[pilun]

Symmetric relay is simplest and maybe best when the limited openings are based on 4-card majors. (Like the symmetric responses to 1♣)

There are various opening structures.

In our method a 1♥ opening shows 4+♥, denies four spades, 11-15 pts
Over that, 1♠ is GI relay (11+), which messes a bit with the spade suit.
This impacts the responding structure and continuations.

1NT response is 6-10, which is a bit wide. 7-10 would be better.
A flat 6-7 count with three hearts can pass 1♥. However

♠QT65 ♥93 ♦KT6 ♣J954

is a bit awkward, particularly vulnerable, or at matchpoints. Opposite ♥Q852, maybe -200 vs nothing.
4-1-4-4 is even worse.

There are arithmetic issues. Opener with a flat 15-count will wonder about the 15 + 10 3NT that "everyone" else is bidding after a 15-17 1NT opening. Against that, raising with a 15-count will more often look silly, watching partner fail in 2NT with 15 opposite 6.

11+ hands relay, which leads to

1♥ - 1♠
2♣ - 2NT

where 2♣ is balanced. 2NT on 11 + 11 is not a good look. With that in mind, same flat 11-counts pass, rather than open 1♥. On marginal hands, we look at the 4-card heart suit. How will you feel if partner raises on three?

This is where the Precision 1♦ excels, with the nice split of 11-13, 14-16, 17+.

Another candidate for 1♥ - 1NT is a hand with five spades:

♠KT765 ♥64 ♦Q94 ♣K42

2-level responses are non-forcing "less than invitational", 6-carders, maybe a chunky 5-carder for 2m. Think "weak two".
They work well enough but the suit needs to be up to scratch because opener will sometimes pass with a singleton.
We have been known to make these bids with 3-card heart support but probably shouldn't.

♠KT43 ♥62 ♦J5 ♣AJ654

is an instructive hand. You don't fancy 2♣, so respond 1NT.
That won't be good if partner has a singleton club. What if partner bids 2♦?

The likely shapes for 2♦ are 3-5-4-1 and 3-4-5-1. Which is it?

With 2-2 reds, responder has to guess well to avoid the 4-2 fit.
Rather than guessing, we insist that opener's 2♦ rebid over 2♣ shows five of them.

When will responder raise to 2♥ with three trumps?
This is not Acol, where a 1♥ opening is either five of them, or a good hand or good suit.
Our 1♥ opening is a 4-carder roughly half the time, could be four small.

With that in mind, the three 4333s will almost always prefer 1NT.
The 5332s will tend to raise, more so with a heart honour and small doubleton.
2-3-(5+3) will always raise because the opponents are known to have 8+ spades. (1♥ denies four spades)
3-3-5-2 has the option of 1NT, then 2♥ over 2♣ by opener.
What about 3-3-2-5, or 4-3-2-4? (The balanced hands with a doubleton diamond)

Opener will always remove 1NT (to 2m) with a singleton. The four 5422 shapes have a choice. See later.
Responder can have a problem with 2-2 reds.

1♥ - 1NT
2♦ - ?

2♦ could be 5-4 either way (compare 1♥ : 2♣ : 2♦). What does responder do with

♠KT43 ♥62 ♦J5 ♣AJ654 ?

Our agreement is that responder always bids 2♥ with 2-2 reds (4-2-2-5 or 5-2-2-4)
Half the time that will be right. The other half, opener will want to escape the 4-2 fit.
2♠ shows 3-4-5-1, which will be fine because responder has a least four spades.
2NT on 1-4-5-3 is not great but "no fit, notrumps" plus responder can remove to 3♣ with five.

What of 2-4-5-2? Perhaps that hand should pass 1NT.
If you choose to rebid 2♦ and see 2♥, follow up with 2♠ and hope for the best.

This agreement means that a hand with three hearts and a doubleton diamond should always raise directly, because preference over diamonds shows 2-2.

Similar principles apply after 1♥ : 1NT : 2♣

Here responder can bid 2♥ with 3-2 (or 3-3) in opener's suits.

