rbforster

I'll bid hrothgars old slam methods from his Moscito notes (S1=QPs, with denial cues; 3N/4♦ end signals with 9+ QP zooms, and the rest RKCs by responders length). I'll use my own strong club methods, which almost always do relays by the strong hand.

I think you need to decide what your priorities are, since specifically on auctions resolving shape at 3♦, there are lots of sequences one can use - probably more than you can find sensible meanings for. Consider one where you want cheap RKC asks: 3♥ QP ask 3♠ forces 3N unless extras ....P sign off ....4♣ sign off ....4♦ sign off ....various exclusion asks 3N RKC ♥ 4♣ RKC ♠ 4♦ RKC ♣ 4♥ RKC ♦ etc This gets you a 3 steps of space to respond to the RKC ask at or below game in each suit (note the order of RKCs are fixed, not relative to responder's suit lengths, 2+Q goes past). If you wanted less space for RKCs and more space for some thing else (I.e. RKC asking was willing to force to the 5 level opposite some replies), you could make all the bids starting with 3♠ puppets to the next step, after which opener would ask a range of questions with each of his bids.

Aside from stopping in 4m (which I can't really speak to, seems specific to your semi positive responses), it seems the main benefit is getting responder to show his super accept QPs at a lower level over openers attempted sign off. As you say, this matters most when shape resolves at 3♦, so step 2 is 3♠ rather than higher where things mostly equivalent with the 4♦ end relay. I would contend this is not that much of a benefit. Consider two cases when you resolve shape cheaply: 1. If opener is minimum and wants to play NT, he'll bid 3N rather than asking and then responder super accepts by bidding on with 4♣=9 QPs, etc. If opener bid 3♠ in your scheme, 4♣ is the first super accept step (instead of puppeting to 3N) and you get the same outcome. 2. If opener is minimum and wants to play a suit game, he can still ask pretty aggressively for QPs since he's doing so at a very low level. Suppose the sign off system after a QP ask is that any non-relay is to play. So if instead of using an end signal, if opener asks for QPs with 3♥ and hears a response of 4♣ or less, he can still sign off anywhere. If he hears 4♦, responder is showing 9 QPs (at least in my system that starts with 6 minimum) and would have forced higher anyway. Alternatively, if he had tried to sign off with 3♠ in your system, the first super accept is 4♣ and is only one step cheaper for showing 9 QPs. In short, it seems on the QP resolution front, you're giving up your second step for something that never helps in NT and only saves one step in suits when responder is strong.

Assuming you want your 8-11 5+ unbalanced hands bidding a Fantunes style 2 bid (possibly excepting both majors), this leaves the one level to cover 2-3 balanced ranges and all the intermediate strength hands not strong enough for pass. Something simple would be: p 0-8 or 17+ 1♣ 12-17 bal , or clubs 12-16 ......1♦ artificial and invitational, 10+ ............1M 4M unbal with clubs, min 12-14 ............1N 12-14 bal ............2♣ min just clubs 12-14 ............2♦ artificial, 15-16 with clubs (Polish style) ............2M 4M with 15-17 balanced (stayman) ............2N 15-17 balanced no major .......1M natural, 5-9 NF opposite weak NT .......1N no 4M, 0-7 (no game interest even opposite strong NT) .......2♣ 3+ no major, 8-9 (invite opposite strong NT) .......2♦ 5+ no major, 8-9 (invite opposite strong NT) 1♦ 4+ unbal 12-16, including xx45 1M 5+, 8-16 with both majors, or 12-16 without 1N 9-11 bal On one hand, the 9-11 NT is great for preempting. OTOH, its simpler to design a rebid structure after 1♣ if you had a split balanced range (9-11/15-17) with a standard weak 12-14 NT.

Well, 4 card major jump overcalls are still natural and allowed, so then its just a question of arguing about the negative inferences of your non-jump overcalls and 1m-2m as either long major (multi).

Looks like its pretty much exactly overcall structure to me, minus the X-1NT swap which is really an independent part from the two suiter's treatment. I suppose OC doesn't restrict the two suiters to being exactly 4 in the higher suit, but of course that's often the case. In my style for OC, you only make a two-suited bid with 5/5 if 1) you're forcing both suits to the 3 level (i.e.1S-3C for minors), or 2) your hand is so weak you would not freely bid your lower suit at the 2 level if you started with a simple overcall in the higher suit.

