[Kungsgeten]

Let's discuss rebid structures after 1C--1D, playing Swedish
Club. Opener's 1C is 11--13 bal (no 5 card major) or any 17+
hcp. Responder's 1D is negative (0--7 hcp, but in the system I play
responder could have 4333/4432 and 8--11 with no 4-card
major). Possible tweaks, which may be considered in the rebid
structure, is to include some 17+ hands in other opening bids (like
2NT, 2D or playing a wider range for the 1D opening).

Swan play the following (their 2NT opening is 21--23):

1C--1D;
Pass = Possible with 11--13 balanced
1M = 11--13 balanced with 3+ major OR 17+ (but not GF) with 4+M, may be canapé
1NT = 17--20 balanced
2m = Natural 17+, but not GF, no 4 card major
2M = Natural GF, may be 4 cards and longer minor
2NT = 24+ bal, GF
3m = Natural GF, may have 4 card major if 6-4
3M/4m = Natural semi-solid suit, control asking bid

Zebra play:

1C--1D;
Pass = Possible. Zebra's 1D can be 4H and 4+D and 8--11.
1M = As Swan, but it seems like the strong variants could also be 3 cards(?)
1NT = 17--19
2C = 20--21 bal / 24+ bal / Acol-2 in hearts or clubs
2D = 22--23 (semi)bal or Acol-2 in spades or diamonds
2M = 17--19 natural one-suiter
2NT = Both minors and a 3 card major, 17--19
3m = 17--19, 6+ suit and no 3+ major
3M/4m = Natural GF, setting trump, asking for Q
3NT = Gambling
4M = Gambling

Fredin/Lindkvist played:

1C--1D;
Pass/1M/1NT = As Swan (but may bid 2NT with 20 bal)
2C = Artificial GF
2D = 17--21 unbal, no major
2M = GF with 5+ major
2NT = 20--22
3m = 17--20, 6+m, no 3+M
3H = INV 5-5 majors
3S = GF with 5-5 minors

We currently play (inspired by Polish club):

1C--1D;
Pass/1M/1NT = Our 1M is limited to about 17--19
2C = Natural unbalanced, no 4+ major, 17--19
2D = GF or 22--24 bal (our 2NT opening is 20--21)
2M = Natural, strong but not GF (so about 19--22), 5+ suit
2NT = 5+ diamonds unbalanced, no 4+ major, 17--19
3m = Natural, strong but not GF (so about 19--22), 5+ suit
3H = GF with 5-5 majors
3S = GF with 5-5 spades and a minor
3N = GF with 5-5 minors

I've been thinking about combining our structure and Fredin/Lindkvist:

1C--1D;
2C = GF or 22--24 balanced
2D = Unbal without 4+ major, about 17--19, forcing
2M = Natural 19--22
2NT = 20--21 (and use our 2NT opening as something else)
3m = Natural 19--22 (5+ suit)
Higher = GF 5-5 hands, like our current version.

Both Zebra and Fredin/Lindkvist give up playing 2m when holding an
unbalanced hand without major. Is this the right way to go? We
separate our 17+ hands, which can not force game, into two
intervals. Do you think this is wise? Any input is appreciated!

[straube]

How about...

P-all weak NT
1H-20+ artificial
other-17-19

I'm not entirely serious, but partly serious...especially about the 1H rebid being at least 17+

[Kungsgeten]

straube, on 2014-May-05, 09:05, said:

How about...

P-all weak NT
1H-20+ artificial
other-17-19

I'm not entirely serious, but partly serious...especially about the 1H rebid being at least 17+

Yes, if 1D always shows 0--7 this is possible, but we might actually still hold half the deck (and have a better spot than 1D). I think Tangerine (and Cloudberry) club used the structure you present, but their 1C was 8--9 bal or 15+ if I remember correctly. You could also play something like:

1C--1D;
1H = 20+ or 17--19 bal
1S = 3+ major if weak
1NT = 11--13 bal, hearts longer than spades

Another way to use your structure is if the 1H opening shows 4+ hearts instead of 5+. Then 1C is 11--13 without 4 hearts or 17+.

