a nebulous diamond structure

[straube]

For 1D=11-13 bal, 10-15 unbal without a 5M or 6m (unless 6m5m)

 

The basic idea is that 1D-1S is much more preemptive than 1D-1H and perhaps should require more strength.

 

1H-could be weak 5S/4+H

.....1S-4S or 31(54)

..........2C-GF relay

..........2D-GI

...............2H-min, 0-1 hearts

...............2S-min, 2-3 hearts

..........2H-GI 5H

.....1N-11-13 bal

..........2S-5S, weak

.....2C-5D/5C

..........2H-GI 6H

..........2S-GF relay

.....2D-unbal raise (includes 13(54))

.....2H-bal raise

.....2S-44(50)

..........2N-GF relay

.....2N-04(54)

..........3C-GF relay

.....3C-5/5 inv

 

1S-could be invitational+ 5S/4+H

.....1N-11-13 bal

.....2C-3-suited short spades (e.g. 1354, 0445, 1435)

..........2H-GF relay

..........2S-GI 6

..........2N-GI, possibly 5S/4H

...............3H-4H

..........3L-GI, 5-cd suit

.....2D-5/5 minors

..........2H-GI+ relay

...............2S-min

....................2N-GF relay

..........2S-GI 6

..........2N-GI, possible 5/5 majors

...............3H-0355

...............3S-3055

.....2H-good raise, same patterns as...

.....2S-bad raise

.....2N-void raise

.....3C-5/5 inv

 

1N-bal

2m-natural, f

2M-wjs

2N-weak minors

3m-weak

 

So this can lose 9-cd spade fits to 8-cd heart fits and can lose spade fits altogether in competition. Things I like include using 2M as weak and knowing opener has 2-3 spades after 1D-1S, 1N. Separating the "anything but spades" hands from 5/5 minors hands after 1D-1S is nice in that responder may raise/invite with 3-cd support and it also makes the relays easier to remember.

[foobar]

IMO, it's better to use 2♥ / 2♠ for the reverse Flannery hands with non-invite / invite strength.

 

This avoids some of the downside of losing the ♠ fits. Also, any hand that can rebid the major after opener shows 5-5 in the minors must be invitational perforce.

 

BTW, another point to emphasize here is that relays are a "nice to have", i.e., they are the means to an end and not an end onto themselves. Having several different relay schemes (one for each opening) is a huge memory load for most players, so much so that it might even degrade table performance.

 

My guess is that the asymmetry between the 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ semantics is simply to accommodate relays (and adds unnecessary complexity).

[awm]

This seems a lot worse than the structure Sam and I use; in particular:

 

1. You can lose spade fits in competition by responding 1H with longer spades.

2. You cannot find partner's longer minor at the two level after the 2c rebid. This is especially bad after the 1S response where 2c can be 5-3 either way!

3. You cannot play 2c when opener has both minors. You also may have trouble distinguishing 3c correction from 3c invite.

4. You may miss a 4-4 heart fit when responder is invitational.

5. You lose opportunities to play in 1S on a 4-3 because opener will rebid spades on three.

 

In exchange all you seem to get is that the 1nt rebid cannot be on singleton spade. And this isn't necessarily even a win because 1nt is fairly often the best partial there!

 

If you really want to avoid bidding 1nt on singleton, I think you have to use reverse flannery. But honestly I think the 1nt bid on singleton is a winning method -- its a high scoring MP spot, very difficult to defend correctly, and helps a lot in your other rebids.

[straube]

I've already been persuaded that 1D-2M as WJS is better than Reverse Flannery because 1) it (and especially 2S) is more frequent and 2) it solves a rebid

problem for the GI strength hand after 1D-1M, 2C and 3) it's almost always playable (there's the rare misfit with Reverse Flannery).

 

I'm not bothered by rebidding 1N with a stiff, except that then partner can't know whether I have tolerance for spades or not (or hearts if my practice is to rebid 1N with 31(54). I don't like responder passing 1N with Kxxxx x xxx KQxx. 5S/4m hands are more frequent than 5S/4H. Responder might also preference 2S with certain 5S332s. The decision to pass 1N or preference 2S accounts for the majority of different outcomes between this and a structure that rebids 1N with a stiff.

