PrecisionL

Upgrade Ultra Club Relay (C3) 1♣ - 2♥ = GF and 5332 or 6322 with Hxxxxx - 2NT (Ask) - 3♣ = minimum - 3NT ALL PASS 3NT South

Upgraded Ultra Club Relay (C3) 1♣ - 1NT = G.F. Majors or any 5-5 - 2♣ - 3♣ = minors 5-5 - 3♥ - 3♠ = 0-1 ♥ - 4♣ = Beta - 5♣ = 6 Controls - 6NT I guess I need to add J ask to the system

Upgraded Ultra Club Relay (C3) p 1♣ p 1♦ p 1♠ p 2♣ = Artificial 5-7 and 0-2♠ p 3NT ALL P

Upgraded Ultra Club Relay (C3): 1♣ P 1♦ (1♥ 2♣ (3♣} Pass (3♥) Pass P X P P 4♦ 1♣ P 1♦ (2♥) X (2-places to play) (4♥} 4♠ P 5♣ P 5♦ All pass

Upgraded Ultra Club Relay (C3): 1♣ = 16+ Pass 1NT = Majors or any 5-5 & G.F. Pass 2♣ = puppet staymanish pass 2♦ = 5+♥ & 4♠ Pass 2♥ = DAB pass 2NT = 4=5=1=3 Pass 3♥ = Beta Pass 3NT = 3 Controls Pass 4♥ ALL PASS Final contract = 4♥ by South

Upgraded Ultra Club Relay (C3) 1♣ = 16+ p 1♦ = 0-7 p 1♥ = 2+♥ or 4+♥ & 1 round force p 2♥ = min & bal ALL PASS Final contract = 2♥ by south

A bit late: 1♣(16+) p 1♦ = 0-7 (1♥) 2♣= natural, NF (3♣) p (3♥) all pass Playing upgraded Ultra Club Relay, now called C3

I open 1♣ because it has 7 controls and 3 Aces = 16.5 pts but -1 for 4333 and + 0.5 for T9 with AK in spades, thus 16 pts adjusted count.

I agree with most of what Adam says in the above quotes. I never understood the usefulness of an opening bid of 1♦ showing 5 or more diamonds (The Kennedy System of Bridge, by George Kennedy, 1965) There are three publications that have systems where opening 1♦ may have an unbalanced hand (a singleton or void) and no 5-card Major. Of course, these systems are based on some sort of forcing club. Two(Edited 2/22/13 @ 13:33 EST) One of these systems use the opening bid of 2♦ to show the unbalanced single-suited hand with ♦s. MY SYSTEM: THE UNBALANCED DIAMOND, by Marshall Miles [RIP], Canada, 2007 by Marshall Miles, or A New Approach to MATCHPOINTED PAIRS, Nottingham, England, by Carl G. Samuelson, 1997, (edited by Sally Brock), or GUS: Graovetter Unified System, by Pam and Matthew Granovetter, 2012. For details e-mail me.

FOOTNOTE for 3rd Edition, 2000 Boomerang Twos may be judged a highly unusual method (HUM) and not be legally accepted for a Pairs contest, when a definite suit must be identified in opening bids of two in a major suit. Diamond Major can in that circumstance adapt these bids as simply WEAK two-suited, 2 Hearts showing hearts and clubs; 2 Spades showing spades and diamonds. Note: This was written in 2000, regulations maybe different in your part of the world or may have changed.