With 4-2-5-2 or maybe 5-2-4-2, responder bids 2♦ over 2♣ to show 2-2.

We play 1♥ : 2NT as GOOD limit plus with 4 trumps.
3♣/♦/♠ are invitational, good 6-carders.

3♥ is mixed. Typically 5=card support or chunky four, or short spades,

Transfer openings are popular these days, so

1♦ = 4+ hearts, maybe not denying spades(?).

It's great for responder to be able to respond 1♠ with spades.
1♥ as a relay is good too. Right-sides heart contracts.

Transfer openings give the other side more competitive options, which is not great.

Also, responder can't sit in 1♥. This is a more serous issue.

We like our 1♥ - 2♥ to show a good hand, say 7-10 TP.

With transfer openings, a weaker responder chooses between pass, 1NT & 2♥ A bit of a lottery.

[awm]

It seems like you have an awful lot of problems -- even without competition you're having awkward sequences when responder doesn't have an immediate game force. This opening style will also run into trouble if opponents intervene (responder with three-card major support is often a difficult one). Are you sure that this opening structure is worthwhile just to simplify the relays? I've always found that five-card majors work quite a bit better in real bridge (as opposed to a slam bidding contest where opponents always pass).

[pilun]

awm, on 2026-April-13, 01:30, said:

It seems like you have an awful lot of problems -- even without competition you're having awkward sequences when responder doesn't have an immediate game force. This opening style will also run into trouble if opponents intervene (responder with three-card major support is often a difficult one). Are you sure that this opening structure is worthwhile just to simplify the relays? I've always found that five-card majors work quite a bit better in real bridge (as opposed to a slam bidding contest where opponents always pass).

Thanks for that.

We have issues, though not an awful lot. We've played this method for 30 years.
The MAFIA opening style makes most relay auctions straightforward and "doubly" symmetric.

Relay pairs tend to spend too much time and effort on relay auctions at the expense of the more common natural auctions.
Bridge is a 4-handed game, so we don't mind the 2-level in the 4-3 fit, which is dangerous for both sides.
The denied major can be useful in a contested auction. Knowing there is no 4-4 fit in the other major, double can focus on the 5-3 and the 3-5.

We haven't noticed relay as GI being a negative. Having all 2-level responses constructive has proved useful.

Of course a Precision 1M opening is a winner when it occurs - better than us and a Standard 1M - but you pay by farming out the 40% of hands with a 4-card major. A 5-4 fit is good but so is a 4-5 or 4-6.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-April-12, 23:59, said:

Symmetric relay is simplest and maybe best when the limited openings are based on 4-card majors. (Like the symmetric responses to 1♣)
...

Transfer openings are popular these days, so

1♦ = 4+ hearts, maybe not denying spades(?).

It's great for responder to be able to respond 1♠ with spades.
1♥ as a relay is good too. Right-sides heart contracts.

Transfer openings give the other side more competitive options, which is not great.

Also, responder can't sit in 1♥. This is a more serous issue.

We like our 1♥ - 2♥ to show a good hand, say 7-10 TP.

With transfer openings, a weaker responder chooses between pass, 1NT & 2♥ A bit of a lottery.

Nick,

I am 100% behind awm's observation that five card majors simply work better in competition. IME relays work equally well with 5CM (a la Tarzan for example), and the same relay scheme (say 1♠ - 1N as GFR) can be repurposed over 1♣ - 1♥ (spades) - 1♠ (GFR) and so forth. So, it seems like the only debate here is 4CM vs. 5CM, and that's been going on for decades (with one clear victor IMO).

Someone like Richard is better suited to chime in on transfer openings, and several versions of Moscito did use natural openings (and were probably better off for it).

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 02:27, said:

Thanks for that.

We have issues, though not an awful lot. We've played this method for 30 years.
The MAFIA opening style makes most relay auctions straightforward and "doubly" symmetric.

Of course a Precision 1M opening is a winner when it occurs - better than us and a Standard 1M - but you pay by farming out the 40% of hands with a 4-card major. A 5-4 fit is good but so is a 4-5 or 4-6.

