2/1 responses in relay system

[awm]

There are obviously some other decisions/assumptions being made here. Let me try to outline:

 

I like five-card major methods. In competitive situations I think there is a big advantage to opening hands where you have a long suit (say a 5cM or 6cm) with a bid that shows substantial length in that suit! This helps partner figure out whether to raise and/or double the opponents and also to find a lead. There are many competitive sequences where a system that frequently opens weak four-card majors is at a substantial disadvantage. In general I like my opening structure of 1M 5+ intermediate, 2m 6+ intermediate, 1♦ as a "catch-all" without a 5M or 6m. Distinguishing "square" hands from hands with one or more long suits seems more effective to me than showing the longest major even if it is four cards with a much longer/stronger minor suit. I am also somewhat restricted by the ACBL mid-chart, which does not permit transfer-style opening bids.

 

Having decided on this opening structure, I want to know what the best follow-up structure is for the 1M openings (something like 10-14 hcp with 5+M). Even if we agree that 2/1 GF and a forcing 1NT response is a good approach in a "standard" system, these openings have a weaker lower-limit and a much more narrow range. It seems that devoting all three two-new-suit sequences to game forcing hands and relegating all non-fitting non-GF hands (as well as some fitting hands) to the 1NT response is not as good an idea here. Reasons for this: (1) GF hands are less frequent than opposite sounder openings (2) the 1NT response becomes much more frequent and wider ranging, especially if we don't routinely pass the opening on hands in the 6-8 hcp range (3) opener is way ahead of responder in describing the hand because of the narrow range, which makes assigning captaincy to responder and using a relay style of slam bidding more appealing.

 

I personally think that the "invitational" hand types are very important. These are hands in a point range something like 11-13, which while somewhat narrow is among the most common strengths to hold. A lot of IMPs are won and lost on game vs. partscore decisions, and it would be nice to get these right consistently. I don't think relays are the best way to make these decisions, especially relays that emphasize distinguishing max/min rather than shape at opener's second call.

 

Basically I can see four options here given that I don't like "INV+ relay": (1) continue to use 2/1 GF (2) switch to a method where 2/1 bids are INV+ which ups their frequency and helps with the INV hands, but makes bidding some slam hands more awkward (3) use 1NT as GF relay and the 2/1 bids with INV and weak hands (4) use 2♣ as GF relay and other calls to handle INV and weak hands.

 

It seems from this discussion that (3) is probably not a good option for me. All the methods proposed seem to do substantially worse on the INV and weak hand types than any of (1), (2), (4).

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, here's the response structure that I use over MOSCITO's 1♥ opening.

 

2/1s are Natural and non-forcing. They promise 5+ Cards in the bid suit and deny a fit.

 

A 2/1 promises real values. Opener is encouraged to double for penalties in non-fit auctions.

 

1♥ = 4+ Spades, might have a long suit

 

4♠ = to play

4♥ = Splinter

4♦ = Splinter

4♣ = Splinter

3N = To play

3♠ = Value raise

3♥ = fit jump (game invite with 6 hearts and 3 spades)

3♦ = fit jump ((game invite with 6 diamonds and 3 spades)

3♣ = fit jump (game invite with 6 clubs and 3 spades)

2N = Limit raise+ with 4 trump

2♠ = value raise, 3 card Spade support

2♥ = NNF (shows 5+ Hearts and ~ 7 - 11 HCP)

2♦ = NNF (shows 5+ Dimaonds and ~ 7 -11 HCP)

2♣ = NNF (shows 5+ Clubs and ~ 7 - 11 HCP)

1N = NNF

1S = Relay

 

I've given serious consideration to the following modification:

 

1H - 3C = natural and non-forcing with 6+ Clubs

 

1H - 2C = 4+ Clubs. Promises either a two suited hand or a three suted hand with short spades

[rbforster]

Basically I can see four options here given that I don't like "INV+ relay": (1) continue to use 2/1 GF (2) switch to a method where 2/1 bids are INV+ which ups their frequency and helps with the INV hands, but makes bidding some slam hands more awkward (3) use 1NT as GF relay and the 2/1 bids with INV and weak hands (4) use 2♣ as GF relay and other calls to handle INV and weak hands.

There's also the version where you use 1NT as weak or GF, and 2/1 for invitational hands (F1 or NF to taste, probably 2♣ is F1 since it might be balanced). This has several advantages -

 

1. you have a bid for constructive flattish hands without a fit - bid 1NT and either pass, or possibly correct to 2M. This will get you to better partials than just always passing these.

