[DavidKok]

I've been looking for a system suitable for beginners, or playable with relatively little experience with the game. While this is a dangerous topic to have an opinion on I personally think that strong club is a more friendly start than many other approaches. There are many different strong club systems out there, and most of them focus on effectiveness rather than simplicity. With the system below I hope to give people a jumping off point for looking at strong club systems, while retaining a number of the features that I personally like. In no particular order, these include:

• A strong (14-16) notrump.
  
• Opening balanced 11's (feel free to adjust as desired).
  
• The Auby Ebenius Club openings, giving some protection to the nebulous diamond in competition.
  
• Mostly natural bids and rebids, with the exception of the nebulous 1♦ opening (but not the continuations!).

I welcome any and all feedback on this system, though it is more meant as a showcase than something to be developed further. The emphasis is on keeping things simple, so the most valuable suggestion would probably be to remove anything rather than to add something.

Here are the opening bids, below I'll list the response trees on some common constructive auctions:

• 1♣: 16+ unbal or 17+ bal, any distribution.
  
• 1♦: nebulous 0+ 1♦ opening containing three hand types:
  • 11-13 bal no 5cM.
    
  • 11-15 Raptor hand (4M5(+)m).
    
  • 11-15 4441 any singleton.
• 1♥: 11-15 5(+)♥, may have a longer minor suit.
  
• 1♠: 11-15 5(+)♠, may have a longer minor suit.
  
• 1NT: 14-16 balanced.
  
• 2♣: 11-15 6(+)♣ or 5♣4♦, never a 4cM.
  
• 2♦: 11-15 6(+)♦ or 5♦4♣, never a 4cM.
  
• 2♥: Weak two in hearts, use your favourite approach.
  
• 2♠: Weak two in spades, use your favourite approach.
  
• 2NT: 11-15 5-5 or longer in the minor suits.
  
• 3♣+: Preemptive, use your favourite approach.

So far nothing new or spectacular. However, whereas AEC uses a set of relays over most of the openings, this system uses exclusively natural continuations. In particular:

1♣: 16+ unbal or 17+ bal, any distribution.

Spoiler

• 1♦: 0-7 points, any distribution.
  • 1♥: 5(+)♥, 16-21, NF. Responder bids naturally with 5-7 HCP and is free to pass (or make a jump raise) with 0-4.
    
  • 1♠: 5(+)♠, 16-21, NF. Responder bids naturally with 5-7 HCP and is free to pass (or make a jump raise) with 0-4.
    
  • 1NT: 17-19 balanced or any 4441. Continuations are as if we have opened 1NT.
    
  • 2♣: (5)6(+)♣, 16-21, NF. Responder bids naturally with 5-7 HCP and is free to pass (or make a jump raise) with 0-4.
    
  • 2♦: (5)6(+)♦, 16-21, NF. Responder bids naturally with 5-7 HCP and is free to pass (or make a jump raise) with 0-4.
    
  • 2♥: 5(+)♥, 22+, GF.
    
  • 2♠: 5(+)♠, 22+, GF.
    
  • 2NT: 20-22 balanced or any 4441. Play any system you prefer over a strong 2NT opening, e.g. Stayman and Jacoby.
    
  • 3♣: (5)6(+)♣, 22+, GF.
    
  • 3♦: (5)6(+)♦, 22+, GF.
    
  • 3♥: -
    
  • 3♠: -
    
  • 3NT: 23+ balanced or any 4441, to play. Experienced players will rightfully loathe this bid, and can easily improve on this structure (as a classic example: make the 1M rebids forcing and/or multi-meaning, so that you can compress the NT ladder or reserve 1♥ and/or the jump rebid of 2♥ as a Birthright relay). However, hands of this strength are very rare, so I personally think beginners should not worry about them much (or at all, really).
• 1♥: 8+ points, 5(+)♥. Forcing to game.
  • Future bidding is natural: opener raises a major suit with support, bids their own five card suit, or bids NT if neither is available. On subsequent rounds we bid four card suits etc. in accordance with natural bidding.
• 1♠: 8+ points, 5(+)♠. Forcing to game.
  • Similar to 1♥.
• 1NT: 8+ points, balanced or any 4441. Forcing to game.
  
• 2♣: 8+ points, 5(+)♣. Forcing to game.
  
• 2♦: 8+ points, 5(+)♦. Forcing to game.
  
• 2♥+: Do not exist.

Personally I feel that the responsive structure to the 1♣ opening is one of the less important parts of the system, especially when picking up the system. These auctions are infrequent (also because the opponents often interfere if we do open 1♣) and when they come up it is often a 'boring' game, i.e. check for a possible eight card major fit and sign off in 3NT when none is found.
For people looking to improve the system in this area there is a lot of good news: not only is this strong 1♣ completely standard, so you can swap in a different set of responses without friction, also there are a lot of different systems to choose from. A popular alternative is Standard Modern Precision, also known as Meckwell Lite (though be aware that the notrump ladder in Meckwell Lite assumes a strong 2NT opening and will need some adjustment), but plenty of alternatives exist. If you wish to stay closer to the natural route I would recommend looking into some slam gadgets such as (Non)serious 3NT, Last Train, and space-saving waiting bids as possible future improvements.
If second hand overcalls I recommend bidding early and often, making natural forcing overcalls starting at five points at the 2-level or game forcing natural bids starting at 8 points at the 3-level, and making a takeout double with hands with at least 5 HCP at the 2-level or 8 HCP at the 3-level and no own suit to bid. Traditionally strong club systems have used a number of approaches to deal with interference, and personally I think it is good to bid a lot with some values and a bit of shape, protected by opener's strength. The big downside of this not-GF approach is that you complicate which future actions are forcing to game, so you could also go with the simple "X = 5-7 any, bidding = 8+ natural, pass = 0-4 any or a trap pass" which is easier.

