2/1 responses in relay system

[awm]

Suppose you are playing a system with the following features:

 

1M opening is five-card major, limited range (say 10-14)

1M-1NT is game forcing relay

 

This obviously leaves you with a bunch of other hand types looking for a call. The symmetric relay precision notes don't really talk about this (in fact they suggest playing with no way to invite without a major suit fit, which seems ridiculously poor). Viking club suggests "2♣ any invite" but I don't have the book and can't really think of good followups to such a bid.

 

Anyone have suggestions as to the best way to use 2♣/2♦/2♥ responses to handle weak and invitational hands?

[PrecisionL]

Suppose you are playing a system with the following features:

 

1M opening is five-card major, limited range (say 10-14)

1M-1NT is game forcing relay

 

Viking club suggests "2♣ any invite" but I don't have the book and can't really think of good followups to such a bid.

 

Anyone have suggestions as to the best way to use 2♣/2♦/2♥ responses to handle weak and invitational hands?

From the Viking ♣, page 123-4.

 

1M - 2♣  = Any Game Invitational hand. usually balanced, or 2-suited. There are other ways to bid with invitational values, e.g. a jump to 3 of the opened suit, more distributional & perhaps semi-preemptive.

 

Follow-ups:

 

2♦ = Waiting bid, none of the following:

 

2♥ = After 1♥ = minimum, after 1♠ = shows 4♥ & 11-15 hcp

 

2♠ = Similar to 2♥, Suit rebid = Min., other M is natural.

 

2NT = 14-15 hcp and balanced, usually 5332 / 6322

 

3♣ = 4+♣ & Max.

 

3♦ = 4+♦ & Max

 

3♥ = 5♠ & 5♥ & Max, or semi-so0lid ♥ suit

 

3♠ = 6-5 in the majors or semi-solid ♠ suit

 

3NT = AKQxxx and Max

 

4M = 7-cards with no slam ambition

 

Larry

[rbforster]

I know this is the wrong forum for this, but...

 

1M-?

 

2X natural, weak two bid style

2M std raise

2N balanced invite

3X natural invite

 

:blink:

[rbforster]

Suppose you are playing a system with the following features:

 

1M opening is five-card major, limited range (say 10-14)

1M-1NT is game forcing relay

A couple of more serious comments -

 

1. Are you willing to have 1NT be forcing but not GF? Depending on what partner's response structure is to 1NT, you might be able to include various weak signoffs or bids intending to pass any natural rebid. This would help take care of most of the balanced responding hands with moderate values. If you were willing to let a correction of 1M-1N-2X-2M be a signoff ala a regular forcing NT, you've taken care of many common hands between passing 2X and preferencing to 2M. Since you've got all the other bids over opener's rebid besides 2M for GF hands, you should be ok in terms of describing the responding hand. I know the next cheapest step will often be 2M so this will hurt your relay resolution level if you're trying to play shape relays over 1M however.

 

2. It seems right to have 2♣ be forcing as the next cheapest relay. Whether you want this to include all invitations, just those with clubs (possible and a 2nd suit), or what is less clear.

 

3. Are any of the higher direct bids free, 1M-2N+? If you play some of those as a relay, you could use them for weak one suiters as well as various strong hands. I have some nice compressed jump shift methods for example that use 1M-(2M+1) to show all the Soloway jump shift hand types via relays.

[awm]

To answer some of the questions:

 

(1) I am happy using the relay on all non-fitting GF hands. So there is no need for "strong jump shifts" etc. However it might be good to use one of the jumps to show "limit+ raise" and include some GF fitting hands there as well. In principle most of the jump shifts are available.

 

(2) One big problem hand type seems to be moderate hands (like 7-10 hcp) with singleton or doubleton in the major. I am not eager to pass these hands, because they do occasionally produce a game opposite a shapely hand, because it is often possible to improve the partial, and because bidding on them tends to block the opponents (and the field will bid). Methods where 1NT is relay and 2-new-suit is 5+ or even 6+ in the bid suit don't give any sensible call on these hands.

 

(3) Using 2NT as "balanced invite" also seems like a bad method -- we need to be able to find heart fits over 1♠ opening for example, and often 3m on a 4-4 or 5-4 fit will be a much better contract than 2NT when we have no game (as well as being key to evaluating our game prospects).

 

(4) I don't want to put a lot of non-GF hands into the relay. The problem is that this method (1NT relay) is vulnerable to opponents action as it is, and adding in weakish hands eliminates the valuable forcing pass from our arsenal in defending against interference. Coping with these weaker hands also requires re-arranging the relays to optimize for signoff sequences (cumbersome) and might lose some relay efficiency as well if the cheapest call cannot be used to relay. There is potential to put a few invites into the the 1NT bid, but this tends to create trouble with ACBL (even mid-chart).

