Kungsgeten

I made an error in my previous post: I meant that I can't see how a WEAK NT and 2/1 forcing for one round would solve the problems. 1. Yes, our 1NT response is non-forcing. We play a 15-17 NT opener, which may include a five card major. Opener passes the 1NT response if having 12-14 balanced. Some players choose to rebid a three card minor again if having a five card major, but I tend not to do so. 2. I think this is partnership style. I sometimes respond on less than 6 hcp if I think that it will improve the contract. I'd say that expected range is something like 6-11 but we might have 4-12? 3. We use the 2NT response as "Jacoby" (but its called "Stenbergs" in Sweden). We play it as game-forcing with 4+ support. 4. 1M-1NT; 2NT shows 18-19. 5. This also depends on partnership style. Some prefer opening "bottom-up", but if that's the case I think you might as well play 1S opening as 5+ cards and play 1C as 3+. Some always open the major (hearts if 4-4). The style I'm used to is called "Modern Standard" in Sweden. With four card suit(s) you open in this order: hearts, clubs, spades, diamonds. Some play that 4441 hands always open their lowest suit. 6. I tend to almost always make a rebid with an unbalanced hand (when playing four card majors this is often important since you haven't shown your fifth major suit card yet). If I hold 4441 and a hand that doesn't want to pass 1M-1NT, I usually open a minor instead.

I've played a lot of four card majors with a strong NT and 2/1 being game forcing. With a weak NT I think it's a bit harder. It seems awkward to respond a wide-ranging 1NT, because opener would need to bid again with the strong NT. Now this comes from a player who doesn't have much experience of a forcing 1NT response. This is awkward enough with 5 card majors, but seems even more so with four card majors. Perhaps you could rebid 2NT with 15-16, and 3NT with 17-19? If I was playing a weak 1NT, I would not want to open 1M with 15+ balanced hands (even if playing five card majors). I can say that strong NT, four card majors, and 2/1 GF works okay. You miss some games after 1M-1NT, but sometimes these games aren't making and sometimes you play 1NT instead of 2NT going down. It can be awkward for opener to decribe his hands after 2/1, but I can't really see how a strong NT and 2/1 F1 would solve this.

Our 2C opening can be 5C and 4M, and have about 12-15 hcp. We put a narrow range on it to improve constructive bidding, but also to lessen the frequency since it is the worst part of the system. I'm thinking that in third seat it might be possible to play it as wide-ranging; perhaps 7-14. This put some more strain on our 1C opening (similar to Polish), and means that we basically give up on game when we open 2C in third. 2C now becomes a preempt instead. Do you think something like that could be worthwhile?

There are several situations in which you might double, or redouble, an artificial bid in order to show strength -- instead of showing the suit actually bid. If your RHO passes your partner's (re)double, when do you pass and when do you bid? Do you have any agreements on this? If it is the other way around: your partner bids something artificial and the opponents (re)double, do you have meta agreements of what pass is? If you do choose to pass, does it set up further doubles for penalties and if so: a forcing pass situation? Some examples: (2D)-Dbl-(pass)-? 2D is multi and shows a weak hand with a major. Let's say your partner double to show 13-15 NT or a hand too strong for other bids. Now RHO passes. The opponents doesn't alert the pass, and if you ask them they say that they don't have any agreements of what pass means. What would your pass show here? If you choose to pass and double/pass later, what's that? 1C-(pass)-1D-(Dbl); Rdbl-(pass)-? This start could be common in many types of systems, but let's take a strong club as an example. Partner's 1C shows 15+ hcp, your 1D is negative, the opponents doesn't really know what the double of 1D means (or maybe they say "points", or perhaps "majors"). Opener's rdbl shows extras, perhaps 20+ hcp and a balanced hand (what do people usually play Rdbl as)? Now your RHO passes the Rdbl, and if asked they don't have any agreements of what pass is. When would you, yourself, pass the redouble in this situation? How should your further doubles/passes be treated? 1NT-(2C majors)-Dbl-(pass); ? So you open 1NT and LHO overcalls 2C showing both majors. Partner doubles to show strength, and RHO passes. They don't have any agreements on what the pass show, if asked they explain that bidding 2D would ask for the better major. When would you pass 2C? I'm sure there are lots of other examples like this. They aren't very common in practice, but they do happen from time to time and it seems like it could be worthwhile to have some kind of agreements here. Are we going to gamble on playing a (re)double contract, even if we might not have that great of a holding in the suit (and partner haven't promised any real length in the suit)? If we bid, it seems like we give the opponents a cheap escape. On a similar note: Do you have any agreements on when passes of the opponents' redoubles are for penalty? We currently play (1X)-Dbl-(Rdbl)-Pass as forcing, wanting doubler to bid his best suit. Not so sure about other situations.

