[Kungsgeten]

My girlfriend has shown some interest in playing a strong club system. She's not very interested in studying system notes or bidding theory, so the system would have to be pretty simple and rely on natural methods for the most part. We currently play short club, in the following framework:

1C = 2+ clubs, natural 11+ or (11)12-14 NT or 18-19 NT. Natural responses, inverted raises.
1D = 4+ diamonds, 11+. Can be a balanced hand if the diamond suit is nice. Inverted raises.
1M = 5+ major, 11+. Not 15-17 5332. 2/1 GF, 2M constructive raise, 2NT limit+, 3M preemptive.
1NT = (14)15-17, could be semi-balanced. She's pretty liberal with what she considers balanced (5-5 minors has occured, 5-4 majors too).
2C = 20-21 NT or GF.
2D = Weak multi.
2M = 10-13, 6+M.
2NT = 22-24.

If playing a strong club, I'd say we'd keep playing five card majors, but that's about it. The structures I'm considering are:

1. American Precision style, with 2+ 1D, 6+ 2C and a three-suited short diamond opening bid. Strong(ish) NT (perhaps mini-NT non-vul).
2. Strong club with 1D as natural or balanced (or 4-4-1-4), which means 2C can be a five card suit. Strong(ish) NT. This is somewhat of a standard among Swedish strong club players, at least where we play.
3. Natural 1D opening and weak NT (12-14 or maybe 12-15). Perhaps 15+ 1C any shape, or maybe something similar to Zelandakh / Martens in that 1D/H/S can be 11-17.
4. Natural 2C and 2D openings. Either Nyström-Bertheau style, where 2m is 6+m or 5-4 minors (denies 4M), or IMPrecision where 2m promises 6+ minor. Strong(ish) NT.
5. 1D promises a four card major, either a weak NT or with a longer minor. The 1NT opening is weak and denies a four card major. Natural 2m openings.

My guess is that number 3 is easiest to learn, even though the 1C opening may be a bit overloaded. I like the idea of number 5, but perhaps 1NT is "underloaded" (don't really know what range you can get away with when 1NT denies a four card major, perhaps 11-14 or even 10-14)?

[ldrews]

Kungsgeten, on 2017-August-15, 09:03, said:

My girlfriend has shown some interest in playing a strong club system. She's not very interested in studying system notes or bidding theory, so the system would have to be pretty simple and rely on natural methods for the most part. We currently play short club, in the following framework:

1C = 2+ clubs, natural 11+ or (11)12-14 NT or 18-19 NT. Natural responses, inverted raises.
1D = 4+ diamonds, 11+. Can be a balanced hand if the diamond suit is nice. Inverted raises.
1M = 5+ major, 11+. Not 15-17 5332. 2/1 GF, 2M constructive raise, 2NT limit+, 3M preemptive.
1NT = (14)15-17, could be semi-balanced. She's pretty liberal with what she considers balanced (5-5 minors has occured, 5-4 majors too).
2C = 20-21 NT or GF.
2D = Weak multi.
2M = 10-13, 6+M.
2NT = 22-24.

If playing a strong club, I'd say we'd keep playing five card majors, but that's about it. The structures I'm considering are:

1. American Precision style, with 2+ 1D, 6+ 2C and a three-suited short diamond opening bid. Strong(ish) NT (perhaps mini-NT non-vul).
2. Strong club with 1D as natural or balanced (or 4-4-1-4), which means 2C can be a five card suit. Strong(ish) NT. This is somewhat of a standard among Swedish strong club players, at least where we play.
3. Natural 1D opening and weak NT (12-14 or maybe 12-15). Perhaps 15+ 1C any shape, or maybe something similar to Zelandakh / Martens in that 1D/H/S can be 11-17.
4. Natural 2C and 2D openings. Either Nyström-Bertheau style, where 2m is 6+m or 5-4 minors (denies 4M), or IMPrecision where 2m promises 6+ minor. Strong(ish) NT.
5. 1D promises a four card major, either a weak NT or with a longer minor. The 1NT opening is weak and denies a four card major. Natural 2m openings.

