[DavidKok]

I think Cottontail Club uses one-over-the-opening as three-way bids - natural (so 5(+)M in the cases of 1♦/1♥ opening), weak relay (typically hoping to get to opener's canapé suit and play it there) or artificial strong relay. This seems very sensible in a canapé system, but also not strictly required. I'm curious how helpful these relays would be, or how easy it is to design a system without them. In essence my 1NT semiforcing is pretty much such a weak relay, and it does fulfill this function over 1♠ except that 11-13 BAL passes (so my thought was: why not over 1♦ and 1♥ as well?).

[DavidKok]

I've been looking at this in more detail, with the help of Larry Lowell and foobar. Earlier this week I also read Ken Rexford's book on MICS (Modified Italian Canapé System). Some of the approach is considerably different from what I'm trying to achieve, but it explains the competitive advantages of canapé systems, the negative inferences and the changes you can make to a bidding system to better suit a canapé style. One of the recurring themes is the question "When, if ever, do you not want to hear about partner's canapé?". I'm not going to write the system out here in full detail, but I think some of the differences to standard bidding are already impressive enough that it is good to have an overview. As always comments and suggestions are very welcome.

Openings:

• 1♣: 16+ unbal or 17+ bal (standard strong club)
  
• 1♦: 11-15 3(+) diamonds, only 3 if exactly 3=3=3=4 11-13¹. Can be canapé into a 5(+)cM. Denies holding exactly a 4cM² - opener has 3- or 5(+).
  
• 1♥: 11-15 4(+) hearts. Only exactly 5 hearts if holding 5♥5(+)♠ with longer or better spades (canapé)³ or 5♥332 11-13 BAL. Can be canapé into any other suit.
  
• 1♠: 11-14 4(+) spades. Only exactly 5 spades if holding 5♠5(+)♥ with longer or better hearts (canapé)³ or 5♠332 11-13 BAL. Can be canapé into any other suit.
  
• 1NT: 14-16 (semi)bal, standard modern style.
  
• 2♣: 11-15 5(+) clubs, only 5 if x=y=4=5 and unsuitable to claim it is balanced, or 5♣332⁴. Denies a 4(+)cM.²
  
• 2♦: Personal preference, some weak bid fits well.
  
• 2♥: 5(+)♥4(+)♣, 11-15.
  
• 2♠: 5(+)♠4(+)♣, 11-15.
  
• 2NT: Personal preference, some weak bid fits well.

Even simple responses seem to work very well. When partner opens anything between 1♦ through 1♠ responder should ask themselves the two questions "Where do I want to play opposite 11-13 balanced?" and "Do I want to hear about partner's possible canapé?". Based on this I think the following is easy and effective. Over 1♠:

1♠-?

• Pass: A weak hand (i.e. no game prospects, so ~0-10), usually with 2-3 card support and shortage outside (anticipating partner's canapé into our shortness).⁵
  
• 1NT: ~5-11(12) semiforcing. Opener passes with 11-13 BAL or with a lousy minimum minor suit canapé (only if the hand is minimum and the suit is bad).
  
• 2♣: GF artificial relay.
  
• 2♦: Invitational with 4(+) support for spades.⁶
  
• 2♥: GF 5(+) hearts, asks for 3-card support.
  
• 2♠: Simple raise, approximately 0-10 with 4(+) spades. Opener can bid on with a maximum (which will always be an unbalanced hand too).
  
• 2NT: -
  
• 3♣: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♣.
  
• 3♦: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♦.
  
• 3♥: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♥.
  
• 3♠+: Raises, standard.

The response structure to 1♥ is similar, except 1♥-1♠ shows 4(+) spades (opener can still have 4♥4♠ with a balanced or three-suited hand) and 1♥-2♠ is an intermediate jump shift.
The real creativity appears over the 1♦ opening. Since this opening denies² exactly a 4cM, there is not much point showing four card suits. Instead the responses focus on wanting to hear partner's possible major suit canapé.

1♦-?

• Pass: A weak hand (i.e. no game prospects, so ~0-10), usually with 2-3 card support and shortage outside (anticipating partner's canapé into our shortness).⁵
  
• 1♥: (4)5(+) hearts, asks for 3-card support. Can in a pinch be bid on a 4-card suit, though the only example I could come up with is 1=4=3=5 too weak to force to game (we don't want partner to canapé into spades and we can't support diamonds), which can also be passed.
  
• 1♠: (4)5(+) spades, asks for 3-card support. Typically denies tolerance for hearts, so opener should conceal a minimum hearts canapé and rebid 1NT with that hand on 1♦-1♠ exactly.
  
• 1NT: ~5-11(12) semiforcing. Opener passes with 11-13 BAL or with a lousy minimum minor suit canapé (only if the hand is minimum and the suit is bad). Promises tolerance (2+) for both majors and denies a 5cM, or a weak hand with long clubs.
  
• 2♣: GF artificial relay.
  
• 2♦: Inverted minor, forcing.⁷
  
• 2♥: - (Ken Rexford recommends weak, i.e. ~4-8, jump shifts)
  
• 2♠: - (Ken Rexford recommends weak, i.e. ~4-8, jump shifts)
  
• 2NT: -
  
• 3♣: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♣.
  
