Kungsgeten

When I started learning relays the mantra was "length bottom up, shortness top down". So when showing a suit, the first step is clubs etc and when showing shortness the first step is spades etc. From a memory standpoint this is nice, because the rules mesh well together. Let's say opener has shown 5+H and 4D, and now we're in the short-legged two-suiter scheme: Step 1: High shortness (short spades) Step 2: Equal shortness (5422, or maybe 7411) Step 3+: Low shortness (short clubs) But instead of thinking "shortness top down" you could just as well think "length bottom up": Step 1: Low length (clubs longer than spades) Step 2: Equal length Step 3+: High length (spades longer than clubs) The rule becomes more useful when showing single-suiters, since it can be a bit hard to remember what to bid with various 6322 hands (length bottom up, so the first step is bid with three cards in the lowest ranking suit etc).

Here's another structure I toyed with a while back: http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/relay2c_transfer.html The idea is to use 2D as "hearts or relay", so this is similar to OP's current structure where 2D is a transfer to hearts. In this structure (43)15 and 5422 shapes are excluded from the 2C opening. The (43)15 hands can be opened with a Precision 2D (or in our case we include these shapes into our Swedish club) and the (42)25 hands can be treated as balanced.

I think the main problem is that you often want some non-GF hands in the 2D relay, but if 2D is game forcing, here's my take: 2C-2D; 2H = 6+C, single-suited. 2S = 5+C and 4H, short-legged two-suiter. 2NT = 6+C and 4D, or 4-4-0-5 (if that shape is included into your 2C opening). 3C+ = 5+C and 4S, short-legged two-suiter. 2C-2D; 2NT-3C; 3D = 6+C, 4D, short spades. 3H = 4-4-0-5 <-- The "equal shortness" step is replaced with the 4-4-0-5 hand. 3S = 2-1-4-6 3NT = 3-0-4-6 4C = 2-0-4-7 4D = 1-1-4-7 <-- The 7411 shape is always a bit problematic. I think this should put you at "+1" compared to original symmetric. Also you don't have 5332s in the single-suited hands, so it might easier/better to use something other than symmetric. Maybe: 2C-2D; 2H-2S; 2NT = 7+C, no void. 3C = Any 6322. 3D = 1-3-3-6 3H = 3-1-3-6 3S = 3-3-1-6 3NT = 7+C, void spades. 4C = 7+C, void hearts. 4D = 7+C, void diamonds.

Putting balanced hands into nullve's 1D opening seems a bit problematic, since 1D-1M; 1NT will probably be needed for balanced hands. In that case I think that the 1H response should be some kind of waiting bid: 1D-- 1H = 5+H or waiting. 1S = 5+S. Higher = Not sure. One alternative is that 1H is "waiting" and the 1NT response shows 5+H. 1D-1H; 1S = Minors. 1NT = Balanced. 2C = Single-suited. 2D = 5S and 3H?? 2M = Canapé. Possible solutions if you want to play strong NT: - Play Swedish Club: use 1C as 11-13 NT or 17+ any) - Play Swedish Club but denies a major if weak NT: 1C is 11-13 NT no major, or 17+. 1M can be balanced (and 4+ suit) if 11-13. - Play nullve's suggestion that 1D could be opened on 3-3-4-3 (so could be 3 clubs). Use the 2D opening as "Bailey two bid" showing 11-13 hcp 5-6 diamonds and 2-3 cards in each major.

Nice idea! Though I think that 1D-1X; 2C should show 6+C, so the 1NT rebid should probably be minors 5/4 either way.

Yes, but any 4441 is okay.