My guess is that number 3 is easiest to learn, even though the 1C opening may be a bit overloaded. I like the idea of number 5, but perhaps 1NT is "underloaded" (don't really know what range you can get away with when 1NT denies a four card major, perhaps 11-14 or even 10-14)?

I am using Precision style strong 1C (16+) and a weakish NT (11-15). This makes all the non-strong bids 11-15, has 5 card majors, natural 1D, and a 2C (6C or 5C+4M). The NT is refined with Jacoby Transfers, Australian Stayman, and Minor Suit Stayman. Works well for me.

[The_Badger]

I'm a firm fan of the original Wei Precision system with its 13-15NT, 2♣5m+4M or 6m, 2♦4414 or 4405 or occasionally 3415 or 4315 with weak ♣s. 2♥/2♠ 6M weak

The only weakness was the 1♦ bid was originally 4+ so with 12HCPs and 4432 or 4423 you were left without a bid.

Easy enough nowadays as 1♦ can be 2+ 11-15HCPs, and finding that 4-4 major suit fit is easier (and the sort of thing that appealed to former Acolites like myself)

Yes, I know that 2♦ bid in the system turns up extremely rarely but what a lovely bid to have available.

[Cyberyeti]

I like "real diamond" precision, 12-15 1N, 4+ card diamond, we prefer 1N to 2♦ with 4414 so 2♦ always has 5 clubs, but you can easily open 2♣ on those and use 2♦ for something else.

[hrothgar]

Blue Club is actually quite easy to learn

[Trick13]

Don't have any bids to cater for 4441 - it's too infrequent. Treat it as balanced.

Minimum changes initially could be ...

1C = 16+ (17+ if balanced)
1D = 5+ either minor unbal, or 11-13 NT that could be semi-balanced.
1M = 5+ major, 11-15. 2/1 GF, 2M constructive raise, 2NT limit+, 3M preemptive.
1NT = 14-16, could be semi-balanced.
2C = 20-21 NT or GF.
2D = Weak multi.
2M = 10-13, 6+M.
2NT = 22-24.

Then later introduce other changes to 2-level openers. And maybe tweak NT ranges.

[wank]

i'd go for for nystrom-upmark style whereby 1D promises a major if unbal.

with your option 5 you'd end up opening 1C with 15+ balanced which is pretty awkward imo.

[yunling]

You might just try 1 or 2.
The "modern Chinese popular precision" uses structure 2. I had played it with a few female friends and it worked ok for us.

[Bermy]

Trick13, on 2017-August-16, 00:42, said:

Don't have any bids to cater for 4441 - it's too infrequent. Treat it as balanced.

Minimum changes initially could be ...

1C = 16+ (17+ if balanced)
1D = 5+ either minor unbal, or 11-13 NT that could be semi-balanced.
1M = 5+ major, 11-15. 2/1 GF, 2M constructive raise, 2NT limit+, 3M preemptive.
1NT = 14-16, could be semi-balanced.
2C = 20-21 NT or GF.
2D = Weak multi.
2M = 10-13, 6+M.
2NT = 22-24.

Then later introduce other changes to 2-level openers. And maybe tweak NT ranges.

The solution is simple really Control Precision can include all 4441 16+ hands into the multi 2D but cueing below the single after the 2H relay.
and all 4441 hands below 16 open 1D

[Zelandakh]

Bermy, on 2017-August-21, 22:45, said:

The solution is simple really Control Precision can include all 4441 16+ hands into the multi 2D but cueing below the single after the 2H relay.
and all 4441 hands below 16 open 1D

The problem with this is that you either straightjacket Responder into relaying almost all of the time, thus removing all of the benefit of using a mini-multi, or you end up with problems when Responder preempts. Several expert pairs have had accidents using this method so to call it "simple" for non-experts is rather, well, simplistic.

There are of course plenty of additional "simple" solutions but it is often specific to the structure being chosen. For example, my system uses the sequence 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ to show either an unbalanced GF or a strong 3-suiter. That works because 1♠ is not required naturally; for most structures it would be silly. But I personally think throwing the strong 3-suiters into a mini-multi is one of the worst options available. I would much prefer to remove another strong type and use the resulting gap in the rebid structure to handle them. But there are almost always better options than this within 1♣ if you look carefully enough.

