major while maintaining the ability to play in 2♥/2♠ when we have no game). Admittedly opener has to force the three-level on minimum hands with a 6m, but this is not all that different from standard methods anyway (note that in standard, we would see 1m (NAT)-1♥-3m as a normal auction on these hands). The important thing is that the very common balanced minimums opposite 6-7 point hands with 5♥ are getting out in 2♥.

With balanced minimums, we're bidding 1♥ (4+♠) or 1♠ (balanced or primary diamonds, no 4♠) and over either of these 1NT is NF.

[dake50]

To many inv+ responses, when do slam asks begin? One, two levels higher before opener can announce game+. Limited inv+ can have what(control needed, short needed, side fit needed)? When can opener know to ask?