[JmBrPotter]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-03, 07:03, said:

FWIW, my own crock of ***** is my "Modified Italian Canapé System," which is sort of a fusion of Blue and Roman, with a unique minor suit structure to tie it together. It was initially my cure for a group of Blue players who were having trouble but loved canapé. The major downside is the loss of weak two's, but you might not find that a problem. In midchart, you can fit in multi and then make 2NT more inclusive and 1D to treat some minor two suiters as initially one suited, if you must. The major upside to MICS is that the canapé s always pure, which is what neither Blue nor Roman could accomplish, it is entirely GCC legal, and it's easy.

I wanted the "shape first" approach form Roman Club without losing the competitive value of weak two openings. Beginning with the following principles . . .

- There will be special sequences for three-suited hands to keep them out of all other sequences.

- Weak two opening bids in all four suits (like the original Roth-Stone).

- Light initial action (10-14 HCP 1NT opening in all seats at all vulnerabilities, and open nearly all 11-counts as "full openings").

- Bid early, bid often, and stop on a dime when there's no game.

- Lots of limit bids to help partner stop when we're not going anywhere special.

- Full GCC compliance.

. . . I eventually ended up with a playable system. Partner and I have had good success at regional tournaments in both teams and pairs. Perhaps, we'd have done just as well with K-S or 2/1, but I like to doubt it. Having both 1♣ and 1♦ as artificial one round forcing openings was the key. Having wide NT ranges and three ways to "open" 1NT (directly, as a rebid after opening 1♣, and as a rebid after opening 1♦) gave us a playable notrump structure where we show balanced hands from 10-22 HCP with 1NT openings or rebids. Limited canape rebids provide the brakes. Four different ways to "open" 2NT allow tight ranges for balanced hands above 22HCP that give us precise bidding in a zone where there's little or no room for invitational calls. Hiding all three-suited hands under one rebid each after the 1♣ and 1♦ openings keeps those shapes from complicating other auctions---and provides helpful ways to specify shape and range when the rare three-suiter raises its ugly head.

[straube]

That's a tease. What's your system then?

[johnu]

Big diamond systems, artificial 1♣ and 1♦ systems, etc. This is getting pretty off-topic for Blue Team Club. Certainly worth their own threads.

[Balrog49]

Yes. Now that we seem to have finished with all the whining, deliberate misinformation, and boring discussions of other methods and systems, we can get back to the real topic of this thread: Blue Team Club.

I'm going to repeat a bidding problem that was ignored the first time. Garozzo and Forquet bid this hand in a Challenge the Champs contest. It involves some unusual cue bidding.

You are responder.

---

You have to start your reverse into spades by bidding a two-card club fragment. Partner's 2♦ allows to you make a game force on the two level and to count diamonds as a source of tricks.

When partner shows primary spade support, you know the hand is a double fit and a possible grand slam if opener has first-round heart control.

You cue bid 4♦ and partner cooperates with 4♥. What do you bid now?

a. 4NT b. 5♣ c. 5♦

4NT (DI) clearly shows interest in a club control. You started your reverse by bidding clubs so you've implicitly shown a club control - right? Or could you have QJx? If you've shown a control, bidding 5♣ now would show first and second round control.

When opener bids 5♣, you can count 12 likely 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? How do you find out?

I would bid 5♦ hoping opener will bid 5♥, guaranteeing first round control. But Forquet bid 5NT and the auction proceeded 6♠ - 7♠. So what was the meaning of 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♠
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.

Would you have bid 5♦ or 5NT?

[johnu]

I think 5NT was probably a GSF. I'm pretty sure they had a different set of responses depending on whether you first bid a real suit or just supported. I don't remember if this was in the Forquet-Garozzo book since I lent it to a friend years ago who lost it. It's impossible for West to have 5 card spade support on this bidding. Assuming the ♥A was guaranteed, the only thing East needs is ♠K to have a good shot at a grand so 5NT makes things simpler.

[johnu]

I think 5NT was probably a GSF. I'm pretty sure they had a different set of responses depending on whether you first bid a real suit or just supported. I don't remember if this was in the Forquet-Garozzo book since I lent it to a friend years ago who lost it. It's impossible for West to have 5 card spade support on this bidding. Assuming the ♥A was guaranteed, the only thing East needs is ♠K to have a good shot at a grand so 5NT makes things simpler.