[Bermy]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-22, 00:07, said:

The problem with this is that you either straightjacket Responder into relaying almost all of the time, thus removing all of the benefit of using a mini-multi, or you end up with problems when Responder preempts. Several expert pairs have had accidents using this method so to call it "simple" for non-experts is rather, well, simplistic.

There are of course plenty of additional "simple" solutions but it is often specific to the structure being chosen. For example, my system uses the sequence 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ to show either an unbalanced GF or a strong 3-suiter. That works because 1♠ is not required naturally; for most structures it would be silly. But I personally think throwing the strong 3-suiters into a mini-multi is one of the worst options available. I would much prefer to remove another strong type and use the resulting gap in the rebid structure to handle them. But there are almost always better options than this within 1♣ if you look carefully enough.

You know, after years of playing precision with partners who know how, we just love it when 4441's come along. They are so easy if your know how. Usually has 3 outcomes.....horrible misfits, no decent major fit or great fit somewhere(with a crossruff or double fit maybe). If the multi 2D is used properly as I propose, that is to bid the 4 card suit below the singleton (3 or 4 level of course) after a 2D opening, the control partner will have no trouble placing the right contract.

[Kungsgeten]

I've written up a suggestion, which was actually inspired by the "Unlimited majors" thread. Not quite sure of the merits yet, but seems workable. Perhaps a better idea would be just to fine tune our current system though... Anyway, here's the gist:

1C = Strong, either: 15+ NT / 15+ with primary clubs / 17+ single suited / 20+ any.
1D = Natural unbalanced, 11-19. 11-16 if single-suited.
1M = Natural unbalanced, 11-19. 14-16 if single-suited.
1NT = (11)12-14, including 5M332 and 4=4=1=4.
2C = Polish style, so 11-14 with 6+C or 5C and 4M.
2D = Weak only multi.
2M = 10-13 with 6+M.
2NT = Weak both minors.

1C--
1D = Negative.
1H = GF without a more descriptive bid. Usually balanced (including 5M332), but could be 4M and 5+m or 4441.
1S = GF 5+H.
1NT = GF 5+S.
2m = GF 6+m.
2M = GF both minors and short major.
2NT = Natural GF, about 12-15, wants to declare.
3X = Natural HHxxxxx, NF.

1C-1D;
1H = 18-20 NT / 23-24 NT / Any unbalanced (19)20-22 / GF, 4H and 5+m.
1S = 15-18 with 5C and another suit / GF not covered by another bid.
1NT = 15-17.
2C = 15-18, 6+C.
2DHS = 17-19, 6+ suit.
2NT = 21-22
3m = GF, 6+m.

1C-1H;
1S = (19)20+ unbal / 22+ NT.
1NT = 15-18.
2C = 5+C, 15-18.
2DHS = 6+ suit, 17-19.
2NT = 19-21.

[Zelandakh]

After 1♣ - 1♦,

1♥ = 17-19 1-suited; or 18-19 with 5+♣4M; or 18-20 bal; or 22-23 bal
1♠ = unbal GF or 17+ 3-suited
1NT = 15-17 bal
2♣ = 15-17 nat
2♦ = 20+ unbal with a minor
2M = 20+ nat
2NT = 20-21 bal
3♣ = 24-25 bal with 4-5 hearts
3♦ = 24-25 bal with 4-5 spades and 2-3 hearts
3♥ = 24-25 bal with 2-3 hearts and 2-3 spades

[nullve]

Kungsgeten, on 2017-September-05, 03:51, said:

2M = 10-13 with 6+M.

2♥ = Major Flash w/ 10-13
2♠: freed up

[mikestar13]

Kungsgeten, on 2017-September-05, 03:51, said:

...

1C--
1D = Negative.
1H = GF without a more descriptive bid. Usually balanced (including 5M332), but could be 4M and 5+m or 4441.
1S = GF 5+H.
1NT = GF 5+S.
2m = GF 6+m.
2M = GF both minors and short major.
2NT = Natural GF, about 12-15, wants to declare.
3X = Natural HHxxxxx, NF.

