Kungsgeten

I've been toying with the idea of playing some kind of strong diamond in 1st/2nd seat non-vul. Many American pairs seem to play 2NT as strong, even though they play a strong club. Do you have experience regarding benefits of this style? In a strong diamond system it might make sense to put these strong hands in the nebulous 1C opening. Say something like: 1C = 13-15 NT / 19-20 NT / Minor + major two-suiter 1D = 16+ (not 19-20 NT) 1M = 10-15 1NT = 10-12 2m = 10-15 no major

How much of a change is it compared to your SMP book, Dan? Based from your other publications, I guess there's more details further into the auction. Just from your brief presentation I don't quite get the rationale of the 1C-1H and 1C-1S bids. To me it makes more sense if 1C-1H denied 5 hearts, and 1C-1S showed 8+ with 5 hearts (transfer positive style).

One idea which I think could be used more is that both opener and responder could be the captain after a strong 1C opening. I think IMPrecision does this to some extent (with their weak/strong 1D response) but I haven't studied it much. The top-level Swedish strong club partnerships use a structure where I think both opener and responder can use relays, but I haven't found details on the continuations (only what is available on the Bermuda Bowl CCs). I personally think that something like below could work: 1C-- 1D = Negative. 1H = (12)13+ relay. 1S = Balanced or two-suiter without 5M. 8-12. ..1NT = R. ....2C = 5+C. ....2D = Balanced. ....2H = 5+D, 4+C. ....2S = 5+D, 4H. ....2NT = 5D440. ....3C+ = 5+D, 4S. 1NT = 5+H, 8-12. 2C = 6+m or 4441, 8-12. ..2D = R. ....2H = 6+C ....2S = 4441. ....2N+ = 6+D. 2D+ = 5+S, 8-12 The idea is that shape starts to resolve at 1S, instead of 1H. Its nothing new, but I like the theory behind it. After 1C-1H, opener shows his shape with the same principle as 1C-1S+. It also allows opener to use natural bidding after many of the 8-12 responses, since we're still pretty low.

That could work for sure, though it wouldn't work in a system where 2♣ is needed as something else. One "upside" in the balanced multi had to do with the Swedish system regulations, where a bid that is always balanced gets 2 "artificiality dots" while a normal multi gets 3. Another option could be: 2♦ = Weak hearts or 11-13 5S(332) 2♥ = 11-13 5H(332) 2♠ = Weak.

I absolutely think wide-ranging 1M openings in a strong club (or strong diamond) system makes sense. The 1M openings in a 5 card major system are pretty good, so I can see the reasoning. It is very easy (and reasonable) to compare a new/novel system with already existing ones. I think strong club with wide range 1M should be compared to "standard" methods, rather than strong club ones. In other words, what do we gain/lose compared to standard? What is it that makes this system better than standard? In your example we have a 10-12 NT. This is a lot easier to play in a strong club setting than in standard. However the 1M openings seems to suffer from this? What's the range of 1M when holding 5332? 13-19? I think it makes more sense to open 1C with strong balanced hands, even if holding a five card major. Then 1M is 13-15 if balanced. Even though I think that range might be problematic (might be solved by playing forcing NT) it actually makes 1M better defined than standard, since we've removed the strong NT (18-19 in standard) hands. You say that 2C is like Precision, but if 1D is 1+ then 2C probably only promise five (can be 5 clubs and 4M)? That's an opening bid with bad reputation. I'm playing this style myself and I know we're potentially having a bad board every time I open it. I'd say that a standard 1C opening will be better on most boards. You play the nebulous 1D. I don't have much experience with it, but to me it seems like a standard 1D opening is better on average? Then you have the strong 1C. You'll probably be worse of on 16-17 balanced hands compared to standard, and probably better of on the 18+ balanced hands. On unbalanced minor hands I'm not sure. Strong minor hands can be a bit cumbersome in a natural system, which is why many high level players have a lot of artificiality here. I'd say that at the very least a strong club is easier to play :) The 2D opening in your system will probably be a loss, since you lose other alternatives (weak etc). The bid itself is probably fine, especially if only including major suited hands. If I were to play something like this, I'd probably swap some stuff to have more advantages compared to standard. Something like this maybe (very similar to AWM's Recursive Diamond): 1C = 13-15 (semi)bal or 12-15 4441 or 10-15 5m431 or 5m440 (so might be 0 clubs). Perhaps some kind of transfer responses, or maybe 1D as INV+ relay. 1D = Strong. 16+ NT (including 5M332), 16+ primary minor, 15+ 5-5 minors, GF if unbal 5+ major. 1M = Standard, 13-15 if 5332. 1NT = 10-12. 2m = 6+ minor, 10-15. 2M = Weak. 2NT = 11-14, 5-5 minors. I think it makes sense to have 1D be the strong bid, especially since you've removed a lot of hands from it when excluding five card majors. The downside is that its less space for positive responses, ofcourse. I think having 1C be the nebulous bid is an improvement, which the response structure should benefit from. It is also quite limited in shape, so opener will not have an "extreme" hand. Having more "extreme" minor suited hands open at the two level can be both positive and negative. Generally though I think its good, since you'll have better tempo in the auction, compared to standard. I think 6-4 hands is a downside, compared to standard. 2NT is quite high when having 5-5 minors (AWM puts them in 1C instead), but the preemptive effect is good. Including the GF 5M hands in 1D shouldn't be that much worse than standard (and will be a win when the opponents are silent).