We play, in the same situation, suit preference by playing a low or high card. Playing a middle card is encouraging.

We used to play 6331, 7+ singleton, 7+ void when we used symmetric relay to show one-suiters. If you want to include 8 card suits, maybe: 3D = 6331 3H = 7-card suit and singleton. 3S = 8+ suit and singleton. 3NT = 7-card suit and void. 4C = 8+ suit and void. My reason for putting 8+ suit and singleton at 3S is that 3NT can be used as a relay; we probably shouldn't play 3NT when opener has an eight card suit? These doesn't resolve shape 100%, so if that's what you want then this might be bad. If you want to be able to show 8311 perhaps you could put that at 4D above, and have some kind of agreement which singleton you show first when holding two singletons? Perhaps you show your higher "touching" singleton: Shows short hearts, then bids 4D: 8113 Shows short diamonds, then bids 4D: 8311 Shows short clubs, then bids 4D: 8131 If hearts: Show spades first: 1813 Show diamonds first: 3811 Show clubs first: 1831 If diamonds: Show spades first: 1183 Show hearts first: 3181 Show clubs first: 1381 If clubs: Show spades first: 1138 Show hearts first: 3118 Show diamonds first: 1318

Yes I think its nice that responder knows both about the singleton and if opener has four hearts. The 3C bid might sometime be awkward (let's say if responder has 44[32]). I think it depends on which hands responder bids 2NT with. If its only with 5+S, good 4S, or 4H then it may be better like this: 3m = Five card suit, short hearts. 3H = Four card suit, short minor. 3S = Four card support, very minimum. 3NT = Four card support, mild extras, not forcing? 4X = Four card support, at least mild extras, doesn't want to bid 3NT. Now we still always find the heart fit, but responder has an easier decision with 44(32) over 3m. A downside is ofcourse the 3H bid when responder have 4S and not 4H. Another downside is if responder bids like this with 5S with the hope to find a fitting short suit, since the short minor isn't known. If responder can't have longer hearts than spades, then perhaps responder could bid 3H as INV with 5S and 4H?

Well, if you have a strong balanced option in the multi, then that hand would bid 2NT. If you don't (just weak major or strong diamonds) then I guess you could play 2NT as 6 diamonds and suitable to bid no-trumps? You could even play it as non-forcing, let's say 20-22 with 6322 and suitable for no-trump play. That can be an awkward hand if opening 1D, and might help somewhat instead of treating it as a normal 2NT opening. Another nice option could be to play 2NT as GF with 5-5 minors, since that isn't covered by the rest of the structure. Regarding 2C-2D, I'd suggest you play the same principle as 2D-2H, so: 3C = 5+ clubs and 4 cards in another suit, 3D asks. 3D = 6+ clubs, no shortness. 3M = 6+ clubs, short major. 3NT = 6+ clubs, short diamonds. Not forcing. 4C = 6+ clubs, short diamonds, too strong for 3NT. Note that this doesn't work if you play 2C-2D; 3NT as 25-27 balanced.

