akhare

I think it will help to have a concrete example. Since natural canape openings include 4-card majors, how about comparing playing against 1♥ = 4+ vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥? As I see it: Vs. 1♥ (4+ natural, may have longer minor): ============ X: Takeout 1N: NT overcall Others natural 2♥: Presumably Michaels type cue bid Vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥, may have longer minor: =============== X: Power X 1♥: Limited takeout of ♥ 1N: NT overcall Others: Natural 2♥: Michaels type cue bid If 1♦ get passed around, we can still presumably play X as takeout with 4+ ♦ (or a better hand) and 1♥ as takeout. Of course, we have a slightly bigger problem defending against 1♠ = ♦, but I would rather play against it than 2♦ = intermediate, natural...

Indeed -- one can even make the argument that a FP system with a 1♣ fert is actually a constructive system and that it should be allowed at almost all levels :D. A 1♦ isn't as bad, but with a 1♥+ fert, we start getting into some really odd sequences...

Yes indeed - good luck getting the C&C "volunteers" to adopt something like what awm suggested (and I am sure we will get a lot of apologists explaining why things ain't broken): http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=38668&st=0#

As other have pointed out, there are two separate issues here. Clearly, there's no evidence to support Marston's conjecture that system regulations are directly related to the decline of bridge. At the same time, many people, including myself have been very frustrated at the lack of transparency about the proceedings of ACBL C&C and arbitrary regulations of conventions, which, at the outset can certainly appear to be designed to serve the interests of the high and mighty. Indeed, there have been occasions on which I have considered letting my ACBL membership (on account of the stupid GCC regulations), but reconsidered because my passion for the game outweights the short sighted considerations of the powers that be. Others in my situation may not be that patient though and it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations caused some players to quit in disgust...

Right, and you can get both benefits, limited openings and 2-under transfers, by playing P=strong and 1H=fert. Heh, heh, a throw back to the Tresboof days :D...

3C with most min hands seems be a universally good start...this was suggested by Larry Cohen as well...

Pass, unless you play Fishbein Xs in balancing seat :lol:!!!

Here's how Ambra (by Garozzo and others) handles the problem -- some responses switched: 1D - (1H) X: 8-10 bal or 11+ bal 1♠: 4+♠ 1N: Transfer to ♣ 2C: Transfer to ♦ either TP or GF 2D: Constructive, NF 2H: 5+ ♠, 5+ ♣, forcing one round 2S: 6+ ♠ 2N: 6+ ♣, GI Over: 1D - (1S) X: 4+ H, or GF bal 1N: Bal hand, NF 2C: Transfer to ♦ either TP or GF 2D: Transfer to ♥ 2H: 5+ ♦s, constructive 2S: 5+H, 5+ C, F1 2N: 6+ ♣, GI

Here's a scheme that could work: 1D - (1H): X: Denying S, could be GF bal hand / forcing with a minor 1S: 4-5 spades, forcing 1N: Natural 2m: NF 2H: 6+S, game interest 2S: 6+ S, NF 2N: Natural invite 3C: Both Minors 3N: TP One possibility is to replace 2N+ with Rubensohl-like semantics. It would work similarly over 1D - (1S) as well: X: 4-5 hearts 1N: Natural 2x: NF 2S: 6+ H, GI (or 5H and a minor) 2N: Natural invite 3C: Minors 3N: TP

I vote for 2♦: 1) 2♣ in this sequence would show a good ♦ raise 2) XX would have promised tolerance for ♦s and side strength 3) A new suit at the 1 level / 1N would have shown strength 4) I might as well get this out of the way instead of guessing whether to come in at 3♦ or above 5) Having passed initially, LHO is free to jam the auction that this vul and a jump to 3M will leave the 1♦ bidder in the dark about the ♦ support and we could be cold for 5♦ 6) 2♦ takes space and a cue bid away from them In this context, 2♦ should be the weakest possible bid that advancer can make with ♦ support and this hand certainly qualifies IMO.

For that hand, key card in spades follorwed by a club asking bid seems best. Also, with only 11 QPs this hand should have reverse relayed and let the balanced hand do the asking. Assuming that the reverse relays are limited to 12 QPs, a balanced hand with sub-par QPs can can quickly terminate the auction after discovering the basic shape...

Didn't someone (RonLel?) report a while back that trying to play Moscito without transfer openings resulted in huge system losses?

That can work too -- expect that if the 5 card suit is a major, you are probably better off showing it as 5431...

One possible solution might be to fit in 5440 at 3S (right after 3H for 5431), pushing out the arguably rare 6430 to 4C. The other (better?) alternative is to simply show 5440 as 5431. Given the rarity of the shape and the even rarer specific combination (1♣ AND reverse relay and 5440), I doubt that it will cause any significant disasters.

X and hope to land feet first...

Is the Miles' flavour of unbalanced diamond where you may have a 7 card ♣ suit as well ;)?

Well, you are five years too late my friend :). Thanks to the neglect and the lack of documentation from Martson (the book is how many years in the coming now?), that will remain a futile goal unless you get really lucky. Back in the days, a few of us (free, hrothgar, ronlel, etc. all) tried to band a common standard together, but it fell by the way side. BTW, relaying out responder's hand and then signing off shouldn't be that big of a problem as long you cap opener to say 12 QPs and require that responder have 8+ to carry on after the attempted sign off. A more pertinent example of a frequent problem is the wrong siding NT contracts after 1♣ - 1♥ (SP bal or no 5 CM) since responder will often rebid 1N. Of course, this can be solved if opener bids 1N with min bal hands over 1♥. All this can be worked around with agreements, but IMO, it pretty much rules up random partners...

