[Chamaco]

Hi all,
I would like to have some constructive suggestions from the strongclubber gurus of this Forum :-)

The help I need is in the construction of a simpler way to respond to strong club openers, without losing too much in terms of effectiveness, trying to copy as much as I can from previous systems.

I only ask you one favour : there is already a thread on the effectiveness or not of using "shape-first" or "control -first" responses, so please , do not respond in this thread only to say that control step systems are outdated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY DO I NEED THIS ?
(skip this- as I myself would - if you do not care)

The point is, having started to play with my pard a Precision variation using various types of asking bids (SABs, TABs, CABs etc etc) after 1C opening and positive responses, we have come to the conclusion that the memory burden is too much for her.

She constantly forgets the sequences, and even when she remembers them, she has trouble selecting the best strategy for each situation (e.g. which is the asking bid that will work better here?).
What's more, she cannot read english, so she does not have access to all the english language literatue with the examples available in books and online.

Even worse, the pressure she feels from the complicated system, reflects badly on her card play, and she plays much worse now than when we played simpler systems.

Hence, we need to simplify the system.
I won't argue on the effectiveness of relay systems or of a full comprehensive use of asking bids, for a good pair, but this won't work with us, in the immediate future.

BUT, we both love the advantage of having limited openings and having strong hands go via 1C.
Hence our need to simplify the 1C developments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY USE CONTROL-STEP RESPONSES TO 1C ?
(skip this if you do not care but MOST OF ALL DO NOT START A DISCUSSION ON WHY SHAPE-FIRST RESPONSES ARE BETTER! )

It seems to me that in Precision one of the main reasons to use asking bids (not the only one of course) during positive auctions, is to limit the hands, in terms of controls usually.

So I thought that maybe using the step control responses to 1C, such as those use in the Blue Team Club, would limit immediately the hand.
What's more, in the Blue Team Club style, the auction proceeds in a semi-natural manner, which will be good for our memory strain.
Although in some auctions I will regret dropping asking bids and relays, it will help playing with my current pard (and NO, don't suggest to change my pard, it's xmas after all! )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here are the SYSTEM QUESTIONS. They only refer to 1C sequences.

The idea is to use after 1C(16+):

1D = negative, 0-1 controls, or 2 controls < 6 hcp
1H = semipositive = 2 controls 6+ hcp. Following auction is only invitational+, forcing to 2NT or 3X.
1S = 3 controls, GF
1NT = 4 controls, GF
2C = 5+ controls, GF
2D = "Multi" = 4-6 hcp with a long major, may stop in 2M
2H = balanced 8-10, GF
2S = bal 11-13, GF
2NT = bal 14+, GF
3X = 4441, GF, various ranges

As you see, there is a slight difference from the std Blue Club /Neapolitan Club structure:

a. the 8-10/11-13/14+ balanced are given with 2H/S/NT. They are evaluated in terms of absolute hcp rather than controls (because I believe NT bidding should take in full account the value of "quacks").
Ron suggested me to invert the ranges (e.g. 2H = 14+, 2S = 11-13, 2NT = 8-10), but I prefer that NT is played by a strong hand, e.g. I hate if 3NT is played by a 8-10 balanced, whereas letting a 14+ balanced hand play NT does not feel so bad

b. as a consequence the positive responses (1S thru 2C) all have at least a 5 bagger. So, when opener hears a positive control response, he has the additional info that the hand is not balanced (yes, I know, it may be 5422 or 5332, but still, it is a valuable info).
The 1H response is ambiguous (e.g. either a 8+ unbalanced OR 6-7 balanced)

c. 2D is used as "Multi", which means the contract in the major will likely be played by the strong hand.
The "traditional" 2♦ 6+ controls step responses , can be reasonably collapsed into the 2♣5+ controls without too much loss, in MY opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the questions are especially directed towards the following:

a. Which development would you suggest after the positive balanced responses?

1) 1C:2H (8-10)
2) 1C:2S (11-13)
3) 1C:2NT (14+): this last one is not really an issue since there are quite a few schemes available in the literature

Let's make an example:

1C:2H: ?

Which bid is Stayman ? How does responder bid when holding both majors ?
Which bid by opener shows a 5 card suit looking for game/slam there ?
How to handle 2 suiters ?
How to look for minor suit game/slams ?
How to ask straight Aces and how to invite quantitatively to 6NT, either directly AND after some form of inquiry (e.g. "Stayman" or after trying to find a 5-3 fit) ?

The same questions arise after 1C:2S


b. Which development would you suggest after the 2D "Multi" response ?

E.g.
1C:2D

- 2H/S = paradox responses ? (pass if holding the major I bid)
- 2NT = positive, but what does it ask ? should responder show a side singleton (directly or bidding the suit under?) ? Or should responder clarify his strength ?
eg: 3C = max with ♥, 3 D = max with ♠, 3H/S = natural minimum
- jumpbids = CABS ?

[mike777]

Not sure all that 1c then 2d and more stuff is really needed, let me know if really that useful otherwise try:
1c then 2d, etc =0-6 hcp with 6 card suit, 6/7 with minors, judgement, and at most only one top honor from AKQ and 0-2 controls. 3 level add a card. 2nt=11-13 bal., no 5 card major and 0-2 controls.

