Crunch3nt Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 hood = good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 It seems like your current scheme does fine over 1♣-1♥. However, this particular unobstructed sequence is not very common, as opponents like to bid over 1♣ especially when they have some values. I would be more concerned with the other sequences. One observation is that compared to "regular" relay-style responses with 1♦ negative and others GF, you are losing one step on the positive hands and effectively gaining one step on the semi-positives. There are a number of disadvantages to such an approach, in particular: (1) Relays help you most on hands in the slam range, and these will be a lot more common when responder has a game force. (2) The range of strength is much wider for the positive response (8+ instead of 5-7), and after you resolve shape you will need to resolve strength and honor location, which means you actually need a lot more space after the positive response than on the semi-positive auction. (3) After a positive response, you will (almost) always relay, whereas after the semi-positive you will fairly often not have a game force and break relays. This means that regardless of the frequency of response, the frequency of relay auctions will be higher opposite the positives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 You definitely should not have the strong hand have to show via reverse relay with a balanced hand - that is terrible. Much better for strong balanced hand to ask than to show. (64% of the time) We only reverse relay when opener is unbalanced so 1S+ has plenty of room. 1D balanced is better for handling 4th hand interference as well. Over 1C-1H, we just play natural - natural isn't that bad you know - not as hood as relay, but not terrible :-) This totally defeats the purpose of the system. I think these responses are very poor - sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 It seems like your current scheme does fine over 1♣-1♥. However, this particular unobstructed sequence is not very common, as opponents like to bid over 1♣ especially when they have some values. I would be more concerned with the other sequences. One observation is that compared to "regular" relay-style responses with 1♦ negative and others GF, you are losing one step on the positive hands and effectively gaining one step on the semi-positives. There are a number of disadvantages to such an approach, in particular: (1) Relays help you most on hands in the slam range, and these will be a lot more common when responder has a game force. (2) The range of strength is much wider for the positive response (8+ instead of 5-7), and after you resolve shape you will need to resolve strength and honor location, which means you actually need a lot more space after the positive response than on the semi-positive auction. (3) After a positive response, you will (almost) always relay, whereas after the semi-positive you will fairly often not have a game force and break relays. This means that regardless of the frequency of response, the frequency of relay auctions will be higher opposite the positives. Thanks. I think these are all good observations. It sounds like you think positives are a stronger approach than semipositives and I'm inclined to agree, but I lack the experience of actually using these systems to know just how often RHO jams the auction. Which do you think is a stronger semipositive structure? 1C-1D semipositives1C-1H-negative1C-1S+positives or 1C-1D GF1C-1H semipositive1C-1S-neg1C-1N+ semipositives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 You definitely should not have the strong hand have to show via reverse relay with a balanced hand - that is terrible. Much better for strong balanced hand to ask than to show. (64% of the time) We only reverse relay when opener is unbalanced so 1S+ has plenty of room. 1D balanced is better for handling 4th hand interference as well. Over 1C-1H, we just play natural - natural isn't that bad you know - not as hood as relay, but not terrible :-) I agree with you that ideally you want the strong balanced hand to relay the weaker unbalanced hand. But look at what happens with your structure... 1C-1D 8+ balanced..........1H-balanced? possibly huge unbalanced? So at this point you have way too much room. If it were right to have 1C-1D be 8+ balanced, then you ought to have opener go straight to 1N to now relay for responder's balanced shape. 1C-1D 8+..........1N-I'm balanced, too................2C-no major...............2D-four hearts...............etc. You could then use 1C-1D, 1H and 1C-1D, 1S to relay out unbalanced hands. You should do a frequency distribution for your responses to 1C. I'm guessing they're something like1D-25% (including all 5332s)1H-50%other-25% If that's about right, then you have difficulty sorting out the 1C-1H auctions (even those who play 1C-1D neg feel like they haven't enough room) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Which do you think is a stronger semipositive structure? 