Does anybody actually use Swiss raises anymore?

[Siegmund]

Seen them in lots of old textbooks, but can't remember actually playing against someone who used them before.

 

I was surprised to have a pickup partner today ask me to play them.

 

He proposed a version a little bit different than I was familiar with. He wanted to play

3C,3D Reversed Bergen (9-11ish, 6-8ish)

4C = 12-14, 3+ keycards or 2 keycards + trump queen; 4D asks

4D = 12-14, 2- keycards

2NT = Jacoby promising 15+.

He didn't get around to telling me what he wanted to do with the unused jump shift - he gave me the impression he preferred keycards first, shortness on the next round by responder , which seemed quite unsound to me - but I was interested to see the idea still alive.

 

Anybody still using a (presumably more sensible) variation of it?

[blackshoe]

Hardy raises look like this:

 

2NT: 15+, balanced, 4 trumps, slam interest

3♣: Limit raise with either 4 trumps and no side shortage, or 3 trumps and a singleton or void

3under (the denomination directly under trumps: "GF LImit raise, 9+ to 12- HCP, 4 trumps, a singleton or void

3M: weak

3over: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps, side shortage

4♣: balanced, 4 trumps, 12+ to 15- HCP, two of the top three trumps

4♦: as 4♣ but fewer that two top trumps.

 

The last two he described as "inverted trump Swiss", iirc.

[awm]

I played these Hardy raises with Greg Humphreys for a few months about eleven years ago. But I quickly convinced myself that the swiss raises are too space-consuming to have a reasonable slam auction, and that this allocation wastes a lot of bids (basically every jump is a raise) when I'd like to have some back for weak or invitational jump shifts. I cooked up an alternate method that packs all the raises into two calls which seems more efficient (I still play this method with a couple of partners).

 

I don't think either my post of blackshoe's answers the original question of whether anyone still plays these.

[rogerclee]

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description.

 

They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition.

 

Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

[blackshoe]

I played these Hardy raises with Greg Humphreys for a few months about eleven years ago. But I quickly convinced myself that the swiss raises are too space-consuming to have a reasonable slam auction, and that this allocation wastes a lot of bids (basically every jump is a raise) when I'd like to have some back for weak or invitational jump shifts. I cooked up an alternate method that packs all the raises into two calls which seems more efficient (I still play this method with a couple of partners).

 

I don't think either my post of blackshoe's answers the original question of whether anyone still plays these.

I know some folks who play Hardy raises. I knew some folks in England who played some form of Swiss, but that was in an Acol context, and was 20 years ago.

 

Curious about your raise system. Care to post a summary?

[awm]

Here's what we play; it's apparently very complicated though:

 

1♥-2♠ = inv+ with shortness somewhere, or balanced GF

... 2N = minimum hand

....... 3♣/3♦/3♥ show shortness; 3♥ is specifically NF

....... 3♠ is RKC in hearts

....... 3NT, 4♣, 4♦ are cuebids (denying shortness in clubs/diamonds)

....... 4♥ is just to play, no slam interest opposite a min

... 3♣ = intermediate hand (this is GF)

...... 3♦ = void somewhere

...... 3♥ = request cuebidding, normally balanced

...... 3♠ = RKC

...... 3N/4♣/4♦ = show singleton, some interest opposite intermediate hand

...... 4♥ = to play, not enough for slam opposite intermediate hand

... 3♥ = strong hand, demand description

...... 3♠ = void somewhere

...... 3N = balanced (starts cuebids)

...... 4♣/4♦/4♥ = showing singleton

... 3♠ = RKC

... 3N/4♣/4♦ = showing a void in opener's hand

... 4♥ = bad hand but extra trump length

 

1♥-2NT = (semi)-balanced limit raise, three or four trumps

... 3♣ = shows four spades, looking for a better fit there

...... 3♦ = counter-try with four-card limit raise

...... 3♥ = three-card limit raise not four spades

...... 3♠ = four spades

... 3♦ = counter-try, asking for a game bid with four trumps or signoff with three

... 3♥ = to play

 

Over 1♠ things are similar but shifted up a step (so 2NT=shapely invite or GF, 3♣ = bal LR).

[Mbodell]

I have played against an older pair of gentlemen who still play swiss raises. And I played it with a pickup partner at a nationals (in the opening charity pairs) about 5 years ago.

[Free]

Never heard of these raises, and never encountered them at the table afaik.

