DinDIP

Thanks Adam and Dave. Decided to do some testing. Have a couple of questions of detail and some of theory/practice. Big picture How does this structure -- especially the step three responses showing a bunch of strong invite hands -- fare when the opponents compete? I’m reminded of Jeff Rubens’ argument when he advocated Rubensohl that it was better to show shape and clarify strength later than group a number of hands with very different shapes but the same strength. Would it be better to play jump shifts as strong invites and bunch all the weak jump shifts? Or play a structure like Dave was experimenting with previously over 1♠ and extend it to 1♥ so: step one = usually at best a weak invite; could have strong invite if not one-suited (show by rebidding the other major) step two = relay, either GF or strong invite with the other major step three = the other major, either 6+ any strength below strong invite or 5+ weak invite (One option would be to play two-below transfers to cater for weak and strong invites. For example, after 1♥ 2♠ = clubs, weak invite or strong invite 2N = diamonds, weak invite or strong invite 3♣ = mixed raise Over 1♠, there isn't the same room but you could play 2N = diamonds, weak invite or strong invite 3♣ = strong invite 3♦ = mixed raise) Detail 1. 1♥-1♠-1N-2♣-2♦-? Does responder have any way to enquire about opener’s strength and/or shape? I’m guessing that 2N = a weak invite with exactly 4S. Do 3m = 4S and 6m, weak invite? Or are the latter so rare that you use 3m as some sort of trial bid with 5+S (which, on first glance, looks to have MUCH greater frequency but leaves responder stuck when he is 46)? Is the same true if opener rebids 2♥, showing 3S and 6H? Or are 3m ambiguous as to which major responder 2. I assume that if the opponents interfere in a relay auction you treat the auction as GF unless relayer can break to two of the other major. Or do you have some other rule?

Thanks for sharing the fruits of your and Sam’s thinking and testing, Adam. A few questions: What does a 2♠ response to 1♥ show now? Is it a natural weak invite, with stronger invites going via 1NT? This would mean that 1♥-1♠-any-2♠ is always less than invitational. I presume the rationale for including min GF hands with 3+M in the “good invite” bid is to minimise information leakage. Does this mean that responder rebids 3M with these hands where possible (e.g. 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥) so that opener can sign off or show some feature (voids?) when slam is possible? Do you have any special agreement to show such hands when opener shows a shapely max (by rebidding 2♠ or higher)? Can responder distinguish between three- and four-card support? I understand your decision to treat 1♥-1N-2♣-2♠ as showing 6S because responder can rebid 2♥ when he is 5-2-x-y. The only time you reach 2N when you’d prefer to play 2♠ is when responder is 5-1-x-y and opener is 2-5-3-3 or 2-5-2-4. (I’m presuming opener will rebid 3♣ when 55 if responder bids 2N.) Was the decision to treat 1♥-1N-2♦-2♠ the same way to maintain consistency or because it was too hard to unravel things if responder could have 5 or 6 spades?

Trump cues were popular in Australia in the late 1970s and 1980s but are rarely used here now. Their use declined dramatically as RKCB became popular. There is a series of articles on them (by Klinger, IIRC, based on work done by Paul Lavings and Andrew Reiner) in Australian Bridge issues from that era, and one in The Bridge World by Ian McCance. I strongly prefer non-serious to trump cues in GF auctions where both hands have a wide range: some distinction in strength is valuable; knowing about trump strength typically much less so. Trump cues can be useful in auctions where non-serious is of little value (like 1♣-1♥ 1♠-3♠ where responder is tightly limited and opener can show slam interest), but only if your agreement is that 3NT would not be natural, a choice of contracts. However, you might want to use 3NT here as a waiting bid, hoping responder can show a control in clubs, perhaps as part of a "relay cue" style where 4♣ would show a C control and deny a D control, 4♦ would show controls in clubs and diamonds but deny one in hearts, etc. Not clear to me that playing multiple styles of cue-bidding depending on the earlier auction won't lead to an oops, depending on partnership memory load. And it can make sense to use both non-serious and Last Train in the same auction. After 1♠-2♦ 2♠-3♠ 3NT-4♦ 4♥ would just show the club control that responder was looking for and say nothing about a H control (or honour, if that's your style).

