[effervesce]

Me and my partner currently play a heavily modified precision system with

1C = 17+ any (moscito relay responses)
1D = 2+D, 13-16HCP
1H = 4+H, 13-16HCP
1S = 4+S, 13-16HCP
1NT = 10-12HCP bal
2C = 13-16, 6+C or 5+C and 4M
2D/2H/2S = 9-12, 5+ suit unbal
2NT = 9-12 5-5 minors

We've found the system works very well (especially at pairs), but in a precision context would 5 card majors with forcing NT work better? Or do you think it's just a matter of preference/style.

[the hog]

I definitely think 4 card Majors work better in a strong C context. There has been a lot of theoretical work done on this.
Btw I think you should drop the point requirements for your openings. The whole point of a big C system is to get in first. Your higher requirements are denying you that opportunity.

[655321]

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Btw I think you should drop the point requirements for your openings. The whole point of a big C system is to get in first. Your higher requirements are denying you that opportunity.

They open 13-16 with one of a suit, 10-12 balanced with 1NT, 9-12 unbalanced at the 2 level. True, they do pass those balanced 9 counts.

Not a system I personally want to play, but I am sure it is playable.

4 or 5 card majors - whatever you feel most comfortable with is OK.

[jdonn]

Either is fine imo, no idea which is "better" just use what you're comfortable with. I know I personally am way more comfortable with auctions that involve 5cM and have more experience with them so I prefer that (with heavy agreements after the very nebulous 1D opener etc).

[the hog]

655321, on Jan 11 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Btw I think you should drop the point requirements for your openings. The whole point of a big C system is to get in first. Your higher requirements are denying you that opportunity.

They open 13-16 with one of a suit, 10-12 balanced with 1NT, 9-12 unbalanced at the 2 level. True, they do pass those balanced 9 counts.

Not a system I personally want to play, but I am sure it is playable.

4 or 5 card majors - whatever you feel most comfortable with is OK.

So I see, and according to their posted system they would pass
x KQxx xx KQxxxx or similar, which is precisely the hand type I am talking about. (Or do you consider that this falls within the ambit of a balanced hand?)

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

655321, on Jan 11 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Btw I think you should drop the point requirements for your openings. The whole point of a big C system is to get in first. Your higher requirements are denying you that opportunity.

They open 13-16 with one of a suit, 10-12 balanced with 1NT, 9-12 unbalanced at the 2 level. True, they do pass those balanced 9 counts.

Not a system I personally want to play, but I am sure it is playable.

4 or 5 card majors - whatever you feel most comfortable with is OK.

So I see, and according to their posted system they would pass
x KQxx xx KQxxxx or similar, which is precisely the hand type I am talking about. (Or do you consider that this falls within the ambit of a balanced hand?)

I think they propose to open that 2♣'s...

[the hog]

inquiry, on Jan 11 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

655321, on Jan 11 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Btw I think you should drop the point requirements for your openings. The whole point of a big C system is to get in first. Your higher requirements are denying you that opportunity.

They open 13-16 with one of a suit, 10-12 balanced with 1NT, 9-12 unbalanced at the 2 level. True, they do pass those balanced 9 counts.

Not a system I personally want to play, but I am sure it is playable.

4 or 5 card majors - whatever you feel most comfortable with is OK.

So I see, and according to their posted system they would pass
x KQxx xx KQxxxx or similar, which is precisely the hand type I am talking about. (Or do you consider that this falls within the ambit of a balanced hand?)

I think they propose to open that 2♣'s...

"2C = 13-16, 6+C or 5+C and 4M"

My posted hand is below their opening range, Ben.

[effervesce]

Yes, we would pass with the x KQxx xx KQxxxx hand - however, the main point of the bidding system was to

a) increase the strength of the 1C to 17+ to help with interference (the possibility of 15-16 pt hands makes competition harder to deal with) - by making it stronger we found that it reduces the frequency of this weakness in the precision system and easier to handle interference

b ) 13-16 HCP and 9-12 ranges for openings reduces the point ranges even beyond the usual 11-15 of precision. This is where I believe the greatest advantage of strong club systems lie- not mainly because of the light openings (though that is some benefit), but because of the LIMITED STRENGTH openings



Thus, increasing the pt range of the 2C to 11-16 or something like that is not in accordance with objective (b ). Not opening x KQxx xx KQxxxx shouldnt be asignificant anyway as most pairs do not play a strong club system anyway and would thus pass those hands.

TO The Hog: how far to reduce? I'm happy playing a 15/16/17+ strong club, and reduce the point ranges by 1-2... is opening light really that big of an advantage?
I think having very sound 1x level openings is also an advantage as well as opening light. We combine the advantages of both- our two level 2D/2H/2S bids really are basically hands (6-7 losers) one would open based on the losing trick count, but cannot based on HCP in a 'standard' system. The one level 1D/1H/1S along with 2C are therefore typically 5-6 losers.

Quote

Not a system I personally want to play, but I am sure it is playable.