 

Meckwell used to play 1D-1S, 2C could be 5-3 either way and I imagine this was to preserve 1N as balanced. To be able to rebid spades? I'm thinking they gave that up, meaning that they rebid 1N with a stiff now. Does anyone know? But their situation was a little analogous in that they'd removed their 5S/4H hands with Reverse Flannery and the likelihood of finding a minor suit fit was higher. So their 1D-1S, 2D had to show diamonds, but using it for 5/5 is pretty descriptive and allows for an invite in clubs and an invite with 3-cd support which 1D-1S, 2C would not do.

[awm]

The solution we have used is to play:

 

1D-1M-1NT-2M shows 5M and a 4+ side suit. Opener can then correct with singleton and we usually have a minor fit. Further, we can use 2nt vs. 3C by opener to distinguish lengths.

 

Of course it is possible to have complete misfit (1453 vs 5314) but this has never come up.

[Kungsgeten]

I think the nebulous diamond where it always have a 4-card major if unbalanced is better if you want to use relays, I may be wrong though. You could also include 5-5 minors in this opening if you want to exclude opening strength with 5-5 minors from the 2-level. You basically use 1H as hearts or GF relay:

 

Edit: Some changes to make the structure more symmetric and to cater for 4441s

 

1D--1H;

1S = 4 spades, not 4 hearts

..1NT = To play, but unbalanced hand may bid 2m

..2C = Checkback

..2D = GF relay

....2H = 5+ clubs

....2S = Balanced or three-suited with short hearts

......2N = Relay

........3C = 4-4 clubs + spades (but followed by 3NT is 4-0-4-5)

........3D = 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-5-4

........3H = 4-2-4-3

........3S = 4-3-4-2

........3N = 4-3-3-3

....2N+ = 5+ diamonds

1NT = Balanced, no 4 card major

2C = Unbalanced, 4 hearts

..2D = Relay

....2H = 5+ clubs

....2S = Three-suited with hearts, so 4441 or 5440

......2N = Relay

........3C = Short spades (1-4-4-4, 0-4-4-5, 0-4-5-4)

........3D = Short diamonds

........3H = 4-4-4-1

........3S = 4-4-5-0

....2N+ = 5+ diamonds

2D = 5-5 minors

2H = Balanced with 4 hearts

 

After a natural 1S:

 

1D--1S;

1N = Balanced

2CD = 5+ minor, 4 hearts

2H = Unbalanced spade raise

2S = Balanced spade raise

2N = 5-5 minors, min

3C = 5-5 minors, max

[straube]

The solution we have used is to play:

 

1D-1M-1NT-2M shows 5M and a 4+ side suit. Opener can then correct with singleton and we usually have a minor fit. Further, we can use 2nt vs. 3C by opener to distinguish lengths.

 

Of course it is possible to have complete misfit (1453 vs 5314) but this has never come up.

 

I imagine it's more likely you find 8-cd fits. I suppose 1D-1H, 1N-2H, 2S finds a Moysian, 1D-1S, 1N-2S, 2N is longer diamonds?

 

I had assumed that your immediate rebid of 2S showed 6 while 1D-1S, 1N-2C, 2D-2S showed 5, so now I'm thinking you use the latter to show 5+ and opener removes with shortness.

 

Well, I've always liked your 1D-1M structure and I see you've a solution for catching most of your spade fits. Seems a lot better than this structure. Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

Creating relays for this opening is very easy as the number of patterns is comparatvely small, for example:

 

1♦ - 1♥ = INV+ relay

==

1♠ = unbal min (then 1NT GF relay and responses as per 2♣+ below)

1NT = 11-13 bal

2♣ = GF, 5 diamonds, <5 clubs

... - 2♦ = relay

... - ... - 2♥ = 4 spades (4054, 4153, 4252, 4351, 4450)

... - ... - 2♠ = 4 clubs (1354, 2254, 3154)

... - ... - 2NT+ = 4 hearts (0454, 1453, 2452, 3451)