...

This is a very pretty response structure for any Big Club system. A different set of followups would be needed if a different base definition of 1♣ were used, but this structure is an interesting starting point. I particularly like 1NT as 5+ spades unbalanced, risking wrong-siding the no trump on one of the least likely hand types to play in no trump. Do 2=2=(5-4) hands go into 1♥? Do the 2M bids imply 5-5 or better?

[Zelandakh]

mikestar13, on 2017-September-05, 23:57, said:

This is a very pretty response structure for any Big Club system.

My favourites response structures are:-

1♦ = any non-GF
1♥ = 4+ spades, unbal or 4=4=(3-2), GF
1♠ = 0-3 hearts, 0-3 spades, GF
1NT = one-suited with hearts or ♥+♣ (at least 5-4 either way), GF
2♣ = ♥+♦ (at least 5-4 either way), GF
2♦ = 4-5 hearts, 0-3 spades, bal or 3-suited, GF
2♥ = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, bal, GF
2♠ = 3-suited with 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, GF
2NT = solid suit

and

1♦ = negative or GF with 4+ hearts (♥ > ♠ or 4♥4♠)
1♥ = 4+ spades, GF (♠ > ♥ or 5+♥5+♠
1♠ = 0-3 hearts, 0-3 spades, GF
1NT-2♠ = semi-positives
--

I think these work for most strong club structures with the first being particularly good for systems such as Kungsgeten's where there are some cheap hands to use for relay-breaks over the initial response.

[Kungsgeten]

mikestar13, on 2017-September-05, 23:57, said:

This is a very pretty response structure for any Big Club system. A different set of followups would be needed if a different base definition of 1♣ were used, but this structure is an interesting starting point. I particularly like 1NT as 5+ spades unbalanced, risking wrong-siding the no trump on one of the least likely hand types to play in no trump. Do 2=2=(5-4) hands go into 1♥? Do the 2M bids imply 5-5 or better?

It is a slightly modified version of Carrot Club responses, which was the strong club system used by the "Carrot team" in Sweden during the 70s. They had a lot of success with this system, so in Sweden this response structure has stuck around If you're planning to use relays its probably not very efficient, but if you're using more natural methods I think it is pretty nice. The original looks something like this, I believe:

1C--
1D = Negative.
1H = Any GF without 5M, 6m, or 5-5 minors.
1S = 5+H (could be 5332)
1NT = 5+S (could be 5332)
2m = 6+ minor.
2M = Natural, 0-4.
2NT = 5-5 minors.
3X = HHxxxxx, NF.

Then after 1C-1H (assume regular strong club, so 16+ any or 17+ NT), I think it is something like this:

1C-1H;
1S = 5 card major / 4441 / 20-21 NT / 25+ NT.
...1NT = Balanced (2M shows 5, 2m is for 4441)
...2m = 5m, unbalanced.
...2M/3m = 4441, singleton in bid suit.
1NT = 17-19.
2m = Natural.
2M = Natural, 6+M.
2NT = 22-24.

In the version I propose I've changed the 2M and 2NT responses, so that 2M shows both minors and short major, and 2NT is natural. I don't know if this is better, but I think 0-4 with 6+M isn't really a necessary response to have. My idea is that 2M can be 5-5 minors or 5431 (not sure about 5440 and 64 hands). With 5422 you'd respond 1H.

[Kungsgeten]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-06, 02:47, said:

My favourites response structures are:-

...

I think these are great too, and I also like the IMPrecision responses. I think these are better suited for relays though. If you want to base the system on natural principles, these may be a bit complicated. I also like the idea of using a 1♥ response as a balanced hand (or perhaps a very strong one) and then to use "reverse relays" over this).

[mikestar13]

Kungsgeten, on 2017-September-06, 02:58, said:

...In the version I propose I've changed the ... 2NT response....

This seems sound. 2NT as 5-5 minors will wrongside 3NT fairly often: when opener has positional stoppers in the majors. in contrast, consider the 1NT = 5+ spades unbalanced case where we probably play in spades anyway.