As for playability, I'm sure Fantoni-Nunes have already demonstrated that such a system works quite well (the idea of this system was really to have a Fantoni-Nunes precision hybrid)

Now that's out of the way, what's the best way of treating 4 card major openings in a strong club context? To use canape or not? To open 13-16 balanced hands with 4 card majors with 1M, or 1D and 1NT rebid along with checkback?

Ie, with KQxx Axx Kx Qxx would you open 1S or 1D in a 4 card major strong club?
Or KQxx Axxx Kxx Jx? Axxx x KQxx AJxx?

Thanks for the replies so far- I'll be down in Canberra for the next 7 days for the Australian youth team selection (playing this very system!) so I wont be able to post for a while.

[helene_t]

As you play 2♣=5+ and 1♦=2+ you are almost playing 5cM. Playing 1♦=(5)4+ and 2♣=6+ would be a 4-card major system.

[effervesce]

Quote

As you play 2♣=5+ and 1♦=2+ you are almost playing 5cM. Playing 1♦=(5)4+ and 2♣=6+ would be a 4-card major system.

Yes, we could easily convert to that sort of system by making 1NT say 14-16 balanced. But such a system would require canape in the bidding system, would it not?

[helene_t]

effervesce, on Jan 11 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

Quote

As you play 2♣=5+ and 1♦=2+ you are almost playing 5cM. Playing 1♦=(5)4+ and 2♣=6+ would be a 4-card major system.

Yes, we could easily convert to that sort of system by making 1NT say 14-16 balanced. But such a system would require canape in the bidding system, would it not?

After
1♥-1♠
2♣
it is a disadvantage that responder does not know which of opener's two suits is longer. You could rebid 1NT systematically with either 1435 or 1534 so that 2♣ "promises" either the other hand or extra values.

[Gerben42]

You'd always have 1♦ can be two as you may have 3325. Anyway, this "not knowing which suit is longer" is not a big problem in practice. I prefer 2♣ to be 6+cards.

When I play Precision it looks preferably like this:

1♣ in 1st / 2nd: 15+ unbal. / 16+ bal.
Other bids 10 - 14

1♦: 3+♦ unbal.
1M: 5+card
1NT: 12 - 15 NT
2♣: 6+card
2♦: 3-suited short ♦

3rd / 4th seat: 1♣ a Queen stronger, 1NT 15 - 17, 1♦ can be 12 - 14 NT.

4-card majors will also work of course.

[keylime]

From my direct experience, 4 card majors are better. It allows you to handle the 4M, 5m hands that are tricky to handle in 5cM Precision - and it clarifies the 2♣ opening nicely (a weakness of the method).

[Apollo81]

Agree with Josh that it's a matter of personal preference. I play strong club and am more comfortable with 5 card majors since I spent the first 4 years or so of my bridge existence playing normal 2/1.

[Apollo81]

effervesce, on Jan 10 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

Me and my partner currently play a heavily modified precision system with

1C = 17+ any (moscito relay responses)
1D = 2+D, 13-16HCP
1H = 4+H, 13-16HCP
1S = 4+S, 13-16HCP
1NT = 10-12HCP bal
2C = 13-16, 6+C or 5+C and 4M
2D/2H/2S = 9-12, 5+ suit unbal
2NT = 9-12 5-5 minors

We've found the system works very well (especially at pairs), but in a precision context would 5 card majors with forcing NT work better? Or do you think it's just a matter of preference/style.

I'll gratuitously suggest that you clearly shouldn't be playing 10-12 in most situations (vul or 3rd/4th). I'm sure you've heard that before.

One simple thing you could do that would probably improve your results a little if you don't already do it is to upgrade pretty much all hands with 16 HCP and a 6 card suit into the 1♣ opening. These hands are usually stronger than balanced 17 counts and are not very difficult to bid in competition.

I'd do the same thing with 12 HCP and 6 cards...upgrade it into an opening other than 2D/H/S.

[dake50]

The 4cM/5cM is not about style/preference but 1) judgment with 3c-support: raise or not and 2) judgment with 5cM: rebid it or not or ask 3c-support.

4-4+ fit found immediately are gains.
The well-judged 4-3 are gains if you have studied 4-3 combos.
The well-judged found 5-3 are gains when opener does check.
The competitive advantage of having a likely M-fit already suggested is gain.

But if 'support with support' ends discussion, play 5cM.

[lexlogan]

I don't think it would make sense to require both a five card major and 13-16 hcp for your 1♥ and 1♠ openings -- those bids are the heart of any good system and shouldn't be too infrequent. Personally, I'd drop the 4-5 hands from 2♣ and open the major.

[mikestar]

To my mind, this comes down to a "which mistakes do you prefer to make? question.

Not in a particular order of importance, the limited openings of a "perfect" strong club system need to satisfy the following requirements:

• 1♦ shows a real (4+ cards) suit.
  
• 2♣ promises 6+ cards
  
• 1NT range is not more than three points.
  
• 4♠-5♥ hands get to the right major.
  
• 2♦ not needed as a limited opener.

