akhare

Richard had the following comment in his document and I think it makes sense. The minor suit ask will still be cheap assuming that it's the longest or second longest suit.

MPs, all white, playing limited openings (10-15), pard deals and opens: 1♠ - (P) - 1N (semi-forcing) - (2♣) - P - (P) - ? You hold: Q KJT87 J87XX TX X isn't explicitly defined, but the general agreement is that low level doubles are for takeout.

After pattern resolution (using ~symmetric relays), we play: 3N: To play 4♦: Canonical terminator puppet S1: QP ask S2: Always RKC in ♣ S3: Always RKC in ♦ S4: Always RKC in ♥ S5: Always RKC in ♠ For example, after 3♦, showing say a 5=4=3=1 pattern, 3♠ will always be RKC in ♣. To me, it seems that this treatment is suboptimal, if not downright silly. IMO, it's much better to play Richard's Moscito treatment, i.e. RKC based on suit length, with ties broken in suit order. In other words, in the above case, 3♠ is RKC ♠, 4♣ is RKC ♥ and so forth. Comments?

Note that in this context, the 1M openings are in the 10-15 HCP range.

Link please (unless it's pay to use material). Edit -- link below: http://www.marvinfrench.com/p1/defensehandbook/alldefense.pdf

Winning the district GNP literally after running a full marathon (no kidding). One has to wonder how much the fact that I didn't have the time to change / shower contributed to the victory, but in due fairness, I did get time for it during the session break :D.

There's no harm in considering improvements, but it's unclear that: 1) The problem happens with sufficient frequency 2) The payoff from the proposed alternative is sufficient to counter balance the disadvantages 3) The alternative improves the memory load factor and / or bidding space efficiency A constrained deal generator greatly magnifies #1 and might even lend some credibility to #2. However, #3 is a very real concern and you will likely be hard pressed to find sufficient real life examples in which the alternative results in a clear win (in terms of actual score).

To list a few shortcomings, it seems that besides adding a large amount of complexity, the proposed modifications take away the ability to: 1) Play in 2♥ / 2♠ over the 1♣ - 2♣ in a 5-2 minimum fit 2) Play in 2♠ over 1♣ - 2♦ in a 5-2 minimum fit 3) Show a maximum with 2 card support over 1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ It's unclear as to whether the gains are sufficient to offset the disadvantages. In other words, I concur with Adam that splitting opener's 16 (15)- 19 range any further simply isn't worth the effort.

+1 for 1♣

#1: Depends on your agreements, but some people play that ♠A denies the K (with the lead of the K asking for the count). Regardless, I would play low in both cases; in the former case there's no attractive switch and in the latter, we are just giving count. #2: Likewise for similar reasons, except that at the 4-level, A might merely show AK.

Our auction: 1♥ - 2♣ (GF) 2♦ (various hands) - 2♥ (ask) 3♣ (5♥332) - 3♦ (ask) 3N (5♥-3-3-2) At this point responder might just give up because opener's range is 10-13 and the hands don't seem to mesh well. If North upgrades and opens the hand with 1N (14 - 16), the response to the 2♠ size ask will be 2N, showing a minimum and responder will likely sign off in 3N as well.

No, however, it's difficult to see semi-forcing 1N response that more than 11 HCPs can be made to work, even over 1♠. All 12+ and 13 balanced counts must rebid for the fear of missing out on the 12-13 / 13-13 games.

As I see it, this structures forces balanced 12-13 counts to bid over 1N for the fear of missing out the heavy invite hand with clubs (which presumably includes the 12-13 counts with 4♣333, 5♣332, etc.). To put it simply, I don't see how a semi-forcing 1N response that contains more than 11 HCPs is truly viable, because opener will pass balanced hands in the 10-11 HCP range (maybe some really bad 12 counts), which seems too narrow a target. Also, the important 2♠ bid is used for the rare WJS in ♠. While this serves the purpose of making responder's ♠ rebid *always* forcing (even in competition), it's not a very good use of the space. It seems that this structure might be better served by using the hack of hiding the ♠ WJS in the 1N response.