To me it seems like a bit of a gamble to look for a better partscore at the 3-level, instead of passing. When you only have a 4-3 fit, the 3-card hand will have shortness somewhere - which is a plus. I think your idea of the 2NT bid is fine. Responder can have a constructive hand with 4S, but in case we don't have 4-4 spades we can stop in a partscore (I think opener should bid 3NT or higher with 4S and extra values, even if mild). Responder could also have 4S and 4+H and constructive values (if I understand the system), and thus might be searching for a 4-4 or 5-3 heart fit? With an invite and 5S, responder would bid 3S? Here's an idea: Pass = Most hands not interested in game. 2NT = Asking bid. Constructive values, exploring game possibilities. Usually 4S, but could be 5S and 4+H interested in playing hearts instead of spades. Could also be 5S looking at playing game if opener has 4S or a fitting singleton. 3new = 4S and 6+ side-suit. Poor spade suit and strong side-suit, rather be playing in a 6-1 fit than a 4-3 one. Not forcing, but opener can bid game since he should be able to visualize responder's hand. Perhaps closest (non spade) bid could ask shortness. 3S = Invite with 5+S. 3NT = Gotta take a chance :)

I don't know it by heart, but my guess is that its pretty natural over the transfer responses. Over 1C-1H I think that opener bids 1S with any five card major, and also with 4441 pattern (but I might be wrong). 1NT is semi-natural, 2m too, and perhaps 2M shows a 6+ one-suiter? I believe this structure is from the Carrot Club system by Tjolpe Flodqvist and Anders Morath. I think there's English write-ups available online. There's several versions of Carrot Club though, and only the early ones used a strong club (later they played Swedish Club instead). Edit: Couldn't find the English write-up, but here's some details from a book I have. 1C-- 1D = Weak. 1H = No 5M, no 6m, not 5-5 minors. 1S = 5+H. Natural continuation (2C could be 4441 with short major). Seems like they only raise directly with 4-card support. 1NT = 5+S. Like 1S. 2m = 6+m or 5-5 minors 2M = Weak, 0-4 hcp. 2NT = Solid 6+ suit. 3X = 6-7 hcp, KQJxxxx. NF. 4m = South-African Transfer to a major with KQJxxxx and 6-7 hcp. 1C-1H; 1S = a) Precisely 5M. b) Any 4441. c) 23-24 NT (they opened 21-22 NT with a multi). ...1NT = Natural. ......2C = Any 4441, minimum. Relay asks short suit. ......2D = Any 4441, 20+. Relay asks short suit. ......2M = 5M. Responder only raises with 4 card support, otherwise bids something else (natural) first (3m shows extra strength). Jumping to 3NT shows 11-14 with 4 card support, while 3M is weaker (8-11) or stronger (14+). ......2NT = 23-24. ...2m = Natural, five card suit (seems like they could choose between 1NT and 2m with 5m332). Opener's 2M is natural, with continuations like above (but Qxx is enough to support). ...2M = Short suit, 4441 or 5m440. ...2NT = Exactly 4-4-0-5. ...3m = Short suit, 4441. ...3H = Exactly 4-4-5-0. 1NT = 18-20 (probably 17-19 in more modern Precision). ...2C = Some kind of Puppet Stayman. ...2D = Stayman. ...Higher = Three-suited. 2m = Natural, 5+ suit. 2M = Natural, 6+ suit. 2NT = 25+ NT. 3X = Natural suit with at most one loser. Sets suit and asks for cue-bidding. Now I don't think all who play the response structure (or modified variants of it) play like this; I only translated from the (old) book I have. Morotsklövern (1978) by Sven-Olov "Tjolpe" Flodqvist.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but a popular response structure in Sweden is this: 1H = No 5M, no 6m, not 5-5 minors. 1S = 5+H 1NT = 5+S 2C = 6+D 2D = 6+C 2NT = 5-5 minors This 1H response gives more space for opener to describe his hand. I've also seen these response moved up one step, with 1H being any super-positive (like 12+ or similar) which limits the other responses.

I've seen the following: 2D-2H; 3C = Diamonds and another suit (3D asks) 3D = 6+ diamonds, no shortness. 3M = 6+ diamonds, short major. 3NT = 6+ diamonds, short clubs. Not forcing. 4C = 6+ diamonds, short clubs. Forcing. You can play the same way after 2C-2D, but then bidding 3X shows clubs as the primary suit.

