[mikl_plkcc]

In my club, most people play 5-card majors, strong NT, 2/1 game forcing and short club. What I don't understand is that how a short club is superior than long minor, where both 1♣ and 1♦ guarantees 3.

In longer minor, although that 1♦ only guarantees 3, if we adopt a treatment that 3-3 always open 1♣, and 4-4 always open 1♦, a 1♦ opening is 97% 4+ so it is fairly safe to support with 4, and the opener should rebid NT whenever possible, while 1♣ opening frequently has 3, when the auction becomes competitive, supporting ♣ with 4 is also not too bad since when the opponents have a fit, it is extremely likely that we also have a fit as well.

However, in short clubs, you are trading the 3% 1♦ for an even more ambiguous 1♣ opening. When the opener bids 1♣ and gets overcalled 1♠, holding 4-card ♣ you dare not to bid 2♣ in case the opener has only 2 ♣, and when the auction returns to the opener, it may have already got too high for the opener to bid again to distinguish a 2-card, 4-card or 5-card suit, as a result the ability to compete effectively in ♣ is lost completely just for the sake of a total confidence in ♦. In particular, the longer ♣ the responder has, the more likely the opener is short, therefore playing a short ♣, it will not be safe for a responder to raise with 2=3=3=5 since opener can frequently has 2 only, and has to respond 1NT with a much wider hand range, while in longer minor, 1NT over 1♣ can be used as a picture bid holding 3=3=3=4, denying a fit in the other 3 suits immediately.

Can anyone explain to me, what are the reasons, in a natural system (where a short club is non-forcing and does not have conventional responses at the 1-level), how is short club superior to longer minor?

(P.S. I prefer a style where I open 1♣ in both 3=3 and 4=4, but 1♦ in 5=5 or longer, including 1M444 hands, where responder can't bypass a 4-card ♦ suit to bid a 4-card major)

[P_Marlowe]

Xfer Walsh is one reason, if you play this, increasing the 1C opening is a natural thing to do
Some peoble play bal. club / unbal. diamond, i.e. 1C showes either a bal. hand with 2 clubs and
longer dimaonds possible, 1D showes an unbal. hand with longer clubs possibe

The main reason, some trend setting pair adopted it, the rest followes suit.

The most important thing is, that you are happy, with what you play.

[mikl_plkcc]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-19, 09:07, said:

Xfer Walsh is one reason, if you play this, increasing the 1C opening is a natural thing to do
Some peoble play bal. club / unbal. diamond, i.e. 1C showes either a bal. hand with 2 clubs and
longer dimaonds possible, 1D showes an unbal. hand with longer clubs possibe

The main reason, some trend setting pair adopted it, the rest followes suit.

The most important thing is, that you are happy, with what you play.

If playing bal club unbal diamond, these two openings are no longer natural and must be alerted instead, as they are not showing length in the suit.

[helene_t]

If it's just a question of whether exactly 4-4-3-2 opens 1c or 1d, it hardly matters. Taking it further so that 1d is unbalanced or 5 with 12-14 (i.e. with 18-19 bal you open 1c even 2ith 5 diamonds) is a more substantial difference.

As Marlowe says, if you play some fancy system like e.g. t-walsh, it is attractive to play unbalanced diamond . If you play natural responses, allowing 1d with balanced hands even if only 4 diamonds (maybe even 3) is probably better.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-19, 09:17, said:

If playing bal club unbal diamond, these two openings are no longer natural and must be alerted instead, as they are not showing length in the suit.

I alert a !♣ opening as 'may be short, may contain 5♦', but I'm never quite sure that the a 1♦ opening with 3+ needs to be alerted as it remains a natural bid. I think EBU rules changed recently so that you don't need to announce 5-card Majors or better minor now. I prefer this more unusual 5532 approach as I know the the 1♦ opening will never be balanced and that the 1♣ opening will never contain a short Major unless long ♣ which avoids certain 'death hands'

[DavidKok]

The answer is quite interesting. Please take this as the constructive criticism it is intended to be: it won't do either of us much good if I spend a lot of time writing out the answer and you come back with a rebuttal, as you did to Marlowe upthread. I'm avoiding some of the other active threads for that reason, but I'll bite here.

Most standards 5cM systems are 5543 systems at heart. The 1M openings show 5, the 1♦ opening shows 4, the 1♣ opening shows 3, and the 4=4=3=2 hands outside the 1NT range and below the 2NT and 2♣ (and possibly 2♦) range are tacked on somewhere. By frequency, whether to put this in 1♣ or 1♦ (or 1♥, 'we play acol but 4333 opens 1♣') doesn't really matter. You should raise partner's 1♦ with 4-card support and 1♣ with 5-card support liberally. Some regulators distinguish between a 1♣ opening that can be 2 and one that is 3+, and if you are playing under such rules you may as well take that as a deciding factor and open 1♦.

