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

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

Hi Straube. Compliments of the season to you and yours! I've never played anything that purported to be MOSCITO (though I did play what was in effect a strong club implementation of FPR when MOSCITO was still using one bid, 1D as I recall, to show both majors. In this, we played 1C = 14+ hcp, 1D = 4+H 9-13 hcp, 1H = 4+S, 1S = 4+/4+ minors etc. In some respects, this was slightly ahead of its time). Further, though a few years ago I considered something similar to the Straw Man method, I didn't and don't play it so these musings are purely an academic consideration for me at present. I think your point about relay versus non-relay auctions is valid - where we might disagree is on how prevalent these situations are likely to be and therefore how much design (and memory) effort to put into them. IMPrecision c2009 has a fairly hefty strong club (16+, 17+ if BAL) so my inclinations would be weighted to towards the relay side. As mentioned before, the proof is in the playing (and it may come down to personal philosophy as well - some people prefer to break relay more often than others). In essence, I had to look at IMPrecision to properly consider your question, and when I did, at first blush, it appeared to have significant complexity compared to Symmetric and I couldn't at face value see enough rationale - hence I asked the question. To vary from Symmetric, one should really be able to justify what one's doing, both in a playability sense (which you judge IMPrecision does) and a memory sense (to do well in a long tournament against strong opposition, you can't afford either system lapses or declarer/defensive lapses deriving at least in part from effort expended on system recall). Straw Man would be fairly easy to play (for someone already versed in Symmetric) as you can always go back to Mama to work things out if needed. The "bad" relay breaks have a sensible and convenient mechanism in most cases (via 2D) - it is possible that the "good" relay breaks to which you alluded (splinters, fit-showing etc) less so, but as previously mentioned, I'm perhaps more inclined to continue relaying with these than you. Straw Man does a couple of other things well in addition (e.g. the early separation of possible hearts versus spades versus hearts and spades) but it's all a bit moot, no-one plays Straw Man - this was really about considering the bang for buck of IMPrecision relative complexity. Regards, Newroad

Noted, AWM and Straube. Re AWM’s comments On (1), agreed, I see the merits in having NEG/semi-POS/POS ranges rather than just NEG/POS. However, I might be influenced based on how strong the 1C is though: 17+ might push me towards the latter, 15+ towards the former On (2), your ranges seem reasonable, if perhaps wide for useful consideration. To simplify, opposite a 16+ first seat 1C, partner rates to have an 8 count on average, with some degree of variation around that figure. Opposite a 17+ first seat 1C, responder doesn't rate to have much less, so game is more often than not in the frame - see my thoughts on (1) above. Also on (2), Moscito-like methods need not consistently lose two steps (though I suppose it depends on how “consistently” is defined). There are many (many) ways one can slice'n'dice this, but as a “Straw Man” for discussion purposes 1C 1D = ART, POS 1C 1H = ART, NEG 1C 1S = semi-POS, BAL or H (1/S or 2/S with m) 1C 1NT = semi-POS, S (1/S or 2/S with m) 1C 2C = semi-POS, H+S (2/S or 3/S short m) 1C 2D = semi-POS, D (1/S or 3/S short M) 1C 2H = semi-POS, D&C 1C 2S (or 1C 2S+, depending on your view of the risk of zooming shape in this context) = semi-POS, C Assuming no typos from me, this is a fairly straightforward Symmetric implementation, with a HSDC suit order. 1C 1S 1NT 2C with 1S 2C is the only meaningful swap, to allow 1C 1S 1NT to be played as semi-F (not dissimilar to your own). The DC order at the end is so that (a) 2D can be passed, and (b) if you have a club fit, you are unlikely to be able to win the auction in 2C anyway, so you may as well try and do so with 3C if at all. Relays are convenient and R+1 in most cases, only 1C 1S 2C (if not willing to risk 1NT being passed) and 1C 2S 2NT (if not zooming shape) are R+2. Further, sign-offs in shown suits are convenient, i.e. the next step is never the shown suit. Finally, there is enough low-utility space to explicitly show misfits opposite the two major suit oriented responses: 1C 1S[=often hearts] 2D and 1C 1NT[=spades] 2D respectively, which on a frequency basis is where you’re most likely to want them. 1C 1H as a NEG allows a wide range 1NT rebid, 1S ART, F if very strong, and 2C+ to taste, but always shaped. 1C 1D as ART, FG, allows either relay at R levels, or a combination of relay and reverse-relay at R+1 levels (my preference of the two). If however you prefer the former, then you could start with 1C 1D 1H = S (1/S, 2/S or 3/S short m) 1C 1D 1S = BAL or H&D 1C 1D 1NT = H (1/S or H&C) 1C 1D 2C = D (1/S or 3/S short M) etc You get the drift – in the FG auctions, things are generally right sided. You can do similarly in the R+1 variation mentioned (it would become closer to the semi-POS structure, without any R+2 scenarios). On (3), unbalanced hand showing I agree, which is one of the reasons I like a relay/reverse relay structure all things being equal. One would have to do a more detailed analysis to compare the relative success in this regard of IMPrecision vs Straw Man vs any other similar attempt. On (4), getting out conveniently when no game appears on offer, agreed in principle (but not at any design cost). I think Straw Man does this quite well in an alternate way. On (5), transfers for right-siding, fair enough where you need to (and I hope I’ve understood what you mean here). Better if possible is to build the right-siding as far as possible into the archetypal relay structure, rather than try and sort it via secondary transfers later. Perhaps IMPrecision is incredibly clear and easy to remember once you start playing it – my casual look at it suggested that compared to the simpler variations of symmetric above it wouldn't be, which if so, shouldn't be understated (and in some of the by definition common BAL cases, gets fairly high). As always, the truth is in the playing :) Regards, Newroad