[mike777]

Do not know standard precision asking bids, following is my simple style:

asking bid/non trump suit
step one=no control
2=K or stiff
3=AX or longer
4=Stiff ace or void or if suit cannot be short KQ
5=AK or AQ

[preempt]

I like your response structure. It seems like it might work well.
I play the same 2♥ response and we use simple continuations:
New suits are natural at least 5 card length and the auction develops naturally. We play the 2♥ bid denies any 5 card suit so responder can bid 4 card suits, bid notrump or raise, whatever seems most appropriate.
2 notrump by opener is balanced (5332 or 5422 with a 5 card minor is okay) and asks responder to bid 4 card suits up the line. 1♣-2♥-2nt-3nt shows 3334 specifically so 3♣ guarantees a second 4 card suit. opener also shows his 4+ card suits up the line or bids 4nt to invite slam, 3nt to sign off, kickback to ask for key cards, raises a minor to initiate control bidding, or raises a major to sign off.
Other rebids by opener are 3nt: sign off with no interest in slam or a suit fit
4nt: balanced slam invitation
4♣: straight gerber
You can define other jumps however you want.
This is a very simple structure so it minimizes any memory strain. It could also be used after your 2♠ response.

[cwiggins]

I can empathize: I also play with a partner who wants to use control responses rather than suit bids followed by asking bids.

A few suggestions and questions.

First, you might want to eliminate the semi-positive to further simplify things. That way you don't have to worry about which sequences are forcing and which are not. The Blue Club as currently documented by Franco and Pancotti eliminates the semi-positive.

Second, if you keep the semi-positive, you might want to swap the 1D and 1H responses, i.e. 1D = 6+ HCP with 0-2 C and 1H = 0-5 HCP. Hamman and Wolfe did this for years, and it's nice to have the extra room when you have the semi-positive.

Third, if you use control showing responses, do you use Keycard Blackwood? Do you use it only when the control responses are ambiguous (0-2 or 5+)? You might want to look at the Italians' Turbo cue bidding.

Fourth, after suit agreement, do you want to use asking bids then?

Fifth, more than controls are important: 3 or 4 controls bare are far different from 3 or 4 controls inside of 12 HCP. Moscito uses Ace=3, King=2, and Queen=1 to separate hand strength. This approach is related to the Ultimate Club whose responses shows both controls and AKQ points and to Romex which puts 3 or 4 controls with less than three cover cards (two queens) in with 0-2 controls. You need to figure out how to define what are extras and how to show those during the auction. For example, if you agree to use the principle of fast arrival, then what constitutes extras? One queen? Three jacks? Two queens? One queen and shortness?

I'm sure there are other things to consider. I just can't remember them now.

[Chamaco]

Quote

First, you might want to eliminate the semi-positive to further simplify things.  That way you don't have to worry about which sequences are forcing and which are not.

1- in fact, i have resorted to 1H = positive, 0-2 controls

Quote

Third, if you use control showing responses, do you use Keycard Blackwood?  Do you use it only when the control responses are ambiguous (0-2 or 5+)?  You might want to look at the Italians' Turbo cue bidding.

I know, this is one of the first things I was thinking about.
I wrote an email to Marco Pancotti asking what they use 3NT and 4NT for (e.g. how they check trump honors).
Especially my worry was about the trump queen.

He replied that they use NEITHER Turbo, NEITHER RKCB.
Their IMMEDIATE raises are sound in trumps, promising at least a Qxx honor; jump cue are not splinter but cue promising at least KQxx (2 of top 3 honors).
Their jump raises are used for good support without honors (xxxx or better).
Other bad trumps raises are given as delayed raises.
This way they avoid ending in slams without good trumps.
Their 4NT is a sort of "serious" 4NT, as used by Chiaradia in the Neapolitan Club.

For the moment I will sttill play the "normal" RKCB structure, because I want my pard to slowly digest the change of system.
Eventually, though, I might incorporate the Turbo 3NT in the system.

Quote

Fourth, after suit agreement, do you want to use asking bids then?

No: I do not think it will be rewarding with my current pard.
I'll stick to mixed cuebids, serious 3NT (to show extras) , Last Train and Kickback RKCB + Exclusion RKCB.

Eventually I might consider the use of Denial Cue in its simplest form (bid directly the suit that needs control), which is in fact similar to CABs.
Yet, I am a bit worried for the info it gives away to the opening leader.

Quote

You need to figure out how to define what are extras and how to show those during the auction.  For example, if you agree to use the principle of fast arrival, then what constitutes extras?  One queen?  Three jacks?  Two queens?  One queen and shortness?

With a fit found, I think the best way to evaluate hand strength is in terms of losers.
That implicitly takes into account Quacks clustered with other honors AND extras in terms of shape.

For each positive response to 1 C, we shall assume the following "normal" loser range:
1H: 9.5-8.5 = minimum without great shape
1S: 8.5-7.5 = less than a "normal opener"
1NT: 7.5-6.5 = "normal" opening hand strength
2C: 6.5-5.5 = "good" opening hand strength but less than a reverse

Sure, there will be deviations, but having a clear criterion to define "extras" will help.

Of course, in "no fit" auctions, only hcp will be the keys to define extras: responder will need to have about 3/4 extra quack hcps.

Quote

I'm sure there are other things to consider.  I just can't remember them now.

Thanks a lot: I appreciated a lot all your comments, they clearly show you have be through the structure in detail and I am VERY interested in any further comment.

You can mail them privately if you do not want to post them here at:
m_casadei67*REMOVETHIS*@tin*REMOVETHIS_TOO*.it

One last doubt:
as you may see in the structure I am proposing, I have collapsed the 6+ controls 2D resp. into the 5+ controls 2C responses: this allowed to

1. describe immediately the positive balanced hand (with 2H/S/NT).
This is useful because when responder bids the controls with 1H through 2C, opener immediately know responder is unbalanced, and the following bids are easier: e.g. 1C:1NT: ? now first step asks for a 5 card major and responder without a 5 card major bids 3m to show exactly 5+m and 4M.
Similar structure over 1C:2C.

2. use 2D for the mini-weak 2, with "Multi-style" followups

How awkward do you think it is to lose the 2D response for 6+ controls and putting it into the 2C 5+ controls response ?