I have the 1987 World Championship Book: That was the year two pairs on the British Team played strong pass with 1♣ or 1♦ being a fert, 0-7 hcp. There is not much detail given: Flint-Sheehan: Opening pass = standard 1♣ opening, 1♣ = 0-12 hcp, 17-19 bal or strong 2-suit, and weak NT Armstrong-Forrester: Opening pass = any 11-15, 1♣ = strong, 1♦ = 0-6 unbalanced or 0-10 balanced, 1♥/1♠ = 7-10 and 5+ cards or 0-2 cards. The analysis said 2/3 of the time they broke even or had no substantial effect on the result. 16 boards had plus swings (8 major, 8 minor) and 18 boards had minus swings (7 major, 11 minor). Peter Oakley in his pamphlet, The Diamond Major: "Jeremy Flint's Boomerang Club system uses 2-level major-suit opening bids to cover all 2-non touching-suited hands, both weak and strong. The idea is quite ingenious: 2♥ = strong:♥ + ♣, or weak: ♠ + ♦ 2♠ = strong: ♠ + ♦, or weak: ♥ + ♣ The strong combination will have only three or four users." See chapter eight for examples and how to respond: http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm Boomerang Twos may be judged a highly unusual method (HUM) and not be legally accepted for a Pairs contest,

Once you are familiar with Two-over-One Game Force, there is this resource that I always review before playing 2/1 again (I am a Precision player): TWO OVER ONE GAME-FORCE QUIZ BOOK by Max Hardy, 1993 ISBN 0-939460-74-2

There are many resources on the internet for canape. However, I do not know of any which match your request exactly. George Coffin's natural big club, 1969: "Although the 1♣ bid is forcing once, it is strictly natural and it guarantees four club cards..." The hand may contain a longer suit (canape). See Ken Rexford's blog and M.I.C.S. http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/ Ultra Club Relay has canape galore as opening bids of 1♦, 1♥, or 1♠. Another interesting idea is to have canape positive responses in the majors to a strong & artificial opening bid of 1♣. Ref: http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Ultra.pdf

I have followed CD with interest since I play various complicated systems and have forgotten the exact meaning of a relay auction twice in 10 years with no damage to the opponents. However, when partner mis-explains our bidding, I always correct before the opening lead when one of us is declarer. I have also been on the receiving side of a zero when the opponent's used the wrong defense (forgot their convention) against our weak NT for which there was no adjustment by the director. Here is a comment on Judy Kay-Wolff's blog [January 21st, 2012]: Hi Judy, Since my partner and I were the victim of an intentional and admitted CD a few weeks ago (discussed in Bobby’s blog a few days ago), I emailed the ACBL to ask their opinion about CD. Here is an ACBL reply to CD: “You are correct that there is no rule against forgetting your convention. However, in the case that you gave where the person intention did this mainly because they didn’t like what partner put on the card, I, as the director, would have thrown the result out and given that person (pair) a procedural penalty. In addition, if a pair routinely forgets their methods the director can forbid them from playing the conventions that seem to be causing. This is disruptive to the game and the same people can not continue to do this with impunity and fall back on the “I forgot” time after time.” Bernie Gorkin Ref: http://judy.bridgeblogging.com/2012/01/21/it-hits-the-fan-in-spades-this-time/

Excellent idea! I once proposed this for T-Precision with the exact same reasoning.

All valid points, David, thanks for replying. Opener does not have to accept the transfer and responder would not transfer into a minor with 2-suited hands (5-5), thus the ♥ fit would rarely be buried. Interference experience is low despite playing Precision variants for over 10 years. Conditional transfers with 2-suited hands needs more study and I lean toward a cue-bid for showing 2 or 3-suited hands.

Yes, I dislike the semi-positive double with unbalanced distribution also. Thus, we have changed to conditional transfer bids by responder when he has a good 5 hcp or better. The double now is used to transfer to the next step in the bidding.

Barry Rigal in Precision in the 90s (Advanced) proposed the following scheme for dealing with 1 or 2-level interference over our strong ♣: Double: 5-7 hcp & 3-cards in the suit bid (not necessarily shown) I could never find anyone willing to try this out.Thus, I currently favor transfers [6+ hcp] with a pass being the double negative and the double being the transfer to the next bid. However, this scheme is not forcing to game and asking bids aren't easily accommodated. However, responder can show his suit and opener can reject the transfer with 0-1 cards in the suit indicated.