If you don't want "unresolved canapé sequences", and no nebulous diamond bid, I think you need some kind of constructive two-suiters at the two-level (like Roman 2M). I've toyed with the following idea, and find it a bit strange that I haven't seen anyone play like this (might be major flaws that I don't see): 1C = Strong 1D = 4+D. 4441, or 4D 5+M, or 5D 4+C, or 6+D. 1M = 4M and longer side suit, or 6+M. Could include balanced shapes too I guess. 1NT = Weak. 2C = 6+C or 5C and 4D. 2D = Multi. 2M = 5+M and 4+C. My intention was to use this with a Swedish Club, so 1C would be 11-13 NT or 17+ any, while 1NT would be 14-16 NT. There's also the Moscito/Magic Diamond style MAFIA systems where the major openings are a bit nebulous: could be any two-suiter (canapé or not) as well as single-suited (5332 counts as single-suited here). I've also seen variants including 4432 and 4333 shapes. Magic Diamond uses transfer responses to the major suit openings, so no negative 1NT. Here's my old system notes with a strong club and transfer style Magic Diamond openings (very similar to MOSCITO): http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/relayclub.pdf A friend of mine uses a nebulous diamond that denies holding a four card major: 1C = 15+ any 1D = 10-14, unbalanced and no major. 0+ diamonds (could be 3-3-0-7 for instance). 1M = "Magic Diamond": 10-14, 4+M but not 4333/4432. Longer minor possible. 1NT = 11-14, no five card major. 2X = Weak. Here's a "Lite Version" of Magic Diamond: http://www.brenning.se/pp/MagicDlight.pdf

"Boring club, exciting pass" Pass = 0-7 or 17+. 1C = 8-17 NT. Could be 4441 with singleton minor if 13-16. 1D = 13-16 5+M or 4441 with singleton major. 1M = 8-12 4+M magic diamond style. 1NT = 12-16 unbal no major. 2m = 8-11 5+m, no major. 2M = 12-16 4M and 5+m.

I had an idea of "transfer club" with strong diamond. The idea was to use a "normal" short club opening along with limited major suit openings. I think it was something like this: 1♣ = 4+♣ unbalanced 11-21, or 12-14 NT, or 18-20 NT 1♦ = 15-17 NT or 21+ NT or 16+ unbal (but GF if clubs being the primary suit). 1♥♠ = 5+ major, 10-15 1NT = Diamonds and hearts, 10-15. 2♣ = Diamonds and spades, 10-15. 2♦ = Diamonds, no major, 10-15. Having three openings for unbalanced hands with diamonds in the 10-15 range seems a bit overkill :) Playing 1NT as "diamonds and a major" is probably wiser.

I don't understand how the "multi 2♣" (or whatever it should be called) hurts the preemptive bidding compared to not being able to show diamonds at the two level at all. However I'm not trying to convince you, simply sharing some alternate views. The style with 6+♣ or 5♣ and 4M is what I meant when referring to the Polish style. It would be interesting to see statistics on IMP differences where one table opened 1m compared to the other table opening 2m. Some more systems I forgot to mention which could be interesting to look at: - Silent Club. By rbforster on this forum. I don't know if there's notes published, but the idea is that you pass with the Precision 2♣ opening (and the three-suited 2♦ opening). Third hand opens lighter than usual to compensate is my guess. The more well defined and less frequent your 2♣ opening is, the easier it should be to pass with it. - Transfer Responses to One Club with Relays (book by Lyle Poe 2019). He includes all GF bids in 1♣ (along with weak NT, 18-19 NT, 15+ clubs and some weaker hands with clubs). Opening 2♣ is natural 8-14 (so more frequent and also more preemptive than your examples). With 8-10 you have 6+♣ (like a sound weak two). With 11-14 there are some 5431 hands with 5♣ and 4M included, if the club suit is good. Also all 4-4-0-5 and 0-4-4-5 hands are opened 2♣ instead of 1♣. He claims that 2♣ shows 6+♣ 90% of the time, and responder should assume opener has six. To me 8-14 seems like a huge range, but I haven't tried it :) Overall this system seems quite similar to what you describe (but with transfer responses instead of a negative 1♦).