1C-1D semipositives1C-1H-negative1C-1S+positives or 1C-1D GF1C-1H semipositive1C-1S-neg1C-1N+ semipositives Both of these structures are going to lose a step on the GF hands when compared to direct positives. This is fairly substantial for a relay system. I suppose you could say I don't like either of them. If you constrain your structures such that the first response must always clarify completely between GF, semi-positive, or negative you are probably losing out. The negative hands are very infrequent, so you don't really want to devote a cheap bid solely to them, but if you make them bid 1♠ (or higher) your auctions over the negative are going to be quite bad. You also seem to be losing a step on the positive hands, which is really where you least want to lose any steps, but if you have two entire bids devoted to negatives and semi-positives respectively it seems tough to avoid this issue. Given the constraints, maybe the following is okay: 1♦ = some varieties of GF hand1♥ = semi-positives1♠ = negative1N+ = other varieties of GF hand This mirrors the relay auctions that "regular relay precision" sees on the GF and semi-positive hands. It has the advantage of showing the semi-positives directly. The only issue is that the negative bid is quite high. Potentially it might be better to reverse 1♥ and 1♠ and likely just bid naturally over the 1♣-1♠ auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 If you constrain your structures such that the first response must always clarify completely between GF, semi-positive, or negative you are probably losing out. The negative hands are very infrequent, so you don't really want to devote a cheap bid solely to them, but if you make them bid 1♠ (or higher) your auctions over the negative are going to be quite bad. You also seem to be losing a step on the positive hands, which is really where you least want to lose any steps, but if you have two entire bids devoted to negatives and semi-positives respectively it seems tough to avoid this issue. Thanks for replying. I've reason to believe that the 0-4 hcp hands are on the order of 20% of the responding hands to 1C. One reason is that the bridge encyclopedia gives the odds of a random 13 cards having 0-4 pts as about 9%. Given the restriction that one hand holds 15+, the odds increase. Also, Atul and I looked at about 100 hands and the 0-4 pt hand came up something like 30% of the time. Obviously that's a small sample size, but I'm still thinking that 0-4 will be about 20%. That's really my argument for 1C-1H as negative. Should I destroy 20% of the auctions for my 1C (granted that these are my least important 20%)? I'm still not sure. But I think I agree with you in liking positives better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 This is the probability distribution for partner's hcp when one has 16+ hcp. These are calculated not simulated numbers. HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.079893517 0.206179741 5 0.095820436 0.302000176 6 0.106745124 0.4087453 7 0.113519677 0.522264977 8 0.108287574 0.630552551 9 0.097191705 0.727744256 10 0.082147609 0.809891865 11 0.064446102 0.874337967 12 0.047177531 0.921515498 13 0.032479894 0.953995391 14 0.020831806 0.974827197 15 0.012312506 0.987139703 16 0.006815111 0.993954813 17 0.003453122 0.997407936 18 0.001585893 0.998993829 19 0.000661892 0.999655721 20 0.000244125 0.999899846 21 7.60921E-05 0.999975938 22 1.99367E-05 0.999995875 23 3.80347E-06 0.999999679 24 3.21456E-07 1 Edit whoops I see you were discussing 15+ here are those numbers : 15+ High Card Point 16+ High Card Point HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative 0 0.009913845 0.009913845 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.019908795 0.029822641 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.031543206 0.061365847 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.05236386 0.113729707 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.074091549 0.187821257 0.079893517 0.206179741 5 0.090315037 0.278136294 0.095820436 0.302000176 6 0.102319641 0.380455935 0.106745124 0.4087453 7 0.111031509 0.491487444 0.113519677 0.522264977 8 0.108158696 0.599646139 0.108287574 0.630552551 9 0.09919026 0.698836399 0.097191705 0.727744256 10 0.085838681 0.784675081 0.082147609 0.809891865 11 0.06920557 0.85388065 0.064446102 0.874337967 12 0.052102707 0.905983357 0.047177531 0.921515498 13 0.036981008 0.942964365 0.032479894 0.953995391 14 0.024597434 0.967561799 0.020831806 0.974827197 15 0.015117002 0.982678801 0.012312506 0.987139703 16 0.008737102 0.991415902 0.006815111 0.993954813 17 0.004663517 0.996079419 0.003453122 0.997407936 18 0.002283219 0.998362638 0.001585893 0.998993829 19 0.001020425 0.999383063 0.000661892 0.999655721 20 0.000411865 0.999794928 0.000244125 0.999899846 21 0.000147212 0.99994214 7.60921E-05 0.999975938 22 4.43933E-05 0.999986533 1.99367E-05 0.999995875 23 1.12441E-05 0.999997777 3.80347E-06 0.999999679 24 2.05648E-06 0.999999834 3.21456E-07 1 25 1.66028E-07 1 0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 This is the probability distribution for partner's hcp when one has 16+ hcp. These are calculated not simulated numbers. HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency 0 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.079893517 