Thanks for the second clarification, Straube. Apologies in advance for any typos or misunderstandings in a somewhat lengthy consideration below. I had to go and have a look at IMPrecision to consider what you are doing in context (though I realise from your earlier clarification that you are actually asking a more narrow question: what continuations are best on the assumption that you will play 1C 2H as 5+H/4S semi-POS). It seems to me that 2S best played as NAT NF and 2NT is played as R – you’ll not often play in 3NT after this start, but when you do, it’s very likely better played by opener. More importantly, IMPrecision is impure with regard to Symmetric Relay, so being up one step by default is unlike to philosophically offend (as opposed to getting to 3NT after starting 1C 1S with 3=4=4=2, which does somewhat offend me). I would argue then that 1C 2H 2S already shows at least a mild misfit in the above context (with 3S, 4S and 2NT being able to handle cases with genuine spade support and/or non-MIN). Indeed, I would expect 2S to typically have only 3 spades, short hearts and often/always both minors (see below). It’s interesting what to do with MIN 3=2=4=4 and 3=2=(5=3) types after 1C 2H. If you permit 2S with 3=2=4=4 then with responder’s possible 4=5=(4=0) type, a correction to the 4-4+ fit in 3m would seem prescribed. Perhaps better is if you permit 2S with 3=2=(5=3) then 1C 2H 2S 2NT could show a desire to bid 3H (4/6+ with moderate hearts) but allowing opener to pass with a void or try 3m on the way through hoping for a 5/2+ fit. Instead bidding 1C 2H 2S 3H direct would then show a semi-solid (1 loser opposite a void) suit. Taking all the above into account, you would probably only need to handle mis-fitting minor single suiters, which 1C 2H 3m as NF would seem to do adequately. 1C 2H 3M would show a fit – I would leave the decision on whether to raise hearts on HH or Hx or hx to be a matter of judgement, in the context of the overall hand, rather than system. 2=1=5=5 and a MIN seems the only truly difficult scenario after 1C 2H. I would Pass with it – all other things being equal. On your 4=7=0=2 example hand, I suspect simply game forcing on it is the practical approach, though it wouldn’t take too much fiddling with the 1C 2NT+ responses , or adding 1C 4C+ responses, to cater for this type explicitly. Many possibilities above already been suggested or implied in part by you and others – just trying to give a rounded view. I’m now going to go and see if I can reverse engineer the intended design goals (versus adopting a more classic symmetric approach) of the IMPrecision semi-POS methods, as they are not immediately obvious to me nor stated in the notes that I can see … Regards, Newroad

Thanks for the clarification, Straube. To complete the picture, what level of "forcingness" do these 2-5 QP responses come with? Regards, Newroad PS If the answer is as per IMPrecision c2009, you can just say that, citing any pertinent exceptions