I haven't read all of the posts in the thread and OP's further tinkering, but some comments that may be helpful: Playing 2♣ as "traditional strong or weak with diamonds" doesn't mean you have to play multi. It isn't great as a preempt (since responder might hesitate to raise, and as you say the opponents get two shots) but it does take away the one level. One thing it does is protect the strong 2♣ opening from destructive overcalls. Other uses for 2♦ (instead of multi and if you don't want to play 2♦ as something contructive) could be a "mini NT" with 5-6♦ (Bailey two bids), weak with both majors (Ekrens), 5-5 major and another (Wilkosz if allowed), diamonds and hearts, or even diamonds and a major. Systems you may want to look into (similar to the ones you describe): - An Unassuming Club. This system have a weak 1NT. 2♣ is 6+. 1♣ is natural (if 11-15 then a four card major too) or 15+ NT or any 20+. - "Polish Club 2020: Expert" (I've also heard it described as Baltic Club). This is a book written by Jassem, and I think it is the system he currently plays. It is basically Polish Club but the Polish 2♣ opening has been put into 1♣. They instead use 2♣ as Ekrens (weak both majors). Seems like the 1♣ is really overloaded, but it might give you some ideas. - Nightmare. Seems like Polish Club but with weak NT and normal 1M openings. Their 1C is always strong (15+ NAT, 15-17 NT or any GF). They put 18-20 NT into the otherwise natural 1♦ opening. You also had a question regarding advantages of Polish Club vs Dutch Doubleton. I'm not saying Polish Club is better, but here's some things I'd consider advantages: 1. Removing the weak unbalanced hands from 1♣ makes it a bit more safe to compete as responder when the opponents enter the bidding. You assume opener have 12-14 NT (which you typically do in DD too, but then you're sometimes having problems when opener had the natural 11 count and you're in a misfit). I myself consider the treatment of the weak NT hands as the strongest part of weak/strong club systems compared to other systems with strong NT. Awm argued that opener can't reopen with the weak NT, and that may be true (unless you agree otherwise) but I'm sceptical regarding this in DD (or other "natural" systems) too: shouldn't a reopening double (when responder haven't bid) show something more than a flat minimum with a doubleton in their suit? Does opener have to bid something else with an unbalanced hand, or the 18+ NT (if that is included in the same opening bid)? 2. Opening 1♦/1M is more limited compared to DD. I agree with you that these openings are fine in DD, but when you actually open say 1M you can take advantage of opener having a maximum of 17. 3. The 2♣ opening in Polish is a double edged sword and I know this style get a lot of criticism (especially in American system litterature). In competitive auctions though it is pretty nice having showed your suit from the start, and also you force the opponents to enter at the two-level.

Since you asked about showing shape immediately after a strong 2♣ opening: Transfer responses is an option. Usually in those schemes the 2♦ response is two-way though: either 4+♥ or a waiting bid not suitable for other responses. There are several ways to play transfers over 2♣. Here's one attempt I came up with: http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/twoclubs18_19.html This one has a lot of focus on finding playable part scores since 18-19 NT is included in 2♣. If your 2♣ is something like 22+ then you probably want to change some things.

Thanks for mentioning other artificial 1NT openings! My first thought was to play 1NT-2♣ as "pass or correct", but I think it might be better as an asking bid, but possibly weak. Perhaps: 1NT-2♣; 2♦ = Natural. 2♥ is pass/correct, while 2♠ could be GF relay (unfortunately a bit high*) and 2NT maybe INV relay. 2M = Natural and 5+♣. * Another option is to give up playing 2♥ here, and use 2♥ as the relay, and 2♠ as pass/correct. Now I don't know if the opening itself has merit. I've seen 1♦ played as basically the same thing, 1NT is more preemptive but leads to problems for both sides.

I haven't seen many systems using an artificial 1NT opening (I think Romex is the exception). Woolsey in his "grunt defense" to nebulous minors play a 1NT overcall as 4M and 5+m (may be the suit opened). I wonder if this could work as an opening bid? It could lead to some interesting structures like: 1C = Strong 1D = Weak NT, 4441 or 6+m. 1M = 5+M 1NT = 4M and 5+m. 2C = Minors.