 

2. handling interference over 1M-1N is better but not great - here there's a big values gap between the constructive 6-9 hands and the 14+ GF hands. There's enough weak hands that crazy interference isn't indicated, and while you lose a forcing pass by opener you can still play either penalty or takeout doubles by responder (to taste) with X and all other bids being unambiguously GF. This is better than dealing with an invitational or maybe GF hand in the same situation where you'll basically be forced to underbid or overbid for lack of space.

 

3. you can handle invitational hands fairly well in a "Standard style" context, while not being absolutely forcing if opener wants to pass a dog minimum with 3+ cards in your 2/1 new suit.

 

The main disadvantages of this of course is that your GF relay suffers some and interference is a little more troublesome. Specifically -

 

1. you lose a forcing pass (FP) over interference. you seem to think this is important, but in my mind it only matters when a) they bid (not that common against me anyway), :rolleyes: we had a hand for whichever of takeout or penalty responder can't show, c) we would have sat for the double, and d) it would have been right. I guess you can start using the FP to describe different hand types that aren't going to penalize too, but I don't think this is the huge loss you think it is (and the field will have your problem too most likely).

 

2. your cheapest relay bid might be 2M in a purely 1NT GF relay system, but now you might want to allow a preference with a flattish constructive hand. So your relays are up a step sometimes. You can fix this by only bidding 1N on flattish hands that intend to pass rather than pass-or-preference, although I'm not sure this is better for finding good partials.

 

3. since responder might have a constructive flattish hand, you'll be constrained to have opener's rebids in response to 1NT to be more-or-less natural. High jump bids may be hard to use if they can't tolerate pushing that high when responder is on the weaker hand. You won't be able to use transfers which might have helped on slam sequences.

 

4. you can't sign off in with a weakish long suit (although I'm not sure you could have done this in a 1NT GF system either, but you can in 2/1). This is much less of a loss playing a limited bid system than it is in 2/1 since in 2/1 opener can have a really big hand and keeping the bidding alive with a random 5-6 count and a long suit might let opener get to game. This pretty much never happens opposite a 10-14 opener, so the only loss in passing is that 1M might be a worse contract than 2X or 3X in your long suit. This might happen sometimes, but the opponents will often balance (since they've got at least half the deck) and then you're off the hook.

 

Still, I think this is a decent alternative and pretty straightforward. If your priorities are mostly for relay slam bidding and good partials, I think this is a good compromise. You probably get to the field partials, and while your relay isn't always as efficient as the pure GF version, you'll still be starting your relay so low that I expect you can reasonably investigate for slam effectively.

[benlessard]

I know a lot of people here love their 1NT response that shows any of three or more totally different hand types some of which are weak and some of which are strong. These kinds of bids seem nice when you're designing a bidding system in isolation, or when you play against opponents who always pass. But in real bridge, opponents tend to bid, especially when you are making nebulous calls that give virtually no information about shape or values. Even simple interference seems to be tough to deal with using these kinds of methods: take 1♥-P-1NT-2♠

. The more type of hands you have in the relay the more precise the other bids will be so in the end the other bids will be less vulnerable to preemption. The important thing is that the nature of the bids that are in the relay are compatible. By compatible i dont mean similar. A michael cue bids with 2 range that dont touch each other (4-8, 16+) will play better then a wide range (6-14). Polish club 12-14 balanced (or 18+) will play better then a 14+ big club (both openings will have similar frequency) Another example is Multi-2D. If you put lightish (5-7) balanced hand in the relay you will have no problem at all with most interference. Opener with a monster will GF anyway. With a weak or medium hand he doesnt need to bid unless extreme shapes and want to sacrifice. This is because a weak balanced hand is compatible with a GF hands.

 

However if you put invitationnal hands in 1Nt youre going to have some problems. Invitationnal hands are not compatible with GF hands. Take for example this setup.

 

1S----2S (6-9)

1S----2H (limit or Gf with a S fit)

 

(here if opener make a splinter whatever the follow up it will be unclear if the responder is limit or GF.)

 

If you reverse the 2S regular raise and 2H

 

1S----2H (GF raise or 6-9)

1S----2S (limit)

 

Then you wont have problems. If partner is making a slam or bidding game facing a possible 6-9 and i was GF there will be no problems.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that 1Nt as GF only is inferior and the only reason for playing it is legal matters.

