foobar

IMO, you are beating yourself up too much about this hand. In a standard system, it's easy to imagine a stop in 3♠ after 1♦ - (2♥) - X - (3♥) - X (or 3♠). East may choose to bid on, but opener might very easily hold Axxx A KQJxx xxx and bid the same way.

See the below: http://www.users.on.net/~mabraham/systems/TOSR/TOSR.html

Can't the 6♥ - 5♠ hand be handled with a X after 1♥ - (3♣) - P - (4♣)? It's hardly conceivable that responder will pass or anything more than 4♦, after which a correction to 4♥ would presumably show the hand. The X can handle the two-suited hand with ♠ and a minor as well, and it also preserves the penalty option. It seems that a treatment that uses a 4M rebid to show two suited hands in competition also requires all single suited major hands to be opened with 4M.

It depends on how the above sequences are defined. In general, jumps over 1C - 1D, tend be GF, with 2H reserved as a Kokish relay in some systems. Perhaps, the jump raise to game should be dead minimum since we are already in a GF, and 3M should be stronger. Over the 3C bid (denying a major in some systems), 3D can be a punt, and 3M is 5+ any (looking for best game). Also, a jump to 3M tends to set trump.

:D...my comment was loosely worded, and meant to say transfers over 1♦ - (X), starting with XX, i.e.: 1♦ - (X): XX: ♥ 1♥: ♠ 1♠: Transfer to NT 1N: ♣ 2♣: ♦

As straube suggested, search for awm's posts, or better still, look at the IMPrecision document. The treatment over 1D interference uses transfers starting with the X (when sensible), and it's consistent and easy to remember.

The 2m bid by opener is passable; however, as Adam noted, responder should advance with an appropriate hand. BTW, I would recommend the Meckwell continuations after 1C - 1D (1M 4+, F1, etc).

Over a third seat pass, or after 1♣ - (P) - 1♦- (bid), my preference is to pretend as if they opened the bidding. For example: 1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - 2♥ (Michael's; pretending as if they opened 1♥) 1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - X (takeout; pretending as if they opened 1♥)

Seems like there's no way to establish a cheap GF with a balanced hand and stopper in their suit, short of bidding 3N? Perhaps, it's better to give up on the 1N transfer to clubs?

SCAMP uses the 1N/2N as 5-7 in conjunction with transfers over 1M/2M. Perhaps, Nick can talk more about the experience with it, and specific follow-ups

Actually, they don't even the TOSR 1♠ multi-bids for balanced / reds etc. so, it's pretty much a transfer into ♠ / minors scheme, with 2♦+ for the balanced hands. enigmisto, Since you are starting anew, a strong +1 for QP based schemes for the reasons Adam outlined above. I can't speak for why Kit chose a control based scheme, but believe that a vast majority of symmetric players on this forum will vote for QP based schemes. Another possibility is that after shape resolution, relay can ask for QPs and relay+1 can ask for controls (à la SCAMP).

Couple of comments: 1) It might be just easier to type in the inferred holding, instead of tying oneself into knots over the various combinations, i.e., say divulging an inference about a Q is unlikely to matter 2) The KK-relay DCB isn't the only game in town. There are plenty of "Queen Points" based schemes that use A=3, K=2, Q=1 that might be better than just control based schemes. Naturally, there are tradeoffs involved, but choices include Adam's PCB (parity based cue) that scans suits only once. The SCAMP DCB scheme is very effective too (see pilun's posts).

I would have mailed you my copy, except that going to the post office is such a chore these days :ph34r:. Regarding the book itself, it's pretty much a vanilla symmetric relay response scheme over 1♣ for the most part, i.e., the rest of the system is left to the reader. It does talk about a 1M - 2♣ GFR that's a little too weird for my taste (resolves shape first), and ends up at symmetric+2. Per Kit, this is better for mnemonics; see BridgeWinnners discussion The DCB uses controls instead of QPs, and then scans Qs.

Frankly, in all these years of playing DCB, I can't recall any hand that caused too much consternation regarding disclosure :). That said, my recommendation is to post this specific hand and the question to bridgewinners (use their hand editor tool so that it's easy to see the bidding, etc.). Kit is very good at replying to questions related to KK-relay.

Seems like paraphrasing it as "A/K ♠, A/K ♣, A/K ♥ OR (Q♠ and no Q♣)" is a complete disclosure of the methods?

As mycroft noted, specific examples will help, but in general, the opponents are entitled to complete disclosure about the methods, and not specific inferences that the relay captain (RC) can draw based on information about combined holdings. For example, the RC might know that a stop showing either nothing in the suit, or AK actually means the latter, but while alerting, it should be explained as "Either AK or nothing in the suit". Note that this isn't very different from a RKC response that shows say 0/3; in most cases the asker will know the actual holding, but it's still alerted as 0/3.

I have sent you a DM so that we don't hijack this thread.

That's a very legitimate critique of the book. I can't speak for the authors' intent, but my guess is that they wanted to focus on introducing the reader to symmetric relay concepts, and other things took a backseat. That said, the book does describe a 2♣ GFR over a 1M opening, though the "shape first" approach means that it's symmetric+2 perforce, and not something that I would recommend. For alternatives, see the discussion thread here (scroll down for the final version): 1M-2C GFR. Note that using 1N as a GFR will achieve symmetric+0, but that comes with its own set of issues. Kit plays Precision 1♦ / 2♦ with a mini-NT (10-12) NV with 5CM AFAIK. There's no reason to stick with this template, and you can pair it with whatever you like. FWIW, my preference to use something like SCUM since it makes it possible to use the exact same relay over 1♣, 1♣ (reverse relay), 1M, 2m, etc. SCAMP is a 4-card major (maybe canape) system, and my recollection is that the 1♣ relay responses are designed to very similar to the 1♦ (♠, not ♥), 1♥ (♥, not ♠), and 1♠ (both majors) openings. You can find a description of the relays here:SCAMP

Think this works only when QPs are capped, right (read IMPrecision)? For example, 4N shows base+3, which won't work opposite an unlimited responder?

This is slightly confusing. In the first case, responder showed good majors with the stiff HQ, but in the second case, AJxx is deemed as "not good enough"?

+1 to everything that Adam wrote. Also, the X showing defensive values, especially with a stiff heart and a hand that looks very offensive, seems really misplaced.

None... having tried 10-12, 12-14, 13-15,etc over the years, I don't really care for the ripple effects on the 1C/1D/1M openings. It either forces opening 1C on 15+, or requires shoehorning the 13-15 hands into 1D. Also, even if you prefer 1M - 1N as NF, you may have to use hacks like 2C with balanced hands in the 14-15 range.

Out of curiosity, noticed that olien mentioned 1D - 2R as a transfer, but in the latest incarnation, 1D - 2M is natural. This exposes the 1D, but my guess is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference, right?

If I am not mistaken, the 1D opening is one of the biggest wins of the system, based on table results, right?

Out the curiosity, do you feel the same way about Sharko's document today? It will be interesting to know the parts that were tougher to understand.