1♦: nebulous 0+ 1♦ opening containing three hand types:

• 11-13 bal no 5cM.
  
• 11-15 Raptor hand (4M5(+)m).
  
• 11-15 4441 any singleton.

This is the difficult opening, as it is a nebulous 0+ 1♦ opening. It is the catch-all bid of the system and the most frequent opening. The key principle to understand when using this opening bid is the following: the balanced hand only bids NT or raises, so that any other bid shows the Raptor (or 4441) hand type. Here is the response tree.

Spoiler

• 1♥: 4(+)♥, 6(+) points.
  • 1♠: 11-13 balanced, 4♠, at most 3♥. If you wish to stick closer to the principle of bidding 1NT with balanced hands without a fit, or are in general a fan of bypassing spades with balanced hands, you may well use this for something else. See end for suggestions. Over this play your preferred structure over 1NT rebids, e.g. everything natural, Checkback, Two-Way Checkback or something else.
    
  • 1NT: 11-13 balanced, at most 3-3 in the majors. Over this play your preferred structure over 1NT rebids, e.g. everything natural, Checkback, Two-Way Checkback or something else.
    
  • 2♣: 11-15 4♠5(+)♣ or 4=1=4=4. Per the general principle, bidding a new suit shows a raptor hand. Because we failed to raise this must promise the other major suit.
    • Pass: A weak hand, no desire to bid on facing a misfit in the major.
      
    • 2♦: 4SGF.
      
    • 2♥: To play. If 1♦-2♥ is a weak jump this slow route is invitational.
      
    • 2♠: To play. Can be a three card suit in a pinch.
      
    • 2NT: Invitational (10-11) NF.
      
    • 3♣: Invitational (9-11) NF with a club fit.
  • 2♦: 11-15 4♠5(+)♦.
    • Pass: A weak hand, no desire to bid on facing a misfit in the major.
      
    • 2♥: To play. If 1♦-2♥ is a weak jump this slow route is invitational.
      
    • 2♠: To play. Can be a three card suit in a pinch.
      
    • 2NT: Invitational (10-11) NF.
      
    • 3♣: 4SGF.
      
    • 3♦: Invitational (9-11) NF with a diamond fit.
  • 2♥: 11-13 bal 4♥ or 11-12 unbal 4♥.
    
  • 2♠: 13-15 unbal 4♥ mini-splinter in spades.
    
  • 2NT: -
    
  • 3♣: 13-15 unbal 4♥ mini-splinter in clubs.
    
  • 3♦: 13-15 unbal 4♥ mini-splinter in diamonds.
    
  • 3♥: 13-15 unbal 4♥ no-splinter, so exactly 2=4=(52) or a Raptor hand or 4441 with a singleton ace or king.
• 1♠: 4(+)♠, 6(+) points.
  • 1NT: 11-13 balanced, at most three spades.
    
  • 2♣: 11-15 4♥5(+)♣ or 1=4=4=4. Per the general principle, bidding a new suit shows a raptor hand. Because we failed to raise this must promise the other major suit.
    • Pass: A weak hand, no desire to bid on facing a misfit in the major.
      
    • 2♦: 4SGF.
      
    • 2♥: To play. Can be a three card suit in a pinch.
      
    • 2♠: To play. If 1♦-2♠ is a weak jump this slow route is invitational.
      
    • 2NT: Invitational (10-11) NF.
      
    • 3♣: Invitational (9-11) NF with a club fit.
  • 2♦: 11-15 4♥5(+)♦.
    • Pass: A weak hand, no desire to bid on facing a misfit in the major.
      
    • 2♥: To play. Can be a three card suit in a pinch.
      
    • 2♠: To play. If 1♦-2♠ is a weak jump this slow route is invitational.
      
    • 2NT: Invitational (10-11) NF.
      
    • 3♣: 4SGF.
      
    • 3♦: Invitational (9-11) NF with a diamond fit.
  • 2♥: - Leaving this idle is obviously bad, but similar to 1♦-1♥; 1♠ filling it would break with a general principle. The most obvious hand type to include here is the unbalanced 3-card raise, i.e. the 3♠4♥5(+)m hand - or, even better, to swap that with 2♠. This is more complicated than I wish to suggest though.
    
  • 2♠: 11-13 balanced with 4♠ or 11-12 unbalanced with 4♠.
    
  • 2NT: -
    
  • 3♣: 13-15 unbal 4♠ mini-splinter in clubs.
    
  • 3♦: 13-15 unbal 4♠ mini-splinter in diamonds.
    
  • 3♥: 13-15 unbal 4♠ mini-splinter in hearts.
    
  • 3♠: 13-15 unbal 4♠ no-splinter so exactly 4=2=(52) or a Raptor hand or 4441 with a singleton ace or king.
• 1NT: 6-11 points, no four card major.
  • 2♣: 5(+)♣, some unknown 4cM, suggestion to play. Responder may bid again with a maximum.
    
  • 2♦: 5(+)♦, some unknown 4cM, suggestion to play. Responder may bid again with a maximum.
    
  • 2♥: - It might be good to artificially include the ~14-15 4441-type hands here, but I'm prepared to accept these as a system loss in the simple version.
    
  • 2♠: -
    
  • 2NT: -
    
  • 3♣: 13-15 6(+)♣.
    
  • 3♦: 13-15 6(+)♦.
• 2♣: 12+, 5(+) clubs or a balanced hand, game forcing.
  • 2♦: -
    
  • 2♥: 4♥5(+)♦ or 1=4=4=4 or 4=4=4=1.
    
