foobar

Here are the complete hands. In retrospect, it's an interesting companion piece to the 1♥ - 4♥ thread.

IMO, a hand that couldn't bid in first seat, but comes in later with 3♣ must have some support for ♥s. With that in mind, 5♣ seems about right.

The X for takeout is usually fairly balanced and the hands that pull following the pass are more shapely. Responder will usually X unless holding a shapely hand that's unsuitable.

1. ♠AQT73♥43♦K7♣KQJ2, amber. L...............4♠ 2. ♠KQT75♥54♦AKT2♣K5, white..................4♠ 3. ♠AQJ943♥4♦973♣T94, amber..................Pass 4. ♠KT652♥-♦AK642♣A94, amber.................X 5. ♠Q76♥Q63♦AK84♣AK4, red....................Pass 6. ♠A875♥6♦AKJ74♣K94, white..................X 7. ♠653♥QJ3♦AKJT976♣-, white.................5♦ 8. ♠AK74♥AT♦JT5♣AK84, amber. L...............X 9. ♠AK953♥K8♦82♣AKT8, red....................4♠ 10. ♠AKJ973♥2♦T742♣J4, red...................P 11. ♠A53♥T♦AJT953♣A87, white.................5♦ or X 12. ♠K87432♥-♦A4♣T7643, white. L.............4♠ 13. ♠AK864♥Q72♦A72♣43, white. L..............P 14. ♠AQJ72♥Q♦T2♣86543, white.................4♠ 15. ♠KQ9874♥8♦J6♣AK75, amber. L..............4♠ 16. ♠KT9♥-♦Q9754♣AK764, white................X 17 ♠AQJ9542♥T3♦T98♣2, amber.................4♠ 18. ♠AJ943♥42♦AKJ6♣Q4, red...................P 19. ♠KQ74♥4♦63♣AKT976, green. L..............5♣ 20. ♠AK943♥K2♦JT9842♣-, red. L...............4♠ 21. ♠KT743♥J♦QT♣AQJ84, red...................P 22. ♠AK732♥Q♦75♣AKT98, red...................4♠ 23. ♠AT72♥2♦KQ6♣KQT63, red...................X

Seems interesting -- here are some suggestions: 1) Change the 2N range to 19-20 2) Change the 1N range (1st and 2nd) to 11+ - 14 3) Consider reducing upper limit on some of the limited openings (and potentially open lighter). My personal preference would be a 9-15 range Now, 1♣ is 15+ (16+ unbal) and you can use Kokish 2♥ to show the NT ranges over 1♣ - 1♦ (direct 2N is 21-23-; otherwise say 23-26 via the relay).

What do folks play in case of strong ♣ interference after a GF has been established? In one partnership, we play the following (expressed from opener's POV following RHO action; 1♣ = 16+ any and responder's bids shows 5+ in suit and GF unless noted): 1) If we haven't agreed on a suit, XX is to play (example: 1♣* - 2♠ (any 4441, GF) - (X) - XX) 2) A direct double is almost never purely for penalty and is generally takeout oriented. The general rule is that Pass requests a X, direct bid tends to show a single suited hand and pull after the X is either two places to play or support with slam interest. Specifically: If responder has shown a suit and they have bid past the cheapest level in that suit, X is an optional raise (1♣* - 1♥ - (4♠) - X) Raise following an initial pass is slam interest if they bid past the cheapest game level (direct raise is fit with no interest in defending: 1♣* - 1♥ - (4♠) - P - X - 5♥* (expressing slam interest)) If they are one below the cheapest game level for the suit, X=good raise of the suit (1♣* - 1♥ - (3♠) - X) For example, an interesting application of the above might be when opener holds 5-5 in the blacks and the bidding goes: 1♣ - 1♥ (5+ GF) - (3♦) Now, opener can pass and pull 3♦ to show the 5-5 black hand (contrast this with having to bid 3♠ with both with a single suited hand or the hand with the blacks). Naturally, vulnerability considerations may influence whether opener bids 3♠ anyway, but it's an option. Thoughts?

Editorial comments in the poll removed by popular demand. The additional options sounded good too, but IMO, it isn't fair to those who already voted.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj98642h7d6ck965&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1hp4h]133|200[/hv] IMPs, Vulnerable vs. not (naturally), LHO deals and the bidding goes 1♥ - 4♥. It's your call.

In context of the bidding agreements (specifically non-serious 3N), 3N seems to be the best hedge here. If pard passes, it should be playable contract and we can bid 4♥ if pard cue bids a minor.

OK -- based on your stated preferences (and previous structures), I had assumed that the 1♥ was 2+. There might be merits to that method, but it doesn't interest me. If this means trying out the unaltered IMP structure, I am all for it.

Do we have any agreements on the differences between 2♠ and 3♠ (given that both should be forcing opposite a pass)? Does the latter set the trump suit and demand a cue bid? If it demands a cue, I might try 4♥ assuming we are bidding both first and second round controls. If it's not a random BBO "expert", pard should be sensible enough to realize that it denies minor suit control and won't launch into orbit without using RKC, etc. when appropriate.

