Ok, I have made a variant on the strong club system I am playing. I am still tinkering, but have an FD file for those that are interested and want to message me. It's a derivative of symmetric relay and from my learning of Tarzan club, but it's different enough that I think I will call it Echo Club.
Basic System: Strong ♣, 4 card majors (could be canape), relays, 2 bids are all preemptive. Lots of parallelism (same relays after openings and 1♣).
Openings:
1♣: 16+ Any shape (relay continuations)
1♦: 10-15, one or both minors
1♥: 10-15, 4+♥, may be canape in any suit
1♠: 10-15, 4+♠, <4♥, may have longer minor
1NT: 12.5-15 Bal
2♣: Weak Both Majors
2♦: Weak ♦ and ♥/♠
2♥: Weak Natural
2♠: Weak Natural
2NT: Weak Both Minors
The 1♦ is VERY nebulous and I agree it is a net loser. On the plus side, I have a follow up for interference (both doubles and overcalls) and entire shape can be relayed out when responder is strong. I believe that the gain from the 2♣ bid offsets it.
Constructive auction continuations:
1♦ - ?
1♥: Natural, F1R
1♠: Natural, F1R
1NT: GF relay
2♣: 10-12, 4+♣
2♦: 10-12, 4+♦
2♥: 55 majors, INV
2♠: 55 blacks, INV
2NT: 10-12 bal
1♥ - ?
1♠: GF relay
1NT: 6-9, 4+♠
2♣: 10-12, <3♥
2♦: 10-12, 3-4♥
2♥: 6-9, 3-4♥
2♠/3♣/3♦: Fit Jump
2NT: Raise to 3+♥
3♥: Preemptive
1♠ - ?
1NT: GF relay
2♣: 10-12, <3♠
2♦: 10-12, 3-4♠
2♥: 7-10, 5+♥
2♠: 6-9, 3-4♠
2NT: Raise to 3+♠
3♣/3♦/3♥: Fit Jump
3♠: Preemptive
Comments, feedback, further questions are welcome.
Page 1 of 1
Canape Strong Club with Relays New System
#2
Posted 2006-April-14, 03:18
Imo one of the problems with MOSCITO is the 'possible canapé'. In competitive bidding it's not always easy to show the difference between a longer minor or longer Major. I don't see how you'll handle this one. I think you're overloading your 1M openings, especially your 1♥ opening!
Lets have a look at the openengs seperatly:
1♣: well ok, you have to have one
1♦: this will indeed be a weakness, but it won't be that bad. Opponents don't have a cuebid, so they'll get in trouble as well without decent agreements. I sometimes play a strong ♣ system where the 1♦ opening promisses '10-14, every hand without a 5 card M' and it's quite ok with decent agreements. You have fewer possibilities so you're better placed.
1♥: overloaded imo. How (in competition) do you show the difference between 5♠-4♥, 4♠-5♥, 3-suiter with 4-4♠-♥, or a 6+ card ♥ singlesuited?
1♠: never 4+♥? Is this necessary?
1NT: you have to have one of these as well
2♣: I know you prefer this over 2♥, so I won't bother
2♦: great preempt imo
2M: nothing much to add
2NT: always fun
Some general remarks:
- remark about 1M openings: are they always unbalanced?
- responses seem to be in function of the Major, and not immediatly natural. This has it's advantages, but also it's disadvantages. What do you do when partner opens 1M and you have a 6 card m suit and no invitational values and no fit? Pass?
- how do you show your 3-suiters?
- remark about 2m openings: I'd suggest to improve them slightly (imo) by using 2♣ as ♣-M and 2♦ as both Majors - since you won't want to play 2♥ as both M - because the 2♣ rough two is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the 2♦. When I had my 2♣ opening available, I'd always play that rough two again!
2♦ isn't as good as 2♣ for showing both Majors, but when opps double you can still get to your best fit.
Lets have a look at the openengs seperatly:
1♣: well ok, you have to have one

1♦: this will indeed be a weakness, but it won't be that bad. Opponents don't have a cuebid, so they'll get in trouble as well without decent agreements. I sometimes play a strong ♣ system where the 1♦ opening promisses '10-14, every hand without a 5 card M' and it's quite ok with decent agreements. You have fewer possibilities so you're better placed.
1♥: overloaded imo. How (in competition) do you show the difference between 5♠-4♥, 4♠-5♥, 3-suiter with 4-4♠-♥, or a 6+ card ♥ singlesuited?
1♠: never 4+♥? Is this necessary?
1NT: you have to have one of these as well

2♣: I know you prefer this over 2♥, so I won't bother
2♦: great preempt imo
2M: nothing much to add
2NT: always fun
Some general remarks:
- remark about 1M openings: are they always unbalanced?
