Kungsgeten

Yes, that is currently the plan, is probably the easiest solution. There's some upside to having two Smolen options: - Bidding 3D lets us agree upon hearts at the three-level, which 3S as Smolen doesn't allow. This is good for slam investigation. - Using 3D also lets us include GF hands with 5-5 majors without much of an issue. - Bidding 3D however is bad since the risk is higher of a lead directing double (compare to 3S which is a suit that responder holds). As a result we usually bid 3D with Smolen patterns and slam interest, and GF 5-5 majors (assumed spade fit when opener doesn't have hearts support). 3S is bid with Smolen patterns without slam interest (choice of games hands), but also 5440 hands with slam interest. I wonder if it would be okay to play 3D as "Smolen slam interest" or 5-5 majors INV+... The problem is when opener has a minimum with 2-3 in the majors. I was thinking something like this: 1NT-2C; 2D-3D; (SI with 5+H and 4S, or INV+ with 5-5 majors) 3H = F1 with 3H, but could be a minimum. ...3S = INV with 5-5 majors. ...3NT = Slam interest, no shortage we want to show. ...4m = Shortage. 3S = NF with 3S and 2H. ...3NT = To play. ...4m = Shortage, confirming spades. ...4M = To play. 3NT = GF without 3H (assumed to hold 3S, since we tend not to open 1NT with 2-2 majors). ...4m = Shortage, confirming spades. ...4M = To play.

I think this could work for us. Rebidding 2♠ after a transfer to hearts becomes sort of a checkback for heart length and strength. Either 5+♥ GF (may be SI) without SPL, or 5♥ and 4+♣ GF, or 5♥ INV. Then, as you say, responder's 3♦ rebid could be either INV or GF 5-5 majors (with Stayman covering the other range). The downside is probably that it stops being symmetric with our transfer to spades. We want to find out singleton in a 5431 pattern below 3NT when there's no major fit. I don't think there's space enough over the spade transfer if we also want the "GF 5 spades" hand there. We'd probably do the following over the heart transfer: 1NT-2D; 2H-2S; 2NT = Min 2H ...3C = Perhaps NF INV with 5-5? ...3D = 4+C, short diamonds. ...3H = 6+H, SI. ...3S = 4+C, short spades. ...3NT = To play. ...4C = ORKCB with 5+C. 3C = Max 2H. Answers as above. 3D = Max 3H. ...3H = Sets hearts, demands cue bids. ...3S = 4+C, short spades. SI. ...3NT = Slam invitational. ...4C = 5-5, SI. ...4D = 4+C, short diamonds. SI. ...4H = To play. 3H = Min 3H. Same as above, but 3NT demands cuebids (probably better to switch 3S and 3NT though).

In our 1NT system all INV+ with both majors starts by bidding Stayman. If opener rebids 2D we play the following: 1NT-2C; 2D--- 2H = Non-forcing. INV with both majors (5-4 either way, or 5-5), or weak scramble (doesn't guarantee both majors, but if so then not longer spades than hearts if weak). 2S = Range-ask. Balanced INV or weak/GF with 4M and (4)5+C. 2NT = GF asking bid. 3C = GF with 4M and longer diamonds. 3D = GF with 5+H and 4+S. Could be 5-5 majors. 3H = Smolen. GF with 5+S and 4H. Could have SI 5440. 3S = Smolen. GF with 5+H and 4S. Could have SI 5440. 3NT = To play. 4C = 6H and 4S. 4D = 6S and 4H. 4M = To play. Responder's 2H bid here is sort of ugly, since it is often weak and thus opener tends wanting to pass when holding 3H (but we have to bid if holding 3H and max, in case responder is invitational). To take some pressure off this 2H bid we've been thinking of putting our INV 5-5 major hands elsewhere. Even though it makes some sense to use 3D as "transfer Smolen" and 3S as regular Smolen in order to confirm the heart fit at the three-level, and being able to handle SI 5-5 and 5440 patterns, it seems most pairs do fine with regular Smolen. Our current idea is to use responder's 3D rebid to show INV+ with 5-5 majors. Opener then bids 3M with min, 3NT with 22(54), or 4M with max. A downside is that the major is confirmed at the four level, when responder has slam interest and may want to show shortage (bidding 5m should probably show a void). Any other suggestions? The most obvious solution is to put some hand(s) with both majors into the major suit transfer bids, but our structure currently doesn't have space for that. For those interested: 1NT-2D; 2H (denying 4H, and 2D doesn't promise hearts as it could be bal INV without major)-- 2S = INV with 5H, or GF with 5+H and 4+C. 2NT = INV with less than 5H. 3C = GF with 5+H and 4+D. 3D = INV to game or slam with 6H. 3H = GF with 5H. Wants to know if opener have support. 3S = Splinter. 3NT = COG with 5H. Opener may pass even with support. 4m = Splinter. 1NT-2H; 2S (normal transfer accept, 2H promises 5+S)--- 2NT = INV with 5S. 3C = GF with 5+S and 4+D. 3D = GF with 5+S and 4+C. 3H = INV to game or slam with 6S. 3S = GF with 5S. 3NT = COG. 4X = Splinters.