Are there updated IMPrecision notes available somewhere? The PDF notes I find after some "google-fu" is from bridgewithdan.com and from 2009. There the responses to 1M are "nothing special" IMO, except the continuations after 1H-1S. I've read about the double-barreled invites in a post on this forum somewhere, but I can't remember the details. Also I think there was different solutions discussed in that thread? It would be easier to follow the discussion if there was some kind of reference to the structure mentioned :) I'm currently playing 2M-1 as limit raise or mixed raise. Over this we play: 2M = To play vs a flat 3 card limit raise. Mixed raise also pass. Responder now uses Romex game trials (relay is short suit game trial, others is long suit game trial). Reponder's 3M rebid is a four card limit raise. 2NT = Max, some slam interest. 3C is min, 3D is extras without shortness, 3H/S/NT is extras and low/mid/high shortness. New = Natural max, 5+ suit. 3M = To play vs mixed raise, limit raise bids game. 4M = To play. Opener's most common rebids are 2M and 4M. However I've been thinking about changing 2M-1 to limit+ raise (including GF hands that doesn't want to use relays). Here's my suggested structure over that: 2M = To play vs a flat 3 card limit raise. Romex game trials (which could also be mild slam tries) as above. 2NT = Anonymous game accept. Not interested in slam vs a limit raise. ...3C = Slam interest, shortness somewhere. 3D asks. ...3D = Slam interest, a minor side suit. 3H asks (3S clubs, 3NT diamonds). ...3M = Slam interest, followed by control bidding. ...3oM = Slam interest, natural. ...3NT = Suggestion to play. ...4M = To play. 3C = Max and shortness somewhere. 3D asks (low/mid/high/voids). 3D = Max and a minor side suit. 3H asks (3S clubs, 3NT diamonds). 3M = NF with 6(+) major. 3oM = Natural max. 3NT = Void oM, min. 4m = Void, min. As you can see there's some symmetry in the artificial 3C and 3D bids. We currently play 1M-2NT as GF with 4 card support. However with this new structure we're thinking about using 2NT as "natural" GF to allow for more anonymous bidding instead of using relays. The idea is that 2NT shows: 1. A minimum balanced GF (about 12-15) with 2 or 3 card support. Responder may have four cards in the other major. Responder usually wants to play 3NT, or perhaps 4oM if we have a 4-4 fit, or 4M if opener have 6+ major. If responder has 3 card support he'll have 4333 or possibly 4432/5332 with a very good doubleton (AK or AQ). 2. A minimum GF with 3 card support and 4 cards in the other major. The difference here is that responder doesn't want to suggest 3NT, he just wants to find out if responder have 4 cards in the other major (playing a 4-4 fit instead of 5-3). Responder usually have 4333 or 4432, but could have 5m431 if there's no slam interest. Over this 2NT response I'm thinking similar continuations as after the 2M-1 raise: 1M-2NT; 3C = Shortness somewhere. 3D asks. This is primarily a way to try to stay out of a bad 3NT. 3D = A minor side suit. 3H asks. Might have slam if there's a good fit, or perhaps we should play 4M or 5m instead of 3NT. 3M = Max with 6+ major, no shortness we want to show. Now 3NT is non-serious, others cue bidding. 3oM = Natural, could be minimum. 3NT = Not 4 cards in the other major. Nothing extra we want to show. 4new = Shortness with 6+ major. 4M = To play. If partner thinks you have UI, but yes you can solve this by having written rules about when responder should bid again. We have an agreement that we pass with a flat three card limit raise. If we have shortness, a help suit, or four card support, responder will bid again. Then you still have UI, but now pass wasn't an option so there's "no problem". It may be problematic though if you have 5332 or perhaps 5431 unsuitable for a short/long game try, but choose to bid again.

