[gejcl]

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

[mike777]

 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

I played this.....long ago..loved it....let me know..

[dake50]

Catch up to present theory on some aspects.
Look back to it's precursor: Roman to ask why this/these changes.
Then you can develop a very powerful, robust system.
Blue was far ahead of its time -- many aspects deserve expert acceptance.

[paulg]

I played the system for many years and still never really understood the sequence 1♠-1NT-2♥. It is not covered in the book and could be 5-4 either way, which I just hated.

The system also suffered in competition when you canapéd, a bigger issue these days when everyone is more likely to bid.


Paul

[PrecisionL]

Benito Garozzo: "The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough for top-level play today. Lea du Pont and I have improved on it a lot, and it's now ten times better than the old one. The old system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first." [World Class by Marc Smith, 1999, page 66]

I think Benito might have been referring to Ambra.

http://www.eclipse.c...a5046/ambra.htm

http://bridgepost.bl...with-twist.html

[Roger88]

I tried to email you but it was rejected by the mailer daemon.

I am interested in playing the Blue Club.
I have "The Italian Blue Team Bridge Book" by Garrozzo and Forquet. I do not know how different the Reese book might be. I am playing a complicated version of Precision now on BBO. I am not a world class player but I am willing to work at a system.

[Balrog49]

I learned how to play bridge in 1970. At one of my first tournaments, I heard some top players talking enthusiastically about Blue Team Club. There was a pile of Garozzo-Forquet books on the bookseller's table so I bought one. I was blown away by it and have loved the system ever since.

Not long after I started playing Blue Team, my partner and I had an auction I'll never forget: (silent opponents) 1♣-1♠-7NT. I claimed before the dummy came down. The opponents looked at the cards, shook their heads, and put their cards back in the board.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the pros and cons of the system in today's world of hyperactive bidding, there's one thing that will never change: it's fun to play and that can be very valuable in maintaining your partnership morale when things aren't going well. Even if you and your partner aren't playing your best bridge, you both know that you'll have system victories sooner or later.

Here's an example. I was playing in a regional open knockout against a team considered vastly better than mine at the time. They picked up many small gains against us and were smiling smugly as we neared the end of the match. Then we had a beautiful one club auction to reach a cold vulnerable slam in spades. Suddenly, they weren't smiling any more.

The declarer at the other table tried a safety play that actually caused him to go down in four spades. We eventually lost the match but watching their faces was worth more than any number of master points we might have won.

At matchpoints, Blue Team Club is very much anti-field, which can work for you or against you, depending on the boards you're dealt. But it can be devastating at IMPs. Very few players these days have experience playing against four-card majors and constantly find themselves unable to get into the auction when they own the hand.

Garozzo's statement that the system that won him so many world championships "is not good enough for top-level play today" is disappointing but doesn't change the fact that I will always love the system. I think Benito has forgotten how much fun he had playing it and would change his mind if he tried it again today.

[johnu]

 paulg, on 2010-November-02, 09:04, said:

I played the system for many years and still never really understood the sequence 1♠-1NT-2♥. It is not covered in the book and could be 5-4 either way, which I just hated.

The system also suffered in competition when you canapéd, a bigger issue these days when everyone is more likely to bid.

The sequences after a 1NT response are not one of Blue Team's strengths any way you look at it.

One solution to the 5-4 major problem is to play a reverse Flannery, 2♦ or 2♥ if you have another use for 2♦, showing 5♠ and 4♥, Then the 1NT sequence would show 4♠ and 5+♥. You could also play normal Flannery but it seems more natural to me to reverse the suits.

[johnu]

 PrecisionL, on 2010-November-03, 07:55, said:

Benito Garozzo: "The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough for top-level play today. Lea du Pont and I have improved on it a lot, and it's now ten times better than the old one. The old system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first."

Blue Team was based on Neopolitan club with a few tweaks here and there, and was "invented" before Garozzo joined the Blue Team. Bidding theory and the complexity of conventional sequences has exploded since the 60's, so the old Blue Team club system as played is pretty obsolete without a major overhaul to refine and better define sequences.

[straube]

The book "Simply Blue" shows...

1S-1N, 2H =11-15 5S/4H
1H-1N, 2S=15-16 5S/4H
1S-1N, 3H=15-16 4S/5H
1H-1N, 2H=11-15 could be 4S/5H

which at least disambiguates the auction 1S-1N, 2H

I'm not sure how closely MacMillan's book reflects Blue Team Club

[johnu]

 straube, on 2014-March-02, 21:09, said:

The book "Simply Blue" shows...
...
1H-1N, 2H=11-15 could be 4S/5H
...
which at least disambiguates the auction 1S-1N, 2H

Yikes

I think I would rather live with suit length ambiguity rather than rebid a random 5 card suit.

