1C-1S negative

[PrecisionL]

We use 1M-2C as a GF relay and we do put most of our balanced hands into a 2D rebid. Ours turns into standard symmetric +1 and the only patterns that don't have a home are the 5440s which have to pretend to be 5431s.

 

I don't know symmetric by heart, but since we play 4-card Majors, it allows the 1♠ auctions to be exact for 3-suited hands as we open 1♥ with 4-4 in the majors.

 

All the 3-suited hands go into the 2♦ follow-on after 2♣ A & GF.

 

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥® - 2NT = 5=4=4=0 and 3♣ = 5=4=0=4.

 

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥® - 2NT = 4=4=4=1 / 4=5=4=0 (confounded)

 

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥® - 3♣ = 4=4=1=4 / 4=5=0=4 (confounded)

[Zelandakh]

It is easy if you use 1D as a negative! Losing 2 steps to make 1S a second negative is huge here. You are essentially paying off on these hands (and also a little on the GF) in order to win on the semi-positive hands. Because you cannot show everything after a 1S negative you need to make priorities which is really what we are discussing. My logic tsuggested to me that showing GF hands should be a high priority but straube's experience with the method tells him that fighting for the part-score and finding major fits is the key thing.

 

On the other topic, using 1NT as an INV+ relay over 1S gives you exact shapes for all hands up to 6511, 7411, 7321, 7222 at +2 steps for major 2-suiters (5-5/6-5), +1 step for other 2-suiters and +2 steps for 1-suiters, but with min/max strength information already exchanged (giving you 1-2 steps back at the end). The difference for major 2-suiters is precisely to accomodate the 54(40) hands with which straube has the issue and I do not mind going above 3NT here for hands with 6 spades. I still believe this approach is superior to 2C GF in jurisdictions that allow it.

[glen]

It is easy if you use 1D as a negative! ...

In Spry (spry.pdf), I have 1♠ as super negative, and 1♦ as a not-so-negative negative. For the methods over 1♣-1♠, I looked at what the corresponding standard auctions would be: these would a one level opening bid passed, or a strong two club opening, or a 2NT opening with a signoff. For the corresponding "standard" big club sequences, the auction would be 1♣-1♦;-non jump passed out, and 1♣-1♦;-jump suit game force, or 1♣-1♦;-2NT and signoff. Since the opponents were not "fighting for the part-score" using their methods, it didn't seem worthwhile to develop a lot of structure for that.

 

For Spry, the structure over 1♣-1♠ is:

 

... bids below 2♠ to play' date=' 3X natural and GF, 2[sP'] both majors 5-5+ (can have longer ♥s), NF. 2NT is 23-24 or so, responder to signoff without a queen.

The only attempt at getting to a different part score was the 1♣-1♠;-2♠ showing both majors, as my simulations showed stopping in 1♠ when 4♥ is nice was a problem - not so much fighting for the part score as getting to game.

[akhare]

It is easy if you use 1D as a negative! Losing 2 steps to make 1S a second negative is huge here. You are essentially paying off on these hands (and also a little on the GF) in order to win on the semi-positive hands. Because you cannot show everything after a 1S negative you need to make priorities which is really what we are discussing. My logic tsuggested to me that showing GF hands should be a high priority but straube's experience with the method tells him that fighting for the part-score and finding major fits is the key thing.

 

Actually, this is a very intriguing idea. I think one can have most of the benefits of the 1♥ (semi-positive) *and* improve on the 1♣ - 1♠ (DN) by the following:

 

1C:

====

 

1D: DN or GF with bal / minors / clubs

1H: SP, with 3-5 QPs

1S: Majors / H+C / three suited with short minor

.......2C: H+C

.......2D: Three suited with short minor

.......2H: H+S

1N: Spades+C / Spades

......2D: Spades

......2H: S+C

2C: H+D

2D: Hearts

2H: Three suited, short major

2S: Diamonds

 

Over 1C - 1D:

 

...1H asks:

............1S: DN

............1N: GF Clubs

............2C: GF Minors

............2D: GF Bal module

...1S: Unbalanced with spades / spades+minor, forcing one round

...........1N: GF relay

...1N: Strictly bal 16-18,

 

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

Optional (2C / 2D can be used as two under transfers with single suited hands):

...2C: Single suited with clubs, 2H -> GF relay

...2D: Single suited with diamonds, 2H -> GF relay

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

 

The interesting thing about this that it preserves the 1H (semi-positive) response. The DN (0-4) hand are combined with some balanced GF hands (and GF with the minors clubs).

 

Over 1D (natural) interference, the same structure can be used structure with X = DN and P = GF hands in 1D, 1H+ = as before.

 

Over 1H (natural), P = GF hands in 1D, 1S = GF as before. The X is now 0 - 7, but we are no we no worse off than Precision after 1C - 1D - (1H).

[straube]

It is easy if you use 1D as a negative! Losing 2 steps to make 1S a second negative is huge here. You are essentially paying off on these hands (and also a little on the GF) in order to win on the semi-positive hands. Because you cannot show everything after a 1S negative you need to make priorities which is really what we are discussing. My logic tsuggested to me that showing GF hands should be a high priority but straube's experience with the method tells him that fighting for the part-score and finding major fits is the key thing.

 

 

I agree that 1C-1S as a DN carries a cost. Contrast 1C-1S to those who use 1C-1D, 1H-1S as a second negative; those folks have established that opener has extra values while we have not. 1C-1D, 1H-1S, 1N probably shows like 20-21 for example. 1C-1D, 1H-1S, 2H and now responder knows that opener has a big hand with hearts.