I guess that the bidding here is natural and that responder has shown a GF with both majors (5-5 or 5-4)? Here are a few ideas, but some of them are probably too specific to this particular sequence. 1. "Lissabon slam tries" I haven't heard of the Lissabon bridge convention outside of Swedish system notes, but its a principle where a minor suit bid show a corresponding major, and vice versa. So clubs = hearts, diamonds = spades, hearts = clubs, spades = diamonds. We have a few sequences where we can not set the trump suit naturally below 4M, so then we use Lissabon. 4C would set hearts, and 4D would set spades. In the sequence you mention this might not be necessary. Like you say it seems natural for 3S to set spades, and 4m to set hearts. If you do play Lissabon, then perhaps 3S could be a double fit. 2. 3S is spades or NT So here 3S would say that you either have a spade fit, or that you want to play 3NT. Responder would normally bid 3NT, unless too strong. Opener can then correct to a cue-bid or 4S. The idea here would be that a direct 3NT sets hearts. A real downside here is that a 3NT call sounds so natural :) 3. 4C does not guarantee a club control You could agree that if a suit fit can not be established at the three-level, then 4C is just a slam-try and doesn't say anything about clubs. An example of this is in the old Swedish standard system (four card majors) in this sequence: 1H-1S; 3D (forcing, but could stop in 3H) 3H = Non-forcing. 3S = Nat GF. 3NT = To play. 4C = Heart slam try. 4D = Diamond slam try. A strange thing in your sequence is what the 4D call should mean... The easiest would probably be that it guarantees a diamond control and denies control of clubs. 4. Give up on stopping in 3NT If responder has shown 5-5 majors here, maybe you don't need to be able to stop in 3NT? Sure if you open a lot of 6322 or 5422 hands you might not have a fit. If you do this then 3NT could agree hearts, like in version 2, or you could use it to show a hand with good values in the majors, but no minor control (like your problem hand, but not agreeing on a suit yet).

When I've tinkered with system recently I have thought about removing weak 5332 hands from the 1M openings, making them unbalanced. There are several ways to do this, and the most common is probably to put them together with the other balanced hands in a nebulous 1m opening (this is in a strong NT context). Another solution I've seen (Larrry Lowell played this) is to open 2M with 5332 and weak NT range. What I haven't seen though, is to use 2D as a "multi" with these hands. Example: 1C = Clubs or 12-14 NT or 18-19 NT (may have 5M if 18-19). 1D = Unbal NAT. 1M = Unbal NAT. 1NT = 15-17. 2C = Strong. 2D = 11-14 with 5M332. 2M = Weak. Perhaps the downsides when they interfere are to big (compared to playing 2M as the balanced variant). But it would seem like there's more wiggle-room for part-scores: 2D-- Pass = (4)5+D. The balanced multi could be frequently passed, which makes it dangerous for the opponents to pass with values. 2M = Pass/correct, 2+ suit. ..2S = Spades. 2NT and 3S INV. 3X to play. ..2NT = Min hearts (over 2S). 3X to play. ..3C = Max hearts (over 2S). 3X to play. 2NT = Puppet to 3C. To play 3C or GF with own suit. 3C = INV+ asking bid. 3D min hearts, 3H min spades, 3S max hearts, 3NT max spades. 3D = Bid the major you don't have. 3H = Pass/correct. 3S = Puppet to 3NT. 3NT = To play. 4C = Transfer to your suit. 4D = Bid your suit. Game = To play. A downside is that you can't stop in 2S when responder has spades (compared to playing 2H as 5332, and the 2S response as NF).

So if we exclude (43)15 and (42)25 the structure over 2C-2D seems to work better: 2C--2D; 2H = 0--2 hearts. ...2S = Relay. ...2NT = INV both majors (now 2C-3C can be used as some kind of raise). ...3C = INV. 2S = 3 hearts and 6+ clubs. ...2NT = Relay. ...3C = INV with 4H (we could miss a 4-4 spade fit here if opener is min with 3-4-0-6). ...3D = INV with 5H. ...3H = NF with 6H. 2NT = 4 hearts (not 4-4-0-5). ...3C = Relay. ...3D = INV with hearts. ...3H = NF with 6H. 3C = 4-4-0-5. ...3D = Asks min/max. ...3H = NF with 6H. 3DHS = 5 card suit in a 7-5 hand. 2C-2D; 2H-2S (opener have 0--2 hearts); 2NT = Side-suit and short hearts. ...3C = Relay. ......3D = 6+C and 4D. ......3H = 4-1-3-5. ......3S = 4-1-2-6. ......3NT = 4-0-3-6. ......4C = 4-0-2-7. ......4D = 4-1-1-7. 3C = Short spades or 6C no shortness. 3D = 7+C, short hearts or no shortness. 3H = 3-1-3-6. 3S = 4-2-1-6. 3NT = 4-2-0-7. 4C = 7+C, singleton diamond. 4D = 7+C, void diamond. Not quite sure if above is the best we can get... 2C-2D; 2S-2NT (opener has 3H and 6+C); 3C = Short spades. 3D = 2-3-2-6. 3H = 3-3-1-6. 3S = 4-3-0-6. 3NT = 2-3-1-7. 4C = 3H, 7+C, void diamond. 2C-2D; 2NT-3C (opener has 4H, but not 4-4-0-5); 3D = 6-4, short spades. 3H = 1-4-3-5. 3S = 2-4-1-6. 3NT = 3-4-0-6. 4C = 2-4-0-7.