[Zelandakh]

Curious about your raise system. Care to post a summary?

Will post mine too as I have many times:

 

Over 1♥

======

2♠ = mini-splinter or strong splinter (2NT asks)

2NT = GF raise

3♣ = limit raise

3♦ = mixed raise

3♥ = preemptive raise

3♠ = void splinter (any suit)

3NT = splinter with spade singleton

4m = singleton splinters

4♥ = preemptive

 

Over 1♠

======

2NT = mini-splinter or strong splinter (3♣ asks)

3♣ = GF raise

3♦ = limit raise

3♥ = mixed raise

3♠ = preemptive raise

3NT = void splinter (any suit)

4m/4♥ = singleton splinters

4♠ = preemptive

 

Notice that the void splinter response could be described as a form of Swiss if it were still fashionable to do so. The first Acol system I learned had a simplified Swiss method where 1M - 4♦ was a GF raise. It was slightly strange because 1M - 4♣ was undefined but that was apparently to allow for learning the "advanced" method where it showed a GF raise with a certain number of aces and kings.

[WellSpyder]

I knew some folks in England who played some form of Swiss, but that was in an Acol context, and was 20 years ago.

Swiss was quite popular here for a while at a club level at least, and I'm pretty sure I must have played some version of them in some parterships. I don't think I have seen them at all for at least the past 10 years, though - splinters are pretty universal instead, and would probably be a pretty safe assumption in most pick-up partnerships.

[Ant590]

A pair at my old club played fruit machine swiss (http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/FruitMachineSwiss.html).

 

It actually came up once, but they got the bids the wrong way around. They mentioned that it last came up about 13 years ago, and they got it wrong then too. http://justinlall.com/2011/08/30/a-good-convention/ anyone?

[gnasher]

It took a bit of research, but I found one from the Bermuda Bowl in 2003:

http://www.infobridge.it/Sistemi_CC_czyzowicz-wolpert.pdf

 

And then there's this, which perhaps Fluffy can explain:

http://www.aebridge.com/Archivos/HCFGodedVincent.pdf

[the hog]

Swiss raises were very popular some years ago in Australia when many people in Melbourne played Baronised Acol.

4C = 2 Aces and a s/ton and 4D = 3 aces. The ranges for both were about 13-15. It is silly to say they are totally useless. They fitted well into Baronised Acol. I loved this system and would happily play it today if I had a partner who liked Acol.

By the way, one of the best mixed partnerships of all time - Jim and Norma Borin played Baronised Acol at at least one Bermuda Bowl.

 

As an aside, I find it both amusing but somewhat tiresome how some posters fail to address the op an rather give details of what they play and how clever they are. One poster on this site is particularly guilty of this.

[Siegmund]

What I was asked to play 2 weeks ago is very close to the published Fruit Machine Swiss, including the 2nd-round shortness ask.

 

The reason I got interested in Swiss again was that a reg p and I had gotten frustrated with the lack of bidding space over the 1S-4H splinter, and found a way to pack all the splinters into cheaper bids... but needed SOME meaning for the double jump shifts. We had been using 1S-3NT balanced forcing raise, a la Root and Pavlicek, and pondered whether there was a way to "sensibly" divide those hands among 4M-1 and 4M-2... or find any hand type at all that was so well described by the jump to 4M-1 that we didn't need further tools for opener to decide whether to go on or not.

 

I am always happy to see other people's raise structures as food for thought. Particularly the double-jump-shift bids, in this thread.

[dake50]

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description.

 

They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition.

 

Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

 

*** Of course if you *define* Swiss raises as a 4C and 4D raise.

Besse claimed 24 routes to 4S after 1S opened; 32 after 1H.

Now shouldn't SOME of these routes be defined raises? Eg. delayed splinter,

advanced Q-bid, help suit raise, generally exploring, etc.?

The *red gerring* "4C/4D are unsound to say the least" omits many other inferences that are bypassed.

[nige1]

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description. They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition. Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

This month, midweek, at Brighton, I played Swiss :( Over 1M:

• 4♣ = Good game raise with three key-cards.
• 4♦ = Good game raise with excellent trumps.