• 3♦: Inverted minor (weak), can be bid on only 4 but will usually be 5(+). Don't go crazy with shortness in one major suit, that's probably partner's canapé.

Compared to a Precision 2♣ opening we have already denied as much as a four card major, so there is no need to play a 2♦ response as an asking relay to locate 4-4 major suit fits. Instead we can play simple transfers:
2♣-?

• Pass: Any hand not suitable for a different call.
  
• 2♦: Inv(+), 5(+) hearts.
  
• 2♥: Inv(+), 5(+) spades.
  
• 2♠: -
  
• 2NT: Range ask (responses 3♣ minimum, 3♦-3♠ maximum and short, 3NT maximum no shortage)
  
• 3♣+: -

Over the transfer opener rebids as if partner bid a constructive 2M, with both completing the transfer and 3♣ being signoffs. Possibly 2NT should be a signoff as well. There is a lot of room for improvement here, e.g. I've come across 2♠ as a transfer to diamonds, 3♣ as a slam try in clubs (but barrage by a passed hand) and 3♦-3♠ splinters, but it's also possible to use the jump responses as two-suited or artificial.

Lastly the 2♣ GF relay features frequently. In standard bidding not having a great dialogue method for game and slam exploration is a big minus. In a limited opener canapé system we 'always' want to know of partner's long suit for game and slam decisions, so it makes sense to ask for that first and only engage in dialogue bidding on the next round. There are several different schemes for responding to this, and I think artificiality here will help a lot. For now I'll just include Ken Rexford's scheme:

1♥-2♣:

• 2♦: Canapé into diamonds.
  
• 2♥: A four card suit, either BAL or minimum canapé. 2NT asks.
  
• 2♠: Canapé into spades, promises extras.
  
• 2NT: 6(+) hearts.
  
• 3♣: Canapé into clubs, promises extras.
  
• 3♦: 4♥6(+)♦, shows a reasonable suit and extras.
  
• 3♥: 5♥332, 11-13.
  
• 3♠: 4-5♥6(+)♠, shows a reasonable suit and extras.
  
• 3NT+: -.

There are a few points I am not happy with and would like to improve upon, and some comments and thoughts that I have on this system as a whole so far. In no particular order:

• I 'never' want to play in 2♣ or 2♦. The relevant partscores are 1NT, 2♥/2♠ and 3♣/3♦. It is therefore not necessary to reserve, say, 1♥-1NT; 2♦ as a hearts-diamonds canapé. I think an artificial scheme here might be better for the system as a whole. Incidentally this also helps resolve three-suiters and can possibly fit 5♥4(+)♣ hands in 1♥. That addition is a competitive weakness but frees up the two level openings, and I would be very surprised if that is not worth it on balance.
  
• The 1M-2♦ response is experimental and possibly superfluous, I'd love to have something better here. Similarly the 1♦-2♦ inverted minor is ill-placed in the rest of the system.
  
• Ken Rexford drops his 2♣ relay to invitational(+) (but restricts the hand types somewhat). Note that all the minimum responses bid 2M or lower, so it is possible to include invitational hands with 4(+) support for partner's major at little to no cost. In fact, Ken plays 1M-2♣; 2X (under 2M)-3M as NF invitational, while 1M-2♣; 2M can be passed. He describes the sequences as 'GF on opener, NF on responder'.
  
• Traditionally 4cM systems are slower to find the 5-3 fits in major suits, while finding the 4-4 fits faster. In this canapé style having 1♦-1M show 5(+) we should be able to find 5-3 fits faster on many hands when responder has the 5-card suit. Initially I wanted to try the same over 1♥ (i.e. have a 1♠ response show 5), but 1♥ does not frequently deny a 4c♠.
  
• Some canapé systems just shrug and pass 11-13 (or equivalent, traditionally 10-12) balanced hands without a 4cM. I think this makes quite a bit of sense - the preemptive value of 1♦ is nonexistent, and game and even partscore chances are remote if partner also doesn't have a suit to bid. For now I've included all 11-13 balanced hands somewhere, reasoning that opening is good so opening more is better, but honestly this seems like a sound idea. One upside is that it will protect 1♦ a great deal in competition. In particular passing some awkward 5♣332 hands in the 11-13 range might be a net benefit, although it does lower the frequency of the already infrequent 2♣ even more.