2♦ = GF, 5 clubs, 4 hearts (0445, 1435, 2425, 3415, 4405)

2♥ = GF, 5 clubs, 4 spades (4045, 4135, 4225, 4315)

2♠ = 5+-5+ minors

2NT = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds (1345, 2245, 3145)

3♣ = 1444

3♦ = 4144

3♥ = 4414

3♠+ = 4441

 

The problem is finding a workable system on weak hands without losing the heart suit or getting overboard. Perhaps something like this would be possible:

 

1♠ = weak, 4+ spades

1NT = weak, 0-3 spades, 0-4 hearts, 0-4 minors

2m = weak, 5+ suit

2♥ = weak, 5+ hearts

2♠ = max weak, 6+ spades

 

The obvious problem is missing 4-4 heart fits. Taking that on board it might well be that natural works better here. The classic 1♥ = nat or GF response also has to be a reasonable option. Finally there are skip-bid responses: 1♥ = any hand without 4 hearts; 1♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades; 1NT = both majors willing to play 1NT opposite 11-13 bal; 2♣ = both majors, INV+.

 

To be honest though, this is always the issue with this minor suit structure. This is why I think the version where 1♦ shows one minor but never both (and 2m cover hands with both minors) tends to be easier in practise.

[straube]

The obvious problem is missing 4-4 heart fits. Taking that on board it might well be that natural works better here. The classic 1♥ = nat or GF response also has to be a reasonable option. Finally there are skip-bid responses: 1♥ = any hand without 4 hearts; 1♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades; 1NT = both majors willing to play 1NT opposite 11-13 bal; 2♣ = both majors, INV+.

 

 

I think 1D-1H has to include natural meanings. I like it as nat or GF.

[straube]

As much as I hate 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-2-5-5 eventualities, I want to avoid 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-4-5-3 languishing in 2C.

 

1D-2S WJS

1D-2H WRF

 

This reduces the types of hands held after 1D-1S, 2C that would like to offer to play 2M. Still left are IRF (invitational Reverse Flannery)

and IJS

 

Btw, I stole a basic idea from awm and sieong that 1D-1S, 1N may contain a collection of minimum hands with stiffs while maximum hands are compelled to

rebid 2C.

 

1D-1S

.....1N-bal or 3-suited 10-12 with 8 or 9 minor suit cards

..........2C-puppet, handles 5S/4H and 5S and other invites

..........2D-GF

..........2H-6S invite

..........2S-5S/4m sign off

.....2C-5/5 minors or 8 or 9 minor suit cards with 13-15 (so 1-4-5-3 possible)

..........2D-correction

..........2H-inquiry

...............2S-5/5 minors, thus possibly weak

....................2N-GF relay

....................3m-invite

...............2N-8 minor suit cards, 4 hearts, 13-15

...............etc-9 minor suit cards, 13-15

..........2S-6S, GI

..........2N-GI, possibly 5S and possibly 5S/4H

...............3H-checkback, 13-15 always accepts game

..........3m-light invite with 5-fit, basically probing for 5m or possibly 3N opposite a very max hand

.....2D-13-15 1-4-5-3 or any 0-4-(54)

..........2H-sign off

..........2S-use awm's structure

 

1H-

.....1S-4S or 3-1-(54)

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

...............2C-13-15 3-1-(54) or 4-1-4-4

..........2C-GF relay

..........2D-GI ask

...............2H-min, 0-2 hearts

...............2S-min, 3 hearts

..........2H-weak, 6 hearts

.....1N-bal

.....2C-5/5

..........2D-sign off

..........2H-GI 6H (losing here weak 6H)

..........2S-GF relay

 

I still like rebidding 1S with 3-1-(54) because it saves so much room. Otherwise 1D-1H, 2C with perhaps 4-6-1-2 opposite 3-1-5-4 but even if such

rarely comes up, rebidding 1S allows responder to separate WJS from IJS heart hands. Also, after 1D-1H, 2C now we know 5/5 and we have less room now

1D-1H, 2C-2S than 1D-1S, 2C-2H for sorting out the 5/5s from the 9m hands.

[awm]

You know that we never rebid 2C with 1453 right?