Not sure what they are doing now but in the earl;y 2000s Rodwell and Meckstroth were playing this after a 3NT overcall of 3m: 4♣ = inquiry 4♦/4♥ = transfers, either to play or a strong slam try (need to agree whether new suits show shortness or length) Over 4♣ the overcaller bid a little like Fluffy's scheme: 4♦ = normal BAL. Now 4M was NAT, a mild slam try. 4NT = very big BAL (say 21-23, assuming you don't play a 4NT overcall as NAT, as recommended by Kaplan). Over this 5♣ asked for suits and 5♦ and 5♥ were transfers 4M/5Om = NAT, long suit (my partners and I agree that six is enough for 4M but a good seven-card suit is needed for 5Om) I've played this for many years and it has rarely come up; however, the idea of being able to make a NF slam try and stop in 4M is very sound theoretically.

There is a good case to use transfers. These can allow the overcaller to be put on lead as well as increase the number of options for the strong club side. If the transfer can be accepted at the one- or two-level then it is relatively easy to include 5-7 hands as well as GF ones.

I think there is a difference between defending against a pure canape system (such as BFUN) and "may be" canape systems like Moscito and Blue Club. I suspect that defending against pure canape openings where opener has a longer side suit more than 70% of the time and rarely five cards in the opened suit (only with 55 or 56 two-suiters) is challenging as LHO will often have hands suitable for a takeout double of opener's long suit. I agree when the canape systems are impure but responder is often better placed opposite a pure canape system (because he never has to worry that opener has a balanced hand or 54 with a longer major). However, that is just based on bidding a very small sample of deals; I'm planning on looking at much larger samples, if time permits.

When I've played a Precision-like system we treated the 1♦ opening as though the opening was a weak notrump and used Rubensohl. The only exception was that 1♦ (2♣) 2♦ was forcing, including because we played 3♦ as a weak jump (less than INV values), as it would be over lower interference.

Not when made by a limited opener, obviously. At one time I tested an agreement where step one after asker's signoff showed a freak with other steps showing extra QP. Decided it wasn't worth it as extra QP hands seemed more frequent than freaks. (I say "seemed" because they came up more often in the samples I tested, even if the absolute probabilities may suggest otherwise.) Yes, in one partnership. And we were always lower than the Ultimate Club, which you might recall says after describing the sequence for 0=0=7=6 hands "fall off chair". IF you decide to show freaks then you need to a. make a judgement about which ones are worth showing and how much you are willing to sacrifice (in terms of being a step or two lower with less-freaky shapes but extra QP); and b. be consistent so that the memory load is minimised. My decision (to show freaks only via 4♣) reflected my judgement and ensured consistency.

I have played different rules in different partnerships. Mostly, we ignored freaks; in one partnership we showed every shape exactly, and actually had a 7510 come up. In my most recent symmetric partnership we agreed to use 4♣ to show freaks, with 4♦ and higher bids showing the 3N shape with too much strength to bid a non-forcing 3N. Our experience was that it wasn't worth distinguishing between 8221 and 8320 immediately. Instead, over 4♣, 4♦ asked for singleton/void (zoom with void) then normal (show 3-2-1 points then DCB) and 4N (directly or over a 4♥) rebid was RKC in teller's long suit. (We didn't have enough 8+suits with voids come up to determine whether teller's continuations should be 3-2-1 or 2-1 or KCs.) With two-suiters we decided that 75s, 84s and the like were so infrequent that we wouldn't show them specifically. Instead, teller had the option of showing such hands as the least freaky shape with that pattern (so 7510 was treated as 5431 because all four suits are of different length, while we showed 8410 as 6421), then taking impossible action later. (This was similar to the original advice from Roy Kerr.)

