akhare

Absolutely agree with you regarding the value of FP that's established following a GF response. There's no doubt that one of the tradeoffs of playing a two way 1♦ is the loss of the FP. The question is whether this loss can is offset by (subjective) gains elsewhere. For the design goals I had in mind, the answer seems like a yes, but as always, the real proof lies in actually trying it out...

I think this is important point to consider as well in defining the SP responses to 1♣. IMO, it's possible to straddle the "best of both worlds" in a scheme that uses a two way 1♦ response and allocating *some* immediate responses for SP hands with the majors.

That's an interesting insight. At that time, did you also discuss the division of responses between SP and GF hands? What do you think are the tradeoffs of SP structure like SCREAM that allocates a single bid for all SP (1♥)responses and Moscito?

This scheme looks very good to me and I think it should be definitely be an improvement over 1♠ DN.

Here's a proposal -- there's likely room for some optimization, but this a good starting point: 1♦: DN (0-2) OR unbal GF with ♥ and another ....1S: DN ....1N: H+S / H ....2C: H+C ....2D: Three suited ....2H+: H+D 1♥: GF with ♠ / bal / three suited .....1N: S+C / S ...........2D: Spades ...........2H+: S+C .....2C: Balanced hands .....2D: Three suited (see note below) .....2H+: S+D 1♠: SP, including bal, one or two suited with ♥/minors, minors; play structure of choice 1N: SP; 5+ ♠ and another .....2♦: 5♠, 4+H .....2♥: 5+ ♠ and 4+♣ .....2♠: 5+ ♠ and 4+♦ 2♣: GF, minors 2♦: GF, clubs 2♥: SP; single suited with ♠ 2S+: GF with diamonds Note that it's possible to play the immediate 2H as GF three suited and use the "extra" 2D in the 1C - 1H - 1S to show balanced hands without a major. In this case, the 1N SP response can be tweaked to show 2D as S+H, 2H as single suited with S and 2S as S+m.

There are no SP hands in the 1♦ response. The 1♦ response contains only true DN hands (0-2 QP) OR some GF hands with ♥. The goal behind partioning the hand strength *and* limiting the hand types in the two way response is to make it resilient in the case of contested auctions. Ergo, all of responder's 1N+ bids show GF hands (with hearts). All other GF and SP hands respond with a bid other than 1♦.

No, it does not promise extra values and it doesn't need to, because we the same recourse available after 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (DN) as over 1♣ - 1♠ (DN). Note that we can comfortably play 1♠ / 2♣ / 2♦ opposite a DN hand after 1♣ - 1♦, which isn't possible over 1♣ - 1♠. Furthermore, opener can bid 1N over 1♦ with true (min) balanced hands instead being coerced into the 1N bid with non-conforming shapes after 1C - 1S. Granted, opener might face the same conondrum after hearing 1S over 1H, but this creates an extra sequence which isn't otherwise possible. Note that like in Adam's system, all of opener's rebids except for 1♥ are *natural*, but responder can still fully relay the hands using the same symmetric scheme.

I disagree -- two way bids can be complicated, but that's a deliberate design choice rather than an inherent trait. Another example of complication by a deliberate design choice. Hmm..., I don't see how opener's rebids over 1♣ - 1♦ can be more difficult than over 1♣ - 1♠ (DN). How about stating exactly what opener rebid complications you forsee over a response structure that defines 1♦ as DN (0-2 SPs) or GF with ♥? As I see it, opener's rebids are vastly superior to bidding over 1♣ - 1♠ and allow better partioning of NT ranges as well. 1H (general ask): ......1S: Confirms DN .............Deploy 1S response structure of choice ......1N+: Blah, GF 1S: Natural, single suited or two suited with a minor ....1N: GF relay 1N: (Strictly balanced) 2C: (Natural, single suited) ....2H: GF relay 2D: (Natural, single suited) ....2H: GF relay

Here's Rob's scheme: 1D H/H+m/4441 GF, or almost all negatives (excluding 1-suited 6+ semipositives) ........1S any negative, or GF 4441 ........1N H+C ........2C H only ........2D+ H+D 1H S/S+m GF, or 1-suited S invite ........1N S+C ........2C S only ........2D+ S+D 1S GF balanced or C ........2C C only ........2D+ balanced 1N majors 2C D only 2D+ minors Briefly, but as I see it, it's just a testimonial to what the two way 1♦ response makes possible. There are numerous ways of allocating responses to cater to showing immediate SP / GF hands. The basic question is whether one buys into the two way 1♦ "meme" (I am sold)...