This is what I like as well. You can overload the XX->1NT transfer with some better hands too, like a 3 card invite in partners major that can stop at 2M (presumably a 4 card raise is still Jordan 2N).

Shape and honor location relays also work better when your describing the dummy instead of declarer, giving away less useful info. Not sure if transfer jumps could fit into OPs scheme, or if they're meant to be partially preemptive.

Certainly after 1M-1N, one should be more willing to bid 2♣ (whatever it means), since the extra space gives you the most chances for improving the contact (via BART or whatever). My point about your opener's rebidding style was that if you are often bidding over 1N, then making it forcing doesn't change too many sequences and potentially adds a fair number of good ones too. Another observation from my earlier explorations was this - its better to put red suit hands into 1N than similar club ones if you have a choice. This is because of the above fact, combined with openers' likelihood to rebid 2♣ when responder is unbalanced with short clubs. So in Adam's methods (at least without worrying about the GCC), you might consider making 1N be any light invite or a sound invite with diamonds (rather than sound with clubs). Then make the direct bid of 1M-2♦ show a sound invite with clubs instead of natural.

I was never entirely happy with the followups, but the basic idea was to have a dialogue-style bidding similar to 2/1 after 1M-2♣, with some relays after 1M-1N(f) starting with "third suit GF" by responder (I.e. 1M-1N-2♣-2♦ was an artificial GF). This worked well with 1M-2♦♥ as weakish NF to handle the 2 level sign offs that normally go through 1N(f) in 2/1. Let me ask you this - exactly what are your shapes and strengths that are allowed to pass the SF NT? Just 5332 min, or some 5422s with weak side suits, etc? Adam's suggestion of putting weak invites into the NT response might accomplish both goals. I still think making it forcing can help a lot, since it frees up some jump rebids by responder that are otherwise certainly lost (perhaps for rare GF hands that don't want to relay?). Also, you say you want to be able to stop in 1M-2♦, but are coming around to having that be forcing. I agree stopping at a low minor like that is a super narrow target, especially on the first round of bidding with so little described, and with all the hands in 1N(sf) I think a similar argument might apply. Certainly 1N scores better than 2♦ and also is a lot more likely to win the bidding, but you gain so many more sequences that it seems worthwhile (weak sign offs could free the direct WJS bids for custom major raises, etc).

I'm a bit late to this, but I worked on a similar system at one point over 1M. My broad conclusions were that 1. Having two invites is good, and allows light openers to clearly have more advantages than disadvantages 2. Having the cheapest responses to 1M be forcing helps A LOT. This probably means giving up the semi forcing NT i know you wanted to keep, but at least give it some thought. Similar thoughts apply to the forcing 2♦ vs NF one. My approach was to having a natural Inv+ 2C showing 4+ cards (possibly GF canapé), while other GFs without clubs went through either 1N(f) or 2♦♥. Ask me sometime if you want more details.

I agree that this is a really good idea when playing a wide-ranging light opening system. I played 8-15 as well, with some or lots of distribution required on the 8-9 end, and it helped a lot to squeeze in two different invites on as many sequences as possible. XYZ, custom 2m responses to openers, etc, all helped.

Your method seems fine. More fancy things are possible of course, but you get the vast majority of the slam investigation benefits if you can do both Denial Cues or RKC depending on responder's hand. Here I would use Denial Cues. Partner is almost certainly on a minimum with 7-8 QPs and may easily reject an invitation when pretty much any 8 QP hand will make six (AAK). I would use cue bidding to find out about secondary honors (or their lack) in spades and clubs, which seems to be key to the investigation. Although it depends a little on how weak you open, I'd say with 19-20 QPs between you and a good fit, slam should be pretty likely.

In the same way "natural" 1M openers in a canapé system show unbalanced two-suiters? I would say yes, but I'm sure some would disagree on technical grounds. I would summarize the situation as unclear but probably ok, with a side note that asking for official clarification is likely to be fruitless while failing to alert the negative inference of the specified side suit in such a system would never be questioned in practice.

