akhare

The answer is to that question is the same as "Would you make a limited takeout X that promised only 2+ the majors?" In other words, some of those (5422) hands will Pass. Some will overcall 1M on the 4 card suit and others will bid 2♦.

Why not flip 1♦ / X? You give up the ability to play in 1♣X, but gain a lot more in return. X: Strong ....1D: Negative 1D: Takeout of diamonds 1M 8-14 1N Takeout of clubs 2C: Majors 2D: 10-14

1) Agree with JS because of suit texture 2) Don't agree with 3♦ because it overstates the suit and hand. A retreat to 3N seems better 3) 3♠ would be a probe for 3N / 4♠

I concur -- it's one less thing to remember. If they get a free X of the suit below the transfer, so be it...

Pard and I play it vs. suit contracts and it works very well indeed. We use 3rd/5th (not 3rd and low) from honour holdings, which opens up some interesting possibilities as well. For example, on a hand we played last night, holding a void in a side suit, I led the 2♣ as an alarm clock lead after having opened 3♣. Against NT, we play Rusinow with A for attitude, with K asking for unblock and low from interest...

Well, if new suits by PH are going to be considered as fit non-jumps, why not retain the transfer semantics? Not using transfers does allow advancer to bid 2N naturally, but then we can't distinguish between "good and bad" raise of the overcall. The real question to ask though might be whether a new suit by a passed advancer implies a fit for the overcaller and if so, at what level. For example: 1) P - (1S) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ -> Natural implying ♣ support? 2) P - (1S) - 2♥ - (P) - 3♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support? 3) P - (1♦) - 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support?

Would this pass GCC muster? It probably would, as long as it shows 4+ in the overcalled suit?

<Duplicate -- deleted>

Regarding 1), note that the suggestion is to play it over 1m only, which would preclude wrong siding if they open 1M. Considering that 1m doesn't really promise a suit, is wrong siding such a big concern over 1m openings? 2) is a valid concern, but is that equally true for a more constructive 1N for takeout as well? 3) is still a possibility if they open 1M. Over (1m) - PD, can't pard pass more aggressively with say four good trumps and the balance of power ?

What if 1N for takeout is played with the following restrictions: 1) Only when we are NV 2) Only over their 1m opening 3) With a more constructive point range (say (8)9-13) 4) Denies a 5 card major 5) X when NV ostensibly shows a 14-17 balanced NT hand (OR a hand too strong to make an simple overcall) The goal of using 1N for takeout of course is to deny them space at the 1 level...

I think this potential and when combined with NTO (only when NV. and only over their 1m opening), can be really effective. Basically: (1m): X: PD when NV X: Takeout when V 1N: NTO when NV 1N: Natural when V Cue: 4+ spades and 5+ Om 3m: Strong 5S, 5+ Om

This is somewhat orthogonal, but are defenders with such holdings (stiff quack or QJ tight, etc.) required to consider potential tempo issues? In a recent club game, I could have made a contract by not using restricted choice because there it appeared that there was a perceptible delay before RHO followed suit with a quack (A in the closed hand, KTXX on board, 9 card suit fit). On the bidding, it was reasonable to use restricted choice (RHO took the 5 level sacrifice). However, I would have been rather peeved if I had decided to not use restricted choice because of RHO's perceived hesitation and RHO had a stiff. My solution to the problem is to identify the quack I want to play in advance and put it at a pre-determined location in deck so that I can play in tempo and declarer can't tell whether it's a stiff or a two card holding...

Since han replied to the other thread, perhaps the question can be reformulated as: Is (han)P == (ha)NP? Sorry, foobar couldn't resist the terrible pun :D...

Disagree -- I am with csgibson here. 1) There's no need to go ultra conservative just because pard is a PH (including NT overcalls). 2) Acting now has to be safer than coming on over (1H) - (2H) and they may very well lock us out with (1H) - (3H) (weak). 3) There's no reason for PH to bid less under the assumption that the X is any different than over a UPH. The possibility of a "light takeout X" exists regardless of whether it was made opposite a PH or not.

IMPs, NV. vs. NV., partner deals: P* - (1H): *: P denies balanced 11+ or most distributional 10 You hold: AT76 xx AQ9x xxx 1) Do you P or X? 2) Does vulnerability affect your choice? 3) If you P, would you bid differently with: AT98 xx AQT9 T98

Other extensions that remain in the relay scheme might be: 2N: Min 5♥332 3♣: Min 4333 with a minor 3♦ - 3♠: Min 5♠332 Alternatively for less revealing auction: 2N: Min 5♥332 3♣ Min 5♠332 3♦: Min 4♣333 3♥: Min 4♦333

Actually, this discussion has helped me realize that it may be possible to combine both design goals (BHP) and potential relay breaks with two balanced hands opposite each other. In our scheme, the sequence 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) - 1♥ ® - 1♠, 1♠ shows (♥+♣) OR balanced. The sequence proceeds: 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) - 1♥ ® - 1♠ - 1N: .....2♣: ♥+♣ .....2♦+ <Balanced module, including 5332 hands> In retrospect, it's blindingly obvious to flip the two, i.e.: .....2♣: Bal hands with 4/5 card major .....2♦: Bal hands without 4/5 card major .....2♥+: ♥+♣, reversed etc. Now, over 2♣ / 2♦, if one is especially ambitious about BPH, there's an opportunity to use 2♠+ to spin off single suited reverse relay that couldn't be shown before :D. Alternatively, 2♠+ can be used as a relay break showing a minimum balanced hand, ostensibly expressing doubt about playing in 3N. Thoughts?