 

After 1C-1D, 1H-1S, it may (actually thinking probably doesn't) make sense for 2C to show now a near-GF hand; any other bid is nf but is a known big hand. For us, I don't think 2C should be used this way. I think we need to start fit-finding and we really need that 2C bid to assist with fit-finding. This structure shows pattern and then strength. Actually, more of what responder can offer now (with 0-4 hcps say) is distribution and hopefully support for opener's suits. Let opener show his hand in a way that forces (2C, 2D, 2H and 2S all force) and then show extra strength/shape if held.

 

Why use 1S as a DN? Like Zelandakh points out, we have a significant gain when responder can make an immediate semipositive response. It sets us up much better for a competitive auction. Another reason is that 1S wipes out bidding room not only for us, but for the opponents. On average, after a 1S response, it's still likely our hand, but not by much. We're hurt more by the fact that we "hold the bid" and have to land somewhere while the opponents can pass when they want.

[straube]

Actually, this is a very intriguing idea. I think one can have most of the benefits of the 1♥ (semi-positive) *and* improve on the 1♣ - 1♠ (DN) by the following:

 

1C:

====

 

1D: DN or GF with bal / minors / clubs

1H: SP, with 3-5 QPs

1S: Majors / H+C / three suited with short minor

.......2C: H+C

.......2D: Three suited with short minor

.......2H: H+S

1N: Spades+C / Spades

......2D: Spades

......2H: S+C

2C: H+D

2D: Hearts

2H: Three suited, short major

2S: Diamonds

 

Over 1C - 1D:

 

...1H asks:

............1S: DN

............1N: GF Clubs

............2C: GF Minors

............2D: GF Bal module

...1S: Unbalanced with spades / spades+minor, forcing one round

...........1N: GF relay

...1N: Strictly bal 16-18,

 

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

Optional (2C / 2D can be used as two under transfers with single suited hands):

...2C: Single suited with clubs, 2H -> GF relay

...2D: Single suited with diamonds, 2H -> GF relay

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

 

The interesting thing about this that it preserves the 1H (semi-positive) response. The DN (0-4) hand are combined with some balanced GF hands (and GF with the minors clubs).

 

Over 1D (natural) interference, the same structure can be used structure with X = DN and P = GF hands in 1D, 1H+ = as before.

 

Over 1H (natural), P = GF hands in 1D, 1S = GF as before. The X is now 0 - 7, but we are no we no worse off than Precision after 1C - 1D - (1H).

 

This would be a change from our current structure for the meaning of 1D (GF balanced or with a 6-cd major or unbalanced with a major and minor). I understand your concern about losing the major suit fits in competition. I'm also concerned but less so. I've noticed less interference after 1C-1D (than I remember for 1C-1D negative) and I have a few ideas why that may be the case. One is that we have most of the values and RHO usually doesn't have a hand worth bidding. Two is that responder is fairly likely to have a major suit and that means that RHO is less likely to be able to overcall at the 1-level in a major. When he does so, we can handle that fairly easily. Three is that we're in a GF and there is somewhat less potential upside in interfering with a partnership that has established a GF; forcing passes have been established. Even if I'm wrong about the frequency of RHO interference, the likelihood that responder can be preempted from showing his hand is lessened by the very fact that major suits outrank minor suits...if RHO preempts say 3C and it goes pass pass, responder can bid a 5-cd major if he has one. He can't have two 5-cd majors and not even 5/4 in the majors (or else he would have responded 1N in the first place).

 

I would worry quite a bit if 1C-1D included the double negative hands as well as GF hands. It reminds me a little of the "impossible negative" 1D response which can be 0-7 or 8+ any 4441. There's been a trend away from the impossible negative toward "unusual positives" because these 4441 hands get lost in competition and even are problematic for uncontested auctions. For 1D as DN or various GF, lets say the auction goes 1C P 1D (2H) ? Is 2S here forcing? Does opener have to double with any monster hand as well as takeout shape hands? Does he have to cue bid and waste an entire level of bidding room? Certainly pass isn't forcing and (again) that's a major loss. Let's say opener does pass and responder holds xx x xxx KJxxxxx. Can he now bid 3C or will opener expect a GF hand in clubs?

 

That's the trouble with 2-way bids...meaning bids that are radically different one from the other. When a person makes a 2-way bid it naturally works best if partner makes a single step bid so that the nature of the 2-way bid can be unraveled. When partner doesn't make a single step but tries to describe his own hand, the method is cross-purposed. He has the hard choice of not being able to describe his own hand or getting in his partner's way. Very occasionally, a structure can be designed where this doesn't happen, where the 2-way bid hand is happy to hear partner describe his own hand, but even then one has the opponents to worry about.

 

Dividing our hands immediately between GF, semipositive, and DN cleans up competitive auctions. GF auctions give us forcing passes until game is reached or the opponents are doubled. Semipositives give us a force through (arbitrarily) 2N. DNs allow opener and responder to compete for the bid in nf ways; opener knows that he has to dbl or cue to force and sometimes will just bid game; responder is allowed the use of the double as takeout at low levels or penalty at high levels. After all, responder can have shapely hands. In any case, we have a better idea of our combined values and we know what is forcing and what is not.

 

I would definitely regret the loss of reverse relays. Presently, opener is usually captain and responder is the first person able to spin off (show some of his) shapely hands. Opener is always captain when he holds a balanced hand, but reverse relays let him show a shapely hand to responder's usually/hopefully balanced hand. It's just easier for the holder of a balanced hand to determine how well the hands fit together because the balanced hand has potential for great wastage opposite an unbalanced hand. It might be easier to visualize slam when a big balanced hand is opposite a weak unbalanced hand than when a weak balanced hand is opposite a strong unbalanced hand, but I think it's mostly a matter of practice.

 

1C-1D as a possible DN really restricts opener from showing his hand. It seems that opener will less frequently be able to make use of the 2-level. Why is this? Because a double negative doesn't empower opener; responder's hand is potentially very weak and we would have to cater to that.