+1 -- I think that the balanced hand principle is overhyped as well.

Rob's scheme doesn't have any SPs, so 1♦ is 0-7 any or GF with ♥s The previous scheme attempted to do something very similar using a variation on Adam's idea. The point is that using 1♦ as a two way bid is (IMO) better than using 1♠ as DN and there are various possible permutations on the idea that can cater to various desired tradeoffs. One possibility is to limit the number of GF hands in the 1♦ two way bid and utilize the extra space freed by 1♥/1♠ to describe more SPs immediately and / or resolve GF hands faster.

BTW, Rob F.'s modified TOSR method is analagous to awm's scheme and uses 1D as 0-7 and resolves shapes at symmetric - 1. Yet another variation on this scheme: 1D: DN or unbal with hearts 1H: Spades, bal, three suited 1S: SP 1N: Majors 2C: Minors 2D: Clubs 2H: Three suited 2S: Diamonds

I don't think it's unsound per se, but I am convinced that it's possible to do much better with awm's scheme. For example, here's a sample scheme off the top of my head using the ambiguous 1♦ DN that combines some of the best elements of TOSR and Moscito. Note how quickly this scheme unwinds some of the SP hands while right siding the positives: 1D: DN or some unbal hands with hearts ....1H asks: .......1S: Confirms DN .......1N: Majors or three suited with short minor .......2C: H+C .......2D: H .......2H: H+D ....1S: Natural, 5+ spades ....1N: Strictly balanced hand shapes (opener can always bid 1H with bal hands) ....2C: Natural, single suited ....2D: Natural, single suited 1h: GF; Hands with spades, spades+minor, bal, three suited with short major 1S: SP; Mostly balanced, could be single suited with spades or hands with minors 1N: SP; 5+♥+m or single suited ♥ 2C: SP; Majors 2D: GF; Clubs 2H; SP; ♠+minor 2S+: GF; diamonds

Interesting -- pard and I dabbled a little bit with this a while ago. What's your suggestion for opening 1-level bids and response in this structure? Do you think that the 2M openings compensate for the loss of weak 2 in the major?

How does this scheme locate a 4-4 heart fit after 1D - 1S?

Do you intend to play this only when NV? As Richard noted, opening balanced 9 counts seems to be courting trouble, especially when red. Pard and I do open shapely 9 counts in the context of a strong ♣ system and we play undiscplined weak 2M..

Using 3♠ / 3N bids for 6-5 in the minors is OK since they are so rare that it's really unlikely to matter one way or the other. However, I do share awm's discomfort with being forced to the 3-level with 24(45) hands and it might be best to combine those hands into 2♥.

Our experience is very similar. There's little actionable information in 2) (unless they decide to change their balancing decisions based on it) and since a large portion of the 9-15 range overlaps with the "standard" range, the opening will likely be duplicated at other tables in a majority of cases. We pre-alert both anyway in the interest of full disclosure, but I do agree that requiring the former makes much more sense.

Unless I am missing something, here's a TOSR-like scheme off the top of my head 2S: 5C332 / 4432, 44 same shape: .....3C: 44, same color .....3D: 5C332 .....3H: 5C332 .....3S: 5C332 .....3N: 4C333 2N: 44, same rank .....3D: Short D .....3H: Short H .....3S: Short S 3C: 44, Same shape .....3H: Short H .....3S: Short S .....3N: Short C 3D: 5D332 3H: 5D332 3S: 5D332 3N: 4D333

Well, no reply from Marston. Richard / Free, What's your preferred version of the responses?