I wonder if it could be worthwhile to expand the range of the 1♦ opening? The reason would be adding a weak NT opening and thus increasing the aggressiveness (not sure if it is needed though). So maybe: 1C = Strong. Includes 15-17 NT but not 18-19 NT. 1D = 11-14 NT with major, or any 18-19 NT. 1NT = 11-14 NT without major. 1D--- 1H = "Stayman". 1S = Puppet to 1NT. Weak or GF. 1NT = To play vs 11-14, GF vs 18-19. 2m = To play vs 11-14. 2H = At least 4-4 majors, NF. Letting the opponents get in at the one level when holding a 15-17 NT may not be a good idea though, and the split range of 1♦ prevents some preemptive jumps as responder.

The earliest published version of Carrot Club (Morotsklövern in Swedish) used a 13-17 NT range. One of the inspirations of the system was Blue Club, they also used a 13-17 NT. - Carrot Club 1NT is any 15-17 NT, or 13-14 without a four card major. The sysem used 4 card majors, so opened 1M with 12-14 NT and 4M. I've seen variants where the range is lowered to 12-16 instead. - Blue Club is any 16-17 NT, or 13-15 NT with 3=3=3=4 or 3=3=2=5. I know of one pair who plays an 11-16 NT range, similar to the Carrot Club: any 14-16 NT or 11-13 NT without major. They also use 1♣ as 8-10 NT or any 16/17+.

I think that the Swedish relay system developed by Daniel Auby and Johan Ebenius focuses on separating hands with and without shortness early. I am not familiar with the details though. The method is still played by a couple of Swedish pros.

Good question! I haven't played it myself, but it is based on the structure I actually do play. We don't use relays over 1C though, so our 1♠ response can be balanced. Here's what we currently do: 1D = May be 8-10 NT, no major. 1M = 4+M. Can be balanced w/ 4M if less than GF. 1NT = GF as previous post. Can have 4M. 2H = Balanced INV, usually not 4M (have no way to show it). I hadn't thought about the invites with 4♠ in this version where 1♠ is unbalanced. It could be possible to use the 2♠ or 2NT response to show that hand. It could also be the case that INV balanced hands with 4♠ is biddable with a simple 1♠ response. Example: 1C-1S; 1NT (relay)-- 2C = 4S. ...2H = 5+C or a subset of 4441. ...2S = Balanced, INV+. ...2NT+ = 5+D or a subset of 4441. 2D+ = 5+S. 1C-1S; 2C (pass correct)-- 2D = To play. 2H = Puppet to 2S. Weak or GF. 2S = INV with 5S. 2NT = INV with 4S. 3m = Canapé INV. 3H = INV 5S and 4H (seems high though...) 3S = 5332 GF?

I tried a similar structure (clearly inspired by ulven's other ideas) which was pretty fun. Only had the chance to play it for one event though :( 1C = Weak NT (or any 4441) or 15--21 natural (4+C). Not forcing. 1D = Strong and forcing, but not all strong hands. 15+ natural (4+D), or 18+ NT, or 15+ w/ 6+M, or very strong hands (like a 2C opening in standard). 1M = 5+ unbalanced, 10--19. 10-14 if 6+M. 1NT = 15-17 NT or weak two in a major. 2X = Like SCUM but 10-14. The 1NT opening is a bit of a joke, but fun :) The idea behind other openings are good separation of balanced/unbalanced, and also trying to take "one time vs two time" bids into consideration. Compared to strong club you often show shape first even when strong.

I echo what has been said about the Fredin-Lindqvist notes. It seems relays becomes easier if the positive responses are GF vs the strong variants, which is the case for Swedish Club but not Polish. So I think 2♣ would need to be 11-15 and 1♣ at least 16 when strong, and positives show 8+. I'd probably go for something like this (a few changes compared to F-L): 1C-- 1D = 0-7 any or 8-10 NT (not 4H unless 4-4 majors). 1H = Natural with 4+H. 1♠ is GF relay. 1S = Unbalanced with 4+S. 1NT is GF relay, others 12-14 (similar to F-L). 1NT = GF, balanced or 4441 or unbalanced without major. 2C relays, 2D is 12-14 NT. 2C = Non-forcing, 5+C no major. Includes 5-5 minors. 2D = Non-forcing, 5+D no major. 2H = INV balanced. Others = To taste. You could use 1NT and 2C as transfers instead (accepting is 12-14, step above relays), freeing up 2D (some kind of reverse flannery could be nice). The reason for not playing "switched majors" is primarily when opener is weak: we want fourth-suit overcaller to be on lead and the weak continuations leaves some more room after 1C-1S (compared to if 1S shows hearts): 1C-1S; 1NT = Relay. 2C = 12-14 NT, not spade support. ...2D = To play. ...2H = Puppet to 2S, to play 2S or various GF. Downside though not being able to show 5S and 4H. Could probably be included in the 1H response, but not sure that it is worth it in competition... ...2S = INV with 5S. 2D = 12-14 NT, good three-card support. Could use the puppet here too. 2H = Strong, doesn't want to relay? Or perhaps a good 12-14 four card raise? 2S = 12-14 NT with support.

