shape asks?

[Vilgan]

Played pretty horribly Friday, but one of the commentators mentioned during the hand that we should have made a shape ask to explore slam possibilities.

 

The auction began

 

2♣ (precision)

2♦ (artificial, plz further define your hand)

2♥ (also have 4 hearts)

?

 

This is where one of the people who was commenting on vugraph said the north hand should make some kind of shape query to find out if my partner had a singleton. What is a good follow-up agreement to have that sets hearts as trump and asks for shortness? Currently we just sort of bid naturally, our slam bidding after a 2♣ opener is not the best.

 

My hand was something like

 

xx

A9xxx

ATxx

AJ

 

and the lack of anything in spades made me cash out at 4 hearts when partner has a singleton spade and we made 6.

 

Thanks for any helpful pointers :huh:

 

Eric

 

(edited to fix hand to actual holding)

[pbleighton]

Your auction seems fine to me.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

2♣ (precision)

2♦ (artificial, plz further define your hand)

2♥ (also have 4 hearts)

?

So, which bids after this are nonforcing?

 

The way I play it, 2♠ and 3♦ have to be game forcing, since you don't have a 'game force and natural suit' call over 2 clubs. I like 3♣ to be natural and strongly invitational, as 3♣ directly over 2♣ is primarily pre-emptive.

 

That leaves (on this auction) 2NT and 3♥, which you can use as natural and inviational or GF and asking for shortness. I don't know which is standard.

 

You can also use things like:

 

2♣ 2♦

2♥ 2♠ (Game forcing, could be artificial)

 

2NT= 2 spades, no diamond stop.

3 clubs = 0-1 spades, 6+ clubs, 0-2 diamonds, 4 hearts

3 diamonds = 0-1 spades, 3 diamonds, high priority

3 hearts = 0-1 spades, 5 hearts

3 spades =3 spades

3NT = 2 spades, diamond stop

 

but having 2NT ask for shortness might work better.

[blackshoe]

Hm. You might check out the Symmetric Relay notes in the back of Barry Rigal's Precision in the Nineties. There might be something in the Berkowitz and Manley book, too. I think there's a web site or two, as well.

 

Basically, 2♠ would start the shape ask sequence, and further relays would refine the answer. 2NT in reply to 2♠ might say "only 5 clubs" for example. Higher answers would show six clubs and clarify heart length. Then you ask about the "residue" - the other two suits.

 

OTOH, it sounds like you happened to have a "perfect fit" hand for small slam, and the rarity of such may not justify taking on the complexity of relay methods. :huh:

[hrothgar]

Rigal's notes on Symmetric Relay are completely incomprehensible. While I like Precision in the 90s, I advise people to keep far away from the section on Symmetric Relay.

 

Here is a very simple Symmetric relay based scheme.

 

After 2♣ -2♦ - 2♥ (2♥ = 5+ Clubs and 4 Hearts)

 

2♠ = relay and then

 

2N = 5+ Clubs, 4 Hearts, 0-1 Spades

3♣ = 2=4=2=5 shape

3♦ = 3=4=1=5 shape

3♥ = 2=4=1=6 shape

3♠ = 3=4=0=6 shape

3N = 1=4=1=7 shape

4♣ = 2=4=0=7 shape

 

After

 

2♣ - 2♥

2♠ - 2N

 

3♣ = relay and then

 

3♦ = 1=4=3=5 shape

3♥ = 1=4=2=6 shape

3♠ = 0=4=3=6 shape

3N = 0=4=2=7 shape

 

You can play the exact same scheme over a 2♠ response, though everything will be elevated one step

[keylime]

Play transfers over 2♣ - this has unlocked for Larry and I more avenues of bidding than other 2C engines, and you don't need relay follow-ups to gain playability. Keep in mind tho that this may work better for 6+club variants of 2C and not 5C, 4M flavors.

 

2C - ?

 

2D = xfer to hearts

2H = xfer to spades

2S = xfer to diamonds

2NT = invite, asks for min/max, forcing (rebid of 4C is RKC)

3C = a raise

3D/H/S = G/F, fit asking

3NT = to play

[ulven]

An easy way, which I have used for many years, when playing a "non-fancy" (i.e no relays) structure after 2C is to use a follow-up 3D as ART GF asking for shortness (does not promise M-support).

 

2C - 2D;

2M - 3D:

 

3oM = shortness

3M = D-shortness

3NT = 22(45)

 

Then 4C sets C (of course) and 3M/4D sets M.