[straube]

Based on Dan's system notes, I think the raise to 3S may promise Hxx of spades (I assume Qxx or better). The preceding 2D bid is mandatory when holding a 5-cd suit. I'm stumped. 4N can't be turbo because responder has an odd number of key cards plus I kind of doubt (not having used Turbo) whether the captaining hand would even show Turbo parity. So as assumed here, it's an interrogative bid. 4H had shown the HK or HA. 5C showed the CK or CA. If 5N is a further interrogative bid, could 5S infer both the HA and DK while 5D or 5H show one but not the other? Or opener risks endplaying responder. Perhaps 5S denies a second spade honor, too, and with KQx A Kxxxx Kxx he'd have accepted the grand slam invitation because what more could he have really?

I'm really stretching with this last guess, but I think even if someone comes up with an auction that seems to fit, we won't know until we know.

Last point is that this is just a super easy hand for relay bidding. My auction would go...

1D-1S (artificial, natural)
2C-2H (minors, artificial GF)
3H-3S (3154, asking)
5C-7S (9 QPs and an honor in each suit, to play)

so I'm a bit lucky learning shape and cards as early as 5C, but I don't see how their method can stack up to relay.

[JmBrPotter]

 johnu, on 2014-April-17, 11:53, said:

Big diamond systems, artificial 1♣ and 1♦ systems, etc. This is getting pretty off-topic for Blue Team Club. Certainly worth their own threads.

Agreed. I apologize. Look for the answer to Straube's, "What's your system, then" in a new topic called "MoTown Minors".

[Balrog49]

 straube, on 2014-April-19, 00:18, said:

Based on Dan's system notes, I think the raise to 3S may promise Hxx of spades (I assume Qxx or better).

The raise to 3S does indeed promise primary support (Qxx).

When did Turbo come into existence? It must have been after the Blue Team retired.

There's one point I failed to mention. Garozzo and Forquet knew that it was a bidding contest hand and that getting to 6S wasn't going to be the top score.

[Trigona]

I've been playing Blue Club for many years and with advice from a top aussie player have made some modifications. 2pts off everything.

That means 1C is opened with 15pts and 1D, 1H, 1S and 2C being 10-14pts. We've dumped the 2D 4,4,4,1 bid for a weak 2 and 2NT now is for both minors and 3C is now pre-emptive. 2H and 2S are the same as is 1NT although the strong NT is now 15-17pts.

The changes were recommended on the basis that there is not much point in having bids that only are rarely bid. Now 1C is opened regularly which gladdens my heart.

The strengths of Blue Club are many. Essentially it is a very natural system with only a few conventions and is good for finding slams. Canape means that if you play a part score it is in your better suit, usually at the 2 level.

We discovered that opening with 10pts on rubbish can be a mistake, so 10-11pts are discretionary, 12+ mandatory. We still use control responses to 1C although I'm interested in checking out alternatives. Even though the 1C responses have some issues, compared to the responses used by Standard to 2C they are a million times better and the majority of people we play against play Standard.

[Zelandakh]

 straube, on 2014-March-11, 22:04, said:

Does this resemble Zelandakh's system?

Not at all! I actually use the unbalanced 1♦ opening that you dislike as well as the original-style Precision 2♣ opening that everyone dislikes:

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
1♦ = max 17, 4+ diamonds, unbal
1M = max 17, 5+ suit, unbal
1NT = (11)12-14 bal or 4414
2♣ = 10-14, 6+ clubs or 5♣4M
others = PRE


In answer to balrog's bidding challenge hand, I do not understand why it is relevant in a discussion about modern bidding methods. Any relay system is trivially going to find Opener's hand to be ♠Kxx ♥A ♦Kxxxx ♣Kxxx. For example:

1♦ = max 17, 4+ diamonds, unbal
... - 1♥ = INV+ relay
1♠ = min, <4 spades or 4441/4450
... - 1NT = GF relay
2♣ = 4+ clubs
... - 2♦ = relay
2♥ = 4 clubs
... - 2♠ = relay
2NT = 5 diamonds
... - 3♣ = relay
4♦ = 3154, 5 controls
... - 7♠


As for playing 4 card major canape strong club in the current bridge world, any of Sabine Auken's systems (with Welland or von Armin) would seem to me to be a solid starting point. Moscito too providing you do not want to play in America...

[Balrog49]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-April-30, 07:24, said:

In answer to balrog's bidding challenge hand, I do not understand why it is relevant in a discussion about modern bidding methods. Any relay system is trivially going to find Opener's hand to be ♠Kxx ♥A ♦Kxxxx ♣Kxxx. For example:

Perhaps you've forgotten the topic of this thread. It's not about "modern bidding methods" and emphatically not about relay systems. Those topics belong in other threads.