 

I think 1C-1D, 1N as 16-18 balanced would lead to awkward continuations. We would need transfers for the majors. Would 2C be a GF relay? A whole new structure would have to be designed to accommodate all of the hand patterns that opener may have; there is probably insufficient room for them all and certain balanced hand patterns otherwise suitable for a 1N rebid would likely have to resort to rebidding 1H. 1C-1D, 1H then wouldn't (for example) promise extra strength and would be a hodgepodge of hands that had no better bid (at the moment 1C-1D, 1H almost always shows spades or a balanced hand). If 1C-1D, 1N-2C is a GF relay, then responder can't use Stayman when holding the DN. He can't (for instance) use Garbage Stayman or look for a 4-cd major before signing off in a 6-cd minor. Cross-purposed again. Also, if responder has the unbalanced hand with both minors, single-suited clubs, or clubs and spades (as I infer he can have), then he can't show these shapes and have opener judge the mesh.

[wclass___]

 

I would worry quite a bit if 1C-1D included the double negative hands as well as GF hands. It reminds me a little of the "impossible negative" 1D response which can be 0-7 or 8+ any 4441. There's been a trend away from the impossible negative toward "unusual positives" because these 4441 hands get lost in competition and even are problematic for uncontested auctions.

I think there is a merit for 1♦ opener to include GF hands. But hands that could go there should be either both majors or spades(probably 6+). Looking at my 1♣-1♦ structure i think i can handle these hands very well. Also competition bidding when you have both majors or spades shouldn't be that much of a problem.

 

For 1D as DN or various GF, lets say the auction goes 1C P 1D (2H) ? Is 2S here forcing?

No.

Does opener have to double with any monster hand as well as takeout shape hands?

Yes.

 

Does he have to cue bid and waste an entire level of bidding room? Certainly pass isn't forcing and (again) that's a major loss. Let's say opener does pass and responder holds xx x xxx KJxxxxx. Can he now bid 3C or will opener expect a GF hand in clubs?

You shouldn't go low with clubs GF.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with you about 2-way bids in auctions like this that are susceptible to preemption but I did note a couple of points that i think are clear. The first is that if a weak Responder wanted to bid 3C in your example auction they should have responded 3C in the first place. This makes it clear that 1D followed by 3C would be the GF hand type. Essentially a DN hand is always going to pass on their next turn unless Opener gives them a reason to bid again - any hand that is not comfortable with this should be pure enough to make an immediate preemptive response. In your example for Opener after preemption I do not think 2S should be forcing, and yes that does potentially put alot of extra weight on double due to the loss of FPs.

 

There is no doubt that the immediate division of Responder's hand into 3 categories gives a competitive advantage. The lower your range for 1C the bigger the advantage and the lower the downside. Thus the method is most popular in lighter big club systems such as Moscito. I think reverse relays are more a matter of style than a big win or loss; if you know partner's hand you should be able to visualise the right contract whether you are balanced or shapely, weak or strong. I would generally prefer the strong hand to be the Captain because they are (arguably) less likely to need to ask for stoppers along the way, and because they can right-side the contract if the chosen denomination has not been bid during relays.

 

Having 1C - 1D contain a DN is not a poor use of the 2 level at all, remember traditional precision has this too. My 1C opening is a little different to yours but after 1C - 1D (any non-GF) I use the 2 level as 2C = 15-17 nat; 2D = Acol 2 in a minor; 2M = Acol 2; 2NT = 21-22 bal. Each of these bids is easy for both DN and semi-positive hands to handle since they are relatively well-defined.

 

Similarly I am confused why you think 1C - 1D - 1NT = 16-18 is a problem - the vast majority of strong clubbers play this! Just play your regular 1NT structure. I play 1NT here as 15-17 too; there is no downside over having opened 1NT once the auction reaches this point (ie without interference). In the suggested scheme where Responder holds a DN or GF there is an additional major upside, namely that all invitational bids can be used as slam tries.

 

I have not really looked closely at akhare's structure other than to note that there is only 1 SP. This is something i do not like - SPs are best imho when they also show some major-suit distribution. If I was going to play them I would be looking to have at least 2 SP bids (1 for spades, 1 for hearts) and not mind too much if I needed to throw the minor-suit SPs in with something else. Perhaps a scheme with 1D = DN or SP without major is possible, or perhaps that is too expensive on the GF auctions. Or just use 1M for GF hands (sym +1) and 1N thru' 2H as SP xfers with 1D a DN. All nice possibilities but I am not sure we are really gaining anything.

 

Incidentally I am intrigued by your saying that 1C - 1D - 1H shows extra strength. I play it this way (18-20 any or 23+ bal) but it seems that the majority play this as either natural or Kokish. Either way 1S is unnecessary as a second negative - if natural then 1S is usually natural too, or if not then 1S tends to be a relay. There are systems where 1H shows extras here with 1S a DN, and they tend to follow up with 2C as the super-strong hand. This makes logical sense within the design - for Opener: with extras relay, otherwise bid naturally; for Responder: with < GF relay; with extras bid naturally - making it simple to remember.

 

Back to system design, I am not yet ready to give up on the idea of splitting off the big hands and think it is not incompatible with your Stayman-like bid. How about

 

1C - 1S

=======

1N = 16-20 bal

2C = most weaker hands

2D = Do you have a 4-card major? (4M-5+m, or both minors, or 1-suited in a minor with extras)

...2H = 4 hearts, NF

......2S = 4 spades

......2N = both minors

......3m = 1-suited, extras

......others = both minors, GF

...2S = 4 spades, NF

......2N = both minors

......3m = 5+ suit, may have extras

......others = both minors, GF

...2N = no major, club preference (weaker than 3D)

......3C = clubs or 1-suited

......3D = 1-suited, extras

......others = both minors, GF

...3C = no major, diamond preference, NF

......3D = diamonds or minors

......others = both minors, GF

...3D = no major, super-accept for clubs, NF opposite diamond 1-suiter

2M = strong 2 or better

2N = 23-24 bal

3m = nat GF

3H = both majors

 

It does not solve all the issues, for example it wrong-sides hearts in comparison with your 2C Stayman bid, but seems to cover alot of bases.

