akhare

On a somewhat tangential note, the xfer method would be verboten under ACBL GCC right (unless 1♦ was 15+)?

X followed by 2N seems right. At this vul., the 1S after two passes could be similar to the third seat fav. "1♠" joke that I tried the other day (unfortunately pard didn't get it holding 11 points after they bid 1N and wanted to play in 1N-XX over his X of 1N): T98XX A9XX XXX X

A related question for the standard Precision 1♣ - 1♦ players -- how do you folks cope with 4th hand interference?

One approach is that transfers into their suit always show GF hands that are stuck for a bid (you can play X and then cue over opener's 3♣/3♦ shows the GF Stayman without stopper hand). Another way of doing it is to bid 2N -> 3C and then cue bid 3H to show the problem hand...

Are you sure about 3N not showing a stopper? In all the versions of Rubensohl I have read about (including this one that uses 2N a la Lebensohl), 3N always promises a stopper. The version I have played is over 1C interference is: Natural interference at the 2 level (starting with 2C): --------------------------------------------------- X: Takeout, not GF unless followed by cue 2x: NF, natural 2N+: Transfers, showing at least invite+ values Artificial interference at 2 level (no known suits, ex: SUCTION): ---------------------------------------------------------- X: GF, tends to be balanced 2X: NF, natural 2N+: Transfers, GF

X unless playing good bad 2N. I don't agree with the P hold K9XX of spades though, with so much on the side in clubs...

Pretty much echoing what Richard, gwnn and Apollo have said. BTW, please make sure that your pard is on the same page and doesn't do something silly like randomly passing with 6-7(8) HCPs over major suit openings because it might play than in 1M than 1N and "it's impossible to have a game opposite a max 15 (sic)" (and yes, I know players who subscribe to that flawed philosophy).

I think a combination of 1D amorphous in conjunction with restricting 2D to 6+ ♦, 4♣ is very difficult to play. Basically, it means that 1♦ is now: Any 5m440 Any 4441 Any 5m431 Any 4432 / 5m332, 4333 hand outside NT range Any 6D(4M) hand As I see it, it will take some bidding gymanstics to unwind the 1♦ opening even in an uncontested auction. Also, the sole purpose of restricting the 2♦ shape seems to be to resolve the shape completely by 3N, but it comes at a terrible cost.

A redundant third -- also, look at the excellent Revision Club notes here: http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/revision_club_4th_ed.zip

Heh, heh, I would say 10 years is a lot of time, all right ;). Indeed, as you and Wayne have pointed out, it sometimes agonizing to know that responder has the doubleton the "danger" suit, but there's aren't enough steps to resolve whether it's an issue. However, these hands are too common, but I do worry a lot about giving the defence too much information. This is probably no worse than a verbose auction in a standard system, where the opps can infer declarer's shape...

Well, as Richard and others have pointed out, the real design motive behind the specialized SP responses is to tackle 4th hand interference. So, the real efficacy should be measured in ability to cope with situations in which 4th hand tries to throw in a monkey wrench (vis-a-vis 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 any))...

Out of curiosity, why do you consider relays inferior for game bidding? Is it because they give away too much information to the defence and / or allow too many lead directing Xs? Isn't the problem solved by transfer oriented relay schemes, where the stronger hand will end up declaring more often that not (in which case the defence knows virtually nothing about declarer's hand)?

Thanks Free and Richard. What's your perspective on relaying SP hands? Personally, I think that it's essential to have relay breaks to allow us to get out in a sensible partscore. One obvious example of this is this the 1♣ - 1♥ (bal or no 5CM), which could be made on as little as AXX XXX XXXX XXX and out. Do we really want to relay over this with say a 15-17 NT hand? IMO, it's far more important to be able to break out by allowing by opener to describe minimum hands that don't want to relay using something like: 1N: Min bal hand 2C: Majors? Etc. Similarly, we need the ability to play at in a partscore at the 2-level *while* allowing some sort sort of GT. So, I guess what we are missing is a "user manual" for SP responses and any pointers in this regard will be greatly appreciated...

Seems very interesting. BTW, I noticed a couple of things: 1) We seem to have consensus that the Moscito structure as it exists today wastes too many useful 2 level responses for immediate SP bids 2) This might be the longest thread on symmetric relays ever on the planet :D

Yeah -- the idea was that after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1N would show the min bal hand and 1♠ would be a hand unsuited for it (without promising extras). Over this, 1N can be S / ♠+m (to line it up with 2♦ / 2♥) and the two suiter with ♠ and the other minor resolves immediately at 2♥+. This effectively gives us 2♣ / 2♦ to show some SP hands, including the unbalanced hands with the minors. After 2♣ / 2♦ (SP), there are no relays per se, and the thought was that opener just makes the cheapest bid as pseudo relay to get responder to describe shape. Anyway, this was just a strawman -- more suggestions / criticisms are welcome :D..

