Valardent

I've been using it for years. The way I constructed it; opener's hands are divided in 3 ranges, 11-13(min) - 14-16 - 17-22(max) Opener's rebids are : 2C : all 14-16 (+balanced 12-14 ctrl max hand) 2D : min/max with 4+D or min 6+C 2H : min/max with 4+S 2S : min/max with 4+H 2NT : balanced 12-14 NT 3C : max 6+C

In the system I play, it goes very smoothly : P P 1♠ P P 2♣* P 3♦** *(5/6♦ 9-11 hcp) **fit GF P 4♦ P 6♦

I can't have access to your misery draft Ben. Web page with bbo error message keeps appearing (tried IE and Google Chrome) Any patch or other link you could think of?

I would think a 4432 hand (4441/4423 remotely possible) with weakish ♥ and/or good ♠, suggesting 4♠ in the moysian fit as an alternative. It shouldn't be difficult to construct 2 hands 3154/44xx where 4♠ is the only makable game.

Different treatments exist. Pbbly the original one was dbl and dbl penalty. Another important thing to discuss is wheter the dbl is forcing on a preference bid from advancer (n°4) followed by 2 pass. My own preference is to pass if I can penalize both suits of intervenor (n°2) and then dbl, a direct dbl not being autoforcing. If I hv no fit for opener and can penalize only 1 of the suit showed by n°2, I start with dbl. If opener dbls n°4's bid, it's take out meaning he's ok to play this if n°3 has the penalty stuff. If opener pass, it shows: 1) a hand too weak and/or too short to wish to play that contract dbled 2) a hand that wants to penalize the suit bid by n°4 (waiting for a reopening dbl) So that on a pass by opener, dbl by responder is also take out showing 2-3 cards and more than a minimum 8-9 hcp (With 5+ cards and 8-9+ hcp in the 4th suit, one should tend to bid it in a f or nf way unless, like in this thread, the quality is way below par) Not perfect of course cos opps can escape a penalty on a misfit when n°1 & n°3 are relatively both minimum and bcs a strong opener (1 or 2 suited) not wanting to risk playing n°4's bid dbled is obliged to bid to prevent the auction from dying. If n°2 shows only 1 suit + another unknown, this treatment doesn't work or should be amended.

Hi Zel, I don't understand what u mean with : "A new higher-ranking suit is now a non-forcing queen ask; partner passes without the queen of the suit bid or bids the next suit without a queen" especially the part "..or bids the next suit without a queen" Could u give an example with a complete bidding sequence? Also, if 4NT serves as a Q ask purpose, how do u sign off in NT? Last but not least, I was never properly explained what a reverse relay is. Could you explain it or post a link refering it to? Tx

Heeman uses 2♣ as a puppet to 2♦ (then 2♥-2♠ for 5♠) followed by 2NT/3m showing an invitationnal hand 5M332 possibly 5M4m22/5M5m. The 5M4m31 is the problem hand. Situation is similar after the direct M transfer where the 4M5m31 is the problem (possible misfit at the 3 level). As the 5M-5m and the 4M-6m invit. handtypes have a low frequency, I prefer to keep those bids for GF (shapely-)hands and put all the invitationnal hands in 2NT after a direct M transfer. I'm convinced this treatment is overall better. Of course the 2NT 'invite' is quite crowded but I think the scheme above is quite superior the the former one except for the last part where ...2NT 3♦ 3♥ needs to be 2-way so that responder can show a hand without shortness. So the focus (if any) should be on that scheme as I'm really not interested in changing the structure around.

Tx for showing some interest Zel. If winning a step was on option I would have tried it, but it's defenitely not. So based on shortness description method, this is what I brainstormed so far based on a ♥transfer start: (Responder denies 4 in ♠) 1 NT (-) 2 ♦(-) 2 ♥ (-) 2 NT (-) ?? passe minimum 3 ♣ maximum, fit ♥3e or bad fit ♥ 4e flat ; GF 3 ♦ maximum, misfit ♥ or fit ♥ 3e flat ; GF 3 ♥ minimum, bad fit ♥4e 3 ♠ maximum, xx ♠, decent fit ♥3e ; GF 3 NT to play 4 ♥ maximum, very bad fit ♥4e 1 NT (-) 2 ♦ (-) 2 ♥ (-) 2 NT (-) 3 ♣ (-) ?? 3 ♦ 4 ♥, x♠; then 3 ♥ relay : 3 ♠ 4 ♥-5+♣ 3 NT 4 ♥-5+♦ 4 m 1444, best m .......................or 3 ♠ relay : 3 NT 4 ♥-4/5 m ........................................... 4 m 4 ♥-6 m 3 ♥ 4/5♥ no shortness, if 5♥ 5332 ; then 3 ♠ relay :3 NT 4 ♥ ...................... 4 ♥5♥ 5332 3 ♠ 4 ♥, x♣; type 3451 3 NT 4 ♥, x♦; type 3415 4 m 6m-5♥ 4 ♥ 5 ♥ not 5332 1 NT (-) 2 ♦ (-) 2 ♥ (-) 2 NT (-) 3 ♦ (-) ?? 3 ♥ 4/5 ♥, x♣; type 3(5)(4)1 3 ♠ 4/5 ♥, x♦; type 3(5)1(4) 3 NT 4/5 ♥, x♠; type 15(4)(3), 1444, 14(5)(3), 14(6)(2) 4 m 6m-5♥ Laying this out on the bbf editor is a nightmare, hope it's readable. Any remark wlc.