This interpretation is incorrect. In this scheme opener is allowed to bid 1N only on the truly balanced hands. Maybe the post wasn't clear, but opener bids 1♥ with a hand that doesn't qualify for any other bid. No -- the whole idea is to have shorter and less revealing auctions with balanced hands. An auction like 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N - <transfer> - 3N - Edit: 4♠ is much better than the tortured auction with min bal hands like 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - (5 spades) - 3N - 4♠, which reveals both hands and makes the defence double dummy. Granted, the same risk of revealing too much information always exists, but it's especially bad for the min balanced hands and it's much better to better to reach our games fast when slam is ruled out. This throws out everything. The idea was to create a *simple* swap of the 1♣ - 1♠ (DN) with 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (DN). As noted this opens up several other possibilities, including letting us play in 1♠ / 2♣ / 2♦, *and* allows shorter auctions in the case of balanced hands as well.

Regarding 1♥ as all SPs, it comes down to system design choice. As I recollect, the latest Moscito structure was: 1♦: Most positives 1♥: Bal or unbalanced with no 5CM 1♠: DN 1N: Single suited with diamonds, 5♥+minor OR 5M440 2♣: Single suited with hearts, or 5♠+minor 2♦: 5♠, 4♥ 2♥: 5♥, 4♥ 2♠: Single suited with ♠ This undoubtedly has an advantage when responder can show 2-suited major SP hands immediately, but comes at the cost of playing the positives relays at +1. IMO, separating SP hands from 0-7 1♦ response in classic Precision was the brilliant idea. The tradeoffs of compressing all SPs into one bid vs. assigning several immediate SP bids are less clear to me, but perhaps someone can outline the case for it.

Yes -- 1♦ will contain either: 1) 0-3 hands any shape 2) 8+ balanced hands 3) 8+ hands with single suited spades 4) 8+ hands with spades and a minor The current 1♦ response includes 2-4 *and* 5) 8+ hands with single suited ♥ 6) 8+ hands with ♥and a minor

Difficult to answer in a vacuum IMO, without having complete context of the hand, like side suits, trump split, etc...

Our current 1♣ structure is the following: 1♦: GF, including all bal, ♥/♠ single suited or with minor 1♥: Semi-positive 1♠: DN 1N+: Various positives Awm's strong 1♦ system got me thinking about the following possibility: 1♦: GF, including all bal, ♠ single suited or with minor 1♥: Semi-positive 1♠: ♥ single suited or with minor 1N: GF with both majors 2C: GF with both minors 2D: GF with clubs 2H: GF, three suited, short major 2S+: GF with diamonds Over 1♣ - 1♦, opener continues: 1♥: Ask, various hands .....1♠: Confirms DN .....1N: ♠ / ♠ + ♣ .....2♣ / 2♦: Bal hands .....2H+: ♠ + ♦ (reversed) 1♠: Min ♠ one suiter or with minor 1N: Min bal hand 2♣ / 2♦: Min single suiter Advantages: 1) Min balanced hand auctions are much more compact, i.e., 1C - 1D - 1N instead of 1C - 1D - 1S - 1N - 2C...which tends to tends to give out too much information, especially when game is the limit 2) Opener can bid 1♠ / 2♣ / 2♦ with min hands over 1♦ and responder still has full relays available if needed 3) Some positive hands are unwound more quickly, which leaves us little better placed in knowing our suits in case of interference over 1♣ - 1♦ (GF). Downside: In case of interference over 1♣ - 1♦, opener isn't sure whether we are in a GF. However, as awm pointed out, the split range between the DN and GF response is much easier to deal with (0-3/8+ vs. the traditional 0-7 range in the Precision 1♣ - 1♦). Also, since the 1♣ - 1♦ range may contain DN, the opps may not be at as much liberty to take action because it very well be their board. Comments or suggestions?