Once again, I posit that while not achieving the "doubly symmetric" standard, it's possible to construct a symmetric scheme over 5CM that comes really close. Regarding the 4-5 or 4-6 fit, aren't some of those hands already opened 1M in Precision? It seems like you are trading those with having to guess that to do over 1M - (2x/3x) - with a 3-card fit.

Quote

This is where the Precision 1♦ excels, with the nice split of 11-13, 14-16, 17+.

This is probably the one good thing that can be said about the Precision 1♦ opening. Several systems, including IMPrecision have tried to address the issues with it, and my preference is for the Nystrom-Upmark approach (balanced or major-minor canape).

If insisting on 4CMs I would strongly advocate removing the balanced hands out of the 1M openings, thereby making 1M unbalanced with 4+.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-April-13, 09:27, said:

Nick,

I am 100% behind awm's observation that five card majors simply work better in competition. IME relays work equally well with 5CM (a la Tarzan for example), and the same relay scheme (say 1♠ - 1N as GFR) can be repurposed over 1♣ - 1♥ (spades) - 1♠ (GFR) and so forth. So, it seems like the only debate here is 4CM vs. 5CM, and that's been going on for decades (with one clear victor IMO).

Someone like Richard is better suited to chime in on transfer openings, and several versions of Moscito did use natural openings (and were probably better off for it).

Atul,

A 1M opening showing 5 is great when it happens, which is rarely.
You could invent a 6-card major system, when opening 1M would be great but the other openings would suffer. It's a question of frequency.

Note that 1NT with a 5-card major is a mixed blessing. You get your hand-type across in one shot but responder is under some pressure to cater for it. People do it anyway - correctly - because there is no other sequence to show that hand. That is, because they have to, not because they want to.

There are various flavours of Moscito.
Originally, 1♥ & 1♠ = 4+, denying the other major. 1♦ = both.
Our is 1♥ = hearts, 1♦ = spades, 1♠ = both.

Note these versions both have "natural" 1M openings, making them less objectionable to rule-makers.

Transfer openings usually have 1♦ = hearts, 1♥ = spades, 1♠ = minors, usually.
This doesn't usually incorporate the denied major principle and some flat hands are off-loaded to 1NT.
As I wrote above, I don't much care for that but I believe it's the most popular variant.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-April-13, 09:34, said:

Once again, I posit that while not achieving the "doubly symmetric" standard, it's possible to construct a symmetric scheme over 5CM that comes really close. Regarding the 4-5 or 4-6 fit, aren't some of those hands already opened 1M in Precision? It seems like you are trading those with having to guess that to do over 1M - (2x/3x) - with a 3-card fit.



This is probably the one good thing that can be said about the Precision 1♦ opening. Several systems, including IMPrecision have tried to address the issues with it, and my preference is for the Nystrom-Upmark approach (balanced or major-minor canape).

If insisting on 4CMs I would strongly advocate removing the balanced hands out of the 1M openings, thereby making 1M unbalanced with 4+.

Atul,

"Regarding the 4-5 or 4-6 fit, aren't some of those hands already opened 1M in Precision?"
No. I was talking about the hands where 1♥ is opened on four and responder bids 3♥ with 5-card support.
Direct major raises are much more common in a MAFIA system.

You can do symmetric over a 5-card major opening but it's a bit messy and asymmetric. Makes the method harder to sell.
1♦ Precision does not mesh at all with symmetric.

We use exactly the same 1NT/2♣/2♦ openings as Nystrom/Upmark. Their relay structure over the rest is not to my taste!

Removing the flat hands from 1M defeats the purpose and makes 1M openings half as common. Either you play MAFIA or you don't.

All methods have weak and strong points. We devote a bit of (natural) effort to find a decent partscore after 1M.
It's not as if other methods don't have similar issues.

In "standard" Precision, 1♦ : 1♠ : 2♣ feels good, showing two suits at once,
Until you see partner tanking with 5-4-2-2.

A modern Precision 1♣ structure features canape rebids by opener, when you get
1♣ : 1♦
1♠ : 1NT
2♦

Again responder has a problem with two of each.