Hi Straube. For clarity, you've presented a possible solution but I'm unclear as to the perceived problem? In essence, I'm implicitly asking the same question(s) as hrothgar - what is causing you to likely wrongside hearts and/or prevent a convenient offer to play in spades? Apologies in advance if advance knowledge of your core method would have made this clear. Regards, Newroad

Hi Shevek. I would want conclusive evidence that a 1♠ Fert was a clear loser before switching system at all - at risk of going all Lady Bracknell, needing to optimise one system might be regarded as unfortunate, needing to optimise two appears like carelessness. If it's in any way borderline, you need to factor in the constructive bidding space lost to the other openings - which would suggest staying put with the Strong Pass variant. The first person I know who played (admittedly, a 0-10 or 0-11) spade Fert was Rebattu in 1982. He played it Non-Vul only, which is roughly in keeping where you were heading, but if I recall correctly when I discussed it with him, he regarded it as a bit conservative in hindsight. As an aside, I think a 1♠ Fert as 0-10 or 0-11 is virtually unplayable, notwithstanding Rebattu's runner up result (it was pairs and the idea was new). I think it can be done 0-7 or 0-8 (indeed have seen it so) as you do. Personally, I think a 1♥ Fert remains the optimal way to impede relatively safely without losing most sensible constructive routes, but you may Completely disagree with me, or Agree with me in principle, but need to do so to cater for your preferred use of the 7/8-12 openings Regards, Newroad

Hi Straube, The intent is to R with GI+ unless there is an alternate system approach that suits better. I'm sure after some time at the table, some optimisations/refinements will suggest themselves. These would then be subject to a cost benefit analysis (memory glitch * cost versus non-optimisations * cost). In reality, it's often better to keep the pattern. Yes, there is some risk of getting too high with a misfit and only GI values. How much of an issue that will be in practice, who knows? In similar more normal symmetric systems, I have rarely seen this be a major issue (and here, arguably, you are better placed, because whilst you don't know about fit, you do know how well you are fitting by virtue of the knowing the shortage at the start). Regards, Newroad PS That said, I don't normally think about optimising the same way you just did (with some apparent merit) - I'll digest it some more and maybe comment on it again in due course

Hi Adam, Three points I'm personally not a fan of ANY Multi/Wagner style 2♦ - I regard it as inferior against organised opposition to straight WK/NAT 2's The 2R openings are sufficiently constructive that (a) the transfer effect is worth using for right-siding purposes, and (b) it allows auto-super accepts with a prime maximum, where opener shows the three card fragment or bids 2NT with the 7222 All six combinations of two-shortage hands are not as rare as you might imagine (do the maths) and even if they were, look at the space you need to unscramble them. Putting them elsewhere either screws up the relays or gives you too little space to explore them. Ideally, I would have liked to switch the 2♠ and 2NT openings around, but this, in effect, would somewhat give up on the two shortage hands. That said, I can see the possibility of doing this after a period of at the table experience. Regards, Newroad

Hi Straube, That's a large question to answer. Let's take the trivial case - relays after a 1♠[=short hearts] opening (which could/should be viewed as the archetypal UNBAL resolution). 1♠ 1NT R 2♣: long high (so in this case, 5+♠) 2♦: Long middle (so in this case, 5+♦, <5♠ 2♥: 5+ middle/5+ low or 3/S (so in this case 5+♦/5+♣ or 3/S) 2♠: Long low/4 high (so in this case, 5+♣/4♠) 2NT: Long low (so in this case, 6+♣ single suited) then resolve for long low/4 middle ... 3♣: 3=1=4=5 3♦: 2=1=4=6 3♥: 3=0=4=6 etc 1♠ 1NT 2NT 3♣ R 3♦: 3=1=3=6 3♥: 3=1=2=7 3♠: 2=1=3=7 (this step could be compressed with the one above, if that is your style) etc 1♠ 1NT 2♠ 2NT 3♣+ as per 1♠ 1NT 3♣+ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ 2♠ R 2NT: 5+♦/5+♣ 3♣: 4=1=4=4 3♦: 5=0=4=4 3♥: 4=0=5=4 etc 1♠ 1NT 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ R 3♦: 2=1=5=5 3♥: 2=0=6=5 3♠+: 2=0=5=6 1♠ 1NT 2♦ 2♥ 2♠+ as per 1♠ 1NT 2♠+ 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ R 2♥: 5+♠/4♦ 2♠: 6+♠ 2NT: 5+♠/5+♣ 3♣+: 5+♠/4♣ as per 1♠ 1NT 3♣+ 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2NT 3♣ 3♦+ as per 1♠ 1NT 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ 3♦+ (i.e. 5/5 resolution) 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT+ as per 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2NT+ Apologies in advance for the likely typo or two above, but anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge or better of Symmetric Relay should be able to recognise the basic patterns and hence intent. Expanding, the 1NT and 2♣ openings are the equivalent of the 1♠ 1NT 2♦+ and 1♠ 1NT 2♣ sequences. Similarly, the 1♦ opening splits as follows after the 1♥ R 1♠: short clubs, otherwise as per the 1♠ opening 1NT: short both minors (resolution for another time) 2♣+: short diamonds, otherwise as per 1♠ 1NT 2♣+ Whet your appetite or turn you off? Regards, Newroad

