Y Not- 1D- response - denying 5+ Maj Suit?

[olegeorge]

Can any of you explain big weaknesses in making a 1D response to a 1C opener - being a denial of a 5+ card major suit (could be short in diamonds) as in:

 

1C + 1D - with: ♠-KQxx, ♥-Qxx, ♦-Jxx, ♣-xxx vs

1C + 1S - with: ♠-KQxxx, ♥-Qxx ♦-Jxx, ♣♣-xx

 

It seems misleading with a hand with: 4-4-1-4 distribution, where one might need to respond 1D - with a singleton, particularly where opener was going to do a reverse (1C, rebid 2D) - though - one could still do that: 1C + 1D + 2D - to show a reverse.

 

Rarely one might end up with a 1/2/3 NT contract - with a weird distribution combo such as:

 

3-3-2-5 (1C opener) with: 4-4-1-4 (1D response) - 1/2/3 NT rebid - showing no 4 card major, however without the 1 diamond bid in S/A or 2/1 - the bidding would then go: 1C + 1H + 1/2/3NT most likely ending up in the same difficult situation.

 

With situations where one had 4,5,6, or 7 diamonds - one's rebid - would clarify - diamond and major suit status - NT rebids with 4-5 diamonds and sometimes rebidding diamonds with 6-7 of them.

 

With interference from the opponents nothing really ends up that different from more traditional bidding as it would get more difficult to show length - though often a negative double might show 4 cards vs. a 1S or 2H bid - would show 5 in the major suit.

 

I've never heard of anyone playing anything like this, but wonder - if it makes sense??

 

Feedback would be most welcome!

[glen]

Please see:

 

Bridgeguys: Montreal Relay

 

Note that Mr. Eric now lives in Toronto, and has not yet invented the Toronto Relay.

 

The book "Some Issues of Intermediate Bridge and the Montreal Relay Plus System" by Rosenthal is detailed and interesting, but hard to get at this time.

[mycroft]

Well, here's one issue (see the bottom half)

[TylerE]

Can I force my opponents to always play this?

[kenrexford]

The Montreal Relay approach works fairly well if the nuances are understood and proper agreements to handle intereference are used. It was and remains an alternative to support doubles. I think the approach gets far too much grief. In practice, it is probably one of the best conventions out there for intermediate players, as it is far easier to explain and then use than support doubles.

[kfay]

I played MR with my partner in the collegiate's in 2006. I hated it then and I hate it now... in THAT context. As part of a larger system with an overall design plan it can be quite good and even necessary, I played it late last year and it was alright.

 

I'd still prefer not to play it though.

[kenrexford]

The idea that a MR is misleading is errant, because 1♦ is artificial. Would you consider Stayman misleading because Responder might not have clubs?

 

If Opener has 3325 and Responder has 4414, the MR sequence would likely be 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT, and you said. With "normal" bidding, the auction would be 1♣-P-1♥-P-1NT. What is the difference? Well, the difference is that in the MR sequence the opponents have less info upon which to rely for the opening lead. That's actually a plus for MR. MR sequences often result in the opponents remaining in the dark about the majors.

 

The problem is in discussing and recognizing some inherent problems. For instance:

 

1. Is a diamond "rebid" (1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♦) a "new suit" and thus forcing or is it a weak call, as if it were a true rebid? (Should be the latter, IMO, because the rebid "proves" the first bid as actually based on a real suit. Treat diamond rebids as if the first diamond bid was natural.)

 

2. Does 1NT directly show something different than 1♦...1NT? Or, does a 1♦...1NT say something about the "other major?" For example, 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT? I prefer that range be the key, whether 1NT directly shows 8-10 and a delayed implies less, or, I liked a mini-1NT at one point, where 1♣-P-1NT showed 2-5 HCP (the more vulnerable, the more minor shape required).

 

3. What do you play if 1♣-P-1♦-interference? The usual "solution" is to have Opener use "negative doubles" sort of "as if" Opener were responding to a 1♦ opening. For example, after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠, Opener would double to show hearts.

 

If you start using MR, a common theme is to then use a "real diamonds" opening (5+, or 4+ but unbalanced, or just promising 4-card) because you "want" to open 1♣ a lot more. You then may want a 2♦ rebid to sometimes be canape. Strange, but I have played that you open 1♣ with 5332 and five diamonds if you would have opened a weak 1NT (1♦ promises unbalanced). In that event, a sequence like 1♣-P-1NT-P-2♦ typically shows just that hand and is not a reverse.

[olegeorge]

Reviewing the Montreal Relay System I have one question with its rules. I see no reason why responder need bid 1♦ in response to 1♣ when a better bid might be in NT or 2♣ (inverted minors) - both denying a 4 card major.

 

My sense is that a most problematic situation with this type of system would be where one has a 4/4 major suit fit - and the opponent after the 1♦ response might overcall 2♥/♠ making it unnecessarily awkward to differentiate between 4/4 major suit fits with other situations where one might have even a 4/2 fit.

 

(From the excellent questions above)

 

1. Is a diamond "rebid" (1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♦) a "new suit" and thus forcing or is it a weak call, as if it were a true rebid? (Should be the latter, IMO, because the rebid "proves" the first bid as actually based on a real suit. Treat diamond rebids as if the first diamond bid was natural.)

 

* What you say makes perfect sense.

 

2. Does 1NT directly show something different than 1♦...1NT? Or, does a 1♦...1NT say something about the "other major?" For example, 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT? I prefer that range be the key, whether 1NT directly shows 8-10 and a delayed implies less, or, I liked a mini-1NT at one point, where 1♣-P-1NT showed 2-5 HCP (the more vulnerable, the more minor shape required).