In much the same way, I don’t play relays over limited openings because I believe that relays are the best way to bid. Rather, I play use relays because I don’t want to waste 5+ responses to my 1H opening showing various game forcing hands.

Then my guess is that your relays are not optimal. If i have a GF hand and a partner showed a fairly precise opening I dont want to show anything, i want to listen to partner. The problem i see with many system here is that they come from a system with a "natural core" in wich we add some relays to improve for slam bidding. Instead of starting from the natural system and adding some relays, start from a already made relays system and try to naturalized it to your taste.

 

I agree with 95% of -- rob f -- last post

[hrothgar]

In much the same way, I don’t play relays over limited openings because I believe that relays are the best way to bid. Rather, I play use relays because I don’t want to waste 5+ responses to my 1H opening showing various game forcing hands.

Then my guess is that your relays are not optimal. If i have a GF hand and a partner showed a fairly precise opening I dont want to show anything, i want to listen to partner.

Please...

 

Do you genuine believe that relay methods are the best way to make an intelligent decision between 3N and 4M?

 

Relay's are great for exploring shape.

I love knowing partne's precise shape by the time he has bid 3♦ or 3♥.

 

However, precise information about shape is useless if I need to know about stoppers. The difference between xxx and Kxx can make an enomous difference in

making an intelligent decision whether or not I want to play 3NT or not. This is where relay methods typically fail.

 

I readily admit... It's possible to build in relay breaks that allow the partnership to switch from showing shape to showing stoppers. (If you look at my first post, I already commented on this). However, I don't go arround deluding myself that this is going to work as effectively as natural bidding.

 

For what its worth, I've had some extensive discussion on this topic with some good relay pairs. They pretty much agree that they prefer natural bidding to explore the best game contracts.

 

Paul Martson is quite specific on this topic. His philosophy is as follows

 

Relays for slam exploration

Natural bidding to explore the best game

Bashing for part score contracts

[rbforster]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with Richard's post that relay can't find you stoppers if you do a careful job of designing good relay breaks, but admittedly most people don't get that far into designing their system, just get some shape relays and always relay as responder. I haven't fully explored the best way to do all these stopper asks, but I agree their important/useful. I'm not sure exactly how useful since unlucky leads vs an unknown relayer's shape and non-perfect defense often sees through many a dubious 3N contract and of course most of the time it's a good contract when you don't have a fit elsewhere so I'm not sure if this really happens enough to be a serious consideration in your overall system design.

 

If it turns out that stopper exploration and/or natural bidding is important to you and is incompatible with your 1NT GF relay methods, you could always use

 

1M-?

 

1N GF with extras and slam interest (17+), or flattish constructive (6-10)

2X F1, invitational or min GF values "Standard style" (11-16)

 

This way on invites and minimum GF hands you get your natural bidding and can explore for 3N more easily, and use relays only when you've got extra values (say 17+ or so). Now at least if you find out you want to play 3N your extra values will probably make it a favorite to make and if opener's shape makes 1N relayer's hand look unsuitable for NT maybe you'll have the strength to make 4M on a 4-3 or 5m.

[benlessard]

Do you genuine believe that relay methods are the best way to make an intelligent decision between 3N and 4M

IMO good relay is better or equal to natural bidding for COG in the majority of cases.

 

Noble showed a hand that is usually tough for our system.

 

AKQTx

QJT

J

xxxx

 

xx

Axxx

xx

AKxxx

 

1S-----1Nt (relay)

2S -----???

 

2S showing 5S + 4C (12-14) wich is our worst hand.

 

now

pass= i think 2S is better then 3C

2NT GF further relay / all slammish hands

3C to play

3D relay break asking for a H stop

3H relay break asking for a D stop.

 

If partner is 6??4 then 4S will probably be the best game.

IF partner is 5224 then i need 5 clubs trick a D stopper and 2 trick elsewhere for 3Nt and if partner deosnt have a stopper 5C is probably hopeless.

if partner is 5??5 then 5C is probably the best spot.

 

But if you bid 2Nt to know more about shape you might be in the dark.

IMO the best way is to break the relay

 

----------3H (relay break asking for a D stopper)

3S (5 good spades or 6 weakish spades doesnt deny a D stopp)----------3Nt not enough to raise S

4H (good H fragment D stiff denies a 5 club suit/beefy 4 card suit)-----------???