Hi Dake50, Alas, the problem is evaluation is always going to be very anecdotal - there's not enough real world material to work with (only double-dummy analysis). The best one can do is determine which design principles normally yield good methods and try and optimise them. Even what consitutes these design principles is very anecdotal, but people tend to know that the Balanced Hand Principle is a priori a good idea, and similarly splinters. It is this type of thing that DHP tries to enshrine whilst dealing with the weaknesses (all systems have them). Regards, Newroad

Hi All, This is really a slow burn idea for anyone interested. I have for some time been a fan of the idea behind the 1970's shortage-showing Polish methods. It has been a source of both amusement and bewilderment to me that the most successful of the Polish methods of this era, Regres, was at the other end of this spectrum - it in essence had five mini-NT style openings ;) Delta, on the other hand, epitomised the shortness showing idea, but was somewhere between rarely and never used for openings due to its low "mean* opening" (of 1.66). However, we've had 40 years or so to improve things since then, so I have been slowly constructing a method based on this idea: Delta Heart Pass (DHP). The openings are as follows (with shortage defined as 0-1 length in a suit) Pass: ART, 14+ hcp, 15+ hcp if BAL 1♣: 9-14 hcp, BAL or semi-BAL (the latter defined as 5422 or 6m322) 1♦: 9-13 hcp, short in one or both m's 1♥: ART, 0-8 hcp, unsuitable for a PRE 1♠: 9-13 hcp, short ♥ 1NT: 9-13 hcp, short ♠, <5♥ unless 0=5=4=4 2♣: 9-13 hcp, short ♠, 5+♥ 2♦: 9-13 hcp, 6♥322 or 7♥222 2♥: 9-13 hcp, 6♠322 or 7♠222 2♠: 9-13 hcp, any 2 or 3 shortages (e.g. 6-5-1-1 through to 10-1-1-1 or similar) 2NT: 9-13 hcp, 7m222 3♣+: PRE's to taste If nothing else, I hope it opens the mind to consider the possibility of primary shortness showing - it tends to be immensely valuable in taking a broad (fitting rather than fit) based view of a deal. It also addresses some of Delta's weaker points, by giving a (long) major suit focus to the shortage showing openings as well as both raising the mean opening significantly and addressing competitive concerns (by taking the 6M322's/7222's out of 1♣ and raising the Fert from 1♦ to 1♥). Speaking of 40 years extra advancement, I have a symmetric-style structure to underpin the relay responses, rather than the Polish methods of old. Happy to field any interest. Regards, Newroad * As an aside, I think most historic mean opening calculations have been flawed, as Pass is counted as 0 and 1♣ as 1, whereas they are in fact pretty much equal from a pre-emptive perspective: Pass allows 1♣ whereas 1♣ allows DBL.I would count them both as 1 (or 0).

