[Kungsgeten]

Hi!

When playing Swedish Club (1C = 11--13 bal or 17+ any) it is common (Swan uses this) to use 1C--1M; 2NT to show 4+ support and the strong hand. With a strong hand without support you would have to bid a natural rebid (with 2C being natural or balanced). My suggestion is inspired by Polish Club, using Odwrotka, with a major difference: The 2C rebid is a multi-way bid with a two-suiter including a 5+ minor. Here's what we play:

1C--1H;
1S = Natural, 5+ suit if strong
1NT = 11--13 balanced, no major
2C = Artificial. Strong unbalanced with a 5+ minor and a 4-card side suit (may be 5-5 minors). 0--2 hearts.
2D = Odwrotka. Strong hand with 3+ hearts.
2H = 11--13 balanced with 4 hearts
2S = Strong hand with nice 6+ spades
2NT = 17+ (semi)balanced with 2 hearts
3m = 6+ minor, strong
3H = 17--18 balanced with 4 hearts

Now after the 2C rebid responder may relay or bid pretty natural:

1C--1H; 2C---
2D = Relay, wants to know more
2H = 6+ hearts
2S = 6 hearts, 5 spades
2NT = 3+ support in both minors, at least mild slam interest
3m = 5-5 in hearts and the minor
3H = Good 7+ suit, sets trump

1C--1H; 2C--2D;
2H = Artificial. Extras (ca 20+) with 5-4 minors.
...2NT = Asks for the longer minor
...3m = Natural with 4+ minor
...Other = Natural without 3-card minor
2S = 4 spades and a 5+ minor
...2N = Asks for the minor
......3m = Natural "min", ca 17--19
......3H = Extras with clubs
......3S = Extras with diamonds
......4m = 6+ suit and some extras
...3S = Minimum with 4 spades
...Jump = Splinter
...Other = Control bid with spade support, no shortness
2NT = 5-5 minors, "min". After responders preference opener shows shortness with 3M.
3m = 5+ minor, 4 cards in other minor, "min"
3M = 5-5 minors, extras, shortness in the bid major

[Trinidad]

I think there is one main reason why 2NT is used as the strong hand with support. Anders Morath likes to "program" his bidding systems in modules. These are routines where the same system is used for hands that reach similar information through different routes. This may sound a little confusing, but that is the way I explained it, not the way Anders designs his systems. Perhaps an example can explain more.

In Anders' systems (and in many others too) 1M-2NT is a game forcing raise. (Obviously Anders calls this Stenberg, after Alvar Stenberg who really invented the Jacoby 2NT raise.) He has detailed agreements on how to bid after 2NT. He simply uses the properties of the bidding situation (auction is at 1M, we have a major suit fit and want to force to game) and uses the 2NT module for other, similar situations, such as 1♣-1M in Swan for the strong hand in the 1♣ opener with a fit.

I really like Anders' way of programming his systems in modules. He doesn't really care whether another approach might use the available bidding space more efficiently for a single situation. He wants the same, good approach for all similar situations. This keeps his system book relatively thin for the detailed agreements that he has.

Rik