[Siegmund]

Seen them in lots of old textbooks, but can't remember actually playing against someone who used them before.

I was surprised to have a pickup partner today ask me to play them.

He proposed a version a little bit different than I was familiar with. He wanted to play
3C,3D Reversed Bergen (9-11ish, 6-8ish)
4C = 12-14, 3+ keycards or 2 keycards + trump queen; 4D asks
4D = 12-14, 2- keycards
2NT = Jacoby promising 15+.
He didn't get around to telling me what he wanted to do with the unused jump shift - he gave me the impression he preferred keycards first, shortness on the next round by responder , which seemed quite unsound to me - but I was interested to see the idea still alive.

Anybody still using a (presumably more sensible) variation of it?

[blackshoe]

Hardy raises look like this:

2NT: 15+, balanced, 4 trumps, slam interest
3♣: Limit raise with either 4 trumps and no side shortage, or 3 trumps and a singleton or void
3under (the denomination directly under trumps: "GF LImit raise, 9+ to 12- HCP, 4 trumps, a singleton or void
3M: weak
3over: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps, side shortage
4♣: balanced, 4 trumps, 12+ to 15- HCP, two of the top three trumps
4♦: as 4♣ but fewer that two top trumps.

The last two he described as "inverted trump Swiss", iirc.

[awm]

I played these Hardy raises with Greg Humphreys for a few months about eleven years ago. But I quickly convinced myself that the swiss raises are too space-consuming to have a reasonable slam auction, and that this allocation wastes a lot of bids (basically every jump is a raise) when I'd like to have some back for weak or invitational jump shifts. I cooked up an alternate method that packs all the raises into two calls which seems more efficient (I still play this method with a couple of partners).

I don't think either my post of blackshoe's answers the original question of whether anyone still plays these.

[rogerclee]

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description.

They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition.

Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

[blackshoe]

 awm, on 2013-August-18, 10:34, said:

I played these Hardy raises with Greg Humphreys for a few months about eleven years ago. But I quickly convinced myself that the swiss raises are too space-consuming to have a reasonable slam auction, and that this allocation wastes a lot of bids (basically every jump is a raise) when I'd like to have some back for weak or invitational jump shifts. I cooked up an alternate method that packs all the raises into two calls which seems more efficient (I still play this method with a couple of partners).

I don't think either my post of blackshoe's answers the original question of whether anyone still plays these.

I know some folks who play Hardy raises. I knew some folks in England who played some form of Swiss, but that was in an Acol context, and was 20 years ago.

Curious about your raise system. Care to post a summary?

[awm]

Here's what we play; it's apparently very complicated though:

1♥-2♠ = inv+ with shortness somewhere, or balanced GF
... 2N = minimum hand
....... 3♣/3♦/3♥ show shortness; 3♥ is specifically NF
....... 3♠ is RKC in hearts
....... 3NT, 4♣, 4♦ are cuebids (denying shortness in clubs/diamonds)
....... 4♥ is just to play, no slam interest opposite a min
... 3♣ = intermediate hand (this is GF)
...... 3♦ = void somewhere
...... 3♥ = request cuebidding, normally balanced
...... 3♠ = RKC
...... 3N/4♣/4♦ = show singleton, some interest opposite intermediate hand
...... 4♥ = to play, not enough for slam opposite intermediate hand
... 3♥ = strong hand, demand description
...... 3♠ = void somewhere
...... 3N = balanced (starts cuebids)
...... 4♣/4♦/4♥ = showing singleton
... 3♠ = RKC
... 3N/4♣/4♦ = showing a void in opener's hand
... 4♥ = bad hand but extra trump length

1♥-2NT = (semi)-balanced limit raise, three or four trumps
... 3♣ = shows four spades, looking for a better fit there
...... 3♦ = counter-try with four-card limit raise
...... 3♥ = three-card limit raise not four spades
...... 3♠ = four spades
... 3♦ = counter-try, asking for a game bid with four trumps or signoff with three
... 3♥ = to play

Over 1♠ things are similar but shifted up a step (so 2NT=shapely invite or GF, 3♣ = bal LR).