¹It might be wise to move some 5♣332 11-13 hands out of 2♣ and into 1♦, increasing the frequency of opening 1♦ on a 3-card suit in the process.
²With a reasonable 7(+) card suit I plan to ignore a side 4 card suit, so the opening may contain an undisclosed 4cM exactly if we have this 7(+) suit.
³6-5 hands are also an issue, and the traditional canapé solution is to open the 5-card suit and jump canapé into the 6-card suit. These hands are low frequency and I'm not too worried about them, but I think 5M6(+)other might also have to open the 5 card major.
⁴I don't hate opening 2♣ on 5 (since we deny a 4cM responder is not endplayed into overbidding), but keep in mind these hands can also upgrade into 14-16 BAL or pass with a so-so 11-count, so I'm not too worried about them.
⁵Ken Rexford pointed out that if we have tolerance (or even shortage) but not support for partner's canapé opening with a side suit shortage, one of two situations applies. Either partner was planning to canapé into our shortness, and we should keep the auction low on a misfit deal. Or partner was not about to canapé into our shortness, and the opponents have a big fit in that undisclosed suit and will either rescue us (in which case we can safely re-enter the auction with a big fit in one of the remaining two suits) or they will pass it out and miss their good fit. He gives an example of passing partner's 1♥ opening with ♠x, ♥x, ♦KJxxx, ♣QJxxxx, 'knowing' that partner has a spade canapé (but secure in the knowledge that if partner does not, the opponents have a good spade fit and we can compete in a minor suit).
⁶I think there is not much value in using this as standard 2/1 GF 5(+)♦. If partner has an undisclosed 5-card suit we always want to know that, so why not bid 2♣? I left this bid idle at first, but having two raises to 2M is valuable so I think it may as well be a stronger raise. Over this partner signs off with a minimum and bids on with a maximum, but partner may conceal a canapé hand if minimum.
⁷Inverted minor does not make a whole lot of sense. If it is forcing, why not bid 1NT instead (to stay low facing 11-13 BAL) or 2♣ to get shape resolution a step lower? If it is NF, what is opener supposed to do with a regular old 12-count canapé into a major? Passing is very risky, but apparently responder was not interested in the canapé? Other canapé systems use both 2♣ and 2♦ as artificial relays, but it is unclear to me what the differences are and why we need two. Also if opener is balanced then both opener and responder have just announced to the world that they don't have a 4cM, so we can forget about an uncontested partscore.

[DavidKok]

Reviving this a bit, with the help of others the system has developed nicely. The structure has changed around a bit to accommodate some important hand types that were previously missed, and we're currently letting the system sit for a while to see if major issues reveal themselves. I'm really happy with the results.
I've run into a not-so-minor question. How do I alert and disclose the system? In the Netherlands it's pretty clear - alert everything the opponents are likely to misunderstand. This is basically the whole system, i.e. definitely all the opening bids except 1NT, all the responses except 1♥-1♠, all of openers rebids except 1NT, pass and a simple raise. I'd also pre-alert the fact that it's a strong club 4cM canapé system, so we'll frequently open a shorter suit while holding a longer one. Is this spot on? Insufficient? Excessive? Other? I'm also interested in online rules (in particular, events on BBO) and the proper way to disclose the system in other parts of the world. The spoiler below contains a (slightly brief) explanation of the current system.

Spoiler

Openings:

• 1♣: 16+ unbal or 17+ bal (standard strong club)
  
• 1♦: 11-15 3(+) diamonds, only 3 if exactly 3=3=3=4 11-13. Can be canapé into a 5(+)cM. Denies holding exactly a 4cM - opener has 3- or 5(+). May have 4=5 in the minors with the intention of treating the hand as 11-13 BAL.
  
• 1♥: 11-15 4(+) hearts. Only exactly 5 hearts if holding 5♥4(+)♣ unbal (longer clubs possible but not required), 5♥5(+)♠ with longer or better spades (canapé) or 5♥332 11-13 BAL. Can be canapé into any other suit.
  
• 1♠: 11-14 4(+) spades. Only exactly 5 spades if holding 5♠4(+)♣ unbal (longer clubs possible but not required), 5♠5(+)♥ with longer or better hearts (canapé) or 5♠332 11-13 BAL. Can be canapé into any other suit.
  
• 1NT: 14-16 (semi)bal, standard modern style.
  
• 2♣: 11-15 5(+) clubs, only 5 if x=y=4=5 and unsuitable to claim it is balanced, or 5♣332. Denies a 4(+)cM.
  
• 2♦: Weak two in diamonds, 5(+) cards.
  
• 2♥: Weak two in hearts, 5(+) cards.
  
• 2♠: Weak two in spades, 5(+) cards.
  
• 2NT: 20-21 balanced.

1♠-?

• Pass: Wide ranging weak-ish (0-10), at most 3-card support.
  
• 1NT: ~7-11(12) semiforcing.
  
• 2♣: GF artificial relay. Responses are completely artificial.
  
• 2♦: Hearts, either weak (~0-10, no game opposite 11-13 BAL) with 6(+) or GF with 5(+).
  
• 2♥: GF diamonds, typically 6(+) but only 5 is allowed (it hasn't come up yet).
  
• 2♠: Simple raise, approximately 0-10 with 4(+) spades. Opener can bid on with a maximum (which will always be an unbalanced hand too).
  
• 2NT: Invitational raise.
  
• 3♣: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♣.
  
• 3♦: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♦.
  
• 3♥: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♥.
  
• 3♠+: Raises, standard.

The response structure to 1♥ is similar, except 1♥-1♠ shows 4(+) spades (opener can still have 4♥4♠ with a balanced or three-suited hand), 1♥-2♦ is simple GF diamonds and 1♥-2♠ is a weak jump shift.