It is leaning towards playing 2D as a normal weak two, but we'll allow a good five card suit first seat non-vul (and also in third seat).

straube: We've discussed things today and this is what we settled on (some similarities to your idea). 1C-1D; Pass = 12-14 1H = a) 12-14 NT, 3+H. b) Acol two, single-suited if clubs. c) GF not covered by other rebids. 1S = 4+S, 17-19 1NT = 18-19 2C = Clubs, about 16-21 but not single-suited Acol. 2D = 20-21 NT. 2H = 17-19. 2S = Nat GF. 2NT = 22-24. 3C = GF 5-5 clubs + major. 3D = GF 5-5 majors. 3M = Nat GF sets trumps. 4m = Nat GF sets trimps. 1C-1D; 1H-- 1S = Waiting, not 4S unless also having 4H. May have 5+S though. ...1NT = 12-14. Now everything is to play (2H might be four card suit, since opener has promised 3-4 H). ...2C = Unbalanced GF. ......2D = Waiting. .........2H = Nat GF. .........2S = GF with clubs. .........2NT = GF with 5-5 diamonds + another. .........3C = GF with 5+D and 4 other. .........3D+ = GF 6+D. ...2DHS = Acol. ...2NT = 25+ NT. ...3C = Acol. 1NT = 0-7 and 4S. ...Pass = 12-14, not 4S. ...2C = GF, like above. ...2DH = Acol. ...2S = 12-14. ...2NT = Nat GF. ...3C = Acol. ...3S = Acol with 4(+)S. ...4S = To play. A small issue is if opener has 3H, and responder has 5S and 4H, and both are weak. Now we'll probably play a 4-3 heart fit instead of a possible 5-3 spade fit.

Our 1D response includes some hands which are GF vs the strong hands: 1D is either "any" negative (0-7) or balanced less than invite with no major (about 8-10). Even with the 0-7 hand, I'd say that its not that uncommon for the weak hand to bid again. With say 5-7 and some clubs, or perhaps a 5+ major, responder might decide trying for game. We play this: 1C-1D; 2C-- 2D = Artificial F1. ...2H = Natural. ...2S = 4D. ...2NT = 6+C max. ...3C = 6+C min. 2M = Natural, 5-7 NF. 3C = Constructive (but NF). 3new = Maximum with 6 card suit. 3NT = To play. When it comes to the 1S rebid, responder's 1NT is F1 and doesn't promise any kind of strength (still 0-10 hcp). Other responses are limited, promising some values. Opener now bids like this: 1C-1D; 1S-1NT; 2C = 5+ spades. ...2D = Positive relay. Opener's bids are natural, needs to jump in order to force game. ...2H = Natural weak. ...2S = Weak. ...3S = INV with 3S. ...3NT = 8-10 without support. ...4S = 8-10 with support. 2D = 5+ spades, 4 diamonds (since 17-19 with 5+ diamonds and 4 spades opens 1D). 2H = 4 spades, 5+ hearts. 2S = 4 spades, 5+ clubs. The 1C-1D structure you suggested doesn't have a way to show GF hands with hearts, but those could be placed into 1H. The arificial 1H rebid reminds me a bit about the Dutch Doubleton (Oranje Klaveren?) systems, where they use responder's 1S as a transfer to 1NT. That might work in a big/small-club context too: 1C-1D; 1H (3+H weak, or some big hands)-- 1S = Waiting. ...1NT = Weak NT. Everything by responder now to play. ...Others = Strong hands. Others = Not sure, perhaps two-suiters (GF vs strong hands). Another alternative is for 1NT to show 4 spades 0-7. We currently play more natural: 1C-1D; 1H-- 1S = 0-7 with 4+S. Weak opener passes with 3--4 spades and bids 1NT with 2 (we used pass with all weak NT, but had some really bad 4-2 fit boards where 1NT would have been better). 1NT = 0-10, no major. 2C = 4 hearts 0-7, or 5+ hearts 0-4. 2D = Natural 5-7. 2H = 5+ hearts 5-7. 2S = 6+ clubs 5-7. Not sure if its worth loosing the ability to play 1S, but the upside would be the stronger hand declaring 1NT, getting out of the way of the strong hands, and perhaps allowing responder to show some more type of hands.