0.206179741 5 0.095820436 0.302000176 6 0.106745124 0.4087453 7 0.113519677 0.522264977 8 0.108287574 0.630552551 9 0.097191705 0.727744256 10 0.082147609 0.809891865 11 0.064446102 0.874337967 12 0.047177531 0.921515498 13 0.032479894 0.953995391 14 0.020831806 0.974827197 15 0.012312506 0.987139703 16 0.006815111 0.993954813 17 0.003453122 0.997407936 18 0.001585893 0.998993829 19 0.000661892 0.999655721 20 0.000244125 0.999899846 21 7.60921E-05 0.999975938 22 1.99367E-05 0.999995875 23 3.80347E-06 0.999999679 24 3.21456E-07 1 Edit whoops I see you were discussing 15+ here are those numbers : 15+ High Card Point 16+ High Card Point HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative 0 0.009913845 0.009913845 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.019908795 0.029822641 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.031543206 0.061365847 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.05236386 0.113729707 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.074091549 0.187821257 0.079893517 0.206179741 5 0.090315037 0.278136294 0.095820436 0.302000176 6 0.102319641 0.380455935 0.106745124 0.4087453 7 0.111031509 0.491487444 0.113519677 0.522264977 8 0.108158696 0.599646139 0.108287574 0.630552551 9 0.09919026 0.698836399 0.097191705 0.727744256 10 0.085838681 0.784675081 0.082147609 0.809891865 11 0.06920557 0.85388065 0.064446102 0.874337967 12 0.052102707 0.905983357 0.047177531 0.921515498 13 0.036981008 0.942964365 0.032479894 0.953995391 14 0.024597434 0.967561799 0.020831806 0.974827197 15 0.015117002 0.982678801 0.012312506 0.987139703 16 0.008737102 0.991415902 0.006815111 0.993954813 17 0.004663517 0.996079419 0.003453122 0.997407936 18 0.002283219 0.998362638 0.001585893 0.998993829 19 0.001020425 0.999383063 0.000661892 0.999655721 20 0.000411865 0.999794928 0.000244125 0.999899846 21 0.000147212 0.99994214 7.60921E-05 0.999975938 22 4.43933E-05 0.999986533 1.99367E-05 0.999995875 23 1.12441E-05 0.999997777 3.80347E-06 0.999999679 24 2.05648E-06 0.999999834 3.21456E-07 1 25 1.66028E-07 1 0 1 Thanks lots. So if my club is 15+ unbalanced and 16+ balanced, then about 19% are double negative. So 1C-1D = 32% of handsand 1C-1H= 19% of handsand 1C-1S+=49% of hands I guess then that a positive relay system would be 1C-1D=51%1C-1H+=49% but if I were to tweak mine a little so that 8pt balanced hands responded 1D, then it would change to... 1C-1D= 38%1C-1H= 19%1C-1S+=43% which I think I like better. I see what awm means, however. If LHO passes, then that changes the frequencies of responder's responses. For example, after LHO passes, responder is likely to have a better hand, so 1C-1H should not be as frequent as 19%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 There's also the argument that it's not just frequency but importance. The 0-4 hands are usually partscore deals, so there are not so many IMPs to be won or lost. The GF hands are quite often game/slam decisions, so there are a very large number of IMPs riding on those hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 There's also the argument that it's not just frequency but importance. The 0-4 hands are usually partscore deals, so there are not so many IMPs to be won or lost. The GF hands are quite often game/slam decisions, so there are a very large number of IMPs riding on those hands. Also, in my experience, the opps almost invariably interfere on the 0-4 hands and in a way make the continuations over 1♣ - 1♠ easier (assuming responder even gets to bid 1♠). One counter argument in favour of 1♣ - 1♦ (all positives) is that opener's reverse relay (with a limited hand) regains the lost step. If responder has a limited hand also, the auction can be terminated without revealing too much information about the hands. Of course, structures like TOSR give the ability to allow opener to reverse relay over the positive response, but as I recall, it requires a special "10 shape reverse relay"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 One counter argument in favour of 1♣ - 1♦ (all positives) is that opener's reverse relay (with a limited hand) regains the lost step. If responder has a limited hand also, the auction can be terminated without revealing too much information about the hands. Reverse relays do not gain a step. They are still +1. Reverse relays would regain a step if opener relayed all of his hands automatically starting with 1H.Obviously, one would be reluctant to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 I generally agree with Adam.