1♦-?

• Pass: Wide ranging weak-ish (0-10), typically at most 3-card support.
  
• 1♥: (4)5(+) hearts. Can in a pinch be bid on a 4-card suit.
  
• 1♠: (4)5(+) spades. Can in a pinch be bid on a 4-card suit.
  
• 1NT: ~7-11(12) semiforcing. May have one or both 4cM, promises tolerance for both majors.
  
• 2♣: GF, clubs or balanced (2+ clubs).
  
• 2♦: Inverted minor, forcing.
  
• 2♥: Weak jump shift (6(+) hearts, ~4-8 points)
  
• 2♠: Weak jump shift (6(+) spades, ~4-8 points)
  
• 2NT: -
  
• 3♣: Intermediate jump shift, ~9-11 6(+)♣.
  
• 3♦: Inverted minor (weak), can be bid on only 4 but will usually be 5(+).

2♣-?

• Pass: Any hand not suitable for a different call.
  
• 2♦: Inv(+), 5(+) hearts.
  
• 2♥: Inv(+), 5(+) spades.
  
• 2♠: Inv(+), 5(+) diamonds.
  
• 2NT: Range ask (responses 3♣ minimum, 3♦-3♠ maximum and short, 3NT maximum no shortage).
  
• 3♣: Wide-ranging non-invitational raise (~0-9).

[nullve]

Two-way 1♣ opening based on Scamp's (strong) 1♣ opening:

1♣ = Scamp's 1♣ OR 11-13, either 3334 or 5C(332)

1♣-1♦/♠/N/2♠+: as in Scamp

1♣-1♦; 1♠: includes all 11-13 hands

1♣-1♦; 1♠-1N; P = 11-13

1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N/2♠+: as in Scamp

1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♣/♦/♥ = Scamp's 1♣-2♣/♦/♥, resp.

1♣-1♥; 1N = 11-13

1♣-1♠; 2♣ = 11-13

1♣-1N; 2♦ = 11-13

1♣-2♣/♦/♥ = Scamp's 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♣/♦/♥, resp.

1♣-2♣; 2♥/3♣ = 11-13, not 3325 (wants to play 3♦ rather than 2♠ opposite 4S5D)

1♣-2♣; 2♠ = 11-13, 3325 (wants to play 2♠ rather than 3♦ opposite 4S5D)

1♣-2♦; 2♠ = 11-13

1♣-2♥; 3♣ = 11-13

1♣-2N/3♣/♦; step 2 = 11-13 (Law-protected but not GF)

This should leave the symmetric relay structure intact.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2023-May-18, 08:59

[DavidKok]

I think tossing away the symmetric relay structure is good regardless of whether or not this would theoretically fit. Adapting your openings to suit the structure is throwing good money after bad, in my opinion. The more I see of symmetric relay the more it looks like a poor idea.

The other day I checked another 125 Vugraph boards by Woolsey-Bramley, still curious about relay. They had a strong club KK relay auction 3 times - once in 6♥-2 (other table in 4♥=, the slam had absolutely no play though 11 tricks were a realistic possibility), once in 4♠-2 (other table in 4♠=, the relay responder became declarer and the defenders made good use of the fact that the entire hand could be played double dummy. The other table could/should have been held to one off though) and once in 4♥+1 (other table 3NT=, they missed their 6-2 fit). If that's the payoff I'd rather abstain and play openings and responses that are geared for competition.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-May-18, 09:32, said:

I think tossing away the symmetric relay structure is good regardless of whether or not this would theoretically fit. Adapting your openings to suit the structure is throwing good money after bad, in my opinion. The more I see of symmetric relay the more it looks like a poor idea.
If that's the payoff I'd rather abstain and play openings and responses that are geared for competition.

IMO, this is a premature conclusion. Like anything else symmetric relay is a tool, and it can be used for better or worse. Gratuitous use of relays will undoubtedly result in poor outcomes, and sometimes, a judicious exploration for a slam will result in game being wrong sided.

DavidKok, on 2023-May-18, 09:32, said:

If that's the payoff I'd rather abstain and play openings and responses that are geared for competition.

Are you sure that canape passes this criteria in spades? I would rather that the opening makes the canape nature of the hand evident upfront, rather than open "may have longer suit", and hope to survive competition.

[DavidKok]

foobar, on 2023-May-18, 10:11, said:

IMO, this is a premature conclusion. Like anything else symmetric relay is a tool, and it can be used for better or worse. Gratuitous use of relays will undoubtedly result in poor outcomes, and sometimes, a judicious exploration for a slam will result in game being wrong sided.

I agree in theory, but not in practice. Which partnerships, in your opinion, use symmetric relay properly? I picked Woolsey-Bramley exactly because they are world class. If they get to a hopeless 6♥, how are mortals like me supposed to improve on them? More than that, why put this effort into a method that comes up ~2.5% of all deals, and doesn't win big (and might even lose on balance) when it does? I wish it were more promising, but so far I can't find examples of high level play that supports this.

foobar, on 2023-May-18, 10:11, said:

Are you sure that canape passes this criteria in spades? I would rather that the opening makes the canape nature of the hand evident upfront, rather than open "may have longer suit", and hope to survive competition.

