[kenrexford]

I recall years ago that some system, maybe one version of Roman Club, had a strong 3♣ opening. I remember playing that in one game in D.C. because my partner played that. Just curious if anyone ever used that tool and what the benefits were. Kind of thinking about whether adding something strong for 3♣ into fourth-seat openings makes sense.

Feel free to add thoughts, of course.

[helene_t]

I have played the other 3-openings as strong, but never 3♣ AFAIR. Sounds backwards, I suppose it is backwards. I had some silly ideas about bidding when I was new to bridge, and most of my partner's didn't care so they were willing to play my silly methods.

[kenrexford]

Weird. I can find tons of references online about Schenken-style 3♣ openings, generally defined as intermediate (11-15 or so) with solid (sometimes not so solid required) clubs, 6-7 in length.

However, I cannot find any refernce to the mega-strong 3♣ opening from whatever system it was. I cannot recall exactly what old system used that, or what early version of some system used that. Anyone even know?

[kenrexford]

In case anyone else cares, I finally figured it out.

The Strong 3C opening was actually an experimental part of the Schenken System for a minute, when he was devising solutions to getting his ass kicvked by Italy in the 50's. It was not part of Roman Club was was in reaction to Roman Club.

The only thing I have figured out so far is that the bid showed a solid suit and a strong hand. I think I have the old book somewhere at home, now that I think about it.

The perhaps interesting use for this opening, at least in fourth seat, is as a "solution" to the loss of 2♣...3M if you use those bids to show 4M/5+diamonds. Then, in the usual auction, you might have a sequence like P-P-P-3♣-P-3♦-P-3M to start the same sequence.

Not sure how useful, but I was just thinking, you know...

[Phil]

Played a Gambling 3♣ (any solid suit) in the early 80's.

Reason later prevailed.

[NickRW]

Fairly sure Blue Club had/has a strong 3C.

As to your comment about 4th seat - strictly you could devise a whole different opening system for 4th seat - but the number of hands where you get to open in 4th seat these days are quite few - so, like the recent thread about variable NT, is the memory load worth it?

Nick

[kenrexford]

NickRW, on May 18 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

Fairly sure Blue Club had/has a strong 3C.

As to your comment about 4th seat - strictly you could devise a whole different opening system for 4th seat - but the number of hands where you get to open in 4th seat these days are quite few - so, like the recent thread about variable NT, is the memory load worth it?

Nick

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Schenken was not just reacting but adopting. I had forgotten that the one time I played that involved Blue Team canape. Do you have any resource3s on how the 3♣ opening operated for Blue Team?

Whereas I agree that devising an entirely different system for 4th seat makes little sense, simply having a 4th-seat 3♣ strong, artificial opening added might be worth the effort, if it actually gains anything in its own right or in relaxing other openings.

I mean, a simple sort-of idea would be to have 3♦, 3♥, 3♠, and 3NT(clubs) show some lighter solid-suit opening, whereas 3♣ could show more of a one-suiter with values. King of like a solid-suit Namyats-ish bid, allowing cues and allowing a 3NT try.

[hrothgar]

Some versions of Blue Club used a very disciplined 3♣ opening. I have plenty of references in case anyone cares.

I seem to recall that some EHAA variants used a strong, artificial, and forcing 3♣ opening. (Very similar to a "standard" 2♣ opening; however, with much less room to play around). Its entirely possible that this was being played down in the DC area. (There used to be a fair amount of EHAA played down there)

[kenrexford]

There seems to be a difference between what could be called the "Strict Precision 2♣ one level higher" and the strong, artificial 3♣. It also seems that both Blue Team and Schenken experimented with the strong, artificial version before shifting to the former, and then eventually shifting out of either eventually.

I'm really curious about that earliest idea and whether it has any modern value. Some good ideas from the past were discarded for certain reasons but sometimes resurface in similar or different forms.

Take Flannery. The first version solved a specific perceived problem that was later deemed overstated. However, Reverse Flannery solves a different problem and has had some play more recently. Mini-Flannery also has some play around the world. So, the basic idea of a 2♦ opening for the majors solves different problems for different folks at different times in bridge theory development.

