rbforster

I think the original TOSR notes switched to straight ace asking with the first step (rather than QP ask) if the level of shape resolution was too high. Maybe it was if the ask was 4C or 4H, don't remember. I do think there's some improvement to be made with QP showing schemes, specifically when you want to play in a suit, since there's a lot more space. That said, I'm not sure what the best way is to go about that and there are lots of variations - ignore the terminator and have direct game bids be optional sign offs (where opener answers QPs or maybe RKC in that suit with a very good hand, else pass), weak vs strong relay asks for QPs using the first two free steps (so they start at different levels for how much the first step "min" response showed, maybe for the strong one it goes 5/6/7/8... But for the weak one it's 5-8/9/10...), always asking for QPs so you free up cheaper RKC bids in all the suits if opener would rather have that option than a QP ask, having higher RKC asks only for better hands so the extra bids below 3N besides the first step QP ask can be stopper asks, etc, etc. At some point, I think having any comprehensive, memorable relay asking system for honors and/or key cards gets 90% of the improvement over standard methods.

Aside from aspiring to find major fits preferentially and describe two suits so you know which is longer, there's also the problem that you lose - 1) the ability for opener to super accept descriptively for the single suit transferred to 2) the ability for responder to use the first step after his transfer is accepted (most common auction) for some sort of asking bid (since now it's a weak two suiter) 3) the ability for opener to compete effectively over 4th hands interference since he doesn't know what responder has

The super accept with 9+ QPs works a lot better over 3N than it does over 4D as you observe. As a consequence, you basically always ask for QPs when the shape resolves below 3S and you plan on playing in a suit. Then the question is what should you use 4D for? Maybe the void ask or some other gadget, at least if there are a couple steps still below it available to ask for QPs.

This seems to be a strong club system, with canapé 4cM's and relatively light openers. http://chillibidding.org/opening-bids

Looks good, especially structuring the 3N relay asks for the 7411 shape.

5. The cheaters play with other cheaters.

Another example of reordering shape asks was something I did with relays resolving a balanced responding hand. TOSR doesn't tell you which suits are which until the final shape is known (crash-style, ie 4432 with 44 in same color/rank/shape shown first, then resolves which doubleton on second ask), so you can't very well relay break without missing possible major fits. Better it seemed to me was to ask for major shape first, and then resolve minor shape second, ie 44 majors, or 43 majors, or 42 majors, and then go from there. I wrote this up but never really used the relay breaks options after it. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/development/RF%20TOSR%20balanced%20relays%20v3.doc

It can be worth restructuring your relay answers in order to make better use of either the possible relay breaks or to allow for cheaper relays. In general, this is an ad hoc process and gives you less symmetric relays, but it can be done if you want to optimize things. A simple example which is a little more general is flipping the last two responses to full shape before zooming into strength. Consider that some symmetric relays put 7411 with 5422 under the "no shortness" branch for two suiters: Two suiter symmetric relays: 2D low suit longer 2H equal lengths (55xx, 66xx, 4441s) 2S+ high suit longer 2S high shortness 2N no shortness (5422/7411) 3C+ low shortness So then instead of the "normal" probability ordering for shape under the "no shortness" branch, ie 3D 5422 any 3H 7411 min 3S 7411 min+1 3N 7411 min+2, etc you instead flip them, 3D 7411 any 3H 5422 min 3S 5422 min+1 3N 5422 min+2, etc because after all you almost always want to ask strength after hearing a 5422 any strength response at such a low level as 3D. This swap resolves 5422 strength one step lower than the first version, since you save the relay ask step and zoom into strength. It resolves 7411 strength one step higher than before, but that's probably ok because 1) 7411 is much rarer, and 2) more extreme shapes can go higher more safely in their relays, and sometimes but not in this case 3) 3N is very unlikely to be the final contract with extreme shape so you can agree to use 3N as an ask over a 3S response sometimes. In essence, this is still a probability optimization, but rather than optimize for probability at which level you resolve full shape, you optimize for the level to resolve both full shape and first strength response.

I agree and this is the resolution I came to when I played this style. 1D-1N was limited to have no game interest opposite whatever balanced range opener might have, and consequently opener would only bid on with a distributional hand (typically 2m, natural). Because this made for a wide range of invitational NT hands, I used 1D-2N as a sound invitation (13-14hcp), while if you had an 10-12hcp lighter invite (opposite a possible 13-15 NT opener), we bid 2C first (natural and invite+, or balanced light invite) instead assuming we had at least 4 clubs (or 2D inverted if 4D). The 2C continuations had some artificial responses, but the key was that 1D-2C-2D showed any bad hand by opener (9-11ish unbalanced, couldn't be a NT one) and the light balanced hand just passed.

I played rebidding NT showed balanced with or without 4 spades, so a 1S rebid shows an unbalanced hand. You can play it however you want; there are trade offs to both.