Yes, if I remember correctly he plays 1D as wide-ranging (could be wrong here) natural unbalanced, and thus 2C needs to handle 5C and 4M (since he also plays five card majors). At the moment we play 2C-2D as asking, and then opener rebids 2H when holding a four card major, 2S is 6+ clubs and shortness somewhere, 2NT/3C is "balanced single-suiter" max/min, and 3new is 6-4 max. We can't stop in 2NT here. We now play 2C-2M as constructive non-forcing (usually invitational) and usually with a five card suit. I agree that the "Flannery invitational" hand is a bit awkward. Zelandakh uses 2C-2NT to show 5S and 4H invitational, so now you can stop in 2NT I guess. I've seen many partnerships use the rule "don't play 2NT opener has a six+ suit" though, and if opener doesn't have a major fit in this sequence he will have 6+ clubs. Actually I'd also like to use 2C-3C as natural, if possible. We don't do that at the moment though (now we use it as a transfer to diamonds), so we don't lose anything compared to our current structure. I think it would be nice to use 3C as a mixed raise or similar (preemptive still going through 2NT). Well, if we're talking about a normal 2C opening of this kind, then the hand patterns included are: - Short-legged two-suiters with 5+C and 4M. - 4-4-0-5 pattern. - 6+C and 4D pattern (maybe also 7+C and 5D, but not very common). - Single-suiters with 6+C. Something that I haven't considered in the version I've posted here though, is that we have the option to open 1C when holding a (43)15 pattern, and (42)25 could be treated as balanced. If were to say that 2C denies these hand patterns, then instead of "short-legged two-suiters with 5+C and 4M" it would just be (41)35 instead.

I've made a draft of a response structure over a 2C opening, which I think might work. This is intended when the opening shows 5+C (either 6+C or 5C and 4M). I know many prefer that 2C promises a 6+ suit, or denies a major, but that's not possible in all system designs. Much inspiration comes from Zelandakh's transfer structure over 2C, but I've made some changes. The most major one being that responder is able to relay opener's shape (though there is some trouble with single-suiters). Feel free to suggest changes :) One thing I've done is that we can not stop in 2NT after starting with 2D or 2H, which is different from Zelandakh. I have the same limitations in the current response structure I play over 2C though. 2C--- 2D = "Hearts or relay". a) 4--5 hearts, INV+ (not both majors). b) Weak with 6+H. c) GF relay. 2H = "Transfer to spades". a) 4--5 spades, INV+ (could be 4-4 majors). b) Weak with 6+S. 2S = Range ask. INV hand, balanced / clubs / single-suited. 2NT = Puppet to 3C. To play 3m, or SI in a minor. 3C = INV with 5H and 4S. NF. 3D = GF with 6+H. 3H = GF with 6+S. 3S = ? 3NT = To play. Let's start with the 2D "hearts or relay" response. 2C--2D; 2H = 0--3H. If having 3H, then minimum. ...2S = Relay. => 2NT single-suited (3C asks shortness), 3C+ 5+C and 4S. ...2NT = INV with 5H. ...3C = INV with 4H. ...3D = 5+D GF (could be canapé). ...3H = COG with 5H. 2S = 4H, but not 4-4-0-5. => 2NT relays, 3C invite, 3H sign-off. 2NT = a) Max with 3H. b) 4-4-0-5. ...3C = Relay. => 3D 6+C and shortness, 3H 4-3-5-1, 3S 4-4-5-0, 3NT 2-3-2-6. ...3D = Not sure of game if opener has 4-4-0-5. ...3H = To play. 3C = 6+C and 4D, short hearts. (we can't invite over this). => 3D NF, 3H to play, 3S relay, 4m optional RKC. 3D = 0-3-4-6. (we can't invite) 3H = 1-2-4-6 or 0-2-4-7. (we can't invite) So there is some problems when opener have 6C and 4C, since we're pretty high. The range for our 2C opening is about 12--15, but with 6-4 shape I guess it could be lower too. Also the single-suited hands with clubs relays pretty high. I think its okay if opener has 6C, but with 7+C it is awkward. 2C--2H ("transfer to spades"); 2S = 0--2S. ...2NT = a) INV with both majors (5S-4H, 4-4, 5-5). b) SI with 5S. ......3C = Min with 6+C. => 3H 5-5 majors INV. ......3D = Max with 6+C. => 3H 5-5 majors INV. ......3H = Min with 4H. ......3S = Max with 4H. ...3C = INV. ...3D = 5+D GF (could be canapé). ...3H = 5-5, GF. ...3S = COG with 5S. 2NT = a) Max with 3S. b) 4H and 3S. ...3C = INV with 4S, not 4H. ...3D = 5S, INV or SI. => 3S minimum, others NAT max. ...3H = 4-4 majors INV. ...3S = To play. 3C = Min with 6+C and 3S. 3D = Max with 4S. 3S = Min with 4S. 2C--2S (range ask); 2NT = Min. ...Pass = Bal INV. ...3C = To play. ...3new = INV single-suited. ...3NT = To play. 3C = Max (as above). 2C--2NT (puppet to 3C); 3C--- Pass = Weak raise. 3D = To play. 3H = SI with 6+D. ...3S = Fit, but no accept. ...3NT = No fit. ...4C = No fit, but very good clubs. ...4D = Fit and accept. ...4HS = Shortness and fit. ...4NT = RKC for diamonds. 3S = SI with 3+C. => 3NT NF, 4C accept, 4new shortness, 4NT RKC. 3NT = Mild SI with 3C. NF. 2C--3red (GF transfer with 6+ major); 3M = Singelton or void major. 3NT = Non-serious, 2+ support. 4C = Very good club suit. 4M = 2 card support, minimum. Others = Cue, serious (3S over a transfer to 3H could be non-serious).