- responses seem to be in function of the Major, and not immediatly natural. This has it's advantages, but also it's disadvantages. What do you do when partner opens 1M and you have a 6 card m suit and no invitational values and no fit? Pass?

- remark about 2m openings: I'd suggest to improve them slightly (imo) by using 2♣ as ♣-M and 2♦ as both Majors - since you won't want to play 2♥ as both M - because the 2♣ rough two is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the 2♦. When I had my 2♣ opening available, I'd always play that rough two again!

"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#3
Posted 2006-April-14, 08:16
i like the concept, but (and this might be just prejudice) i like mine better
... i also like the way fredrick critiques bids, so here are mine if he (or you, or anyone) would do the same... also, your bids give me some ideas 
1c=same as yours
1d=1, 2, or 3 suited.. if 2 suited, guaranteed canape.. if 3, short major, 11-15
1h=1, 2, or 3 suited.. if 2, guaranteed canape.. if 3, short minor, 11-15
1s=1 or 2 suited.. if 2, guaranteed canape, 11-15
1nt=same as yours
2c=6+ clubs, no other 4pcs, 11-15
2d=5+ diamonds, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2h=5+ hearts, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2s=5+ spades, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2nt=weak clubs or 2 suited same color (<5 losers)
3c=weak diamonds or 2 suited same rank (<5 losers)
3d=weak hearts or 2 suited rounded (<5)
3h=weak spades or 2 suited pointed (<5)
3s=gambling, 7 solid minor
on constructive auctions, herbert relay used (0-12, not forcing).. 1nt is game force relay... so,
1h : 1s=asking for 2nd suit, then
1nt=3 suited short minor
2c/d=2nd suit
2h=single suited, 6+
2s=2nd suit, max (would pass 1s otherwise)
just an example, all in FD file... i've moved away from pure weak bids (bridgebrowser influenced, no doubt)


1c=same as yours
1d=1, 2, or 3 suited.. if 2 suited, guaranteed canape.. if 3, short major, 11-15
1h=1, 2, or 3 suited.. if 2, guaranteed canape.. if 3, short minor, 11-15
1s=1 or 2 suited.. if 2, guaranteed canape, 11-15
1nt=same as yours
2c=6+ clubs, no other 4pcs, 11-15
2d=5+ diamonds, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2h=5+ hearts, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2s=5+ spades, 4+ clubs, 11-15
2nt=weak clubs or 2 suited same color (<5 losers)
3c=weak diamonds or 2 suited same rank (<5 losers)
3d=weak hearts or 2 suited rounded (<5)
3h=weak spades or 2 suited pointed (<5)
3s=gambling, 7 solid minor
on constructive auctions, herbert relay used (0-12, not forcing).. 1nt is game force relay... so,
1h : 1s=asking for 2nd suit, then
1nt=3 suited short minor
2c/d=2nd suit
2h=single suited, 6+
2s=2nd suit, max (would pass 1s otherwise)
just an example, all in FD file... i've moved away from pure weak bids (bridgebrowser influenced, no doubt)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#4
Posted 2006-April-14, 08:43
For what its worth, there are some old MOSCITO variants that look a lot like this.
At one point MOSCITO used
1♣ = strong
1♦ = no 4 card major
1♥ = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades
1♠ = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts
1NT = both majors
2♣+ = preemptive
You're (essentially) swapping hands with (both majors) with (balanced hand patterns).
My understanding is that the Aussies eventually decided that artifical 1♦ opening cost too much. Good opponents are going to be intervening aggressively. If you open 1♦ denying a major, they're going to be showing one of both majors a LOT of the time.
Any reason that you're unwilling to bite the bullet and adopt MOSCITO or TOSR? These evolved out of similar type systems. I understand that its fun to re-invent the wheel. At the same time, there are good reasons that these systems look they way that they do.
At one point MOSCITO used
1♣ = strong
1♦ = no 4 card major
1♥ = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades
1♠ = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts
1NT = both majors
2♣+ = preemptive
You're (essentially) swapping hands with (both majors) with (balanced hand patterns).
My understanding is that the Aussies eventually decided that artifical 1♦ opening cost too much. Good opponents are going to be intervening aggressively. If you open 1♦ denying a major, they're going to be showing one of both majors a LOT of the time.
Any reason that you're unwilling to bite the bullet and adopt MOSCITO or TOSR? These evolved out of similar type systems. I understand that its fun to re-invent the wheel. At the same time, there are good reasons that these systems look they way that they do.
Alderaan delenda est
#5
Posted 2006-April-14, 09:02
Interesting system Matt. I believe that you are about to play it with a regular partner (at least at MPs), and I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts about the system in a couple of months. It might be interesting to keep track of how you do on particular types of hands.