If I understand correctly, these are your actual 12-17 definitions of 1♣ and 1♦: 1♣ = a) 12-14 NT with one four card major. b) 12-17 with 5+♦ and one four card major. c) 12-17, 4441 or 5440 with short major. 1♦ = a) 12-14 NT without major, or 4-4 majors. b) 12-17 unbalanced with 5+♦, no major. c) 12-17, 4441 or 5440 with short minor. With unbalanced shape and 5+♣ you open 2♣, with 5+M you open 1M, and with 15-17 NT you open 1NT. I think it can be hard (at least in competition) to know if opener has the NT hand or the diamonds hand, but this is true for strong club with nebulous diamond too. I'm not sure how much gain this will have vs Polish club, but it might be helpful to divide strong hands into different bids. I personally haven't found it to be a problem having all my 12-14 NT hands in 1♣.

I haven't seen anyone play the following structure, but to me it seems like it could work: 1C = Strong. 1D = 4+D. If diamonds + major then canapé. If diamonds + clubs then "natural" (diamonds longer or equal to clubs). 1M = Canapé style. 1NT = Weak. 2C = Denies major. 6+C or 5C and 4D. 2D = Multi. 2M = Roman (5M and 4+C). Another more crazy idea: 1C = 15+ 1D = 11-14 NT or 6+m no major 10-14. 1M = Canapé, 10-14. 1NT = 5 hearts and 4+m, 10-14. 2C = Minors, 10-14. 2D = 5 spades and 4+m, 10-14. 2M = Weak.

I agree. You forgot about the option where you open 2♦, they overcall 2♥ on a so-so five card suit and find their 4♥ game. At the other table(s) they played weak 2♠ and this didn't happen. Or maybe you bid 2♥ (pass/correct) and fourth hand had some way of showing hearts. If you play the variant where 2♥ is a multi (intermediate hearts or weak spades) then you'll pass 2♥ holding this hand. At least I would. If partner has intermediate spades (opening 2♦) then you'll bid 2♥ which partner will correct to 2♠. Now you can make an invitational bid. You're worse of though if they overcall (especially 3m). Now it makes sense to bid 2♠ over a 2♥ multi, yes. I agree with these auctions. If you mean a non-split 2♥ which shows a weak two bid in either major, then I think 2♠ is needed as pass/correct. What I meant is that over a split 2♦ it makes more sense to use 2♠ as an asking bid, compared to a weak only 2♦. The reasoning being that its a bit unlikely (and also tells the opponents quite a bit) to say "I want to play 2♠ if you're intermediate, but if you're weak I want to play at the 3-level". That's basically saying "If you have hearts they have game in spades". I'm not sure how good of an idea the split multi is. I think it is a bad idea if you don't include any strong variants in your 2♦ multi, since a big upside of a weak only multi is that it can be frequently passed. A wider ranging multi (split) will probably not be passed quite that frequently.