 

Our 2C rebid after 1D-1S is one of:

 

5+D/4+C not 4H

1444 14-15 HCP

1435 14-15 HCP

1345 14-15 HCP

 

Because diamonds are at least as long as clubs when minimum, we tend to preference diamonds a lot. The 14-15 hands with unusual shapes are taking another call over that.

[straube]

Just emailed you what you had lent me from your structure. Maybe you can let me know if you've made any changes.

 

What do you think of this latest?

[awm]

We haven't changed the structure; there is a place in the relays for a shape that doesn't exist (but all the earlier references in the doc have it right). With 1453, we bid 1NT if 11-13 and 2♦ if 14-15. The 2♣ rebid is always 4+♣ (and will have 5+ diamonds if less than 14-15 hcp).

 

I've actually wondered if it's better to bid 2♦ with 1444 and extras, so the 2♣ rebid is always 5♣ if "off shape" to mitigate any risk of passing.

 

For the structure you gave, my questions would be:

 

1. What happens after 1♦-2♥ when opener has 5/5 minors? Isn't this a more frequent problem than the one you're trying to solve, where responder has 5503/5413 and opener has short spades and too much extra to rebid 1NT?

 

2. You have to weigh the potential gains from finding a heart fit with 1♦-2♥ (real, but rare given the tendency to rebid 1NT off-shape) against the losses from not having the direct weak 2♥ bid. I think the latter are fairly serious, since you lose the opportunity to preempt fourth hand as well as the ability to show an invite at the two-level in 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥.

 

3. I remain unconvinced that rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) is a good idea.

[foobar]

3. I remain unconvinced that rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) is a good idea.

 

I too am deeply skeptical about rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) (hate it would be a more appropriate characterization).

 

To put things in perspective, imagine the following auction in the proposed structure:

 

1♦ (0+ ♦) - 1♥ (2+ ♥) - 1♠ (3+ ♠) - (3m)

 

After three rounds of bidding we know 5-cards between the 2-hands and IMO, such situations are very vulnerable to preemptive bidding by the opponents. Granted, there are interferences available since the number of shapes are limited, but frankly, it's difficult to see the advantages of the proposed method.

 

Otherwise 1D-1H, 2C with perhaps 4-6-1-2 opposite 3-1-5-4 but even if such rarely comes up..

Is this hand really that big of a problem to warrant bidding showing only 3 1♠ with much more common hands? The 6-1♥ fit should have a play in 2♥.

 

Also, after 1D-1H, 2C now we know 5/5 and we have less room now 1D-1H, 2C-2S than 1D-1S, 2C-2H for sorting out the 5/5s from the 9m hands.

How common are the 5-5 hands? Also, how important is to determine opener's complete shape in a 10-15 HCP hand? My conjecture is that any reasonable structure can find minor suit slams when responder holds a balanced hand strong enough to drive to slam (without the need to resolve complete pattern).

 

To surmise, it seems what we are really missing here is a step by step deconstruction of what OP thinks are the shortcomings in the (excellent) original structure. In the absence of clear articulation (and supporting evidence), we'll have to speculate why this should be deemed as an improvement.

[straube]

 

To surmise, it seems what we are really missing here is a step by step deconstruction of what OP thinks are the shortcomings in the (excellent) original structure. In the absence of clear articulation (and supporting evidence), we'll have to speculate why this should be deemed as an improvement.

 

Feels like you're grandstanding here. Besides which, what original structure are you referring to?

[foobar]

Feels like you're grandstanding here. Besides which, what original structure are you referring to?

My assumption is that this is an adaptation of the original IMPrecision 1♦ structure (or at least inspired by it to a great extent).

 

It's odd that a legitimate critique of the proposed methods should be considered as grandstanding. Surely, my efforts at that wouldn't be wasted on posting to obscure bridge forums :P?

[straube]

A lot of folks use a nebulous diamond, and I liked it even before I'd heard of IMPrecision. Like many other (even natural) structures, the nebulous diamond is in a tight spot after (particularly) 1D-1S and I wanted to get feedback on an idea that was meant to help there. Looks like it was a bad idea, but I think the only things it had in common with IMPrecision were 1) nebulous diamond and 2) WJSs.

