[mgoetze]

Well, I have started entering the "original" Blue Club into Full Disclosure, not that I would want to play it unmodified, but I'm hoping someone will appreciate having the "pure" version available for his/her own modifications, and stumbled onto this gem:

"1NT - 3x : One of our specialty bids: the response shows a 6-card suit headed by two of the top three honours and a maximum of 6-7 points. [...]"

Aside from the fact that this comes up, like, never, do you really want to be raised to 4 and then be the only pair going down because the defense is so double-dummy?

I do like much of the Blue Club system but the whole 1NT complex is so incredibly bad that I really wonder how they won any Bermuda Bowls...

[the hog]

I am afraid I don't understand this post at all. The hand you quote is not that infrequent. Furthermore wyh would anyone raise to 4? The bid is designed to get to excellent fitting 3NT contracts, in some cases even if you have a 6-4 Major suit fit. eg
Axxx KQxxxx
Axx xxx
Ax xx
Axxx xx

Many still play this response today.

[han]

Although I do think that there are better uses for 1NT-3M, the convention mentioned is probably useful when it comes up.

I would not be surprised if the Blue club 1NT structure is not as strong as the best structures in use today. It would be very sad if it was the other way around. Hopefully todays experts have learned from the top players of 30 years ago.

[mgoetze]

I wouldn't call 4 Aces and out frequent - can't remember the last time I had it. Isn't it rather more likely you'll have xxx in partner's major and some tenaces, e.g.

---

3NT may well be down on a Heart lead, but 4♠ is a reasonable contract. Once this dummy is on the table though, defenders will beat it if it can be beat.

My main issue with the Blue Club 1NT is actually the 2-level responses, conider e.g. 1NT-2♣-2♦ showing "3-3-3-4 and 13-14, or 3-3-2-5 and 13 precisely", which is, IMO, not very helpful - I would rather be told the exact distribution at once and not worry too much about a jack more or less, while everyone else is finding their 4-4 major fits. If I wanted to play a Blue Club-based system, I would just throw out the 1NT complex entirely, play it as 15-17 with normal Stayman and Transfers, and figure out something else to do with these weak 3334 and 3325 hands (such as, *gasp*, opening 1♦ on only 2).

[Walddk]

I can't see anything wrong with letting a jump to the 3-level show two top honours to six, invitational to 3NT if opener has a fit. As an example, say you have this hand:

xxx
xx
xx
AKxxxx

opposite

AKx
Kxx
Axxxx
Qx

Now you will get to a 68% game (3NT) if your methods allow you to respond 3♣. If, on the other hand, you have the agreement that 2♠ is a transfer to clubs (that's how I and many others play nowadays), opener will not super-accept even if he could according to your agreement, and 3♣ is where you are going to play.

Have a punt at 3NT with responder's hand you may argue. Sure, but then you deserve to catch xx opposite. Why punt if you have a way of showing an invitational hand if opener has a fit?

Roland

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Sep 11 2005, 07:24 AM, said:

Why would opener not super accept? Hx of clubs and quick tricks are the perfect hand for superaccepting (if partner is inviting with a 6 card club suit).

I am not so sure about that Justin. If he does, when will responder know whether to sign off in 3♣ or bid 3NT holding

Qxx
J
xxx
Axxxxx

3NT is fine opposite a great fit, not opposite Qx.

Roland

[Walddk]

mgoetze, on Sep 11 2005, 05:04 AM, said:

I do like much of the Blue Club system but the whole 1NT complex is so incredibly bad that I really wonder how they won any Bermuda Bowls...

The answer to that question is very simple:

Because they were formidable bridge players! And although you think that their system was rotten, it was apparently good enough to dominate the world of bridge. As we have pointed out so many times before, the system is only a part of the whole.

However, Blue Club was indeed adequate. You have enough evidence.

Roland

[mike777]

Prefer 1nt=2nt=sign off in clubs with that example and 1nt=3c with akxxxx example hand. Nice if you have both options for your long minor hands.

[Flame]

It suppose to get you to 3nt not 4 level
with somwthing like
xx xx AQxxxx xxx
oposite
Ax Ax Kxx Axxxx

not saying this is the best use for 3X but its not unplayable.

[luke warm]

btw, on daniel's systems page is the "new" blue club, in a word doc... if you're entering this into f.d. you might as well use it...

[hrothgar]

mgoetze, on Sep 11 2005, 08:12 AM, said:

If I wanted to play a Blue Club-based system, I would just throw out the 1NT complex entirely, play it as 15-17 with normal Stayman and Transfers, and figure out something else to do with these weak 3334 and 3325 hands (such as, *gasp*, opening 1♦ on only 2).

Blue Club is a very old fashioned system that places a high premium on constructive bidding. A large amount of bidding space is spent on relatively rare hands to clean up constructive sequences.

The 2♦ opening is probably the best example of this: How often do you get dealt 4441 / 5440 hands with 17 - 24 HCP? The 1NT opening also falls into this category. The primary purpose of the wide ranging 1NT is to ensure that a 1♦ opening promises at least Hxx in Diamonds to position the partnership to explore diamonds as a feasible contract.

I learned strong club playing Blue Club (inclluding the wide ranging NT opening) and it definitely effected my views about bidding systems. To this day, I don't play Precision variants unless I'm forced because I have too many issues with the 1♦ opening. I strongly prefer Polish type structures and MOSCITO structures where the Diamond openings promise 4+ card suits...

[mgoetze]

luke warm, on Sep 11 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

btw, on daniel's systems page is the "new" blue club, in a word doc... if you're entering this into f.d. you might as well use it...

I am not using this version because

1) Word Docs suck.
2) As far as I can tell, the system has not gained any sort of widespread acceptance and thus would not be useful to many people.
3) I don't like the ambiguity as to whether bids are canape or not.
4) It is more complex than the original and I personally have no good reason for learning it at this time.

[SoTired]

I am amazed to see someone criticize a 30 to 40-year-old system played by a team of the best bridge players the world has ever seen.

Sheesh. Yes, the system looks archaic by today's standards, but it was state-of-the-art then.

While we are at it, let's criticize Aristotle, Freud, and even Einstein for not knowing what we know now.