(2) The range of strength is much wider for the positive response (8+ instead of 5-7), and after you resolve shape you will need to resolve strength and honor location, which means you actually need a lot more space after the positive response than on the semi-positive auction. I think this is the big reason to go with +0 for positives and +2 for semipositives, rather than +1 for both. Frequency issues aside, you need the space more on the positives to check for slam (safely), while the narrow range of the semipositive means you can afford to be higher since your combined strength is already pretty well known. I made this tradeoff in designing my strong club, where semipositives don't relay and get a little less space/precision, in exchange for getting lower relay resolution for positives. It seems like your current scheme does fine over 1♣-1♥. However, this particular unobstructed sequence is not very common, as opponents like to bid over 1♣ especially when they have some values. Certainly it can't hurt to work out good methods if you can remember them. Generally I thought you usually got interference from weaker-but-not-broke distributional hands, rather than better ones. I've had good results just waiting with sounder hands while the precision people flounder to a poor partial after 1C-1D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Edit whoops I see you were discussing 15+ here are those numbers : 15+ High Card Point 16+ High Card Point HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative 0 0.009913845 0.009913845 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.019908795 0.029822641 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.031543206 0.061365847 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.05236386 0.113729707 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.074091549 0.187821257 0.079893517 0.206179741 Am I reading this correctly that P(0-4|15+) = 19%, but P(0-4|16+) = 21%? Shouldn't 0-4 be getting less likely as opener gets stronger? Edit: nevermind, too tired when I was reading that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Edit whoops I see you were discussing 15+ here are those numbers : 15+ High Card Point 16+ High Card Point HCP Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative 0 0.009913845 0.009913845 0.011278423 0.011278423 1 0.019908795 0.029822641 0.022437932 0.033716354 2 0.031543206 0.061365847 0.035111572 0.068827926 3 0.05236386 0.113729707 0.057458297 0.126286223 4 0.074091549 0.187821257 0.079893517 0.206179741 Am I reading this correctly that P(0-4|15+) = 19%, but P(0-4|16+) = 21%? Shouldn't 0-4 be getting less likely as opener gets stronger? Why? If partner has more then we rate to have less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Well, if one wanted to be +0 for the positives and +2 for the semipositives but wanted to play immediate semipositives and double negatives, one could... 1D-GF with many shapes, including balanced.....1H-opener relays.....1S+ reverse relays hoping to catch responder with the balanced hands1H-any semipositive.....1S-relay1S-any negative1N+ GF with distributional shapes The difficulty I see with this is finding part scores with the semipositives. I'm also not liking how semipositives and double negatives mess with the declaration. A lot to be said for 1C-1D 0-7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 I made this tradeoff in designing my strong club, where semipositives don't relay and get a little less space/precision, in exchange for getting lower relay resolution for positives. IMO, not relaying over SP responses is the right approach. The only reservation I have about the positive response structure at 1♠+ is opener doesn't have the ability to effectively reverse relay. As I see it, having to relay out responder's shape every single time with 9-11 QPs is a losing proposition in the long run. Even assuming that the contract is right sided every single time, resolving dummy's exact shape and strength with zero slam interest will likely confer some advantage to the opening leader. For example, with say opener holding a 15-18ish hand and responder holding a 6-8 QPs 5♠??? I would rather have the auction go 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) - 1N (reverse relay, 9-11 QPs, bal hand) - 2♥ (transfer breaking relay -- no slam interest either) - 2♠ - 3N - 4♠, concealing dummy's exact shape. This brings up an interesting question -- what should relay breaks / reverse relays after a positive response show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 IMO, not relaying over SP responses is the right approach. I think you're almost endplayed into relaying SP responses if you play a system like Moscito. Say it goes 1C-2S (semipositive with spades), you can decide to show your own suit (nf), but if you want to establish a GF your only option is to relay. I think I was a little misled with the Moscito structure because their semipositives are 3-5 QPs and I've seen claims that those hands represent 60% or so of all responses. I think that claim may be true but only because many of the hands that are GF hands are categorized as semipositives. It's not necessarily a bad thing to group semipositives and minimum positives together except that opener can never drop responder. For example their 1C-2S (which is nf) is problematic as responder can have KQJxxxx xx x Qxx or better. I like avoiding such distortions. Let the GF hands GF and the semipositives not.If this is done, however, the SP frequency drops to (what did we find out?) low 30% of hands and the GF hands are like 49%. So if it doesn't make sense to relay the SPs then why relay them, especially at the expense of the GF hands...which are more frequent and more important, especially at teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 