Hi Adam I’m curious about your choice to use Lebensohl in auctions like 1♣ (2♦) X (P) rather than Rubensohl. I’ve always found Rubensohl to be more helpful than Lebensohl when the alternatives are invitational or GF+ AND there is a reasonable likelihood that the opponents may compete further. Lebensohl is a better option when there are three ranges or only a choice between INV and competitive ranges. (I note that Bo-Yin Yang advocated Rubensohl in all these kind of auctions in Terrorist Moscito.) In this auction further competition is obviously highly unlikely but does that make Lebensohl more appealing? It’s a question of how to allocate the space most usefully, how best to minimise wrong-siding and the degree to which consistency with other parts of the system is important. Playing Rubensohl responder accepts the transfer with a minimum. Higher bids are GF and natural. (Note that means a different set of information is available compared with Lebensohl. Using Lebensohl, opener immediately shows GF or less-than-GF; if opener is GF then he doesn’t get to ascertain responder’s strength. Playing Rubensohl opener doesn’t show his strength immediately but always gets to know what responder’s strength is.) Concern about wrong-siding means 1♣ (2♦) X (P) 3♦ shows a GF hand with long clubs, no four+card major and less than half a stopper (because 2N shows long clubs and -- if GF -- promises at least K/Qx/Jxx in the opponent’s suit; and 3♣ would be asking about stoppers and majors). Note that wrong-siding isn’t an issue in auctions like this one where the Rubensohl bidder is under the opponent’s suit (because if responder has a stopper it will always be over the suit) -- but it is consistent with what we do in other Rubensohl auctions where the bid is directly over the opponent’s suit, so wrong-siding is a concern. The biggest loss, it seems to me is not being able to distinguish between hands that really want to play in 3N and those that want to show a stopper but allow partner to remove. (In general we jump to 3N to show the former and bid 2N (if Lebensohl) then 3N with the latter. David

NZ international Michael Ware and top Australian player and director Matthew McManus play Crunch, which combines 0-6 any shape hands with 15-20 hands that are balanced or unbalanced without 4+M in a 1st or 2nd seat pass. (Their system card is available at http://livebridge.net/bbo/abf/cc/41841-386456.pdf.) Their openings are: 1st/2nd Seat Pass = 0-6 HCP or 15-20 HCP Bal or 15-20 Unbal, 5+ Minor, No Major 1♣ = 10-20 HCP 4+H, unbal often Canape (Minor) 1♦ = 10-20 HCP 4+S, unbal often Canape (Minor) 1♥ = 7-10 HCP any (unsuitable for 2♦or higher) 1♠ = 10-14 HCP Unbal, 5+ Minor, No Major 1NT = 11-14 HCP Bal (may be any 5332 2♣ = 21+ or any GF 2♦ = 3-7 HCP, Weak Major, 5 or 6 cards 2♥ = 8-10 HCP 5/6 H 2♠ = 8-10 HCP 5/6 S In 3rd/4th Seat they respond to the pass as follows: Pass = 0-3 1♣ = 10-18 HCP Bal or 9-18 HCP 3 suited or 15-18 Unbal, 5+ Minor, No Major 1♦ = (2)4-8 HCP Unbal, or 4-9 HCP Bal, or 19+ Any 1♥ = 9-18 HCP 4+S, unbal can be Canape, <4H 1♠ = 9-18 HCP 4+H, unbal can be Canape, <4S 1NT = 9-18 Unbal, Both Majors, 5+/4+ 2♣ = 9-14 HCP, 5+C, No Major, Unbal, 0/1 suit 2♦ = 9-14 HCP, 5+D, No Major, Unbal, 0/1 suit 2♥ = 9-14 HCP 6+H, 6322 or 6331, Textbook 2♠ = 9-14 HCP 6+S, 6322 or 6331, Textbook

We have been using X as takeout for decades, first in conjunction with negative free bids, then negative free bids only at the two-level, then with transfers. In all instances double followed by a new suit has been GF, showing a flexible hand. For many years we also had an exception: double followed by the cheapest new suit after opener bids the cheapest or next-cheapest suit is equal-level conversion with semi-positive values, e.g. 1♣ (2♦) X (P) 2♥ (P) 2♠ == something like 4-2-2-5, 5-7 and 1♣ (2♦) X (P) 2♠ (P) 3♣ == something like 2-4-2-5, 5-7 This exception was to cater for the problem hands you identify. In the last decade we've dropped that exception to have a simple, consistent rule that was better at handling the more important hands: those with GF+ values and an interest in more than one strain. On the rare occasions the problem hands (that we previously handled with equal-level conversion) have occured we have usually just doubled and then treated them as GF hands, on the principle that it is better to find the right strain. While a major issue in theory, in practice such hands are (surprisingly, pleasingly) infrequent, and opener frequently has some extras.