[PrecisionL]

1C-1D as a possible DN really restricts opener from showing his hand. It seems that opener will less frequently be able to make use of the 2-level. Why is this? Because a double negative doesn't empower opener; responder's hand is potentially very weak and we would have to cater to that.

 

We use the One Club Complete approach for 1♣ opener's rebids at the 1-level:

 

1♥: (a) 4+♥ and ONE ROUND FORCE(maybe a longer minor), or (b) 2+♥ and balanced 20+ hcp

Responder bids 1

♠

now with 0-4 and NO Ace & Opener can NOW Jump with G.F.

1♠: 4+♠ and ONE ROUND FORCE (maybe a longer minor)

Responder bids 1NT now with 0-4 hcp and NO Ace & Opener can NOW Jump with G.F.

1NT: 17-19 hcp

2♣: 6+♣ and Not Forcing (denies a 4-cd major)

2♦: 6+ ♦ and N.F. (denies a 4-cd major)

 

And these NEW BIDS @ the 2-level:

 

2♥: 5+♥ and 4+ minor, N.F. but about 5-losers (2NT asks for the minor)

2♠: 5+♠ and 4+ minor, N.F. but about 5-losers (2NT asks for the minor)

2NT: (a) 5+♣ and 5+♦ and ONE ROUND FORCE, or (b) G.F. with 5M + 5m

3X: Ace asking, cheapest response denies an ace (3NT = Ace of the cheapest suit)

[wclass___]

TBH i don't really get this semipositive and double negative thing. They resemble 1♣-1♦ just responder has limited himself point wise, but opener has less place to describe his hand. Also in competition i don't see that much of upside.

Then i would rather play 1♣-1♦ (0-5/6) and use semipositive+ bids. At least i would get suits in...

[Free]

TBH i don't really get this semipositive and double negative thing. They resemble 1♣-1♦ just responder has limited himself point wise, but opener has less place to describe his hand. Also in competition i don't see that much of upside.

Then i would rather play 1♣-1♦ (0-5/6) and use semipositive+ bids. At least i would get suits in...

It's more like a theoretical exercise. It depends a lot on how 'weak' your strong ♣ can be. The lower your HCP limit (17+HCP is not the same as 14+HCP), the more semipositives you'll get. When you put all double negatives and semipositives in 1♣-1♦ you're overloading this response and you'll be more vulnerable to preemption. That's why it's useful to describe these hands immediately (frequency principle). The rarest types of hands are double negatives, so you can waste some space in that case (again frequency principle). GF hands should stay as low as possible, so 1♣-1♦ is used for that.

 

The way to do it vary and there have been lengthy discussions about this in the past. I still prefer to use the principle I've just described for the given reasons. It's theoretically sound and the big advantage is that the most frequent hands (semipos) immediately limit their strength AND describe their hand shapewise (Major suit oriented). 1♣-1♥ basically denies 5M and can be a bit of everything (balanced or minor suit oriented), but 1♣-1NT+ specifically show 5M or 6M and sometimes even specific side suits. The tradeoff for all advantages is 1♣-1♠ as double negative, I'll admit. Most important to know here is that it's very infrequent, and it's most important to find some playable part score.

 

I believe Straube prefers 1 bid for all semipositives. This doesn't have the same advantages like I described, and I also don't see any gains over my approach, which is why we had lengthy discussions... ;)

 

Using 1♦ as double negative and the rest as semipositives or GF has been discussed as well. Biggest problem here is that both opener and responder need to show somehow that the auction became GF.

[hrothgar]

Using 1♦ as double negative and the rest as semipositives or GF has been discussed as well. Biggest problem here is that both opener and responder need to show somehow that the auction became GF.

 

The main reason that I like to separate the GF from the semi positive hands is that it makes it much easier to determine when you do/do not have a forcing pass established.

 

I the auction starts 1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - ???

 

where 1♦ is an artifical game force, I'm a lot less worried about intervention in my strong club auction.

 

Partner and I have a game force established and we also have a forcing pass established.

 

Anyone thinking about entering this auction knows that he is sandwiched between two strong hands who are well positioned to penalty double even at low levels.

People aren't going to intervene nearly as much (much higher risks, much lower rewards)

When they do intervene, they're a lot more likely to actually have the suit(s) that they claim to be bidding.

[akhare]

For 1D as DN or various GF, lets say the auction goes 1C P 1D (2H) ? Is 2S here forcing? Does opener have to double with any monster hand as well as takeout shape hands? Does he have to cue bid and waste an entire level of bidding room? Certainly pass isn't forcing and (again) that's a major loss. Let's say opener does pass and responder holds xx x xxx KJxxxxx. Can he now bid 3C or will opener expect a GF hand in clubs?

 

Neither 2♠ not 3♣ is isn't forcing. Opener and responder have X, 2N and the cue bid available to show stronger hands.

 

I would definitely regret the loss of reverse relays. Presently, opener is usually captain and responder is the first person able to spin off (show some of his) shapely hands. Opener is always captain when he holds a balanced hand, but reverse relays let him show a shapely hand to responder's usually/hopefully balanced hand. It's just easier for the holder of a balanced hand to determine how well the hands fit together because the balanced hand has potential for great wastage opposite an unbalanced hand.

 

I have only seen platitudes to this effect. Does anyone have concrete evidence that reverse relays are actually better?

 

1C-1D as a possible DN really restricts opener from showing his hand. It seems that opener will less frequently be able to make use of the 2-level. Why is this? Because a double negative doesn't empower opener; responder's hand is potentially very weak and we would have to cater to that.