 

Now here you are pretty well placed

 

If the H would have been better (AT9x) you would have played 4H

You can bid 4S showing a weak doubleton and suggesting 5C or you can just bid a plain 5C.

[awm]

Let me compare the following two similar ideas in response to 1♠:

 

(1) 1NT is 17+ or 6-9; 2♣/2♦/2♥ are 11-16 natural and forcing

 

(2) 1NT is 6-9 or 11-13 with ♣; 2♣ is 14+ clubs or 17+ any; 2♦/2♥ are 11-16 natural.

 

There are four hand types where we will see a major difference in these structures:

 

A: Hands in the 6-9 range. Here structure (2) will be superior, because you have the option to bid your own diamond suit over 1♠-1NT-2♣ or heart suit over 1♠-1NT-2♦ (these would be the relay in the first structure). It is also likely that opener's 2♣ rebid is "more natural" in structure (2) because you don't need to pack a relay structure in. And you can create useful jump shifts for opener on shapely hands in structure (2) to find the occasional game opposite 6-9, which is harder to do in structure (1) because you have to make room for relay. Also, you may be able to introduce a long suit when opponents intervene without gadgets or ambiguity (i.e. if opponents overcall 2♥ over 1NT and you back in with 3♦ it is definitely weak).

 

B: Hands in the 11-13 range with 4+♣. Here structure (2) should be superior as well, because opener's rebid is more descriptive. In particular 1♠-1NT-2♠ is definitely six (or more) in structure (2) whereas 1♠-2♣-2♠ might have to include 5(332) hands and/or hands with 4♣ that are too weak to force game in structure (1). Obviously you can jigger your rebids in structure (1) however you like, but the point is that you have lost a step for opener to describe so you will probably end up doing slightly worse than a similarly optimized structure for (2).

 

C: Hands in the 14-16 range with 4+♣. Again structure (2) should be superior. Here you have the option to relay when this seems best, or to break relays in a natural game-forcing way (i.e. by bidding 3♣ if it's not the step) when that seems more effective. In structure (1) you are locked in to "natural bidding" and may have to take some awkward actions to force if a lot of sequences show the 11-13 range (i.e. 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♣ may be NF).

 

D: Hands in the 17+ range. When opponents interfere with the auction structure (2) should still win (assuming the same interference in either case). In fact you can simply continue to relay if opponents double or overcall 2♦/2♥ having lost nothing. And you have forcing pass available in other auctions to help clarify the hand (for example you could play that a direct bid by opener after interference shows 0-1 cards in the opposing suit, double shows two cards, pass shows 3+). When opponents don't intervene is the only case where structure (1) is a win. But it doesn't win as much as you might think. You gain a bunch of sequences by starting relays with 1NT (if you are measuring sequences ending in 3♥/♠/NT then you have 89 instead of 55). But then you lose some of these because 2♠ is not the relay over 1♠-1NT-2♥, and you lose some because you can't make efficient use of opener's jump shifts (because of the 6-9 possibility), and then you lose some more because you can't pack enough hands into opener's 2♣ rebid and still have it be fairly "natural." I suspect you'll end up with more like 65-70 sequences rather than 89. And even to do this may require rewriting your relay structure (i.e. it won't strongly resemble whatever structure you use over 1♣ strong) thereby greatly increasing memory load. Another point is that you can "relay break" after 1♠-2♣-2X in method (2) whereas most such breaks in method (1) presumably show the weak option.

 

So I prefer structure (2) from these possibilities. How many 17+ hands do you get anyway?

[benlessard]

(1) 1NT is 17+ or 6-9; 2♣/2♦/2♥ are 11-16 natural and forcing

to wait for 17+ to relay say that you should play a simple transfer responses instead.

 

Ive never saw a relay system that allow for LOB that satisfy me because the requirement for GF are just too harsh.

 

(2) 1NT is 6-9 or 11-13 with ♣; 2♣ is 14+ clubs or 17+ any; 2♦/2♥ are 11-16 natural.

A simple 2/1 structure with 2C as artificial seems better then this. Again the requirement to relay is too high to my taste.

 

My philosophy is this loosen the requirement for a weak 2 & for 1Nt openings thighten the requirement for a 1M opening so that the response after 1M work like magic. Im not a great believer in LOB so my judgement is tainted on that subject.