[newroad]

Hi Kungsgeten,

I haven't really thought this through, but my gut instinct is as follows. Split your responses into three ranges, in essence

• FG opposite the 11-13 BAL type (so 13+ hcp, say): semi-POS
  
• FG opposite the 17+ type but less than the above (so 8-12 hcp, say): POS
  
• less than the above (so 0-7 hcp, say): NEG

Coincidentally only, this lines up to classic Strong Pass ranges.

What you do with them is down to preference, but on a frequency basis (and my own prejudices, perhaps) I would go (1) then (3) then (2) so something like

• 1♦ ART FG
  
• 1♥ ART NEG
  
• 1NT+ semi-POS, in any form you fancy (natural, transfer, whatever, but 1NT definitely natural)

In short, responder focuses on showing rather than allowing opener to describe.

Over the NEG, you can play 1♠ as STR and F, everything else as NAT. For what it's worth, after 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, I would play 2♣ not 1NT as the ART 2nd NEG (say 0-3 HCP) over which 2♦ would be FG, to give 4-7 hcp definition to everything else.

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

newroad, on 2014-May-05, 09:46, said:

• 1♦ ART FG
  
• 1♥ ART NEG
  
• 1NT+ semi-POS, in any form you fancy (natural, transfer, whatever, but 1NT definitely natural)

I kind of like this. If you have to drop responder in a suit, it might as well be a major; if the opponents double you have room to run.

You didn't list 1C-1S. Maybe you could play TOSR

1S-semipositive with a minor
.....1N-big hand asking
.....2C-p/c
1N-bal semipositive
2C-semipositive with majors
.....2D-asks longer
2D-a 6-cd major semipositive
.....2H-p/c
.....2S-super-accepting (shows the 11-13)
.....2N-GF ask
2M-5M/5m semipositive
.....2N-GF ask

[Kungsgeten]

I do not quite get it Newroad. Swedish club do play an artificial negative (1D), but in our case it may be 8--11 balanced without 4M or 5m too. I think you get too high if you use 1H as the negative bid. Hands with 8+ hcp does okay over the 1C opening, it is hands with 0--7 hcp which is a bit awkward. I do not think it is wise to pass as opener holding 11--13 hcp when responder has 0--7. If you actually get to this point in the bidding, you probably have about half the deck and chances are you should be playing a better contract (which others will find).

[straube]

Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-05, 16:29, said:

I do not quite get it Newroad. Swedish club do play an artificial negative (1D), but in our case it may be 8--11 balanced without 4M or 5m too. I think you get too high if you use 1H as the negative bid. Hands with 8+ hcp does okay over the 1C opening, it is hands with 0--7 hcp which is a bit awkward. I do not think it is wise to pass as opener holding 11--13 hcp when responder has 0--7. If you actually get to this point in the bidding, you probably have about half the deck and chances are you should be playing a better contract (which others will find).

It's an interesting question. If it goes 1C P 1H P P the balancing hand won't have an 1H overcall so does he pass and gamble that you're in a poor fit when his side has point majority and possibly game? I don't know.

[newroad]

Hi Kungsgeten,

Firstly, an erratum. I didn't mention what I think 1♣ 1♠ should be. For the record, I think that should form part of your semi-POS structure. You could play transfers the whole way, so that 1♠ shows BAL, but given the weak hand type for partner is 11-13 BAL, I would keep 1NT as the BAL semi-POS, and use 1♠ some other way. I'd have to have a longer think to figure out my preferred overall semi-POS structure in context*.

On to your question.

One main reason to play 1♥ not 1♦ as the ART NEG is to give the option to retain systemic consistency between the POS and semi-POS sequences (i.e. 1♣ 1♠+ versus 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠+ respectively). This is important to relayers - even if you jiggle the semi-POS versus POS meanings around (e.g. see my annotation) they still come out at the same levels.