Yes. Each system has weak hands, but I think canapé is ahead of standard in competition most of the time. Being able to open a major (if we have one) with 11-13 balanced hands is a distinct advantage, both when it comes up and through negative inference. The problem hands are 4♦5♥, which might get preempted in spades, and 5M4-5♣, where the opening promises only 4. In return you are better placed on most other hand types in the 11-15 range. Furthermore, responder has much greater safety to bid in competition on minimum values and shape, since 3-card support in an unbid suit provides safety. Lastly we also find our 3-5 major suit fits (opener has 3) faster, protecting against fourth hand interference. The auctions are shorter and more descriptive.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-May-18, 11:59, said:

I agree in theory, but not in practice. Which partnerships, in your opinion, use symmetric relay properly? I picked Woolsey-Bramley exactly because they are world class. If they get to a hopeless 6♥, how are mortals like me supposed to improve on them? More than that, why put this effort into a method that comes up ~2.5% of all deals, and doesn't win big (and might even lose on balance) when it does? I wish it were more promising, but so far I can't find examples of high level play that supports this.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest Simon de Wijs and Bauke Muller (Tarzan Club), and others might have more examples of world class pairs that play symmetric.

Perhaps, you can start a separate thread on symmetric relays on this forum. Regarding the success and failure of KK-relay, BW has a few threads on the topic, and based on what I have seen, Kit is very willing to engage in related discussions, so you can try asking about this specific auction.

DavidKok, on 2023-May-18, 11:59, said:

Being able to open a major (if we have one) with 11-13 balanced hands is a distinct advantage, both when it comes up and through negative inference. The problem hands are 4♦5♥, which might get preempted in spades, and 5M4-5♣, where the opening promises only 4. In return you are better placed on most other hand types in the 11-15 range. Furthermore, responder has much greater safety to bid in competition on minimum values and shape, since 3-card support in an unbid suit provides safety. Lastly we also find our 3-5 major suit fits (opener has 3) faster, protecting against fourth hand interference. The auctions are shorter and more descriptive.

I am *really* skeptical that "maybe 11-13 balanced with a 4CM (and maybe unbalanced with a longer suit)" is a desirable feature of an 1M opening in competition.

[PrecisionL]

Keylime and I have been playing 4-card Major opening bids and Positive Responses to 1♣ with 4 or more cards in a major for over 10+ years in our C3 Strong Club System, Copious Canape Club.

We play simple Relays (Usually the cheapest bid) after a Positive Response (8+ hcp) of 1♥ or higher to an opening bid of 1♣, 16+.

We also play canape style opening 1-bids (other than 1♣) with a 2♣ Artificial & Game Invitational response (limit raise or better) to learn the rest of the distribution.

Once upon-a-time we played Sabine Auken's 2♣ relay after 1M openings, but decided they were two complicated.

We will open balanced good 4-cd Majors with 10-12 hcp (AQxx, KQxx), otherwise it is a canape distribution or one-suited (12+ hcp).

1NT opening is 13-16 hcp Balanced including 5M.

Further details upon request.

[foobar]

PrecisionL, on 2023-May-20, 17:06, said:

Keylime and I have been playing 4-card Major opening bids and Positive Responses to 1♣ with 4 or more cards in a major for over 10+ years in our C3 Strong Club System, Copious Canape Club.

We play simple Relays (Usually the cheapest bid) after a Positive Response (8+ hcp) of 1♥ or higher to an opening bid of 1♣, 16+.

We also play canape style opening 1-bids (other than 1♣) with a 2♣ Artificial & Game Invitational response (limit raise or better) to learn the rest of the distribution.

Once upon-a-time we played Sabine Auken's 2♣ relay after 1M openings, but decided they were two complicated.

We will open balanced good 4-cd Majors with 10-12 hcp (AQxx, KQxx), otherwise it is a canape distribution or one-suited (12+ hcp).

1NT opening is 13-16 hcp Balanced including 5M.

Further details upon request.

Sounds like balanced 11-12 hands without a good 4CM pass in that case?

[PrecisionL]

foobar, on 2023-May-22, 14:46, said:

Sounds like balanced 11-12 hands without a good 4CM pass in that case?

Yes indeed.

[PrecisionL]

DavidKok, on 2023-April-19, 05:23, said:

I think Cottontail Club uses one-over-the-opening as three-way bids - natural (so 5(+)M in the cases of 1♦/1♥ opening), weak relay (typically hoping to get to opener's canapé suit and play it there) or artificial strong relay. This seems very sensible in a canapé system, but also not strictly required. I'm curious how helpful these relays would be, or how easy it is to design a system without them. In essence my 1NT semiforcing is pretty much such a weak relay, and it does fulfill this function over 1♠ except that 11-13 BAL passes (so my thought was: why not over 1♦ and 1♥ as well?).

