Roman Club

Roman Club ( _it. Fiori Romano) is an artificial bridge bidding system devised in late 1950s by Giorgio Belladonna and Walter Avarelli of Italian Blue Team and used by them to win twelve WBF World Teams Championships, three Olympiads and numerous European and National titles. A variant of it, "Little Roman" or "Arno", was played by their teammates Massimo D'Alelio and Camillo Pabis Ticci.

Radical in its day, Roman has long been superseded by more advanced relay systems but it and Forquet–Garozzo's Blue Club were remarkable for the ideas they introduced and fostered in the bridge world.

Overview

Roman Club can be classified as a "small club" system, where 1Clubs opening bid has a wide range of meanings. In Roman, it includes weak balanced hands, stronger hands with secondary club suit, and very strong hands. Other 1-bids are made in strict accordance with canapé principle (shorter suit first).

Opening bids

Roman is notable for its emphasis on distinguishing opening hands into groups by distribution and responding hands by strength. The general opening bid structure is:
* Balanced hands:
**1Clubs 12-16p and 21+p.
**1NT 17-20p.

* One or two suited hands:
**1Diams, 1Hearts, 1Spades 12-20p canapé openings which may be in a 3 cards if 15+p.
**2Hearts, 2Spades, 2NT 12-16p canapé openings with Clubs the shorter suit and Hearts, Spades, Diams respectively the longer suit.
**1Clubs 17-20p canapé opening with Clubs the shorter suit, rebidding 2Clubs conventionally then continuing as for the openings from 2Hearts-2NT.

* Three suited hands:
**2Clubs 12-16p.
**2Diams 17-20p.

* Unbalanced hands of 21+p (game forcing) are opened 1Clubs, continuing with a jump in a new suit or 2Diams+ over a negative.

The general responding structure divides hands into:
* weak, typically bidding the first-step response,
* semi-positive, typically bidding and rebidding a suit or showing preference for opener's suit, and
* positive, bidding 1NT (except over 1Spades) with 12-15p balanced or "reversing"—bidding a higher suit after a lower to show an unbalanced canapé hand of 12+p.Like opener, responder may make their first bid in a 3cs to prepare a canapé.

The strong emphasis on distribution of openings simplified the bidding structure in many respects but did not overcome the classical weakness of canapé, where it is very difficult to distinguish strength range as easily as in a long-suit-first system. Opening three-card suits was also an obvious exposure in competition.

Unlike many other artificial systems, Roman does not use 2Clubs bid for hands with primary or secondary club suit (2Hearts/2Spades offer some compensation though). As result, some hands with club suit are difficult to bid (e.g. both 1=3=4=5 and 2=2=2=7 hands have to be opened 1Diams with rebid in clubs).

The Roman bidders used a negative double only up to 1Spades overcall over their 1Clubs opening, and not elsewhere, making the balanced structure also vulnerable to interference. Nonetheless, the emphasis on distribution was a lesson well-learned by later theorists in relay systems.

Other features

Some other innovations Roman collected into their system included:

* Suit asking bids. In several positions, bidding a suit in a game force asked responder to describe their length and strength in the suit using about six steps. There were variations on these asks titled Beta, Gamma and Delta, depending on context.

* Control asking bids. The "Alpha ask" ignored length and simply asked for Controls (Aces and Kings) in the specific suit, contrasting with more common cue bids, which show controls.

* Roman Cues and Roman Blackwood. Cue bidding aces, kings, voids and singletons more or less indiscriminately supported an aggressive and somewhat adventurous approach to slams, and area of bidding where the Blue Team invariably shone.

* Defined two-suiters in defence Both weak and strong 5-5 shapes were given defined bids in competition over one or two level openings by opponents. Taking these hands out of other defensive calls simplified other bidding.

* Exclusion bids after partner's double. In response to partner's takeout double, responder could bid their shortest suit with a semi-positive response, simplifying the process of finding a fit and enabling takeout doubles on other than classical shapes.

* Systematic light lead-directing overcalls

* 1NT overcalls on 17-20p without requiring a stop in the bid suit. These measures provided implicit strength limitation for other defensive actions as well as within these bids.

* Rusinow leads and Odd-Even signals. Leading the second-highest of touching honours and using the parity of a card to show attitude or count were both more efficient than the classical methods, and emphasised the extent to which the system was constructed as a whole, from opening through responses, slam bidding, defensive bidding and finally defensive card play.

Roman's weaknesses in competition, the difficulty of clarifying strength in canapé and the sheer complexity of the system (much greater than Blue Club, Schenken or the later Precision Club) led to its demise by the early 1970s. However, in the context of the 50s and 60s it was a ground-breaking system which with its strong hand classification, artificial sequences and asking bids laid foundations for the Relay and Forcing Pass systems which succeeded it.

References

* Belladonna, Giorgio and Avarelli, Walter: "The Roman Club System Of Distributional Bidding" 1959.
* Belladonna, Giorgio: "Il Nuovo Fiori Romano" 1958.
* Belladonna, Giorgio: "Il Nuovissimo Fiori Romano" 1977.
* Belladonna, Giorgio and Garrozzo, Benito: "Il Moderno Fiori Romano", 1986.

External links

* [http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LittleRomanClubSystem.html Little Roman Club system overview]