olien

You might check www.bridgewithdan.com/systems Daniel Neill runs this website and has a copy of Ultimate Club notes. You might find something there.

Right, I was aiming for the mid-chart definition, since I normally play in mid-chart events. It is a vague definition for a relay system in that it has to promise GF values as 1♥ is initially treated as natural and not a relay and opener's re-bids are generally natural. So, if 1♥ is a relay, it's game forcing which meets that requirement, but the fact that it might also be natural with <GF values might negate its legality. I will probably e-mail the ACBL and ask them for their opinion on the matter.

Under which convention chart in the ACBL does 1♦-1♥ as either natural or the start of a GF relay fall?

This seems to just be transferring the problem. What does one do with a normal 1♠ response?

As for our 1♦ opening, it is 2+ and includes (24)25 hands, etc. As for combining ideas, can combine the idea of 2♦ showing 6+♦ and minimum strength without a 4-card major. I do not know what responses we should play to this, maybe 2♥=relay? Or, if it's only single-suited without a side suit (4+ cards), play 2N as the relay (which pairs well with our 1-suited relay structure). Then can play the structure suggested by Rob F: 1♦-1♥=4+ cards unless 33(43) or 2344. ...Now opener's 2♦ re-bid can substitute for a 3♥ re-bid to keep us from ending in ridiculous fits at the 3 level, and require 4 cards for a raise to 2♥. 1♦-1♠=4+ cards unless 3244 ...Now opener's 2♦ re-bid can show 5+♦s 4+♥s and 2♥ can be the medium+ raise. 1♦-2m=natural NF, up to light invite values 1♦-2M=? maybe 3-suiters GF? 1♦-2N=natural INV 1♦-3m=sound invite If somebody thinks there might be a better way to play this, would be helpful. Thanks

As for Viking Club, I have the book, so don't need anybody to post the replies. Unfortunately though, I'm in ACBL land and a relay response has to promise GF values B). My partner and I discussed moving to a natural 2♦ opening, but we're not really sure if we like the responses that are available. We'd like to have fairly natural responses to it, but that's obviously not ideal; especially if it could have a 4-card major. Maybe if we played it denying a 4-card major, that could work since you never have a re-bid "problem" because if you have long ♦s, then you have a 4-card major, and if we played it would probably play it as minimum strength (like 10-13), because if 14-15 can either open 1N if no singleton or jump re-bid 3♦. I'm not sure, and individual experiences with different styles would be welcome. Thanks again

My partner and I play 1♦ catchall within the following structure: 1♣=16+ 1♦=catchall 1M=11-15 5+M 1N=14-16 Balanced 2♣=11-15 HCP, 6+♣ may have 4/5-card side suit 2♦=11-15 HCP (43)15, 4414, 4405 dist. always short ♦ 2N=19-20(21) Balanced. We want to play 1NT as a GF relay response to 1♦, but aren't sure how to work out the other responses. i.e. what is responder supposed to do with 33(43) or (32)44 dist and a hand in the 8-11 range? We could play a 1♥ reply as a weak relay. Then opener re-bids 'naturally' and occasionally miss a 4-4 ♥ fit. The other option is to scrap the idea of 1NT as the GF relay, and possibly use 2♣ instead. However, this requires changing some of the rest of the system. We've found the most workable way to do this is play 1NT as 13-15 Balanced (not 12-15 as we hate 4-point ranges), pass 11-12 point balanced hands in 1st and 2nd seat. In 3rd and 4th seat return to the aforementioned structure. Now after 1♦-2♣ have enough room to sort all hands out before 3N and we don't have the akward responding hands that the 1NT GF response gives. However, we don't like having to pass balanced hands in the 11-12 range, especially if we're not-vulnerable, so any and all recommendations are welcome.

I am under the rules of the ACBL :P So a relay must promise GF values to be playable in most situations. So for us to be able to use that, 1♥ would have to promise GF values. That's why we have 1NT as natural NF, it's basically a weak relay with no 4-card major. More thoughts are welcome :)

I am debating between which of the following structures to use: version 1: 1♦ shows 10-15 HCP 2+♦, not balanced. Opening 1NT is 13-15 and 11-12's in 1st and 2nd seat are passed. In response it's fairly natural: 1M...Natural Forcing 1N...7-11- NF 2♣...GF Relay 2♦...Natural F1 2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV 2♠...INV 6+♣ 2NT...Natural INV 3♣...5/4+ minors, <INV 3♦...weak a 2♣ opening shows 6+♣ and 2♦ opening is 3-suited short in ♦, so 1♦ can be 4xx5 with 2+♦ version 2: 1♦ is the same as above, but balanced hands with 11-12 HCP and at least 1 4-card major are allowed. In response: 1♥...4+♥ F1 or no 4M <GF 1♠....4+♠ F1 1NT...GF Relay 2m...Natural NF 2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV 2♠+ whatever Reason a 4-card major must be promised if balanced is for the following auction: 1 ♦-1♥// 1NT showing a balanced hand has to promise 4♥ or one would have to raise into what could be a potentially disastorous contract. or Version 3, which I haven't really looked much into: 1♥...Natural or GF relay 1♠...Natural F1 1NT...Natural NF 2m...Natural (NF?) 2♥+ whatever Some insight into why one thinks whichever way is better would be good and follow ups would be appreciated on version 3 if that is your choice.