 

* I'd suggest that one's preference be to bid 1NT where possible to make clear the lack of a potential 4/4 major suit fit. I would think that this would make it easier for opener to avoid problems similar to what I alluded to above. Your ideas are also worth considering.

 

3. What do you play if 1♣-P-1♦-interference? The usual "solution" is to have Opener use "negative doubles" sort of "as if" Opener were responding to a 1♦ opening. For example, after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠, Opener would double to show hearts.

 

* I agree - the problem as alluded to above (before your statements/questions) is when the overcall is particularly 2♠

 

If you start using MR, a common theme is to then use a "real diamonds" opening (5+, or 4+ but unbalanced, or just promising 4-card) because you "want" to open 1♣ a lot more. You then may want a 2♦ rebid to sometimes be canape. Strange, but I have played that you open 1♣ with 5332 and five diamonds if you would have opened a weak 1NT (1♦ promises unbalanced). In that event, a sequence like 1♣-P-1NT-P-2♦ typically shows just that hand and is not a reverse.

 

* I prefer in "normal" play to have 1♦ openers - promise 4 diamonds except for with 4-4-3-2 distribution. It would seem to make sense here - for the latter situation to be a 1♣ opener. In general - it seems to me to not be necessary to bid reverses (1♣ with 2♦ rebids - except to show things like 1-2-4-6 distribution with strength, so that 1♦ - can be opened with distributions such as: 2-2-5-4, while one might choose to open 1♣ with most: 3-3-4-3 hands to seek the 3/5 fit before moving towards NT.

 

More feedback would be most welcome!

[kenrexford]

This approach resulted in one of the most humorous sequences I have ever been a part of.

 

Red on white, partner opened 1♣, passed to me, his partner.

 

I responded 1NT. This showed "2-5 HCP" but I was required to have "the more vulnerable, the more minor cards." So, he expected a LOT of minor cards.

 

The opponent to my left doubled for takeout.

 

Partner's next call, red on white, was 6♣!!!

 

1♣-P-1NT!-X

6♣-?

 

As it turned out, 6♣ turned on a finesse. If the finesse had worked, we would have made 6♣. Because it failed, 6♣X went -200. However, because it failed, 5♥ or 5♠ was cold for the opponents.

 

:)

[kenrexford]

2. Does 1NT directly show something different than 1♦...1NT? Or, does a 1♦...1NT say something about the "other major?" For example, 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT? I prefer that range be the key, whether 1NT directly shows 8-10 and a delayed implies less, or, I liked a mini-1NT at one point, where 1♣-P-1NT showed 2-5 HCP (the more vulnerable, the more minor shape required).

 

* I'd suggest that one's preference be to bid 1NT where possible to make clear the lack of a potential 4/4 major suit fit. I would think that this would make it easier for opener to avoid problems similar to what I alluded to above. Your ideas are also worth considering.

 

 

 

...If you start using MR, a common theme is to then use a "real diamonds" opening (5+, or 4+ but unbalanced, or just promising 4-card) because you "want" to open 1♣ a lot more. You then may want a 2♦ rebid to sometimes be canape. Strange, but I have played that you open 1♣ with 5332 and five diamonds if you would have opened a weak 1NT (1♦ promises unbalanced). In that event, a sequence like 1♣-P-1NT-P-2♦ typically shows just that hand and is not a reverse.

 

* I prefer in "normal" play to have 1♦ openers - promise 4 diamonds except for with 4-4-3-2 distribution. It would seem to make sense here - for the latter situation to be a 1♣ opener. In general - it seems to me to not be necessary to bid reverses (1♣ with 2♦ rebids - except to show things like 1-2-4-6 distribution with strength, so that 1♦ - can be opened with distributions such as: 2-2-5-4, while one might choose to open 1♣ with most: 3-3-4-3 hands to seek the 3/5 fit before moving towards NT.

 

More feedback would be most welcome!

As to these two observations. They are related.

 

One of the themes to a MR approach is that you minimize some disclosure. For instance, when Opener has 5♣/332, you often reach 1NT (or 2NT/3NT) without disclosing whether Responder has one, both, or neither major. This makes life difficult on defense for the lead for the opponents.

 

When you also open 1♣ with any balanced hand that does not have a five-card major (and is not appropriate for 1NT immediately), the confusion also leads into the minors, leaving the opponents clueless.

 

A 1♦ opening as unbalanced is gaining popularity internationally in its own right, with the non-obvious benefit of non-disclosure in the balanced hand auctions. I have used that tweak with very novice players, who have handled it extremely well and love it.

 

A corollary to this is to avoid the major disclosure perforce present when 1♦ guarantees either real diamonds or a four-card major. I toyed with that idea for a while, but the gain is minimal and rare, whereas the gain from creating a different range (8-10 for a direct 1NT) is a lot higher. I think that the non-disclosure is better.

 

Of course, I actually prefer Walsh (albeit with the addition of an unbalanced 1♦ opening) when playing in an advanced partnership (with support doubles), but the weights of benefits and costs are to me closer than sugested by many "Walsh is King, MR sucks" folks. I think MR gets some bad press because it is so useful for people who find support doubles too hard. Those people would likely misuse MR and would likely not have solutions to MR problems. They thus make MR look bad.

[Tcyk]

It is interesting that some would play this system. A very old method that I played in the 60's was similar and I don't know if it even had a name. We could respond 1♥ to 1♣ with 4+ hearts but a 1♠ response promised 5+ spades. A 1♦ response was alerted as temporizing, could have 4 spades. The 1♦ response was also made with balanced hands with 6 or 7 HCP. A direct response of 1NT showed 8-10 HCP. There really weren't many disadvantages to using this system.

[kenrexford]

Puppet Stayman as an opening bid, perhaps?

[benlessard]

The best setup for MR is at MP playing weak NT. Under those circonstance its probably equal to Twalsh or anything else.