Yes, we should use 1C-1D; 1H-2X as something useful. The reason why we don't is that the 1S waiting bid idea is a pretty new addition to the system, and we wanted to try the basic structure before adding extra special bids. I think two-suiters with 4H could be nice candidates, in case opener only have 3H. We have some new ideas too which if implemented would make responder answer 1D also with 5D and 4C in the 8-10 hcp range. If we do this, then we'll probably play 1C-1D; 1M-2C as this hand type. It would be possible to play 1C-1D; 1H as 12--14 NT, sure. Some inspiration of having 1C-1D; 1H-1S as a waiting bid has been taken from how some of the Dutch top pairs play after their 2+ short club (12-14 NT, 18-19 NT, or natural). After the "negative, natural, balanced, or 7-10 4-4 majors" 1D response they rebid 1H with 12--14 NT but also with 5+C and 4H. Now 1S is waiting and if opener bids 1NT they use the normal 1NT system I think. In our system though I think it is better to put some strong hands into 1H. It seems a bit wasteful for all strong hands to be handled at 1S+, but it could for sure be done (strong diamond systems could be used as inspiration). I like your idea of an "escape system" over 1C-1D; 1H, but I'm not sure I can see the main advantages over our current methods.

Yes, it shows 0--7 hcp with exactly 4 spades and 0--3 hearts. The reason for that bid is to find a 4-4 spade fit in case opener has 12--14 NT with 4-4 majors. The bid is non-forcing (but strong opener always bids again), so 12--14 NT will either pass or bid 2S in the case that he has 4-4 majors. With 5+ spades, or 4-4 majors, or in many cases with 4 spades and 5+ minor which doesn't want to "risk" playing 1NT, responder will bid the 1S waiting bid. Thus 1C-1D; 1H-1NT has a very specific purpose and a narrow target.

When responder has made the 1S waiting bid, and opener has shown the weak NT, then all bids by responder is to play. This is how it looks in practice: 1C-1D; 1H-1S; 1NT--- [Opener has 12-14 NT with 3--4 hearts. Responder has a negative, but not 0-7 with exactly 4S and less than 4 hearts.] Pass = To play. 2m = To play, 5+ suit. 2H = To play, 4+ suit (since opener often will have 4 hearts). 2S = To play, 5+ suit.

Our current method finds all 4-4 major fits, but will also find 4-3 major fits in the case that opener doesn't have a four card major. This is how we find 4-4 heart fits: 1C-1D; 1H-1S; (opener has 12-14 NT with 3--4 hearts, and if only 3 hearts then 3-3 or 2-3 majors, or some strong hand. Responder has basically any hand except exactly 4 spades and 0-3 hearts, which would instead rebid 1NT.) 1NT-2H; (opener has 12-14 NT with 3--4 hearts. Responder's 2H is to play with 4+ hearts.) The new variant I'm thinking about switching to finds all 4-4 major fits, except when opener is 4-4 majors and responder has the major that opener don't show. The upside is that we don't play 4-3 fits whenever opener doesn't have a four card major. Your suggestion leaves some more possibilities with the strong hands though, which is nice.

