foobar

Not to belabor the point, but I am hard pressed to think of a single hand in the several hundred relay auctions that I have had over the years, where playing H/M/L felt like a distinct advantage. Perhaps, that underscores its superiority by implication :D.

Isn't this random, in that the issue could have very easily been the other way around? For example, assuming a zoom with ♠ trump and 6♠430 with H/M/L: 4♣ (high ♥ shortness) -> Allows easy sign off in 4♠ 4♥ (low ♣ shortness) -> Can't sign off in 4♠ If 1 and 2 are flipped, then L/M/H would have worked better/worse.

IMO, the H/M/L is just arbitrary, and I have seen a couple of systems that use L/M/H. It likely just comes down to what the partnership can remember.

I don't recall the specifics right now, but my recollection from reading it a year+ ago is that it was ~symmetric relay with the short-legged, long legged, single suited with H/M/L shortness. Was there a particular tweak that helped with the mnemonic ease vis-a-vis other symmetric schemes?

3♦ -- bid where you live. Trying to land in 2♠ on a dime is asking for the inevitable 2N / 3♣.

Look no further than the excellent DDS: https://www.bridgecaptain.com/downloadDD.html. It works on Windows (and on Linux with WINE).

Think it's time to wake up and smell the 6+♣ coffee :D. Berkowitz-Cohen are doing great in the USBF finals, and am almost sure that they too have moved on, but you can trying going through the vugraph archives.

Sounds like balanced 11-12 hands without a good 4CM pass in that case?

Off the top of my head, I would suggest Simon de Wijs and Bauke Muller (Tarzan Club), and others might have more examples of world class pairs that play symmetric. Perhaps, you can start a separate thread on symmetric relays on this forum. Regarding the success and failure of KK-relay, BW has a few threads on the topic, and based on what I have seen, Kit is very willing to engage in related discussions, so you can try asking about this specific auction. I am *really* skeptical that "maybe 11-13 balanced with a 4CM (and maybe unbalanced with a longer suit)" is a desirable feature of an 1M opening in competition.

IMO, this is a premature conclusion. Like anything else symmetric relay is a tool, and it can be used for better or worse. Gratuitous use of relays will undoubtedly result in poor outcomes, and sometimes, a judicious exploration for a slam will result in game being wrong sided. Are you sure that canape passes this criteria in spades? I would rather that the opening makes the canape nature of the hand evident upfront, rather than open "may have longer suit", and hope to survive competition.

OK -- the recommendation to dump the 5+♣+4CM hands and go with just 6+♣ (and maybe side suit) still hands.

So, it seems that your 2♣ opening can be: 1) 5+♣ and a 4CM 2) 6+ ♣ (but no 4CM) If so, I would recommend going with just 6+♣ (and says nothing about side suits). This is much more amenable to relays.

+1 -- if you change the requirement to 6+C for the opening, IMPrecision has a pretty elegant ~symmetric structure over it.

2♥ -- the 6-1 will play almost certainly play better than a 4-3 if partner passes 2♦, and the rebid might coax a raise.

+1...the only adjustment is that a X a PH shows something like a Woolsey X (longer minor and a major). It's an effective check on ensuring that the lower bound of their NT range range doesn't drift southwards too often.

Opening 1♦ seems right for the reasons that @DavidKok mentioned. While it's possible that partner might pass the opening, the opponents will often save the day, and on this hand, the auction might go: 1♦ - (1♠) - P - (2♠)- X, etc.

As straube noted, it's difficult to improve upon the IMPrecision structure without a significant downside elsewhere. Tweaks like factoring out the hands with ♥+♠ just shuffle the order, so it's a matter of preference, but anything else represents a structure that's sub-optimal when compared to the original.

Have you taken a peek at awm's IMPrecision? Off the top of my head, the response structure is as follows, and the premise is that there's no immediate GF (except possibly some outliers). ...1♦: Super weak, or really strong (7+ QPs), or GF balanced hands that wish to retain control ...1♥: 4+ spades, 2-6 QPs ...1♠: Balanced without 4♠, or other hand types, 2-6 QPs ...1N: 5+♥ single-suited, OR (5+♥+4♣) OR (5+♥+4+♦), 2-6 QPs ...2C: ♣ or minors, reversed, 2-6 QPs ...2♦: 5+♣ + 4+♥, 2-6 QPs ...2♥+: Others The Moscito responses with 1♦ GF and SP-responses are another option, but personally I never really cared about it (especially the 1♠ DN, but YMMV).

Seems like a 2-level fert for all intents and purposes. On this occasion it worked because South failed to bid the obvious 3♣ to set up the GF, after which they should be able to locate some red suited slam.

My sincere advice would be to give up on forcing pass systems (unless this is an academic exercise). Note that this is a comment on their potential effectiveness, but the fact is that they are heavily regulated in most regions, and you are unlikely to find an event where you can play such systems (even if you find a willing partner). Perhaps, your intent is to play mostly online with like-minded opponents that don't mind playing against such systems, or you happen to be lucky enough to reside in a place where playing FP is a distinct possibility.

FWIW, the goal of systems like Moscito is "quick in, quick out", i.e., the emphasis with the transfer openings is get our 7(8) card major fit ASAP. Occasionally, you'll have the leisurely relay auction, but it's like 15% or less of all such openings based on memory.

What's the problem here? Seems like E/W reached the right game. East can pass over 2♦, and it should be forcing. Over the reopening X, East can bid 3♦ to show a flexible hand, and then raise 3♥ to 4.

Wasn't West 5=0=4=4 in the original problem? [hv=pc=n&w=sjt632hda953cqj82&e=shdc]266|100[/hv]

Seems like a straightforward 2♦ to me. There's little to lose at this vul. given that they are already in a GF, and a good day, pard can raise ♦s. At any rate, as @mycroft noted, it knocks them out of relays, and they haven't named any suits yet.

Seems like West can easily pre-balance with 2♠ with the void, having passed earlier. N/S will probably compete to 3♥.