Further, I don't think playing 1♥ versus 1♦ as the negative is meaninfully more difficult or dangerous. You can pass with 11-13 BAL and 4+♥ or if MIN or bid 1NT+ NAT otherwise. Yes, you could be in 1NT with a combined 12 count or so, but the opponents haven't chosen to yet act? And if they can't easily nail you, you have in practice bid a 3rd or 4th hand Fert - giving your opponents more trouble in the case of a delayed auction entry they might need to consider.

Hope this clarifies?

Once again, however, my views should be caveated - I haven't thought this fully through.

Regards, Newroad

*If you like or are willing to consider a symmetric relay style, one idea for the above would be to switch the natural meanings of 1♠ (♥ 1/2/3/suited) with 1NT and 2♣ (♠ 1/2 suited or BAL respectively) and then flip the majors around. Then, after 1♣ 1♠ (♥ 1/2 suited or BAL) opener if 11-13 BAL assumes responder is BAL and bids 1NT. If responder is in reality UNBAL with hearts, responder can continue to resolve, e.g. 2♣ = ♦&♥, 2♦ = 6+♥, 2♥+ ♣&♥ etc.

Alternatively, after 1♣ 1♠ 1NT[=assumes BAL] above, responder could simply bid naturally, e.g. 2♣ = ♣&♥, 2♦ = ♦&♥, 2♥ = ♥, which may have some merit on the semi-POS's (where continued relaying is less likely). You could also refine this to make the 2m's above 5+♥/4+m and make, say, 2♠ = 4♥/5+♣ and 2♠ = 4♥/5+♦. Sensible possibilities are endless ...

[straube]

I don't think you can/ought to retain symmetric consistency between 1C-1D and 1C-1S on up. After 1C-1D you could have full relays if you like. After 1C-1S+ you have to allow for stopping in a part score somewhere...possibly 1N. I haven't heard any comment on TOSR but I still think it neatly solves your semipositives because opener can sign off easily with the 11-13 and ask easily with 17+.

[newroad]

Hi Straube,

You certainly could if you wanted to, but you probably wouldn't.

In reality, the only one you have to cater for is the BAL type (to be able to play 1NT) - so you might need to lose a step there. For the rest, you can pretty much keep the structure.

That said, it was just an initial idea - I'm not wedded to it in any way. What I do think is generally right, given how defined opener's most likely option is, is that responder should focus on showing rather than asking.

Regards, Ian C

[yunling]

Has anyone tried…
1♣-1♦-
1♥=weak NT
1♠=21+
else=17-20

[straube]

yunling, on 2014-May-06, 12:20, said:

Has anyone tried…
1♣-1♦-
1♥=weak NT
1♠=21+
else=17-20

That's interesting,too. I think the thing we're getting away from is that little club players like to start their search for a major suit fit at the 1-level...and are willing to toss in big and small hands together in order to accomplish this. I hate little club and think it's unsound, but a lot of folks see merit in the idea and are hopefully getting good results from it.

[yunling]

Come up with a new idea, pretty much based on the discussion above:
1♣-?
1♦=either 1)5-12, promising a 4 card major but no 5 card major 2)any GF
1♥=negative, 0-5, opener pass with weak NT
1♠=6-12 no 4 card major
1NT+=5-12 with a 5 card major, as moscito 2005

So search for a major suit fit at the 1-level is possible then.

[straube]

yunling, on 2014-May-08, 03:09, said:

Come up with a new idea, pretty much based on the discussion above:
1♣-?
1♦=either 1)5-12, promising a 4 card major but no 5 card major 2)any GF
1♥=negative, 0-5, opener pass with weak NT
1♠=6-12 no 4 card major
1NT+=5-12 with a 5 card major, as moscito 2005

So search for a major suit fit at the 1-level is possible then.

Good idea. Along those lines...