No problem, I appreciate your reply. No we haven't used the 1H rebid as strong only, it has always included (semi)natural weak NT hands. We played the 1NT rebid as ART 22+ before though, but now use it as 18-19 NT (since we have removed our Mexican 2D opening). A guideline we try to follow when making system design choices is that it shouldn't be worse than a standard natural system. When opener has 12-14 NT most pairs will, in an uncontested auction, find a 4-4 major fit if responder has say 5+ hcp. If opener's 1NT rebid after 1C-1D showed the weak NT hand, we would likely miss the 4-4 major fits that everyone else finds. The issue I bring in this thread is also in line with this philosophy: we will currently end up in 4-3 fits which others do not. The solution I present has the problem though that when opener has both majors, he will only be able to show one of them. I'm fairly satisfied with the strong rebids in our structure after 1C-1D, even though there could be improvements. The worst sequence I would say is 1C-1D; 2H which shows 5+H (and 0-3 spades) and 17-19. I actually have an idea to make this 2H rebid promise 6+ hearts instead, with 5H and 4+m hands going through the artificial 1H rebid instead. This would make this sequence even more complex though. Strong hands are usually the worst part of natural systems, so we think our methods will beat those systems even though our methods could probably be even better if we focused more on the strong hands. Actually 1C-1D; 1H-1NT as 0-7 with 4 spades really isn't much of a problem. Since the 1H rebid includes a pretty wide range of hands we currently let opener describe his hand (similar to how many pairs play after a strong 2C opening). Opener's continuations are very similar whether responder uses the waiting 1S bid, or the 4 spades 1NT bid. 1C-1D; 1H-1S; 1NT = 12-14 NT 2C = Unbalanced GF. Not primary spades, not 5-5 with a major. 2D = 4-4-1-4, 17-19. Personally I'd like to remove this and just treat it as balanced though. 2M = Non-forcing but extras, 19-22. 2NT = 25+ NT. 3m = Non-forcing but extras, 19-22. 1C-1D; 1H-1NT; Pass = 12-14 NT, not 4 spades. 2C = Like above. 2D = Like above. 2H = Like above. 2S = 12-14 NT, 4 spades. 2NT = Like above. 3m = Like above. 3S = INV.

I guess we're still talking about 1C-1D; 1M and not the direct 1M responses to 1C? I agree that a heart fit maybe should have higher priority, due to spades being the boss suit. However in the sequence 1C-1D; 1M, both opponents have already had time to enter the auction. Sure its possible that they enter now anyway, but I think the risk is lower. Some downsides of having 1C-1D; 1S as showing 4+H: 1. Responder (usually) can't pass. This is sort of a two-sided sword ofcourse. It isn't common for responder to pass the 1S rebid even if its non-forcing, but my experience have been good when it has happend. 2. Responder will declare a 2H contract if responder has support, unless special methods are used (which would probably remove a natural rebid). 3. There's less space to find an alternative fit, mostly because opener usually don't want to bypass 2H next round. Using 1C-1D; 1S as 4+ spades works nicely when opener have the strong hand, we currently play: 1C-1D; 1S--- Pass = Weak (usually 0-4) with 3+ spades. 1NT = To play vs weak NT. F1 vs strong hand (but doesn't promise any values). 2CDH = Natural, about 5-7. 2S = 4 card support, about 4-7. 1C-1D; 1S-1NT; 2C = 5+ spades. Now 2D asks side suit. 2D = 4 spades, 5+ diamonds. We actually play this as 4-4-1-4 and 15-16 though, since our natural 1D is wide-ranging. 2H = 4 spades, 5+ hearts. 2S = 4 spades, 5+ clubs.

So in "standard" Swedish Club when the bidding starts 1C-1D opener may have a weak balanced hand, or any strong hand. Responder has 0-7 hcp. In Polish Club both bids covers some more hand types. Now usually openers 1M rebids may be three card suits, if opener has the weak balanced hand without a four card major (rebidding 1NT would be strong). The 1M rebids are non-forcing and could be bid with the strong hand too. In our version of Swedish Club we've expanded the use of the 1H rebid, making it forcing for one round. We currently use opener's 1H rebid as: a) 3+H weak balanced. b) Unbalanced extra values but not game forcing (something like an Acol Two) c) Most game forcing hands. d) 4-4-1-4, 17-19. If opener rebids 1S instead, it is still non-forcing with 3+S (if strong then 4+S 17-19 hcp and may have longer side-suit). After the 1H rebid responder currently only have two options: 1C-1D; 1H-- 1S = Waiting bid. Opener bids 1NT with the weak NT hand (and responder sets the contract). 1NT = Exactly 4S, not 4H. Not forcing. Opener passes or bids 2S with the weak NT hand. The reason for the 1NT rebid is to find a 4-4 spade fit when opener is 4-4 in the majors. One thing I've been considering is to make opener promise 4+S in the sequence 1C-1D; 1S. The reason for this would be to avoid 4-3 fits when responder raises, and opener only have a three card suit. It also avoids 3-3 spade fits when responder chooses to pass the 1S rebid. This would mean that opener rebids 1H with all weak balanced hands that doesn't have 4S (and perhaps also with 4-4 majors if the spades are weak). So now opener's 1H rebid would instead be: a) Weak balanced without 4S (or possibly 4-4 majors). others) As above I'm thinking that responder's rebids could be something like this: 1C-1D; 1H--- 1S = Waiting (like above). Not exactly 4H. 1NT = Non-forcing (0-7) with 4H. 2m = Non-forcing (maybe 4-7 to give some positive information in case opener is strong) with 5+m and 4H. 2H = Non-forcing (4-7) with 4H and 5S. The main downside to this method (compared to the first) is when opener has 4-4 majors, now one of them will be lost. The gain is that we don't risk Moysians, and that opener rebids 1H with more hands (which is usually a better sequence, since opener gets to declare 1NT etc).