Canary Club (maintained by John Kinn) about 1993 eliminated the Herbert Response to 1-bids (except 1♣) and substituted 1NT forcing as the first relay (weak or strong). There is no further posting of how well this has worked.

dcbridge.com/Canary/body.htm

[DavidKok]

Thank you, I've read up on that system before. I think Canary Club falls under a larger umbrella of strong club systems with a single notrump range, i.e. only a single balanced range below the strong 1♣ opener. Examples include C.C. Wei's Precision (1NT 13-15, pass balanced 12's), Canary Club (1NT 13-16, pass balanced 12's. They even put all 4441's in there, which I think is currently not even legal), J-Moscito (1NT 11-14, 1♣ 15+) and others. A benefit is that the suit openings are never balanced, and therefore pure canapé, i.e. opening a suit always promises 5+ in some unknown other suit or 6+ in the suit opened. Personally I think this is a serious design flaw though, for the reasons below.

• Approximately 40% of all opening hands (where I'm opening all 11's) are balanced, up to a whopping 54% if we start including near-balanced hands that are commonly treated as NT openings (singleton ace/king, suitable 6m322's, 4M5m22 with values in the doubletons, etc.). Having a sound notrump ladder is arguably more important than most other aspects of a bidding system. Firstly due to the high frequency and competitive advantages (after all, balanced hands can support partner's suit almost always), and secondly because balanced hands have a hard time re-entering the auction if we do not take action right away. For this reason I would really like to:
  • Open most/all balanced 11's.
    
  • Not have a 4-point range (or wider) for 1NT.
  This is incompatible with a style where the 1-suit openings are never balanced, but I think such an approach is a poor idea in the first place.
  
• I am really scared of relaxing the requirements for opening 1♣. My current requirements are "16+ unbal or 17+ bal". Recently I tried to find a way to express why I'm so worried about relaxing this. The main reason is that I think that the limited openings are really good, and the strong 1♣ is somewhere between bad and so-so, so moving hands from the limited openings to 1♣ is probably a bad idea (making the bad part of the system more frequent and more vulnerable to interference). One way to express this is the ratio of limited openings to 1♣ openings, for various requirements for 1♣. Note: this is the frequency with which you are dealt these openings, which does not map 1-to-1 to the frequencies you can open them. I kept the requirements for a limited opening at 11+, though frequently people will upgrade unbalanced 10-counts (especially if 1♣ is 15+).
  • 1♣ 16+ unbal or 17+ bal: 4.54 limited openings per 1♣ opening.
    
  • 1♣ 16+ any (adding 16 bal): 3.50 limited openings per 1♣ opening.
    
  • 1♣ 15+ unbal or 16+ bal: 2.80 limited openings per 1♣ opening.
    
  • 1♣ 15+ any: 2.39 limited openings per 1♣ opening.
  While these figures are subject to a number of assumptions (some of which are false, which would change the figures) I do think I would like to keep the fragile 1♣ to about a fourth of fifth of my total openings, if possible. Combined with the above this necessitates a NT ladder of approximately 11-13, 14-16, 17+ - a notrump ladder that I think is very good, even if it means sacrificing the unbalanced canapé openings.
  
• If I play a system where a 1♠ opening shows approximately 11-15 and four (or more) spades, I really really want to open that with the most frequent hand type that meets this description: 11-13 balanced with four spades. This is a significant competitive advantage, showing our playing strength and clarifying major suit length while applying pressure to the opponents. More to the point, I think such a system should cater to getting the competitive decisions right as often as possible. And for a minimum opening hand, say 11-13, I think telling partner of our possible four card major and then staying mum is a very solid approach. What's more is that the opening already contains a lot of hands that have very similar texture and playing strength - 11-13 4M5m31 and 4M5m22 hands. I call these hands 'one bid hands' in that they almost function like a preempt - we open our major, and unless invited (or instructed to) by partner we will likely lean back and trust partner's choice in competition. I want to profit from this description as much as possible, which means including lots of weak balanced hands in the 1-suit openings.

I've run into quite a few systems with one notrump range below 1♣ (most of them Precision-esque, not 4cM or canapé). Personally I think that approach is taking on such serious costs in the design structure from the get-go that it is nigh impossible to get back to a good system. The competitive vulnerability and increased frequency of a slightly weaker 1♣, the need to pass a bunch of 11- or even 12-counts and/or the wider strength range and permissible shapes for a 1NT opening are all noticeable costs that will come up regularly.

[PrecisionL]

David, we have come to similar conclusions:

A 3 pt NT range is best, thus 11-13, 14-16, 17-19 is ideal
11-13 hcp balanced hands need an opening, 1M (4-cd M) works better than 1NT

Some 10 hcp balanced hands can be opened 1M: AQxx xx xxx Axxx

5332 hands are balanced, thus 47.5% of all hands are balanced

Using a 2♣ response as Artificial and Game Invitational or better allows the 10-13 hands to rebid 2♦ showing the weak 10-13 hcp openers.

Our GF 1♣ responses treat 5332 hands (even majors) as balanced thus improving IMHO Rodwell's 2♦ response showing balanced hands by responder.
Note that this is a different design than KK Relay that does not treat 5332 as balanced for inclusion in the 2♦ response.

