X of Montreal relay?

[gwnn]

1C-p-1D-x

 

What should this be (1D promises a 4-card major, 0-9 diamonds)? One of us thought it should show diamonds and one of us thought it should show 4-4 (4-3) in the majors.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would take it as T/O for clubs.

This makes it a 3rd option I guess, although quite similar to the

meaning, that it showes the major.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

The same as a double of a Precison 1♦ or a loose 1♣: takeout, but fairly vague about the minor-suit lengths.

[fromageGB]

As it is a double of a bid that does not show diamonds, by default I take the double to show diamonds. Surely if you have a major or two, you can afford to wait.

[TylerE]

Agree with Fromage, X=♦.

[CSGibson]

its more important to have a take-out oriented double than a diamonds oriented double. At other tables, they won't have the opportunity to bid 1♦, but they will have an opportunity to make a take-out double; also, with a hand with diamonds, its much better to actually overcall 2♦ if possible anyway and make them unwind the majors at the 2 level.

 

But the best argument for a take-out double is that you can use 2♦ as diamonds, but you don't have a convenient substitute for a take-out double hand. Waiting is not an acceptable solution - you could get the auction bounced, or have to come in at a much more dangerous level; early action is less risky than late action in an auction, and makes an auction more difficult and nuanced for opponents, usually.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting situation theoretically, IMO. If your goal is not predominantly descriptive but rather returning to equity (meaning, getting in the same results that others in alternative sequences would have), then you assume a set of two auction alternatives:

 

1♣-P-1♥, and

1♣-P-1♠

 

You then ideally cater to these two sequence types with your approach over this alternative sequence. A reasonable example of how to unwind this (with discussion of course):

 

1♠? Natural. You are assuming the auction type 1♣-P-1♥, where you would have been able to overcall 1♠ naturally.

 

1♥? This could be natural, except that if you are assuming the auction type 1♣-P-1♠, you would never be able to bid 1♥ naturally, nor would you in the alternative 1♣-P-1♥. This suggests that

1♣-P-1♦-2♥ be an intermediate jump overcall (again equity) but that 1♥ be dedicated for a different cause.

 

You then end up with potentially X as takeout with short spades, 1♥ takeout with short hearts. 1NT could then be sandwich?

 

Once that scheme is considered, there might be improvements. Obviously, adding in an ELC to handle either 4-card major and longer diamonds (not clubs) seems like a no-brainer. 1NT might then instead be both minors, or even potentially a ULC (major plus longer clubs).

 

The key thing, though, is that it seems useful to have 1♥ as takeout with short hearts and X as takeout with short spades.

 

BTW -- this form of "Montreal Relay" is dubious in its explanation. I doubt that the 1♦ call promises a 4-card major, instead simply denying a 5-card major and saying nothing about diamonds. For instance, most MR people would respond 1♦ with long diamonds and whatever holding is not right systemically for a jump to 2♦, and most mark time with 1♦ if not right for a stronger (8-11) 1NT response, in either situation without any 4-card major.

[gwnn]

Yes they often describe 1D as 'denies a 5 card major' which could mean any number of things but these opps really said that it promises a 4 card M.

[kenrexford]

Yes they often describe 1D as 'denies a 5 card major' which could mean any number of things but these opps really said that it promises a 4 card M.

 

Your opponents are likely idiots.

[TylerE]

Well, I mean, they are playing Montreal Relay. That's usually clue number one...

[Siegmund]

I would suggest that the opponents have given you an extra bonus by keeping the auction low, and you ought use the extra space to show some hand-types that otherwise might never get into the bidding. I am sure that involves some sort of hand with a 4-card major that is otherwise hard to bid, but I am not sure which one it is.

 

Absent a Montreal relay defense agreement, make sure you have a meta-agreement that covers this double.

[fromageGB]

Well, I mean, they are playing Montreal Relay. That's usually clue number one...

Don't agree with this. I know people who are not idiots who play 1♦ denies a 5 card major (they don't call it Montreal relay) and I consider it better than bidding a major with 4 or 5, particularly when weak. Of course it does not have the advantages of Twalsh, but it does have the benefit for many of being considerably simpler.

 

If you are going to have an agreement to be used against this convention than Ken's seems a good idea.

[Zelandakh]

You then end up with potentially X as takeout with short spades, 1♥ takeout with short hearts. 1NT could then be sandwich?

An interesting question is whether it would be better for 1♥ to be as above (catering to strong hands) or should be takeout of spades (allowing a stop in 1♥). If the latter then double also needs to include super-strong hands.