Having the 1NT rebid be 18-20 NT and non-forcing is ofcourse nice. Since we're already forced to the 2-level using our 2D Mexican opening, and are surviving it, we're thinking that we could as well use the 1NT rebid as forcing to bid other strong hands more comfortably. Our current rebid structure after 1C-1D: Pass = 12--14, usually 5D. 1H = Forcing. a) 3--4 and 12-14. b) "Acol two bid" in any suit, not enough to force game (about 19--22). [Polish/Swedish Club usually plays this as weak or 17--21] 1S = Not forcing. a) 3--4 and 12--14. b) 4+S and 17--19 hcp. [Polish/Swedish Club usually plays this as weak or 17--21] 1NT = 18-19 NT or 22+ NT or any GF not covered below. 2C = About 16-19, not 4S. 2D = 20-21 NT (we open 1D with 11-19). 2H = 17-19, not 4S. 2S = Natural GF. 2NT = GF 5-5 diamonds + another. 3C = GF 5-5 clubs + major. 3D = GF 5-5 majors. 3M = Nat GF, sets suit as trumps. 4m = Nat GF, sets suit as trumps. And after 1C-1D; 1NT: 2C = Waiting. 2D = 5+H, weak or GF (vs 18-19) with good suit. 2H = 5+S, weak or GF (vs 18-19) with good suit. 2S = 6+m with good suit. 2NT = 5-5 diamonds + another. 3C = 5-5 clubs + major. 3D = 5-5 majors. A nice thing about the forcing 1NT rebid is that opener has already "hogged the NT". After the waiting bid, opener can describe his hand: 1C-1D; 1NT-2C; 2D = 18-19 NT. 2H = Kokish, nat GF or 25+ NT. 2S = GF with 5+C (responder can relay with 2NT, and then like 3C+ below). 2NT = 22-24 NT. 3C = GF with 5+D and 4-card side suit (3D asks). 3D = GF with 6+D, no shortness. 3M/NT = GF with 6+D and shortness low to high. 4C = Too good for 3NT. The strong variants in the 1H rebid could be expanded, and it might not be necessary to include special bids for GF 5-5 hands. For instance, we could play (only including strong variants): 1C-1D; 1H = a) Any Acol two. b) GF with hearts. c) 25+ NT. 1S = 4+S 17-19 1NT = 18-20 2C = 16-19 2D = GF with 4M and 5+m, or 23-24 NT. 2H = 17-19. 2S = Nat GF. 2NT = 21-22. 3m = Nat GF. Some variant of that might be better.

I wonder if it could work to play 2D as something like "4S and 5H, or bad 6S". If we already open bad hands with 6S it doesn't make much sense, but perhaps otherwise?

