Torpedo: A Strong Club Canapé System

Last evening I met an old friend. After a few drinks and some chit chat we decided to go to a club and play bridge. Having discussed our system details on bar stools and using napkins as paper, we had jotted down the canapé system we were going to use. Here is the backbone, named Torpedo version 0.1:

Opening Bids

1 ♣: 15+ any
1 ♦: 11-14; 4♦-5y or 5+♦ or 4♦-441
1 ♥: 11-14; 4♥-5y or 5+♥
1 ♠: 11-14; 4♠-5y or 5+♠
1NT: 12-14
2 ♣: 11-14; 6+♣ or 4♣-5M
2 ♦: 12-14; 4444-1♦, the notorious 3-suited love bug
2 M: 10-12; 5M332
2NT: 18-20

If you are accustomed to canapé bidding, it is a fairly easy structure to master and GCC legal. And it created wonders! We finished close second. As the late Rixi Markus once said: keep it simple.

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.

What Systems Do I Play?

If you're blogging about bridge, this question will crop up sooner or later. People naturally wonder what bidding systems are my favorites (presume, it also creates some sort of credibility in the eyes of the readers). In matchpointed pairs (MPs), nothing beats good old Acol as far as I'm concerned. Four-card majors, flexible openings in biddable suits, a variable notrump (12-14 non-vulnerable,13-15 vulnerable) and weak-2s in majors, no modern 2-bids of dubious value. 2 ♦ is an Acol-2 and 2 ♣ an Acol-2 in a major or a game-force in clubs. Pretty simple.

But I do not play four-card major systems with pick-up partners. It is a rule I seldom break, if ever. With someone I have just met, I usually play 5-card majors (know all flavors, so no problem there).

At IMPs or teams let us say, we usually stick to a loose Polish/Precision derivative we call Super Red. For the real curious, here are the opening bids and responses to 1 ♣ (usually this is what interests people most):

1 ♣: 16/19+, various hands OR 11-13 flat (without shortage)
1 ♦: 11-18, 3+♦ (usually 4+♦)
1 ♥: 11-18, 5+♥
1 ♠: 11-15, 5+♠
1NT: 14-16, balanced.
2 ♣: 11-15, 6+♣ (may contain a side 4-card suit) OR 5♣-4M-22, 14-15 (if unsuitable for 1NT)
2 ♦: 11/12-15, 4-4-1-4, 4-4-0-5, 34-1-5 shapes.
2 M: weak-2s
2 N: 20-22, balanced.

* Take special note of the red suit ranges, 11-18.

Responses to 1 ♣

1 ♦: 0-7, negative.
1 M: 8+, 4+M, longer minor possible
1 N: 8-11, balanced
2 m: 8-11, 5+m; denies 4M
2 ♥: 11/12+, 5-4 minors
2 ♠: transfer to 2NT, game-force
2 N: 12-13, balanced
3 m: 10-12/13, 6-card minors, good suit, spread out values.
3 M: 4-7, 7+ in M
3 N: 14-16, balanced.

This pretty much sums it up.

Valentines Bidding in Bridge

Few bidding systems surprised me like Valentines (No, I do not play it). Being the brainchild of Colin Ward, it excels in novelty while still being a playable system. I know that there are a lot of bidding systems enthusiasts out there, and I am sure some approaches if not all of Valentines will provide many hours of musing and tinkering. This, from the introduction:

Unlike strong club systems, Valentines is a forcing club system which prides itself not so much on its slam-bidding as on its part score and competitive bidding. As such, it is an excellent duplicate system while retaining a capability to generate huge swings in teams play.

In learning Valentines it is important to unlearn everything known about standard, approach-forcing systems. For example, reverses do not show extra strength. Opener never bids 3-card suits as "natural". There are no jump rebids on 3-card suits. In this regard Valentines is more natural than standard approaches.

Valentines derives its name from its concentration on the Heart suit. After the forcing (but not necessarily strong) 1♣ opening and negative 1♦ response it is a 1♥ rebid which shows a strong hand. In many slam-bidding sequences 4♦ invites a slam in Hearts while 4♣ invites a slam in any of the other three suits. The reader will see many other instances where the heart suit affects the auction more than any other suit.

Valentines is a distributional bidding system. Players open their four card suit, not their 5-carder. This is true regardless of the relative strengths of the suits.

The Opening Bids:

1♣ : either

• Canapé from a 4+card club suit into a 5+card suit, 12-16 HCP, or
• Club 1-suiter with 6+ clubs, 12-16 HCPs, or
• Flat hand with 4-2-3-4 or 4+ Clubs only, 12-16 HCP, or
• Strong hand with 17+ HCP and any distribution.