 

Not sure I understand the point. Opener can bid more bids at the 1-level that are forcing and can quickly delimit 16-18 balanced hands.

 

I think 1C-1D, 1N as 16-18 balanced would lead to awkward continuations. We would need transfers for the majors. Would 2C be a GF relay?

No -- use the 1N structure.

 

Also, if responder has the unbalanced hand with both minors, single-suited clubs, or clubs and spades (as I infer he can have), then he can't show these shapes and have opener judge the mesh.

No -- the only hands in 1♦ are:

 

1) Balanced hands

2) Minors

3) Single suited with clubs

 

As wclass suggested, one might vary the suits that are shown so that 2) and 3) are the majors and single suited with spades.

[straube]

I agree with you about 2-way bids in auctions like this that are susceptible to preemption but I did note a couple of points that i think are clear. The first is that if a weak Responder wanted to bid 3C in your example auction they should have responded 3C in the first place. This makes it clear that 1D followed by 3C would be the GF hand type. Essentially a DN hand is always going to pass on their next turn unless Opener gives them a reason to bid again - any hand that is not comfortable with this should be pure enough to make an immediate preemptive response.

 

The proposed structure did not allow for an immediate 3C bid to show a DN hand with a suit. Even if it did, there would be many hands that would not meet the suit requirement that would justify preempting opener but would choose to compete with 3C in the example sequence. Also, responder with a DN may want to make a takeout double at low levels when he has good shape.

 

In your example for Opener after preemption I do not think 2S should be forcing, and yes that does potentially put alot of extra weight on double due to the loss of FPs.

 

Right. I want the double to show a takeout pattern but no extra. We would lose that specific meaning. Responder couldn't bank on opener having that pattern.

 

There is no doubt that the immediate division of Responder's hand into 3 categories gives a competitive advantage. The lower your range for 1C the bigger the advantage and the lower the downside. Thus the method is most popular in lighter big club systems such as Moscito. I think reverse relays are more a matter of style than a big win or loss; if you know partner's hand you should be able to visualise the right contract whether you are balanced or shapely, weak or strong. I would generally prefer the strong hand to be the Captain because they are (arguably) less likely to need to ask for stoppers along the way, and because they can right-side the contract if the chosen denomination has not been bid during relays.

 

I'm referring to what has been called "the Balanced Hand Principle". Here's a link to mention of it by Danny Kleinman

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=WAq2F1alCksC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22the+balanced+hand+principle%22&source=bl&ots=bK8x9Ibf5L&sig=4FgYVD5hvTY67H_TiyZDUJVScLo&hl=en&ei=mq6tTeLyKKbUiALvtPXcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22the%20balanced%20hand%20principle%22&f=false

 

and apparently its name originated in a BridgeWorld article. In recent memory, we used a reverse relay to get to slam with only 17 QPs. Our hands were something like AQxx x AKx KQxxx opposite KJxxx xxx xx Axx. Partner knew with xxx of hearts opposite my singleton that slam was likely. Had I been captain and learning that partner had 5 QPs, I might have feared KJxxx KQx xx xxx. Whether we would have gotten to slam anyway is not my point. My point is that it was much easier to get to slam with our method.

 

Also, we are not required to reverse relay. When opener thinks it better to retain captaincy, he can do so. I've noticed that with a stiff honor opposite a passed hand it is often better to retain captaincy. It also makes sense for monster hands, especially when they contain 1 or 2 important jacks (jacks being difficult to show at low levels).

 

Having 1C - 1D contain a DN is not a poor use of the 2 level at all, remember traditional precision has this too. My 1C opening is a little different to yours but after 1C - 1D (any non-GF) I use the 2 level as 2C = 15-17 nat; 2D = Acol 2 in a minor; 2M = Acol 2; 2NT = 21-22 bal. Each of these bids is easy for both DN and semi-positive hands to handle since they are relatively well-defined.

 

My point is that we are cross-purposed. Let's say I knew for certain that 1D was a GF hand...then I wouldn't use the 2-level as you described.

 

Similarly I am confused why you think 1C - 1D - 1NT = 16-18 is a problem - the vast majority of strong clubbers play this! Just play your regular 1NT structure. I play 1NT here as 15-17 too; there is no downside over having opened 1NT once the auction reaches this point (ie without interference). In the suggested scheme where Responder holds a DN or GF there is an additional major upside, namely that all invitational bids can be used as slam tries.

 

Again, my point is that we are cross-purposed. It's fine for 1C-1D (0-7), 1N to be 16-18 (we do the same after 1C-1H, 1N). No doubt we can survive after 1C-1D (DN or various GF), 1N 16-18. My point is that it would be hard to optimize continuations after this. Continuations should be optimized for both 0-4 pts and 8+ various pts and that's hard to do. Look at it another way...how has partner's rebid of 1D (DN or various GF) contributed to the auction if a 1N rebid is 16-18 balanced? In other words, the information (1D) has been lost and the 1D has served merely as a (expensive) relay to 1N. That is, unless responder now has continuations that sort out his 2-way bid. It will be very difficult for responder to relay his shapely C, C and D, or C and S hands.

 

I have not really looked closely at akhare's structure other than to note that there is only 1 SP. This is something i do not like - SPs are best imho when they also show some major-suit distribution. If I was going to play them I would be looking to have at least 2 SP bids (1 for spades, 1 for hearts) and not mind too much if I needed to throw the minor-suit SPs in with something else. Perhaps a scheme with 1D = DN or SP without major is possible, or perhaps that is too expensive on the GF auctions. Or just use 1M for GF hands (sym +1) and 1N thru' 2H as SP xfers with 1D a DN. All nice possibilities but I am not sure we are really gaining anything.