Like a few others, I've read the GUS pamphlets. The system does draw on the Ultimate Club in a few respects (such as the use of AKQ points) but it has a number of very important differences. * Full shape disclosure is not the default option, unless asker has a fit with at least one of responder's suits, and even then there are often ambiguities between relatively common shapes (e.g. from memory 6421s and 6430s). The fit requirement is not spelt out in the pamphlets but occurs because it is very difficult for asker to sign off in a two-card or shorter side suit of teller's. * There is no DCB equivalent. * Honour-showing is almost exclusively via variations of RKC. * If asker is missing a control in a side suit and teller fails to show a short-suit control it is very difficult for the partnership to determine whether or not that suit is controlled. Together, these system design features make the system much more tricky to use than it might otherwise appear. Asker has to develop good judgement about whether the gains from relaying outweigh the risks -- which can be substantial. However, the system does have some intriguing features such as the 2N opening to show minimum-1♣ opening strength with hearts and another suit, designed to avoid the effects of the opponents pre-empting in spades after a 1♣ opening. My guess is that the net expectancy of this opening is very low because of the relatively small frequency of such hands.

You hold ♠KT7 ♥AJT64 ♦9642 ♣6 in a serious 64-board IMPs match. The auction starts (1♣) 1NT (P) 2♦ (3♣) P (P) X (P) 3♠ (P) ? where 1NT = 15-18 BALish, strongly suggests a C stopper 2♦ = transfer to hearts X = takeout (Edited to include hand! The trouble with posting late at night and not checking carefully . . . Further edited to specify IMPs and standard of game and partner.)

My understanding is that the Poles preferred to play Wilkosz but when it was classified as a brown sticker convention the opportunity to use it was limited. They believe that it's an advantage to be able to show two-suited hands with less-than-opening-bid values, both for their pre-emptive effect and to avoid the long-run IMP losses that occur when players open marginal hands (e.g. Axxxx x xx KQxxx) in 2/1-type systems. Their assessment is that Multi and Polish Twos is better than playing natural weak twos and using 2♦ for some non-Brown Sticker convention/treatment. When sfi and I switched from a symmetric relay system to Polish Club three years ago (because we were only able to play a relay system in one event -- the Vanderbilt -- when we went to the ACBL Spring Nats) we adopted Wilkosz and natural weak twos (but not for our stay in ACBL-land; however, all legal in all non-novice events in Australia). Our judgement is that weak twos and an ambiguous two-suited opening would be better than Multi plus Polish twos. We've seen nothing to make us change our minds, although we have learnt that opening Wilkosz with 6M and another suit is a losing action if opener is maximum for the 5-10 range.

After some experiments with using 1H as 12+ and other responses as 8-11, shevek and I have used unlimited responses for 35+years. Rarely a problem in practice, although there are issues in theory. We are helped because our response structure is a step lower so 3N = 7411. It's so rarely right to play 3N opposite that shape that it's possible to play it as forcing. In practice, we utilise the two sequences available to show 7411 (via high shortage or low shortage) to split the range, with one limited and the other better than minimum. When I played a symmetric system with sfi, we took that one step further and played 3S = 6430 3N = 7411, 5-6SP 4C = 7420 4D = 7411, 9SP 4H = 7411, 10SP etc Being up one step complicates things but not fatally. When we were pushed up one step because of interference, sfi and I reverted to 3N = 6430, 5-8SP 4C = 7411, 5-7SP (8+SP went via the high shortage branch) 4D = 7420 4H = 6430, 9SP 4S = 6430, 10SP etc An alternative I've experimented with involves switching the response structure: 3H = 6421, unlimited OR 6430, 5-7SP 3S = 5431, 5-6SP or 9+SP 3N = 5431, 7-8SP 4C = 7411, 5-6SP or 9+SP 4D = 7420 4H = 6430, 8SP 4S = 6430, 9SP etc (Arguably, it's better to do an additional swap and play OPTION A 4C = 6430 4D = 7411 4H+ = 7420, zooming) After 3H-3S 3N = 6421, 5-6 (5-7 is also playable) 4C = 6430, 5-7 4D = 6421, 7SP etc After 3H-3N teller only resurrects with 9421 and 9+SP. It's important to remember that making the best use of space to show exact shape plus specific SP at the lowest possible level is not the only consideration. Any good relay system will give asker alternatives to asking for controls/SP and some form of DCB. These could include key-card asks that set a suit, trump quality asks, void asks etc. The lower you show shape the more effective these alternatives are, a reason why OPTION A above may be preferable. My experience suggests that these alternatives are less useful the stronger teller is, so the need to show shape as low as possible is somewhat reduced. David

sfi and I have been playing "normal" Wilkosz for three years and our experience is as awm suggests: it's hard for responder to preempt effectively unless he has both majors or a three-suited hand. The ambiguity about which two suits opener holds also affects us in constructive and competitive auctions. However, our assessment is that it is harder for the opponents to deal with Wilkosz and weak twos than a Multi 2♦ and 2♥ and 2♠ showing that major and a minor, or (as is surprisingly frequent in Australia) 2♥ showing hearts and another. We think that's true even though opponents are used to dealing with multi-meaning openings, so it's a not (at least not substantially) a lack of familiarity.

