Precision or Natural?

I have frequently had to address the question: which system is better, strong club (Precision derivatives) or natural? My response goes along these lines:

Natural bidding, especially 5-card majors has come a long way since the glorious days of the Blue Team. Although one can still argue that an uninterrupted strong club sequence will hit the jackpot more often, today's natural systems can virtually match that in most of the hands, the emphasis is on uninterrupted in the phrase before, a rarity.

After this fairly general paragraph, I break down my analysis further, by opening bids:

• 1 ♣: It limits other openings when strong but suffers from competition. Natural bidders show 2-3 clubs and perhaps gain some clarity in 1 D. So  they are even.
• 1 ♦: Depending on flavor, this can show any number of diamonds, even a void (I like to play it that way) in Precision. Natural has a big plus here, especially in competitive bidding.
• 1 M: This is the area where Precision-like systems shine. Frankly, whenever your partner opens the bidding with 1M and you're playing strong club, you happen to be the most comfortable person at the table.
• 1NT: Even; regardless of range.
• 2 ♣: Big club sucks, double plus for natural bidders. How natural systems utilize this bid is completely irrelevant. Precision 2 C has always been a hit or miss event, especially in pairs.

To sum up, we have two openings, 1 ♣ and 1NT which score even; two minuses, 1 ♦ and 2 ♣, and one (or two if you count the majors separately) plus as far as Precision is concerned. Sadly, most Precision flavors give it back when they adopt a standard raise structure, say, something like simple raise with 6-10, 3M with limit and the rest in forcing 1NT. So, although I like to play strong club, natural seems slightly better unless your major raises can handle thin but odds-on games frequently with a big club system.

3-Card Major Raises

Nearly all of bidding systems with 5-card majors prefer a delayed 3-card raise if responder has an invitational hand, typically 10-12 points. The most common route they follow is to bid 1NT first and then rebid 3M if possible. So, following auctions crop up time after time:

1 ♠ - 1NT
2 ♦ - 3 ♠

1 ♥ - 1NT
2 ♣ - 3 ♥

etc.

I can sympathize giving a belated 3-card raise but what I do not understand is why we delay it if partner's rebid will not change our own rebid in the first place. Depending on partner's second bid, following can happen:

• our hand improves,
• it gets worse,
• it does not change,
• we discover a new and better fit.

Interestingly, most of these systems advocate a single response: raise to 3M; 1M-1NT-2x-3M. Don't you think it is wasteful? Regardless of what opener says, we raise to 3. If you do not have a set of responses catering to all or at least some of the options above, then I think it is better to raise the major immediately, presumably using 3 of a minor or some similar mechanism. The competition will know less about opener's hand if nothing else. Advantage? Your 1NT response will not contain 3 cards in opener's suit. But  if you insist giving delayed 3-card raises, you might as well start thinking about how to improve your 1NT structure so that opener's rebid (and effort) really matters.

Ambra: 5-card Majors with a Twist

Benito Garozzo of Blue Team fame is without a doubt one of the greatest bridge players and bidding theoreticians in the world. In addition to his contribution to systems like Blue Team Club, Roman Club and the Precision, he also crafted a natural two-over-one system for the Italian Junior Team to be used in 2000 World Junior Champs based on 5-card majors. Davide Tavoschi has taken it up and incorporated it into Ambra.

Like Terence Reese, I am not a big fan of 5-card majors although I had to play it through all these years thanks to my ever-insisting and always-resisting partners. No, I am not hostile towards the idea and have no intention of creating a system like Reese's Little Major where a major opening shows either four or 6 cards but never five (British humor can go to extremes)! Leaving this discussion to bidding theory, let us quickly have a look at the opening bids of Ambra:

With the exception of 1♦ one-level openings are pretty standard, a strong notrump (15-17), 5-card majors and a catch-all 1♣ bid. Ambra, rather bidding the best minor a la French where a minor bid can show any number of cards from three upwards, did the right thing and packed some of the minor suiters in 1♣ to have a natural 4-card diamond opener. Having witnessed too many losses due to the ambiguity of minor suit length in competitive auctions, this is not a small improvement.

Another big step forward is the development after two-over-one responses (major openings). Garozzo, tried to overcome the crippled sequences like 1♥-2♣ by changing the natural meaning of the opener's bids at her second turn where,

2♦ : a minimum hand without 4 spades,
2♥ : 5 hearts and 4 spades, any strength,
2♠ : 5 hearts and 4 diamonds, 16+ high-card points (hcp),
2NT : 5+ hearts, 16+ hcp,
3♣ : 5 hearts and 4 clubs, 16+ hcp,
3♦ : 6 hearts and 4 clubs, 16+ hcp.
...

It is a clever idea with a small burden on memory.

A similar trick is also employed by Garozzo after one-over-one responses. All strong openers respond 2♣ which can also be natural and rest of opener's responses show minimum or mid-range hands as naturally as possible. For example, after 1♥ - 1♠,

1NT : natural,
2♣ : either 5 hearts and 3+ clubs any strength, or all hands with 17 hcp upwards,
2♦ : 5 hearts and 3+ diamonds, limited,
2♥ : 6 hearts minimum,
2♠ : 5 hearts and 4 spades, minimum,
2NT : 6 hearts and 4-any with 4-5 losers.
...

Garozzo and later Tavoschi have added a few tricks to most of the sequences and if you want to play a natural (it is hard to play purely natural these days) system with 5-card majors and two-over-one game forcing, Ambra is definitely worth checking.