[Mbodell]

I have played against an older pair of gentlemen who still play swiss raises. And I played it with a pickup partner at a nationals (in the opening charity pairs) about 5 years ago.

[Free]

Never heard of these raises, and never encountered them at the table afaik.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-19, 18:18, said:

Curious about your raise system. Care to post a summary?

Will post mine too as I have many times:

Over 1♥
======
2♠ = mini-splinter or strong splinter (2NT asks)
2NT = GF raise
3♣ = limit raise
3♦ = mixed raise
3♥ = preemptive raise
3♠ = void splinter (any suit)
3NT = splinter with spade singleton
4m = singleton splinters
4♥ = preemptive

Over 1♠
======
2NT = mini-splinter or strong splinter (3♣ asks)
3♣ = GF raise
3♦ = limit raise
3♥ = mixed raise
3♠ = preemptive raise
3NT = void splinter (any suit)
4m/4♥ = singleton splinters
4♠ = preemptive

Notice that the void splinter response could be described as a form of Swiss if it were still fashionable to do so. The first Acol system I learned had a simplified Swiss method where 1M - 4♦ was a GF raise. It was slightly strange because 1M - 4♣ was undefined but that was apparently to allow for learning the "advanced" method where it showed a GF raise with a certain number of aces and kings.

[WellSpyder]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-19, 18:18, said:

I knew some folks in England who played some form of Swiss, but that was in an Acol context, and was 20 years ago.

Swiss was quite popular here for a while at a club level at least, and I'm pretty sure I must have played some version of them in some parterships. I don't think I have seen them at all for at least the past 10 years, though - splinters are pretty universal instead, and would probably be a pretty safe assumption in most pick-up partnerships.

[Ant590]

A pair at my old club played fruit machine swiss (http://www.bridgeguy...chineSwiss.html).

It actually came up once, but they got the bids the wrong way around. They mentioned that it last came up about 13 years ago, and they got it wrong then too. http://justinlall.co...ood-convention/ anyone?

[gnasher]

It took a bit of research, but I found one from the Bermuda Bowl in 2003:
http://www.infobridg...icz-wolpert.pdf

And then there's this, which perhaps Fluffy can explain:
http://www.aebridge....odedVincent.pdf

[the hog]

Swiss raises were very popular some years ago in Australia when many people in Melbourne played Baronised Acol.
4C = 2 Aces and a s/ton and 4D = 3 aces. The ranges for both were about 13-15. It is silly to say they are totally useless. They fitted well into Baronised Acol. I loved this system and would happily play it today if I had a partner who liked Acol.
By the way, one of the best mixed partnerships of all time - Jim and Norma Borin played Baronised Acol at at least one Bermuda Bowl.

As an aside, I find it both amusing but somewhat tiresome how some posters fail to address the op an rather give details of what they play and how clever they are. One poster on this site is particularly guilty of this.

[Siegmund]

What I was asked to play 2 weeks ago is very close to the published Fruit Machine Swiss, including the 2nd-round shortness ask.

The reason I got interested in Swiss again was that a reg p and I had gotten frustrated with the lack of bidding space over the 1S-4H splinter, and found a way to pack all the splinters into cheaper bids... but needed SOME meaning for the double jump shifts. We had been using 1S-3NT balanced forcing raise, a la Root and Pavlicek, and pondered whether there was a way to "sensibly" divide those hands among 4M-1 and 4M-2... or find any hand type at all that was so well described by the jump to 4M-1 that we didn't need further tools for opener to decide whether to go on or not.

I am always happy to see other people's raise structures as food for thought. Particularly the double-jump-shift bids, in this thread.

[dake50]

 rogerclee, on 2013-August-18, 16:55, said:

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description.

They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition.

Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

*** Of course if you *define* Swiss raises as a 4C and 4D raise.
Besse claimed 24 routes to 4S after 1S opened; 32 after 1H.
Now shouldn't SOME of these routes be defined raises? Eg. delayed splinter,
advanced Q-bid, help suit raise, generally exploring, etc.?
The *red gerring* "4C/4D are unsound to say the least" omits many other inferences that are bypassed.