It seems that you have made up your mind that that the Balanced Hand Principle is inviolable overarching design goal. Given that, it's difficult to see how anyone can make headway regarding other potential use of the 1N reverse relay (like with min balanced hands)... [Edit] That probably came across as too harsh. Basically, I was trying to see if it was possible to objectively evaluate the tradeoffs of low information auctions like 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N - 3N or 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N - <transfer> - 4M vs. other design goals (balanced hand principle for example). On a secondary note, it may be possible to use relay breaks if the reverse relay is used to show a minimum hand.

On the flip side, isn't it true that balanced hands resolve lower? Most balanced hands should be able to complete their QP / PCB / DCB scan by 4N or so. Contrast this with a 5530 long legged shape resolution that resolves at say 3N. The QP ask / DCB / PCB scan likely won't end before the 5-level..

Once again this goes back the the fundamental choice of what hands should reverse relay. 1) Richard prefers *most* that balanced ask rather than show 2) Wclass is skeptical about 1) and questions the rationale 3) IMO, 1C - 1D - 1N it's better to use 1♣ - 1D - 1N to show *min* balanced hands, at the cost of sacrificing the 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N reverse relay to show the two/three suited major hand. While it's true that 1♣ - 1D - 1♥ - 1♠ (mostly balanced) - 1N will lead to right siding notrump, it's really silly to have to go through that auction and have to divulge so much information when it's possible to quickly discover 3N or 4M via the shorter router.

Don't want to steal Richard's thunder here, but I would imagine balanced hands in the 9-10(11) QP range. Following 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N Responder still has 2♣ available to pattern out opener's hand using the standard balanced module. 2♦ / 2♥ can are the usual transfers and the remaining can be used to do things like size ask, stopper shows, etc. The loss over the original 1C - 1D - 1N (reverse relay) is that opener can't reverse relay with the two/three suited suited with majors hand, but IMO, the tradeoff is well worth it.

I find the first reverse relay very intriguing because it reflects my own opinion that they should be used to describe minimum hands with no slam interest. However, there are other schools of thought which maintain that it's better the balanced hand to do the asking (regardless of strength). What is your general perpsective on the use of reverse relays?

Absolutely -- do you think that a practical solution for it might be revert to natural bidding with two min bal hands opposite each other? The question of course is whether it's possible to make that determination at a low enough level (say 2♠ or so)...

Neither 2♠ not 3♣ is isn't forcing. Opener and responder have X, 2N and the cue bid available to show stronger hands. I have only seen platitudes to this effect. Does anyone have concrete evidence that reverse relays are actually better? Not sure I understand the point. Opener can bid more bids at the 1-level that are forcing and can quickly delimit 16-18 balanced hands. No -- use the 1N structure. No -- the only hands in 1♦ are: 1) Balanced hands 2) Minors 3) Single suited with clubs As wclass suggested, one might vary the suits that are shown so that 2) and 3) are the majors and single suited with spades.

Actually, this is a very intriguing idea. I think one can have most of the benefits of the 1♥ (semi-positive) *and* improve on the 1♣ - 1♠ (DN) by the following: 1C: ==== 1D: DN or GF with bal / minors / clubs 1H: SP, with 3-5 QPs 1S: Majors / H+C / three suited with short minor .......2C: H+C .......2D: Three suited with short minor .......2H: H+S 1N: Spades+C / Spades ......2D: Spades ......2H: S+C 2C: H+D 2D: Hearts 2H: Three suited, short major 2S: Diamonds Over 1C - 1D: ...1H asks: ............1S: DN ............1N: GF Clubs ............2C: GF Minors ............2D: GF Bal module ...1S: Unbalanced with spades / spades+minor, forcing one round ...........1N: GF relay ...1N: Strictly bal 16-18, ========================== Optional (2C / 2D can be used as two under transfers with single suited hands): ...2C: Single suited with clubs, 2H -> GF relay ...2D: Single suited with diamonds, 2H -> GF relay ============================== The interesting thing about this that it preserves the 1H (semi-positive) response. The DN (0-4) hand are combined with some balanced GF hands (and GF with the minors clubs). Over 1D (natural) interference, the same structure can be used structure with X = DN and P = GF hands in 1D, 1H+ = as before. Over 1H (natural), P = GF hands in 1D, 1S = GF as before. The X is now 0 - 7, but we are no we no worse off than Precision after 1C - 1D - (1H).