 

This agreement allows for 2NT and 3C to be natural and NF.

[Echognome]

I do have a set of relays set up for this. It is more symmetric than Richard's above. It accounts for bidding hands that have an invite with 4M, an invite with 5M, or any GF/slammish hand. However, it is based on a system where 2♣ shows 6+♣, but may have 4M. We do not allow for 5♣ with 4M. If anyone is interested, they can drop me a message here.

[hrothgar]

I do have a set of relays set up for this. It is more symmetric than Richard's above. It accounts for bidding hands that have an invite with 4M, an invite with 5M, or any GF/slammish hand. However, it is based on a system where 2♣ shows 6+♣, but may have 4M. We do not allow for 5♣ with 4M. If anyone is interested, they can drop me a message here.

I'd be interested in seeing the scheme

[awm]

Here's what Sam and I play over 2♣ these days:

 

2♦ = relay, invitational or better

2M = natural, 5+ cards, forcing one round

2NT = club raise, either constructive or game forcing (limit raise through 2♦)

3♣ = preemptive

3♦-3♠ = natural, 6+ card suit and game forcing

 

2♣-2♦:

... 2♥ = no four-card side suit, now:

...... 2♠ = GF relay, symmetric style, losing a step but removing 5332 (so 6331 still 3♥)

...... 2N = want to declare notrump, usually invite only, partner bids 3♣ (min) or control

...... 3♣ = NF invite, not particularly suited to declaring notrump

... 2♠ = shows 4♦, now:

...... 2N = GF relay

...... 3♣/♦ = NF invite

... 2N = shows 4♥, now:

...... 3♣ = NF

...... 3♦ = GF relay

... 3♣ = shows 4♠ and minimum hand, now:

...... pass = NF invite

...... 3♦ = GF relay

... 3♦+ = shows 4♠ and max, zooming (so 3♦ = high shortage etc)

 

Over the sequences that show 6-4 hands and a relay:

... step one = high shortage, then distinguish void vs. singleton and go to RP (no exact shape for hands with void)

... step two = low shortage, as above

... step 3 = 7411 shape

[rbforster]

Adam, am I correct in assuming you play a 6+♣ precision opening? If you play 5♣/4M hands are also allowed, you may have other issues like wanting 2♣-2M to be natural NF. Certainly it's easier to have a better 2♣ response system if you stick to 6 card suits, but presumably you pay the price elsewhere in your system with a more nebulous 1♦ opening on 4=4=0=5 shapes, etc.

 

Edit: Matt - right, I guess I meant you have a more nebulous 1♦ since it could include shapes like (42)25. With those shapes, your 1♦-1M-2♣ rebid might not have extra diamonds (beyond the 2+ you promised playing 2♦ 3 suited). This is especially bad with 2=4=2=5 shape in your NT range since after 1♦-1♠-1NT would promise different values and you're pretty much stuck either opening that hand 1NT or having some unfortunate continuations after 1♦-1M-2♣ where partner doesn't know which minor to sign off in.

[Echognome]

Adam, am I correct in assuming you play a 6+♣ precision opening? If you play 5♣/4M hands are also allowed, you may have other issues like wanting 2♣-2M to be natural NF. Certainly it's easier to have a better 2♣ response system if you stick to 6 card suits, but presumably you pay the price elsewhere in your system with a more nebulous 1[d] opening on 4=4=0=5 shapes, etc.

I don't know about Adam's system, but that's why people use the precision 2♦ (or 2♥) to show the 4=4=1=4, the 4=3=1=5, the 3=4=1=5, and the 4=4=0=5. I'm definitely of the opinion that you want your 2♣ opening to show 6+.

 

Nice structure Adam.

[awm]

We have adopted the Cohen-Berkowitz style of 2M forcing, after observing that the non-forcing 2M response was not that frequent and wasn't really guaranteed to get us to a good spot in any case (should opener bid or pass with singleton? if responder has six cards pass is almost always best and bidding often horrible, whereas if responder has five cards then pass is almost always terrible). This approach is very nice for getting us to the best spot on invitational hands, with the cost of not being able to "correct the partial" when responder is weak. It appears that a transfer based structure might actually be better than what we currently play, allowing earlier focus on suit quality rather than pattern an giving responder the ability to sign off and also look for game, however our transfer structure was so complicated that we scrapped it for memory reasons and reverted to the structure given (easy to remember because we use symmetric-style relays over our 1♣ opening too).