A strong 3♣ opening was kind of a strange innovation and very short-lived. However, it might have some value in fourth seat in the modern era, or perhaps in some completely unexpected situation.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 18 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

There seems to be a difference between what could be called the "Strict Precision 2♣ one level higher" and the strong, artificial 3♣.  It also seems that both Blue Team and Schenken experimented with the strong, artificial version before shifting to the former, and then eventually shifting out of either eventually.

I have a pretty good selection of books on Blue Club including the standard (English) references by

Garozzo
Forquet
Yallouze
Reese
(I also have a silly coffee table book by Omar Sharif)

I also have copies of The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding, as well as Shecken's "Big Club". I even have some old copies of Vienna lying about the apartment.

This is the first time that I have ever heard mention of a strong, artificial, and forcing 3♣ opening in the context of Blue Club (or for that matter, as part of Roman)

Several versions of Blue Club uses 3♣ as a constructive opening bid showing single suited hands with long clubs. (LOTS of documentation on this). However, this is very different from what you are talking about.

I suspect that you (or your original source) are confusing this particular 3♣ opening with something akin to the "standard" strong 2♣ opening. If you really want, I can try to confirm my impressions with Guido (Paul Friedman knows this stuff inside and out). Alternatively, someone on the forums might have enough leverage to go straight to the horse's mouth and ask Papi what's what.

For what its worth, Roman Club didn't spring forth extant like some modern day Athena. Roman Club evolved out of Vienna and Vienna used a strong artificial and forcing 1NT opening. This is one of the main reasons that I'm skeptical about this whole theory...

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 18 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

There seems to be a difference between what could be called the "Strict Precision 2♣ one level higher" and the strong, artificial 3♣.

Oh yeah...

As long as we're on a topic: A Precision 2♣ opening traditionally included hands with 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major.

The Blue Club style strong 3♣ opening always promised 6+ Clubs. (I'm pretty sure that it denies a 4 card major)

[kenrexford]

Yeah, I saw the stuff about the strong 1NT. I also, however, found some strange reference online to the strong 3C, in the context of Schenken (without any explanation), and I also found the EHAA 3♣ strong and artificial mention.

I cannot find, however, anything on the specifics of the strong, artificial 3♣, but I am positive that this was dabbled with.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 18 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

I cannot find, however, anything on the specifics of the strong, artificial 3♣, but I am positive that this was dabbled with.

I'll make sure to recall this comment the next time you claim that you are "positive" about something.

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on May 18 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

Do you have any resource3s on how the 3♣ opening operated for Blue Team?

There is a good write up of one pair's version at:

http://www.bridgeguy...CalgaryKnox.pdf

You want page 54.

Nick

[hrothgar]

Garozzo and Forquet define a 3♣ opening as:

A one suited hand with at least six clubs and no more than one loser in the suit. The hand must contain at least seven winner. One (or more) winner must be in a side suit.

Examples include:

♠ Axx
♥ Kx
♦ xx
♣ AKQxxx

♠ xx
♥ xx
♦ Ax
♣ AKJTxxx

Sharif uses a similar definition and hands.

Reese (citing Garozzo and Yallouze) describes the opening as

a longer and powerful clubs suit, at least one guard outside and about 7 or 8 playing tricks.

Examples include:

♠ Kxx
♥ xx
♦ x
♣ AKQxxxx

♠ Ax
♥ QJx
♦ x
♣ KQJTxxx

[the hog]

Didn't one version of Blue Club use a 3C opening as any solid suit? I have a vague recollection of this.

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on May 18 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Didn't one version of Blue Club use a 3C opening as any solid suit? I have a vague recollection of this.

That's what I have been recalling, but I cannot find it anywhere.

The Reese and other sources show various club-oriented versions, often approximating a standard 1..3 sequence.

[RichMor]

hrothgar, on May 18 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

Garozzo and Forquet define a 3♣ opening as:

A one suited hand with at least six clubs and no more than one loser in the suit.  The hand must contain at least seven winner.  One (or more) winner must be in a side suit.

Examples include:

♠ Axx
♥ Kx
♦ xx
♣ AKQxxx

♠ xx
♥ xx
♦ Ax
♣ AKJTxxx

Sharif uses a similar definition and hands.

<snips>

That sounds about right as best I remember. Also, I think the 'Sharif 3 Diamonds' was any solid 7-card suit.