 

Regarding IMPrecision's 1D, I'm still not sure I know all of the structure. Adam doesn't agree with how I try to preserve space for hands short in hearts with 1D-1H, 1S but he does so with 1D-1S, 1N for some hands short spades. So the 5/5 hands, the 5D/4C hands, the max 4D/5C hands and the strong 1-4-4-4 and 1-4-3-5 hands rebid 2C. He capitalizes on the false preference (essentially relay) that responder will often give to 2D (because opener will always have 5D when weak) in order to give opener another rebid when strong. But after 1D-1S, 2C-2D the partnership will often be too high if opener removes to 2H with a 14 ct 1-4-3-5. Or if opener has a 14 ct 1-3-4-5 does he rebid 2N after the false preference? Raise to 3D with 1-3-5-4?

 

Atul, when you wrote that IMPrecision was "excellent" I wonder whether you really understand it well enough to say. You haven't played the 1D structure and had as many or more of the misconceptions about it than I did. You also are more a fan of Reverse Flannery than I am and IMPrecision doesn't use Reverse Flannery. The other thing is that the structure is more complicated than the stuff I've been proposing and you've written a lot lately how you like things to be simpler. For example, the following does not seem to me to be something that you would like...

 

1D-1S, 2D-2S*

.....2N-0445

..........3C-invite

..........3D-QP ask

.....3C-0454 min

..........p/3D-invites

..........3H-QP ask

.....3D-1453 max

..........3H-QP ask

.....3H-0454 max, 6

 

So it's not the main thing, but complexity is a consideration.

 

After the IMPrecision sequence 1D-1S, 1N you and I both recently believed that a 2S contract couldn't be reached if responder had a weak hand with something like a 5134 pattern. I regretted losing so many spade contracts, but I think you thought that many played as well in 1N. So we found out that awm and sieong play that 1D-1S, 1N-2S shows a 5S/4m pattern. That's something we didn't know and something that could have led to bad results if I had not bothered to question it or awm to give us the answer. They lose only their 5S332 hands, but they are occasionally forced to 3m whereas they might have rested in 2m if 1D-1S, 2C had been permitted. Also, they have no way (I assume) to now separate invitational 5S from 6S hands...which probably means that after 1D-1S, 1N-2C, 2D-2S that opener has to remove with a stiff. I don't know if there is a work-around for that.

 

So loss of spade fits was a chief concern of mine and I understand now how they get most back. The other was loss of heart fits. They find most of their heart fits because of 1D-1S, 1N with minimums short spades. They also find hearts after 1D-1S, 2D and after 1D-1S, 2C-2D, 2H (at risk as mentioned of getting too high). But it seems like they at least occasionally lose heart fits after 1D-1S, 2C for such as 5-4-1-3 opposite 1-4-4-4 or 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-4-3-5 or 1-4-4-4. Infrequent then, but seems fair to look at these if we also are looking at Reverse Flannery and 5-4-2-2 opposite 1-2-5-5 etc.

 

awm has obviously done a lot lot more thinking about his 1D structure. It seems to me probable that it's the best structure possible. I'd like, however, to be able to discuss other solutions as well. Or other tweaks at least. Btw I'd vote for 1D-1S, 2D including the 1-4-4-4s.

[awm]

This hand type (1444 or 1435, slightly too strong for a weak no-trump) is difficult in virtually all systems. You are not quite strong enough to treat it as a strong hand by reversing (in "natural" systems) or opening a forcing club (in a strong club system) but you are too strong to rebid 1NT (whatever that range is). There are various unpalatable options (slightly different depending on methods). Weak no-trump based systems can solve these, but exchange them for a much more common problem on the weaker hands with the same distribution.

 

However, these hands are really rare and most people are having trouble with them, and I think it's better to "stay fixed" on this hand type rather than try to "solve" them by inventing a method which typically is worse on much more common hand types (that most players have no trouble with whatsoever).

[straube]

Good point.

 

Something I don't like about Reverse Flannery is that there's no in-between range. There needs to be an"invitational if we have a fit" sort of hand.