[DavidKok]

That seems very promising. I think our major difference in approach is how we treat 1X-1NT and 1X-2♣. Personally I think that if 1-of-a-suit is frequently going to be 11-13 balanced a semiforcing 1NT response works well (which itself relates to the strong NT). We get to play 1NT when partner has the balanced hand, and get more information cheaply when partner does not. By implication all other bids are reserved for hands that do not wish to play 1NT facing a balanced hand, which in practice comes down to some hands that are invitational facing this range and game forcing ones. Of course all of this is just the standard idea behind 2/1 GF with a strong notrump, not very innovative of me.

I don't see the need for 1X-2♣ as invitational+ when I can bid a semiforcing (i.e. not forcing but can be up to a poor 12-count) 1NT. For 1NT to be a poor bid I need to have game chances facing 11-13 balanced, or lots of extra shape. I feel I can handle the second category well. Is your 2♣ "either forcing to game or exactly invitational facing 11-13 bal"? There aren't that many invitational hands opposite that range, so we might inadvertedly be recommending nearly the same approach. Would you be willing to share your notes on responding to a 1♠ opening, for example? I am intested in finding out which non-GF hands would choose to go past 1NT. Incidentally I now play the (I think somewhat widespread?) responsive structure of:

• Pass - no game interest, can be quite strong, usually implies shortage in an outside suit (anticipating a doomed canapé response to 1NT).
  
• 1NT - approximately 6-12, semiforcing, no fit. Should perhaps be allowed on even weaker hands, but they are rare and not very important for a simple structure.
  
• 2♣ - artificial game forcing relay
  
• 2♦ - invitational+ 5(+)♥
  
• 2♥ - invitational, 4(+)♠. Approximately 10-11 HCP, but can be based on playing strength or shape instead.
  
• 2♠ - competitive raise, 4(+)♠, approximately 0-9 HCP.
  
• 2NT - ??? (this may as well be a slamgoing raise of spades).
  
• 3♣ - intermediate jump shift (approximately 9-11 HCP with 6(+)♣).
  
• 3♦ - intermediate jump shift (approximately 9-11 HCP with 6(+)♦).
  
• 3♥ - intermediate jump shift (approximately 9-11 HCP with 6(+)♥) - arguably this is idle as 2♦ exists

Personally I haven't had a strong desire to open balanced 10-counts, though in context of the rest of the system I think it's comparatively easy to slot in. I wish to keep the invitational range for partner somewhat narrow, especially as it can be difficult to invite in competition when we need to cater to a possibly balanced hand. Right now my responsive split is approximately the follows: 0-8 probably no game, 9- bad 10 wait to hear if partner has a (super)maximum, good 10- bad 12 invitational, normal 12 or stronger forces to game. When vulnerable or with a major suit fit and some shape I like to be more aggressive. If you regularly open 10-counts the requirements for forcing to game likely have to increase proportionally, and the invitational range gets wider.

[DavidKok]

This discussion has cooled off a bit (in part because we continued it by email), but I do still have some more open questions, all of them on bidding in competition. At the moment I'm just collecting ideas, any and all suggestions are very welcome!

• If we open and they overcall I currently play a set of competitive agreements that can be roughly described as follows:
  • With a 5(+) suit and sufficient values to enter the auction responder will make a natural forcing bid.
    
  • With support (3+) for all unbid suits and tolerance (3 if minimum, 2+ otherwise) for opener's suit and enough values to compete but no good bid responder can make a takeout double. Even without a takeout double opener is expected to complete their shape description at the 2-level or make a takeout double when relevant, but this double by responder requests the same at the 3-level in case the opponents raise (we are showing values and thereby raising the safety level).
    
  • A cue bid by responder (if available) shows an invitational raise. The cue bid by opener is not in use/stopper ask at the 3-level.
    
  • 2NT by responder is not in use. If responder doubles we sometimes use 2NT by opener to show 5(+)M4(+)♣.
  Instead there are several other things we might do, e.g. play transfers or negative free bids and put more strong hands in double, reserve 2NT by responder and by opener as an artificial tool to show more hand types, and have stricter rules on opener's shape completion (e.g. agree that a pass implies a 'flaw' for double, and hope opener can infer what's going on). Honestly the simple natural approach has been working wonderfully, but I am eager to discover more options for approaches to handling interference after canapé openings. Ken Rexford suggests NFB's, a slightly different doubling style, and uses 2NT as a Good/Bad by both hands (I think always).
  
• In a similar vein, what should jumps in competition be? In standard I like fitbids, but I'm not sure that is the best use for them here. Also what does a fitbid of a 4(+) canapé opening look like?
  
• The double I mentioned earlier is very often balanced. If it goes, say, 1X-(2Y)-? then double denies five cards in either of the remaining two suits and also denies four cards in opener's suit, and therefore implies 2+ cards in the doubled suit and it may have as many as four (unfortunately there are exceptions, notably 1M-(2♦)-? where double might be a practical call with 4oM3M1♦5♣ and insufficient values to force to game). Would it make sense to convert this double to penalties more often, e.g. with a balanced opening with some trump length?
  