[effervesce]

A bit off-topic but somewhat related - presumably you've already considered using 2C as a GF relay and 1NT as a forcing NT? I think it's better to have this arrangement than using 2C as any GI, given with invitational hands you want opener to bid naturally, while with a GF you don't mind artificial bids.

[the hog]

Suppose you are playing a system with the following features:

 

1M opening is five-card major, limited range (say 10-14)

1M-1NT is game forcing relay

 

This obviously leaves you with a bunch of other hand types looking for a call. The symmetric relay precision notes don't really talk about this (in fact they suggest playing with no way to invite without a major suit fit, which seems ridiculously poor). Viking club suggests "2♣ any invite" but I don't have the book and can't really think of good followups to such a bid.

 

Anyone have suggestions as to the best way to use 2♣/2♦/2♥ responses to handle weak and invitational hands?

Adam, I don't know which Symmetric relay notes you have, but this is incorrect. In fact I just looking at the original notes. 2m over 1M is described as a 1 round force, natural. 2H over 1S is not forcing.

I am not saying I agree with this, just what it is.

[gwnn]

Well this was what we played, for a few months.

 

1M-2♣:

 

- balanced hand too good to pass.

- real clubs hand.

- 3 card limit raise or so (like 9-11 maybe)

 

after 2♣:

 

2♦ waiting, whatever (all balanced hands bid 2♦)

-2♥ balanced hand with 4 hearts / limit raise of hearts

-2♠ limit raise / 5♣+4♠ (balanced hands with 4 spades just bid 1♥-1♠)

-2NT balanced hand

-3♣ natural

-3x: natural

2♥ minimum 5-4 or so / 6 hearts, minimum

2♠ 6 spades, minimum / natural GF

2NT 5M+4D, maximum, gf

3x: natural GF (new suits=5-5)

 

2♦ (and 1♠-2♥) we played as sorts of negative freebids. 2NT by both sides show maximums, almost every bid was non forcing.

 

I know what you mean Adam, those 7-10 hcp hands I'm not happy to pass. But there's just not a solution. In practice, bad players will balance on nothing, expecting our LHO to have most values. I got lots and lots of solid results from this. In better fields this is probably not true, but they still balance, and opener can jump with a very good hand. (BTW I hate opening strong♣ with very distributional hands, so I would jump quite often.) I would like to be able to respond very lightly, this system doesn't really allow this, and that makes me sad.

[PrecisionL]

And here is what I play for 2 years in Millennium Club Modified:

 

1M - 2♣ = All game forcing hands without 4-card support. Follow-ons:

 

2♦ = Artificial, exactly 4-card Major

2♥ = Artificial, exactly 5-card Major

2♠ = Artificial, exactly 6-card Major

2NT = Artificial, both majors (5-5 if 1♠ opened, 4-4 if 1♥  opened)

3♣ = 5M & 4oM

3♦ = 6M & 4oM

3M = 7-card Major

3oM = 6M & 5oM

 

Thus, 2/1 = Invitational, N. F.

 

1M - 2♦, N.F. Opener can pass

1♠ - 2♥, N.F. Opener can pass

 

Larry

[Mbodell]

Hey, I have 1M as 10-15 and 1NT as artificial GF relay. The system my partner and I play varies by what's legal where but we've been having fun and success with the following:

 

Most basic:

Everything else is NF constructive natural. 2NT is 10-12 implying 2 cards in the major. 2M is inverted major showing limit raise in major and then allowing a bunch of game asking bids (Kokish for short/length + a trump/power ask). 3m suggests a strong near gf hand with a stiff or void in M.

 

When a passed hand then 1NT is no longer GF but instead standard 6-9 and 2♣ is rev. fit drury showing 1 of the top 2 trumps and 2♦ is rev. fit drury showing 0 or 2 of the top trumps. Then we play our inverted minor asking bids but encrypt the long/short asks based on who has the "stronger" missing cards ("lie" when K/0 "truth" when A/2). 2M and 3M go back to natural. If the club we are playing in doesn't allow encrypted drury like this then we just free up 2♦ as nat NF const and 2♣ as all the drury.

 

Where allowed, we actually play drury (of what ever flavor we can) in all 4 seats.

 

Our 1M is pretty standard except can't be 55+ in majors and can't be balanced 12-15. It also should promise at least an Ace or 2 Kings.

[glen]

We can map the possible non-GF hand types with a matrix.