For example, if I hold KQxxx KJxxx xx x and respond 1S, I could invite game after a raise, especially if I can find help in hearts. With Reverse Flannery I might respond 2H and have partner take me for Axxxx xxxx xx xx or 2S and then Qxxxx AJTx AJ xx...for which partner may want to play 3N. My example hands may not be the best, but I think I have a point here.

 

I don't really understand the objection to 1D-1H, 1S as 3-1-(54). Playing a nebulous diamond I've had to play a 4-0 diamond fit at least once and probably a lot of 4-1 fits as well. Aren't we in the camp that agrees to take our lumps when we've invested little in the auction? And if we're considering passing the 1S rebid when responder has 3 spades, opener will only have 3 spades maybe 6-7% of the time and then will have a ruffing potential. We also pick up when responder has something like Qxxx xxxx xx Qxx and passes. More important...

 

1) we get to invite with hearts and play 2H when we have 5 hearts as well as 6 hearts

2) we avoid guessing opener's longer minor when we're dealt 4522

3) we get to notrump from responder's side which keeps hearts protected

4) we lose some big minor fits (when they exist) but we keep out of a lot of 4-3 minor suit fits

5) 1D-1H, 2C can mean 5/5 minors which allows raises of either minor with 3

6) responder can sign off in hearts with suitable 5H332s after 1D-1H, 1N. Maybe Kxx QJ98x xx xxx

7) opener can show extras after 1D-1H, 1S-1N with 2C (14-15 3-1-(54) as well as 4-1-4-4)

[benlessard]

Ive wasted a lot of brain power after 1D-1H and my number one conclusion is that 1D-1H-1S should be a very frequent start. 1D-1H-1S as showing 4S is seriously inefficient. IMO most system where 1D-1H-1S is 2 or 3 types of hands with seriously outperform most system where 1D-1H-1S is spades.

 

My first inclination would be to keep 1H as inv+ or natural.

 

1D-1H-??

 

1S bal or...

1NT 4S denies 4H

[foobar]

A lot of folks use a nebulous diamond, and I liked it even before I'd heard of IMPrecision.

 

Mea culpa -- bad presumption on my part that it was an IMP adaptation.

 

Atul, when you wrote that IMPrecision was "excellent" I wonder whether you really understand it well enough to say. You haven't played the 1D structure and had as many or more of the misconceptions about it than I did. You also are more a fan of Reverse Flannery than I am and IMPrecision doesn't use Reverse Flannery. The other thing is that the structure is more complicated than the stuff I've been proposing and you've written a lot lately how you like things to be simpler. For example, the following does not seem to me to be something that you would like...

 

Bidding frameworks have both subjective and objective elements. My personal evaluation of the IMP ♦ structure probably stems from the fact that Adam's preferences in the former align more closely with mine.

 

That said, let's start off my comparing some specific responses:

 

1♦ - 1♥ (showing 2+ vs. showing 4+):

 

You seem to think that this is a very playable method, and while you may be right,it's very unpalatable to me. Also, there are some objective concerns that can be raised about the soundness of this method in competition. For example, consider an auction like 1♦ - 1♥ - (3♦) and give opener a balanced hand with say 2=4=3=2 and responder a GF hand with say 5-5 in rounded suits and a diamond stopper. If responder guesses to bids 3N, we have lost our 9 card heart fit.

 

Granted, it's possible to invent all sort of agreements to alleviate the problem, but the point is that I would rather play the more natural method unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.

 

1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (showing 3+ vs. showing 4+):

 

Once again, there are concerns about what happens in case of interference and frankly, in the absence of an actual frequency analysis, it's really difficult for me to accept a method that adds more complexity.

 

 

Off the top of my head, it seems that

 

1D-1S, 2D-2S*

.....2N-0445

..........3C-invite

..........3D-QP ask

.....3C-0454 min

..........p/3D-invites

..........3H-QP ask

.....3D-1453 max

..........3H-QP ask

.....3H-0454 max, 6

 

So it's not the main thing, but complexity is a consideration.