IMO, not relaying over SP responses is the right approach. I think you're almost endplayed into relaying SP responses if you play a system like Moscito. Say it goes 1C-2S (semipositive with spades), you can decide to show your own suit (nf), but if you want to establish a GF your only option is to relay. I disagree -- even if responder holds a magical hand like KQJxxxx xx x Qxx, it's just a question of reorganizing the response structure so that responder gets more than one bite at the apple. For example, one possible scheme might be that a 2♦ response shows a SP response with single suited hand in a major. Over this opener can bid 2♥ (not forward going in ♥s, maybe forward going in ♠) or 2♠ (the other way around). In the case where responder holds the improbable hand that's good enough for game, but doesn't have the necessary number of QPs, responder can always rebid over the attempted signoff. Also, if you forgo Marton's 2N - 3N positive responses (which hardly ever come up to be useful), there's plenty of room to unwind freak SP hands (but I won't hold my breath waiting for one to come up any time soon). If opener has a forcing hand, you can play 2N as a puppet to 3♣ for a potential sign off at the 3 level and immediate bids as forcing (or the other way around). BTW, I am curious about why Moscito forces relaying of SP hands -- are you referring to 15+ ♣ systems or any system with SP responses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrecisionL Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Thanks for replying. I've reason to believe that the 0-4 hcp hands are on the order of 20% of the responding hands to 1C. One reason is that the bridge encyclopedia gives the odds of a random 13 cards having 0-4 pts as about 9%. Given the restriction that one hand holds 15+, the odds increase. Also, Atul and I looked at about 100 hands and the 0-4 pt hand came up something like 30% of the time. Obviously that's a small sample size, but I'm still thinking that 0-4 will be about 20%. That's really my argument for 1C-1H as negative. Should I destroy 20% of the auctions for my 1C (granted that these are my least important 20%)? I'm still not sure. But I think I agree with you in liking positives better.Good guess / approximation!!! My spread sheet shows 0-4 hcp response to a strong club of 16 or more hcp is 20.6%. I also prefer strong positives. Keylime and I have a complete system which is Major Centric for bidding over 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 hcp)! For those that use a 1♥ response for 8-11, the frequency is 65% whereas the 12+ other positive responses are only 12.5%. Is this the tail wagging the dog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Hi Atul, BBO wouldn't let me talk to you when I was kibitzing. I don't think a hand like KQJxxxx xx x Qxx is that unusual. My point was that there's a lot of hands that don't satisfy Moscito's 6QP positive...hands that include KKQJ or KQQQJ or AKJ or other hands with stiff K or stiff Q (that aren't counted for QPs in Moscito) that intend on GF. But we both agree that one can organize the response structure for a second bite at the apple. It just costs to do so. Look at (for instance) playing that 1C-2H shows spades. This lets opener declare 2S which solves the problem of KQJxxxx xx x Qxx (which raises to 4S) but it also costs 2S as a relay bid. Now 2N has to relay and we've lost a step. Or look at the 1C-2D you proposed to show a single-suited major. Imagine I have...A x AKQJx AQxxxx. I am now screwed. Partner has used all of the space up through 2D and I don't even have knowledge as to which major he has. 2H-p/c? No.2S-interest in hearts? No.2N-Lebensohl? No. Use as relay? Not enough space.3C-forcing? Will partner raise with three clubs? Will he show his diamond fragment (leaving me in the dark about his major? or will he show his major? He needs to show his spades if my hand is Axx void AKQx AKxxxx but I might prefer a club raise if he has hearts. He can't know what to do. So my point is that the more space responder has taken up with his semipositive, the more we ought to already know about his hand and the more important relays are. The designers of Moscito knew this of course and designed the semipositives so that they could effectively be relayed. The less space responder has taken, the less he's shown about his hand and the better chance we have for interactive bidding (both show) or a combination (opener relays with S1 and shows minimums with other bids). BTW, I am curious about why Moscito forces relaying of SP hands -- are you referring to 15+♣ systems or any system with SP responses? I'm more acquainted with Moscito than others and was using it as my example. I actually prefer to relay the semipositives, but I think I wouldn't mind if they lost 2 steps so that I saved space for the positives. If we played 1D=0-7, then I would look at naturalish bidding (a la Meckwell) as well as TOSR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Look at (for instance) playing that 1C-2H shows spades. This lets opener declare 2S which solves the problem of KQJxxxx xx x Qxx (which raises to 4S) but it also costs 