• If we open 2♣ and the opponents overcall 2♦ or 2♥ we currently play 'system on' with a stolen bid double (i.e. a 5(+) invitational(+) transfer to the next suit up). This is not as silly as it may seem - opener has denied a 4cM, so we need a five card major to make a 'takeout double', and this way we get to clarify at a low level which one it is. However, the systemic responses of 2♠ (artificial invitational+ relay) and 2NT (natural NF invitational) as well as 2♣-(2♥)-3♦ (with 'system on': a splinter for clubs) seem like poor choices in competition. Also if they overcall 2♠ we really can't play system on as we just lost our only way to show hearts. These specific auctions won't come up that often so I would like to keep it simple, but is there some obvious scheme that improves on this without adding a lot of mental strain?

[awm]

I had teammates for a while who played a strong club with canape and four-card majors. My recollection is that they had some problems with opener's six card major. An example:

1♥-(2♠)-???

♠xxx
♥KQx
♦x
♣Axxxxx

If opener has six hearts you are odds on for game. But most of the time, opener has a diamond canape or a weak notrump. Keep in mind that a 4-3 heart fit on half the high card points is not likely to play great here since bad breaks are quite probable (and opponents have a penalty double available too). Do you double or pass? Is partner automatically expected to balance if you pass with a hand like ♠Jx ♥AJxxxx ♦Qxx ♣Kx? This isn't really a problem for the five-card major players since they can always raise with three.

I also suspect you'll see some problems because of the frequency of weak notrump hands; for example:

1♦-(2♠)-???

♠xx
♥AJxxx
♦xx
♣Kxxx

It would be embarrassing (and perhaps quite costly) to miss the ten-card heart fit if partner has a heart canape. You have the shape to double, but playing 2NT opposite 11-13 balanced is not great (and pulling to 3♥ on what could be a seven-card fit isn't great either). Double or pass?

There's always a problem when opponents interfere and you might have a fit in an unbid suit. In systems where you bid your longest suit first, this situation can come up but the fit that you miss usually isn't a ten card fit (because opener won't conceal a five card suit except on very shapely hands).

[DavidKok]

The first hand is a problem, though I think it is of limited concern. We need pretty specifically a hand that has nice playing strength facing partner's long hearts but not facing a different opening, while opener is too weak to reintroduce the hearts but game is good anyway. Flipping the majors is enough to resolve most of the problem, and I expect to recover most of the time on hands similar to this (slightly stronger: we can bid 3♣. Slightly weaker: game is poor even if opener has extras, and opener will almost always reopen with hands strong enough to make game good). On the example hand I would be forced to pass and hope opener can do something intelligent.

The second hand is less of a concern. We can double and pull 2NT to 3♣ (or perhaps 3♥), scrambling for the likely 8 card fit (as opener has denied four spades). But even if we choose to pass out of fear for the balanced hand, e.g. if we have an extra spade instead of the second diamond, partner can keep the auction open in passout seat.

There's also a swings and roundabouts concern here, where we find our 4-4 fits and 3-5 fits faster at the cost of losing some 5-3 fits. Almost all of the missed fits will be partscores at worst though, and I think that the simple natural methods I am using can handle these example hands reasonably well. As a practical matter we don't nearly have as much issues holding spades rather than hearts, and some specialised agreements about keeping open the auction when they bid spades and we have a hearts canapé recovered the heart fit comfortably so far. Also if the interference is 'only' 1♠ rather than the immediate jump the pressure is much reduced, which by frequency I expect to be the more common scenario. We will definitely lose a long major suit fit some of the time, but I think it will be very rare. In testing we have so far lost a major suit 5-3 fit on 2/300 hands, of which one won big (we were in 3NT= rather than 4♥-1) and one was a wash. Nevertheless I am interested in hearing what other methods you would suggest here or on other auctions.

[awm]

My teammates agreed to use 2nt as part of a solution in the first auction, but I think their major openings denied a balanced hand which may make some things easier.

These problems tend to get worse when opponents bid at the three level; for example, if opener’s LHO bids 3♥ over your opening, can you find your nine card spade fits when responder has less than GF?

If opener has 5 and responder 4, you have a problem. But of course standard bidders have a problem when opener has 4 and responder 5, and this seems like a wash. The issue is when opener has six and responder 3, when standard bidders take the push on the known 8-card fit and are happy to discover the 9th, but there are many hands that don’t want to double after the 4-card major 1♠ (avoiding a total disaster opposite a weak notrump but missing the nine card fit in this case).

[DavidKok]

Thank you, do you know how they used their 2NT?

I do expect some problems on 6-3 fits, more than 'absolutely zero' at least. At the same time I think the increased frequency of takeout doubles by both partners and free rebids by opener will reduce the frequency noticeably. Also while the 4-5 versus 5-4 fits are a wash, the 4-4 fits are a pure gain and some amount of 4-3 fits will also gain. I wish to be able to cater to as many possible 5-3 and 6-3 fits and canapé scenarios as possible, and think this approach gains even if that is a sizeable amount shy of 'all of them'.