[awm]

My philosophy is this loosen the requirement for a weak 2 & for 1Nt openings thighten the requirement for a 1M opening so that the response after 1M work like magic. Im not a great believer in LOB so my judgement is tainted on that subject.

My post was more a response to Rob Forster's suggestion than yours. I will note that 14 hcp is probably enough for a game force opposite 10-14.

 

Structures like the one Ben Lessard suggests are very nice when opponents are passing. But I doubt in competitive auctions that they work so well. You will often have auctions such as:

 

1♠ (some split range, natural)

Pass

1NT (some split range)

3♣ overcall

....

 

Now presumably if opener bids again it shows the higher of the two ranges (otherwise it is not clear how you will ever distinguish now that opponents have crashed the auction). But this means you have to pass with some shapely hands where you might like to bid in order to avoid showing the upper range.

 

So the auction passes back to responder. He is in a similar situation; presumably bidding here shows the game forcing 1NT range. So you could have an auction where opener is 5-5 in the majors with a minimum and responder is 2-5-3-3 with the weaker option and you pass out 3♣? Or am I missing something here?

[benlessard]

Structures like the one Ben Lessard suggests are very nice when opponents are passing. But I doubt in competitive auctions that they work so well.

Because of the limited opening we are in better shape then regular 2/1 & its mostly when partner is in 1st seat that you might have problems.

 

(pass)-------1M----(Pass)------relay

(OCall)

 

is not that frequent and dont give us that much problems.

 

If you compare

1H-----(P)-----1S relay----(2D)

Where 1H is limited but 1S is unlimited

 

to a standard where 1H is 11-22

 

1H-----(P)------1S/1Nt nat------(2D)

i cant say that the relay is much worse.

 

Dont forget the upside of competitive non-forcing bids.

 

1H-----(P)------???

 

1S=relay

1NT,2C,2D here will give you many competitive advantage. The more hand you put in the relay the more these bids will be efficient.

[Impact]

Coming late to this thread but having played relays over 1M for 20+ years both in practice and philosophically

 

a) minimum hands with prime fits should be removed from the relay (because they are the hands on which opponents are most likely to interfere and sorting out relative strength/penalty intentions will be more difficult AND because you wish to put maximum pressure on opponents with a prime fit by going as high and fast as possible - hence descriptively as well)

 

B) hands which require a minimal degree of fit but no wastage opposite a shortage (typically with long minor/s) for slam are bad for relays as useful/key information comes too late

 

c) hands with game possibility and long suits or best competition are best shown early

 

d) long suits in relatively weak hands should be shown early.

 

Best of most worlds can be obtained by utilising transfers and fit-showing jumps, but you have to rid yourself of 2/1 mentality.

 

My current scheme:-

 

hence over 1S (5+S 10-15):-

1NT= relay (not 3+S unless 5+cover cards/16+HCP)

2C= transfer to D construct part OR Inv OR slam-try with short

2D= transfer to H see above

2H= 6+C see above

2S= nat const

2NT= limit or min GF with outside sing

3C= fit-showing with either C or H (limit or min GF)

3D= fit-showing but see above

3H= bal limit raise

3S= pre-emptive

3NT= bal (flat) min GF raise

4C= void D

4D= void H

4H= void C

4S= trad

 

To buy into the other argument about bidding over 1H opening: I originally used a 1NT relay to protect lead mainly but the loss of space and given the fact that I also pack more hands into my 1H opener (4+H may be canape in any suit but if longer S promises at least 5H) ensures that I use 1S as the relay but rebid NT to promise S - lessening the likelihood of playing there...

 

regards

[akhare]

My current scheme:-

 

hence over 1S (5+S 10-15):-

1NT= relay (not 3+S unless 5+cover cards/16+HCP)

2C= transfer to D construct part OR Inv OR slam-try with short

2D= transfer to H see above

2H= 6+C see above

2S= nat const

2NT= limit or min GF with outside sing

3C= fit-showing with either C or H (limit or min GF)

3D= fit-showing but see above

3H= bal limit raise

3S= pre-emptive

3NT= bal (flat) min GF raise

4C= void D

4D= void H

4H= void C

4S= trad

Can you post the continuations please? Also, you must be outside ACBL-land, right ;)?

[Impact]

Oz where they are deciding to copy ACBL structures - but more slowly...

 

Which part of the continuations do you want as the continuations to the non-transfer bids are lengthy as are my notes and principles on transfers?

 

if you are interested in the lot PM to me...

regards