I still believe that contested auctions favour the side that shows major length first.
In Standard, we are seeing

1♣ - (1NT) - 2♣ = majors.

Searching for a missed major fit that may not be there.
This sort of thing suggests a fundamental issue with system design.

[pilun]

In contested auctions, the side that has made descriptive start to the auction that focusses on majors has the advantage. Take

1♣ - (2♣) - ?

Where 1♣ is 2+. Or make it a Precision 1♦. Responder has

♠Ax ♥Axxxx ♦xxx ♣xxx

Our 2♣ overcall has been descriptive - 6+ clubs, no 4cM.

This responder has tough problem.

If our side had opened, it might have gone
1♥ - (2♣)

or 1♦ - (2♣) where 1♦ = 4+ spades, denies 4 hearts

Together our 1♥ & 1♦ account for 60% of 11-15. How often do Precision pairs open 1M?

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 19:18, said:

♠Ax ♥Axxxx ♦xxx ♣xxx

Our 2♣ overcall has been descriptive - 6+ clubs, no 4cM.

This responder has tough problem.

Does responder really want to make a call opposite the presumed 11 - 13 balanced hand? Assuming responder has a slightly better hand, systems like IMPrecision make short work of it by bidding 2♦ (NFB+ transfer with 5+♥s).

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 19:18, said:

Together our 1♥ & 1♦ account for 60% of 11-15. How often do Precision pairs open 1M?

I have no doubt that you have more 1M openings compared to a standard Precision pair. However, based on the on the topic of the post, it seems that it comes with its own set of issues. The same holds true for the MAFIA style, and both awm and I maintain that whatever the purported gains of the style might be, it will almost certainly lag 5CM majors in competitive auctions.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 18:53, said:

Atul,

"Regarding the 4-5 or 4-6 fit, aren't some of those hands already opened 1M in Precision?"
No. I was talking about the hands where 1♥ is opened on four and responder bids 3♥ with 5-card support.
Direct major raises are much more common in a MAFIA system.

I was pointing out that some of those 5M or 6M will be opened, so the advantage is specifically on the ones with exactly 4M.

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 18:53, said:

You can do symmetric over a 5-card major opening but it's a bit messy and asymmetric. Makes the method harder to sell.
1♦ Precision does not mesh at all with symmetric.

We use exactly the same 1NT/2♣/2♦ openings as Nystrom/Upmark. Their relay structure over the rest is not to my taste!

Why is this true? We can use the exact same 1M - 1N GFR over with 1♥/1♠ and the equivalent responses over 1♣. Note that I don't care about their complex relay system over 1♦ either, but a 1♦ - 1N GFR response works well.

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 18:53, said:

In "standard" Precision, 1♦ : 1♠ : 2♣ feels good, showing two suits at once,
Until you see partner tanking with 5-4-2-2.

This is problem solved by Nystrom-Upmark. Opener's rebid in a minor shows at least 5m and 4OM (at least my adaptation of it).

pilun, on 2026-April-13, 18:53, said:

A modern Precision 1♣ structure features canape rebids by opener, when you get
1♣ : 1♦
1♠ : 1NT
2♦

Agree with the above. There's a potential solution to the above (1M shows 5+ and 2M is canape), but I am not sure whether it's worth it. IME, it hasn't been a big issue to considering fixing.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-April-14, 00:18, said:

Does responder really want to make a call opposite the presumed 11 - 13 balanced hand? Assuming responder has a slightly better hand, systems like IMPrecision make short work of it by bidding 2♦ (NFB+ transfer with 5+♥s).



I have no doubt that you have more 1M openings compared to a standard Precision pair. However, based on the on the topic of the post, it seems that it comes with its own set of issues. The same holds true for the MAFIA style, and both awm and I maintain that whatever the purported gains of the style might be, it will almost certainly lag 5CM majors in competitive auctions.

Atul,

With ♠Ax ♥Axxxx ♦xxx ♣xxx

I guess you pass over 2♣ but it could go swish when we have nine hearts.
With a bit more, you might transfer into opener's singleton. That happens opposite vague openings, including of course a strong club!
When openings are descriptive - showing some suits and denying others - responder rates to be well-placed if the auction hots up.