I've played with a few partners over the years the following strong openings: 2♣ Any strong or 22-24 BAL (but not primary ♦) 2♦ Natural strong or 25+ BAL or any 4441 After 2♣-2♦: 2M Natural 2N 22-24 BAL 3♣ Natural single suiter, may have M 3♦ 5+♣ 4+♦ 3M Natural, setting trumps After 2♦-2♥: 2♠ Any 4441 2N 25+ BAL 3♣+ Natural with ♦ You can obviously play kokish after 2♣-2♦ so make 2♣ Artificial or 20-21 or 25+ BAL and 2♦ 22-24 BAL or Nat or any 4441 and use 2N opening as whatever interests you. These openings have worked well, especially when we had primary ♦. We did not use kokish because we liked having 2♣-2♦// 2♥ as natural and could splinter and do whatever; but to each their own.

I'm not sure the 1D-1N is legal since it might not have game forcing strength. I'm pretty sure the mid-chart says that relay systems are allowed provided it guarantees game forcing strength. Otherwise the system looks good.

Edit: raise to 2 of partner's minor is just competitive

How about this over 1♥, just an idea: X shows 4♠ or strong with 5♠ 1♠ is a NT response 1NT shows 5♠ NF 2m natural forcing 2♥ showing 6+♠ 2♠ INV+ raise of minor Just a momentary thought

The advantages to playing 1♥ as 8-11 are too many to number. Even though 4th hand could theoretically blast away, they rarely have the hand to do so without significant risk because both players have penalty doubles available. The primary advantage to this response iis that opener immediately knows whether or not slam is in the picture. Also, it is less preemptive than say 1♣-2♦ showing 8+ points and 5+♦ in standard precision. For example, this auction is a common example: 1♣-1♥ (any 8-11)-1♠-2♦. Now you're at the same point but both players have given distributional information. Also, if 1♣-1♠ is played as 8+ HCP instead of 12+ HCP, you can gain some space-saving steps after 1♣-1♥// 2m/♥. For those of you who think relay bidding is so great, I'm sure you can figure those out. Yes, Greco-Hampson play 1♣-1NT shows ♥s, but there are some advantages to play transfers. It can be played that accepting the transfer at the cheapest level is like a NT bid as a space saving step, and showing 2-3 card support. Then 2NT can be say a hand with 4+ card support, but denying shortness. This saves responder some room in describing their hand. Think of opener's bid as possibly a natural relay. Anyways, as a person who plays this system and has been playing it for 4-5 years, I highly recommend the system. If it's good enough for Greco-Hampson or Lall-Bathurst or Grue-Cheek, then it's good enough for me.

In regards to your statement about 5422s and 7411s here is how our structure works: 3C...equal short Then after 3D relay: 3H...5422 (3S now SP ask) 3S...7411 (sticking with 3S/N reversal) 3N...6511 Still haven't been able to work out single suiters. Interesting point about why high-to-low short should be used, but an argument can be made for low-to-high short, and that is thatthose hands tend to have a fit/partial fit for relayers C suit if relayer is unbalanced with C (2C was balanced or natural or a hand so strong so that it can (almost) underwrite slam). Anyways, the sturcture is completely symmetrical. How about this 1 Suited relay: 3C low "short" (then 3H=6(32)2, 3S=7321, 3N=6331, 4C+=7330 zoom) 3D middle short (then 3S=7312, 3N=6313, 4C+=7303 zoom) 3H 6223 or 7222 3S 7123 3N 6133 4C+ 7033 zoom Thoughts and ideas please