[Balrog49]

 straube, on 2014-March-02, 21:09, said:

The book "Simply Blue" shows...

1S-1N, 2H =11-15 5S/4H
1H-1N, 2S=15-16 5S/4H
1S-1N, 3H=15-16 4S/5H
1H-1N, 2H=11-15 could be 4S/5H

which at least disambiguates the auction 1S-1N, 2H

I'm not sure how closely MacMillan's book reflects Blue Team Club

Simply Blue is a bad joke written by someone who never came close to understanding the system. Don't waste your money on it. Anyone can publish a crock of ***** that looks authoritative and convince people to buy it.

[Balrog49]

 johnu, on 2014-March-02, 19:56, said:

The sequences after a 1NT response are not one of Blue Team's strengths any way you look at it.

One solution to the 5-4 major problem is to play a reverse Flannery, 2♦ or 2♥ if you have another use for 2♦, showing 5♠ and 4♥, Then the 1NT sequence would show 4♠ and 5+♥. You could also play normal Flannery but it seems more natural to me to reverse the suits.

Every systemic agreement is a tradeoff. You give something to get something. In Blue Team Club, the ambiguous major-minor and 1♦-1x-2♣ sequences are designed to occur in auctions that end in partials. When it goes 1♠-1NT-2♦ (nine+cards in two suits), responder may guess wrong and play in a 4-3 fit instead of a 5-3. Big deal. It's occasionally disastrous at matchpoints but the system was designed to win team events and that's why it's a good tradeoff. Accuracy in game and slam auctions is much more important than partials.

The exception, as everyone points out, is 1♠-1NT-2♥. That ambiguity can cost you a game when you have a 5-3 major fit and don't know it. That's why I play 2♦ Reverse Flannery. In my experience, it works better than normal Flannery because knowledge of opener's 5-4 shape gives responder a huge advantage in competitive auctions. And when it goes 1♠-1NT-2♥, responder knows that opener has at least five hearts.

The sequence 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥-4♥ often results in a game swing. The standard and 2/1 bidders' auctions go 1♥-1NT (forcing)-2♣ because they don't have enough to reverse and responder can't evaluate his spade holding.

There are a few other modifications that make the system more playable than it was in the past:

INT is 15-17 with your normal structure. With 12-14 and 3-3-2-5, open 1♦ and announce "could be only two." Big deal.

1♠-2♥ promises five hearts with no longer suit.

Interference Over 1♣:
Pass = negative
Double = semipositive
Suit = natural, GF (may or may not promise 3+ controls per agreement)
Notrump = balanced, GF, stopper
Cue = balanced, GF, no stopper

When there's interference, you don't want to make your first natural bid on the five-level.

[straube]

 johnu, on 2014-March-02, 22:16, said:

Yikes

I think I would rather live with suit length ambiguity rather than rebid a random 5 card suit.

And I'm not fond of 1S-1N, 3H as 4S/5H max either.

Glad to learn "Simply Blue" isn't what the Blue Team was playing.

[johnu]

 straube, on 2014-March-02, 21:09, said:

I'm not sure how closely MacMillan's book reflects Blue Team Club

LOL, I looked this book up on Amazon.com and there were 3 sellers, $170, $439, and $748. I didn't know it was a collector's item.

[kenrexford]

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.

[straube]

 johnu, on 2014-March-03, 01:13, said:

LOL, I looked this book up on Amazon.com and there were 3 sellers, $170, $439, and $748. I didn't know it was a collector's item.

I suddenly feel rich.

[ArtK78]

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Blue Club as presented in the Reese book. We made some modifications, such as Reverse Flannery and a normal 1NT opening, but otherwise we played pretty much by the book. Whatever the shortcomings of the system as presented in the Reese book, it was a lot of fun to play.

[nige1]

 Balrog49, on 2014-March-02, 22:30, said:

Simply Blue is a bad joke written by someone who never came close to understanding the system. Don't waste your money on it. Anyone can publish a crock of ***** that looks authoritative and convince people to buy it.

Simply Blue describes the version played by John Durden, an excellent player, who regularly headed the EBU master-point lists.

[Balrog49]

 straube, on 2014-March-03, 00:29, said:

And I'm not fond of 1S-1N, 3H as 4S/5H max either.

One of the first mistakes a beginner makes is a strong canape (reverse or jump shift) with 15-16 HCP, nine cards in two suits, and scattered values. A strong canape normally promises ten cards in the two suits. When made with only nine cards, the values must be very concentrated. Responder knows that aces in the side suits are valuable cover cards but kings are of questionable value unless the lead is coming up to them.

With those unsuitable hands, describe your distribution as if you held a minimum and show your extra values later. If responder makes a two over one there will be no problem. If responder bids on the one level and his hand is worth only one bid, you probably aren't missing a game. And if you play Reverse Flannery, you never have to make a bad reverse with 5♠-4♥.