Interesting. I played in the Vanderbilt opposite the Toad Club and we interfered with 1♠ and responder doubled (dbl negative) and opener rebid 2♥ and we doubled for penalty and +500 on a part score hand. Ever since, I have decided that I prefer a pass for the double negative and a double for the semi-positive without a 5-cd suit and that has worked out well. Opener has been able to pass the doubled overcall for penalty several times in part score situations.

I play a similar system where an opening 1NT denies a 4-cd Major: September 2012 To: rulings@ACBL.org I am beginning a new partnership this week and we are going to play: 1NT = 11-14 nV or 14-16 V without a 4-cd Major (unless 4M333 hand with Jxxx or less in the major). This is the old Match Point 1NT bid played by Anderson and Wei. What are our obligations for alerting and pre-alerting? ACBL reply: You are required to announce the range of the NT opener. If you want, you could tell the oppoents at the beginning of each played round that 1NT denies a four card major. At the end of the auction on hands your side declares, you should offer to disclose this inference to your opponents (if your subsequent auction has not already made it clear).

We are on our 8th version of a 1M - 2♣ = Artificial Game Force in a Precision Club system with canape rebids when opening 1 of a Major. Our scheme would need major modification to work with a 5-cd Major opening system. It takes a lot of time and testing to design a simple and usable scheme. Sabine Auken played such a scheme, but now that she is partnering Roy Welland, I do not know the details of their system. Edit: I do have some details of her partnership with Daniela von Arnim.

The ♥ knows things the mind cannot know.

Yes, this is correct and furthermore you should be announcing it: "Could be as short as two" and this will avoid the opponent having to ask everytime you announce it. It was published in the ACBL January 2012 Bulletin, page 38: "The definition of what constitutes a Natural bid ... has been amended to include 1♣ openings that may be exactly 4=4=3=2 (four cards in each major, three diamonds and two clubs). The 1♣ bid will still require an Announcement [as quoted above], but players cannot use artificial defenses over this opening." Just today, an opponent only said could be short and I asked how short and he said 1 or 2 clubs and wanted to argue that he was announcing properly without stating the possible shortage.

I agree, 0-4 hcp = 20.5 % (using bridge odds complete by Frost, Kibler, Telfer, & Traub) in an Excel Spread Sheet. Also, 5-7 = 32 %, 8+ = 47.5 %, 8-11 = 35 % and 12+ = 12.5 %. The sequence 1♣ - 1♦ = 0-7 hcp is an important part of half of the responses to a strong 1♣ and the space is needed to find a good partial contract or even a game invitation (especially in Match Point Pairs competition). Keylime and I do NOT relay after a 1♦ response (except 1♥ has a 20+ hcp balanced option), but do have a follow-up scheme similar to Cohen-Berkowitz Precision, but we have condensed mini-splinters and added fit jumps by responder to show 3 kinds of fit for opener's 1-level major suit rebid.

I play two versions of 1♦ opening bid in a Precision context and 1NT of 14-16 vulnerable, or 11-14 nV. (a) Match Point Precision: 0+ ♦ may be balanced with a 4-cd major Responses: 1♥ = 4+ cards and less than Limit Raise, ♠s may be longer than ♥s Opener rebids 1♠ over a 1♥ response 1♠ = 4+ cards and less than Limit Raise, denies 4♥ 1NT = 7-11 2♣ = 10+ Natural without a 4-cd major 2♦ = Limit Raise or better with any distribution, does NOT deny 4M 2M = 6-cds or good 5-cd suit and Limit Raise values only 2NT = 16+ hcp and Game Force asking if singleton (no 4-cd major) 3X = Very good suit (asks support or NT without xx/Hx (b) The Diamond-Major: 1♦ may be as short as 0 cards, but promises at least one 4-cd major. Usually not balanced unless both 4-cd majors Special Responses probably not germane to your question. e-mail if interested All club bids are pass correct to ♦ with 9+ cards in the minors