I will get around to the others: might take a little while as time limited at present. Also note that I edited the last two auctions: using so many different suit orders for the complex stuff confused me when it came to the methods I'd used for years!

JVCB 4♣-4♥ (odd A + even K therefore known to be DA and KK and no Q, making slam worth bidding if SK+HK and therefore another relay reasonable) 4♠-5♥ (DK+SK+DA, no DJ) Ulf's parity slam bidding (This assumes 1♣ was 17+ and teller showed shape and 10-12HCP.) 4♣-4♥ (odd A + even K, could have Q as QP count not known) 4♠-4N (even Q, but slam still worth bidding if SK+HK and therefore another relay reasonable but riskier than using JVCB) 5♣-5♥ (odd parity in S, even parity in D) Kleine Fugue (the less complex of the complex Swedish methods) 4♣-4♥ (odd A + even K therefore known to be DA and KK and no Q, making slam worth bidding if SK+HK and therefore another relay reasonable) 4♠-4N (4-6 ranking points [to be explained in main thread when I get to scan and convert notes]) 5♣-5♦ (5 ranking points so HA+SK+CK OR DA+SK+DK) Grande Fugue (the more complex of the complex Swedish methods) 4♣-4♥ (odd A + even K therefore known to be DA and KK and no Q, making slam worth bidding if SK+HK and therefore another relay reasonable) 4♠-4N (One of a. DA + ((SK+DK) OR (HK+CK)); b. SA + ((DK+CK) OR (SK+HK)); OR c. (HA or CA) + ((DK+HK) OR (SK+CK)), so known to be DA+DK+SK And, for the sake of completeness, parity K ask followed by DCB Standard DCB 4♣-4N (even Ks, S, D no H honour) Shevek's DCB (where stop = 0 or 4+QP) 4♣-4♠ (even Ks, 1-3QP in S, 0 or AKQ/AK/AQ in D) David

Ulf Nilsson, another Swede, experimented with something very like this. Teller showed HCP in a 3(4)-point band then showed parity of aces then kings and finally queens (always even/odd). Once parity for each type of honour was known the next phase was parity scanning of suits. Passing showed 1 or 3 (A/K/Q or AKQ). Stopping showed 0 or 2 (AK/AQ/KQ). Singletons were ignored. 2nd sweep asked for jacks; never zoom into showing/denying jacks. David