 

Our opening structure is 2♣ showing 6+ clubs, 2♦ showing 6+ diamonds, and 1♦ as a catch-all denying a five card major, a six card minor (exception for 6-5 minor hands), or a balanced hand in the notrump range (which is 14-16 with frequent upgrades). This was referred to by several opponents in the national swiss as "the new precision" and we were not the only ones using this opening structure in the event.

[keylime]

Adam,

 

Larry and I as well used the six+ card minors in 2C/D.

 

In our transfer scheme over 2C, the followups are mostly natural - there isn't as yet parallelism with our 1C stuff (I think graft wise it would be tricky too - 1C-2C with us is a G/F with one or both minors, so 2C in essence preempts us from being able to show a heart hand if we used that module).

 

Ultra's 2C structure that we used in Nashville:

 

2♣ ! 10-15 HCP 6♣ & No 4M: Qxxx [WITH 5-5 IN THE MINORS OPEN 1♦/2NT; WITH 4♦ & 5♣, OPEN 1♦; IF 6♣ & 4♦, BID 2♣]

 

2♦ TRANSFER > 2♥ PROMISES 5 OR MORE ♥ & 8+ HCP PLAYABLE AT 3-LEVEL

2♥ 2+♥

PASS TO PLAY

2♠ 5♥ & 5♠ G.I.

2NT 5♥ G.I.

3♣ 5♥ & 3♣ G.I.

3♦ 5♥ & 5♦ G.I.

3♥ 6♥ G.I.

3♠ 6♥ & 5♠ G.F.

3NT 5♥ G.F.

4♣ 5♥ & 4♣ G.F.

4♦ 5♥ & 5♦ G.F.

4♥ 6♥

2♠ 0-1♥ ♠ STOPPER & MAXIMUM

2NT 0-1♥ ♦ STOPPER & MAXIMUM

3♣ 0-1♥ 6+♣ & MINIMUM

3♥ 3+♥ MAXIMUM

3NT ♣: AKQXXX

 

 

2♥ TRANSFER > 2♠ PROMISES 5 OR MORE ♠: PLAYABLE AT 2-LEVEL

2NT 0-1♠ & MAXIMUM; 3♣: 0-1♠ & MINIMUM

2♠ TRANSFER > 3♦ PROMISES 6 OR MORE ♦: PLAYABLE AT 3-LEVEL (OTHERWISE PASS 2♣)

2NT 0-3♦ & MAXIMUM; 3♣: 0-1♦ & MINIMUM; 3♦: 2+♦ & MINIMUM

2NT 10-11 HCP GI, OR 12+ & G.F. (BID A NEW SUIT FOR G.F.) OPENER REBIDS 3♣ WITH A MINIMUM

NOW 4♣ = MINORWOOD 1430 W Q ASK: 1 = NO, 2 = YES, 3=YES + K

3♣ 8-10 HCP GI REESE:

3♦ 6+♦ SAB-2 G.F. 1ST STEP = 0-1♦, 2ND STEP = 2♦ & 1-2 CONTROLS, ZOOM >

3♥ 6+♥ SAB-2; 3♠ 6+♠ SAB-2 G.F. 1ST STEP = 0-1M, 2ND STEP = 2M & 1-2 CONTROLS, ZOOM >

3NT TO PLAY

4♣ 4+♣ PRE-EMPTIVE

[awm]

Sam and I do open 2♣ with a four-card major, and we also wanted to be able to get out over 2♣ with a pure signoff (i.e. transfer doesn't guarantee 8+ hcp). In addition, we wanted a lot of stopper showing sequences and right-siding 3NT options (don't like to play 3NT with xx opposite xx) and we wanted to make opener's suit quality a priority in the auction.

 

Here's some of the structure we gave up for memory reasons:

 

2♦ = 4+♥ (more hearts if weak) or 4♠ (exactly) if inv+

2♥ = 5+♠ any strength

2♠ = constructive or better club raise, if strong interested in stopper showing sequence

2NT = limit or better club raise, interested in club suit quality and/or shortness

3♣ = preemptive

3-other = one-suited GF

 

2♣-2♦....

 

.... 2♥ = denies four hearts, if 0-1♥ then not super-strong clubs

.... 2♠ = shows four hearts

.... 2NT = max values, very strong clubs, 0-1♥

.... 3♣ = min, very strong clubs, 0-1♥

 

2♣-2♦-2♥....

