olien

So, I'm playing a weak NT with 1N-2♦ as a GF relay. I'm wondering, what is the most effective use for other responses? Should 1N-2N be artificial for some hand type? Or what is recommended? Should 1N-2♣ be a puppet to 2♦? Thanks

Hi all, I recently just started playing the moscito 1♣ structure based on Marston's 2005 booklet (which can be found at www.bridgewithdan.com/systems) and have a couple questions which don't seem to be answered in the pamphlet. 1) After 1♣-1♥// 1♠, what does responder do with a single suited hand with ♦? 2) Should the bids be re-arranged at all to avoid wrong-siding? for example, responder bidding 1NT to show a balanced hand seems like it wouldn't be good, what are people's experiences with this? 3) What are the continuations after 1♣-3♣? Also, for non 1♣ openings, what is recommended for other openings; especially 2m? (1♦/♥ openings showing ♥/♠ respectively is not allowed) Thanks

Why not 5♣ double exclusion RKC? xD

Hmm, well, 3C=5+H and 3D=5+S...Opener can still be balanced...Can then play 3M as showing weakness either in that major or the other major and looking for the best game. OMG...Opener doesn't have to be unbalanced to want to break the relay. This means that my breaks are completely useless. Can even combine bids: 3C=whatever you want 3D=a 5-card major (now 3H=3S, 3S=3H, 3N=3/3 majors) 3M=weakness other major But, what do I know...I've never, ever played bridge before, and don't know what I'm talking about because I apparently have a learning disability. Like I said: "I put minimal effort into responding" I was in class at the time (yes, believe it or not I do go to a university), and had to pay attention to the professor and take notes from what I was learning while I was posting...I didn't have time to read closely, and between the lines. I just read the general problem and replied. So hrothgar, I will quote a good friend of mine and tell you to bite me.

Hrothgar, I don't know what Straube's structure over 1C is. But you are assuming that he is playing 1C-1D as an artificial GF, which not everybody does *gasp* If he's not playing this, then maybe there's a reason for him wanting to re-order the way information is given from shape->strength, but from shape->strength->shape.

Well, at the risk of not receiving hrothgar's approval, I have a few things to say about my structure regarding relay breaks. after 2D (balanced)-2H: 2S minimum ......2N relays (then aforementioned structure) ......3C 5+H (now 3D=no fit, 3H=fit...doesn't matter who declares since both M's bid) ......3D 5+S (now 3H=no fit, 3S=fit) ......3M can either play as shortness 5/4+ minors, or showing weakness (you choose one or the other) Also, if playing high->low shortness showing, my structure provides few problems. After 3D showing 5D(332), 3H relays, now 3S=2353, 3N=3253, 4C=3352, and you don't zoom past 4C so opener can sign off in 4M. It also works after 3C showing 3334 or (332)5, 3D relays then 3H=3334, 3S=2335, 3N=3235, 4C=3325. Another thing to be said is if opener has a single suited M hand, and bids 3C/D showing H/S respectively, and responder denies a fit, can now bid 3M to set M for cue-bidding. This may not be the easiest structure to remember, but doesn't seem too difficult. And anybody that's playing a relay structure shouldn't be worried about putting in a little effort. I love how hrothgar asks me to make a structure that a human can remember but then alludes to how much he likes ultimate club. And no, my structure is not a random mish-mash. Straube asked about a specific auction, and I made a suggestion. All of the responses are showing range (I just said minimum, medium, maximum because each partnership has it's own definitions). Also, 3C and higher are zooming, and the reason for making the order minimum-maximum-medium is so that responder doesn't zoom past 3N at any point UNLESS he is maximum or has given a good definition of his hand (in terms of shape/strength) and opener wants to know more.

I do have real experience playing relay systems. I've been playing them for 3-4 years now. That being said, I was just trying to help straube come up with a solution for what he is seeking. That doesn't mean I think it's good or bad, and I put in minimal effort to reply. BTW, why not make any suggestions of your own instead of question or criticizing other people's ideas? Also, have you ever tried playing a structure like this, where range comes before shape? Or are you just running your mouth at other ideas that you haven't even tried yet?