 

 

Once again, this is a very relay centric world view. In the first place, we have a hand limited to 15 HCPs facing an invitational hand. Why is important to resolve complete shape instead of just bidding game or signing off?

 

To me, trying to fit relays into every bidding sequence adds an enormous amount of complexity.

 

After the IMPrecision sequence 1D-1S, 1N you and I both recently believed that a 2S contract couldn't be reached if responder had a weak hand with something like a 5134 pattern. I regretted losing so many spade contracts, but I think you thought that many played as well in 1N. So we found out that awm and sieong play that 1D-1S, 1N-2S shows a 5S/4m pattern.

 

Sure, it was good to get the clarification, but note that this was partly the reason for preferring the reverse Flannery responses over 1D. Yes, hands that respond 1N with a stiff spade may occasionally run into a problem, but in the absence of specific information about the frequency of such problems, I don't see any need to propose a solution that might result in a worse problem.

 

awm has obviously done a lot lot more thinking about his 1D structure. It seems to me probable that it's the best structure possible. I'd like, however, to be able to discuss other solutions as well. Or other tweaks at least. Btw I'd vote for 1D-1S, 2D including the 1-4-4-4s.

 

No argument there; it fits my subjective criteria for parsimony and more importantly, it's battle worn. Personally, I would rather start off with a known quantity and tweak it based on actual results.

[awm]

Suppose that I bid after 1♦-1♥-1♠ much as I would if it showed four (assuming the 31(45) pattern is rare). There seem to be the following losses:

 

1. I have a bad hand with three spades, typically 35(32) or 3433 or 34(42) or 35(14) or 34(15). In all these cases I'm in a pretty bad place (3-3 fit) when usually I have a real minor suit fit.

2. I have a moderate balanced hand, like 24(34); I am rebidding 1NT either way, but probably 2m is the right spot. Not sure if opener is passing or bidding 2m, but he certainly can't distinguish this shape from 4x(5x)...

3. I have a 44xx hand and inv+. I'm committed to either playing a 4-3 spade fit or having a very revealing auction.

4. I have 2425, are we even getting to our 9-10 card minor fit? It seems to depend on my choice of action over 1♠ and what opener does over my 1NT rebid if I choose that.

 

I guess the important point in the later ones of these, is that (in Sam and my methods at least) we typically rebid 2m with 4♠-5m after 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT with 14-15 high. The reason we do this is to get a chance of reaching game when responder has 10-11 and opener has 14-15, without forcing responder to bid past 1NT on hands that have no game interest opposite the common 11-13 balanced opener. However, this means that 2m in that sequence does not promise any particular length in the other minor. Thus 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣ does not show a "three suited hand short in hearts", it shows 4♠/5♣... So that's a bunch of losses, where are the wins:

 

1. I have 44xx very weak, and get to play 1♠ instead of 1NT or 2m. Could be a win, although possibly there is a 5-3 minor fit and this might be better than the 4-3 spade fit?

2. I have 45xx very weak and get to play 1♠ instead of 2♠ or 2m (depending on opener's rebid).

 

Doesn't seem all that good to me. Basically, you are opening with a 1♦ bid that doesn't really show a suit, and then after partner's response you rebid your 3rd longest suit. Yes, there are situations where somehow your best fit is in your 3rd longest suit, but this cannot be a percentage action!

[straube]

 

That said, let's start off my comparing some specific responses:

 

1♦ - 1♥ (showing 2+ vs. showing 4+):

 

You seem to think that this is a very playable method, and while you may be right,it's very unpalatable to me. Also, there are some objective concerns that can be raised about the soundness of this method in competition. For example, consider an auction like 1♦ - 1♥ - (3♦) and give opener a balanced hand with say 2=4=3=2 and responder a GF hand with say 5-5 in rounded suits and a diamond stopper. If responder guesses to bids 3N, we have lost our 9 card heart fit.

 

Granted, it's possible to invent all sort of agreements to alleviate the problem, but the point is that I would rather play the more natural method unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.

