[AL78]

This is a part of the system I have not practiced yet.

After 1♥ opening:
1♠: Natural 1-round forcing. May occasionally be 3♠ with 0-1♥ and “weak-ish” minors
1NT: Transfer with 5+♣
2♣: Transfer with 5+♦
2♦: Exactly 2♥ (with less than 4♠ and no significant minor) NB: this may be a 33(43) shape with weak ♥, suitable for 2♥ or 2/3NT.
2010: this is likely to be 8+HCP, or a very good 6 with “something” in ♥ & or ♠
2♥: 7-10 HCP with 3♥ OR 4+HCP with 4+♥
2♠: Game Forcing: 5+♠ headed by Ace or King; and may have 4+♥ but no other
2NT: 3+♥ support; and (a) worth 10-12 with shortage values (so 8 loser types) OR (b) GF
3m: GF: a 5+♣(♦) headed by Ace or King; and may have 4+♥ but no other. NOT an Invitational Fit Jump: 5+suit, with 3+♥ - as those hands go via a Transfer!
3♥: 4-7 HCP with 4+♥ and a shortage (singleton or void) or 5332 shape
3♠: Splinter (usually 11-15HCP or 19+); will have 4+♥
3NT: To play, with a singleton ♥
4m: Splinter (usually 11-15HCP or 19+); will have 4+♥

Responder's Rebid (after 1♥-1♠; 1NT):
Here Opener is wide range (12-16), so we use a Crowhurst 2♣ to explore further.
Other 2 level bids (2♦, 2♥, 2♠) show weakness & are sign-offs.
Invitational bids of 2NT, 3♥, 3♠ are available.
Game Forces of 3m may also be used.

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-1♠; Other or 1♥-2♠; Any):
We are now into Natural Bidding.
However, beware the rare GF support of ♠, by the Opener after 1♥-1♠
Be ready to spot the rare bids of 3NT(45xx), 4m (56 & void) 4S (5611 shape); all 20+ value.

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-Transfer; 2m):
Opener completes the minor transfer on most ordinary opening hands, especially with no fit.
Jumps by Opener to 3m may be based on fit and just a reasonable (non-minimum) hand.
Responder is now in charge and can continue with a new suit (natural and Forcing, including ♠) or invitational bids in ♥ or 3m.

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-2♦ / Rebid):
The first thing to note is that we can no longer play in ♠, any such bid will be Artificial.
Opener will complete to 2♥ on all ordinary hands (up to 14 HCP) and featureless 15-16's.
With a “good” 15-16 Opener may invite with any of 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥
In all these case, Responder is in charge of any further bidding. Note that any bid in ♠, by either player, is now 4th Suit Forcing.
A strong Opener bids 2♠ (unnatural) on ALL hands 17+.
Responder now needs to help in the exploration of Game and Slam contracts:
2NT: any 6-7 HCP (you really hope Opener does not Pass or bid 3NT, now!)
3m: GF: 5+♣(♦) with 8-12 HCP
3♥: GF: usually 3244 with 8-12 HCP and minimal ♠ stop
3♠: Slam Try: 13+ HCP
3NT: GF: usually 3244 with 8-12 HCP and a ♠ stop
2NT: a Relay with no short suit OR very minimum
3♣: a singleton (void) ♣ +acceptance of the try
3♦: a singleton (void) ♦ +acceptance of the try
3♥: Forcing: a singleton (void) ♠ +acceptance of the try
4♥: a maximum (accepts any shortage from Opener)

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-2NT; Rebid):
Responder is raising ♥ with a good hand.
This may (rarely) stop in 3♥ but is often the basis of Game and/or Slam investigations.
We include a “Redwood 4♦”, by either partner, with 6 Key Cards and 2 Queens, after we have identified a double fit (see 3NT, below).
Opener rebids 3♥ on minimum hands (Responder may Pass) but may stretch to 4♥ with shape.
With a “reasonable” hand or Slam ambition, Opener may invite with 3m
Slam tries are also 3♠ (Cue Bid) and 4m (specifically a Void).
Finally, Opener may suggest 3NT on a suitable 5332 shape.
After 3m, we may end up in a slam in a minor, as well as Heart contracts
Responder may choose from:
3♦: Either values in ♦ (unsure of Level & may Pass 3♥) OR a Cue bid
3♥: minimum and/or a poor holding in the trial suit
3♠: Cue Bid (but without 4 card support)
3NT: Shows 4+ cards in the Trial Suit (We may now play Slam in that suit!) We then have our special slam investigation with 6 card Redwood + 2 Queens.
4m: Cue Bid (but without 4 card support)
4♥: a good hand but little slam ambition