1♦ : either

• Diamond one-suiter, 15-17 HCP, or
• Balanced with 4 diamonds and not 4 hearts OR 4-3-4-2, 12-16 HCP, or
• Canapé diamond 2-suiter (diamonds are shorter), or
• 3-suiter with short clubs.

1♥ : either

• 4+ hearts in a flat hand (less than 4 Spades) 12-16 hcp, or
• Canapé 2-suiter with hearts, or
• suiter with 6+ hearts, 15-17.

1♠ : either

• 1-suiter (6+ Spades or 5-2-3-3 distribution) 15-17, or
• Canapé 2-suiter with spades and a longer second suit, 12-16.

1NT: Balanced with 5-3, 4-3 or 4-4 in spades and hearts (in that order) and 12-16.
2♣ : 3 suited with clubs (Roman) and 12-18.
2♦ : 1-suiter with 6+ diamonds, 11-14.
2♥ : 1-suiter with 6+ hearts, 11-14.
2♠ : 1-suiter with 6+ spades or exactly 5-2-3-3, 11-14.
2NT: Your choice.

As a teaser, let me give you the responses to 1♣ opening:

• 1♦ : 0-7, negative but don't be fooled before seeing other responses.
• 1♥ : Artificial positive; 8+ HCP unbalanced or 9+ balanced.
• 1♠ : 4+ spades, natural and non-forcing, 0-10 HCP.
• 1NT: balanced (includes all 5332 shapes), 6-8 HCP.
• 2♣ : 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, 0-6 HCP.
• 2♦ : 1-4-5-3-ish shape or 1-3-6-3 with weak diamonds, 8-11 HCP.
• 2♥ : 1-5-4-3-ish, denies a second spade or a fourth club, 8-11.
• 2♠ : 6+ spades, 0-5 HCP.

Read the rest at Colin Ward's.

Revision Club (Revised Precision)

Revision (short for "revised Precision") by John Montgomery is a big club system that is similar to, and based on, Precision. Of existing published methods, it most closely resembles the Precision style presented by Barry Rigal in his book Precision for the 90s.

I have closely followed -and used for some time)- the evolution of Precision since C.C. Wei published his book after designing the system to be first used by Chinese Teams in international events. As an aid to memory, this was the original design of Wei:

• 1♣ : 16+ hcp, strong, forcing for one round
• 1♦ : 11-15, three or more diamonds
• 1♥ : 11-15, 5+ hearts
• 1♠ : 11-15, 5+ spades
• 1NT: 13-15, balanced
• 2♣ : 11-15, 5+ clubs
• 2♦ : 12-15, 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 shape, short diamonds
• 2♥ : weak-two
• 2♠ : weak-two

Precision had several design flaws (my subjective view):

• 1♣ threshold is too low. In all competitive auctions, this leaves the strong club opener with no suit bid.
• 1♣ - 1♦ sequence. Despite being the most common sequence, the least attention has been given.
• 1♣ - positive responses. It is really difficult to limit the hands after a positive.
• 2♣ opening. This is the Achilles heel of most big club systems and little can be done about it within this framework.
• 2♦ opening. An opening bid has been assigned to a rare distribution.

Montgomery addressed a few of the above in a most exhaustive (I mean it) way. First, he switched the negative 1♦ response to a simple waiting bid where most of the positive responses now reside and moved all semi-positive hands in the range of 5-7 points to the positives; i.e. 1♣ - 1♥ now shows five or more hearts with 5-7 points. This, compared to the original design and most of the later Precision derivatives is a clever approach. By allowing responder to introduce a suit early in the auction, the partnership is now better positioned against an interference by fourth hand; plus, it facilitates finding a part score, not to mention that semi-positive hands, the most common ones against a big club, are now considerably better described.

Secondly, 5-4 clubs and a major hands are now in 1♦ opening and 2♣ shows 6 or more clubs. Although it crowds the 1♦ opener, it is a way better approach than bidding 2♣ with 5 clubs and a 4-card major. Losing a major fit after a 2♣ opener was almost a certainty in Wei's original scheme (and in most of Precision derivatives) if responder was not good enough to relay.

Third, 4-3-1-5 and 3-4-1-5 shapes have been stuffed into the 2♦ to make a rare event less rare. I still do not like it but there really is no way to solve it without making the 1♦ opening a mess.

Fourth is the explanation of why I used the word exhaustive to define Montgomery's work. He analyzed every possible meaning by giving an account of fifth or sometimes sixth round of bidding. And this is what sets Revision Club apart from others floating in the net. Revision Club (zipped pdf, 1.72 MB) is not an amalgamation of ideas taken from other systems, it is an in-depth and complete work. It is a system.

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.