Another possible solution, instead of showing major suit shape after denying a 4+ card major is to just show strength before even disclosing any distribution. An idea might be after 2D denying a 4-card major: 2H strength ask .......2S minimum .......2N medium .......3C+ maximum, and showing distribution Now 2S, and 3C+ are symmetrical. Can divide into 3 ranges based on QPs. Maybe 5-6, 7-8, and 9+. Obviously, when responder is minimum, can't show FULL distribution below 3N, and it may behoove you to reverse 2NT and 3C+ immediately, and play 2N showing maximum as forcing to 4NT so 3NT can become a relay. So, here's a possible structure: 2S minimum .......2NT relay .............3C 3334 or 5C(332) (3D relays then: 3H=3334, 3S+=5C-332) .............3D 5D (3H relays for distribution) .............3H 3343 .............3S 2344 .............3N 3244 2N maximum .......3C relay ..............3D 3334 or 5C(332) (3H relays then 3S=3334, 3N+=5C(332)) ..............3H 5D(332) ..............3S 3343 ..............3N 2344 ..............4C+ 3244 3C+ medium, and same steps as after 2S-2NT This may require relay breaks to find a 5-3 major suit fit, but should work OK. To re-iterate, I just came up with this idea off of the top of my head. Also, if responder has not bid NT already (I'm not familiar with your initial response structure), this avoids wrong-siding the NT when responder is minimum. It may also be worthwhile to re-arrange the responses after 2N-3C, but I think keeping it in the same order may save a lot on memory strain

Also, regarding QPs. We do use those. A positive response requires 5 QPs, and a 1C opening requires 10 QPs (but may be less with a very strong playing hand) And yes, the top range strength is allowed to zoom. We don't just guess...we're not total amateurs :P

I'm flexible with whatever. At the moment, I'm playing a structure which divides all hands into strength immediately, and I'm beginning to dislike it very much. What does everybody think is the best structure? Complexity is not really an issue, but having something symmetric would be nice. I am familiar with TOSR, and most symmetric structures. I am not familiar with MOSCITO, but would like to know more if people think it's worthwhile. The part I am least familiar with are the continuations after the semi-positive responses. The reason for 1S showing 5+H is for the following reason: 1C-1H// 1S-2C+=hands with 5+S 1C-1S// 1N-2C+=hands with 5+H This way it is as symmetric as possible But it's not really that important. However, I would prefer a structure where I can usually show my primary suit first, in case the auction becomes competitive. That's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of TOSR, but if the experience of most people is it's not that important to show primary suits first, then I'm game.

Sorry, I didn't clarify very well. 1H=4+S, but may only have a longer minor (not 4S-5+H) 1S=5+H etc... Our balanced hands include 5S-(332) and 5m(332), and all 4432s and 4333s. It looks like we're going to go with: 1H 4+S 1S 5+H 1N 5+C 2C balanced hand, <4S 2D 6+D 2H 5+D 4+H 2S 1444, 04(54), 44(50) 2N+ 5+D 4C We will probably reorganize the responses to have fewer problems with wrong-siding. Rob F, I would like to see this structure of your that you're talking about if you don't mind sharing.

Weird, I e-mailed the ACBL just last week about system legality type stuff, and I will quote a portion of the e-mail: "Conventional responses to your 1C must be game forcing" I will check up on it, thanks for the heads up Glen.

As a note, in ACBLand, any non-1D response to 1C which is artificial MUST be game-forcing. So, I guess whatever you have just wouldn't be allowed :) But, I would still like to know your experiences with siding issues with the balanced responding hand bidding 1NT. Thanks

We could re-arrange our responses to use your suggested structure: 1H=5+S or any balanced hand 2C=4S unbalanced rest=same after 1C-1H// 1S-1N=balanced, and 2C relays and puts us on track with the suggested structure. Have you had problems with wrong-siding contracts with responder "stealing" the NT contract, and declaring more hands with known distribution? As an aside, the 1D response as almost any GF, does this work well for you? Do the opponents not interfere in a way that's bad for you? How does this initial response structure look when typed up? Thanks

After 1C-1H// 1S (relay): 1NT=4S unbalanced or 12+ balanced 2C+=5+S, resolving shape After the 1NT bid, 2C relays and then: 2D=12+ balanced 2H=4S 5+C 2S=4(441) or 40(54) 2N+=4S 5+D Now you don't have room to resolve everything as you suggested. We need to cover 25 hands types (9 5332s, 12 4432s, and 4 4333s), and there is only room for 21 hand types after the 2D bid showing 12+ balanced.

Hrothgar, our response structure doesn't allow for this. Our response structure is: 1D=negative 1H=4+S or 12+ balanced (if only 4S, then 3-suited or longer minor) 1S=5+H 1N=5+C (could be 5-5 minors) 2C=8-11 balanced (or 8+ if 33(43) or 4S-4D) 2D=6+D 2H=4+H 5+D 2S=1444, 04(54), 44(50) 2N+=5+D 4C