Hi Blackshoe, Sorry for the delayed response. In answer to your question I can't quite remember the specifics of the TBW article, but I'm fairly sure what I now play is very similar. In essence 2♦ 2♥ 2♠: 5+♦/4+♠ 2NT: 22-24 BAL 3♣: 5+♦/4+♣ 3♦: 6+♦, usually one-suited 3♥: 5+♦/4+♥ 3♠: 0=4=5=4 (hard to show everything below 3NT otherwise and still get a view from responder if needed if starting with a 3♣ rebid) 3NT: 25-27 BAL 4♣+: Auto-cue setting diamonds as trumps I should perhaps confirm that 3♠ acts as an explicit ART DBL NEG where sensible (as 2♦ 2♠ is NAT, semi-POS or POS). and 2♣ 2♦ 2♥: pseudo-Kokish (5+♥ or 4♥441) - you can guess or derive the continuations 2♠: 5+♠ 2NT: 5+♣/4+?, then after a 3♣ relay, show the second suit 3♣: 6+♣, usually one-suited 3♦: 4=1=4=4 3♥/♠/4♣: sets trumps 3NT: 4=4=0=5 (hard to show otherwise after starting with a 2NT rebid) I should also add that 3♥ acts as an explicit ART DBL NEG where sensible (as 2♣ 2♥ is NAT, semi-POS or POS). I don't think Kleinman used the pseudo-Kokish style for the 4441's. Also (and I corresponded with him on this) he didn't/doesn't use 2♦ 2♠ analogously to his 2♣ 2♥ proposal (I do, as I think the principle is sound and worth extrapolating). Regards, Newroad

Hi All, Seems pretty simple to me (why 2♣ 2♦ 2NT shows the weaker of the two strong BAL ranges) 2♣ (P) 2♦ (P) 2♥ (DBL) is too easy a way to get hearts, or a heart lead in (so reduce the frequency of it) and, as someone already mentioned 2♣ (P) 2♦ (P) 2♥ (P) 2♠ is likely to be anti-positional As to some of the other topics, I played first 2♣ 2♠ and then 2♣ 2♥ as immediate double-negatives for years. They worked fine, but once again, had the odd anti-positional issue. These days I have switched to a pseudo-Kleinman 2♣ = UNBAL without primary diamonds 2♦ = UNBAL with primary diamonds, or BAL In both cases, play step one as waiting, step two as NAT semi-POS or POS, and higher quite specific. Regards, Newroad

Hi 32519, On various points ... Anyone interested in constructing their own system would do well to read Bo-Yin Yang's primer on system construction: Primer on Advanced System Construction - warning, this is a PDF. You may not agree with everything, but the considerations raised within are worthy. Of particular relevance and related to EricK's post, one should read and understand the beginning of Page 8, namely: "If the opponents will usually stay silent, one would want each opening bid to transmit between 1.6 and 2 times the information as the bid one step lower. If we could anticipate LHO is about to take some given action - e.g. 1♠ - regardless of our opening bid, opening hands should be divided roughly equally among the calls under that level". Read some more to understand why. As to treating 4441's as BAL, and opening or rebidding NT's (and almost as much, rebidding NT's with a singleton on otherwise problematic hands, e.g. 1=3=4=5's after 1♣ 1♠) I am personally very much against this style - it leads to poor competitive and choice of game decisions in my experience. I do know some who do it by design in certain circumstances, as you are proposing, but mainly because their methods allow no other practical choice. With the changed BAL ranges, I think you've got a problem with the spade showing one (1♣) as if there is competition, you'll have relatively more trouble untangling things. Conversely, with the 1♠ showing hearts, you shouldn't have much of a problem, you just assume hearts and if partner has the very big BAL range, you'll most of the time come out OK, at least constructively (you may miss chances to penalise the oppo). Regards, Newroad

Hi again 32519. A few obvious points 1♠ 2♥ seems very high for an FG relay, and 4441's are still not catered for In general, you want the unknown hand (responder) to be declarer when opener is MIN. The current structure will not achieve this I suppose you have compensating advantages though, e.g. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ means the stronger hand would declare their own suit and it gives responder another chance if WK with shape. Feels instinctively wrong to me though - if WK with shape I'd rather start describing on the first round rather than the second. Regards, Newroad

Hi Straube, You certainly could if you wanted to, but you probably wouldn't. In reality, the only one you have to cater for is the BAL type (to be able to play 1NT) - so you might need to lose a step there. For the rest, you can pretty much keep the structure. That said, it was just an initial idea - I'm not wedded to it in any way. What I do think is generally right, given how defined opener's most likely option is, is that responder should focus on showing rather than asking. Regards, Ian C