  • 2♠: 4♠5(+)♦ or 4=1=4=4.
    
  • 2NT: 11-13 balanced.
    
  • 3♣: 5(+)♣ or 4=4=1=4, unknown 4cM.
• 2♦: 12+, 5(+) diamonds, game forcing.
  • 2♥: 4♥5(+)♣ or 4=4=1=4.
    
  • 2♠: 4♠5(+)♣.
    
  • 2NT: 11-13 balanced.
    
  • 3♣: -
    
  • 3♦: 5(+)♦ or 4♦441, very rare.
• 2♥: Anything you prefer, I suggest weak (0-9 HCP) 6(+)♥.
  
• 2♠: Anything you prefer, I suggest weak (0-9 HCP) 6(+)♠.
  
• 2NT: -
  
• 3♣: 9-11 points, 6(+)♣, not forcing.
  
• 3♦: 9-11 points, 6(+)♦, not forcing.

One optional change is to instead use a balanced response ladder of 1NT (6-9), 2NT (10-11), 2♣ (12+). Over 1♦-2NT you can comfortably play 3m as natural NF with an unbalanced minimum, as responder has a balanced hand and will have tolerance or support for both minor suits. What's more, this enables playing a 10-13 NT rather than a 14-16 NT, should you so desire (e.g. based on position and vulnerability). Without this change you may be stuck for a rebid with 14-16 balanced on 1♦-1NT (6-11) too often.
Other optional improvements are using 1♦-1M; 2NT for something useful, e.g. the no-splinter (to gain space below 3M and ask for the minor suit) or as a 6(+)m4M hand type to clarify the sixth card, so that the mini-splinters are almost always a (5431)-type hand. The full Auby Ebenius Club handles the raises much better than the above suggestion but is also far from natural.
The responses are listed as all requiring 6 HCP. Expert players will likely want to stretch these requirement, and might even prefer to have 0-2 HCP for the bid than 8-10 as the opponents might be spooked out of a cold game if our hand is this weak facing a limited opening. In addition to the previous remark it is dangerous to pass a nebulous 0+ opening. That being said I think these are relatively minor concerns - we will only infrequently have such a weak hand opposite a limited opening, and in the even that we do the opponents are likely to be in the auction. If you can handle any rebid by opener there is no reason not to disregard the listed HCP requirements though.
If the opponents interfere keep in mind that the balanced-or-Raptor principle is still valid in competition. As an example 1♦*-(2♣)-P-(P); 2♦ shows an undisclosed four card major to go along with the diamond suit, and in other situations voluntarily bidding a major suit promises a longer minor suit. This gives opener a bit more room to compete, as responder can more easily determine opener's hand on the second round.

1♥: 11-15 5(+)♥, may have a longer minor suit. You can play any set of responses you prefer, and I've decided not to write these out. Preferences over a standard or limited 5cM opening vary a lot and it is relatively easy to come by examples, so pick a set you prefer. Options include 2/1 GF (my recommendation), Tarzan Precision, 2/1 transfers and even more. Keep in mind that compared to a standard opening all your future bids, both in and out of competition, will be more narrowly defined because of the limited range.

1♠: 11-15 5(+)♠, may have a longer minor suit. Similar to 1♥.

1NT: 14-16 balanced. You can play any set of responses you prefer, though I would recommend picking a standard set (especially if you are an inexperienced player). As a small remark - many Precision systems include a large number of semibalanced hands in their 1NT opening, in part to avoid the awkward nebulous 1♦ opening. In this system this is less of a concern than in other strong club systems, and I recommend only opening 1NT on semibalanced hands if you believe this is an accurate description of the hand (e.g. with lots of values in the short suits). Lastly, as mentioned in the 1♦ section, you could choose to swap this for a different range (e.g. Kamikaze 10-13 or the likes), which primarily has an impact on your 1♦ opening and you can adjust for it accordingly, though keep in mind that the 5M332 hands might also be stuck for a rebid on certain auctions if you choose to change the notrump ladder, notably on 1M-1NT.

2♣: 11-15 6(+)♣ or 5♣4♦, never a 4cM.

Spoiler

• 2♦: 8-11 5(+)♦ invitational NF. At most two clubs.
  
• 2♥: 8-11 5(+)♥ invitational NF.
  
• 2♠: 8-11 5(+)♠ invitational NF.
  
• 2NT: Artificial asking bid - I recommend range and shortage as it's quite easy to learn, but you may pick any asking bid you prefer.
  • 3♣: 11-12 any minimum.
    
  • 3♦: 13-15 short diamonds.
    
  • 3♥: 13-15 short hearts.
    
  • 3♠: 13-15 short spades.
    
  • 3NT: 13-15 no shortage.
• 3♣: Competitive raise, 0-9. This bid is law protected with at least 3-3 in the minor suits or 4(+) clubs.
  
• 3♦: GF splinter setting clubs.
  
• 3♥: GF splinter setting clubs.
  
• 3♠: GF splinter setting clubs.
  
• 3NT: To play.

Using 2♣-2♦ as a way to improve the partscore is a really lousy idea, and you can improve on this structure easily by using that some other way. However, this set is simple and all natural. The main alternative with those restrictions would be to leave 2♦ idle. Keep in mind that 2♣ denies a 4cM, so there is no need to e.g. use 2♦ as an asking bid to locate a possible 4-4 major suit fit. In this structure you may struggle to show a game forcing hand with a 5cM and a choice of game (note that with a 6cM you can answer your question with shortage ask), so alternatively you may choose to use the jumps as GF COG auctions rather than splinters.

2♦: 11-15 6(+)♦ or 5♦4♣, never a 4cM.