Competitive auctions after the rare 1♥ Precision openings will generally go better than after our 1♥. Even so, it's worth pointing out that the denied major saves responder from searching for a fit that can't be there.
However, the main point to note is that we stand to gain a lot in contested auctions when we open 1♥ with four. Others have to wonder about opener's missed major which, was hidden by system in 1♦ or perhaps even in 1NT.

Concerning a contest between natural methods, 5cM and strong notrump have clearly won out. I fancy Acol-style myself but the mob has spoken.
In the same way, "natural" has won out over strong club.
I'm not saying that a reason for that is the fact that most strong club systems are hampered by 5-card majors and/or lack of symmetric. It is what it is.

[awm]

The most common hand for a limited opening bid is a weak notrump. This is also the most disappointing hand in terms of playing strength when you find a fit, and the least likely hand to make a game opposite a partner who doesn't hold a game force on high card points.

With this being the case, it seems like the best strategy is to have only one opening that's "usually a weak notrump" so that the other openings can show more shapely hands which can thus be raised more aggressively when a fit is found. If we mix the weak notrump into every opening (i.e. have one opening that's "usually a weak notrump with four hearts" and another that's "usually a weak notrump with four spades" and yet another that's "usually a weak notrump with no four card major") then partner needs to be pretty passive in competition in all cases and will often have trouble making the right decisions when opener has the less usual (but more powerful) shapely hands.

The major-showing openings are especially important since these are likely to "win" competitive auctions and offer a relatively cheap suit game. It's probably less costly to have a bid that shows "weak notrump or hand with a minor" or "weak notrump or three-suited hand" rather than a bid that's usually a weak notrump but could also be (for example) some 5-5 with a primary major suit. To give an extreme example, do you even find game with ♠x ♥AQxxx ♦AKJxx ♣xx opposite ♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx? It seems like your auction will start 1♥-1NT-2♦ and responder might even PASS? I guess you could raise hearts directly on three, but of course this risks opener's weak notrump with four baby hearts. And this isn't even a competitive sequence, where you might get 1♥-2♣-Pass?-3♣... opener tries 3♦ but are you really getting to game here?

[pilun]

awm, on 2026-April-14, 02:06, said:

The most common hand for a limited opening bid is a weak notrump. This is also the most disappointing hand in terms of playing strength when you find a fit, and the least likely hand to make a game opposite a partner who doesn't hold a game force on high card points.

With this being the case, it seems like the best strategy is to have only one opening that's "usually a weak notrump" so that the other openings can show more shapely hands which can thus be raised more aggressively when a fit is found. If we mix the weak notrump into every opening (i.e. have one opening that's "usually a weak notrump with four hearts" and another that's "usually a weak notrump with four spades" and yet another that's "usually a weak notrump with no four card major") then partner needs to be pretty passive in competition in all cases and will often have trouble making the right decisions when opener has the less usual (but more powerful) shapely hands.

The major-showing openings are especially important since these are likely to "win" competitive auctions and offer a relatively cheap suit game. It's probably less costly to have a bid that shows "weak notrump or hand with a minor" or "weak notrump or three-suited hand" rather than a bid that's usually a weak notrump but could also be (for example) some 5-5 with a primary major suit. To give an extreme example, do you even find game with ♠x ♥AQxxx ♦AKJxx ♣xx opposite ♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx? It seems like your auction will start 1♥-1NT-2♦ and responder might even PASS? I guess you could raise hearts directly on three, but of course this risks opener's weak notrump with four baby hearts. And this isn't even a competitive sequence, where you might get 1♥-2♣-Pass?-3♣... opener tries 3♦ but are you really getting to game here?

Adam,

That makes sense. We adjust a bit by boosting the weak notrump hands, passing some flat 11-counts.
1♥ is balanced 45% of the time, so not "usually". (Less if we pass some flat 11-counts and open a bunch of 10-counts)
1NT opening = weak notrump, no 4cM

On the example, responder would raise with ♥Kxx and ♣xx. Texture is an issue. Then 2♠ start of a short suit trial, 3m canape trials.