.... 2♠ = inv+, checkback, forcing one round

.... 2NT = inv+ with 4+♥; if 5+♥ then will be GF values

.... 3♣ = inv exactly with 5♥, at least partial club fit

.... 3♦ = 5-5 reds, forcing one round

.... 3♥ = inv with 6+♥

.... 3♠ = GF with 5-5 majors

.... 3NT = 5♥ choice of games

 

2♣-2♦-2♥-2NT...

.... 3♣ = min hand

.... 3♦ = max, diamond card

.... 3♥ = max, 3♥, no diamond card

.... 3♠ = max, spade card, no diam control, no 3♥

.... 3NT = max, strong club holding, likely heart card, denies ♠/♦ control

 

2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT...

.... 3♣ = discouraging

.... 3♦ = inverse stopper checks

.... 3♥ = ♥+♦ GF

.... 3♠ = ♥+♠ GF

.... 3NT = to play

.... 4♣ = forcing, ask cue

.... 4♦ = RKC♣

 

2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT - 3♦...

.... 3♥ = no heart control (3♠ asks spade control, 3NT asks diam control)

.... 3♠ = heart control, no spade control

.... 3NT = both major controls, no diam control

 

And so on and so forth. Anyways it seemed good in bidding practice but it was too much to remember and not symmetric with the rest of our methods.

[joshs]

I have been playing the Berk-Cohen style of 2M forcing for years now, having been a convert from the traditional Constructive NF style.

 

Here are my arguments against the traditional style:

1. If you have a limited hand and catch a fit/semi fit, this often lets the opps into the auction on hands that they would have been frozen out of. In fact if you have a major AND 2/3 clubs, you definitely want to keep the opps out. This definitely applies when your major is hearts....

2. If you bid these only with "corrections" then you are not bidding 2M enough

3. Game forcing and INV hands with 5+ M are just hard to handle if you have to bid the 2D relay first. You are basically overloading 2D.

 

Note: lets say you have KJTxxx x xxx Kxx and partner opens 2C showing 6. If you bid a forcing 2S on this hand, the opps tend to be much more timid and not come in frequently. If you bid a NF 2S then they x for the reds much more often.

 

 

Note2: When the NF style originated there was no assurance that 2C was a reasonable contract (since it only promised 5) hence the frequent need to correct to a 6 card suit. In the modern style

a. 2C is 6 cards so usually a reasonable spot

b. If you tried for game and didn't catch a fit, 3C is usually a reasonable spot (even if its a 6-1 fit)

 

 

 

 

In general, even at mps, I don't think finding the highest scoring strain for part scores is that important. 2C making 3 is as good as 2M making 2. And at imps the difference is insignificant. Bandwidth should be spent on finding the best game, and finding slams...

 

Note: When I do play 2M non-forcing I play it as forward going. Basically 3 level values, with a 2 level suit, or a 3 level suit, with only 2 level values (but if partner raises you are happy).

 

Hands like:

a. KJxxxx x Axx Kxx

b. AQxxx Axx Qxx xx

c. KQJxxxx xxx xx x

 

would bid 2M.

 

With c I bid 2S and then 3S if partner corrects. I have a different sequence for INV, so this is just a correction.

 

With a or b, partner usually passes with a doubleton, and corrects to 3C with a singleton, but may make a forward move with Hx and a max and I can bid 4S and 3N respectible with these hands if partner makes a forward move.

[bhall]

Here's an idea that I have used in other contexts: double up opener's cheapest responses to 2♦ and use another relay to clarify. Thus, after 2♣-2♦,

 

2♥ might show 4 ♥ or a minimum with no side suit, and 2♠ by responder asks which;

2♠ might show 4 ♠ or a max with no side suit, and 2N asks which

2N might show a max with 4♦

3♣ might show a minimum with 4♦

3♦ might show solid ♣ (so that responder can declare in notrump)

 

After 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ (Relay),

 

2N might show a minimum with stops and decent ♣

3♣ might show the other minimums without ♥

3♦ might show 4 ♥ with ♦ shortness

3♥ might show 4 ♥ with ♠ shortness, minimum

3♠ might show 4 ♥ with ♠ shortness, maximum

 

After 2♣-2♦-2♠-2N (Relay)

 

3♣ might show the max without a side suit

3♦ might show 4 ♠ with ♦ shortness

3♥ might show 4 ♠ with ♥ shortness

3N might show the max with stops and decent ♣

 

One could play a further 3♦ relay over the single-suited rebids, reserving 3M for stopper showing (or asking).