Spoiler

• 2♥: 8-11 5(+)♥ invitational NF.
  
• 2♠: 8-11 5(+)♠ invitational NF.
  
• 2NT: Artificial asking bid - I recommend range and shortage as it's quite easy to learn, but you may pick any asking bid you prefer.
  • 3♣: 11-15 short clubs, any strength (if partner signs off with 3♦, bid on with 13+).
    
  • 3♦: 11-12 any minimum without short clubs.
    
  • 3♥: 13-15 short hearts.
    
  • 3♠: 13-15 short spades.
    
  • 3NT: 13-15 no shortage.
• 3♣: GF splinter setting diamonds.
  
• 3♦: Competitive raise, 0-9. This bid is law protected with at least 3-3 in the minor suits or 4(+) diamonds.
  
• 3♥: GF splinter setting diamonds.
  
• 3♠: GF splinter setting diamonds.
  
• 3NT: To play.

2♥: Weak two in hearts, use your favourite approach.

2♠: Weak two in spades, use your favourite approach.

2NT: 11-15 5-5 or longer in the minor suits.

Spoiler

• 3♣: To play.
  
• 3♦: To play.
  
• 3♥: GF 6(+)♥.
  
• 3♠: GF 6(+)♠.
  
• 3NT: To play.
  
• 4♣: SI setting clubs.
  
• 4♦: SI setting diamonds.
  
• 4♥: To play.
  
• 4♠: To play.
  
• 4NT: -
  
• 5♣: To play.
  
• 5♦: To play.

[foobar]

Looks like a great start. BTW, one design question (not intended for noobs obviously) is whether it makes sense to fold the 5-5m into 2♦, and use 2N for say balanced 20-21. The idea is to split the balanced ranges in 1!C (17-19 / 22+), with the objective of improving resiliency over interference.

[pescetom]

I like it as a system although I think it is a bit much for the average beginner (but then so are most alternatives too).

[akwoo]

Maybe this is a slight improvement without adding too much complexity:

1D-1S-2H should be pure 14-15, 4 hearts, unbalanced, minor unknown

1D-1H-1@ should be 11-14, 4 spades, unbalanced, minor unknown, with 1D-1H-2C/D being a pure 14-15.

[DavidKok]

foobar, on 2024-January-23, 11:03, said:

Looks like a great start. BTW, one design question (not intended for noobs obviously) is whether it makes sense to fold the 5-5m into 2♦, and use 2N for say balanced 20-21. The idea is to split the balanced ranges in 1!C (17-19 / 22+), with the objective of improving resiliency over interference.

I think it might, though I don't have much experience with it. If I'm playing a strong club system anyway I think there's merit in trying to put big balanced hands in 1♣, so I'm not sure that I want to put a strong balanced hand in 2NT in the first place. That being said the alternative uses tend to be mediocre as well, and I don't have a strong opinion on it.

pescetom, on 2024-January-23, 11:53, said:

I like it as a system although I think it is a bit much for the average beginner (but then so are most alternatives too).

As I was typing it up I realised it's going to be more work than I had hoped. At the same time I hope that the amount of work involved in learning this system is manageable, clearly listed and still lower than other systems. A lot of the rules of standard bidding systems kind of creep up on a beginner, I think. There is also the additional bonus that I think this core is good and leaves lots of room to improve the system later in 'obvious' ways, so that as an intermediate or advanced player the path to growth (well, at least when it comes to bidding systems) is clear.

akwoo, on 2024-January-23, 13:29, said:

Maybe this is a slight improvement without adding too much complexity:

1D-1S-2H should be pure 14-15, 4 hearts, unbalanced, minor unknown

1D-1H-1@ should be 11-14, 4 spades, unbalanced, minor unknown, with 1D-1H-2C/D being a pure 14-15.

I like the 1♦-1♥; 1♠ option but I'm torn on the 1♦-1♠; 2♥ one. I think responder will often be in a position to find the optimal contract on my 1♦-1♠; 2m despite the 11-15 range, or have the tools to investigate (i.e. make a game try) below the safety level of 3m if it is still unclear. By contrast this 2♥ would force to a higher level without a guarantee of a fit.
For what it's worth, the original AEC set is much better but also much more complicated.
Personally I think if I wanted to add more definition to these auctions in particular I would like to rearrange the bids in such a way that I can raise with an unbalanced hand with 3-card support (which, incidentally, must be the Raptor type and therefore 3M4oM5(+)m), which has the added benefit that the other Raptor rebids show at most a doubleton in support and can resolve some guesses responder has. But I felt that this was moving away from all natural too rapidly, so for now I've omitted it. If you do want to go down that route I'd suggest something like:
1♦-1♥; ?

• 1♠: 11-15, 4♠3♥, 5(+)m.
  
• 1NT: 11-13 bal no 4c♥.
  
• 2♣: 11-15, 4♠5(+)♣ at most 2♥ or 4=1=4=4.
  
• 2♦: 11-15 4♠5(+)♦ at most 2♥.
  
• 2♥: 11-13 bal 4c♥ or 11-12 unbal 4c♥.

In my earlier draft I had 1♠ and 2m flipped (so 2m promises 3-card support while 1♠ denies it) which I think is theoretically more sound but also asymmetric with 1♦-1♠, see below, and also less natural.

1♦-1♠; ?

• 1NT: 11-13 bal no 4c♠.
  
• 2♣: 11-15, 4♥5(+)♣ at most 2♠, or 1=4=4=4.
  
• 2♦: 11-15 4♥5(+)♦ at most 2♠.
  
• 2♥: 11-15 4♥3♠5(+)m.
  
• 2♠: 11-13 bal 4c♠ or 11-12 unbal 4c♠.