Also, we ordinary players sometimes play Automatic aces (a similar old convention) :(

[Lovera]

I've used Oklahoma convention better than Swiss and on reponse by partner that opened 1♥/♠ ruled so: 4♣ meaning support in trump (5/+ cards) with an Ace , 4♦ idem with two Aces , 4 in trump of partner with no Ace. This bidding being preemptive the range is 6-8 points in high cards but it being that two Aces consuming all force and is rare i have changed in keycards-Oklahoma including the A or K of trump so :4♣(=1 keycard), 4♦(=2 keycards), 4♥/♠(=0 keycards). I have talked about it in "Raising with 5 trump" (with "I like" by Vampyr for Lovera).

[newroad]

Hi Siegmund et al.

 

It seems to me that the conversation re Swiss Raises here has gone slightly down a rabbit hole and the underlying question(s) being asked are really

 

1. 
    
   
2. What is your (game forcing, major suit) raise structure, and in context
   
3. What can 3trumps+1 through 4trumps-1 be used for that adds value to (1) in context
   

The problem with trying to answer (1) and explaining it risks a tangential conversation. Nevertheless, here goes at attempt …

 

I believe 1M 2NT is best played as NAT, FG. It right sides more often than not, hides information when it can be hidden and gives increased definition to other 2/1 sequences (which, as it happens, I prefer to play as 100% FG complemented by intermediate jump shifts). From these starting premises, a different way is needed to handle FG raises. Independent of the fact that it facilitates the above, I believe the approach described below is better than most anyway, but then again, I would ;)

 

The following is known as “CLOR” (pronounced “claw” and derived from “CLubs Or Raise”) and shortly to be published in The Bridge World under an article of the same name. It is outlined here in advance with the permission of the author and the editor of the publication.

 

1M 2C (and for that matter 1D 2C can be implemented similarly) is

 

1. 
    
   
2. FG clubs, or
   
3. FG raise
   

Opener usually marks time with 2D, but can alternately bid naturally with a concentrated 5+/5+ (2NT showing diamonds), primary club support, or a strong 6+ original suit. 3D/H/S are auto-splinters (3M showing a club splinter). Note that opener’s default 2D rebid also takes away the typical problem in 2/1 of what opener is to rebid with a non-descript 5M332 (for which either 2M or 2NT are the usual often unhelpful solutions).

 

After 1M 2C 2D, 2H shows the FG raise type, anything else is NAT (2NT showing hearts) and confirming clubs. In the event opener doesn’t rebid 2D, the first step (with the exception of 4C over 3S) still shows the FG raise type, anything else is NAT along the same lines as the above.

 

On to the meat of the matter.

 

After 1M 2C 2D 2H, you can play what you like, some sort of modified Jacoby might make sense for irregular partnerships, with 2NT in the frame as a more convenient level to show one of the balanced ranges. However, I would advise looking at the Balanced Hand Principle article (The Bridge World, December 1989). My preference, using 1H 2C as an example, is along the lines (I say “along the lines” as further refinement* can be added to taste)

 

1H 2C 2D 2H then

 

• 
   
  
• 2S = no shortage (i.e. BAL or semi-BAL)
  
• 2NT = short S
  
• 3C = short C
  
• 3D = short D
  
• 3H = 5+D (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 2NT)
  
• 3S = 5+S (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 2S)
  
• 3NT+ = 5+C (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 3C), zooming to showing the nature of the shortage to taste
  

After 1H 2C 2D 2H 2S, it’s very similar to the above but up a step

 

• 
   
  
• 2NT = no shortage (i.e. BAL or semi-BAL)
  
• 3C = short C
  
• 3D = short D
  
• 3H = short S
  
• 3S = 5+S
  
• 3NT = 5+D
  
• 4C+ = 5+C, zooming in showing the nature of the shortage to taste
  

There are many advantages to this, happy to discuss as needed, and few disadvantages (mostly lead directional/sacrifice suggesting opportunities, but even these can be minimised if you add a small amount of complexity to the order you show things). The one “hole” in the method is after 1M 2C 3C, responder has no convenient continuation with 5+C/4D, so needs to fudge with the least bad of 3M/3NT.

 

After 1H 2C 2D 2H 2S 2NT, both hands are known to have no shortage and there is a pile of space to do whatever you fancy (range, shape and/or control showing). After showing shortage, e.g. 1H 2C 2D 2H 2NT, I recommend first step (3C in the sample auction) enquires, to which the first step in response shows a void, the rest a singleton (with cue-bidding and control-showing according to the usual partnership style). Users of Kickbo/Turbo can implement these a level lower in many** instances for those interested in doing so (i.e. 3T+1/3NT shows even keys and 4T+1/4NT respectively can be used to show [or deny] the TQ).