 

There are tradeoffs for all of these methods. I've found 1H as semipositive to be very playable. We have 1C-1H, 1S which is a GF relay which allows responder to relay all but less common shapes (for instance, he can show a 6331 but not a 7321). We have 1C-1H, 1N and a continuation specifically designed for invitational sorts of hands. We can react to partner's bids. For instance 1C-1H, 1N-2D(transfer), 3H to show a maximum hand with even three trump.

 

Incidentally I am intrigued by your saying that 1C - 1D - 1H shows extra strength. I play it this way (18-20 any or 23+ bal) but it seems that the majority play this as either natural or Kokish. Either way 1S is unnecessary as a second negative - if natural then 1S is usually natural too, or if not then 1S tends to be a relay. There are systems where 1H shows extras here with 1S a DN, and they tend to follow up with 2C as the super-strong hand. This makes logical sense within the design - for Opener: with extras relay, otherwise bid naturally; for Responder: with < GF relay; with extras bid naturally - making it simple to remember.

 

No, I was just contrasting our 1C-1S to others who use 1C-1D, 1H-1S because it's the easiest comparison to make. Both structures wind up with responder's DN of 1S and I was conceding that those who use 1D as negative have the advantage here of knowing that opener has extra strength (assuming this agreement).

 

Back to system design, I am not yet ready to give up on the idea of splitting off the big hands and think it is not incompatible with your Stayman-like bid. How about

 

1C - 1S

=======

1N = 16-20 bal

2C = most weaker hands

2D = Do you have a 4-card major? (4M-5+m, or both minors, or 1-suited in a minor with extras)

...2H = 4 hearts, NF

......2S = 4 spades

......2N = both minors

......3m = 1-suited, extras

......others = both minors, GF

...2S = 4 spades, NF

......2N = both minors

......3m = 5+ suit, may have extras

......others = both minors, GF

...2N = no major, club preference (weaker than 3D)

......3C = clubs or 1-suited

......3D = 1-suited, extras

......others = both minors, GF

...3C = no major, diamond preference, NF

......3D = diamonds or minors

......others = both minors, GF

...3D = no major, super-accept for clubs, NF opposite diamond 1-suiter

2M = strong 2 or better

2N = 23-24 bal

3m = nat GF

3H = both majors

 

It does not solve all the issues, for example it wrong-sides hearts in comparison with your 2C Stayman bid, but seems to cover alot of bases.

 

An advantage of 1C-1S, 2C-2D showing hearts (for example) is that responder is assured a rebid. Should opener rebid 2H, responder may raise. 1C-1S, 2D-2H, P would be dangerous if responder held 5 or 6 hearts (or even values with only 4 hearts). I'm trying not to drop responder.

 

I do appreciate your thoughts in general and that you also are thinking about my original stated problem.

[shevek]

The main reason that I like to separate the GF from the semi positive hands is that it makes it much easier to determine when you do/do not have a forcing pass established.

 

I the auction starts 1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - ???

 

where 1♦ is an artifical game force, I'm a lot less worried about intervention in my strong club auction.

 

Partner and I have a game force established and we also have a forcing pass established.

 

Anyone thinking about entering this auction knows that he is sandwiched between two strong hands who are well positioned to penalty double even at low levels.

People aren't going to intervene nearly as much (much higher risks, much lower rewards)

When they do intervene, they're a lot more likely to actually have the suit(s) that they claim to be bidding.

 

I don't agree with this last bit. When the opponents show GF values and no fit, the risks are much reduced. They will tend to bid routine games, rather than go for uncertain penalties.

 

Playing Burgess - Marston a few years back, I held a 3-3-5-2 3-count and bid 2D after their 1♣ (15+) - 1♦ GF. They pottered about to -50 in 3NT when partner led ♦A.

This is it I think:

 

http://www.bridgeunlimited.com/bridge/DisplayBoardResults1?club_event_id=12843&teams=teams&header=abf&session=1&board=8

 

Teammates made 3NT on a club lead. One hand proves nothing.

I've never tried Marston's semi-positives, seemed too complicated for a rare part of the system. People like to bid over strong club so we ditch relay often.

I think the switch to artificial semi-positives damaged the product over here. Very few play that way now. As you know, Paul plays very little bridge these days, no Moscito.

[straube]

It's more like a theoretical exercise. It depends a lot on how 'weak' your strong ♣ can be. The lower your HCP limit (17+HCP is not the same as 14+HCP), the more semipositives you'll get. When you put all double negatives and semipositives in 1♣-1♦ you're overloading this response and you'll be more vulnerable to preemption. That's why it's useful to describe these hands immediately (frequency principle). The rarest types of hands are double negatives, so you can waste some space in that case (again frequency principle). GF hands should stay as low as possible, so 1♣-1♦ is used for that.

 

The way to do it vary and there have been lengthy discussions about this in the past. I still prefer to use the principle I've just described for the given reasons. It's theoretically sound and the big advantage is that the most frequent hands (semipos) immediately limit their strength AND describe their hand shapewise (Major suit oriented). 1♣-1♥ basically denies 5M and can be a bit of everything (balanced or minor suit oriented), but 1♣-1NT+ specifically show 5M or 6M and sometimes even specific side suits. The tradeoff for all advantages is 1♣-1♠ as double negative, I'll admit. Most important to know here is that it's very infrequent, and it's most important to find some playable part score.

 

I believe Straube prefers 1 bid for all semipositives. This doesn't have the same advantages like I described, and I also don't see any gains over my approach, which is why we had lengthy discussions... ;)

 

Using 1♦ as double negative and the rest as semipositives or GF has been discussed as well. Biggest problem here is that both opener and responder need to show somehow that the auction became GF.

 

Our 1C is probably stronger than yours. It can be a prime unbalanced 15, but our 1N opener is 14-16. Our semipositive is 3-5 QPs, but most of our 5 QP hands (a good 8 pts or so) are allowed a positive response. This means that we have fewer semipositives and more GF hands than you likely do. For 200 hands...