However, there is also an entirely different class of short club systems. These systems put more hands in 1♣, traditionally balanced hands, to increase the frequency of the response system after that opening. Walsh, T-Walsh and Dutch Doubleton are all good systems over the 1♣ opening, but very few such analogues over 1♦ exist. So by opening 1♣ more often you get to use this part of your system more, and your 1♦ opening gains definition. In return you struggle more to find 4-4 diamond fits, especially with balanced opposite balanced.
In the version I prefer the 1♦ opening is never balanced, and shows 5(+) or a 4441-type hand with a black suit singleton. This 1♦ opening can freely be raised with a 3-card suit, especially in competition, compensating for the increased competitive weakness of the 1♣ opening. Asa final boon I get to play more sophisticated constructive systems over 1♦ - I like Gazzilli, but second round transfers are a more popular alternative.

Between all of those there's ample reason to want to sacrifice definition of the 1♣ opening and increase that of the 1♦ opening. This leads to short club systems. But if you're only doing this with 4=4=3=2 exactly, it doesn't really matter, and you should pick what you are most comfortable with.

[mycroft]

And, of course, those of us playing a Strong Club (or Strong Diamond) frequently play a short [other minor], so that we can bid the big hands at the 1 level. Similar "increase the definition of" the other minor.

[mikl_plkcc]

mw64ahw, on 2025-March-19, 10:18, said:

I alert a !♣ opening as 'may be short, may contain 5♦', but I'm never quite sure that the a 1♦ opening with 3+ needs to be alerted as it remains a natural bid. I think EBU rules changed recently so that you don't need to announce 5-card Majors or better minor now. I prefer this more unusual 5532 approach as I know the the 1♦ opening will never be balanced and that the 1♣ opening will never contain a short Major unless long ♣ which avoids certain 'death hands'

If you systematically open 1♦ on things like 2=2=4=5 or even 2=2=2=7 you must alert the bid, because it shows your hand is unbalanced and it doesn't show any real ♦.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-19, 18:28, said:

If you systematically open 1♦ on things like 2=2=4=5 or even 2=2=2=7 you must alert the bid, because it shows your hand is unbalanced and it doesn't show any real ♦.

I don't, those hands 'are semi-balanced and will go through 1♣. Your first example is something people may choose to open 1♦ or 1♣ playing a standard approach, but wouldn't get alerted.
The only semi-balanced hands will have 6/7♦ going through 1♦. The oddity will be the (41)35 hand, but to me 1♦ is still a natural bid with 3+♦

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-19, 18:28, said:

If you systematically open 1♦ on things like 2=2=4=5 or even 2=2=2=7 you must alert the bid, because it shows your hand is unbalanced and it doesn't show any real ♦.

Since you did this a 2nd time in this thread: You asked, why short club gained popularity, but you regular comment that certain variantion of the bid
have to be alerted.
Alert regulation differ from country to country, and even in a club a bid may not be alertable, even if it would be in the club next door, belonging
to the same country.

The claim, that a bal. club / unbal. diamond system is not natural, which seems to be your statement (and due to the fact that the thread was opened
in the natural bidding section of the forum), is a discussion that is basically pointless, due to the fact, that natural is not tighly defined.

[mikl_plkcc]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-20, 03:02, said:

Since you did this a 2nd time in this thread: You asked, why short club gained popularity, but you regular comment that certain variantion of the bid
have to be alerted.
Alert regulation differ from country to country, and even in a club a bid may not be alertable, even if it would be in the club next door, belonging
to the same country.

The claim, that a bal. club / unbal. diamond system is not natural, which seems to be your statement (and due to the fact that the thread was opened
in the natural bidding section of the forum), is a discussion that is basically pointless, due to the fact, that natural is not tighly defined.

but a bal club / unbal diamond system is not a short club system. A short club system is a system where the 1♣ bid may be as short as 2 or even 1 (if 1♦ guarantees 5), but is otherwise natural in the sense that if there is another longer suit which can be opened, that suit is opened instead; if ♣ is the longest suit, 1♣ is always opened.

[awm]

The way “unbalanced diamond” is played today is that 1♦ is natural and will always be the longest suit when opened (or tied for longest in a 5-5 minors or 4441 hand). And 1♣ is opened on unbalanced hands with clubs as longest suit.

The idea is that all balanced hands not in range for 1nt/2nt (and not strong enough for 2♣) open 1♣. So the opening 1♣ could be 4342 (despite the four diamonds and only two clubs) or even 3352 (despite five diamonds and two clubs).

Basically 1♣ is “natural or balanced” and 1♦ is “natural and not balanced.” What exactly is alertable here will depend on where you play but it’s not a very artificial opening system.

There are a few advantages to this approach, and it has become popular at the top levels. These include:
1. You can raise 1♦ more aggressively in competition (possibly even on three cards).
2. You free up the 1nt/2nt rebids after the 1♦ opening, which you can use for something clever.
3. You can use transfer responses whenever opener has a balanced hand (via transfer Walsh); the most popular version has accepting the transfer show a non-fitting weak notrump which lets you rebid 1nt (instead of 2nt) with the non-fitting 18-20 balanced. This also frees openers 2nt rebid for something else.
4. While you lose the ability to raise partners 1♣ in competition, you can also gain because 1♣ is so frequently a balanced hand. For example you could play transfers in competition after 1♣, which works really well when opener is balanced and lets you compete on some weaker hands.

