1C-1H semipositive

[straube]

Looking for help deciding between two (or other) continuations after 1C-1H which includes ALL semipositives.

 

One possibility...

 

1S: Relay to 1N

2C/2D: Primary m, forcing one round

2H/2S: GF with primary major

1N: Bal

2C: Majors

2D: Single suited in major

2H: H+m

2S: S+m

2N: GF, bal

 

What I like about the above is that we're probably more interested in game than slam and sometimes natural bidding works well for game and part score bidding.

 

Second possibility...

 

1S-relays (usually GF but opener can rarely break relay)

1N-bal

2L-natural, nf

 

I like that this lets opener retain captaincy on the big hands and opener can suggest 2C or 2D to play.

[akhare]

I think one big piece you are missing in the the 1S-relays (usually GF but opener can rarely break relay) scheme is that the shape resolution might take the auction to 3N or beyond before opener has another chance to bid.

 

For example:

 

1♣ - 1♥ (all SP) - 1♠ - 4♣ (2=1=6=4 -- normally resolves at 3♠, up two steps now).

[awm]

I think one big piece you are missing in the the 1S-relays (usually GF but opener can rarely break relay) scheme is that the shape resolution might take the auction to 3N or beyond before opener has another chance to bid.

 

For example:

 

1♣ - 1♥ (all SP) - 1♠ - 4♣ (2=1=6=4 -- normally resolves at 3♠, up two steps now).

Well, he has this rearrangement from another thread where all the initial responses are at most 3♣. Add two steps to this and you're still below 3NT. Basically the idea was to unroll the balanced hands.

[akhare]

I think one big piece you are missing in the the 1S-relays (usually GF but opener can rarely break relay) scheme is that the shape resolution might take the auction to 3N or beyond before opener has another chance to bid.

 

For example:

 

1♣ - 1♥ (all SP) - 1♠ - 4♣ (2=1=6=4 -- normally resolves at 3♠, up two steps now).

Well, he has this rearrangement from another thread where all the initial responses are at most 3♣. Add two steps to this and you're still below 3NT. Basically the idea was to unroll the balanced hands.

Good point -- however, after a SP response, I would consider myself lucky to get to a game, let alone slam.

 

As I see it, opener is much more likely to hold a hand that wants to get to a playable partscore than the monster 2♣ hand that wants to drive to slam opposite a SP hand.

 

Besides, if opener does hold such a hand, it's enough enough to create a GF and then explore slam via cue bids and other methods...

[awm]

The nice thing about his suggested structure is that 1♠ handles all the hands that want to game force opposite a semi-positive. This is a reasonably large number of hands, and you get all the advantages of relays when opener has (for example) a 20+ point hand and responder has 5-7(8). These are not necessarily bad hands to be relaying, and although you are a couple steps up you're not going to have partner bashing you past 3NT when you don't want to.

 

The secondary advantage of this is that all the other rebids by opener are non-forcing and fairly tightly limited (like 15-18, maybe a bad 19). So you can get out cheaply on some non-fitting hands with no game, without partner needing to keep the auction alive another round.

 

Opposite a semi-positive, I don't think it's right to be concerned a lot with partscore bidding. You have enough values to make most non-crazy low-level partials. A lot of the time you are going to want to be in game, and the question will be which game and/or from which side. Relays do an okay job of this (and a really good job of slam bidding); you might be better off playing natural methods but it then becomes quite important to determine which calls are forcing and make sure you can stay out of game when you don't have the cards while still having intelligent game auctions.

[straube]

Atul's point that relays can take us past 3N is something we have to address. I think there's two likely answers to this difficulty.

 

1. Forbid responder from relaying his hand pattern past 3N. On the example hand that Atul provided 2-1-6-4....first point is that standard symmetric resolves this shape at 3H and not 3S. So at +2 we're at 3N. But consider Atul's point for a 3-0-6-4. That really would put us at 4C. By forbidding responder from bidding past 3N, the 3N bid means 2-1-6-4, 3-0-6-4, 2-0-7-4 and (for higher shortage only)...1-1-7-4. I don't think it's that bad really. And opener can bid 4C over 3N asking responder to complete his pattern...his range is rather narrow after all.

 

 

2. Collapse hand patterns. Some space can be saved by collapsing the balanced hands (including the 5332s perhaps) but the savings may not be as significant as desired. Other possibilities are collapsing 4441s into balanced or 544m0s into 543m1s.

 

Opposite a semi-positive, I don't think it's right to be concerned a lot with partscore bidding. You have enough values to make most non-crazy low-level partials. A lot of the time you are going to want to be in game, and the question will be which game and/or from which side.

 

I really like how Adam put this.

[straube]

So Atul and I came up with...

 

1C-1H, 1S (GF relay)

 

responder's rebids are all 2 steps higher from standard symmetric....