I think the relays over 2M-2NT looks pretty nice. It seems though that the 6421 patterns would have to include 6430 too? The COG singleton bid may be a winner, even though I haven't seen it before. I personally think that too much space goes into the GF shape relays, and not enough into the invites. When slammish I'm thinking that a natural approach may be better, where opener gets to appreciate their hand (min or max, along with shape). Then you could also use the relay for game invitational hands. It could also make it easier in case you want to explore if you should play 3NT or 4M. The main upside I see to full shape relays, in this auction, is if you want to play another suit instead of the one that is opened. Here's a (somewhat tweaked) structure popular in Sweden. Here 2NT is bid with both slam interested hands and game invites. 2S-2NT; 3C = Any minimum. 3D = Extras, no shortness (maybe singleton honour, depending on how you normally treat those hands). 3H = Extras, singleton club. 3S = Extras, singleton diamond. 3NT = Extras, singleton heart. 4X = Void (after 2H-2NT, 4H is void spades). A clear downside from your suggested method is that this one doesn't cover 6-4 hands or 6-5 hands. One thing I like is that you can bid this way with invites which may search for a particular kind of fit (perhaps only interested in game if opener has a singleton). It allows to stop in 3M even though opener has extras (when holding no shortness): 2S-2NT; 3C (any min) 3D = Asks shortness. ...3H = No shortness. Now 3S is a sign-off, and 3NT to suggestion to play. ...3S = Short clubs. ...3NT = Short diamonds. ...4X = Short hearts, control showing. 3S = Sign-off. 3NT = Suggestion to play. 2S-2NT; 3D (extras, no shortness) 3S = Sign-off. 3NT = Suggestion to play. So over 2S a response structure could look like this: 2S-- 2NT = INV+ with some kind of fit. 3C = INV+ with hearts. ...3D = At least Jx fit. Now 3H invites, 3S slammish and sets hearts. ...3H = Bad heart fit. ...3S = Bad heart fit, good spade suit. ...3NT = Solid spades? 3D = GF with a minor (3H asks, while 3S is a self-sufficient suit). 3H = COG with singleton (or you could play it as GF with clubs, while 3D being natural GF). 3S+ = Standard.

You mean 2C should be three-suited with short diamonds, or just "three-suited" with clubs and any singleton? Not quite sure I understand. Opening 1C with 6+C would probably lead to pretty wide-ranging 2C rebids. Our 1D opening is natural and unbalanced. 4+ diamonds 11-21 hcp (a lower max if 6+D), may be 5C and 4D if 11-15(16). I've thought about opening 1D on a three-card suit with these patterns, but we'd have to change quite a lot in our response structure. Right now we play 1D-1NT as a relay, which means we don't have a negative NT available. Because of this we play 1D-2C as non-forcing, and 1D-2D is frequently a three card raise. Yeah, I've done that too in a few variant but I haven't enough experience to have a strong opinion about it. We played 1D-1M; 2m as 5+ minor and 4 cards in the other major, which works nicely. It wouldn't work after 1C-1M in our system though, since 2C probably needs to be strong.

I'm thinking about including 5431 patterns with 5 clubs and 4M into our 1C opener, in order to have the 2C opening promise a six card suit. Currently our 1C opening include: a) 12-14 NT, usually with (42)25 too. b) Most strong hands. (16)17+ if unbalanced, 18+ if balanced. Very strong if unbalanced with primary diamonds. c) 12+ three-suited with short diamonds (like a precision 2D opening). So the hand type we "have" to open 2C, with a five card suit, is when having (41)35. I'm considering if we perhaps should "contamine" our 1C opening even more, with the short major hands, in order for 2C to show a six card suit. One of the great benefits of the 1C opening though is that responder can assume opener is balanced, and if proved wrong opener will be strong (well short diamonds is possible too, so some caution may be needed). This "guarantee" is not true anymore if opener could be short in any of 1D, 1H, and 1S. I'm thinking that you who play nebulous diamond or a "short club" may have similar problems. What is your experience when opening for instance 1D in IMPrecision, LHO overcalls and partner bids your singleton? I guess pass and hope for the best is the correct approach, but seems it could lead to some silly 5-1 contracts. So competitive auctions seems like the biggest negative. Another negative is in constructive auctions, where opener will have to treat the (41)35 patterns as balanced, and might not be able to show his club suit unless responder has a GF. For instance: 1C-1M; 1S/1NT = Could be singleton in major if having (41)35. Checkback should be able to sort it out on game going hands. 2C = Needed as strong (or at least forcing). 2M = Could be three card raise. 1C-1D (negative); 1M-1NT; Pass = Could have unbalanced hand with 5C, bidding further would be strong.