How about something simpler? P: Min hand with 2+ ♥ 2S: NF, min hands that don't want to pass 2♥ 2N: GF, other hands, including 6♠ without 2+♥ 3m: GF, 4+m 3H: NF, 3+♥ raise 3S: GF, 6S with 2♥ 3N: To play (rare) 4M: To play

If the intent is to use 3♣ as natural GI, then 2N can potentially be used as a 2-way bid that combines LR OR mixed raise. This might have some advantage since it frees up 3♦ for WJS and 3♥ as a good invite with a suit that can play opposite a stiff (and might cover some losses in marginal hands in the 2♥ NF).

I don't think your proposed continuations over an ostensibly forcing 2H are right. As Adam suggested, the 2♠ rebid by opener (not forcing) can serve multiple purposes. Granted, this occasionally misses out playing in the 5-2 heart fit when opener is balanced and one can avoid committing to the 4♥ game in the 5-3 fit by making opener's 3H bid NF. 1♠ - 2♥: ... 2♠ = relay, min hand or fairly balanced (can be passed with spade tolerance) -----> 2NT = flat or short spades, not 5/5 -----> 3m = 5/5 invite (NF) -----> 3♥ = 6+♥ sound invite -----> 3♠ = GF "picture" hand -----> 4m = self splinter with great hearts ... Others = natural, GF ... 3H: NF? As noted, the crux of issue is whether all GF hands should be processed through 2♣. IMO, 2♣ a great tool hands with *clear cut* slam potential or for GF hands that can't force using other methods. On hands on which game is the limit, conducting a less revealing auction via the forcing 2♦ / 2♥ bids might be a good tradeoff.

Deleted double post.

Yes...Adam's suggestions look very good. However, I am still not convinced that 2H needs be to NF. The biggest problem with is that it forces 2♥ to be 6+ cards, which significantly reduces its frequency and forces 2♦ to go through all sorts of contortions (like having a 5 card ♥ suit on the side). The ability to stop in 2♥ simply isn't worth the tradeoff IMO. For example, consider an auction like 1♠ - 2♦ - (5♣) at unfavorable vulnerability. What does X by responder mean here if it's possible to have 5♥ on the side? There no problem with a stated 6-11 range for preempts as long it doesn't preclude opening say AJTXXX, KQTXXX, etc. with 2M at the right vulnerability. By the same token, it's important to exercise judgment while opening hands on the upper end of the range with 2M at favorable, because responder will give opener a lot of leeway for the 2M opening.

The range of interest is 11 - 13. Most 14+ hands will GF anyway and the real question is whether 2D should be forcing for one round. In fact, you can probably make the case for a 3+ response by making it forcing for one round and 2H NF. Using 2C comes at the cost of missing occasional superior part scores in say 2M, but I think that both 2D and 2H as forcing for one round should be evaluated as part of a comparative analysis.

What were the constraints on the GI hands? I still think that it's worthwhile to look at 2H with 5+ and a heavy invite. Also, it's unclear whether it's necessary to stop on a dime with NF 2D / 2H responses. Even assuming opener has a balanced 10 count, there should be sufficient strength to make some part score most of the times. The idea of using canapé is clever, but by forcing 2D to be 3+ to make room for a rarer GI hand with 6H seems misplaced to me.

The presumptive trump suit (♦) has good texture and this hand may fare better than the other hand where they opened 4♠, but my vote is still Pass.

Pass and hope to collect 4 tricks.

I think that this can be tweaked a little more to make it slightly less complex. How about using the proposed 1♥ - 2♦ structure for 1♠ as well? The idea is that 2♥ would be 5+ and would be much more frequent than the 6+ GI hand. After 1♠ - 2♦, opener's 2♥ can be used for minimum hands that may have 4+♥.

Yes indeed, the intent is to play 2♣ as stated above. Pard is leery about its GCC legality, but my interpretation is that it's perfectly legitimate. On a related note, since opener's 2N rebid in your methods promises 6+ in the major with 12+, how does that affect the range for the 2♥ / 2♠ preempts? Do you play something like a 5-10 range, with single suited 11 counts opting to open 1M or 2M depending on the rest of the hand?

At the risk of derailing the original post: It's clear that a 2-level artificial GF response to 1M is 100% GCC legal The question is whether responder's subsequent artificial bids can be classified as a "relay system". For example, after 1♠ - 2♣ (artificial GF) - 2♥ (natural) would a artificial 2♠ (further ask) be considered as a relay? If not, what is responder allowed to bid that *would* make it GCC legal?