 

I don't think this belongs in this thread. We're not considering 1D-2m responses. The responder to a limited hand is captain and he can choose 1H or 2m depending on what he thinks is better. As to an example hand such as 2-4-3-4 after 1D-1H (3D), wouldn't everyone with raise hearts here? I mean, you got me for 3S or 4m interference. Perhaps 1H as bal relay should be restricted to hands with more slam interest. I don't know. If you want you can start another thread about whether 1H as natural/GF relay is good or not. I don't think anything in this thread hinges on that decision.

 

 

 

Once again, this is a very relay centric world view. In the first place, we have a hand limited to 15 HCPs facing an invitational hand. Why is important to resolve complete shape instead of just bidding game or signing off?

 

To me, trying to fit relays into every bidding sequence adds an enormous amount of complexity.

 

I really don't understand because on the one hand you seem to really like the IMPrecision structure (I like it, too) and on the other hand you really seem reluctant to "try to fit relays into every bidding sequence". So which is it? The relay and relay breaks I gave as example are IMPrecision. They are what awm and sieong wrote and they use relays and relay breaks extensively.

 

Sure, it was good to get the clarification, but note that this was partly the reason for preferring the reverse Flannery responses over 1D. Yes, hands that respond 1N with a stiff spade may occasionally run into a problem, but in the absence of specific information about the frequency of such problems, I don't see any need to propose a solution that might result in a worse problem.

 

Well, you could look at hands. I did that using what I thought was IMPrecision and discovered I was frequently losing spade fits. Now I've learned better.

 

 

No argument there; it fits my subjective criteria for parsimony and more importantly, it's battle worn. Personally, I would rather start off with a known quantity and tweak it based on actual results.

 

So are we playing?

[straube]

Suppose that I bid after 1♦-1♥-1♠ much as I would if it showed four (assuming the 31(45) pattern is rare). There seem to be the following losses:

 

1. I have a bad hand with three spades, typically 35(32) or 3433 or 34(42) or 35(14) or 34(15). In all these cases I'm in a pretty bad place (3-3 fit) when usually I have a real minor suit fit.

2. I have a moderate balanced hand, like 24(34); I am rebidding 1NT either way, but probably 2m is the right spot. Not sure if opener is passing or bidding 2m, but he certainly can't distinguish this shape from 4x(5x)...

3. I have a 44xx hand and inv+. I'm committed to either playing a 4-3 spade fit or having a very revealing auction.

4. I have 2425, are we even getting to our 9-10 card minor fit? It seems to depend on my choice of action over 1♠ and what opener does over my 1NT rebid if I choose that.

 

I guess the important point in the later ones of these, is that (in Sam and my methods at least) we typically rebid 2m with 4♠-5m after 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT with 14-15 high. The reason we do this is to get a chance of reaching game when responder has 10-11 and opener has 14-15, without forcing responder to bid past 1NT on hands that have no game interest opposite the common 11-13 balanced opener. However, this means that 2m in that sequence does not promise any particular length in the other minor. Thus 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣ does not show a "three suited hand short in hearts", it shows 4♠/5♣... So that's a bunch of losses, where are the wins:

 

1. I have 44xx very weak, and get to play 1♠ instead of 1NT or 2m. Could be a win, although possibly there is a 5-3 minor fit and this might be better than the 4-3 spade fit?

2. I have 45xx very weak and get to play 1♠ instead of 2♠ or 2m (depending on opener's rebid).

 

Doesn't seem all that good to me. Basically, you are opening with a 1♦ bid that doesn't really show a suit, and then after partner's response you rebid your 3rd longest suit. Yes, there are situations where somehow your best fit is in your 3rd longest suit, but this cannot be a percentage action!

 

ok. I think I'm persuaded. I've been looking at hands and more losses than wins for the 3-1-(54).

[foobar]

I don't think this belongs in this thread. We're not considering 1D-2m responses. The responder to a limited hand is captain and he can choose 1H or 2m depending on what he thinks is better. As to an example hand such as 2-4-3-4 after 1D-1H (3D), wouldn't everyone with raise hearts here?

 

OK -- based on your stated preferences (and previous structures), I had assumed that the 1♥ was 2+. There might be merits to that method, but it doesn't interest me.

 

So are we playing?

 

If this means trying out the unaltered IMP structure, I am all for it.