[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-28, 01:09, said:

I deliberately moved away from the Blue Club requirements for 1♣, I thought it put too much pressure on their limited openings and was incompatible with my favoured notrump ladder of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19, 20+. Of course there will be nearly no difference between a 'minimum 1♣ opening' and 'maximum limited opening' no matter where you draw the dividing line. We do allow for upgrading nice 15-counts into 1♣, though it's somewhat rare. As already mentioned the shape information in my experience helps responder decide when to pass and when to make a game try on these auctions, since they know which of their points are working.
With a 5-5 major we initially treat it as a 5-4, and we get to pick which suit counts as four (we open the weaker one, defaulting to spades if it's close). If we get a third round bid we can complete the shape description.

I like the Blue Team Club increased point requirements for 1♣. In competitive auctions, every point your side has is a point that the other side doesn't have. And while I said that 1 point isn't a huge difference, it does make a difference.

It's also personal preference, but I think 11-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-22, 23-24, 25+ is just fine, and the 15-17 range in the US is what most non club players use who play strong NT.

For those not familiar, Blue Team Club would open 5-5 major non reverse hands 1♠ and then bid hearts at the next opportunity, while with a reverse (ie (14+)15-16 HCP and good quality suits) would open 1♥ and reverse into spades. With a 5-5 reverse strength hand, if one of the 5 card suits isn't strong, it can be treated initially like a 4 card suit, so that sounds like what you are doing for all strength hands.

[DavidKok]

I do think the 1 point makes a difference, but it's far from free. My limited knowledge of modern Blue Team Club stems primarily from a 106-page pdf by Arturo Franco and Marco Pancotti and was last updated in 2001. That system faces a number of tradeoffs that I think you are describing as well, and I deliberately went the other way on these because I think that's better.

• Their nominal opening range for limited openings is 12-16, permitting some 11-counts if they are worth an upgrade. Mine is 11-15, permitting 10-counts if they are worth an upgrade. Do you mean that you open more than, say, 80% of balanced 11-counts? I think opening often is good, and 11 HCP or equivalent playing strength is a good tradeoff between striking the first blow and strain on the rest of the system.
  
• 4-point ranges in the NT ladder are awkward - even 3.5 is awkward. I've played a bunch of Dutch Doubleton with 9-12, 13-'bad 16', 'good 16'-19, 20-21, etc. as well as a version that shifts the 19's by half a point or so, and the wider range of the 13-'bad 16' did regularly create problems. Especially since it was opened with 1♣, and regularly got drowned out in competition. I think using a full four point 11-14 range as the bottom NT step has similar issues.
  
• This pdf version of BTC uses a different treatment for reverse hands (approximately 'good 14'-16 along with good suits) and other openings. In return this requires twice as many sequences to show the same unbalanced hand types (once reverse, once non-reverse), and does this in part by permitting a lot of shape ambiguity. I think the shape information is more important, especially on competitive auctions where we likely won't get that many bids to clarify, than splitting the limited range in half again. This ties in to requiring a 5-point range for the limited openings.
  
• The suit quality requirements increase the number of required sequences and shape ambiguity even further - hands that have opening strength but insufficient suit quality for their normal shape-showing sequence can struggle. These are not mentioned in the pdf in any detail, but I think you're supposed to improvise and pretend to have a different shape?
  
• Both in a vacuum and in context of this system I think a 14-16 NT is just better than a 15-17 NT. There is a tradeoff here between several factors, including likelihood of missing a 4-4 major suit fit, ability to play 2/1 GF, frequency of the 1NT opening and suitability for the NT ladder. In my opinion 14-16 is a great sweet spot, and in my experience quite a few American pairs have moved from 15-17 to 'good 14'-'bad 17', and are actually playing 14-16. Speaking of, I think BTC uses a 2♣ non-GF relay, which I think pairs really poorly with opening balanced 11-counts.

This pdf, and most bridge literature in general, focuses a lot on the constructive auctions. By both frequency and size of the swings that's not as important as the competitive auctions. Meanwhile ambiguity about relative lengths can cost a lot on competitive auctions, and being able to open aggressively puts the opponents on the back foot.
There simply isn't enough space to resolve shape, points to within a 2.5 or 3-point range, and suit quality at a sufficiently low level. In competition getting even one of the three is almost a miracle, and constructively there also isn't the room below 2-of-our-best-fit. So something has to give, and I think the shape is most important to keep.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-29, 01:47, said:

My limited knowledge of modern Blue Team Club stems primarily from a 106-page pdf by Arturo Franco and Marco Pancotti and was last updated in 2001. That system faces a number of tradeoffs that I think you are describing as well, and I deliberately went the other way on these because I think that's better.

I've had the Franco/Pancotti PDF for years. My rough estimate is that 90% of the text is their own modifications (just about all of the relay/puppet sequences), with maybe 10% more or less from the original Blue Team Club. The "bible" of Blue Team Club is "The Italian Blue Team Bridge Book" by Forquet and Garozzo.

The original BTC was very "natural" if you consider canape to be mostly natural. The only real complexity in BTC was after the 2♦ opener, 17-24 with 4-4-4-1, which I doubt many followers ever played, and after the 13-17 1NT opening (either 16-17 strong NT, or 13-15 with clubs), which I thought was awful and never played. Franco and Pancotti also retained some responder canape bids from the original BTC which I played when I first started playing BTC, but quickly dropped them.

Everybody who plays BTC has their own modifications. For instance, Franco and Pancotti use 2NT as a 5-5 major suit preempt instead of 21-22 balanced. And they changed the 3♣ opening (I think everybody does) which was originally a stronger version of 2♣. The problem with BTC is that the book was pretty bare boned, and it hasn't been updated since 1969.