Thanks for the suggestions! PrecisionL: We'd probably play multi if we could, but as I wrote we can't right now due to the 2NT opening. I do not think a multi combined with 18-19 NT is a good idea though, but I'm not sure. awm: Both red suits could work. A downside might be that it is easy for them to focus on the spade suit? nullve & helene_t: I think Swedish pair Nilsland & Fallenius used to play 2D as 4S and longer minor. I used to play 2M as canapé preempts, which was fun. I think there's a bit of an upside to promising the suit you open, since it usually puts more pressure on second hand. fromageGB: Yes, perhaps 4-4 is okay, I was just thinking that there's not a lot of playing strength in a 4-4 hand. The downside of a strong option must be that responder can't pass the 2D opening? I used to do do that pretty frequently (when non-vul) when playing a weak multi. rbforster: I haven't seen it used as both minors, except in some systems where it shows constructive values. straube: 18-19 NT (or even 17-19 NT) is usually included in 1C in these kind of systems. Polish Club includes all 18+ NT hands in 1C, but many Swedish Club systems seems to have a strong 2NT opening. The main reason for us using 2D as 18-19 NT is that it can be awkward when the opponents interfere: responder will think we have the weak hand unless proven wrong, and the bidding could be high when opener gets a rebid. This is to me the main flaw of this system compared to a big club: opener can more easily pass with some hands, since responder knows he's strong. Any way, we're thinking of using this NT ladder: 1C-1D; Pass/1M = 12-14 NT, 1M could be a three-card suit. Our 1H rebid is forcing, since we're including strong unbalanced hands with extras (but not enough to force game). 1NT = 15-17. 1C-1D; 1NT = 18-19 NT, or 22+ NT, or a GF hand but not with 5-5 and not with primary spades. 1C-1D; 1NT-2C; 2D = 18-19. 1C-1D; 2D = 20-21. 1C-1D; 1NT-2C; 2NT = 22-24. 1C-1D; 1NT-2C; 2H-2S; 2NT = 25+ (2H is "Kokish" like 2C-2D; 2H playing a strong 2C opening).

I know there's a lot of topics about the best use for a 2D opening, but I wanted some suggestions specific to the system we're playing. We've been using 2D as 18-19 NT for a while, which has worked quite well. However we feel that our system could be a bit more aggressive, and we're thinking about using 2D for something else. Here's the opening structure: 1C = 12-14 NT (could be 4-4-1-4 or [34]15) or 17+ hcp. We tend to open 16+ clubs with 1C. If diamonds if the primary suit we have 20+ hcp and if balanced we would have 18+ (used to be 20+). 1D = 11-19, 4+ diamonds. Unbalanced, could have longer clubs. 1M = 11-16, 5+M. 11-13 if balanced. 1NT = (14)15-17, including 4-4-1-4. 2C = 5C and 4M, or 6+C. 12-15. 2D = ?? 2M = Weak. 2NT = 1st non-vul: Bad preempt in any suit. 3rd: Weak 5-5 in any two suits. Otherwise: Weak 5-5 majors or minors. 3X = Sound preempt, except third seat. We can't use 2D as a multi or any other weak bid which doesn't promise a specific suit (well, we could do that but then we'd have to change our 2NT opening to promise a specific suit). Precision 2D would fill a small systemic gap, but we tend to do fine on those hands anyway. Some variants I've been considering: - Weak 2D. I have good experiences playing this, and it is pretty safe. The frequency is a bit low though. - Loose weak 2D. I'm thinking weak unbalanced hands with 5+D (could have 4M or 4+C). Frequency goes up but it also preempts partner a lot more. Perhaps third hand? - Diamonds and a major. I'm not thinking Frelling 2D (4-4 or better in diamonds and a major), but rather 5+D and a four card major. I think it could put a lot of pressure on the opponents, since take-out double shape will occur less frequently. - Ekrens (both majors). Have played this, but not enough to have strong feelings about it. We'd probably play it as at least 5-4 majors. - Transfer preempt. Perhaps showing a weak two in hearts, or some kind of strong two-suiter(s). Then we could use 2H as Ekrens or Muiderberg. - "Bailey two". Something like 5D332 or 2-2-4-5 or 6D322, with perhaps 11-14 hcp (or weaker). This would remove 5D332 from the 1C opening. The main problem probably is playing at the two-level when others are comfortable playing 1NT. - Intermediate diamonds. I don't think this fit very well into our system, due to 1D already being unbalanced and lowish frequency. I've been considering non-vul using 2D as perhaps 5+D and 4H, opening strength, and to put the 15-17 NT into 1D. Now 1NT could be 9-11. I do enjoy the natural 1D opening though. So, are there more nice options? We're not searching for ultra-aggressive, more like something that can annoy the opponents but work out okay when its our board.

I agree with you that 3NT seems like the best option. I think I was blinded by having an opening hand opposite my 18-count. We ended up in 6D, which went one off (should have been two down). On the actual board the only making game was 4S, since the spade king was offside and the diamonds didn't break.