Or possibly even swap 2♥ and 2♠ here - you 'never' want to pass this 2♥ call anyway as your combined spade length is at least equal to and often greater than your combined heart length on the auction and taking ruffs in the side with short trumps is likely better.
You can opt to have a strength split rather than a shape split, and we're only at the 1-level or the low ends of the 2-level anyway so all choices should work out well really. As I said I'm trying to emphasise simplicity over optimality.

[mycroft]

One thing I say about any strong club system (with a reasonable strong club level, even PC with its "or 19+", although the multiway nature changes the "things to learn") is that you have to learn 3 systems. Note that each are easier than a "standard" system, but you do have 3 of them:

• When you don't open 1♣;
  
• When you open 1♣ and they pass;
  
• When you open 1♣ and they don't pass.

I'd try very hard to make each about equal complexity - though for new players, understanding the last one in order to "guess right" is going to be the hardest, by a long shot. I'd almost prefer if they just "ignored" their strong club auctions (with or without interference) and "hoped to survive" until they were more comfortable with bidding, and competing with, 11-15(16 BAL) hands. Because it's only when they are comfortable understanding from the auction, who's got what, and where they should expect to end up, that they will really understand any "system" against competition. And like lebensohl/NT, "when the competition is not natural", it gets more fun to understand the inferences.

But the big problem with teaching Strong Club to newbies is "well, after this, you can play with me, and with the other three people in the class" - cliques in bridge are bad enough without artificially limiting your student's partnership options. And, you still have to teach the basics of "standard" so that they can understand what happens when they don't open - in which case, why not go the rest of the way?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-January-24, 12:58, said:

But the big problem with teaching Strong Club to newbies is "well, after this, you can play with me, and with the other three people in the class" - cliques in bridge are bad enough without artificially limiting your student's partnership options. And, you still have to teach the basics of "standard" so that they can understand what happens when they don't open - in which case, why not go the rest of the way?

I dunno, even from a reality where Strong Club (but mainly 4 card canape') has become a minority but remains strong and kicking.
I suspect that the weaker newbies are not going to pass (or forgive) this hurdle and the better ones still have to be vaccinated against "standard".
To be honest I never considered the idea of throwing them in the deep end by learning a competitive Strong Club rather than giving them a simplified Strong Club as a vaccine / eye-opener before progressing to "standard" and then to whatever they like.
If I was in a club with a teacher like Davidkok and no problem of finding promising beginners I would be happy and curious to give this a go.
Our beginners are mainly 50-60 year old and the club President is unhappy if they go away.

[mw64ahw]

This is a great start to learning a strong club system. Just need someone to play it with and develop further

[helene_t]

What does opener rebid with a strong 4441?

[DavidKok]

mycroft, on 2024-January-24, 12:58, said:

One thing I say about any strong club system (with a reasonable strong club level, even PC with its "or 19+", although the multiway nature changes the "things to learn") is that you have to learn 3 systems. Note that each are easier than a "standard" system, but you do have 3 of them:

• When you don't open 1♣;
  
• When you open 1♣ and they pass;
  
• When you open 1♣ and they don't pass.

I'd try very hard to make each about equal complexity - though for new players, understanding the last one in order to "guess right" is going to be the hardest, by a long shot. I'd almost prefer if they just "ignored" their strong club auctions (with or without interference) and "hoped to survive" until they were more comfortable with bidding, and competing with, 11-15(16 BAL) hands. Because it's only when they are comfortable understanding from the auction, who's got what, and where they should expect to end up, that they will really understand any "system" against competition. And like lebensohl/NT, "when the competition is not natural", it gets more fun to understand the inferences.

I've split my response in parts because I think it is extremely spot on and want to give a slightly longer answer. This is indeed one of the problems with strong club, though I do not advocate making the systems equal complexity. I think the "when we don't open 1♣" deserves most attention by far - that's where the system gains, where the unnatural bids are lurking and what comes up most often. Going by frequency it's approximately

• Open 1♣: ~8%.
  • The opponents interfere: ~half the time (so 4 percentage points).
    
  • The opponents don't interfere: ~the other half (so 4 percentage points).
• Open 1♦ through 2♦ (or 2NT): ~35%.
  
• Preempt: ~5% (depends on style).
  
• Pass: ~52%.

I fully support your suggestion of putting minimal effort into the system after we opened 1♣, that's why I inserted 'everything natural' both in and out of competition. It is probably even easier to play the pass = 0-4, X = 5-7, bid = 8+ natural GF after interference. My suggestion is not to include Lebensohl or any other gadget for now.

mycroft, on 2024-January-24, 12:58, said:

But the big problem with teaching Strong Club to newbies is "well, after this, you can play with me, and with the other three people in the class" - cliques in bridge are bad enough without artificially limiting your student's partnership options. And, you still have to teach the basics of "standard" so that they can understand what happens when they don't open - in which case, why not go the rest of the way?