 

But I am interested if folks think Ken's idea is any better than, for example, X = takeout (majors); 1M = natural; 1NT = Raptor (4M + longer minor). Losing a natural 1♥ overcall seems like something of a big deal and could easily be seen as not taking advantage of one of the shortcomings of the MR method. Similarly for the loss of the 2♥ wjo. Equally, if we hold a decent 4144 hand, we could presumably double back in if the auction continued (1♣) - (1♦); (1♥) - (2♥). So I remain to be convinced so far.

 

Incidentally, the discussion about the merits of 1♥ being takeout of hearts versus takeout of spades reminds me of similar discussion at the 2 level after a Multi 2♦ opening. That in turn makes me wonder if X = "hearts or spades or strong" would be a viable starting point for a defence. Something like:

X = hearts or spades or strong; 1M = takeout of the other major; 1NT = 4M + longer minor

would certainly make for some interesting auctions if nothing else. You could anchor the 1NT minor to clubs if you wanted and move the M + diamonds hands to 1M. That would probably be a good idea. Has anyone tried something like that in practise? It would be fun to pull it out against a MR pair that think they are playing something super-scientific. :P

[kenrexford]

An interesting question is whether it would be better for 1♥ to be as above (catering to strong hands) or should be takeout of spades (allowing a stop in 1♥). If the latter then double also needs to include super-strong hands.

 

But I am interested if folks think Ken's idea is any better than, for example, X = takeout (majors); 1M = natural; 1NT = Raptor (4M + longer minor). Losing a natural 1♥ overcall seems like something of a big deal and could easily be seen as not taking advantage of one of the shortcomings of the MR method. Similarly for the loss of the 2♥ wjo. Equally, if we hold a decent 4144 hand, we could presumably double back in if the auction continued (1♣) - (1♦); (1♥) - (2♥). So I remain to be convinced so far.

 

Incidentally, the discussion about the merits of 1♥ being takeout of hearts versus takeout of spades reminds me of similar discussion at the 2 level after a Multi 2♦ opening. That in turn makes me wonder if X = "hearts or spades or strong" would be a viable starting point for a defence. Something like:

X = hearts or spades or strong; 1M = takeout of the other major; 1NT = 4M + longer minor

would certainly make for some interesting auctions if nothing else. You could anchor the 1NT minor to clubs if you wanted and move the M + diamonds hands to 1M. That would probably be a good idea. Has anyone tried something like that in practise? It would be fun to pull it out against a MR pair that think they are playing something super-scientific. :P

 

If the 1♦ call were "normal Montreal," where 1♦ could also be just diamonds, then there are multiple potential showings. In fact, many who play this way use a short club, such that no suit has been shown so far. This might be the time for an approach that is somewhat like overcalling 1NT, then.

 

A radical idea might be to play this sequence as forcing, meaning you must bid. That way, a pass might be an artificial act. Doing so would allow more definition. In simplest form, if you reverse the meanings of pass and double (double means no call, while pass shows something interesting), then you add a lot, because (1♣)-P-(1♦)-P!-P-X! is an auction that "answers the pass." The effective result is that a direct pass of 1♦ is the functional equivalent of an insufficient 1♣ overcall and a 1♦ response. P-P-X of a 1♦ call uses up the same space as 1♣-P-1♦, in other words. By treating this sequence as forcing, then, your structure could be parallel to having the ability to "open" 1♣, 1♥, 1♠, 1NT, and higher,

[PhilKing]

Forrester/Gold play a variant of Montreal relay, and they are not that bad. All the crackpot defences (and I include double showing diamonds in this category) give up a lot for almost no gain.

 

Just play double as a loose take-out double and play everything else as natural. Look at it this way - when they have diamonds, we certainly want to be playing a normal defence, and if we are short in one major, you can just wait. Giving up a natural 1M just to cater for a 4144 that is afraid of being shut out is just bizarre.

[Siegmund]

What I can't decide is if it is better to allow 1M on 4 (presumably with a second place to play), or to have 1M be normal and have the 4+5s start with 1NT. I gravitate to the latter just because that way I don't have to remember a second method.

 

So far my opps who have played have 1) been equally divided whether they say denies 5 or promises 4, 2) had diamonds about 90% of the time, whichever explanation they gave and 3) almost invariably been terrible.

 

I feel like I am already way ahead of the field when it starts 1C-P-1D and I get a cheap 1M overcall, compared to when it goes 1C-P-1S and my hearts get shut out.

[gwnn]

Siegmund, by 'had diamonds' I assume you mean they had 4+ diamonds, with or without a 4-card major?

[DJNeill]

Takeout of 1C. The big hands have to start with a double anyways so better to play "takeout or big" rather than "diamonds or big" which gets into more trouble.