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-2♦; 2♥):
We are now in an artificial auction, with ♠ set as an “impossible” suit for trumps (we must have at least as many ♥ as ♠). Responder clarifies the firstly the strength, then the shape and slam potential of their hand, as follows (opener already knows of exactly 2♥):
2♠ is “4th suit Force” (Responder may NOT pass Opener’s 2NT); thereafter 4♠ is RKCB (usually for Hearts) while 4NT will be a quantitative raise.
2NT is any 11-12 HCP, with an adequate ♠ stop.
3♣ is GF with 5♣ and may have 5♦.
3♣ is GF with 5♦.
3♥ is 11-12 with ♥Qx or better.
3NT is to play (or correct to 4♥).

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-2♦; 2♠):
We are now in an artificial auction, with ♠ set as an “impossible” suit for trumps (we must have at least as many ♥ as ♠). Responder clarifies the firstly the strength, then the shape and slam potential of their hand, as follows (opener already knows of exactly 2♥):
2NT is any 6-7 point hand (you tend to hope that Opener does not “Pass”!)
3♣ is 8-12 with a “weakish” 5♣
3♦ is 8-12 with a “weakish” 5♦
3♥ is 8-12 with 4-4 in ♣ and ♦ (specifically 3244) and a poor Spade stop
3NT is 8-12 with a Spade Stop (and often 4-4 in the minors)
3♠ is bid on all 13+hands, to start a slam investigation (forcing to 4NT or higher).

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-2♦; 3m):
Pass: All minimum hands
3♦: 5♦ and INV+(forcing)
3♥: INV but poor Spades (will have 4♣ or 3♥ after 3♣)
3♠: 4th Suit (a try for 3N but not forcing to 5m) nb: this may also include very strong hands that bid again, later.
3NT: To play
4m: Forcing (slam try)
4otherm: RKCB for the minor only
4♥/♠: Cue Bid with the minor set as Trumps.

Responder Continues after 1♥-1N(2♣); 2♣(2♦):
Any bid, except 2♥, 2NT or a Self-Raise is now Game Forcing (except that 4th suit at the 2 level (2♦, 2♠) may be INV – but only Responder may pass below Game).
Pass: a 6+ card suit – poor hand
2♦: NAT (may be a 3 card NT stop) and 11+(only over 1♥-1NT; 2♣)
2♥: a 2(poor 3) card raise with 5+card side suit (7-11 points)
2♠: NAT (may be a 3 card NT stop) and 11+ (usually 5+-4+)
2NT: 11-12 and (semi-)Balanced
3♣(3♦): 6+Suit & 11-13 points (or a good 10-12)
3♣: (after 1♥ 2♣ / 2♦) is NAT (may be a NT stop) and is GF
3♥: 11-12 and 2 good Hearts (Qx or better) NB: this is now more likely to be a “fit jump” type with 3+♥ and 8-11
3NT: to play (usually with a singleton ♥)
4m: A minor jump raise (e.g. 1♥-2♣; 2♦-4♦) is RKCB
3x: A jump in a new suit (e.g. 1♥-1NT; 2♣-3♦) is ?? undefined

[DavidKok]

This is a lot to take in! I don't like most of the structure if I'm being honest, but it's very detailed and interesting.

[LBengtsson]

DavidKok, on 2022-September-26, 04:59, said:

This is a lot to take in! I don't like most of the structure if I'm being honest, but it's very detailed and interesting.

I sort of agree with this. The structure does seem awkward, and it is plenty of brain cells memorizing, but if you are playing any detailed system with a regular partner, you do soon get used to it, especially if you use practice hands to tight up and analyse your bidding sequences.

[mw64ahw]

I prefer this to the 1♠ structure but would free up the 2♠ response by putting it in the forcing 1♠. This gives opener the opportunity to show their 2nd suit.