 

Back to the original question then, what to use the four spare bids (1H 3S/3NT/4C/4D in the sample case) for? In my opinion, light splinters, grading the direct 4M raise, or a combination of the two (e.g. 3S for an undisclosed light splinter, 3NT/4C/4D for a graded 4H bid, or vice-versa). Grading the direct raise has relatively more utility in a standard method I would argue, less so in a strong club method.

 

Regards, Newroad

 

* my main ideas on this refinement are when showing a second suit, transfer into it, and when showing a shortage, bid the suit above it

 

** or all instances, with only modest additional complexity

[nullve]

I believe 1M 2NT is best played as NAT, FG.

Natural continuations after

 

1M-2N(nat GF); 3m(4+ m)

 

work even less than after

 

1N-[2M-1](5+ M); 2M-3m(4+ m, GF),

 

since Responder has yet to limit his hand. So how do you continue after 1M-2N?

[newroad]

Hi Nullve,

 

Fair question (i.e. how do I prefer to continue after 1M 2NT), though if the 1NT 2red 2M 3m sequences are in major (no pun intended) trouble, then one of the pillars on which modern bidding is built is about to fall!

 

For a long time (dating back to the early 90's) I played 1M 2M+1 as an FG raise and 1M 2M+2 as a BAL FG. I would have to check the contemporaneous notes to be 100% sure (and am in a different country for Christmas, so can't do so conveniently) but we played natural continuations. What I am unsure about is whether we played 1M 3NT as intermediate range (say 15-17 or 16-18 BAL) with `M 2M+2 as dual range (say 12-14/12-15 and 18-20/19-21). Philosophically, this would have been in keeping with our broader 2/1 style at the time. In any case, I genuinely can't recall any serious issues of the nature to which you allude - maybe this was dumb luck then, poor memory now, or something else, I can't be sure!

 

Playing CLOR, we are just using natural continuations and will see how that continues to go. I play relatively infrequently these days, though usually in decent competition when I do, and there are other parts of the two main systems that I semi-regularly play that warrant more attention.

 

My speculative opinion, time and effort permitting, would be as follows

 

1. The split range structure retains conceptual merit (I don't mind playing in 3NT at IMP's with a 5-3 major suit fit), and/or
   
2. After 1M 2NT, 3C as a range ask followed by optional Baron. This would ideally be complemented by some form of transfer structure at the three level. It might even make moving the 1M=4=4=4 hands into the 2NT response even more convenient, further bolstering the definition of the 2/1's
   

Sorry I can't be more definitive at present than the above. Even if 1M 2NT as NAT, FG is somehow theoretically suspect, as a practical matter, the gains originally alluded to seem to be real.

 

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

Even if 1M 2NT as NAT, FG is somehow theoretically suspect, as a practical matter, the gains originally alluded to seem to be real.

 

I think most folks have abandoned 1M-2N as FG natural because it so preempts opener from describing a shapely hand. I think you're right about rightsiding and for the majority of hands where we're deciding between 3N and 4M it's likely a good thing, but like an opening strong bal 2N, it would be a real slam-killer.

 

I see a lot of...

 

2C-GF bal or clubs

2N-GF FR

 

which is a pretty practical way of aligning with that balanced hand principle that you mentioned. I personally play

 

2C-GF relay

2N-GF FR

 

with the similar idea.

 

I've rarely encountered

 

2C-GF clubs or limit raise the major

 

which I don't like but understand the thought is to be able to play 2M with a limit raise.

 

Especially if we're considering a 4-cd GF raise, it's nice to inform partner quickly in case he faces a 5-level decision...or we do

 

1S P 2C (5D) P P ?

[lycier]

Hardy raises look like this:

 

2NT: 15+, balanced, 4 trumps, slam interest

3♣: Limit raise with either 4 trumps and no side shortage, or 3 trumps and a singleton or void

3under (the denomination directly under trumps: "GF LImit raise, 9+ to 12- HCP, 4 trumps, a singleton or void

3M: weak

3over: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps, side shortage

4♣: balanced, 4 trumps, 12+ to 15- HCP, two of the top three trumps

4♦: as 4♣ but fewer that two top trumps.

 

The last two he described as "inverted trump Swiss", iirc.

Yes,yes, I like it.