There are some variants on what you open when holding the 4432 and 4441 patterns. There's also differences depending on your NT strength. To me EHAA seems more similar to Acol / British style where a weak NT is typically used. In the nordic countries standard systems a strong NT is used. Four card suits bottom up: With two/three four card suits you open the lowest. This means that 1♠ will be five+ cards or 4333. The Danish standard system has changed this so that 1♠ promises 5 and 1♣ might be 3. Yet another tweak on the Danish system is that 1♥ shows 5 or 4-4 in the majors, so with 3-4-3-3 you open 1♣. Swedish "modern standard": With two/three four cards the priority is hearts, clubs, spades, diamonds. This means that 1♦ will be five+ cards or 4333. This is a bit more aggressive than bottom up. I don't know of any English books (but my guess is that "Major Suit Raises: The Scanian Way" has its roots here). The bridge software Jack has this system as an option though, as does FunBridge (or if it was Synrey, can't remember). Major first: The most aggressive style where you with two/three four card suits open in the priority hearts, spades, better minor. An effect of this is that 1m-1X; 1M shows an unbalanced hand (I tend to bid this way even when playing the Swedish way though). Otherwise I would say it isn't that big of a change compared to playing five card majors. Sometimes you don't know if responder has made a preference on two or three card support, which might matter. Also you might need some way after 1M-2M to check if responder really have four card support (if your system allows raising on three). After 1M-1NT; 2NT you can use 3M in order to show that you had a five card suit. I like playing 2/1 as GF, but the standard is playing it as INV+ (which I think is necessary if playing weak NT).

Some other points: In the case of 2♥ as intermediate hearts or really weak with spades, it should allow responder to pass with most hands that doesn't want to invite vs intermediate hearts. If opener has the weak spade hand, the opponents have a lot of strength. In the case of 2♦ as weak hearts / intermediate spades it could also make sense to not use 2♠ as pass/correct, but instead as a forcing relay. This saves you a step (compared to 2NT), which might be useful. Also (like I mentioned previously) I think you might want the 2♠ opening to be more frequent than the option in the multi. It could also be a way of going with the field: - You have 11 hcp and 6 spades. If you open this a multi, they can overcall 2♥. Not so bad though, as the rest of the field also overcalls 2♥ after a 1♠ opening. - You have 7 hcp and 6 spades. If you open this a multi, they can overcall 2♥. The field will have opened 2♠ instead, so opening 2♦ goes against the field.

Some people who utilize a multi 2D does so in order to play two ranges of weak twos in the majors. Usually the multi is weaker, while 2M is stronger (Glen Ashton has a variant though where 2D shows 12-15 while 2M show 8-11). What I rarely see, but think make sense, is to split the range: the multi shows one range if holding one of the majors, and another if holding the other. Could this alllow responder to make more informed decisions when deciding if they should try for game, or does it become too wide-ranging if the opponents overcall 3m? Example 1: 2D = Weak with hearts, or 10-13 with spades. 2H = 10-13 2S = Weak A downside of the multi is that the opponents can overcall when holding hearts. Here you still get maxmimum preemptive value when holding the weaker spade variant. Example 2: 2D = Weak major. 2H = 10-13 with hearts, or trash with spades. 2S = Some other usage. This is an example of the "major flash" where 2H is weak in hearts or spades. What makes this more playable is that the passable option (hearts, showing 10-13 in this case) is stronger than the weak spade variant (maybe showing 0-5). You could use 2S as pass/correct and get more info when opener have 10-13, or bid 2NT if game is possible vs the trash spade hand.