So, here is what I have found. This is what Lindkvist-Fredin played (I have modified slightly to make more efficient): 1S-2C: 2D 5S(332), 5S(440), S+C 2H S+D 2S 6+S 2N 5+S 4+H, low short 3C 5+S 4+H, equal short (3H=5422, 3S=7411, 3N=6511) 3D 5+S 5+H, high short (3S=5503, 3N=5512, 4C+=6502) 3H 5413 3S 6403 3N 6412 4C+ 7402 The reason that they are not truly numerical, but reversed on 3S and 3NT is so that 3NT can act as the next relay after a 3S bid. After 1S-2C// 2D-2H: 2S 5(332) or 5(440) 2N+ S+C after 1S-2C// 2D-2H// 2S-2N: 3C 5(332) (then LMH doubleton, no real need for size ask since implicity limited by failure to open 1N) 3D+ 5440s, then have room for "size ask" Think what you might, but the only real issues when it comes to having a size ask occurs on the 6+M single suiters, and on the 5512s and 6412s (which both bid 3N). The single suited structure I'm working with right now is this: 3C "balanced" (then 3H=6223 3S=6232, 3N=6322, 4C+=7222) 3D 7+M, some short (then 3H relay for LMH short) 3H 6331 3S 6313 3N 6133 Obviously, in most cases, there isn't a size ask available. Any suggestions for improving this structure would be welcome. How important do you think it is to be able to show voids on single suiters? For those that want to suggest 1N be the GF relay, we don't want to do that because we feel it is too "anti-field" (which we are doing by playing a relay system anyways), but we want to play a better system without going anti field. And also because of regulations put on system, 1N as the GF relay is not allowed in most events. Thanks

I'm looking for a 1M-2C relay structure (other than ambra) that can be used. I would like to be able to differentiate between minimum and maximum if possible, and would prefer a symmetric structure. The structure will be used in a precision 5-card major base. We open almost all balanced hands in 14-16 range with 1NT. Thanks

Well, I think the ruling was wrong, and that the result for everybody should've been changed to 4S making. Also, why were N/S not penalized for not having their cards filled out in identical fashion?

Well let me start off by saying we do not expect the new 2N opening to be beneficial when compared to a natural 2N opening. We expect to gain by not having to open a 20-21 pt or whatever range hand with 2N. We believe that it negatively affects our decision making ability in the slam area. I do not think that there is one person who would disagree with the statement that a 2N opening hurts slam bidding. That is why we think it would be more advantageous to have another meaning for a 2N opening, so we don't have to open those hands 2N, but rather 1C and get to relay on slam hands.

Well, I'm not saying the opening structure is perfect, but it is the same one used by ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin, so I'm not going to question its effectiveness too much. They use the 2N opening as natural, but we prefer not to and we have adjusted the system appropriately. A 1D opening is either 5/4+ either way in the minors, 3- suited 4+D, 11+-14 bal, or 5+S 4+D. The 2C opening could be hiding a S canape.

In reply to Fred's question about what happens after 1H+ responses to 1C is opener usually relays with a balanced hand and gets a good idea of responder's overall strength and usually learns exact distribution and can make appropriate slam/game decisions. Anyways, I was thinking of a 2N opener as weak both majors (5/5 NV and 6/5 V). Is this as bad as a 2N opening weak both minors? How about 2N as weak S + H/D like used by bates and sontag? Thanks for the feedback

In reply to jdonn's comment This is a relay system, so probably best not to use natural 2N 1C-1D/ 1H=20+ any So 1C-1D/ 1N=18-19 and stronger ones go via 1H. We also chose the nt range we did so that the balanced hands that we open 1D tend to be slightly more sound.

What is a good way to play 2NT opening as? Would prefer NOT natural and NOT both minors. The 2N opening would be in the context of the following opening structure: 1C 16+ any (18+ if BAL) 1D 10-15 HCP 2+D (possible S or C canape) 1M 10-15 HCP 4+M (possible canape in any suit) 1N 14+-17 BAL 2C 10-15 HCP 6+C or 5+S 4+C 2D 10-15 HCP 5+H 4+D 2H 10-15 HCP 5+H 4+C 2S weak

I have devised the following 2-suited overcall structure by combining the aspects of ghestem and top and bottom cues and my own thoughts. I want to get some objective opinions about its effectiveness and how it might be improved: Vs 1C: 2C...Natural 2D...Majors forcing (not necessarily strong) 2N...Diamonds and Hearts 3C...strong with Spades and Diamonds Vs 1D: 2D...Spades and Clubs 2H...Hearts and Spades, non forcing 2N...Clubs and Hearts 3D...Hearts and Spades, strong Vs 1H: 2H...Spades and Clubs 2N...both minors 3C...Spades and Diamonds Vs 1S: 2S...Hearts and Clubs 2N...both minors 3C...Hearts and Diamonds

This is certainly playable: 1H 4+H F1, possible longer minor 1S 4+S F1, possible longer minor 1N whatever range you want to play it as 2m natural NF, no 4-card major 2H+ however you want to play them after 1C-1D// 1M recomment 1N as like a double negative and other bids showing varying degrees of support and strength.