Hello, We play a modified Heeman set of responses on a 1NT 15-17 opening. For all invitationnal hands with 4 or 5 M, we go trough a 2♦/♥ transfer and rebid 2NT. (In the actual version of Heeman, an unbalanced invitationnal hand 5M-4m or 4M-5m rebids 3m at a certain point which I think is not optimal as you might end on a misfit at the 3 level with both hands being minimal) If opener is minimum, he passes except with 4M when he couldn't break the transfer (true that if responder is 4-6/5-5 it's ppbly better to play in the minor suit, but in my experience the misfit is more frequent than the minor sidefit making 3m superior to 2NT) If opener is max, he responses following this set which I think can be optimalised : 3♣: 2cardsM or flat hand with 3M; then: 3♦ shows 5M-4+m (3♥asks), 3♥/♠ is 4M-5+m, 3NT bal 4/5M 3♦: 3cardsM or 4M333 NT orientated; then: 3♥/♠ is 4M-5+m, 3NT bal 4M, 4x 5M 3M: 4(bad)cardsM mini 3OM: undefined 3NT: to play The main problem is when you unveil a decent/great minor fit but you have run out of space to investigate wheather 3NT or 5m(6m) is best. For example, if opener has xxx and KQ10 in the remaining suits, he might face a singleton towards xxx which makes 5m great or towards KQ10 when 3NT is surely better. Instead of responder showing the side minor, one could work with showing the short suit if any. Might this be better?

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hat52d82caq6432&n=sak8752hkdak76cj9]133|200|IMPS <br>6clubs by south, lead x diamond[/hv] What line would you play for? I think, 2 lines are sensibly better than others : 1) A♠, ♠ruff, ♣ to the J 2) club finesse (♣9 to the Q)

Tx to all for the answers and non-answers. Unfortunately, they aren't of great help and some are quite "off" the topic I was asking for, which let's me thinks this is partly due to the complexity of the problem.

Those are the hands : [hv=pc=n&w=sakj73hkq83dt4ca7&e=sth9754dakq83ckq2&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1sp2cp3np]266|200|Matchpoints[/hv] 1♠ is 11-22 hcp 5+♠, 2♣ a GF relay .... 3NT : 5422 10+ slam points (123 points) At this stage(4♣ is SP ask, 4♦ terminator, 4♥, 4♠, 4NT are optionnal BW in respectively ♠, ♥ and ♣), if one decides to forget about a grand slam and focuses on ♥ quality, I can see 2 or 3 ways to put that matter in the spotlight : As 4♦ followed by pass on 4♥ would be SO, one could bid on 3NT : a) 5♥ b) 4♦ followed by 5♥ c) 4♣ (if response is 4 red) followed by 5♥ What message/ask would u assess to each sequence? (a gradation of ♥ quality only, or a mix of ♥ qual. and min/max hand, any other?)

That would be quite interesting. Best would be to have a series of specific themes on problems encountered by scanning methods. Members would post "problem hands" which would then be sorted out so to have 5 to 10 hands for each theme. Each method would then get a rating for each theme i.e. : 5 out of 7 hands resolved gets a 71% rate and so on... Of course, it would be difficult to assess that a method is overall superior to another when the average of all the ratings are close (bcs some themes-hands will be less frequent than others), but il will certainly give some unbiased information comparing methods. The aim of all of this is to get a good tool (a preset of hands in fact) to test and rate a scan method and have several other references to compare with. So why not make a list of the so called "themes" ? Posted hands should be as "pure" as possible so to not overlap several themes (I don't know if that's possible) Some themes propositions : 1) The one benlessard just described in his post about hands with one singleton Ace or King. This theme could be divided into 2 parts; one with Ace singleton, the other with Kingleton. 2) Hands were the relayer is compelled to relay with a void 3) One suited-hands where the solidity of the suit makes all the difference (KQ5432 opposed to KQJ109x) 4) Balanced hands (limited to 4333's and 4432's) facing each-other Any other participating posters would agree about...

6♣ is better than 6♥/6NT : - On a non♦ lead, it's the same contract (except for 5-1♣). - On a ♦lead, 2 ruffs in dummy are manageable. More chances to get there if the other hand is relaying, i.e : 1NT (15/17) 2♠ size ask 3♣max 3♦ AK ask 4♥ 7ctrl, no 4m 4♠® 5♣ 4423 6♣ (A♣ highly probable)

Just out of curiosity Zel, what do u gain by playing this way instead of playing (for example If the last relay response was 3♠ or 3NT) : 4♦ = marionette to 4♥, then pass,4♠/(NT)/5♣/5♦ sign off 4♥/4♠/NT/5♣ as RKCB for ♣/♦/♥/♠ On a space consuming base, it's the same, no?