Hi Kungsgeten, Firstly, an erratum. I didn't mention what I think 1♣ 1♠ should be. For the record, I think that should form part of your semi-POS structure. You could play transfers the whole way, so that 1♠ shows BAL, but given the weak hand type for partner is 11-13 BAL, I would keep 1NT as the BAL semi-POS, and use 1♠ some other way. I'd have to have a longer think to figure out my preferred overall semi-POS structure in context*. On to your question. One main reason to play 1♥ not 1♦ as the ART NEG is to give the option to retain systemic consistency between the POS and semi-POS sequences (i.e. 1♣ 1♠+ versus 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠+ respectively). This is important to relayers - even if you jiggle the semi-POS versus POS meanings around (e.g. see my annotation) they still come out at the same levels. Further, I don't think playing 1♥ versus 1♦ as the negative is meaninfully more difficult or dangerous. You can pass with 11-13 BAL and 4+♥ or if MIN or bid 1NT+ NAT otherwise. Yes, you could be in 1NT with a combined 12 count or so, but the opponents haven't chosen to yet act? And if they can't easily nail you, you have in practice bid a 3rd or 4th hand Fert - giving your opponents more trouble in the case of a delayed auction entry they might need to consider. Hope this clarifies? Once again, however, my views should be caveated - I haven't thought this fully through. Regards, Newroad *If you like or are willing to consider a symmetric relay style, one idea for the above would be to switch the natural meanings of 1♠ (♥ 1/2/3/suited) with 1NT and 2♣ (♠ 1/2 suited or BAL respectively) and then flip the majors around. Then, after 1♣ 1♠ (♥ 1/2 suited or BAL) opener if 11-13 BAL assumes responder is BAL and bids 1NT. If responder is in reality UNBAL with hearts, responder can continue to resolve, e.g. 2♣ = ♦&♥, 2♦ = 6+♥, 2♥+ ♣&♥ etc. Alternatively, after 1♣ 1♠ 1NT[=assumes BAL] above, responder could simply bid naturally, e.g. 2♣ = ♣&♥, 2♦ = ♦&♥, 2♥ = ♥, which may have some merit on the semi-POS's (where continued relaying is less likely). You could also refine this to make the 2m's above 5+♥/4+m and make, say, 2♠ = 4♥/5+♣ and 2♠ = 4♥/5+♦. Sensible possibilities are endless ...

Hi WhereEagles, I am basically in agreement. My philosophy is more or less as soon as they have shown one (use T/O DBL's) or two (use unusual over unusual) suits, revert to standard defensive methods. The only time I would continue relaying is if they didn't show a suit at all, e.g. some form of CRaSh/RCO style defence, or Fert over Strong Pass (something we used to do). Regards, Newroad

No problems, WhereEagles. One subtle point I missed from your earlier post. After 1♣ (Pass) 1♦ ? where ? is one level interference as you mention, most relayers won't be too bothered - they'll relay up to an agreed level and play forcing pass auctions where that is breached (remember, in my proposal, its FG). The only issue they have to sort out sometimes is whether they have a stopper in any shown suit. Once you breach that level, you do knock them out of relay, but the stakes become higher as well (by definition). I must admit, this is what I thought you were referring to when I first skimmed your post - it's the kind of thing you need to do to cause some potential trouble. Regards, Newroad

Hi WhereEagles, I believe you read my reply more or less correctly. I think we have a difference of opinion on the merits of showing POS's directly after a Strong Pass or Strong Club. That's fine, there a some fine system minds on both sides of that one. For me, I prefer to show the semi-POS's directly, due to (1) frequency, and (2) I'd prefer to handle 4th hand intervention knowing unequivocally whether I'm in a forcing auction or not. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing you judge it important to show POS's directly, due to magnitude (as opposed to my earlier frequency) when it matters. Any view on this is necessarily anecdotal - you know where I sit :D Regards, Newroad