 

Thus, like in most sandwich situations, 2D would be a natural overcall.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[fromageGB]

As a major is (normally) not promised by responder, and if there is one it will not be long, I don't think a multi type X defence (single major or good hand) is really viable. On reflection, I would prefer it not to be a takeout of a specific major because they have shown no major and you are less likely to have such a hand. Maybe it should not show diamonds, because again, responder can often have them and indeed has no other long suit, so holding diamonds over the 1♦ bid is not so frequent as it is over, say, a transfer. Moreover, if I have long diamonds, then a 2♦ call is better as it is disruptive. This leads me to think (now like the majority) that my X should be a general balancedish takeout, equivalent to me opening a non-shortage 1♣. Partner bids a 4+ card major if opener passes, but uses our standard defence to their overcall of our 1♣ if opener bids.

 

OK, neither of the OP choices ! : "One of us thought it should show diamonds and one of us thought it should show 4-4 (4-3) in the majors" :P

 

As to 1NT, I don't like Raptor when they have not bid a major because it is silly to scramble a minor non-fit at the 3 level when you don't have the major fit - I use Raptor only when they have bid a major, so your major is defined. Both minors is a possibility.

[mycroft]

I don't like Raptor when neither of the suits is not defined for the reason above - it's hard without a cuebid to resolve everything. I don't mind when only the minor is defined, as the chance of us having to play our 5-2 fit at the 3 level because it's our best hope is very small.

 

I would like to see some good "short minor" defences and whether they do the same sort of game playing in fourth seat after "undefined minor"-p-"undefined minor".

 

I do like "pass is forcing", but I think only once have I seen an MR pair pass 1♦. Almost always they bid 1NT or their 4-card major or whatever they would normally do with a forcing and natural one-over-one.

[PhilKing]

 

I would like to see some good "short minor" defences and whether they do the same sort of game playing in fourth seat after "undefined minor"-p-"undefined minor".

 

 

The postions are not equivalent, since partner's pass over 1♣ precludes many of the hands where coming in is a winner.

 

For instance, I play extremely light overcalls and loose doubles over 1♣ (eg 4234 13 count is an auto double), so fourth seat actions without decent shape should be sound.

[kenrexford]

All right. I am done F'ing with everyone and can talk practical reality now. LOL

 

I have played bridge for about 33 years in an area where Montreal Relay is standard. Anyone and everyone at the local clubs plays Montreal Relay. So, I have quite a bit of experience playing against it.

 

A couple of observations:

 

1. Problems never arise for us as overcallers. Just make sure that 2♣ and 2♦ are both natural if the opponents start shortclub-pass-artificialdiamond. 1♥ shows hearts, and 1♠ shows spades.

2. Bid 2NT as minors if you can. If you have that hand, they are in trouble.

3. Use R.U.N.T. They cannot handle it.

4. By using R.U.N.T., your doubles are stronger, such that you can pull to notrump or something else logical if your partner bids some unfortunate short suit.

 

(R.U.N.T. or Really Unusual Notrump is a 1NT overcall showing a weak hand -- however weak you are willing to go -- and three-suited. At least 3 cards in every suit. Your third suit is diamonds.)

[PhilKing]

3. Use R.U.N.T. They cannot handle it.

4. By using R.U.N.T., your doubles are stronger, such that you can pull to notrump or something else logical if your partner bids some unfortunate short suit.

 

(R.U.N.T. or Really Unusual Notrump is a 1NT overcall showing a weak hand -- however weak you are willing to go -- and three-suited. At least 3 cards in every suit. Your third suit is diamonds.)

 

I'm guessing you are a get-in-if-at-all-possible kind of guy. But bidding 1NT on some semi-balanced filth in fourth seat is madness, even if you occasionally get away with it in the Valley of the Blind.

 

If you want to play RUNT in second seat, I can just about understand it, but to recommend it in 4th seat, when pard could not act over 1♣ is crackers - a huge portion of the hands where you are not getting stretchered are excluded from partner's range.

[kenrexford]

I'm guessing you are a get-in-if-at-all-possible kind of guy. But bidding 1NT on some semi-balanced filth in fourth seat is madness, even if you occasionally get away with it in the Valley of the Blind.

 

If you want to play RUNT in second seat, I can just about understand it, but to recommend it in 4th seat, when pard could not act over 1♣ is crackers - a huge portion of the hands where you are not getting stretchered are excluded fro partner's range.

 

You are missing the key condition a priori. The opponents are playing Montreal Relay. Normally, that means that you by definition are in the Valley of the Blind. Hence, the practical structure for when you are in the Valley of the Blind is to use the approach that most effectively works there.

 

I mean, when playing with a partner with whom I have no agreements, I typically bid 1NT in the Montreal Relay sequence described because it is my turn to bid. I have nothing available to partner as far as escapes or anything like that, and this works wonders nonetheless. So, if I actually had some sort of agreements and minimum standards, that would make the approach extremely conservative contextually. Madness is contextual.