 

Across the top we have:

 

--- Weak --- Constructive --- Invite ---

 

Constructive is defined as game is possible opposite the right maximum

 

Along the side we have:

 

Balanced without 4 in other major

---

Balanced with 4 in other major

---

5-4-3-1s/5-4-4-0s short in opener's suit, not exactly 4 in other major

---

5-4-3-1s/4-4-4-1s/5-4-4-0s short in opener's suit, exactly 4 in other major

---

6+ suit, without 4 in other major

---

6+ suit, with exactly 4 in other major

---

Support

 

Then we start mapping the matrix boxes to bids/sequences. At some point, many designers have then given up on 1NT as a GF relay, and instead have used the cheapest suit bid as the GF relay, in order to have 1NT handle much of the less-than-GF hands.

 

If you continue with 1NT as the GF relay, the next question is whether you are in ACBLland, and if not, can one or more of your 2/1s be artificial with less than GF values. If they can, you might consider:

 

2♣: intended-as-forcing less-than-GF range check with

1) long ♦s

2) balanced, constructive or invite

3) exactly 4♥s if 1♠ opening

4) long ♣s invite

 

The 1♠ opener bids 2♦ if minimum, 2♥ or 2♠ if extras, 2♥ or 2NT+ if great hand. Over 2♦, 2♥ by responder shows exactly 4♥s.

 

If this seems workable, you could use 1♠-2♦ as a transfer to ♥s, and 1♠-2♥ as 1=3=4=5/1=3=5=4 exactly, and 2NT as transfer to long ♣s constructive, 3♣ as long ♣s weak.

 

If you are in ACBLland, I would give up using 1NT as the GF relay, as you can't use any 2/1 artificiality to assist in handling all the hand types, but you can use 1NT "forcing" or "semi-forcing" to artificially handle stuff, thanks to those methods being played by many before they closed the barn door.

[effervesce]

The scheme I'd like to use (never played it, I'd like to convince my partner to play it given we already play symmetric relays in 1C) is

 

1M - 1NT forcing

whatever - new suit/raise 2x/2NT = inv

 

1M - 2 new suit/3C = NF

 

1M-2C GF relay:

 

2D = min, no 4OM/any 5440

.....2S = 4+ clubs min

.....2NT = 5440 type

............3D/3H/3S = H/M/L short

......3C = 5+ diamonds

.............3H = high short

.............3S = 6511/5611 major + diamonds

.............3NT = 5521 low short

.............4C = 5530 low short

.............4D = 6520 low short

.....3D = high short

.....3H = 5242

.....3S = 5431 low short

.....3NT = 6421 low short

.....4C = 6430 low short

.....4D = 7420

.....4H = 7411

2H = 4OM/singlesuited hearts with shortage

.........2NT = singlesuited with shortage

.................3H = HS

.................3S = MS

.................3NT = 6331

.................4C = 7(32)1

.................4D = 7330

........3C = 5+/5+ majors

........3D+ = high short

........3H = 5422

........3S = LS, 5431

........etc

2S = 4+ clubs, max

.........same scheme as above

2NT = singlesuited, no shortage

.........3D = 6223

.........3H = 6232

.........3S = 6322

.........3NT = 7222

3C+ = 4+ diamonds, max, same scheme as above

[awm]

A few comments:

 

(1) I don't think "complete shape" relays for 1M-2♣ will work. Symmetric is actually packed very nicely to resolve at 3♦ or 3♥ for most common hand types. There is a huge difference between resolving at 3♥ (where 3♠ is relay and 3NT is to play) versus 3♠ (where the relay is two entire steps higher at 4♣). This is not to say that some sort of "partial relay" 1M-2♣ is a bad idea, but I think it should be structured along different lines if one were to do that.

 

(2) I am not hugely worried about ACBL general chart, but mid-chart legality would be nice.

 

(3) As with many things, there are a ridiculous number of versions of symmetric relay now online. While they all agree on the relay structure, they seem to differ about the rest of the system. I got the "2/1 NF 5+" method from two independent such sites, not surprised it isn't part of the "original system" though.

 

(4) The tough thing about using 2♣ as a sort of "omni-invite" is that you can't really find fits in either minor suit very well. Say responder has 1444 or 1435 or 1453 or 23(53) opposite a 1♠ opening. It seems like with these types the auction will go 1♠-2♣-2♦(some sort of catch all) and then 2NT/2♥ saying nothing about minor suit length. So you could have a nine-card fit in either minor suit and miss it entirely. In addition to being bad for partscore bidding (who wants to play 2NT all the time? yuck!) you can also miss some games this way.