Phil: Could it make sense to make 1♠ less wide-ranging? I'm not sure if that is an option, but if the opening is giving you problems, then maybe? The MOSSO system has taken the route of making 1♠ limited (10-15 if I remember correctly) and open 1♣ with stronger spade hands. Their 2X openings (except spades) is Fantunes. An approach for you might be: 1♠ = Fantunes style. 2♣ = Strong balanced. 2♦ = Spades, 10-13 (a bit more space than opening 2♠) 2M = Weak. 2NT = Minors. Yet another option could be: 1♠ = Wide-ranging but NF, as in "standard" but perhaps promising an unbalanced hand? 2♣ = Strong NT or GF spades. Or if you really don't like the idea of not showing a suit directly when strong: 1♠ = Wide-ranging NF. 2♣ = Strong balanced or <weak range 1> with spades. 2♦ = Trash with hearts or <weak range 2> with spades. 2♥ = 8-11 with hearts. 2♠ = Nat GF.

Thanks! I'm not currently playing this structure (we use fairly standard methods over 2♣, with 2NT+ as transfers), but it is nice to see what can be done. One variant could be to just accept that we'll be playing 3 clubs when opener has 6+ clubs and responder wants to invite. Then maybe something like this: 2C-2D; 2H--- 2S = GF relay. 2NT = INV with 4--5 hearts. Opener bids again with 6+ clubs. 3C = INV with 4 spades. 3D = INV with 6+ hearts and 4 spades (relay with GF diamonds). However then it is possible we'll play 2NT with a club fit when opener have 4-1-3-5 and responder holds 3+ clubs and 4+ hearts. To solve that, maybe: 2C-- 2D = Hearts or relay. 2H = Spades. 2S = Range ask, could be weak club raise. 2NT = 5S, 4H, INV. 3C = 3+C, 4--5H, INV. 2C-3C; Pass = Minimum, usually not 3 hearts unless some belief that missing game isn't an issue. 3D = Three hearts. Now 3H is NF INV (opener bids again with max), while 3S asks range (3NT max, 4C min). 3H = Four hearts, minimum. 3S = ?? Maybe max and some concern for spades? 3NT = To play, 0-2 hearts. Here responder will sometimes have to decide if we should play 3H on a moysian, or 4C, or even 3NT with sub-values.

Here's the relevant files and some instructions: https://github.com/Kungsgeten/bridgehtml

Sure, I can upload the relevant resources and a short example. I'll post here and will also send you a PM when its up.

Dan have a detailed write-up on their system: https://bridgewithdan.com/product/welland-auken-system/ I haven't read read it, but Dan's other publications are excellent.

Yes, they're a problem since 2NT after a transfer isn't natural INV but shows both majors. Not quite sure how to solve that. In the original version 2C-2D; 2H-2S is natural, which solves a lot of issues :) Edit: Maybe something like this: 2C-- 2D = 4+H or GF relay. 2H = 4+S. 2S = Range ask / Club raise (maybe some other INV hands or GF variants that doesn't want to use relays) 2N = 4+H and 4S, INV. 3C = 5S and 4H, INV. Sometimes we'll be playing 3H on a 4-3 fit though.

Yes I've written it, but I haven't uploaded it to that site. It is a variation of the 2♣ continuations you've posted on the forums, which is also credited at the top of the document: "The module is mostly stolen from Zelandakh at the BBO forums". Here's another similar version (didn't include it above since the notes are in Swedish) where the 2♦ response is three-way: INV with 4-5 hearts, weak with 6+ hearts, or a GF relay. http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/transfer2c.html

To me it seems reasonable to play some kind of transfer structure over 1C (8-12 no shortness). Using responses at the two-level as "to play" seems okay. Not sure regarding the shortness-showing openings.

Yeah, it is sold here in Sweden too. When we've faced Norwegians at the Swedish bridge festival they seem very ammused :) Grandiosa had a commercial of a pizza with "X-tra allt" (extra everything) and since our system is pretty detailed (at least compared to what people around here play) we thought that it was fitting :) We also used to have some pizza references in the conventions, but I think most of theme have been removed or changed: - Mexicana (opening 2♦ to show 18-19 NT, AKA Mexican). - Quattro stagioni (an opening of 2NT showing 5-5 in a major and a minor, so four variants). - Pizza raises (using 3NT as a flat non-forcing raise). - Calzone (using 2NT as a semi-natural GF response to 1M, with some special follow-ups in case opener had an interesting hand).