[DavidKok]

I primarily mentioned the openings and competitive auctions, not their relays or puppets. If the 1969 book focuses on competitive auctions I need to get myself a copy immediately.

[PrecisionL]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-29, 05:05, said:

I primarily mentioned the openings and competitive auctions, not their relays or puppets. If the 1969 book focuses on competitive auctions I need to get myself a copy immediately.

The Italian Blue Team Bridge Book, 1969.

Chapter 4: Development of the Auction with Interference by the Opponents, 13 pages.

After Opponent's simple overcall -11 pages
Opponent's Overcall of One No Trump - 1 page
After a Takeout Double - 1 page

Shows only responder's hand and no use of X except for Penalty.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-29, 05:05, said:

I primarily mentioned the openings and competitive auctions, not their relays or puppets. If the 1969 book focuses on competitive auctions I need to get myself a copy immediately.

Honestly, the competitive bidding sections aren't worth the money if that's all you are interested in. There is either a bunch of pretty standard bids, or some either old (odd?) or Italian centric style of bidding.

e.g.
Presumably almost everybody today would make a negative double

---

Strong jump shift in competition!

---

Responder makes a canape bid even in competition.

---

[DavidKok]

Ouch, that looks very dated. Thank you for showing me.

[PrecisionL]

johnu, on 2024-June-28, 00:54, said:

So with a bad 5 card spade suit, does it go

---

with 5 spades and 4 hearts? With 2-2 or 3-3, responder is on a guess to make the right preference, and with 3-2, responder is on a guess to make a game try opposite a 5 card suit, which may only be a 4 card suit in which you may not want to make a try at all.

With a bad 5-cd ♠ suit and 4♥ we open 1♥ and pass 1NT.

[helene_t]

It occurs to me that in systems like Cottontail (where you have a genuinly natural 1♦ opening that denies a 4-card major), the auction
1♦-(3♣)-p-(p)
x-(p)-?

is quite survivable despite the ambiguity about the canape suit. We could play
3♦: tolerance for both majors (with just diamonds, responder bids 3♦ before, even with zero points)
3M: 5+ in that suit

This lands us in the right spot when opener is 3361 or (53)41, which are the typical shapes. Opener will have to decide whether to double or bid 3♦ with (32)71, and might guess wrong, but that is true in most systems (ok, I suppose IMPrecision is a bit better placed because opener would have opened 2♦).

I am not sure how far we should generalize this. After
1♠-(2♥)-p-(p)
x-((p)-?
we could, by analogy, bid 2♠ with support for both minors but it is probably better just to bid 2♠ with 3-card support. Note that in Cottontail, opener can a.o. be 5134. With both minors, responder can bid 2NT in response to the reopening double. This makes it unattractive to reopen with a double with a 6-card spades, unfortunately.

"Support" for both minors should be 4-4 or better as opener can have 4144. So with 24(43), responder is not so happy, maybe the percentage choice is to bid 3♣ with 2434 but 2NT with 2443.

[awm]

 helene_t, on 2024-September-04, 01:10, said:

...(with just diamonds, responder bids 3♦ before, even with zero points)...

This seems rather crazy to me, for many reasons. Good luck with it!

[helene_t]

 awm, on 2024-September-04, 10:45, said:

This seems rather crazy to me, for many reasons. Good luck with it!

Maybe, but we will usually play 3♦ in a 9-card fit, or 3M in a 8- or 9-card fit. We could get overboard when opener has a max with a 6-card major and responder has nothing, but sometimes those hands open 1M, and whatever method we play it would be risky for opener not to introduce the 6-card suit.

We haven't tried this style and I don't know if David thinks it's worth trying Maybe first step is to make some sims.

[kwiktrix]

In my experience playing Canapé (approximately 30 consecutive years), it is "hands down" the best system for finding 44 major suit fits, preempting the opponents from finding their own 44 fit, and showing hand pattern within the framework of a strong club. It also brings a ton of inference to the table. A very good discussion of the merits of Canapé can be found in MICS by Rexford.

But basic Canapé has two issues that need to be engineered out - the most critical being clarifying the respective lengths of the initial suit and the rebid - and the second being the "reverse" enigma.

The first issue is a simple fix - when opening 1M, you can never have 5cards in the suit. You can have four, six or more, but never five. How does one do that? First we move 5M332 to your balanced opening, whether it is 1♦ or 1N. Then we implement four suit canapé. With 4+♦5M or 6+♦ we open 1♦ (or 2♦ if you've crammed all of your out of range balanced hands, and 4441's into 1♦); with 4+♣5M or 6+♣ we open 2♣; and with 4M5+m or 6+M we open 1M. With 45M we open with the 4card major. With 55M we can chose from multiple scenarios: treat as 45, designate a special rebid to show the extra opening major suit card, or designate 2♦ or 2♥ as 55M (with a wider range to maximize its usage). Using these rules we always ensure that there is a rebid available - either the canapé suit or extra length in the original suit. The underlying concept has been around for years (see Caroline Club for instance) but never quite expressed like this.

The reverse issue is easily resolvable - simply respond 1M to 1♦ with 3+M (always hearts first), 1♠ to 1♥ with 3+♠, and 2M-1 to 2♣ (always hearts first). Preparing for a canapé is critical.

Obviously there is more detail to this, like where to put the 4441 hands, but these are the basic tenets of playing a well-designed Canapé system.

And to an earlier post - I have NEVER played in a 4-2 fit.

[bluenikki]

 kwiktrix, on 2024-September-11, 13:18, said:

And to an earlier post - I have NEVER played in a 4-2 fit.

A famous BJ Becker hand had him making 6♣ on a 4-2 fit. Cold except on a trump lead.