Overall though I still prefer Kaplan Inversion as this prioritises the weak 5-3/4-4 ♠ fits

P.S. Another thought; why bother with 3m 5+GF when the 1NT & 2♣ are transfers? Perhaps on par with the ♠ structure

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2022-September-26, 04:59, said:

This is a lot to take in! I don't like most of the structure if I'm being honest, but it's very detailed and interesting.

Sorry, I cut and pasted out of my set of notes, and unfortunately it came out very long.

This is not the most intensive part of the system. I don't have the notes on responses to 1-minor but I hear one of them is very complicated, to the point that one of his partner's never got fully to grips with it after more than a year of playing it.

[DavidKok]

To my eye it seems you'd be best off ignoring this system. Some of it looks good, some of it looks mediocre (or even bad), but all of it looks very complicated. Don't apologise for the length, I'll write out more detailed responses when I have the time to go through the system more thoroughly.

[DavidKok]

I'm not a fan of fibbing about spade length (of all things!), but hands with exactly 3♠0-1♥ and weak minors are infrequent so I'm sure it won't matter much.

Assuming you don't bypass spades or 5(+) of a minor, does the 2♦ response show exactly 3=2=4=4 with the occasional 3=3=(43) with weak hearts? I think traditionally transfer systems reserve this bid to have two types of raises, e.g. weak (direct) and invitational+ (one under), or 'weak or strong' (one under) and 'constructive' (direct).

Come to think of it, how strong or weak are these transfers? 6+ HCP with no real upper limit?

2♥ is again quite wide ranged, I'm not a fan of that. Shouldn't you have enough space to disambiguate that thanks to transfers?

I've already said everything I wished to say about the unlimited 2NT (with low lower bound) in the 1♠ comment thread.

Jumping to 3m with a strong hand seems awful, especially since you have a slow route to show them. Traditionally people include generic strong hands in the low bids (here: the transfers) and specific shape-showing bids in the jumps (here: strong fitbids). It's probably an improvement to take the 5m3♥ strong hands out of the transfers and swap them with the current use. Even traditional systems bid 2m with very strong hands (and that minor).

As an aside: why play different systems over 1♥ and 1♠ if the auction 1♥-1♠ is natural? If you can fit all your desired hand types in 1NT and up using transfers (or using a forcing 1NT, whichever option you prefer), why flip it all over the other major?

I'm not a fan of the 12-16 balanced rebid and Crowhurst, but that's just a personal opinion.

1♥-transfer; 2m mentions 'ordinary opening hands' again. What is the HCP range on those, and how do you avoid getting too high with, say, 17 opposite 6 while also not causing rebid problems for responder on, say, 10 HCP? I think the followups to the transfers are the most important part of the system, and right now the explanation seems rather thin. 'Responder is in charge' doesn't cut it when opener is still wide ranging.

Ah, the next section (1♥-2♦; ?) explains that 'ordinary' is up to 14 HCP? Rejecting the transfer on all 15+ is going to frequently get you too high (especially if the auction went 1♥-1NT; 2m-P/2♦/2♥ at the other table), but maybe you can salvage it?
I think a more apt description would be 'impossible spade', rather than '4th Suit Forcing'. At any rate it seems like a fine agreement, although not being able to pattern out with 4♠5♥ is awkward in case partner has choice of games or even slam considerations.
Upon further reading it seems that the 2♦ response may contain several strong hand types with one or both minor suits. It is not at all clear to me why you would not transfer to your long suit instead, especially not if you are going to be captain of the auction if you start with 2♦. Do you know what the argument is for rejecting the transfer?

The final paragraph is awkward. Opener has limited their hand (approximately good 10-good 14, maybe bad 15?), but now every bid by responder is forcing to game? There is also no way to get to opener's first or second suit with a weak hand (say responder has 2=2=4=5 and opener has 3=5=4=1). It seems important to have some invitational sequences available here, and I would also like to give opener some weak bids that reject the transfer.

I think you also mentioned you play mostly matchpoints? Not having a way to get to the right strain on the 2-level, both over the 1♥ and the 1♠ opening, seems especially damaging at that form of scoring.

[mw64ahw]

A 1♥ Kaplan Inversion approach for comparison with raises based on a Modified Loosing Trick Count.

