semipositive advice

[straube]

1C-1D (GF), 1H is a relay, but if opener is a minimum, he can describe his hand to partner (with 1S rebids on up). As I understand it, this avoids lengthy auctions when slam is out of the picture and also leaves the opponents in the dark.

 

I've never totally bought into this. While I don't want to give away information useful on defense, it can happen that partner ends the relaying before discovering that opener has a shapely and useful minimum hand.

 

I also don't care for 1C-1D, 1N as balanced because it prevents responder from describing his own (hopefully) shapely hand. As a rule, it's easier for the balanced hand to judge how the hands are meshing...especially when the balanced hand has probably hcp majority.

 

So I thought perhaps just to eliminate 1C-1D, 1N as balanced. Have opener describe his hand only when he's unbalanced...perhaps only when he has shortness. Perhaps I'll leave in the 5422s and 6322s.

 

In any case, right now my Moscito notes call for 1C-1D, 1H to show a nonminimum hand or any hand with 5440 shape...because there just isn't room for the 5440s. Naturally, I'd want now to change the structure so that I could show a 5440.

 

1C-1D, 1H will now show extras unbalanced or any balanced.

 

I'll gain 1C-1D, 1N to show something else now, so I will sometimes save a step.

 

The next question is whether it's better when opener is describing his own pattern for him to try to declare or for his partner? If opener declares, the lead goes to the stronger hand, but the opponents defend double dummy. My guess is that the structure should try to have responder declare.

 

So for instance, 1C-1D, 1S might be minor suit based hands while 1C-1D, 1N might be major suit based hands.

 

Any thoughts?

[awm]

There are a couple comments on the 1♣-1♦-1NT auction.

 

First, when a shapely hand faces a balanced hand and you decide to play in notrump, it is quite important that the balanced hand declare. Otherwise the lead of the shapely hand's singleton comes through the balanced hand, and this is usually quite disadvantageous. This is one of the most important "siding" issues in bidding.

 

Second, just because opener bid 1NT doesn't mean responder can't describe shape. In fact many of us play methods after our 1NT openings/rebids where responder describes shape! The auction is made somewhat easier by the knowledge that very shapely responder hands have a guaranteed fit (for example holding a one-suiter of 6+ cards, responder can set the suit and start a cuebidding auction).

[straube]

Thanks. Good points.

 

It just doesn't seem like there's enough room after 1C-1D, 1N for responder to describe shape; it's lost 2 steps. Seems automatic that 1C-1D, 1N-2C can't relay for opener's shape; 2C has to start describing responder's shape. Even so, seems like we spill past 3N frequently.

 

I'd thought about having responder show the shapely hands and not describe his balanced hands (except for some basic form of stayman) unless willing to relay past 3N. Something like...

 

1C-1D, 1N-3D stayman intending game only

1C-1D, 1N-4C starts to relay for opener's shape...interested in slam

 

Those two things save just a little room.

 

Do you have a structure for 1C-1D, 1N where responder relays his shape?

 

What's the general rule about reverse relaying as to who ought to declare when opener has a distributional hand? Is it a wash?

[awm]

In my experience when one hand is balanced we don't usually need to know exact shapes. We can do a very good job on slam bidding with the following pieces of information:

 

(1) Our combined strength.

(2) Our degree of fit.

(3) The balanced hand's holding opposite partner's shortage.

(4) A check on controls (although even this is rarely needed).

 

Assuming the 1NT rebid is limited in some way, responder already has a good idea of the first criteria. What I use for the others is pretty simple and not far from standard methods. I play the combination of:

 

Stayman, usually used on balanced hands only, with minor suit-stayman available after opener's response.

 

2♠ as a purely quantitative ask, with suit-bid followups showing a semi-balanced one-suited slam try and starting a cuebid sequence for controls (opener can bid 3nt to show a badly-fitted hand).

 

Direct splinters at the three-level to show three-suited hands like 4144, 4135, etc. and allow opener to evaluate his holding opposite the shortage immediately.

 

Transfers to the minors, with follow-ups showing side-suit shortage in game-going hands.

 

Transfers to the majors, with transfer follow-ups (i.e. 1NT-2♦-2♥-2N shows hearts and clubs). After opener accepts the second transfer, responder pinpoints shortage (if any). This allows opener to gauge both degree of fit and holding opposite shortage.

[straube]

I have similar methods for 1N, but I'm greedy and I guess I'd like to be able to show voids and such. Still, you make a good argument for having opener grab the NT.

 

Nick put me in touch with Mark Abraham and I learned a little of things he's tried...this includes having RR always relay the hand after 1C-1D. Saves a step at the cost of making the weaker hand captain.

 

He's using 1C-1H as a semipositive for spades

1C-1H, 1S-1N shows a balanced hand with spades

1C-1N shows a balanced hand without spades or a three-suited hand short in spades.

 

He uses HCP, multiplies by .6 and rounds down to find his number of QPs. In this manner, he might make a semipositive with 2 QPs that has extra jacks or stiff Ks and Qs. Same goes for making a GF. So when pd later tells you he has 3 or 6 QPs, the matter is in some doubt. But when he tells you he has 4, 5, 7, 8, etc. he's actually looking at QPs...I think. He also counts the stiff K as 1 QP.

 

Anyway, I thought that makes it easier to pass partner's semipositive response. I've always thought he ought not be dropped in case of having extra jacks, etc. but if those are factored in, then something like 1C-2H (6 hearts) is passable.

 

Thoughts?

[awm]

Well, I am already on record as disliking non-forcing bids which have "up to just short of game values." My reasoning is that the advantage of non-forcing bids is that they are passable, but now partner will not want to pass with a queen extra (might miss game) or with a very bad fit (might play a stupid contract) or with a good fit (might miss game). Combining this together partner's pass is quite a rare beast. So the advantage (partner can pass) very rarely comes into play. On the other hand you generally lose with the game-going hands where you couldn't make a descriptive bid right away for fear that partner would pass.

 

This means in general I think that bids should either: (1) be forcing or (2) have an upper limit which is substantially less than GF values (3) set the strain in a clear way and have a very narrow range. In the case of responses to a strong club, the category two hands are few and far between, and the category three hands are almost impossible because opener's range of shapes is so wide. So I believe in forcing responses...

[straube]

I prefer forcing responses, too. I'm more concerned with RR having some hand like x KQJxxxx Jxx xx. Does he respond 2H and cringe when partner passes? Or does he establish a GF and mislead partner into thinking he has 6 QPs when he has only 3?

 

That's why I liked

1H-various semipositives

1N-5 hearts

.....2D-6 hearts

.....etc.

2C-54 or 45 majors

2D-5S/4C

2H-6S

2S-5S/4D

3C-5S/5D

 

It had much to do with getting another bid.

 

Mark sent me a link to a system called SCREAM

http://www.users.on.net/~mabraham/systems/...tives.html#1D1H

 

I like the idea of preserving captaincy for the balanced hand (though quite a lot of memory work to do it). The cost of putting all the semipositives into 1H is a little high...but no worse than 1C-1D (neg), 1H-1N+

[straube]

deleted

[straube]

deleted