I'm trying to figure out the best structure possible to show balanced hands after a strong 1C opening. Our balanced hands include: 5♠(332), 5m(332), any 4333, and any 4432. We want to have our strength divided into 3 ranges in as many situations as possible, but having only 2 ranges, when necessary, is OK. Our balanced hands effectively go through 1C-2C and 1C-2D (with some bids in-between in the latter auction which are not relevant). We are also trying to make the structure as symmetric as possible. The structure we have now is: 1C-2C shows balanced 8-11 (but could be more with 33(43) or 4S-4D). After the 2D relay, 2H=33(43) or 4S-4D any strength, and 2S+ are like 1C-2D// 2H. That structure is: 2S 5m(332) or 4-4 minors (now 3C=5C, 3D=4/4 minors, 3H+=5D zoom->doubleton) 2N 5S(332) or 4-4 majors (now 3D=4/4 majors, 3H+=5S zoom->doubleton) 3C 4H-4C or 3433 (now 3H=2434, 3S=3424, 3N=3433) 3D 4H-4D 3H 4234 3S 4324 3N 4333 Right now, we have 2 ranges: 8-11 and 12+, but are trying to devise a more efficient structure where we can have narrower ranges (maybe 8-10, 11-13, 14+ or similar). Or where we can keep the same two ranges, but maybe have like a 3S size ask bid available at the close of more auctions. All suggestions would be welcome. Thank You

Another Possibility is to play: 2NT game force 5+H 4+m or single suited ........now 3C asks ..............3D 5+H 4D, 3H=6+H, 3S=3(2)S 5+H 4C, 3NT=<3S 5+H 4C 3m 4H 5+m GF 3H Nat INV INV canape hands can make use of the possible transfer re-bids by opener.

one option is to play transfer re-bids after 1♠ Then: 3m can be 4H 5+m GF and go via transfer and then bid 3H to show 5/5 GF Just a thought

We play that as an invite ♣ raise. The other responses to 1♣ are: 2♣ GF raise 2♦ as mentioned 2♥ 5♠ 4/5♥ 4-9ish pts 2♠ mixed raise 2NT natural INV 3♣ weak

With 4M 4♦, we respond 1M. 1♦ only has 4M if 4M 5+♦ GF. I was thinking something along these lines: 1♣-1♦; 1NT: 2m natural NF 2♥ 4M 5+♦ GF ...........2♠ relay ......................2NT 4♥ (then 3♣ relays w/o ♥ fit, and 3♦ relays with) ......................3♣ 4♠ 5♦ (then 3♦/♥ relay w/o and w/ fit for M) ......................3♦ 4♠ 6+♦ (then 3♥/♠ relay w/o and w/ fit for M) 2♠ 4+♦ 4+♣ GF ...........2N relay ..................3♣ 5+♦ 4+♣ GF (then 3♦ relay for short, 3M=values) ..................3♦ 6+♦ no M short (3♥ relay) ..................3M shortness, 6+♦, slam interest 2N Natural INV 3m Natural INV 3M shortness, 6+♦, game only so after 2♥-2♠: 2N 4♥ 5+♦ .......3♣ relay without ♥ fit ..................3♦ 4♥ 6+♦ (then 3♥ relays for short) ..................3M 4♥ 5♦ showing short ..................3N no short (or stiff H, and just looking for ♥ fit) ..................4♣ 2452, slam interest .......3♦ relay with ♥ fit (then same steps, just up one, and resp can bid 4M to play) 3♣ 4♠ 5♦ .........3♦ relay without ♠ fit ..................3M showing shortness ..................3N no short (or stiff H and just looking for ♠ fit) ..................4♣ 4252, slam interest .........3♥ relay with ♠ fit (then same steps, just up one, and resp can bid 4M to play) 3♦ 4♠ 6+♦ ..........3♥ relay for short without ♠ fit (4♣=high short, slam interest) ..........3♠ relay with ♠ fit (then same steps, 4♠=to play) and after 2♠-2N: 3♣ 4+♣ 5+♦ ..........3♦ relay for short (then 3M=short, 3N=2254 mild SI, 4♣=2254 str SI) 3♦ 6+♦ no short M ..........3♥ relay ...................3♠ ♣ short ...................3N no short, mild SI ...................4♣ no short, strong SI I dunno if this has much merit, but input would be welcome. Thanks

So, I was doing system stuff on this auction, and it seems inefficient to use 2M here as natural and GF. So I was wondering what people would recommend. What I have at the moment is something like so: 2m natural NF 2H similar to stayman, but not sure about which continuations are best 2S size ask .......2N...minimum .............3m invitational .............3M shortness with both minors .......3C...maximum ............3D natural invitational ............3M shortness with both minors 2N dunno what this should be?? maybe completing some of the 2H hands which will be used for responder to pattern out. 3m natural GF 3M shortness with long diamonds Some input would be welcome. Thanks

[edit]

I don't know why more people don't, but meckstroth-rodwell do. I also with with my partners in a scheme as follows over 1♦-(2♣): 2♦=5+♥ constructive+ values 2♥=5+♠ constructive+ values 2♠=INV+ ♦ raise 2N=natural INV 3♣=5/5+ majors GF 3♦=natural <INV 3M=6+M, good suit, GF Continuations are pretty common-sense.

Well, it's the only thing I could think of. As for my own opinion, since 1♠ shows ♠, I don't think that you should treat it any differently than a natural 1♠ bid.