I haven't played two-openings like the ones you suggest. Similar to Muiderberg, but here your goal is more constructive. I guess the first step would be to run some hands and see if they're a valid option. I think 15+ for the 1♣ opening is okay, but may be a bit awkward with the balanced hands. Your modification of 16+ when balanced makes sense to me :) I would be a bit worried about "anti-field" with a 13-15 range and passing balanced twelves, but it might not be an issue. I've had some thoughts regarding "modified Moscito" myself. Maybe some ideas could be useful: I played Moscito for a couple of years, but prior to that we played a two-way pass system with 1♦ and 1♥ as Moscito style transfers. We needed to cover 8-17 balanced at the one-level, and included balanced ranges in both 1♣, 1♠ and 1NT. Playing strong club Moscito this style could look like this: 1♣ = Strong (17+ if balanced). 1♦♥ = Transfer. 1♠ = 11-13 NT. 1NT = 14-16 NT. 2♣♦ = 5+ minor unbal, no major. I also think a two-way club could be used with Moscito (especially if the other openings are a bit more conservative, like 11-15/16). 1♣ will tend to have less interference than a strong 1♣, it also splits the no trump range a bit compared to 15+ 1♣, and it allows you to search for a 4-4 fit at the one level (but that's also true if you include balanced hands with 4 card majors in your transfer openings, as you suggested). Lots of players bash on the "Polish 2♣", but using the Mosicito base 2♣ can show 6+ cards. 1♣ = 11-13 NT or 16+. 1NT = 14-16. Others = Moscito. This could be combined with the previous version: 1♣ could promise a four card major if balanced, while 1♠ could deny one. While we're at it I think the Moscito 2♣ is pretty rare, especially if you don't use it on 6-4 hands. Not sure if it is worth it, but it could be interesting to put the club single-suiter elsewhere and use 2♣ for something else. "Polish Club Expert" (Baltic club?) put all "primary clubs" hands into 1♣, along with 12-14 NT and 18+ any. Another way could be "Silent Club" where you simply pass if holding a club single-suiter too weak for opening 1♣. Now 2♣ could be used to offload the transfer openings, or perhaps the 1♣ opening. Pass = Can be up to 14 hcp if holding 6+♣ single-suiter. 1♣ = 15+. 2♣ = Maybe 18-20 NT to take some pressure off the 1♣ balanced range? 2NT and/or 3♣ = Possibly to handle some of the club single-suiters. A mix of different things: Pass = Possibly club single-suiter. 1♣ = 11-13 NT or 16+. 1♦♥♠ = Moscito (but see 2m). 1NT = 14-16. 2♣ = 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor, 11-15. 2♦ = 5+ spades and a 4+ minor, 11-15. 2M = Weak. 2NT = Club preempt or good major preempt. 3♣ = 6+♣ decent suit, 10-13. A variant of the 2m bids above could be to take inspiration from "Finnish Scissors", then 2♣ could show "5 hearts and 4+ clubs, or 5 spades and 4+ diamonds", while 2♦ show "5 hearts and 4+ diamonds, or 5 spades and 4+ clubs". Yet another thing to consider could be something similar to Verhees - Van Prooijen with their 2♣ opening. I have a local pair who play 2♣ as 4 clubs + 5+M or 6+ clubs. Seems a bit strange to me, but who knows :D 2♣ = 4+ clubs and 5+M, or 6+♣. Now the major is unknown though :( 2♦ = Multi. 2M = 5+M and 4+ diamonds. Okay things are getting out of hand but here's another one ;) Pass = Natural or minor single-suiter. 1♦♥ = Moscito, but with less shapes included. 1♠ = 5+ spades! 2♣ = Both minors. 2♦ = Multi. 2♥ = 5♥ and 4+m. 2♠ = ?? Maybe something to offload the pass, or maybe some weak thing.