Self evidently, we can't have it all playing 4-card majors or 5-card majors.

Less desired alternatives to the above:

• Short 1♦ (2+)
  
• Very short 1♦, 0+ or 1+.
  
• 2♣ may be only 5 cards if a 4-card major is held.
  
• Wide range 1NT opener
  
• Risking getting to the wrong major on 4♠-5♥ hands.
  
• 2♦ fills in gaps in the structure (Precision, Flannery, etc.)

I trust that it is obvious why the requirements are desirable if they can be had without excessive cost, though I would expect a lively debate about which are the most important.

Let's look at the less desired alternatives. Short diamond is no real problem is most constructive sequences but is highly vulnerable to preemption. This is bad with 2+ and worse with more extreme shortness.

2♣ on 5 cards is a loser in partscore deals: whenever you belong in a major but partner isn't strong enough to investigate, you are headed for a poor score. Of course this can happen with 6-4 hands but they are less frequent and 2♣ is more likely to be a decent if not optimal contract with the longer suit. If your responses are well worked out, game try and stronger sequences come out OK.

Wide range 1NT has preemptive value but loses constructive efficiency, both in the opener itself and in 1♣-1♦-1NT sequences, which end up covering a wider range as well. You will miss more games and go down more often in game invitational contracts than with a narrower range.

OK, playing 4-3♠ instead of 5-3♥ doesn't have to be the end of the world; but how about 4-2♠ versus 5-2♥?

Personally, I hate giving up 2♦ for preemptive use, whether as a weak two, multi, or some assumed fit bid. Both Precision 2♦ and Flannery work OK when used.


Some clubs systems I have used in actual play.

Real Diamond Precision

5-card majors, 1♦ 4+, 2♣ 5+, wide range NT. No 2♦: the very rare 4-4-1-4 is opened 1♥. This is the first Big Club I played. It works well at the club level as our 1♦ sequences are more accurate than 2/1 player's are and our wide range 1NT doesn't cost as much vs club level opponents--the constructive inefficiency is offset by the difficulties players at this level have with defensive bidding after 1NT and defensive play after 1NT-all pass or 1NT-3NT. The higher the level of play, the more the wide range will cost--at the Novice-Intermediate level it may even gain. 2♣ on 5 is nasty, there are many losing hands even against weak opps.


Four-Card Major Big Club

4-card majors, 1♦ 4+ 2♣ 6+, wide range NT, Flannery. Natural 1♦ and wide range NT same as above. 2♣ is extremely improved by requiring 6. I find the gains and losses using 4-card majors vs. 5-card majors are roughly even. The wide range NT has a side benefit here--as 1 of a suit cannot be balanced, NT rebids can be used artificially to distinguish the suit lengths in some possible canape sequences.



Marshal Miles style Precision

5-card majors, 1♦ 2+, 2♣ 6+, 15-17 NT, Precision 2♦. I like 2♣ requiring 6 (see above). I really like the strong NT: it keeps us even with the field and removes minimum balanced hands from 1♣. Precision 2♦ is rare but no problem when it comes up. 1♦ sends shivers down my spine (not the good kind) when I open it with primary clubs. The weak NT hand doesn't bother me so much as I can almost always pass next turn in competition.


I am quite curious about a system with 4-card majors not using a wide range NT. How would the 5M-3-3-2 hands not in the NT range be handled? Rebidding a 3-card minor can be problematic when there is a possible canape, and rebidding the major on 5 when you are likely to be passed is unlikely to produce lasting happiness.

[PrecisionL]

mikestar, on Jan 15 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Marshal Miles style Precision

[snip]

I am quite curious about a system with 4-card majors not using a wide range NT. How would the 5M-3-3-2 hands not in the NT range be handled? Rebidding a 3-card minor can be problematic when there is a possible canape, and rebidding the major on 5 when you are likely to be passed is unlikely to produce lasting happiness.

I play a 4-card Major system with a Strong Club and canape. 5M332 hands are an enigma!

We have played 2M as (1) 5M332 & 10-14 hcp, or (2) 5M + 4♣ & 10-14 hcp. I like the intermediate 2M, have had good results with them at both pairs and teams. But, the problem hands are then the 5M & 4♣ hands. We will be trying (2) at the next tournament in Feb.

Our 1NT is 11-13 nV and 14-16 V. Only xxxxx (no honor) would be opened 1NT.

Larry

[dake50]

"I'll gratuitously suggest that you clearly shouldn't be playing 10-12 in most situations (vul or 3rd/4th). I'm sure you've heard that before." --Apollo81

You are obviously thinking this 1NT is constructive. But, playing 4cM, it nearly denies 4+M (maybe quacky 4S-333, 4H quacky to get above 1S) so primarily OBSTRUCTIVE. Often partner can 3m before oppts can even begin their M-explore. 1NT always forces oppts to begin M-explore at 2-level, maybe higher.

Only in 4-seat is 1NT(10-12) questionable, then only because it suggests oppts have Major(s). Likely good guess to be plus at 12hcp.