I tried to do this once, over a standard or limited 1M opener and where 1NT forcing was - a weak hand without much shape (pass openers natural rebid, or preference to 2M to play) - an invitational hand, that would bid similarly to 2/1 after a 1N(f) response (raise, 2N, or jump in new suit) - a GF hand without support (still had Jacoby, other jump raises), these hands bid the cheapest new suit as a GF I found this to be overloaded for the non-fitting GF hands, even having taken out those with support or strong single suits (via direct jump bids) and even without dealing with interference issues. It seems like I was trying to do most of 1, all of 2, and most of the 3 and perhaps unsurprisingly it didn't work even with lots of artificial follow ups of try to unwind the strong hand types (the goal was to offer 2/1 weak NF responses). You seem to be trying something not quite as unreasonable, so maybe it can work. My advice would be to test your system with the GF hands and make sure you are quite happy with how those get bid uncontested. If you can't get that part to work, the rest isn't worth trying to fix.

It seems like your 1C-2H hand (balanced INV / min GF, possibly not wanting to declare) would fit pretty well in the 1C-1S sequence. If the opps want to butt in against a near GF balanced hand, that's what the red card is for. Plus, it may give opponents pause to intervene over the primarily weak options in the 1S response as it is now (weak minor or weak balanced).

Another possibility: 2♣ - hearts + minor 2♦ - both minors 2♥ - both majors 2♠ - spades + minor

I saw you were also up using 2N as a weak two suited preempt, in addition to this 2S bid. I think 2N is a whole lot better for both minors, if you want a bid for that, than 2S. Both are artificial and forcing, and it's not like you need a ton of space to bid 3C p/c or 3N which are your most likely actions. On the other hand, 2S could be a much more effective preempt if it had or often had spades. You were using 2N as major+minor, and I would argue you'd be better off swapping that with this 2S bid. Not only will responder be able to pass 2S much more often (open will have spades half the time, and even if he doesn't, the opponents may not be sure), but you can use the extra step of 2N for an inquiry to help sort out the additional hand types. Major / Minor is 4 combinations, while Minor / Minor is 1 - certainly this argues the former should have a cheaper bid unless you're trying to be deliberately destructive and accept more common bad outcomes from miscommunications or guessing. You also don't have to cover every possibly. 2S could be spades + minor, which is a very effective natural preempt. 2N could be hearts + minor instead of both minors, which is twice the frequency anyway (2 combinations instead of one). 3C if it's free could be both minors instead of a club preempt if you wanted.

Looks like an ok but not great opening for 1♠, given you play light openers and precision. Sure it'd be better to have aces or less HCPs in your stiff, but 5/5 majors is a good shape so I'd open it.

This might be ok given the weak major single suiters are included already, and covers all the two suiters. 2♣ weak two in either minor 2♦ hearts and a minor 2♥ both majors 2♠ spades and a minor 2N both minors I leave it up to you to decide how many cards per suit are required, 4/4, 5/4, promising 4M vs 5M, etc.

Yeah, I agree about a natural 1N response. You've got to bid 1C-1N on something of course, but the strong hand almost always wants to declare NT. My solution was to have it show a forcing hand with both majors, so at least it was likely opener could declare in those suits when NT was least likely as a final strain.

Looks pretty good. I play a simpler fast-arrival setup with weak NT, so for us both 1N-2M and 1N-3m are sign offs; obviously you can do more with transfers there if you're willing to give up pressuring the opponents. We play a straight up two-way stayman system, 2C garbage or invitational with 4+M (2N direct is natural no 4M), and 2D is GF relay.

I'd be interested to hear the follow ups.

I play a non-mainstream method where these distributional two suited hands bid 1♠ artificial after 1♣-1♦, showing at least 5/4 shape in any suit pairs except both minors and minimum strong club values (say 16-bad 19). Partner with a weak hand and his own suit can pass or bid 2♥, can scramble with 2♣ (pass or correct, showing club tolerance by responder), bid 2♦ to ask for partners better major, or 1N to ask for his longest suit (often done with a balanced hand, and then pass).

One benefit would be that most people's default NT defenses (Cap, Woolsey, etc) are not going to be as good against this Multi NT. Most standard strong NT defenses are major-oriented to compete at the 2 level, and you're a lot less likely to want to show both majors if someone has a 6+ major on the other side.

This looks pretty simple: 1NT: weak two in a minor, or 15-17 balanced 2♣ invitational+ stayman (8-13 or so), not invitational opposite the weak options ....P weak clubs ....2♦ weak diamonds ....2M natural, strong NT ....2N no 4M, strong NT Less clear how much of the strong NT you can keep here, since it will be hard to end below 3m otherwise opposite the weak hand.

1♦ appears to be unbalanced (as 1♣ and 1N cover all 12+ balanced hands), so in particular this means opener has a free 1N rebid after opening 1♦ showing clubs. Whether you want to use that as minors (only reversing into 2♦♥ with extras) or hearts any strength I'm not so sure. It may depend on how well you can open 1♣ and handle both minor hands.

Or play a strong club and put the limited club hands into pass ;).

It's not as bad as you think to just pass all these club hands in a precision context, especially if partner opens pretty light in 3rd or 4th.