[nige1]

 rogerclee, on 2013-August-18, 16:55, said:

The problem with swiss raises is they are theoretically unsound to say the least. Totally worthless would be a more accurate description. They are very space consuming and do not allow valuable information exchange, whereas either starting with a low level GF (2♣) or a low level ask (2NT) does, so even using the convention when it comes up is a losing proposition. Anyway to answer your question, no top player uses swiss raises anymore. I personally do not know anyone who uses them, expert or not.

This month, midweek, at Brighton, I played Swiss Over 1M:

• 4♣ = Good game raise with three key-cards.
• 4♦ = Good game raise with excellent trumps.

Also, we ordinary players sometimes play Automatic aces (a similar old convention)

[Lovera]

I've used Oklahoma convention better than Swiss and on reponse by partner that opened 1♥/♠ ruled so: 4♣ meaning support in trump (5/+ cards) with an Ace , 4♦ idem with two Aces , 4 in trump of partner with no Ace. This bidding being preemptive the range is 6-8 points in high cards but it being that two Aces consuming all force and is rare i have changed in keycards-Oklahoma including the A or K of trump so :4♣(=1 keycard), 4♦(=2 keycards), 4♥/♠(=0 keycards). I have talked about it in "Raising with 5 trump" (with "I like" by Vampyr for Lovera).

[newroad]

Hi Siegmund et al.

It seems to me that the conversation re Swiss Raises here has gone slightly down a rabbit hole and the underlying question(s) being asked are really

• What is your (game forcing, major suit) raise structure, and in context
  
• What can 3trumps+1 through 4trumps-1 be used for that adds value to (1) in context

The problem with trying to answer (1) and explaining it risks a tangential conversation. Nevertheless, here goes at attempt …

I believe 1M 2NT is best played as NAT, FG. It right sides more often than not, hides information when it can be hidden and gives increased definition to other 2/1 sequences (which, as it happens, I prefer to play as 100% FG complemented by intermediate jump shifts). From these starting premises, a different way is needed to handle FG raises. Independent of the fact that it facilitates the above, I believe the approach described below is better than most anyway, but then again, I would

The following is known as “CLOR” (pronounced “claw” and derived from “CLubs Or Raise”) and shortly to be published in The Bridge World under an article of the same name. It is outlined here in advance with the permission of the author and the editor of the publication.

1M 2C (and for that matter 1D 2C can be implemented similarly) is

• FG clubs, or
  
• FG raise

Opener usually marks time with 2D, but can alternately bid naturally with a concentrated 5+/5+ (2NT showing diamonds), primary club support, or a strong 6+ original suit. 3D/H/S are auto-splinters (3M showing a club splinter). Note that opener’s default 2D rebid also takes away the typical problem in 2/1 of what opener is to rebid with a non-descript 5M332 (for which either 2M or 2NT are the usual often unhelpful solutions).

After 1M 2C 2D, 2H shows the FG raise type, anything else is NAT (2NT showing hearts) and confirming clubs. In the event opener doesn’t rebid 2D, the first step (with the exception of 4C over 3S) still shows the FG raise type, anything else is NAT along the same lines as the above.

On to the meat of the matter.

After 1M 2C 2D 2H, you can play what you like, some sort of modified Jacoby might make sense for irregular partnerships, with 2NT in the frame as a more convenient level to show one of the balanced ranges. However, I would advise looking at the Balanced Hand Principle article (The Bridge World, December 1989). My preference, using 1H 2C as an example, is along the lines (I say “along the lines” as further refinement* can be added to taste)

1H 2C 2D 2H then

• 2S = no shortage (i.e. BAL or semi-BAL)
  
• 2NT = short S
  
• 3C = short C
  
• 3D = short D
  
• 3H = 5+D (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 2NT)
  
• 3S = 5+S (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 2S)
  
• 3NT+ = 5+C (values not concentrated in the two suits, else 1H 2C 3C), zooming to showing the nature of the shortage to taste