Hi 32519. I endorse Hrothgar's comments in a broad sense. In a more narrow sense, your proposed matching of both suits with opening bids and BAL ranges seems odd. On the BAL ranges, you probably want the lower to be the more common, and in any case, 1♠ shouldn't contain the lower ranges (you can't force responder to guess which type you have before bypassing 1NT). Also, you need to consider 4441's. 1♣: 5+♥ or 15-17 BAL or 4441 1♦: 5+♠ or 18-19 BAL or 4441 1♥: 5+♣ or 20-23 BAL or 4441 1♠: 5+♦ or 24+ BAL or 4441 1NT: 12-14 BAL is perhaps playable (though you still need to figure out what to do with the 12-14 4441's). I would change the suit combos (and your response structure) and try instead 1♣: 5+♦ or 15-17 BAL or 4441 1♦: 5+♥ or 18-19 BAL or 4441 1♥: 5+♠ or 20-23 BAL or 4441 1♠: 5+♣ or 24+ BAL or 4441 1NT: 12-14 BAL If you're interested in opening 5+ card suits dual range, you should perhaps consider the section on Hole Transfers (look for Brian Senior's book called The Transfer Principle of circa 20-25 years ago). I built and played quite successfully a system for a number of years based on two or so pages from that book, which in essence when engineered became Pass: 0-6 any or 7-12 BAL or 4441 or 17+ BAL or 4441 1♣: 13-16 UNBAL 1♦: 5+♥, 7-12 or 17+ 1♥: 5+♠, 7-12 or 17+ 1♠: 5+♣, 7-12 or 17+ 1NT: 13-16 BAL (no 5M) 2♣: 5+♦, 7-12 single suited or 17+ 2♦: 5+♦/4any, 7-12 2♥: 5+/5+ without spades, 7-12 2♠: 5+/5+ with spades, 7-12 2NT+: various two way pre-empts Regards, Newroad

Hi Kungsgeten, I haven't really thought this through, but my gut instinct is as follows. Split your responses into three ranges, in essence FG opposite the 11-13 BAL type (so 13+ hcp, say): semi-POS FG opposite the 17+ type but less than the above (so 8-12 hcp, say): POS less than the above (so 0-7 hcp, say): NEG Coincidentally only, this lines up to classic Strong Pass ranges. What you do with them is down to preference, but on a frequency basis (and my own prejudices, perhaps) I would go (1) then (3) then (2) so something like 1♦ ART FG 1♥ ART NEG 1NT+ semi-POS, in any form you fancy (natural, transfer, whatever, but 1NT definitely natural) In short, responder focuses on showing rather than allowing opener to describe. Over the NEG, you can play 1♠ as STR and F, everything else as NAT. For what it's worth, after 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, I would play 2♣ not 1NT as the ART 2nd NEG (say 0-3 HCP) over which 2♦ would be FG, to give 4-7 hcp definition to everything else. Regards, Newroad

Hi WhereEagles, That's true, but in an auction that is now unequivocally forcing. The reality is, when you start with Pass, you are already behind the curve. The most you can do is have some control over where you pay the price. [shevek] I note your response. As I'm sure you in effect know You're making your choice from which I describe above, e.g. you are particularly poorly placed after, say Pass (Pass) 1♣ (2any) That you're playing the same structure, as you say, but perhaps not in the same order (presumably your 1♥ bid shows spades in either method)? Your diamond competition issue is not as significant over 1NT as I thought, but you lose them completely when held in 2♣. Swings and roundabouts to a point. However, I note that because you relay with the POS, the step problem is less of an issue (you only pay out significantly at the other end if you show a shape with 3♠ in Strong Club that you would have shown with 3♥ in Strong Pass). If you play a semi-POS style, it's more of an issue (as the BAL response would get pushed to 2♣). As to whether the semi-POS is better to show before a POS, that's a longer and separate conversation. For me (and cards on the table, I've never played a Strong Pass, though I'm developing a system called "Delta Heart Pass" at present) I tend towards the semi-POS first school. So, I am planning in response to Pass 1♣ ART POS FG, after which 1♦ (reverse) R, else 1♥+ RR as per 1♥+ for the semi-POS's 1♦ ART NEG 1♥+ semi-POS's As you may guess from the name, my method involves showing shortage first (but with another 40 years or so of Symmetric Relay experience to aid in strengthening the relay resolutions). I won't bore anyone further with that thinking unless asked. Regards, Newroad