Yes, this is the main reason why I don't promote strong club with beginners. I think it is better to read this system with an attitude of "Hey, if you were interested in strong club but always thought it was too scary or artificial, give this version a spin!". The lack of popularity of Precision means that beginners are most certainly going to be better off learning the local standard system (we teach 2/1 GF to our total novices, though we spend the first month or so just playing and bidding without discussing system at all), as it teaches them both to bid and to defend against bidding. My goal was mostly to offer something to bridge the gap between standard and full-on optimised strong club systems. I've run into quite a few beginners and improving players looking to improve their system away from what they learned from some leaflet or introductory course, and having an off-the-shelf version of strong club is a valuable alternative in my opinion. It helps that I genuinely believe this system is easier than standard. No reverses, few artificial bids, extremely accurate strength ranges and shape descriptions on the 11-15 hands in particular (though the 1♣ auctions still aren't too bad, responder gets to split 0-4 vs 5-7 vs 8+ quickly), and the nebulous bid is clearly listed as such. You (almost) never have to wonder whether a bid is forcing. Also responder, even a complete beginner, will have a great idea of whether we are outgunned, in partscore territory or looking for or forcing to game as early as the first round of the auction.
One further remark, somewhat unprompted but still relevant. I've run into some other simplified strong club systems, and I find that they often require quite a lot of judgement on later rounds of the auction. The nebulous 1♦ in particular takes skill to figure out when you should re-enter the auction and when you should go quietly. This particular version of the opening bids does the best job I've seen of eliminating most of that guess - you bid (or takeout double) at the 2-level with Raptor if they're in your short suit, shut up with balanced always, and only bid at the 3-level when invited (and, with experience, bid at the 3-level with a nice maximum, typically with a six card minor suit). Comparing this with for example 'four card majors open up the line', which has all natural openings and is much easier to describe but much more complicated inferences and rules in competition, I really think a strong club can be less complex, and giving players more freedom to bid on shapely minimum opening hands is really valuable.

helene_t, on 2024-January-25, 02:17, said:

What does opener rebid with a strong 4441?

A corresponding level of notrump. Unlike NT openings, NT rebids on slightly offshape hands are required (and experienced strong clubbers will even prefer to rebid 1NT over a NF 2m with a wider range of semibalanced hands, but of course for beginners only exactly 4441 is better). 16-count 4441's may have to bite the bullet and open 1♦. Thank you for pointing this out, I'd forgotten to include this in the description.

[mycroft]

Lots to mull over here, and I agree with most of it. But there's a switch here - at least a switch between the way I read the OP and this latest reply. The OP started with this [my emphasis]:

Quote

I've been looking for a system suitable for beginners, or playable with relatively little experience with the game. While this is a dangerous topic to have an opinion on I personally think that strong club is a more friendly start than many other approaches.

The response moves into "this is a great system for bridge players who want to stick a toe into String Club" - which, whether it's "relatively little experience with the game" or long-time C players, is a whole other story, and a lot of what I say isn't as relevant.

DavidKok, on 2024-January-25, 04:14, said:

This is indeed one of the problems with strong club, though I do not advocate making the systems equal complexity. I think the "when we don't open 1♣" deserves most attention by far - that's where the system gains, where the unnatural bids are lurking and what comes up most often.

What unnatural bids? 1♠-4♠ means "I think you can make 4♠ with my cards, but not slam". So now, even if you need an artificial slam-try raise, it's going to be much more "natural" than standard, because a) opener only has two ranges; b) we don't have to worry about "I don't have extras" "well, I don't have extras either".

One of the joys of a limited opener system is that so much more of your system can be straight natural (okay, game-playing around the "grunt" 1♦ call aside). 2♣-2♥? Natural, passable, but inviting a raise with support. 2♦-pretty much anything? "Thanks, partner, here's where we're playing."

NT is NT, but that can be as natural (or not) as you want it to be.

So, sure and you should spend most of your effort on the non-1♣ openers, but the *system* doesn't have to be complicated.


For players learning Precision as their entry to bridge, all the judgement - especially "partner has 5+spades and 11-15 HCP. Where do you want to play? Is there a question you want to ask?" is hard work and requires a lot of practise and experience and analysis. But the questions are going to be pretty much "raise to the appropriate level" or "bid your suit, and find out where the fit is[n't], and then maybe invite in the appropriate suit or NT, but usually place the contract".

For standard players learning Precision, yes, this is also the "hardest part" and most important, but it is the "untraining" that is the problem. Even newer standard players have innate analysis, and some of it is *wrong* opposite 11-15; and recognizing what they already "know without knowing" is very hard. Even for experienced players, where you can explain where their instinct doesn't apply and they'll immediately understand in theory, it's hard to notice when you're acting on instinct and double-check to see if it still works.

(I'm starting a new Precision partnership with an experienced Precision player who like me hasn't played it for a number of years. He still thought a "good 10 with a ruffing value" was a limit raise, having agreed that "we accept on a Goren opener". 23-and-a-doubleton isn't likely to make game unless you're Meckstroth, and I ain't. I'm sure that I made a number of "instinct" calls that day too that weren't right, but because my regular system is K/S, I'm more used to "not playing with E., have to double-check my instinct".)

Quote

Yes, this is the main reason why I don't promote strong club with beginners. I think it is better to read this system with an attitude of "Hey, if you were interested in strong club but always thought it was too scary or artificial, give this version a spin!".

Right, but that's not what you said in the OP.

Quote

My goal was mostly to offer something to bridge the gap between standard and full-on optimised strong club systems. I've run into quite a few beginners and improving players looking to improve their system away from what they learned from some leaflet or introductory course, and having an off-the-shelf version of strong club is a valuable alternative in my opinion.

Heh, I did the same at one point, still have my notes for "Calgary Precision" somewhere. 15-17NT (keep your system), basic responses to everything; a little more detail in defence after 1♣, because these were all "high-B"s who could understand a bit of system and could immediately see the issues that a 2♥ overcall causes (over even a "psycho-Suction 1♥" call, which you can choose to ignore(*)).

Quote

It helps that I genuinely believe this system is easier than standard.

Agree. At least at a similar complexity level to their standard system.