Rob, Actually I was thinking of taking an idea you had proposed earlier and sort of running away with it. Here's a strawman, but the idea is to achieve TOSR+0 *and* meld SP responses: 1♦ DN OR GF H+m OR GF ♦ 1♥: SP bal OR ♠+m GF OR ♠ GF 1N: S+♣ 2D: SS ♠ 2H+: S+♦ -> two suited module 1♠: SP majors OR bal GF 2♣: SP with major (and possibly 4441 GF) 2D+ -> Bal module 1N: GF Majors or SS ♣ 2♣: SP (Single suited major?) 2D: GF SS ♥ -> Single suited module at 2S+ 2H+ GF Minors -> Two suited module Over 1♥, opener has the option of "predicting" the bal SP hand by bidding 1N. Responder can now resume relays hwith 2♣ following the bal module (possibly relay stayman).

Well, that's really a question for Martson, but just because it's possible relay SP hand doesn't mean that it's right to do so (and in fact I would argue that it's better to eschew relays altogether over SP hands). Handling the example hand you posted is rather easy: Opener: XX AQXX AQXX KJX Responder: KQJxxxx xx x Qxx Say after: 1♣ - 2♦ (single suited in a major) - 2♠ (not forwarding going opposite most ♠ SP hands, accept for ♥ hands) Now responder can autosplinter in ♦s to show the unusual hand and opener signs off. The bottom line is that there always will be magic hands that lead to improbable slams opposite the perfect hand. However, I would rather play something that isn't perfect but gets us to playable spot most of the time than something that aims for the pie in the sky and risks ending up too high more often than not.

This is the basic fundamental disagreement. Basically, there are no relays over SP hands (and Rob F. has a similar approach also). IMO, as long as the SP structure allows both opener and responder have more than one bite at the apple, it's sufficient. Basically, responder needs to be able to show a hand that's a little too good despite the 3-5 QP response and opener needs something that forces a rebid and / or ostensibly sets up a GF. It's true that you may be able to resolve responder's shape with pinpoint accuracy and you may occasionally miss a slam that depends on the magical fit. However, IMO, not relaying over SP hands is taking the practical percentage approach to the problem...

I think you're almost endplayed into relaying SP responses if you play a system like Moscito. Say it goes 1C-2S (semipositive with spades), you can decide to show your own suit (nf), but if you want to establish a GF your only option is to relay. I disagree -- even if responder holds a magical hand like KQJxxxx xx x Qxx, it's just a question of reorganizing the response structure so that responder gets more than one bite at the apple. For example, one possible scheme might be that a 2♦ response shows a SP response with single suited hand in a major. Over this opener can bid 2♥ (not forward going in ♥s, maybe forward going in ♠) or 2♠ (the other way around). In the case where responder holds the improbable hand that's good enough for game, but doesn't have the necessary number of QPs, responder can always rebid over the attempted signoff. Also, if you forgo Marton's 2N - 3N positive responses (which hardly ever come up to be useful), there's plenty of room to unwind freak SP hands (but I won't hold my breath waiting for one to come up any time soon). If opener has a forcing hand, you can play 2N as a puppet to 3♣ for a potential sign off at the 3 level and immediate bids as forcing (or the other way around). BTW, I am curious about why Moscito forces relaying of SP hands -- are you referring to 15+ ♣ systems or any system with SP responses?

IMO, not relaying over SP responses is the right approach. The only reservation I have about the positive response structure at 1♠+ is opener doesn't have the ability to effectively reverse relay. As I see it, having to relay out responder's shape every single time with 9-11 QPs is a losing proposition in the long run. Even assuming that the contract is right sided every single time, resolving dummy's exact shape and strength with zero slam interest will likely confer some advantage to the opening leader. For example, with say opener holding a 15-18ish hand and responder holding a 6-8 QPs 5♠??? I would rather have the auction go 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) - 1N (reverse relay, 9-11 QPs, bal hand) - 2♥ (transfer breaking relay -- no slam interest either) - 2♠ - 3N - 4♠, concealing dummy's exact shape. This brings up an interesting question -- what should relay breaks / reverse relays after a positive response show?

Also, in my experience, the opps almost invariably interfere on the 0-4 hands and in a way make the continuations over 1♣ - 1♠ easier (assuming responder even gets to bid 1♠). One counter argument in favour of 1♣ - 1♦ (all positives) is that opener's reverse relay (with a limited hand) regains the lost step. If responder has a limited hand also, the auction can be terminated without revealing too much information about the hands. Of course, structures like TOSR give the ability to allow opener to reverse relay over the positive response, but as I recall, it requires a special "10 shape reverse relay"...

Clear 1N given my moth eaten ♠ spots. In fact, we may have only a single ♠ stopper and that should be a sobering thought for anyone contemplating a P of 1♠-X...

Has anyone looked at the following study of NT ranges? http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20othe...he%20winner.pdf Personally, I find it difficult to see how 10-13 (or even 11-13) can be bad for us at favorable, but I don't have any concrete data to back it up. Edit: The obvious downside is when we don't buy the contract and they land in a vulnerable game, which they can play nearly DD, but how often does that happen? Besides, wouldn't the 12-13 point balanced hands be opened at the other table anyway?

This is an aside to a very interesting discussion, but one thing to consider is that when responder holds the DN hand, the opps can intervene more often than not. In other words, when responder holds a very weak hand, the chances are that bidding by the opponents may make the 1♥ vs. 1♠ DN distinction moot...

4♣ is probably fit showing / lead directional, but a X seems pretty clear...