[glen]

First a comment: If 1M starts at 10, it will be Keith Urban's "Days go by" before you get the benefit of the 1NT GF auction to a neat spot. No kid man.

 

If you allocate 1NT to the GF hands, and are stuck in ACBL GCC and quasi-mid land, you could try:

 

1M-?

--cheapest suit bid can be as short as 3 if fairly flat

--other suit bids below 2M are 5 or longer, non-forcing, but up to invite with 5

--jumps in suits are decent 6 or longer suit, invite

 

After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-?

--Opener's 2M shows the cheapest suit bid -> thus 1♥-1♠;-2♥ is ♣s, 1♠-2♣;-2♠ is ♦s

--The cheapest suit bid shows 6 or longer in M and no second suit, or 4 in responder's "suit" or, if 1♠-2♣;-2♦, flat hand.

 

After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-cheapest suit rebid-?

2M: flat hand, only 3 in first bid suit, less than invite values

fourth suit: 4 or longer in first suit bid, invite values only if flat or will bid 3M over 2M

2NT: flat hand, only 3 in first bid suit, invite

rest: natural invites with natural 1st suit bid

 

For examples:

1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4♠s or 6+♥s)-2♦(4+♠s, invite only if flat or will bid 3♥ over 2♥);-2♥(6+♥s, no second suit)

 

1♠-2♣(could be as short as 3);-2♦(4♣s or 6+♠s or flat)-2♥(4+♣s, invite only if flat or will bid 3♠ over 2♠);-2♠(5+♠s, no second suit)

 

1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4♠s or 6+♥s)-2♠(5+♠s, invite)

 

For the 3-card suit, there are other approaches along the same lines, such as:

 

After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-?

--Opener's 2M shows a 4 card raise in responder's suit - only passed by flat hand with just 3 in responder's suit and less than invite -> thus 1♥-1♠;-2♥ is 4♠s, 1♠-2♣;-2♠ is 4♣s

--The cheapest suit bid shows 6 or longer in M and no second suit, or 4+ in the cheapest suit or, if 1♠-2♣;-2♦, flat hand.

 

After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-cheapest suit rebid-?

fourth suit: asks hand type

rest: natural bidding

 

Example:

1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4+♣s or 6+♥s and no second suit)-2♦(asks);-2♥(6+♥s, no second suit)

[jtfanclub]

(2) One big problem hand type seems to be moderate hands (like 7-10 hcp) with singleton or doubleton in the major. I am not eager to pass these hands, because they do occasionally produce a game opposite a shapely hand, because it is often possible to improve the partial, and because bidding on them tends to block the opponents (and the field will bid). Methods where 1NT is relay and 2-new-suit is 5+ or even 6+ in the bid suit don't give any sensible call on these hands.

Don't understand why people hate passing those hands. If opener doesn't have a two-suiter, you should almost never have game, and you should be happy to defend, since we're probably talking a 14 total trump hand. If opener does have a two-suiter, the opponents are usually happy to balance, at least where I am.

 

It's just, y'know, not all systems can have everything. I don't think passing these hands is a huge cross to bear.

[the hog]

(2) One big problem hand type seems to be moderate hands (like 7-10 hcp) with singleton or doubleton in the major. I am not eager to pass these hands, because they do occasionally produce a game opposite a shapely hand, because it is often possible to improve the partial, and because bidding on them tends to block the opponents (and the field will bid). Methods where 1NT is relay and 2-new-suit is 5+ or even 6+ in the bid suit don't give any sensible call on these hands.

Don't understand why people hate passing those hands. If opener doesn't have a two-suiter, you should almost never have game, and you should be happy to defend, since we're probably talking a 14 total trump hand. If opener does have a two-suiter, the opponents are usually happy to balance, at least where I am.

 

It's just, y'know, not all systems can have everything. I don't think passing these hands is a huge cross to bear.

It is not a question of having a game; passing gives the opponents a licence to come in.

[awm]

I generated 30 random hands under the conditions that opener has 5+♠ and 10-14 hcp and responder has 2(434) or 1444 shape with 7-10 hcp. Some observations:

 

Out of 30 hands, there were 3 virtually cold games and 2 additional good ones. There were 6 other hands where 1♠ was a somewhat dubious partial (5-1 fit or 5-2 with very poor trumps) whereas another substantially better fit was available.

 

It's true that most of the game contracts (including all the virtually cold ones) involve opener with some additional shape. Two of the three cold games involved 6-5 hands for opener and the third involved a 7-card spade suit. One of the other two good games involved a 6-0-4-3 hand with eight card fits in both pointy suits, and the other was a 5-4-1-3 opener opposite a 1-4-4-4 responder with honors in the right places.