Are you thinking about reverse relays by opener? With 5440s, opener must relay out responder's hand. BTW, dstraube and have several suggestions for improvements in the area of semi-positive responses to 1♣. Please feel free to ping me on BBO (foobar) or on the forum...

This is a pretty good list, but what does a hand that wants to compete / scramble with both minors do? It seems that option 3) is best suited for showing the hand that wants to compete in either minor and 5) is probably best for the scramble hand...

Shvek, From a previous thread, it appears that you use transfer over 1♥ / 1♠ and david_c was pretty emphatic about it also. What hands would use the transfers and what are the continuations? TIA... Good question. After 1C (1S) it seems like a waste of space to devote the 2-level to semipositives...unless they're transfer semipositive+ Yes -- and 2 under transfers might make most sense: (1♥): 1♠: Natural, NF 1N: ♦s 2C: ♥, natural if 1♥ isn't natural, or takeout if 1♥ is natural 2♦: ♠ 2♥: ♣ ========= (1♠): ============= 1N: ♦s 2C: ♥ 2♦: ♠, natural if 1♠ isn't natural, or takeout if 1♠ is natural 2♥: ♣ Now opener can accept transfer with a fit (forcing one round?) or introduce a new suit at the 2 level with a misfit and minimum hand. With no fit and no suit, opener can 2N or cue bids their suit as a general stuck bid (?)? Another option is to limit the strength of these bids so that opener can pass with really awkward minimum hands...

Shvek, From a previous thread, it appears that you use transfer over 1♥ / 1♠ and david_c was pretty emphatic about it also. What hands would use the transfers and what are the continuations? TIA...

Aren't revolving discards very similar to Lavinthal? I have played them in the same manner as described, with the extension that the discard of the 5, 6, 7 was "neutral" and carried no message, except that playing 5 -7 up the line in the same suit was mildly encouraging..

As Rob F. said, use transfers starting with the XX. If you really keen on having the penalty X of ♥s you can just P and then come back in with a X if they bid ♥s, saying "I had a hand with ♥s." However, it doesn't strike me as particularly useful meaning for that bid...

Here's the same hand based on another DCB scheme called "Go Fish" starting with 4♣ = ask for queens: ...4♦: 1 Q ........4♥ ask for kings ...5♥ -- No K♥, perforce only K♠ or 3 Ks, including the other two Here's an unedited post by John Sheehan (of Prism Signals fame) about his GOFISH alterative to DCB when using RPs (aka AKQ points). Hi all, Dlr: W Vul: EW Auction: Moscito Variation West East A863 K5 A652 K8 Q A4 KQJ5 A876432 1C 2D 2H 2S 2N 3C 3D 3H 2=2=2=7. 3S (1) 4S 10 relay points. 4N (2) 5S (No queens / all 4) 5N (3) 6C Same rank. 7C (1) 'Number of Relay points?' (A=3 K=2 Q=1) (2) 'Do you have any queens?' (3) 'Tell me about your two kings.' Note: The first step after the relay points response asks,'Do you have any queens?' In response to the queen ask: Step 1 = 1 Q. Step 2 = 2 Q's. Step 3 = 3 Q's. Step 4 = 0 Q's. Go Fish! (or 4 Q's) If The number of relay points is known; and, The number of queens is known; then, The exact number of aces and kings is known. Note: 'Tell me about your kings.' The first step after the number of queens response asks about location of kings. (If you are more interested in queens than kings, skip to the second step to ask about the location of queens.) In response to, 'Tell me about your kings.' To show one or three kings, stop at the bid that corresponds in the scanning order to the one suit with (or without) the king. If two kings are held; then Step 1 = 2 K's of the same Rank Step 2 = 2 K's of the same Color Step 3 = 2 K's of the same Shape (C/H D/S) Dlr: W Vul: EW Auction: Moscito Variation West East A7 KQ85 AQ3 K852 AQJ874 K6 J4 A96 1C 2D 2H 2S 2N 3C 3D 3H 4=4=3=2 3S(1) 4S 10 relay points. 4N(2) 5C 1 Queen. 5D(3) 5N No club king. 6C(4) 6D Spade queen. 7N (1) 'Number of Relay points?' (A=3 K=2 Q=1) (2) 'Do you have any queens?' (3) 'Tell me about your kings.' (4) 'What about that queen?' Is Go Fish! for relay points a practical approach to solving the problem of discoverying and pinpointing honors in slam auctions? Johnny Sheehan www.prismsignals.com

I'll write it up later and maybe post a link. It does only cater to 4333/4432 shapes, following TOSR's approach of including 5332 as single-suited. While I don't really agree with that style (I think 5332 is "balanced" generally), putting an extra 12 hands into your 2D+ balanced relays will result in higher shape resolution on all these common hands while the single-suited hands (which are much rarer) will resolve lower. So on a frequency basis, it's probably better to exclude 5332 from balanced for practical relay purposes, even if it's not ideal from a theoretical perspective. To provide more context, the balanced scheme is: 2D: No 4CM / any 4333 -> 2S=any 4333, 2N = 5332 with C, 3C=D+C 2H: 4H, not 4S -> 2N = 5332 with H, 3C=H+C, 3D 2S: S+m 2N: 5332 with S 3C: S+H Note that there's another simplified balanced scheme in a different context includes all balanced hands (including 5332 that starts 2D): ...2S: Any 4432 ...2N: Any 4333 ...3C+: 5332 hands