2S as a relay bid. Now 2N has to relay and we've lost a step. This is the basic fundamental disagreement. Basically, there are no relays over SP hands (and Rob F. has a similar approach also). IMO, as long as the SP structure allows both opener and responder have more than one bite at the apple, it's sufficient. Basically, responder needs to be able to show a hand that's a little too good despite the 3-5 QP response and opener needs something that forces a rebid and / or ostensibly sets up a GF. It's true that you may be able to resolve responder's shape with pinpoint accuracy and you may occasionally miss a slam that depends on the magical fit. However, IMO, not relaying over SP hands is taking the practical percentage approach to the problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Look at (for instance) playing that 1C-2H shows spades. This lets opener declare 2S which solves the problem of KQJxxxx xx x Qxx (which raises to 4S) but it also costs 2S as a relay bid. Now 2N has to relay and we've lost a step. This is the basic fundamental disagreement. Basically, there are no relays over SP hands (and Rob F. has a similar approach also). IMO, as long as the SP structure allows both opener and responder have more than one bite at the apple, it's sufficient. Basically, responder needs to be able to show a hand that's a little too good despite the 3-5 QP response and opener needs something that forces a rebid and / or ostensibly sets up a GF. It's true that you may be able to resolve responder's shape with pinpoint accuracy and you may occasionally miss a slam that depends on the magical fit. However, IMO, not relaying over SP hands is taking the practical percentage approach to the problem... Then why was Moscito's semipositive response structure organized so that responder's hand can be relayed? How can it make sense to opener to start describing his own hand (in a forcing way) after responder has shown say 5S/4H with a 1C-2S bid? I was interested in knowing how you would handle the hand I gave you after 1C-2D (showing a major). I gave that as an example of why relays are necessary and why something like 1C-2D (showing a major) doesn't carry enough information to be effectively relayed. What would your continuations over 1C-2D be and how would you handle that hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Then why was Moscito's semipositive response structure organized so that responder's hand can be relayed? I was interested in knowing how you would handle the hand I gave you after 1C-2D (showing a major). I gave that as an example of why relays are necessary and why something like 1C-2D (showing a major) doesn't carry enough information to be effectively relayed. What would your continuations over 1C-2D be and how would you handle that hand? Well, that's really a question for Martson, but just because it's possible relay SP hand doesn't mean that it's right to do so (and in fact I would argue that it's better to eschew relays altogether over SP hands). Handling the example hand you posted is rather easy: Opener: XX AQXX AQXX KJX Responder: KQJxxxx xx x Qxx Say after: 1♣ - 2♦ (single suited in a major) - 2♠ (not forwarding going opposite most ♠ SP hands, accept for ♥ hands) Now responder can autosplinter in ♦s to show the unusual hand and opener signs off. The bottom line is that there always will be magic hands that lead to improbable slams opposite the perfect hand. However, I would rather play something that isn't perfect but gets us to playable spot most of the time than something that aims for the pie in the sky and risks ending up too high more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I meant this hand after 1C-2D (showing a major)A x AKQJx AQxxxxHow would you continue if 2H is p/c, 2S shows interest in H and 2N is a puppet to 3C? I can't ask Marston, but I'd say that the answer to Then why was Moscito's semipositive response structure organized so that responder's hand can be relayed?is that relays are a most reliable method of finding a fit and that responder's first semipositive response is already the answer to opener's 1C relay and that continuing to relay is the most effective way of finding fit and mesh before 3N has been passed. Let's suppose 2S shows a 5S/4D semipositive. It wouldn't make sense after this for opener to start describing his own shape in a forcing manner. It would be changing directions midstream and it would be totally inefficient. Probably after such a sequence, it would make sense for 2N to be an offer to play, 3C to be a relay and 3D and 3H an offer to play those contracts. 3S would be invitational. The bottom line is that there always will be magic hands that lead to improbable slams opposite the perfect hand. However, I would rather play something that isn't perfect but gets us to playable spot most of the time than something that aims for the pie in the sky and risks ending up too high more often than not. I'm not focused on magic hands. After a semipositive, I'm more keen on getting to the right games and partials, but the same tools I use for these will help me also to get to sensible slams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.