Yesterday our auction started like this: 1C-1NT; 2C-3D; 1C showed 12-14 NT or most 17+ hands. 1NT was game forcing against the small hand, denying a four card major if unbalanced. 2C was a relay, showing the strong hand (could also have bid a suit of our own instead), and 3D showed 2-2-5-4. Opener (me) held the following hand: AQxxx KQ AQx J98 We don't play spiral scan, QP or similar at the moment. We could set any suit as trumps and at the same time ask for aces, or we could sign off in 3NT or any suit. If we ask for aces, we could also asks for kings without it being a grand slam try. What would you have done?

Perhaps responder only bids a five card heart suit after the shape inquiry, since opener could have bid 2H if holding 5-4? It could also be that case that opener with GF values have to bid something else than 2H, since that seems to be non-forcing. Thus with 5S and 4H and say 18+, opener rebids 2D?

We play something similar to this. If an "unlimited" hand bids 4m it is ORKC, but if a limited hand does it (usually to confirm a trump fit, or maybe because lacking stoppers) then it is natural and the next step asks keycards.

Could you please expand why you think the NFB methods seems really bad? I think we could use the 2NT and cue-bid better, but otherwise I they're okay.

When we open, and they overcall, responder uses transfers in the following situations: - 1m-(Dbl/1D/1H). Transfers starting with (re)double. - 1M-(Dbl). Transfers starting with 1NT. - 1H-(1S). Transfers starting with 1NT (double is balanced or both minors). - 1X-(2X). Transfers starting with the lowest suit they've shown, or 2NT if the suit isn't available at the 2-level. - 1X-(2D/H/S). Transfer starting with 2NT. We currently do not use transfers after 1m-(1S), and not after 1X-(2C). We play constructive non-forcing freebids (about 8-11 hcp) in these auctions. Have any of you tried playing transfers after 1M-(2C)? Misho have a treatment here: http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Misho_Competitive_bids.doc which works like this: 1S-(2C)-- Dbl = Diamonds or balanced. 2D = 4+ hearts, F1 2H = Non forcing freebid. 2S+ = Not really transfer related. 1H-(2C)-- Dbl = Diamonds or balanced misfit. 2D = 4+ spades, F1 2H = Raise. 2S = Non forcing freebid. 2NT+ = Not really transfer related. Using Dbl as diamonds and 2D as the other major might be fine, but one thing I enjoy about two-level transfers is to have two ways to raise the major. Do you think it could be sensible to give up having a diamond bid at the two-level? Something like this: 1S-(2C)-- Dbl = Normal negative double. 2D = 5+ hearts, about 8+ hcp. 2H = Constructive+ spade raise. 2S = Bad spade raise. 2NT = Some sort of raise? 3C = Diamonds, INV+. 3DH = Fit jump. 3S = Preemptive. Just to compare how we play now: 1S-(2C)-- Dbl = Negative double. Game forcing if followed by a new suit. 2DH = Negative free-bid, about 8-11. 2S = Normal raise. 2NT = 4+ limit+ raise. 3C = 3-card limit raise. 3DH = Natural, game forcing one-suiter. 3S = Preemptive. We lose the ability to bid 2D. This means that we'd probably need to double with some constructive hands with five diamonds, that doesn't want to pass. I have never played forcing free bids (believe it or not), but I guess that's the case if you're playing 2D as a natural force too? With 6 diamonds, and say 10+ hcp, we could bid 3C. With 5 diamonds and GF values I guess we'd double (as we usually do now). We gain a way to show hearts when we hold GF values, but not suitable for jumping to 3H (can be an awkward hand when we have to start with a double). We also gain three-level fit jumps. Perhaps most importantly though, we have two ways to raise spades at the two-level. I think there's less benefits after a heart opening, but I guess we'd play something like this: 1H-(2C)-- Dbl = Negative double. 2D = Heart raise. 2H = Heart raise. 2S = Negative free bid. 2NT = Heart raise. 3C = Diamonds. 3D = Fit jump. 3H = Preemptive. 3S = Nat GF. What do you think?