Note that this is different from the style that is basically 5542 (which only differs from from standard when you have exactly 4432 in that order); this is popular with some club players but I don’t see it much in strong events. I suppose if you do not like to ever play a 4-3 fit, it’s better because you can raise at least one minor on four without risk?

[mikl_plkcc]

awm, on 2025-March-20, 07:55, said:

The way “unbalanced diamond” is played today is that 1♦ is natural and will always be the longest suit when opened (or tied for longest in a 5-5 minors or 4441 hand). And 1♣ is opened on unbalanced hands with clubs as longest suit.

The idea is that all balanced hands not in range for 1nt/2nt (and not strong enough for 2♣) open 1♣. So the opening 1♣ could be 4342 (despite the four diamonds and only two clubs) or even 3352 (despite five diamonds and two clubs).

Basically 1♣ is “natural or balanced” and 1♦ is “natural and not balanced.” What exactly is alertable here will depend on where you play but it’s not a very artificial opening system.

There are a few advantages to this approach, and it has become popular at the top levels. These include:
1. You can raise 1♦ more aggressively in competition (possibly even on three cards).
2. You free up the 1nt/2nt rebids after the 1♦ opening, which you can use for something clever.
3. You can use transfer responses whenever opener has a balanced hand (via transfer Walsh); the most popular version has accepting the transfer show a non-fitting weak notrump which lets you rebid 1nt (instead of 2nt) with the non-fitting 18-20 balanced. This also frees openers 2nt rebid for something else.
4. While you lose the ability to raise partners 1♣ in competition, you can also gain because 1♣ is so frequently a balanced hand. For example you could play transfers in competition after 1♣, which works really well when opener is balanced and lets you compete on some weaker hands.

Note that this is different from the style that is basically 5542 (which only differs from from standard when you have exactly 4432 in that order); this is popular with some club players but I don’t see it much in strong events. I suppose if you do not like to ever play a 4-3 fit, it’s better because you can raise at least one minor on four without risk?

OK so it makes sense now. 1♣ is "natural or balanced", and 1♦ is "natural and unbalanced", so 1♣ can be two in 4=4=3=2, 4=3=4=2, 3=4=4=2 and 3=3=5=2, in additional to all hands where ♣ is the only longest suit, are all opened 1♣.

[jillybean]

Are we treating any hand without a singleton or void as balanced?

[awm]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-20, 09:15, said:

Are we treating any hand without a singleton or void as balanced?

This obviously depends on the pair, but typically semi-balanced hands with 5-6 diamonds open 1♦ and semi-balanced hands with 5-6 major open 1M. Most pairs also open 1M (and not 1♣) with 5332 and the like, although there are exceptions to this.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-20, 08:23, said:

OK so it makes sense now. 1♣ is "natural or balanced", and 1♦ is "natural and unbalanced", so 1♣ can be two in 4=4=3=2, 4=3=4=2, 3=4=4=2 and 3=3=5=2, in additional to all hands where ♣ is the only longest suit, are all opened 1♣.

Also note that your opening will be tempered by the ♦ requirement for a 1♦ opening. For most it is 4, but there are approaches where it is 5.I
I'm at the other end of the spectrum where I only require 3. This means that I can include hands such as 4135 in 1♦ which others put through 1♣. Naturally 44s4+ go through 1♣.

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on 2025-March-20, 07:55, said:

The way “unbalanced diamond” is played today is that 1♦ is natural and will always be the longest suit when opened (or tied for longest in a 5-5 minors or 4441 hand). And 1♣ is opened on unbalanced hands with clubs as longest suit.
<snip>

Ok, you know more about this, than I do, but I had the impression, that 54 minor hands would also go through 1D,
obv. depending on the major suit holding.
This does not make 1D less natural, you only give up the option to find out, which suit is longer, getting the
adv. to get both suits in.

[DavidKok]

 P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-20, 10:37, said:

Ok, you know more about this, than I do, but I had the impression, that 54 minor hands would also go through 1D,
obv. depending on the major suit holding.
This does not make 1D less natural, you only give up the option to find out, which suit is longer, getting the
adv. to get both suits in.

Both styles see play. I played both options before - one cute wrinkle you can play in this style is that 1♦-1M; 1NT is freed up to show 11-15, 4♦5♣, at most two cards in partner's M. However, I found that practically sacrificing the ability to raise the diamonds on a 3-card suit (as the frequency with which the opening was made on a 4-card suit) in competition outweighed the ability to show the minors. Plus, Dutch Doubleton handled this hand type reasonably well after a 1♣ opening. So after about a year we moved back to the "5+ or 4441"-style, with black suited singletons only. The inhomogeneity of 1♦ caused us issues.

Instead of the above wrinkle you can sacrifice relative suit lengths with both minors and reintroduce either Gazzilli or transfer rebids, if you prefer.