Glad it helped and youre welcome. as for logic, I mostly just copied what Richard had. My guess is that typically you have shortness when you don't have any honors and are still interested in side suit controls, in which case the first priority would be A (step 1 A/KQ), followed by AK (step 2, Q/AK). Said another way, most hands will use QPs and not RKC, so the use of RKC in slam relays is a bit more specialized than you might be used to from "normal bridge", and focuses on slams needing either filler for a running side suit or a side ace for first runs control of a weak or short side suit. Remember you should have a decent handle on the number of A's from your RKC answer. If that doesn't resolve which ace (such as where exactly one is missing), I think you should ask about the other side suit where partner might have an ace - I.e. when faced with a choice, ask in the suit where you have an honor so its clear. If you have no honors in either suit, well, maybe you aren't making slam anyway :). As for X-RKC, I don't have methods to use it myself because I already find the basic RKC is relatively rare and I'm too lazy to add more structure at this point. However, if you want it's definitely possible to include it. See for example the 4♣ exclusion relay used by TOSR in their slam relays. http://www.bantha.org/~pahk/bridge/tosr/

After a 3♥ QP ask, we reply in steps <=6, 7, 8, .... Some people prefer to separate 5 from 6, or require 5 (or 6) QPs for a positive response and have HCP heavy but control poor hands start with a negative 1♦. I don't take that approach. We get more space on 7+ and more uncertainty with less. The replies to a side suit control ask are (cheapest trump suit)= no control, otherwise steps A/KQ, Q/AK, K/AQ, AKQ. I mostly use Richard Willeys Moscito slam methods, although that document seems hard to find online these days. I'd read that, or you can read the summary I wrote up for myself but it may be a little less clear or I might have missed some things. http://www.docin.com/p-125445669.html http://www.its.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/seismic.html

I will point out that QPs and similar methods are poorly suited when opener has a small singleton you often be unable to make sense of what values may or may not be wasted in his suit. For this reason many relay players also include the option to ask Roman Keycard Blackwood. In my methods, 1♣...3♦ GF 3325 shape by responder 3♠-3N 1430 RKC; 1/4 (3♥ would have asked for QPs) 4♦-4♥ spade ask; A or KQ (4♣ would have been trump Q ask) 4N-5♠ diamond ask; K or AQ (4♠ would have been ask in hearts, not needed. A 5♣ reply would have been no diamond honors) 6♣

How'd you guess? I developed my finer NT range resolution and conventions when I bid 1N on a bust and partner raised it with his balanced 15 (our NT rebid by opener is 13-15). That didn't end well.

I agree its important to have the balanced hand in 1♦ able to pass after 1♦-1N to avoid getting too high by inviting opposite non-accepting responders. This presents a problem if you play a weak NT where 1♦ includes 13-15 balanced. My solution to this was to play that 1♦ 9-15 2+, could be 13-15 balanced 1N 6-10 no 4M (in principle 0-10). Opener bids on only with an unbalanced hand 2♣ 11+ natural, no 4M unless GF, could be 11-12 balanced (after 2♦ showing a bare and unbalanced min, responder can pass) 2♦ 11+ inverted and natural, no 4M 2N 13-14 balanced no 4M

A couple of quick questions - 1. Are your 1 level openings forcing, since you include 23-24pt balance hands? 2. What do you open 4441's? 3. Your 2C opening as 5440 seems super rare. I'd be inclined to use that for something else that could otherwise improve your system.

Interesting use of Smolen with 5-3 majors.

This part of your defense is commonly known as "suction".

1♦ with 4 is fine, it doesn't need to be 5. If you don't want to open 4414 as balanced/clubs, you can always just pass since we're talking about the min opening hands anyway.

I play 2♦ inverted with no major, and two-way NMF after 1N rebid. so my auction would be 1♦-1♥ 2+; natural 4+ 1N-2♦ min balanced; artificial GF ... And bid 3♦ over whatever opoener's natural rebid is.

I think scores with spoilers would be good, interesting despite the obvious caveats. I believe straube's deal selection algo removes any with 2nd hand interference, which is more common than the 4th hand actions we saw.