After 1H 2C 2D 2H 2S, it’s very similar to the above but up a step

• 2NT = no shortage (i.e. BAL or semi-BAL)
  
• 3C = short C
  
• 3D = short D
  
• 3H = short S
  
• 3S = 5+S
  
• 3NT = 5+D
  
• 4C+ = 5+C, zooming in showing the nature of the shortage to taste

There are many advantages to this, happy to discuss as needed, and few disadvantages (mostly lead directional/sacrifice suggesting opportunities, but even these can be minimised if you add a small amount of complexity to the order you show things). The one “hole” in the method is after 1M 2C 3C, responder has no convenient continuation with 5+C/4D, so needs to fudge with the least bad of 3M/3NT.

After 1H 2C 2D 2H 2S 2NT, both hands are known to have no shortage and there is a pile of space to do whatever you fancy (range, shape and/or control showing). After showing shortage, e.g. 1H 2C 2D 2H 2NT, I recommend first step (3C in the sample auction) enquires, to which the first step in response shows a void, the rest a singleton (with cue-bidding and control-showing according to the usual partnership style). Users of Kickbo/Turbo can implement these a level lower in many** instances for those interested in doing so (i.e. 3T+1/3NT shows even keys and 4T+1/4NT respectively can be used to show [or deny] the TQ).

Back to the original question then, what to use the four spare bids (1H 3S/3NT/4C/4D in the sample case) for? In my opinion, light splinters, grading the direct 4M raise, or a combination of the two (e.g. 3S for an undisclosed light splinter, 3NT/4C/4D for a graded 4H bid, or vice-versa). Grading the direct raise has relatively more utility in a standard method I would argue, less so in a strong club method.

Regards, Newroad

* my main ideas on this refinement are when showing a second suit, transfer into it, and when showing a shortage, bid the suit above it

** or all instances, with only modest additional complexity

[nullve]

 newroad, on 2015-December-25, 06:34, said:

I believe 1M 2NT is best played as NAT, FG.

Natural continuations after

1M-2N(nat GF); 3m(4+ m)

work even less than after

1N-[2M-1](5+ M); 2M-3m(4+ m, GF),

since Responder has yet to limit his hand. So how do you continue after 1M-2N?

[newroad]

Hi Nullve,

Fair question (i.e. how do I prefer to continue after 1M 2NT), though if the 1NT 2red 2M 3m sequences are in major (no pun intended) trouble, then one of the pillars on which modern bidding is built is about to fall!

For a long time (dating back to the early 90's) I played 1M 2M+1 as an FG raise and 1M 2M+2 as a BAL FG. I would have to check the contemporaneous notes to be 100% sure (and am in a different country for Christmas, so can't do so conveniently) but we played natural continuations. What I am unsure about is whether we played 1M 3NT as intermediate range (say 15-17 or 16-18 BAL) with `M 2M+2 as dual range (say 12-14/12-15 and 18-20/19-21). Philosophically, this would have been in keeping with our broader 2/1 style at the time. In any case, I genuinely can't recall any serious issues of the nature to which you allude - maybe this was dumb luck then, poor memory now, or something else, I can't be sure!

Playing CLOR, we are just using natural continuations and will see how that continues to go. I play relatively infrequently these days, though usually in decent competition when I do, and there are other parts of the two main systems that I semi-regularly play that warrant more attention.

My speculative opinion, time and effort permitting, would be as follows

• The split range structure retains conceptual merit (I don't mind playing in 3NT at IMP's with a 5-3 major suit fit), and/or
  
• After 1M 2NT, 3C as a range ask followed by optional Baron. This would ideally be complemented by some form of transfer structure at the three level. It might even make moving the 1M=4=4=4 hands into the 2NT response even more convenient, further bolstering the definition of the 2/1's

Sorry I can't be more definitive at present than the above. Even if 1M 2NT as NAT, FG is somehow theoretically suspect, as a practical matter, the gains originally alluded to seem to be real.

Regards, Newroad