Mea culpa -- bad presumption on my part that it was an IMP adaptation. Bidding frameworks have both subjective and objective elements. My personal evaluation of the IMP ♦ structure probably stems from the fact that Adam's preferences in the former align more closely with mine. That said, let's start off my comparing some specific responses: 1♦ - 1♥ (showing 2+ vs. showing 4+): You seem to think that this is a very playable method, and while you may be right,it's very unpalatable to me. Also, there are some objective concerns that can be raised about the soundness of this method in competition. For example, consider an auction like 1♦ - 1♥ - (3♦) and give opener a balanced hand with say 2=4=3=2 and responder a GF hand with say 5-5 in rounded suits and a diamond stopper. If responder guesses to bids 3N, we have lost our 9 card heart fit. Granted, it's possible to invent all sort of agreements to alleviate the problem, but the point is that I would rather play the more natural method unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (showing 3+ vs. showing 4+): Once again, there are concerns about what happens in case of interference and frankly, in the absence of an actual frequency analysis, it's really difficult for me to accept a method that adds more complexity. Once again, this is a very relay centric world view. In the first place, we have a hand limited to 15 HCPs facing an invitational hand. Why is important to resolve complete shape instead of just bidding game or signing off? To me, trying to fit relays into every bidding sequence adds an enormous amount of complexity. Sure, it was good to get the clarification, but note that this was partly the reason for preferring the reverse Flannery responses over 1D. Yes, hands that respond 1N with a stiff spade may occasionally run into a problem, but in the absence of specific information about the frequency of such problems, I don't see any need to propose a solution that might result in a worse problem. No argument there; it fits my subjective criteria for parsimony and more importantly, it's battle worn. Personally, I would rather start off with a known quantity and tweak it based on actual results.

My assumption is that this is an adaptation of the original IMPrecision 1♦ structure (or at least inspired by it to a great extent). It's odd that a legitimate critique of the proposed methods should be considered as grandstanding. Surely, my efforts at that wouldn't be wasted on posting to obscure bridge forums :P?

This is a cinch for any (symmetric) relay auction starting with 1♣. A sample auction in TOSR might start with 1♣ - 1♠ (balanced or reds) - 1N (GF ask) - resolve shape - QP ask - DCB ask. A more interesting question might be what if South holds a red Jack and opens the bidding with say 1m (say 1C playing standard or 1♦ in a strong ♣ system).

I too am deeply skeptical about rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) (hate it would be a more appropriate characterization). To put things in perspective, imagine the following auction in the proposed structure: 1♦ (0+ ♦) - 1♥ (2+ ♥) - 1♠ (3+ ♠) - (3m) After three rounds of bidding we know 5-cards between the 2-hands and IMO, such situations are very vulnerable to preemptive bidding by the opponents. Granted, there are interferences available since the number of shapes are limited, but frankly, it's difficult to see the advantages of the proposed method. Is this hand really that big of a problem to warrant bidding showing only 3 1♠ with much more common hands? The 6-1♥ fit should have a play in 2♥. How common are the 5-5 hands? Also, how important is to determine opener's complete shape in a 10-15 HCP hand? My conjecture is that any reasonable structure can find minor suit slams when responder holds a balanced hand strong enough to drive to slam (without the need to resolve complete pattern). To surmise, it seems what we are really missing here is a step by step deconstruction of what OP thinks are the shortcomings in the (excellent) original structure. In the absence of clear articulation (and supporting evidence), we'll have to speculate why this should be deemed as an improvement.

Thanks for the responses. 6♠ was cold with opener's hand and the opponents had an improbable profitable sacrifice in 7♥ (down 2, losing 2 ♣s). [hv=pc=n&n=skjt754hqdq96cq72&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2s4h]133|200[/hv]

From your original post, it appeared that 2♣ / 2♥ / 2♠ were all single suited and natural (but apparently it isn't the case). The idea was to replace 2♣ (natural) with 2♦ (natural) and swap 2♦ (majors) with 2♣ (majors). In other words the suggested change is equivalent of Landy (2♣ for the majors), with the remaining bids natural.

Your existing methods should work just fine against both weak and strong NT. You may want to consider swapping the 2♣ / 2♦ bids (this allows responder to bid 2♦ to ask opener to name the longer major, etc.). BTW, this convention isn't labelled as Cappelletti (which is one of the worst NT defence methods IMO).

2♥ (first) and Pass (second) for me.

IMO, it's better to use 2♥ / 2♠ for the reverse Flannery hands with non-invite / invite strength. This avoids some of the downside of losing the ♠ fits. Also, any hand that can rebid the major after opener shows 5-5 in the minors must be invitational perforce. BTW, another point to emphasize here is that relays are a "nice to have", i.e., they are the means to an end and not an end onto themselves. Having several different relay schemes (one for each opening) is a huge memory load for most players, so much so that it might even degrade table performance. My guess is that the asymmetry between the 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ semantics is simply to accommodate relays (and adds unnecessary complexity).

[hv=pc=n&s=saq8hdkjt7532cak5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2s(weak%202)4h]133|200[/hv] Pard's weak 2s are generally sensible and should normally show 6 at this vul. What's your plan for this hand? How high will you bid if they compete?

+1 -- would also recommend transfers after an overcall and interceding X, i.e., after (1x) - 1y - (X), transfers starting with a XX through 2y-1. Alternatively, one could use the XX as Rosenkranz or something similar, but we preferred to use it as transfer. One often ignored use case is the use of transfer advances after overcalls over a preempt. For example, after (2♦) - 2♠, 3♦ can be invite+ with ♥ (and potentially secondary side fit) and 3♥ can be a good ♠ raise. Another obscure use case is using transfers over 1N - (3♣) starting with 3♦, with 3♠ as a transfer to 3N (3N natural and shows / denies stopper depending on your preferences)

(At the risk of derailing the topic): Many of the good strong ♣ systems (e.g.: IMPrecision, TOSR), already use 1N for something else. Even Meckwell-Lite doesn't respond 1N unless 12+ and most balanced hands go via the 1♥ (8-11 any).

In context of the system, the lack of aces, poor suit quality, and uninspiring shape convince me to pass.

My guess is 5♣, preparing to apologize if pard happens to hold the magical ♥KJx or A♠.