This isn't the first time when I assumed a Swedish bridge term meant the same thing in English :) I assume the English term is "non-forcing NT" or "semi-forcing NT". Responding 1NT to one of a suit is an artificial bid showing: 1. Less than four cards in suits which could be bid on the one level. 2. Usually not support for the opened suit (but in some even more artificial versions it may have support). 3. Could have any shape at all (could differ depending on your jump shifts), except from the above. Doesn't promise a balanced hand nor stoppers in unbid suits. 4. Not enough strength to respond with a suit at the two level, but too strong to pass. Regarding Polish Club and Dutch Doubleton: I'm not sure I consider DD to be a non-natural system, but that depends on the definition. I agree that the Polish 2♣ is poor, but I think the bad reputation mostly comes from people not playing it. Sure I've had some bad results after opening 2♣, but also good results. Having 18-19 NT in a natural system vs a weak responder also leads to silly contracts, like playing 1♣ in a 3-2 fit.

I think a kickstart into the game is to let them bid what they feel like. Do you have good cards? Which suit would you like to bid? Sooner or later you'll ofcourse have to go through theory but I often feel that there's way to much theory before beginners even understand how the auction works: why cant I bid 1♥ when my partner open 1♠? For some players I also think this will help them identify problems that the bidding agreements help to solve. I think the most popular non-natural systems are pretty natural, so they probably work. Also any natural system will seem un-natural for a beginner (and usually un-natural conventions like the negative NT and Stayman are introduced very early). Except from what has been said here I also think Polish Club would work (without the "exotic" two openings). If they have an interest in the social side of playing at the club I think it makes sense to just teach the "local system": they will be familiar with what most play and I get the feeling that many frown upon players who deviate from the local system (at least at my local club). People will also give them advice and a beginner will have trouble understanding that the advice given may not be applicable given the system they're playing.

mw64ahw, PrecisionL: I haven't tried power doubles, what I had in mind was over standard take-out doubles. I haven't played the Overcall Structure, but have studied it. helene_t: Yes perhaps the problem is too small to solve. I think the one- and two-level calls in "standard" are both pretty wide-ranging in terms of strength and shape. I think Ken Rexford actually advocates Herbert negatives over 1♦ too. We play Herbert negatives after we double their nebulous minor (our double shows 12-15 NT or a strong hand). Even though we've played it for a while it hasn't come up a lot, so I'm not really sure where I stand :) I think Daniel Auby's (RIP) post about the Herbert Negative is interesting: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.bridge/c/RnAyClNYNZE/m/e5tosYFzDp0J?pli=1 I've also seen some Swedish pros who play 1NT as "Herbert Negative" (or maybe Lebensohl) after partner doubles a 1M opening.

Some play transfer responses to a "natural or balanced" 1♣ opening. The other day I got an idea: Would it be benefital to play transfer advances after we double their 1♣ opening? Example: 1♣-Dbl-Pass-? 1♦ = 4+ hearts 1♥ = 4+ spades 1♠ = No major etc The main upside would be that advancer gets low level forcing calls, compared to standard where you'd have to start with a cue bid to force. Perhaps some awkward hands could be bid better too, since two- and three-level bids become available to show better defined hands. I'd also guess it could lead to some more options for the doubler to show fit/strength. One downside is that you probably want advancer to declare, since the 1♣ opener tends to be the one which leads from strength. Another downside is the loss of being able to play 1♦. It could also be too complex compared to the low frequency where it would gain. Have you encountered this idea before? How do you think it compared to standard, or Herbert negatives?