[SteelWheel]

This is the system that the Granovetters are claiming is the Next Big Thing in strong club systems, and will immediately make you richer, better-looking..and yield lots of 70% matchpoint sessions and truckloads of IMPs.

I've always found the Granovetters to be interesting theorists with their blend of old-fashioned ideas along with provocative new approaches. Obvious shift carding was (for me at least) a tremendously exciting new way to communicate with partner on defense, and I always try to wrangle new partners into giving it a go.

I bought all their little booklets and pamphlets, mostly interested in their approach to strong club auctions, detailed at great length in the latest pamphlet. I found it quite strange--it feels like the responses leave the partnership too vulnerable to preemption, given that the focus for positive responses is on disclosure of AK and AKQ points and balanced vs unbalanced, yet leaves the actual disclosure of shape to later in the interrogation auction.

Has anyone read (or better still played or even played against) this system? Curious what kinds of opinions there are out there on this one. I like looking for better mousetraps--just not convinced that this is it.

[hrothgar]

I don't know anything about the system, however, it sounds like a dumbed down version of Ultimate Club for the mass market which is none too surprising...

[PrecisionL]

Hi again SteelWheel:

I have all the pamphlets (and the Ultimate Club paperback) and can NOT find anyone to play GUS. One of my partners, Keylime, talked to Matt recently at a Florida Regional (I'll ask for his comments).

I have the same criticism as you, not enough distribution information before 3rd hand bids. Even Benito says that BTC is not the way to bid today. Distribution is king!

My favorite responses to 1♣ A&F are ALL replies (except 1♦) showing distribution: (1) MAFIA for 4-cd majors & unbalanced, or (2) Balanced, or (3) Both majors, or (4) Both minors, or (5) 3-suited.

When fit is confirmed, the follow-on is a Beta for Controls (or shortage, you decide how complicated you want to play).

Larry

Edit: The above mentioned responses to an opening bid of 1♣ are not completely covered in my posted system notes (URL below). e-mail me for upgraded details.

[nullve]

GUS, as played by Pamela Granovetter - Jo Anna Stansby:

http://bridgewinners...vetter-jstansby

[mgoetze]

nullve, on 2015-December-24, 05:25, said:

GUS, as played by Pamela Granovetter - Jo Anna Stansby:

http://bridgewinners...vetter-jstansby

ACBL convention cards, especially with BW coloring, have been known to cause eye cancer.

[nullve]

Is this

http://www.bridgetod...%25Solution.pdf

really the same GUS? Here, the 1♦ opening contains a 12-14 NT, while Granovetter-Stansby's 1N opening is 12+-16 according to the above CC.

[SteelWheel]

nullve, on 2015-December-24, 07:07, said:

Is this

http://www.bridgetod...%25Solution.pdf

really the same GUS? Here, the 1♦ opening contains a 12-14 NT, while Granovetter-Stansby's 1N opening is 12+-16 according to the above CC.

As I understand it, GUS has been in a "we're still tweaking it" mode for 4-5 years now, so there may not be any conflict as such between the Granovetter-Stansby CC and the article cited (which appears to be from a few years back).

The (presumably authoritative) GUS pamphlet on 1NT openings gives the range as 12+ -16...with some caveats. The 12+ -14- range is for balanced hands with a five-card major or 14+ -16 (generally with a five card holding in some suit if at the low end). Obviously, you need to be playing some kind of puppet Stayman to sort out the hand types and reveal the five-card majors (which they have done in their system writeup)

The GUS 1♦ open handles all the 12-14 NT hands without a five-card major as well as all the minimumish diamond hands and all 4441 5440 5431 hands lacking a five card major--so the total suicide diamond approach, IOW.

As I browse through these pamphlets, it seems to me that much of this system may not be playable on the ACBL GCC, and would have to be mid-chart+.

There are many interesting ideas in these booklets that can be adapted even to a 2/1 or standard system. En toto however, I'd like to see more of the great systemic triumphs of which this system is touted to be capable.

I know! If the Granovetters really want to popularize their brainchild, they can pull a CC Wei, and pay some good (if not world-class) players to play this system in Regionals/NABCs and see what it can do. (hint hint....)

[glen]

Besides the ACBL cc, there is the USBF system summary:

http://usbf.org/inde...id=1255&pid=286

[PrecisionL]

I have decided not to purse GUS in any of my partnerships, but I do like their 1NT response to an opening bid of 1♣:

(a) Game Force with 3+ Controls and 10 + AKQ points AND

(1) 6-cd Major, OR

(2) 5-5 OR 5-4 in the Majors

I have been playing variation (2) for several years now and really like it (including 6-4).

GUS also has 1♣ - 2♣ as 6-cd minor or 5-5 in the minors. I have been playing 2♣ response as one or both minors including 5-4 or 6-4, or 5-5. These are easy to unpack.

GUS also has 2 of a Major Response to 1♣:

3 suited: either 5M440 or 5M431

I find this food for thought as I have been playing 2♥ as 5m440 and 2♠ as any 4441 hand.

Finally 3♣ and 3♦ are the 4=4(4-1) or (4-1)=4=4 hands.

[PrecisionL]

Book #8 was published January 20, 2018: GUS Two Clubs and Two Notrump, 55 pages, $12.

2♣ = 6 clubs, may have a side 4-card suit. 2♦ is the Relay (I prefer transfer continuations over 2♣ and have played them for 5 years)

2NT is 15-18 points and 5♥ and a 5 or 6-card minor.

[DinDIP]

Like a few others, I've read the GUS pamphlets. The system does draw on the Ultimate Club in a few respects (such as the use of AKQ points) but it has a number of very important differences.
* Full shape disclosure is not the default option, unless asker has a fit with at least one of responder's suits, and even then there are often ambiguities between relatively common shapes (e.g. from memory 6421s and 6430s). The fit requirement is not spelt out in the pamphlets but occurs because it is very difficult for asker to sign off in a two-card or shorter side suit of teller's.
* There is no DCB equivalent.
* Honour-showing is almost exclusively via variations of RKC.
* If asker is missing a control in a side suit and teller fails to show a short-suit control it is very difficult for the partnership to determine whether or not that suit is controlled.

Together, these system design features make the system much more tricky to use than it might otherwise appear. Asker has to develop good judgement about whether the gains from relaying outweigh the risks -- which can be substantial.

However, the system does have some intriguing features such as the 2N opening to show minimum-1♣ opening strength with hearts and another suit, designed to avoid the effects of the opponents pre-empting in spades after a 1♣ opening. My guess is that the net expectancy of this opening is very low because of the relatively small frequency of such hands.

[straube]

I posted several weeks ago about the possibility of opening 2N strong with both majors. Interesting to hear about strong with hearts and a minor.

Playing strong club it would seem odd to me if the one club bid were able to comfortably handle all of the strong openings. Many, for example,use 2N as balanced 20-21 or so. If you sacrifice that use for some weak hands it obviously increases pressure on the club opening.

It’s nice to learn that the Granovetter’s have found a strong 2N opening that they actually want to use (as opposed to feeling that they have to offload there).