 

Obviously it is hard to say when or whether opponents will "save you" by balancing, or evaluate the deterrent effect of bidding over the major suit opening versus passing.

[jtfanclub]

Curious to know if anybody has done a study on this.

 

My feeling is, when we don't have a fit and we have about half the deck, we're better off defending. Worst case, they make 2 when we would have been down 1 at the 2 level, not worth worrying about, especially vulnerable. But there's going to be lots of hands, or there should be lots of hands, where nobody has anything at the 2 level, or we can push them up to the three level if we can get them into the bidding.

 

There are other issues: 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♣ might be 3 cards. 1♠-P-P-X-2♣ is a real suit. Is knowing the opp's distribution more important for them or for us? But, y'know, I don't believe there's too much of an advantage to bidding here when partner is limited.

 

And of course, it helps a lot when the pass here is 0-10 instead of 0-6 against good opponents. :)

 

Edit: To Awm- of course, there's also the question of how many times we would bid game, and if the opps won't balance because they're afraid that we'll find game, how many times when I have a 5 count will they let us play it in 1♠.

 

Somebody must have done a study on this, somewhere.

[jdonn]

JT I mean this as honest advice rather than pointless criticism, since I have a little of the same quality myself. You waste a lot of time forming and arguing for your own opinions that go against what everyone else in the universe believes, until someone can literally prove them wrong to you. When 100% of bridge players of virtually all levels do something, you should probably just accept that it's right instead of arguing against it. This is definitely one of those times. Passing on the hands you suggest is terrible and you shouldn't need a study or a sim or a long discussion to convince you, you should simply take this as a case of 'the entire bridge-playing universe would not be wrong about this'.

[awm]

The counterpoint to this is who says we don't have a fit? Just because partner opened 1♠ and I have only doubleton there doesn't mean the hand is a misfit. We could easily have a nine card fit in some other suit (even hearts). We could have a nine card spade fit. Opponents are much less likely to balance when our best fit is not in the suit opened too -- they tend to have the wrong shape for a takeout double (too many spades, not enough in our big side suit fit).

 

I've also found that 5-1 fits don't play very well. And again, opponents are not that likely to "rescue" me when they have seven cards in my trump suit between them and less than half the high cards.

[akhare]

I have always wanted to try the middle of the road approach, i.e., 2/1 bids are NF (7+ to 10) and the 1N response is forcing, but doesn't promise GF strength.

 

Opener makes the normal responses to the forcing 1N bid. I suppose 5332 hands might be slightly tricky if you want to relay out entire pattern, but it can probably be handled pretty elegantly.

 

After opener's response, you can play that return to opener's major is to play and cheapest bid continues the relay...

[Free]

I've played some form of symmetric relay after 1M-1NT. However we used 1NT as INV+ relay, not GF. Opener would bid 2♣ with the hand he'd normally bid 2♣ with, or any minimum hand. This way, responder could relay with 2♦ and opener would specify which holding he actually has (2M = min, the rest is bidding out shape in steps). Also, responder could break the relays and bid natural to find the best part score opposite a minimum opener. The biggest drawback is when opener is minimum and responder has a GF. Your relays are off, you're at 2M, and you have only heard about a 5 card M...

 

In combination with this, we played all 2/1's natural and NF.

[helene_t]

Josh, while I suppose you are right (if only because you are a much better bridge player than I) I have an issue with your argument. Innovation comes from people like JTF who are crazy enough to challenge conventional wisdom. They are wrong most of the time but when they are right it is actually interesting that they are right (if it is ever discovered that they are).

 

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay. How many bridge authorities have actually experience with such a system? The standard forcing 1NT response is difficult to defend, and opps might actually help you by interfering, for example when you have a Flannery hand or a balanced minimum and you are happy of being relieved of the obligation to rebid. What about a NF 2♣ response to a major? My guess is that it offers less tactical advances than the traditional F1 1NT.

 

FWIW I have somewhat ambivalent feelings about this issue. From a theoretical POV I would say that if p never passes your openings anyway you might as well take advantage of that by playing Fantunes. OTOH it usually elicits a positive emotional response in me when an opp passes his partner's 1x opening, something that suggests it is bad tactics to do that too often.

[glen]

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay. How many bridge authorities have actually experience with such a system?

Wei/Ewen Precision had a 8+ requirement for responder opposite the limited openings. Field testing by everybody, including Wei, proved it a poor idea.

[helene_t]

That's my point. Wei didn't play 1NT as a GF relay.