Sam's proposal for looking at all four suits at once reminds me of two methods developed in Sweden by Johan Ebenius and his group (Kaj Kokko, Daniel Auby, Olle Wademark, Fredrik Nyström and Bo Wiik) in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s. They developed these methods -- which my testing showed to be effective but (IMO) to require considerable CPU cycles -- as an alternative to their version of DCB, which itself has lots of interesting ideas that are worth testing and perhaps modifying. First, after asker knows the exact number of QP he relays to find out if teller has an odd or even number of aces. One step shows an even number, while 2 steps+ shows an odd number. After this it will be much easier for asker to figure out teller’s QP-structure. Asker can immediately deduce if there is an even or odd no of Q’s by looking at the no of QP and aces (odd or even). Even number of aces and even number of QP gives even number of Q’s (so does an odd number of aces and an odd number of QP). An even number of aces and an odd number of QP gives an odd number of queens (so does an odd number of aces and an even number of QP). When teller has at least 2QP outside the aces the next step after AOE is KOE. Teller shows if he has an odd (2+ steps) or even (1step) no of Kings. This makes it easier for asker to visualise the QP-structure. Second, is the scanning which they called JVCB, joint variable cue bidding. Here the rules are very different from standard DCB or parity, taking advantage that asker either knows the QP structure or has only a small number of alternatives that are possible. The JVCB-responses work by denying specific high cards in specific suits. We start w K-values in 4+suits. First the longest (lower/lowest if equal length) suit, then the next longest/lowest and so on. Thus a one step bid may deny the HK. The 2-step response would show the HK and deny, say the SK. The first thing teller does is to determine what level of JVCB applies. The levels are: 1/ K –values in 4+suits 2/ A and Q-values in 5+suits 3/ K-values in 2-3*suits 4/ A and Q-values in 1-4*suits 5/ J-values 6/ SING J Note: The value of a SING K or Q is one step below the normal value of the card. E.g a singleton Q counts as a J-value. JVCB starts at level 1. It advances to level 2 when teller has shown all K-values in 4+suits. With both the ace and Q in a suit we stop on that step as we would have done with none. When teller has no or all remaining cards at a level he just proceeds to the next level. When teller has either all aces or all queens in the remaining suits on level 2 and 4, that kind of QP-value ceases to exist for JVCB purposes. When there are no unknown cards in a suit it also ceases to exist for JVCB purposes (e.g SING H that has been shown or a KQ that has been shown in a 2-card suit or a void). The teller always assumes that asker knows his QP-structure, even though that may not be the case. We will never explicitly show QP-values (level 1-4) in the last suit where we have unknown cards. E.g teller has shown 5QP, 1633, even no of aces, even no of kings. He has HK, HQ and DK. He starts by bidding three steps to show the HK (level 1), the HQ (level 2) and deny the CK (level 3). The next relay will be for jacks since a K-value in a SING suit is not possible (the last K must be in D) and there are no further QP-values to be shown. When on level 4 there are two suits left and there is one A-value and one Q-value left to show and there must be one QP-card in each suit (i.e there’s only one unknown card in each suit), we skip the rest of level 4. The JVCB-level may advance w/o the captain making a bid (which is what we call a zoom). For example, if teller has shown 3433, 3QP, even number of aces and odd number of kings and bids 4 steps to the relay, he shows K,Q and J of H and denies the CJ. There are special rules for wild hands: When we have shown 10+cards in the two longest suits we get a special extra level that comes directly after level 2. If you have extra length you stop on that step. When we have shown extra length by stopping at that step (denying “no extra length”, a lovely double negation), the next relay is for which suit it was w one step referring to the longest (lowest if equal length) suit. You stop w/o extra length in the denoted suit. Promised 7330 and 7321 may have extra length in three suits, while a two-suiter w high SING can’t include extra length. We can never show a 9*suit or 12* in 2 suits. After the extra length level it’s business as usual. Please remember the rule that we show low SING first w 6511 and 7411, which excludes some possible extra length. I'll separately post the other two methods after making electronic copies of them. David

Given that this was being used in the context of a strong hand asking, the simple mnemonic was even parity for multiples of three and for two and ten QP.

The parity ask is for the whole hand, i.e. the total number of non-singleton kings teller holds. After parity is known asker often knows which honour permutations teller holds. For example, if teller bids 3N showing a 5431 with 6QP then zooms to show odd parity of kings (significantly more frequent than even parity with this number of QP) then teller is known to hold AKQ or KKK or KQQQQ. Asker can frequently tell which option it is (for example, if she has one queen and two kings then neither KQQQQ nor KKK is possible). Conventional DCB can now locate/deny honours. Together, asker is frequently able to know the exact honour holding lower than just using DCB. No, as I haven't used parity scanning in individual suits but, using standard DCB, we reverse the scan if teller shows an honour in a doubleton because HH is much less likely than Hx and because HH is typically worse for slam so it's helpful to stop lower. The same principle applies if teller ever does a third scan of a three-card suit.

Having used the methods in question with both shevek and sfi it's no surprise I am strongly in favour of taking the 4-1 odds. I experimented with a king parity ask after ascertaining the number of QP but before scanning any suit, i.e. after QP were known the next relay asked for step one if holding an odd (or even depending on the number of QP) number of non-singleton kings. The point of this was that relayer could work out which permutations of honours were possible and, either after the parity response or after one or more DCB steps, would know whether partners three QP were Axx or KQx. I played the method with Mark Abraham in one event (in which it made no positive or negative impact) but it became part of Mark's default methods (see the SCREAM or SPREAD notes here). Testing showed it to gain more than it lost but the sample size was small: the losses were caused by the answer to the parity ask preventing the necessary scan of a key suit below the safety threshold.

If the 1♥ response denies 5+S (because a 1♠ response shows any positive with 5+spades) then responder could rebid 2♠ and only show a four-card suit. But Fred's structure is better as it allows responder to show both support and a four-card major.