3under and 3over also are called as Concealed Splinter with GF,then opener can make a cheapest bid to ask singleton or void.

Actually 4♣/♦ usually is 5-card support, however some experts of our country think such raise are not good and waste a lot of space.

 

 

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

 

With respect to your various thoughts

 

• 
   
  
• Interesting theory about why 1M 2NT FG NAT has been largely deprecated. You would have to ask those around at the time as to which was the driver: bidding the former 2NT response hands suit first (allegedly being) better or the perceived need for a more convenient FG raise. The couple of anecdotal views I recall reading in The Bridge World (Seres and Gitelman) seemed to bemoan its loss. I can't regard their view as conclusive, however, as people who feel strongly the other way have no particular reason to say so, as de-facto methods approximate at least their preferred one.
  
• The "slam-killing" effect of 1M 2NT as NAT FG would be less pronounced than implied - there are a bunch of semi-BAL hands which make it into the modern suite of 2NT openings, maybe even the odd 5431 with some partnerships. Also, partner (in this case opener) has had a shot already. So yes, there may be the odd tight-but-reachable slam inadvertently pre-empted, but the practical game level upsides (to which I think you concur) in practise outweigh this.
  
• The thing about two way bids is that they ideally need to be very similar or very distinct. Very similar (e.g. same shape, split ranges) mean that partner in competition can act based on the known bit (e.g. fit in the example case). Very distinct in competition means that discrete actions can be made with each type, or, even better, no further action with one (e.g. a weak type) and action with the other (e.g. a strong type).
  
• Related to the above, I'm not sure how good FG clubs or FG BAL is. Opposite a major suit opening, they both lend themselves to defence opposite heavy barrage - maybe this is good. FG clubs or limit raise would appear ostensibly worse, you haven't even got a forcing pass option available under heavy barrage. FG clubs or FG raise is perhaps between the two in efficacy under heavy barrage (e.g. DBL with clubs or BAL raise, bid with shaped raise).
  

With respect to Lycier's thoughts and the Hardy stuff, I have seen this "extra strong" raise type elsewhere, the rationale seemingly being for slam to be good and needing to be driven by responder, extra strength is needed. I'm not convinced about the frequency, hence utility, of this approach. However, if you are so interested, the original Balanced Hand Principle article catered for dual range continuations (I believe it split them 11-14 and 15+) and if you play CLOR or anything with similar space, it is easy enough to add a step to split the range*.

 

On the other Hardy style bids, if concerned about trump quality with balanced raises, Turbo/Kickbo does this pretty well (especially if used one level down which is what 1M 2C 2D 2H as the FG raise facilitates). The undisclosed SPL does have some upside - there all some hands with even and/or soft honour dispersion which have no play for slam opposite any such SPL, in which case, hiding the shortage does no harm and maybe some good.

 

Regards, Newroad

 

* it then gets intersting which range to put in the step and which range to zoom on. I think 15+ in the step and 11-14 to zoom, as you "can't" bid 1M 2C 2D 2H 4M to sign-off.

[awm]

As far as swiss raises go, I think the main problem is that using 1M-4m to show a balanced raise in some point range removes most of your space for slam auctions. Points aren't usually the issue in these situations. For example, say opener has:

 

♠AKxxx ♥x ♦KQxx ♣Qxx and hears 1♠-4♣ (12-14 two keycards plus trump queen); you could find partner with:

 

♠Qxxx ♥AKxx ♦Ax ♣xxx where the five level is not safe

♠Qxxx ♥Axxx ♦Ax ♣KJx where slam is almost cold

 

A slower auction where you identify opener's length and/or shortness and get a few cues in below 4M is likely to be much more accurate. This has lead to swiss raises falling out of style, and I almost never see anyone playing them.

 

The other methods that people often pair with trump swiss (like concealed splinters, bergen raises) are okay and I see them sometimes in strong partnerships.

[tommylee]

In his advanced book on 2/1, Max Hardy in his full and complete system used "Inverted Trump Swiss." He had bidding sequences to show splinters (the under jump shift) and his Jacoby 2NT was 16+ so the bids of 4c and 4d described 4 card support and 13-15. 4c was either (i) 4 card support with 2 of the top 3 honors or (ii) 5 card support with the Ace or King of trump. 4 diamonds was any hand with 4 card support and 13-15 that did not meet the criteria of 4 clubs. I played it and liked it, but the frequency of occurrence was poor. I am sure that does not bother anyone in this forum.