The topic here is Blue Team Club and the bidding contest hand I presented has everything to do with Blue Team Club. Anyone who has ever played the system seriously knows that cue bidding (and superb declarer play) is how the Blue Team won all those slam swings over all those years. It was effective then and it's still effective now, when used by people who are willing to sacrifice the time and effort required to study the limited materials available and practice the system until it's thoroughly understood. And even then, there are many subtleties in the logic of cue bidding that go totally unnoticed by those who have not played or studied the system.

Blue Team style cue bidding is both an art and a science. Only students of the history of the game have an appreciation for just how incredibly effective it was. The bidding contest hand demonstrates how accurate Garozzo and Forquet were and shows some bids whose meanings aren't entirely clear even to those who've played and studied the system for decades.

Lastly, you have to reach a certain level of play for Blue Team Club to be effective. Otherwise, it's like trying to handle a Le Mans Prototype car when you've never driven anything other than a cheap passenger car.

 Zelandakh, on 2014-April-30, 07:24, said:

As for playing 4 card major canape strong club in the current bridge world, any of Sabine Auken's systems (with Welland or von Armin) would seem to me to be a solid starting point. Moscito too providing you do not want to play in America...

If there are not already threads about those systems, I encourage you to start them.

[straube]

 Balrog49, on 2014-April-30, 08:56, said:

Perhaps you've forgotten the topic of this thread. It's not about "modern bidding methods" and emphatically not about relay systems. Those topics belong in other threads.

Very rude. You're not even the OP.

[Balrog49]

 straube, on 2014-April-30, 09:35, said:

Very rude. You're not even the OP.

With all due respect, kiss my a.. I've moderated a lot of forums and this one clearly needs someone to keep it on track. What's rude is to go off-topic and stay off-topic, then go off-topic again when someone politely asks you to stay on-topic.

[straube]

 Balrog49, on 2014-April-30, 14:59, said:

What's rude is to go off-topic and stay off-topic, then go off-topic again when someone politely asks you to stay on-topic.

like...

 Balrog49, on 2014-April-18, 12:01, said:

Yes. Now that we seem to have finished with all the whining, deliberate misinformation, and boring discussions of other methods and systems, we can get back to the real topic of this thread: Blue Team Club.

When you post unpleasantness, what do you think people think of you? I expect you'll post more of it, but whatever.

[Zelandakh]

 Balrog49, on 2014-April-30, 14:59, said:

With all due respect, kiss my a.. I've moderated a lot of forums and this one clearly needs someone to keep it on track. What's rude is to go off-topic and stay off-topic, then go off-topic again when someone politely asks you to stay on-topic.

The OP of this thread is

 gejcl, on 2010-November-01, 22:01, said:

I stared playing this system in the late 60's and finely found a partner who is willing to play it. Looking for others that might want to learn and play.
Terence Reese explained this system in his book "The Blue Team Club" published by Farber and Farber ISBN 0 571 09265 9

...so anything other than "I would be willing to play this with you" is essentially off topic. That said, thread drift is common on forums and actually often a good thing. After the first reply (which was of the "on-topic" variety) the thread moved on towards how BTC might be updated for modern bridge. My post was continuing that sub thread. If you wish to have a thread dedicated to discussing BTC in its original form then I suggest you create a thread for that rather than use a thread that was not designed for that purpose and which, aside from your input, has generally not moved in that direction. Finally, you will find that I am quite tolerant of many things but not of direct rudeness. Posts containing the KMA phrase have no part of these forums and, in general, writing in this way within the first 100 posts on almost any forum is not going to go down well. Note also that being a moderator is no guarantee of being a good poster - after all, I have also been a moderator on a busy internet forum.

[Blue c 52]

 johnu, on 2014-March-08, 01:51, said:

The core of the system is still world class, but after 50 years, some of the treatments have seen better days for sure.

Some things I consider almost mandatory to change to have a competitive system these days:

• Responder canapes - Preempts your own bidding, opener's rebid can mess up your planned reverse, IMO no reason why you shouldn't bid your longest suit first.
  
• Wide range 1NT opening (a weak NT with clubs only or a strong NT) - What were they thinking when they put that into the system? You could switch to strong only NT, or weak NT's.
  
• 2♦ 17-24 4441 hands - Very complex system of responses for a less than .2% chance you'll be able to open. Comes up once in a blue moon, good chance of a system forget, could be used for a much more common opening bid. 1♣ should take care of almost all of these hands.
  
• 3♣ opening bid showing opening bid and very strong clubs - Open 2♣ or 1♣ if top of range.
  
• 2/1 responses - I recommend game forcing 2/1 responses instead of the nonforcing responder rebids of the suit or 2NT.
  