 

1D-32%

1H-35.5%

1S-25%

1N-2.5%

2C-3%

other-2%

 

or...

GF-39.5%

semi-35.5%

DN-25%

 

I was expecting (from other tallies) more like

GF-45%

semi-35%

DN-20%

 

but that's what you get for only 200 hands.

 

Really almost tempted to suggest our GF include all 5 QP hands and the semipositives to be 2-4 QPs (with 2 QPs being an optional semipositive). Many of the 2 QP hands have 5 or more hcps. Then maybe...

 

GF-47%

semi-43%

DN-15%

 

Had one other idea come to me while tallying hands. If 1C-1S, 2C makes sense as Stayman, perhaps 1C-1H, 2C should also be Stayman.

[wclass___]

1♦=4♥+ semipositive+

1♥=4♠+semipositive+

1♠=DN or bal GF

1N=other semipositives..bal.. minors

2♣+GF

 

Seems fun. :rolleyes:. If you fear competition you must start to bid your suits.

[straube]

1♦=4♥+ semipositive+

1♥=4♠+semipositive+

1♠=DN or bal GF

1N=other semipositives..bal.. minors

2♣+GF

 

Seems fun. :rolleyes:. If you fear competition you must start to bid your suits.

 

I think that's awful! The 1S response would occur maybe 50% of the time and the continuations would be a nightmare. It would leave us in a terrible spot for competition. I want to know if we're in a GF!

[wclass___]

According to your bridge logic if there were only 3 shapes..e.g.: 4333; 6322;6430. With corresponding probabilities: 60%; 32%;8% and permutations: 4;12;24. It would be poor bridge to play anything but 1♣-1♦ as 4333; 1♥ as 6322 and 1♠ as 6430...

 

As i understand none of your 1♦/1♥/1♠ responses tells anything about suits...

In uncontested 1♣-1♦(negative) i expect way better results. Only mayor advantage should come from competitive bidding, but i can't imagine that knowing points (not knowing suits) would help there much. If we want to play something we need to get in suits anyway.

 

Also if GF is set i strongly prefer for strong hand to be captain of bidding (at least initially), it saves spaces and hides information from opponents.

 

But this looks like you are using SP/DN so that 1♣ opener would be captain of these auctions. That i find strange, especially as opener will probably be first to show his shape anyway.

[straube]

I tried placing all 5 QP hands into positives and 2 QP hands with a useful 4+ hcps into semipositives. For 200 hands...

 

1D.....29%

1H.....42%

1S......19%

1N+...10%

 

or breaking it down....

 

1D with 8+...........27.5%

1D with 7...............1.5%

1H with 3-4 qps....30.5%

1H with 2 qps........11.5%

1S..........................19%

1N+.......................12.5%

 

or

GF....39%

SP.....42%

DN....19%

 

On this run, the current meaning of 1S (2 or fewer QPs) would actually occur 30.5% of the time! Our club is stronger than Moscito, but it seems like 1S must be a frequent (if less so) response for them as well.

 

I think this might be better for us. It allows more semipositives to be relayed (zooming with 4 QPs instead of the so infrequent 5 QPs). It avoids preempting hands that have some points; many of these hands are better than what is allowed by our current structure (which permits a lone ace as a semipositive)

[straube]

According to your bridge logic if there were only 3 shapes..e.g.: 4333; 6322;6430. With corresponding probabilities: 60%; 32%;8% and permutations: 4;12;24. It would be poor bridge to play anything but 1♣-1♦ as 4333; 1♥ as 6322 and 1♠ as 6430...

 

I disagree. We put all of our balanced (5332, 4432, and 4333) and all of our single-suited major and all of our 5/4s with a major into the GF 1D response so that we have room enough to unwind these patterns at an average of +0 steps compared to standard symmetric. This explains why the 1D response is so common (and yet not as common as would be a 0-7 response). Our 1N up responses unwind hand patterns at +0 steps compared to standard symmetric.

 

As i understand none of your 1♦/1♥/1♠ responses tells anything about suits...

In uncontested 1♣-1♦(negative) i expect way better results. Only mayor advantage should come from competitive bidding, but i can't imagine that knowing points (not knowing suits) would help there much. If we want to play something we need to get in suits anyway.

 

You're right about the 1D, 1H, and 1S responses. Hard to say what works best in a competitive auction. I feel sure (and I've read support for the idea here) that establishing a GF is very important for coping with further competition which 1C-1S as DN or GF balanced does not do. I figure that something like 25% of the time, responder will have a non-balanced hand. We start to unwind probably 45% of these patterns immediately (1N on up), another 45% on the subsequent round (again 1N on up), and perhaps 10% on the third round.

 

Also if GF is set i strongly prefer for strong hand to be captain of bidding (at least initially), it saves spaces and hides information from opponents.

 

But this looks like you are using SP/DN so that 1♣ opener would be captain of these auctions. That i find strange, especially as opener will probably be first to show his shape anyway.

 

For gf, usually opener is captain. He's able to reverse relay only a fraction of the time. Responder's balanced hands are placed within the 1D response to allow opener to have room to show distributional hands, but most of the time he has a balanced hand and a lot of the rest of the time, responder has started to spin off shapes first. Here's how it goes....

 

 

1C-1D (bal or major)

..........1H-spades or balanced (or any hand that thinks better to retain captaincy)

...............1S-balanced or hearts and clubs

....................1N-balanced or any hand that thinks better to retain captaincy

.........................2C-hearts and clubs

.........................2D+ balanced hand patterns

....................2C-spades and clubs

....................2D-6 spades

....................2H+ spades and diamonds

...............1N-hearts

....................2C-relays

.........................2D-6 hearts

.........................2H+ hearts and diamonds

...............2C-spades and clubs

...............2D-6 spades

...............2H+ spades and diamonds

..........1S-hearts

...............1N-relays

....................2C-hearts and clubs

....................2D-6 hearts

....................2H+ hearts and diamonds

..........1N-majors or 3-suited short a minor

..........2C-minors

..........2D-6 clubs

..........2H-3-suited, short a major

..........2S+ 6 diamonds

.....1N-majors or 3-suited short a minor

.....2C-minors

.....2D-6 clubs

.....2H-3-suited, short a major

.....2S+ 6 diamonds

 

As far as 1C-1H goes, opener can retain captaincy with 1S (relaying responder's shape) or can make a natural nf and descriptive bid.