After 1♥ - 1NT, we have a treatment, one of few.
Good 5-5s need attention, since 2m is often canape and 3m is always 4-6.
We use 1♥ - 1NT - 2♠ (the denied major) to show that, a good with 5♥s & 5-card minor.

[PrecisionL]

awm, on 2026-April-14, 02:06, said:

The major-showing openings are especially important since these are likely to "win" competitive auctions and offer a relatively cheap suit game. It's probably less costly to have a bid that shows "weak notrump or hand with a minor" or "weak notrump or three-suited hand" rather than a bid that's usually a weak notrump but could also be (for example) some 5-5 with a primary major suit. To give an extreme example, do you even find game with ♠x ♥AQxxx ♦AKJxx ♣xx opposite ♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx? It seems like your auction will start 1♥-1NT-2♦ and responder might even PASS? I guess you could raise hearts directly on three, but of course this risks opener's weak notrump with four baby hearts. And this isn't even a competitive sequence, where you might get 1♥-2♣-Pass?-3♣... opener tries 3♦ but are you really getting to game here?

YES, we are getting to game in our canape style.

1♦ - 1NT - 2♥ (canape, 4-5 / 5-5 ) - 3♥ (LR = 3 cover cards) - 4♥ (4 1/2 - 5-losers) - - -

(Edit) Raising to 3♥ is aggressive as the K♠ is only 50% useful with opener bidding the red suits.

[awm]

PrecisionL, on 2026-April-14, 07:07, said:

YES, we are getting to game in our canape style.

1♦ - 1NT - 2♥ (canape, 4-5 / 5-5 ) - 3♥ (LR = 3 cover cards) - 4♥ (4 1/2 - 5-losers) - - -

Canape is a little better than Mafia in this respect (you can always tell which suit is longer) but it does seem you are getting to the three level with:

♠xx ♥AQxxx ♦AJxx ♣xx

opposite

♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx

Of course it might make. But reaching 3♥ on these hands when opponents passed throughout doesn't seem like a plus position.

[PrecisionL]

awm, on 2026-April-14, 07:37, said:

Canape is a little better than Mafia in this respect (you can always tell which suit is longer) but it does seem you are getting to the three level with:

♠xx ♥AQxxx ♦AJxx ♣xx

opposite

♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx

Of course it might make. But reaching 3♥ on these hands when opponents passed throughout doesn't seem like a plus position.

Canape style: 1♦ - 1NT - 2♥ - 3♥ - -

It is always a Close call to raise to 3♥, K♠ 50% useful. (Edited to add ALWAYS, canape helps hand evaluation)

[awm]

PrecisionL, on 2026-April-14, 08:15, said:

Canape style: 1♦ - 1NT - 2♥ - 3♥ - -

Close call to raise to 3♥, K♠ 50% useful.

Funny that this hand was a clear raise when opener had a 5-5 max but now it's a close call.

Regardless of whether you overbid or underbid here, you will sometimes get it wrong. Five-card major bidders have no problem with either pair of hands.

Of course you can always construct hands that are problematic for any style, but the general point is that when opener has ten cards in two suits and you have a major fit, you do not need very much for game. Out of 6M-4m, 5M-5m, and 4M-6m, the Mafia or Canape style wins only on the last, whereas five-card major methods win on the first two. Not only is this 2:1 in hand patterns in favour of five-card majors, but the 4M-6m hand where Mafia/Canape potentially win is also the one where you are LEAST likely to have a major suit fit (requiring partner have the largest number of cards in the major).

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-April-14, 01:37, said:

Concerning a contest between natural methods, 5cM and strong notrump have clearly won out. I fancy Acol-style myself but the mob has spoken.
In the same way, "natural" has won out over strong club.
I'm not saying that a reason for that is the fact that most strong club systems are hampered by 5-card majors and/or lack of symmetric. It is what it is.

Nick,

awm made a great case for 5CMs, but we are unlikely to move the needle on the debate that's decades old. Regardless, it's refreshing to see some spirited discussion on a forum that's been largely dormant of late.