1D-6-12 promising a 4-cd major but no 5-cd major 2) any gf
.....1H-natural, forcing
..........1S-natural. forcing
...............1N-11-13 bal
...............2C-16-18, natural, nf
...............2D-artificial gf
...............2H-good spade raise
...............2S-11-13 bal
..........1N-11-12, 4S
..........2H-6-9
.....1S-natural, forcing
..........1N-6-10, 4 hearts
...............2C-16-18, natural, nf
...............2D-artificial gf
...............2H-5S/4H, 16-18, nf
...............2S-6S, 16-18, nf
...............2N-invitational
.....1N-11-13, no major
1H-0-5, opener passes with weak nt
1S-6-12 and a 5-cd minor
.....1N-17+ ask
.....2C-11-13, p/c
.....2D-11-13, wants to raise clubs only
.....2H-11-13, wants to raise both minors
1N-6-10 bal, no major
2C-6-12 5/4+ majors
.....2D-17+ ask
.....2M-11-13
2D-6-8, one 5-cd major
.....2H-11-13, p/c
2M-9-12, natural
.....p or raise=11-13 bal
2N-11-12 bal, no major

[Kungsgeten]

Something like the latest suggestions could work. It seems a bit hard to separate semi-positive vs GF hands (vs a 17+ opener) in the 6--12 range though.

We've been thinking of including 17--19 unbal with 5+ diamonds, but no 4 card major, into our 1D opening. In this case our 1C--1D; structure would be a bit better. Here's our structure over 1C:

1C---
1D = most 0--7 / 8--11 bal, not 4+ major or 5+ minor
1M = 4+ suit, may have longer minor if not GF, 8+ hcp
1NT = 5+ clubs, 8+ hcp, may have 4 card major if GF
2C = 5+ diamonds, 8+ hcp, as above
2D = Multi, 0--4 with 6+ major or 16+ bal
2H = INV with both minors
2S = Balanced game force (13--15), may be slammish with 6m322
2NT = Invitational
3X = Weak

If our diamond opening includes 17--19 with diamonds and no major, we could play:

1C--1D;
1M = 3+ suit if 11--13, 4+ suit if 17--19 (may have longer minor)
1NT = 17--19
2C = Natural 17--19
2D = Artificial unbal GF or 22--23 bal
2M = Natural strong, but not GF
2NT = 20--21
3m = Natural strong, but not GF
3M/3NT = GF 5-5

The opening structure would be:

1C = 11--13 bal (may be 4414) or most 17+
1D = 11--16 unbal with 4+ diamonds, may have longer clubs OR 17--19 unbal with 5+ diamonds and no major
1M = 11--16, 5+ suit. 1H usually denies four spades.
1NT = 14--16, may be 4414
2C = 12--16, 5+ suit ala Precision/Polish
2D = Multi, weak major
2H = Flannery, 11--16
2S = 5 spades and 5+ minor, weak
2NT = Balanced GF

[straube]

Anything you can do to take the pressure off your 1C would help. Removing the strong 1D hands without a major is a start.

Why do you like to put your 11-13 balanced hands in with the strong hand? It results in needing 2-way responses and 2-way rebids and is just a mess. I'd recommend switching to a weak NT like Zelandakh uses and then your club is 15+. I'm sure he would tell you about his system if you asked him. Plus if you like opening 1M with 11-18 or so you can still do so.

[Kungsgeten]

We used to play Moscito, so 1C was 15+ any, which to me was a bit weak. We did not use the Moscito 1C structure, however (we played 1D as 0--8, 1H as 13+ any and 1S+ as 9--12 with symmetric relay continuations). I did not really like to open 1C with any 15+ balanced. Removing som 15+ unbalanced hand from the 1C opening probably helps though. We also changed system because of the artificiality of Moscito, wanting to play more natural. Having a weak hand in the 1C opening "protects" it somewhat from unsound bidding from opponents. It would be fun to try our current structure and have 1C as possibly 15--16 if balanced, and I'm open to it.

I do not really understand what you mean by 2-way responses, you do not need this playing Swedish club (Swan does not). Rebids probably need to be two-way, which is problematic after 1C--1D; but otherwise okay. We play mostly matchpoints, and having a weak NT would be somewhat anti-field (we have no regular pair playing weak NT at our club currently). Even our 14--16 NT is sometimes anti-field.