Comments welcome

Initial responses
1♠ a) not GI/GF b) 5+♠ GI/GF, c) 3+♥ 10MLT (6-7tp), d) 3♥ 8.5MLT (10-11tp)
1NT 5+♠ not GI/GF
2♣ 3+ GI/GF or 3♥ GF
2♦ 5+GI/GF or 3+♦3♥ GF
2♥ 3+♥ 9MLT (8-10tp)
2♠ a) 4+♥ <=8.5 MLT, b) 3♥ 7.5MLT
2NT a) 4+♥ Mixed raise <=7.5MLT , b) SI 4+♥ w. void, c) 3♥ 8 MLT (11-12tp). 3♣ asks.
3♣ 4+♥ Mixed raise 8MLT,
3♦ 4+♥ Mixed raise 8.5MLT
3♥ NV 4♥/VN 5+♥ pre-emptive
3♠ 4+♥ SI ♠ ctrl
3NT 3♥(433) COG
4♣ 4+♥ SI ♣ ctrl w. ♥ honour
4♦ 4+♥ SI ♦ ctrl w. ♥ honour
4♥ NV 5+♥/VN 6+♥ pre-emptive

After 1♥-1♠
1NT Balanced or ♦; 2♣ asks
2♣ 4+♣
2♦ a) 4♠ Weak+, b) 2533 Str, c) 6+♥ Str
2♥ 6+♥
2♠ a) 4+♣ Str, b) 5332 Str 3♣ asks
2NT a) 4+♦ Str, b) 5323 Str 3♣ asks
3♣ 5+♣ <=5.5MLT usually Pass/Correct
3♦ 5+♦ <=5.5MLT usually Pass/Correct
3♥ 6+♥ <=5.5MLT

[mikeh]

I haven’t spent the time to analyze this thoroughly but I have some general comments

Firstly, if one is going to play a very complex method, and while the structure as written doesn’t deal much with long auctions the initial methods seem complex to me, there has to be a positive reason. There has to be a good case to make that one is gaining bidding accuracy on sufficient hands, and not losing accuracy on other hands, to justify the method. The more memory intensive the method, the greater the gains need to be.

In 1995 I formed a new partnership that played a 2/1 method but incorporating relays in many sequences. We had gf relays over all 2 suit openings, our strong 1N, our weak 1N, our strong 2N and in 4SF auctions. The notrump relays were very different from the suit relays. We had 175 pages of compressed notes.

It took me three years to become comfortable with the method, and during those three years we discussed the method, and bid hands, every week for hours at a time.

It was eventually worth it because the method helped us win our team trials two years in a row, and some of our results were spectacular.

But what I noticed was that the quality of my card play diminished for those first three years. I was devoting so much mental effort to remembering the system that I had little left for declarer play or defence. There were times I almost gave up.

This isn’t unique to me. I remember reading a book, I think it was Hamman’s, in which he discussed forming a team with Meckwell….whose reputed 600 pages of notes made our 175 seem like a leaflet. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, that Meckwell became fearsome once they stopped having too many ‘forgets’.

So: where does this method gain over more commonly played and easier to remember methods? The 1S response to 1H may, as David suggests, be rare but….the 1S response seems to me to lead to a lot of ambiguity and, while that may arise infrequently, how do the benefits of the overall response structure outweigh the undoubted, even if rare, problems from 1S?

If responder transfers as his initial bid, how does opener deal with unusual hands? How does responder untangle both his strength and distribution (just because he transferred doesn’t mean he hasn’t got a two suiter or extreme length and/or a wide range of strength). You say that opener usually completes the transfer, but that seems flawed to me…opener subordinates describing his hand?

Also….in any method that entails ambiguity at an early stage consider how to resolve that ambiguity when the opponents bid. Very complex methods that fail to take into account the propensity of opponents to interfere are doomed.

Finally, how much time are you and your proposed partner willing to put into this?

[DavidKok]

That's a very good summary of some of the weak parts of this system. The fact that opener cannot clarify hand type beyond basic strength over the transfer is a massive downside. Also to clarify: the 1♠ response is natural (4+ spades, forcing) but may contain a rare hand type with only 3 spades - not a big deal, all things considered.

I don't see the upside of this system compared to many mainstream methods.

[michel444]

DavidKok, on 2022-September-26, 09:23, said:

That's a very good summary of some of the weak parts of this system. The fact that opener cannot clarify hand type beyond basic strength over the transfer is a massive downside. Also to clarify: the 1♠ response is natural (4+ spades, forcing) but may contain a rare hand type with only 3 spades - not a big deal, all things considered.