 

1C-1S looks like co-captaincy is best with opener showing his shape in a way that permits a rebid for him and frequently for responder.

[wclass___]

I disagree. We put all of our balanced (5332, 4432, and 4333) and all of our single-suited major and all of our 5/4s with a major into the GF 1D response so that we have room enough to unwind these patterns at an average of +0 steps compared to standard symmetric. This explains why the 1D response is so common (and yet not as common as would be a 0-7 response). Our 1N up responses unwind hand patterns at +0 steps compared to standard symmetric.

Disagree with what? :rolleyes: I will try to explain in very simple words what i tried to say in case you misunderstood me.

 

Although 4333 will come up 9 times more than 6430, 6430 includes 6 times more exact shapes and it has way more game/slam potential.. so it needs more bidding room. Same thing for range 5-7 or 8+ they might come up in same frequencies, but you will probably need more space for 8+ to describe them (to limit, honor location etc). So i think it is not correct just to look on probabilities.

 

Also i am afraid that you are ''-'' steps compared to standard methods. Opener has to bid 1♥ to start relays while, using 1♥+GF, it happens automatically.. as if opener had bid 1♦ to inquire. Your 1N+responses obviously helps here, but not enough to get till ''0''.

 

 

I feel sure (and I've read support for the idea here) that establishing a GF is very important for coping with further competition which 1C-1S as DN or GF balanced does not do.

I like these bridge basics: limit yourself, bid your longest suits first, don't under lead aces.. But then one should forget all rules and start thinking about each situation exclusively.

 

I think there might be hands that you can add for DN/negative that don't fear competition and can be implemented without noticeable effects.

 

Hard to say what works best in a competitive auction.

I see that you prefer points by far, but i believe that it is better that you know suits rather than points. But of course it is even better f you know both. :rolleyes:

[straube]

Disagree with what? :rolleyes: I will try to explain in very simple words what i tried to say in case you misunderstood me.

 

Although 4333 will come up 9 times more than 6430, 6430 includes 6 times more exact shapes and it has way more game/slam potential.. so it needs more bidding room. Same thing for range 5-7 or 8+ they might come up in same frequencies, but you will probably need more space for 8+ to describe them (to limit, honor location etc). So i think it is not correct just to look on probabilities.

 

Also i am afraid that you are ''-'' steps compared to standard methods. Opener has to bid 1♥ to start relays while, using 1♥+GF, it happens automatically.. as if opener had bid 1♦ to inquire. Your 1N+responses obviously helps here, but not enough to get till ''0''.

 

I disagree that my logic would assign the three patterns as you suggested. I look at frequency yes but I also look at how much information has to be contained in any single bid. That's why our club is less frequent than our 1D opening and that's why our 1C-1D sequence is less frequent than our 1C-1H sequence. Our opening structure is designed with relays in mind.

 

We have left extra room for shapely hands at the expense of balanced hands. We are + compared to standard for balanced hands, we are +0 compared to standard for the 2-suited patterns, and we are -compared to standard for the single-suited (6+) hands. When it's balanced opposite balanced then we have lost room, but when responder is balanced and opener is unbalanced, we are +0 or - compared to standard for an opportunity to reverse relay that most structures don't have. Moscito has that opportunity but I believe it is +1 for most shapes.

[Free]

According to your bridge logic if there were only 3 shapes..e.g.: 4333; 6322;6430. With corresponding probabilities: 60%; 32%;8% and permutations: 4;12;24. It would be poor bridge to play anything but 1♣-1♦ as 4333; 1♥ as 6322 and 1♠ as 6430...

On occasion Richard has posted a way to evaluate the efficiency of relay systems. In short, you multiply the frequency of the hand with the level required to bid the hand, and do this for every possible hand. The lower the total score, the better the relaysystem. Imo this is a theoretically sound and objective method.

 

I disagree with your statement that it would be poor bridge to ... (see quote), it's much better to use 1NT and higher to immediately show certain hand types, but that would get us too far.

However, if we were only allowed to respond 1♦/♥/♠, imo you should order your bids according to the information they convey, unless the difference in frequency is extremely high. On general principles I'd rather play the other way around (1♦ = 6430 (0 cards known), 1♥ = 6322 (8 cards known), 1♠ = 4333 (12 cards known)), although the frequencies might confirm your method is better here.

 

The difference with your theoretical case and the situation after strong ♣ is that all distributions that can be SP can also be GF (except the very very very rare extreme shapes like 13-0-0-0). If you want to relay both GF and SP hands, then frequency comes into play. With the standard approach of 1♣-1♦(neg)-1♥(extra)-1NT+ = SP and 1♣-1♥+ = GF, you'll see that GF hands are bid 2 steps lower than SP hands. If SP is more frequent, then you can improve the relay system by lowering the SP's at the cost of leveling up the GF hands. That's exactly what happens with the approach I use (based on Paul Marston's work). We bring most SP 1 step lower (sometimes 2, sometimes no difference), and we bring most GF hands 1 step higher. Since SP are considerably more frequent than GF in that system, we improve our relay system.

[wclass___]

Well, yeah, obviously i meant 1♦/1♥/1♠ to be only bids available.

 

That quote wasn't targeting other methods, but rather for straube's comment as i perceived it as something like ''it is no good to play 1X as Y, because it comes up too much.''

 

Btw, who is Richard?