I do disagree that 1♣ openings can't have both 5CM and a symmetric relay that's both elegant and memory friendly. For example, here's a possible relay over 1M that uses 1N as GFR:

2♣: Any ♦ hand OR LL with ♦ / ♣ OR three-suited hands
.....2♥: LL ♣ OR three-suited hands
...............2N: Three-suited hands
...............3♣: LL with ♣ (standard symmetric track)
.....2♠+: LL with M+♦
.....2N+: M+♦ (standard symmetric track)
2♦: Single suited in M (includes 5M332 if desired) -> standard symmetric track with single suited hands
2♥: M+4♣ -> standard symmetric track
2♠: LL with OM
2N+: -> Standard symmetric track with OM

It's easy to see how this can be repurposed over 1♣ with 1♥ = ♠ and 1♠ = ♥. After the 1♠ relay over 1♥, the 2♣+ bids are the same as 1♠ - 1N (GFR) and the 1N rebid shows the ♠ canape hands (short-legged only at 2♥ / 2N+).

There are a few minor details and while it doesn't quite reach your level of symmetry, it's pretty darn close.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-April-14, 17:31, said:

Nick,

awm made a great case for 5CMs, but we are unlikely to move the needle on the debate that's decades old. Regardless, it's refreshing to see some spirited discussion on a forum that's been largely dormant of late.

I do disagree that 1♣ openings can't have both 5CM and a symmetric relay that's both elegant and memory friendly. For example, here's a possible relay over 1M that uses 1N as GFR:

2♣: Any ♦ hand OR LL with ♦ / ♣ OR three-suited hands
.....2♥: LL ♣ OR three-suited hands
...............2N: Three-suited hands
...............3♣: LL with ♣ (standard symmetric track)
.....2♠+: LL with M+♦
.....2N+: M+♦ (standard symmetric track)
2♦: Single suited in M (includes 5M332 if desired) -> standard symmetric track with single suited hands
2♥: M+4♣ -> standard symmetric track
2♠: LL with OM
2N+: -> Standard symmetric track with OM

It's easy to see how this can be repurposed over 1♣ with 1♥ = ♠ and 1♠ = ♥. After the 1♠ relay over 1♥, the 2♣+ bids are the same as 1♠ - 1N (GFR) and the 1N rebid shows the ♠ canape hands (short-legged only at 2♥ / 2N+).

There are a few minor details and while it doesn't quite reach your level of symmetry, it's pretty darn close.

I don't say you can't apply symmetric to 5cM, just there is a cost involved that may discourage some.
I wouldn't enjoy writing "4+ diamonds, or 5+ clubs or any 5440" but I can live with that so the GFR sequences are okay.

My knowledge of Nysrtrom/Upmark might be out of date. Looking at a WBF card, they had
1M : 2♣ as GFR, with 1NT semi-forcing, to cater for invites. Same with Auby-Ebenius.
Need some way to handle those invites.

There are two basic ways to develop a symmetric system.
One is to look at your current strong club method and drop symmetric on it.
The other way is take the structure and devise a suite of openings that mesh best with it.

[pilun]

awm, on 2026-April-14, 09:52, said:

Funny that this hand was a clear raise when opener had a 5-5 max but now it's a close call.

Regardless of whether you overbid or underbid here, you will sometimes get it wrong. Five-card major bidders have no problem with either pair of hands.

Of course you can always construct hands that are problematic for any style, but the general point is that when opener has ten cards in two suits and you have a major fit, you do not need very much for game. Out of 6M-4m, 5M-5m, and 4M-6m, the Mafia or Canape style wins only on the last, whereas five-card major methods win on the first two. Not only is this 2:1 in hand patterns in favour of five-card majors, but the 4M-6m hand where Mafia/Canape potentially win is also the one where you are LEAST likely to have a major suit fit (requiring partner have the largest number of cards in the major).

If 1M : 1NT : 2m is defined as "nearly always" 5+ minor,

Responder would be well advised to raise straightaway on three nearly all the time.