I think this could work if you don't have other alternatives showing these weak hands. Apart from complexity the downside doesn't seem to be that big, compared to not using the second round transfer as a non-puppet. We play transfers after Stayman instead, but not exactly like the Scania system. A plus point for this treatment is that you can stop in 2M on a 4-4 or 4-3 fit, and that you also might "take-out" with some 5m-4M patterns. The way we play our transfers requires that 1NT-2D is bid with invitational hands with 4 hearts. Also we play 1NT-2H; 2S-2NT as "standard", so invitational with 5S, instead of being a transfer. Unfortunately we can't use 1NT-2C; 2red-2S as invitational with 5S. 1NT-2C; 2D--- 2H = We play this as non-forcing with both majors. Could be an invite. This is the same way as Scania does it. 2S = Range-ask or transfer to clubs. Could be INV with 4S, or weak with 4M and 5+C, or GF with 4M and 5+C (also 4-4-1-4). 2NT = GF relay style. Asks for more information about shape. 3C = GF transfer to diamonds (since we could pass with a weak hand). 4M and 5+D (also 4-4-4-1 if GF). 3D = Transfer to hearts. Could be 5-5 majors. 3H = Transfer to spades (Smolen). Could be 5440. 3S = Smolen. Could be 5440. 3NT = To play. 1NT-2C; 2H--- 2S = Range-ask or transfer to clubs. As above. Always with 4S. 2NT = GF relay style. 3C = Transfer to diamonds, with 4S. Weak or GF. 3D = GF with heart support and shortness somewhere (Baze-style, but can clarify void or singleton). 3H = Invite. 3S = 4 hearts but suitable for 3NT. Choice of games. 3NT = To play. 4C = Slam invite with 4H, no suitable shortness (Baze-style). 4D = RKCB with 4H, no suitable shortness (Baze-style). 1NT-2C; 2S--- 2NT = Puppet to 3C. Sign-off in a minor (with 4H) or GF with 4H and 5+C. 3C = GF relay style. 3D = GF with 4H and 5+D. 3H = Baze-style. 3S = Invite. 3NT = To play. 4m = Baze-style.

Maybe the same structure that I suggested, but with this tweak: 3D = Semi-bal or stiff A/K. (Same as before) 3H = Short spades, or a gambling 3NT hand. 3S = Short hearts. (Same as before) 3NT = Short other minor. (Same as before) So the 3H bid now has the gambling hand included. What can responder do? 3S = Relay. Asking for hand type, either strong or DN with 5+ hearts or DN worried about spades (or perhaps DN wanting to play 5m). ...3NT = Gambling type. ...4C = Short spades and "min". 4D is strong and asks singleton or void, 4H is to play. ...4D = Singleton, extras. 4H to play, 4S is RKC. ...4H = Void, extras but NF. 4S is exclusion. ...4S = Void and crazy strong hand. 4NT is exclusion. 3NT = DN not worried about spades, usually not 5+H.

I don't know if opener has more information here, but I think its common after the "popular" 1NT-3D (showing GF and 5-5 minors) to play: 1NT-3D; 3H = Asks shortness. 3S = Not sure. Maybe could be used as a super-fit? Something like both major aces and a top honour in both minors? 3NT = Suggestion to play. 4m = Support, doesn't want to play 3NT.

I didn't know many had two ways of inviting 3NT in an XY checkback context. To me it seems that many who has discussed the sequences use one of the 2NT bids as artificial, but I may be wrong. I used to play this: - 1D-1M; 1NT-2NT = Invite to 3NT. - 1D-1M; 1NT-2C; 2D-2M = Invite with 5M, suit oriented or lightish. - 1D-1M; 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT = Sound invite to 3NT with 5M. Perhaps it was due to inexperience (hadn't played for long when using this) but I almost never used the route of bidding 2NT as the invite with 5M. It seems more beneficial being able to stop in 2M. Now I use the following: 1D-1M; 1NT--- 2C = Puppet to 2D. ..2D = Forced. ....Pass = Sign-off. ....2M = Invite with 5M. ....2NT = Invite to 3NT. ....3new = Invite with 5-5. ....3NT = Choice of games with 5M. Opener may choose to play 3NT even though there's a 5-3 fit. 2D = GF relay. 2HS = Natural not forcing. I don't think we currently use 1D-1H; 1NT-2S as anything specific. 2NT = Puppet to 3C. ..3C = Forced. ....Pass = Sign-off. ....3new = Slam interest with 5-5. ....3M = Slam interest with 5-5 major + clubs. 3m = Invite with 5+m and 4M. 3M = Invite. 3NT = To play. The sign-off in clubs thing has happened a few times, usually with good results. The slam interested 5-5 hand I think have happened once or twice, and I believe we didn't play slam in any of those hands :D It's probably better to play 2NT as the direct invite and have the club puppet thing go via the 2C puppet. My partner thought it was easier to remember "all" invites through 2C though.