Yes, I've written many system ideas and have also done most of my main partnership's methods like this. However I haven't published the tools online, since I think they're too dependant on the Emacs software for it to be relevant for most people. However if you're familiar with Emacs I'd be happy to share. Here's some examples: My main partnership (Swedish notes): http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/grandiosa.html Transfer responses to 2♣ showing 18-19 NT or any GF: http://www.snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/twoclubs18_19.html Some ideas for a system with three card majors: http://www.snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/best_major.html

I actually got to try my version of the multi 1NT once in real play. It was a lot of fun, and as you've said in this thread I think the main downside is when they interfere. The system played was this: http://www.snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/natdiamond2.html Another version with relays: http://www.snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/naturaldiamond.html

I fully agree. However I'd argue that knowing opener has some shape with their opening bid has benefits apart from relays: clever use of rebids, knowing opener is not flat when they raise your suit, etc. However most of these apply also when including 5332 shapes. "Balanced or clubs" is not the only way to use the balanced 1♣ (or other nebulous minors). I myself like "balanced or strong" because of good hand separation and competitive auctions when holding the weak hand. The downside ofcourse is when holding the strong hand, similar to the downside of "balanced or clubs" when holding clubs. Nebulous diamond in strong club systems usually have the same issues.

I like the idea and your structure. I play a similar opening style with my girlfriend, but almost no artificial continuations. Our 1♦ is: a) 5+ suit. b) 4441 hand with short clubs. c) Balanced with 4 diamonds and a good diamond suit. Usually not 4333. Playing your methods we would have to remove option C. In my main partnership we play a "real" unbalanced diamond, also including xx45 shape. I do not fully agree with awm that it is better to open your five card suit when holding 5332 hands. Indicating a balanced hand has upside, since responder more freely can bid their own suit and usually knows about opener's strength etc. I'm actually interested in trying a style where opening 1M also promise an unbalanced hand, but none of my partners want to try it.

For a while I was very interested in opening weak hands. I threw together a couple of forcing pass systems, but never tried them. Pass = 17+ any, or a weak hand which can't make another bid. 1C = Any 11-16 unbal, or 13-16 NT. 1D = Any weak one-suiter. 1M = Weak, 4M and 5+m. 1NT = 10-12 2C = Weak, both minors. 2D = Weak, both majors. 2M = Weak, 5+M and 4m. A more "natural" idea was some artificial uses for the 1NT response to a natural 4+ 1C opening. I think one of them was some sort of inverted minor raise...

I've seen several response structures using transfers over a strong 2C opening. I think it is a good idea, if you can remember it. The version I like the most is where the transfers start right away. Here it is common for 2D to be two-way though: either hearts or a "waiting bid" that doesn't want to bid anything else. Example: 2C-- 2D = 4+ hearts or waiting (not suitable for other bid) 2H = 4+ spades 2S = Minor suit Stayman (weak or slam interest) 2NT = 5-5 majors 3C = 5+C and 4D. 3D = 5+D and 4C. 3M = 5-5 minors and short major. This could be combined with 2C including a "weaker" balanced range (like 20-21 or perhaps even 18-19). Now it would be possible to sign-off in 2M or 3m when responder is very weak. If you prefer the style where 2D is negative I quite like the Carrot Club responses (originally over a strong 1C opening): 2C-- 2D = Negative, all others positive. 2H = No 5+M, no 6+m, not 5-5 minors. 2S = 5+H. 2NT = 5+S. 3m = 6+m (you could switch these if don't want the risk of responder declaring diamonds). 3M = 5-5 minors, short major.

In Sweden it is popular to include the weaker of the two-level NT ranges (for us typically 20-21 and 22-24) in the 2C opening. A common treatment is then to play the 2M and 3m responses to the 2C opening as "to play vs 20-21 NT". I think this makes even more sense the weaker the NT range is.