So yeah, I'd be willing to try putting 15+ balanced into 1C, but I like like the frequency of the 1C opening and actually think it works pretty well.

[straube]

Well, I guess I agree with you and prefer a stronger club myself. That said, a lot of folks like to separate their weak NT hands from their 1D opening. I think Zelandakh uses 12-14 NT, a natural (4+?) 1D and 2C only promising 5 clubs and I'd guess he'd say that it's important to him to have a general idea about opener's suit holdings (even if the 2C opening in particular is a little preemptive). So that's a style thing and difficult to say whether it's better or worse than playing an ambiguous 1D opening (which I play). We've obviously had threads and threads on that. Anyway, I mentioned his structure because it's possibly a little closer to Polish/Swedish than strong club.

[Kungsgeten]

Some of you have suggested a rebid structure which involves a low-level forcing bid. I've tried to accomplish this while still being able to find a major fit partscore with a weak vs weak hand. I have two outlined structures; one inspired by Zelandakhs 1C--1D; structure he kindly shared with me, and another inspired by a strong club 1H 20+ rebid. Remember that our 1D response is 0--7 or 8--11 bal flat with no 4 card major. By Acol below I mean strong hands, usually 20+, but not enough to force game. Please comment

The first:

1C--1D;
Pass = Weak hand, usually 4+ diamonds and no major
1H = Forcing. a) 17--19, not unbal with 4+ spades b) 22--24 bal c) Acol with 4 hearts and 5+ minor
1S = Non-forcing a) (3)4 spades, 11--13 b) 17--19 unbal with 4+ spades
1NT = 11--13 with (3)4 hearts, not 4 spades
2C = Artificial GF
2D = Acol with 6+ minor or 5-4 minors. Usually no 4 card major
2M = Acol
2NT = 20--21
3m = Acol with 5+ minor and 4 spades
3M+ = GF with 5-5 hands

1C--1D; 1H---
1S = Most 0--7
....1NT = 17--19
....2CDH = 17--19, not 4 spades
....2S = 17--19, 5-5 spades and a minor
....2NT = 22--24
....3m = Acol with 5+ minor and 4 hearts
1NT = 8--11 bal, no major
2X = Natural 5--7, usually 6+ suit

The main downside is when opener is weak with 4-4 majors and responder has 4 hearts.


The second suggestion:

1C--1D;
Pass = As above
1H = Forcing. a) 11--13 bal with (3)4 hearts b) Any Acol c) GF with 5+ hearts
1S = As above, but not 4-4 majors if weak (starts with 1H)
1NT = 17--19
2CDH = 17--19, not 4 spades
2S = Natural GF
2NT = 22--24 (20--21 bal opens 2NT)
3m = Natural GF
3M = 5+ diamonds and 4 card major, GF
3NT = 25+ bal (With super strong hands I guess you'll have to bid 4NT). This could probably be included in 1H instead.

1C--1D; 1H---
1S = 4+ spades, 0--7
....Pass = Any weak hand
....1NT = ?? Probably strong with 3 card support makes sense
....2X = Acol
....2NT+ = GF with hearts
1NT = No 4 card major, 0--11. Responses as above.
2C = 4 hearts 5--7 or 4+ hearts 0--4
....2H = Weak hand
....2NT = GF with 4+ hearts
....3H = Invite
....Jump = Splinter with 4+ hearts
....Other = Acol
2DH = 5--7, 5+ suit (so GF vs strong hand)

The main downside is not being able to sign off in 2C with 5--7 and 5+ clubs when opener is weak with (3)4 hearts.

[straube]

I think I'd pick the second suggestion, but I don't like either and I think it's due to the starting conditions. You've got 12-14 balanced thrown in with your strong hands and 8-11 balanced thrown in with your weak response and both hands are using the other as a relay...which is especially problematic when you have weak opposite weak and get too high.

Maybe if you're going to stay with these starting conditions the original idea is right and 1C-1D, 1M needs to be not forcing. You need to allow some passing somewhere.