I don't see the upside of this system compared to many mainstream methods.

I have a stupid answer the advantage of the complex response structure is an exercise in learning memorizing and analizing and hand valuation
learning such system open the door to other complex system
1 of the Most efective way is relay sequence there have some advantage but are very complex and stress memory
i just look the system and he have some intersting featture like teling your partner no fit for your MAJOR !
Michel

[Douglas43]

I'm with mikeh. Having seen a good pair get worse as their system got more complex, I think relays work best if you are (a) ferociously dedicated and (b) probably, young.

[nullve]

AL78, on 2022-September-26, 04:32, said:

After 1♥ opening:
1♠: Natural 1-round forcing. May occasionally be 3♠ with 0-1♥ and “weak-ish” minors
1NT: Transfer with 5+♣
2♣: Transfer with 5+♦
2♦: Exactly 2♥ (with less than 4♠ and no significant minor) NB: this may be a 33(43) shape with weak ♥, suitable for 2♥ or 2/3NT.
2010: this is likely to be 8+HCP, or a very good 6 with “something” in ♥ & or ♠
2♥: 7-10 HCP with 3♥ OR 4+HCP with 4+♥

[...]

Responder’s Rebid (After 1♥-Transfer; 2m):
Opener completes the minor transfer on most ordinary opening hands, especially with no fit.

So what is Responder supposed to do with

a) 5-6 hcp and 3 H (e.g. Axx-xxx-Qxx-Txxx)
b) 5-7 hcp and 3244 (e.g. Axx-xx-Qxxx-Txxx)
c) 5-7 hcp and either 32(53) or 22(54) (e.g. Axx-xx-Qxx-Txxxx)
d) 5-9 hcp, not-so-"weakish" minors and either 31(54) or 3055 (does xxx-x-AQTxx-xxxx qualify?)
e) 5-9 hcp and 2155 (e.g. Ax-x-Qxxxx-Txxxx)

?

Pass with a) and b), potentially missing a 26 or 27 hcp game opposite a standard 1♥ opener?

Transfer to 2m with some of c), d) and e), intending to play there opposite "most ordinary opening hands" in what could be a 5-1 or 5-0 fit?

Note that one would respond 1N with all of a)-e) (yes, even a)) in standard 2/1.

[Gilithin]

nullve, on 2022-September-27, 00:36, said:

So what is Responder supposed to do with

a) 5-6 hcp and 3 H (e.g. Axx-xxx-Qxx-Txxx)
b) 5-7 hcp and 3244 (e.g. Axx-xx-Qxxx-Txxx)
c) 5-7 hcp and either 32(53) or 22(54) (e.g. Axx-xx-Qxx-Txxxx)
d) 5-9 hcp, not-so-"weakish" minors and either 31(54) or 3055 (does xxx-x-AQTxx-xxxx qualify?)
e) 5-9 hcp and 2155 (e.g. Ax-x-Qxxxx-Txxxx)

I would suggest 2♦ with a-c and 1♠ with d. With e I suspect 1♠ is by far the best call but as written the only one that fits is 2♣ (I would choose to adjust the definition of 1♠ slightly).

My view on systems like this that have massive complexity with little benefit is that they should be avoided for anyone below advanced level. It is far more important to improve general bridge judgement and understanding than use a large part of available concentration for remembering all of this. For advanced+ players, it might be worth it if it can be made to provide some overall positive expectation. The thing is that if one wants to play something "fancy" over 1♥ that involves using 1♠ essentially as a relay, why not just use the same structure as over the 1♠ opening, namely 1♠ = FNT, 1NT = GF with spades? It means only learning a tiny adaptation from what you are already playing rather than a completely new system. And that is quite aside from well-established methods such as KI that require a little more memorisation but still much less than the OP.

If I were your bridge tutor, I would suggest to you that looking for a complex system fix at this stage is a trap that will end up stunting your bridge development. I personally love complex system stuff and really miss the contributions of posters like kenrexford, awm, Zelandahk, straube and TWO4BRIDGE but most such methods are only suitable for a small fraction of players. So my recommendation is to keep playing a natural system for the next 2 years and make a note every time you find a system hole. By that time, you will be in a far better position not only to evaluate the reward-to-cost ratio but also to implement the new method successfully and (also important!) describe it properly to the opponents.