Quote

No reverses,

Oh yeah, right, another situation where "standard instinct" will betray players. I think that even for newer players, the reverse should be taught - and it should be pretty obvious what it has to be (basically, you "teach" it as "what would this show? Remember, if partner wants to go back to your first suit, we're at the 3 level, and they could be on a good 6 HCP" and they will clue in pretty fast that it has to be "max strength *and shape*", and if they're a little farther along, "working cards/suits of quality". Reverses in Precision basically "teach themselves" - but for standard players that "play reverses", their judgement *as responder* will betray them until they unlearn what "they know".

So, I'm not disagreeing at all - just noting that there are different issues with:

• "this is a great system to teach new-to-Bridge players" (sure, yes, probably, but "learn the system everyone else at the club plays, and it's one less hurdle to getting a game with them", and "but we still have to teach [common system] at least enough for them to understand their opponents' auctions, in particular for those partscore battles"), and
  
• "this is a great system for bridge players, even newer bridge players, to get a feel for Strong Club (especially so they can understand when the opponents play it), and maybe decide they like playing it and putting effort into system-ing up the holes rather than into fixing their standard system (or notice where those holes are in standard because they "aren't there" in Precision so they can put effort into that).

Different issues apply - for one thing, the "can't find someone to play with" becomes "this is easy enough that even I can teach it to my partner, at least well enough to try for a day.")

(*) And I suggested they did, basically no matter what 1♥ showed. "Pass is your 1♦ response, X is your 1♥ response, all else systems on". Works *really well* against Wonder Bids, Psycho- (even more so, regular) Suction, and even natural overcalls (yes, I've had someone psych an overcall before!).

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2024-January-24, 16:49, said:

I dunno, even from a reality where Strong Club (but mainly 4 card canape') has become a minority but remains strong and kicking.
I suspect that the weaker newbies are not going to pass (or forgive) this hurdle and the better ones still have to be vaccinated against "standard".

Not talking "vaccinate against", more "you need to remember that their openers could be '1♣ and a strong response after 1♦', and that they can show up with 11 (maybe even 12) having passed, and..." Basically, "they don't bid like you, and you have to know what their bids mean to compete effectively".

Quote

To be honest I never considered the idea of throwing them in the deep end by learning a competitive Strong Club rather than giving them a simplified Strong Club as a vaccine / eye-opener before progressing to "standard" and then to whatever they like.

Nor would I - see my comment to DavidKok about "Calgary Precision".

Actually, in this case I was aiming a little higher, but what I wanted to get to was "Anybody who has played Precision can play this if you give them the notes the day before. They may not like it, they may not have played this for 15 years, but you're not stuck playing only with me and the other people in the class." Still very simplified.

Quote

If I was in a club with a teacher like Davidkok and no problem of finding promising beginners I would be happy and curious to give this a go.
Our beginners are mainly 50-60 year old and the club President is unhappy if they go away.

The issue is that I agree with David - a "beginner-level" Precision is easier to learn and play than "beginner-level" 2/1 - even for new retirees (see, for instance, "Better Bidding in 15 Minutes--Expert Bidding in a Week" - the introductory Schenken club, book, which had a three-page "it doesn't even have to be 15 minutes - you can have your partner read this in 5 and get started" appendix. Which, I grant, did assume you could play Goren, but was a lot of "see? You don't need this any more, because").

As I said, the problem is that after you teach all those new retirees Precision, they can't play with the regulars, so either they're stuck in "newbie ghetto", or they learn standard themselves. And, of course, the side note that the club President gets all these complaints like "why do all these new players play these strange things we don't understand? It's not fun any more." from the regulars, and *they* don't come back.

[DavidKok]

mycroft, on 2024-January-25, 09:43, said:

But there's a switch here - at least a switch between the way I read the OP and this latest reply.

[...]

So, I'm not disagreeing at all - just noting that there are different issues with:

• "this is a great system to teach new-to-Bridge players" (sure, yes, probably, but "learn the system everyone else at the club plays, and it's one less hurdle to getting a game with them", and "but we still have to teach [common system] at least enough for them to understand their opponents' auctions, in particular for those partscore battles"), and
  
• "this is a great system for bridge players, even newer bridge players, to get a feel for Strong Club (especially so they can understand when the opponents play it), and maybe decide they like playing it and putting effort into system-ing up the holes rather than into fixing their standard system (or notice where those holes are in standard because they "aren't there" in Precision so they can put effort into that).

mycroft, on 2024-January-25, 10:00, said:

As I said, the problem is that after you teach all those new retirees Precision, they can't play with the regulars, so either they're stuck in "newbie ghetto", or they learn standard themselves. And, of course, the side note that the club President gets all these complaints like "why do all these new players play these strange things we don't understand? It's not fun any more." from the regulars, and *they* don't come back.

I think we mostly agree but I'd still like to spell it out in more detail.

• I think strong club in general, and this version of Precision in particular, is easier to learn than a standard system (like 2/1). This means that if I could choose a system to teach beginners, this would be it.
  
• At the club a lot of practical considerations apply, and (not) being able to find a partner is a key one. Because of this I do not recommend the system to beginners. A second downside is that beginners need to learn to the auction the opponents are conducting, and this is easier if your system resembles theirs. Because of this I think it is more practical to teach the locally most popular system, whether that's Acol, Mecklite, 2/1, Polish, strong pass Moscito or something else. I think this statement should come with some caveats and exceptions, but it is largely correct.
  
• Because of the above I think the people benefiting most from this system will be those already familiar with a standard system and eager to branch out and explore strong club. But I stand by my point 1: if two complete beginners show up, explain that they are committed to forming a long term partnership and want my advice on picking a bidding system, this is what I'd start them off with.

Because of this I personally viewed my second description of the target audience as an addition, not a shift. Right near the top I said

DavidKok, on 2024-January-23, 09:42, said:

There are many different strong club systems out there, and most of them focus on effectiveness rather than simplicity. With the system below I hope to give people a jumping off point for looking at strong club systems, while retaining a number of the features that I personally like.