• Change the 2NT response to a forcing raise (e.g. Jacoby 2NT)
  
• Change to semi-forcing 1NT response to 1 of a major
  

Anybody have other favorite changes?

Responder Canapes work great, you get a great deal of additional information at low level. Would you prefer 1S-2H or 1S-2C-2D-2H?

Wide range NT works great IF you make 1NT 13-14 with clubs or 15-17 any balanced. Responses 2C=8-11, 2D=12+ After 1NT-2C 2D=3=3=3=4 13-14, 2H-3=3=2=5 13-14, 2S 16-17 balanced, 2NT= 15 balanced. After 2S or 2NT stayman and transfers

Your right, BC 2D unnecessary Play Multi instead

Your right BC 3C opening unnecessary

Game forcing 2/1 unnecessary. BC style jump-shift in minors and reverse by responder replace. Now 1S-2H is invitational. Like all 2 level response, forcing to 2NT

Your right 1major-2NT better used as Jacoby

A semi forcing 1NT response to 1major is basically what BC plays. Opener only passes with min. balanced hand.

I play that 2H/2S openings Show 5 card suit and a 4-5 card minor. A 2H opening may contain 4 spades. These bids remove most of the 5cd major openings from 1H/1S, except for balanced hands.

Alex aknox@nucleus.com

[johnu]

 Blue c 52, on 2020-November-18, 21:05, said:

Responder Canapes work great, you get a great deal of additional information at low level. Would you prefer 1S-2H or 1S-2C-2D-2H?

I play that 2H/2S openings Show 5 card suit and a 4-5 card minor. A 2H opening may contain 4 spades. These bids remove most of the 5cd major openings from 1H/1S, except for balanced hands.

Alex aknox@nucleus.com

Would you prefer

Non canape auction

---

or

Canape auction

---

I would much rather have the non canape auction. In your original canape auction, instead of rebidding 2♦, opener raises clubs.

---

I hate that canape auction.

As far as the 2♥ opening bid, I play a reverse Flannery, 5♠-4♥. That way,

---

is always a canape sequence. The majors are so important, especially at MP that 2♥ maybe or probably not showing 4 spades will lead to bad boards when you can't find spades as your best suit.

I don't like the 2♠ opening bid with an opening hand. You have an opening hand, and the boss suit spades. Yet, you are preempting your side by starting at the 2 level.

[Blue c 52]

 johnu, on 2020-November-19, 05:18, said:

Would you prefer

Non canape auction

---

or

Canape auction

---

I would much rather have the non canape auction. In your original canape auction, instead of rebidding 2♦, opener raises clubs.

---

I hate that canape auction.

As far as the 2♥ opening bid, I play a reverse Flannery, 5♠-4♥. That way,

---

is always a canape sequence. The majors are so important, especially at MP that 2♥ maybe or probably not showing 4 spades will lead to bad boards when you can't find spades as your best suit.

I don't like the 2♠ opening bid with an opening hand. You have an opening hand, and the boss suit spades. Yet, you are preempting your side by starting at the 2 level.

In the auction 1S-2C-3C- you know that pard has 4 S and 5+ C. It is entirely possible that you have now a club fit. And you can now search for a heart fit with 3H. What could be better. if pard raises H you know his exact distribution, if not clubs could be the spot (or NT if pard bids it.

You have far more info than the std. auction.

[johnu]

 Blue c 52, on 2020-November-25, 21:30, said:

In the auction 1S-2C-3C- you know that pard has 4 S and 5+ C. It is entirely possible that you have now a club fit. And you can now search for a heart fit with 3H. What could be better. if pard raises H you know his exact distribution, if not clubs could be the spot (or NT if pard bids it.

You have far more info than the std. auction.

Well, for one thing, opener doesn't know responder actually has a 4+ card club suit since a reverse 2♣ could be made on a 3 card suit, and even a 2 card suit on some hands. So opener can't be sure it is sound to go past 3NT if there isn't a good club fit. Then, even with a club fit, you frequently want to stop in 3NT either because you may not have enough cards to make 5♣, or because 3NT scores better at matchpoints. So 3♥ is much better used to find red suit stoppers for 3NT.

But playing responder canapes, 3♥ shows 5+ hearts. Does opener raise to 4♥ with a doubleton and play in a possible 5-2 fit, or bid 3NT with an inadequate diamond stopper. If responder has 6 hearts, do you pull 3NT and hope for a 6-2 fit but risking a 6-1 fit? Or even if responder has 5 hearts, a 5-2 fit may be the best contract but how do you investigate?

So the answer to your question is that you don't have more useful information than a standard auction and you are a level higher.