MickyB Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 As title. I've made 1H:1S as a kind of relay Kaplan Inversion work nicely but I can't quite get 1S:1N to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Starting from 0HCP, or do you promise at least 'some' values? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Normal responding hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I play 1NT as INV+ (with 2♣♦♥ as natural, non-forcing) and that is already cramped enough. I doubt 5/6+ is workable for the 1NT response. What are you using the other bids for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Either C/D/H in some order or lose one of the minors and play 2H as a good raise. eg over 1H I play 1S = ART F1, includes balanced GFs1N = 5+spades2C = 6+diamonds weak or 5+diamonds unbal GF2D = 6+clubs INV or 5+clubs unbal GF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 OK, so the basic structure would be something like 1N = clubs weak or diamonds INV or most balanced hands2♣ = 6+ diamonds weak or 5+ diamonds unbal GF2♦ = 5+ hearts2♥ = 6+ clubs INV or 5+ clubs unbal GF Since you have taken so many hands out of the 1NT response, it seems like this is actually ok. For example, I started to write up Responder's rebids for transfer rebids by Opener and there was space for everything just playing naturally, at least with a 15-17 NT, so it did not seem worthwhile to post it. Indeed, I suspect that any sensible arrangement that incorporates the weak NT hands into a non-forcing 2♣ rebid will work out so perhaps you could invent some kind of Reverse Gazilli convention to handle this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 How would you relay over whichever of 1S:1N, 2H and 1S:1N, 2S shows a two-suiter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I was not considering making the follow-ups relays! I had a 2♠ rebid as a minimum with clubs and then P = weak; 2NT = bal INV; 3♣ = weak; 3♦ = INV; 3♥ = weak. You want both hands to be showing shape but nonetheless to use relays? That does not seem to make sense to me. For pure relays over 1♠ I think it is much better to separate by good/bad hand (1NT = INV+, 2X = weak) and let Opener describe. I will try and fit in some thinking time for this in the next days but my first thoughts are not overly positive, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Yeah we need forcing bids, lol. I subscribe to the theory that it is best for unbalanced hands to describe rather than ask, relaying on unbalanced hands doesn't work well IME. Think with some messing around I can get 1S:1N, 2H:3C as bal GF, pretty high though obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 As title. I've made 1H:1S as a kind of relay Kaplan Inversion work nicely but I can't quite get 1S:1N to work. Not a relay junkie, but why wouldn't these be parallel structures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Not a relay junkie, but why wouldn't these be parallel structures? I too thought they would be at first, but realised I was basically using responder's 2NT rebids twice. Eg 1H:1S!2D - now 2S = GF relay, 2N = natural invite 1S:1N,2H - now 2N is needed as both a GF relay and a natural invite Obviously we don't actually play 1H:1S, 2D as natural but this shows the problem in a nutshell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Is this in context of a limited opening system? It's much easier to design something that works if that's the case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Obviously we don't actually play 1H:1S, 2D as natural Thank goodness for that: I was worried the thread might have to be moved to another forum for a moment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Is this in context of a limited opening system? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 The reason why I wrote in Bridge World about putting the GF ♥ hands in 1NT forcing, and the non-forcing hands as a two level response (Two New Bidding Ideas, March 1991, the other idea was transfer responses to 1♣) was to embed relays into the 1NT forcing structure. Five years ago Dimiter Zlatanov expanded on (or reinvented, not sure if he had read the '91 article) on this with Delayed Two-Over-One (May 2007). The idea is that: 1♠-1NT;-2m-2♥ is a game force relay (does not promise ♥s)1♠-1NT;-2♠ promises 6+♠s, and 2NT is played as an ask1♠-1NT;-2♥ is the trouble spot, but if responder has a original GF in ♥s there is no problem if responder now has a forcing bid available. Zlatanov proposed that 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT and 1♠-1NT;-2♥-3♣ be transfers, with 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT;-3♣-3♦ as the game force relay sequence (does not promise ♣s).Our system trials had 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT as an ask (who cares about playing 2NT). This had mixed results, but the conclusion was 2NT as natural invite is necessary. I now think that the best approach is for 1♠-2♣ to be natural, non-forcing, but up to invite strength based on the long suit. While opener can not pass this as often if 2♣ did not have invite values, in more standard methods, responder with long ♣s and less than invite values has to first bid 1NT, and then will have to rebid ♣s at the three level or higher, and this means that most methods will end up at 3♣ (or higher). This allows for 1♠-1NT;-2red-3♣ to be the game force ask. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 I now think that the best approach is for 1♠-2♣ to be natural, non-forcing Thanks, this might well be what I need, I was considering 2C as nat F1 any strength earlier but this feels better - although presumably 1S:1N, 2H:3C is GF bal/clubs so we are sometimes back to an unbalanced hand doing the asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 How would you play 1S:2D and 1S:2H, Glen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Thanks, this might well be what I need, I was considering 2C as nat F1 any strength earlier but this feels better - although presumably 1S:1N, 2H:3C is GF bal/clubs so we are sometimes back to an unbalanced hand doing the asking.I worked on a system that included in 1S-1N most GF hands, as well as the 6-9ish regular 2/1 forcing NT hands that just pass or preference to opener's natural rebid. This freed up 1S-2X to be natural and non forcing (intermediate 5-11ish), and allowed 3rd suit auctions after the forcing NT (1S-1N-2m-2DH) to be a cheap GF ask. I came to a similar conclusion that 1S-2C needed to do some extra work. In my case, I had this be inv+ clubs (could be two suited if GF), and was F1. This allowed the NT to include only those GF hands that had one or both red suits. The reason 2C natural helps is that there are many sequences like 1S-1N-2HS where 3C by responses wants to be the cheapest ask and hence it's important to offload the club hands elsewhere. I also played an invitational 2N rebid by responder so that step wasn't available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Ok, think I've nailed it, I've gone back to 2C as 5+hcp 5+clubs F1. 1S:2D = hearts, 1S:2H = diamonds. Possibly could include a bad raise to 2S in the 2H bid, who is it that plays that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 How would you play 1S:2D and 1S:2H, Glen?1♠-2♦ transfer to ♥s1♠-2♥ invite+ in ♠s (in more detail 1♠-1NT;-any-3♠ is a good invite, 1♠-2♥ is a bad invite or GF+) Ok, think I've nailed it, I've gone back to 2C as 5+hcp 5+clubs F1. 1S:2D = hearts, 1S:2H = diamonds. Possibly could include a bad raise to 2S in the 2H bid, who is it that plays that?That's excellent, and there are others who play 1♠-2♦ as GF ♦s or bad ♠ raise, clever to have 1♠-2♥ do that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 I too thought they would be at first, but realised I was basically using responder's 2NT rebids twice. Eg 1H:1S!2D - now 2S = GF relay, 2N = natural invite 1S:1N,2H - now 2N is needed as both a GF relay and a natural invite Obviously we don't actually play 1H:1S, 2D as natural but this shows the problem in a nutshellIsn't it easier to just GF relay with the 2♣ response and keep 1NT for other hands? Especially if you don't even save a step by using 1NT because responder has to skip one step later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Isn't it easier to just GF relay with the 2♣ response and keep 1NT for other hands? Especially if you don't even save a step by using 1NT because responder has to skip one step later on. Yeah. That's what we do. We have in effect a strong relay (2C) and a weak relay (1N) and both let opener describe more of his pattern. Why reverse course and have responder interrupt that by describing his own hand? Now both partners are in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 So I managed to think about this on the train home last night and think I have the basis for a solution by treating the 1NT response as a Lebensohl-like marionette:- 1♠ - 1NT======2♣ = any non-GF not qualifying for 2♦♥♠ (2D = relay, see below)2♦ = 5+ diamonds, non-GF (3♥ = range ask)2♥ = 5+ clubs, min2♠ = 6+ spades, 4 diamonds, min2NT = 18+ bal3X = nat GF After 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣, 2♦ is a relay showing either a weak hand with spade shortage or a GF hand), responses2♥ = 4+ hearts (2♠ = GF relay)2♠ = 6+ spades, one-suited (2NT = GF relay)2NT = weak NT (3♣ = GF relay)3♣ = 4+ clubs (3♦ = GF relay)3♦ = 4 diamonds (3♥ = GF relay) It is not full shape relays but it does seem to get the job done. That said, I see a number of issues, notably that the opps can almost double blind after 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - P knowing that we are weak and in a misfit. If you want total relays then my solution is to play 1NT as INV+ without 4 spades and then2♣ = min without 4 hearts (now 2♦ is GF relay and continue as per 2♥+ steps below; others are nat and INV)2♦ = 4+ hearts (now 2♠ is GF relay; others are nat and INV)2♥ = 4+ clubs, GF2♠ = one-suited, GF2NT = 5+ spades, 5+ diamonds, GF3♣ = 5 spades, 4 diamonds, GF3♦= 6042 or 6143, GF3♥ = 6241, GF3♠ = 6340, GF3NT = 7141, GF4♣ = 7+ spades, 4 diamonds, heart void, GF4♦+ = 7+ spades, 4 diamonds, club void, GF Of course I do not have 5332 hands included which helps a lot. This is what I was meaning by things being somewhat tight. 2♣ as a GF relay response will have the same issue. You can naturally include these in the one suiters but then you cannot get complete shape resolution. But you can use the relay breaks over 2♠ to show natural suits so that the unbalanced hand is describing, albeit at the 3 level. I personally use the relay breaks as stopper asks though. Anyway, hopefully at least some part of these musings is helpful although it does look like you might already have moved past this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Isn't it easier to just GF relay with the 2♣ response and keep 1NT for other hands? Especially if you don't even save a step by using 1NT because responder has to skip one step later on. I want responder to get the NT in first, and I want 1S:2C free to show a suit. When I set out I thought that suit would be diamonds, but I guess I'll have to make do with it being clubs B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Cheers Zel. One question - why are so many hands bidding 1S:1N, 2C? I'd have been inclined to start with something like 2D = 5S4D 11-182H = 5S4C 11-132S = 5S4C 14-17 Or similar 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.