That is what this post is, and I think it is suitable for players of all levels.

[straube]

Hi David. I'm sorry but I put a suggestion in your other thread that I'd intended here. I meant to propose this as a simplified Precision system. I think the openings are better and the continuations are more straightforward.

1C-16+, 17+ balanced
1D-bal, 3-suited or 5+D/5+C
.....2H-5S/4H, less than inv
.....2S-6S, less than inv
.....1H
..........1S-xyz
..........1N-xyz
..........2C-5/4+ minors, either way
...............2H-to play
...............2S-4SF
..........2D-good raise
..........2H-bad raise
.....1S
..........1N-11-13 bal or min 1444 or min 1(5m43) or min 04(54)
..........2C-13-15 1444 or max 1((5m43) or max 04(54)
..........2D-5D/5C
...............2H-4SF
...............2S-inv
...............2N-inv, f
....................3C-weak
...............3C-correction
..........2H-good raise
..........2S-bad raise
1M-5+
1N-14-16
2C-6C, possible 4M or 4D
.....2D-asking
2D-6D, possible 4M or 4D
.....2H-asking
2M-weak
2N-19+-21 bal

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the suggestion. Compared to the opening set I proposed there are quite a few more hands in 1♦, and I worry that the continuations (especially in competitive auctions) won't be as clear. The 1NT rebid on three-suited short in partner's suit is not a style I prefer, and I think it makes it difficult for responder to tell when to pass and when to pull to something at the 2-level. You recommend XYZ here which I think is good but also I'd like the system to do well on these auctions without it, in an attempt to keep it gadget-free. Also unlike standard 1m-1M; 1NT on a singleton in responder's suit, which I personally don't prefer but sees a lot of play and is most definitely sound, here you don't know much of anything about opener's relative suit lengths. They can have either minor, or even both minors, and between zero and three cards in opener's major. I think taking more hand types out of the nebulous 1♦ is a good idea, although the AEC 2♦ opening in particular can be unpleasant.

If you wish to play a 20-21 (or 19+-21) 2NT I think it is possible to do so in either system, putting the 55m hands somewhere else is not a big change, by frequency.

[straube]

By having a weak jump shift response (1D-2S) and the reverse flannery response (1D-2H), one can gain a lot of clarity and avoid silly contracts after 1D-1S, 1N. If memory serves, something like....

2C-GI or D sign off
.....2D
..........2H-GI 5S/4H
..........2S-GI 5S
2D-GF
2H-transfer, possibly weak with side minor
.....2S-2-3S
.....2N-1S
2S-6S, GI

[foobar]

straube, on 2024-January-25, 11:59, said:

By having a weak jump shift response (1D-2S) and the reverse flannery response (1D-2H), one can gain a lot of clarity and avoid silly contracts after 1D-1S, 1N. If memory serves, something like.

I think that a weak/invite 2H/2S reverse Flannery response works marginally better in context of a 1D that is either balanced, or is unbalanced with a 4CM (OP's structure). Also, seems like precluding singletons in 1D - 1S - 1N is an overall better approach regardless of other responses.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-25, 11:05, said:

ecause of the above I think the people benefiting most from this system will be those already familiar with a standard system and eager to branch out and explore strong club. But I stand by my point 1: if two complete beginners show up, explain that they are committed to forming a long term partnership and want my advice on picking a bidding system, this is what I'd start them off with.

Beginners open to any system and lucid enough to recognise the need to form a partnership are rare, good luck to those who have them.

We have two or three promising intermediates who would be capable (once over the initial shock) of playing and enjoying your system, assuming a teacher that understood and endorsed it (no such luck, unless I give up directing). I would be happy and curious to play it with them.

But at the moment my priority is to encourage them to follow modern "standard" rather than the degraded version of such which allows them to play with the majority of the club. As mycroft suggests this is already a problematic division for both sides, although the tide seems to be swinging favourably (always the optimist).

I commend you for this initiative all the same, and do not exclude playing with it sometime.

[straube]

foobar, on 2024-January-25, 16:15, said:

I think that a weak/invite 2H/2S reverse Flannery response works marginally better in context of a 1D that is either balanced, or is unbalanced with a 4CM (OP's structure). Also, seems like precluding singletons in 1D - 1S - 1N is an overall better approach regardless of other responses.

Only advocating the weak Flannery 5S/4H (i.e. 1D-2H) and the problem hand I have 1255 is a hand that David is willing to open 2N. With 2155 or 0355 I'm ahead.

If one has 1345 or 1444 or 1453 and the auction starts 1D-1S, don't you want to play 1N? Especially if you know (for the structure I put forward) that partner can't have a weak hand with 6S or 5S/4H?

[foobar]

straube, on 2024-January-25, 17:17, said:

Only advocating the weak Flannery 5S/4H (i.e. 1D-2H) and the problem hand I have 1255 is a hand that David is willing to open 2N. With 2155 or 0355 I'm ahead.

If one has 1345 or 1444 or 1453 and the auction starts 1D-1S, don't you want to play 1N? Especially if you know (for the structure I put forward) that partner can't have a weak hand with 6S or 5S/4H?

Seems like we need to stick with the original OP scheme, which makes the 2155/0355 hands impossible.

I think that responder will rebid 2S with 6S regardless of 1N semantics, and 2H works the same, or better. Regarding wanting to play in 1N over 1S with a singleton, I am not sure that there is sufficient evidence of it being more optimal than a 2m rebid. Note that there are slightly more complex rebid options allowing showing 4H, 3S (don't remember if they are in OP's scheme).