 

1N-H, H/S, H/C, H/S/m, H/D

2C-S, S/C, S/D

2D-bal (but all 5332)

2H-C/D

2S-C

2N-C/D/M

3C-D

 

Placing the 5332s into balanced means that we don't have sufficient steps to relay these

shapes, so we will have to bid naturally, or semi-naturally.

 

This structure forbids responder from showing shape if it takes him past 3N.

 

The good news is that at or before 3N, we'll know...

 

6/4 and shortness

5/5 and shortness

7 and shortness

[akhare]

I think an even better structure might be a compressed two suiter starting at 2N+ and SS starting at 2S.

 

Note that this gives opener plenty of chances to break after the initial 1♠ and quickly place the contract in most cases.

 

Given that Moscito SP starts two suiters at 2♠, and SS at 2♥, it should be playable:

 

1N: H / H+m / D

      2D: D

      2H: H+C

      2S: H

      2N: H+D

2C: S / S+m

      2H: S+C

      2S: S

      2N: S+D

2D: Majors / 5440 with a minor void

      2S: 5440 shapes with minor void

      2N: Majors

2H: Minors

      2N: Minors

2S: Clubs

2N: 4441 shapes

3C: Major+minor or both majors

      3H: H+minor

      3S: S+minor

      3N: Both majors

3D: 5332 in a minor OR both minors

      3S: 5332 with a minor

      3N: Both minors

3H/3S: 5332 with major

 

Two suited truncated structure:

====================

 

2N: Reversed

3C: LL

3D: High short

3H: 5422

3S: 5431/5440

3N: 64**

4C: 7411

4D: 7420

[straube]

I like your decision to untangle the balanced hands, but I'm concerned that responder will be declaring 3N too frequently.

 

After 1C-1H, 1S-2D opener would frequently (I think) bid 2N and wait for transfers and stayman.

 

After that same sequence, opener could relay more hand patterns with 2H than can be done for balanced hands that start at 3C. At 3C and higher, responder can only show 8 hand types but at 2S and higher, responder can show 21.

 

I'm trying to sort out the difference between the two structures, because both of them show SS at the 2S level and two-suited at the 2H level.

 

I think this last one leaves out the M/M and 3-suited with both majors (at 1N) and then 2N has to be used for all 3-suited.

[akhare]

I like your decision to untangle the balanced hands, but I'm concerned that responder will be declaring 3N too frequently.

Not sure I follow the comment about responder declaring 3N very often.

 

Opener will ostensibly resolve 3C (one or both majors) only with some interest in playing in 4M or slam. Since the 3N response shows both majors, I don't see the problem.

 

Over 3D, the only thing of interest should be a minor suit slam / 5m.

 

IMO, putting the balanced hands into 2D puts in a monkey wrench in terms of useful space and it prevents the other 2 suited hands from flowing symmetrically at the 2 level.

 

Besides, I don't think it isn't really that important to resolve the 5-7 point balanced hands that precisely anyway...

[straube]

I agree that it's less important to resolve the balanced hands precisely. Of course we've already added the 5332s in with them (as compared to standard symmetric) which means that we have 28 balanced hand types (I think) as opposed to 16 hand types.

 

With this latest structure...

 

At 3C, we can find our 4/4 and 5/3 major suit fits easily enough. I assume this bid handles 4M333 as well.

 

At 3D, we can find out if partner has a 5-cd minor, but we don't know which one it is...which

seems sometimes not useful. Opener also can't show hearts, so we lose 5-3 heart fits.

 

At 3H/3S, we know responder's major, but we don't know if responder has 3-card support for opener's 5-card major.

 

So it works pretty well, but it loses sometimes.

 

More important, I don't see what we gain. As far as I can tell, the 1-suited and 2-suited structures use the same room as the "standard symmetric" structure we'd discussed. Where are we ahead with this?

 

I think after 1C-1H, 1S-2D we have more comfortable auctions. They can be vanilla-like...

 

2M-shows a 5-cd major (responder can be barred from bidding 2N with 2-cd support)

2N-demands stayman or transfers

3m-suit

 

or

 

2H-relays

.....2S-4432

..........2N-relays

...............3C-C/M

...............3D-M/M

...............3H-D/H

...............3S-D/S

...............3N-m/m

.....2N-4333

..........3D-H

..........3H-S

..........3S-C

..........3N-D

.....3C-5D332

.....3D-5H332

.....3H-5S332

.....3S-5C332

 

with

 

2S-5S

2N-demands transfers and stayman

3m-slam interest minor

3H-5H

3S-minors

 

or something even better.

 

I think that 1C-1H, 1S-1N has to handle more things (the M/M and 3-suited both majors). If you look at that structure, it uses 1C-1H, 1S-1N, 2C-2D as just diamonds when it needs to handle a suit and a 2-suiter. I think that's why it has to take away room from the balanced hands.