It seems that your opening bids with 10-15 points are all less descriptive than those in Tarzan-precision. This seems a big loss, those hands are of course very frequent.
The big gain is supposed to come from your 2-bids. Will those gains be enough to cover the losses you suffer from your 1-bids? More likely against weak than strong opponents I'd say, what do you think?
It seems that your opening bids with 10-15 points are all less descriptive than those in Tarzan-precision. This seems a big loss, those hands are of course very frequent.
The big gain is supposed to come from your 2-bids. Will those gains be enough to cover the losses you suffer from your 1-bids? More likely against weak than strong opponents I'd say, what do you think?
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#6
Posted 2006-April-14, 11:56
One observation: You have no bid over any of your suit openings with 6-9 points and no major. This is not a particularly rare hand type. Of course, you can speculate that you won't have game often here, although even this is not clearly true because opener could have a lot of shape. And playing in the wrong partial can get quite expensive, even at IMPs. This is made worse by playing 4-card canape majors, because 4-2 fits don't play well (so pass is less likely to reach a reasonable spot).
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#7
Posted 2006-April-14, 13:08
I never got anything like this to work. It doesn't handle Game invites well, and it doesn't get you to the correct part score, and you usualy relay out declarer's hand, which is a net loss.
Here is a structure that should work better, but its obviously not what you have in mind:
a. open 1N or 1D on balanced hands, even with a 5 card major
b. play 1N forcing over 1M. Over opener's rebid:
1. Cheapist New suit is a GFing relay
2. Correcting to opener's major is the 3 card limit raise (or play the direct raise as a limit raise)
3. 2N is natural and INV
4. raise of opener's second suit is natural and INV
5. Other new suits are 6+ cards, natural, and game forcing
c. its not quite symmetric but use the symmetric steps over 2 suiters: Reverser, 5-5, High short, Equal, Run ons with Low SHortage
d. Open majors in natural order, and thus don't use a reverser there
e. Handle flannary somehow (either with a special bid, or with special continuations after 1H-1N-2H)
f. new suits are natural, forward going but not forcing, except for 1S/1H which should be forcing 1 round.
Canape systems where either suit can be longer have a problem when responder is 2-2 and weak, but its not space effiecinet to rebid a 5 card suit with a side 4 card suit (will not work with relays) and this has other problems as well...
Here is a structure that should work better, but its obviously not what you have in mind:
a. open 1N or 1D on balanced hands, even with a 5 card major
b. play 1N forcing over 1M. Over opener's rebid:
1. Cheapist New suit is a GFing relay
2. Correcting to opener's major is the 3 card limit raise (or play the direct raise as a limit raise)
3. 2N is natural and INV
4. raise of opener's second suit is natural and INV
5. Other new suits are 6+ cards, natural, and game forcing
c. its not quite symmetric but use the symmetric steps over 2 suiters: Reverser, 5-5, High short, Equal, Run ons with Low SHortage
d. Open majors in natural order, and thus don't use a reverser there
e. Handle flannary somehow (either with a special bid, or with special continuations after 1H-1N-2H)
f. new suits are natural, forward going but not forcing, except for 1S/1H which should be forcing 1 round.
Canape systems where either suit can be longer have a problem when responder is 2-2 and weak, but its not space effiecinet to rebid a 5 card suit with a side 4 card suit (will not work with relays) and this has other problems as well...
#8
Posted 2006-April-14, 14:26
Thanks all for the replies thus far.
I agree that the 1-bids are less descriptive than say in tarzan, but having played it quite a few times now, it hasn't been a big problem. Sometimes it is worse and sometimes it actually helps when you might not have found your secondary fit. This works especially well when you have 4 hearts and a longer minor as you can sometimes lose the hearts to the spade suit when you open 1m. But I haven't played it long enough yet to get a good feel for it.
As for the 1♦ bid, it actually can have a 4 card major in it in one hand type. In fact it can have a 5 card major. We add in there the 3-suiter short major hand. So it's not completely safe for them to assume I have no major.
I find Adam's comment quite interesting. I have to say that this part of the system is still in the experimental phase. The alternative structure is to use 2/1s as natural and NF. I really liked the idea, except I found that (1) it wasn't clear I wanted to improve the contract on a lot of hands. (2) it wasn't that often a hand type that I needed to bid, and (3) that opponents will find it hard to leave you in 1M.
I also found that on the 10-12 hands where game is a possibility but you couldn't handle some of the relay responses (even though we had a break), that you had great difficulty when starting with the relay. The 2NT bid as natural 10-12 is ok, but it has its own problems. E.g. you cannot play at in 2m or 2M after 2NT. So the evolution was to take away one of the natural NF bids and add an invitational type relay with 2♣. That works reasonably enough on its own. But, I found that knowing if you are trying to get out with no fit, vs with a fit. In essence it is like playing drury by a non-passed hand. You are limited in the bids you can make if you play drury, but yet some people find it best to play drury and 2-way drury. I agree that there are going to be some hands where this is a loss, but it will only ever be when we have a minor suit part-score. Also, it will be more difficult for the opponents to balance when we can have a non-fitting 9 count. Thus far the system has worked fine, but it is still in the experimental phase. If we find there are too many hands where we have a loss then it is easy enough to go back to the NF 2/1s. I still play them with my other partners.
As for Josh's comments on not handling game invites well, I really don't understand this at all. We have no less than 3 bids for game invites! From hands with no fit for partner's major (2♣), a partial fit (2♦), to full support (2NT). How much more descriptive can we be? I agree with the part score problem as mentioned above. We only relay out declarer's hand on game forced hands, so I don't think that is too bad.
As per Richard's comments, I'm sure that I'm reinventing the wheel on a lot of this. I do appreciate the evolution and I guess I am happy to go through the process of understanding why things were chosen the way they were. As you know, I'm still relatively new to relay. I have a very good reason to play this way and not MOSCITO or TOSR and that is that I have partners with whom I can play this system. I think I may end up there or somewhere similar soon as having that one extra bid at the one level will help in the part-scores. The problem there is learning a new set of relays, but I can see it happening.
For Hannie's comments, see my comments to Free above, but I don't think it's a "big" loss. You are still having some major restrictions on the bids compared to natural. I am sure that the loss will be bigger against good opponents than weak opponents. But that is usually the case as good opponents are going to minimize any system advantages you have in general. But, your idea to keep track of certain bids is a good one (noting both wins and losses).
Thanks again all for your input.
Matt
I agree that the 1-bids are less descriptive than say in tarzan, but having played it quite a few times now, it hasn't been a big problem. Sometimes it is worse and sometimes it actually helps when you might not have found your secondary fit. This works especially well when you have 4 hearts and a longer minor as you can sometimes lose the hearts to the spade suit when you open 1m. But I haven't played it long enough yet to get a good feel for it.
As for the 1♦ bid, it actually can have a 4 card major in it in one hand type. In fact it can have a 5 card major. We add in there the 3-suiter short major hand. So it's not completely safe for them to assume I have no major.
I find Adam's comment quite interesting. I have to say that this part of the system is still in the experimental phase. The alternative structure is to use 2/1s as natural and NF. I really liked the idea, except I found that (1) it wasn't clear I wanted to improve the contract on a lot of hands. (2) it wasn't that often a hand type that I needed to bid, and (3) that opponents will find it hard to leave you in 1M.
I also found that on the 10-12 hands where game is a possibility but you couldn't handle some of the relay responses (even though we had a break), that you had great difficulty when starting with the relay. The 2NT bid as natural 10-12 is ok, but it has its own problems. E.g. you cannot play at in 2m or 2M after 2NT. So the evolution was to take away one of the natural NF bids and add an invitational type relay with 2♣. That works reasonably enough on its own. But, I found that knowing if you are trying to get out with no fit, vs with a fit. In essence it is like playing drury by a non-passed hand. You are limited in the bids you can make if you play drury, but yet some people find it best to play drury and 2-way drury. I agree that there are going to be some hands where this is a loss, but it will only ever be when we have a minor suit part-score. Also, it will be more difficult for the opponents to balance when we can have a non-fitting 9 count. Thus far the system has worked fine, but it is still in the experimental phase. If we find there are too many hands where we have a loss then it is easy enough to go back to the NF 2/1s. I still play them with my other partners.
As for Josh's comments on not handling game invites well, I really don't understand this at all. We have no less than 3 bids for game invites! From hands with no fit for partner's major (2♣), a partial fit (2♦), to full support (2NT). How much more descriptive can we be? I agree with the part score problem as mentioned above. We only relay out declarer's hand on game forced hands, so I don't think that is too bad.
As per Richard's comments, I'm sure that I'm reinventing the wheel on a lot of this. I do appreciate the evolution and I guess I am happy to go through the process of understanding why things were chosen the way they were. As you know, I'm still relatively new to relay. I have a very good reason to play this way and not MOSCITO or TOSR and that is that I have partners with whom I can play this system. I think I may end up there or somewhere similar soon as having that one extra bid at the one level will help in the part-scores. The problem there is learning a new set of relays, but I can see it happening.
For Hannie's comments, see my comments to Free above, but I don't think it's a "big" loss. You are still having some major restrictions on the bids compared to natural. I am sure that the loss will be bigger against good opponents than weak opponents. But that is usually the case as good opponents are going to minimize any system advantages you have in general. But, your idea to keep track of certain bids is a good one (noting both wins and losses).
Thanks again all for your input.
Matt
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
Page 1 of 1