[shevek]

David Morgan convinced me to switch to Rubensohl-style transfers when they overcall 1♥ or 1♠, so

1♣ (16+) - (1♥) - ?

X   limited takeout
1♠  usually 5+, forcing
1NT  5-7 stopper
2♣  5+ ♦s
2♦  stopper ask? Michaels?
2♥  5+ ♠s
2♠  5+ ♣s
2NT  5-5 minors
3♣+  natural GF, usually 6+

David actually prefers 3-level bids as leaping Michaels, other tweaks.

If you play this way, double then a new suit is non-forcing, ELC style.
For instance, after 1♣ - (1♠), responder can double with
♠xx  Qxxxx  Axxx  ♣xx
& remove 2♣ to 2♥ to suggest this.

Well?

[sireenb]

Interesting. What is the difference between 1♠ ad 2♥? 1♠ prepared for ♥ lead, 2♥ not?

We play 1♣-1M-2 same M as natural since many people tend to overcall with 4-carders and sometimes even 3-carders not to mention junk psychics so we may have a playable contract in that suit even if the overcall is honest.

If I could convince my partner to shift to this style I would play 2♦ promises 5+ good cards of ♥ and 1♠ as suggesting a transfer to 1NT, denying 4 cards in the unbid major. If they overcall ♠ then 2♠ would be a transfer to 2NT. Holding the ♣ suit I would x unless ready for the 3-level.

We already play transfer positive responses to 1♣ so this style would have the sort of parallelism that another thread is recommending

[straube]

shevek said:

1♣ (16+) - (1♥) - ?

X  limited takeout
1♠  usually 5+, forcing
1NT  5-7 stopper
2♣  5+ ♦s
2♦  stopper ask? Michaels?
2♥  5+ ♠s
2♠  5+ ♣s
2NT  5-5 minors
3♣+  natural GF, usually 6+

Does the double promise a rebid? If not, how does opener establish a GF? Does he have to jump or cue bid?

1N as a nf bid seems wasteful and possibly low frequency as well.

Like sireenb, I'm also wondering what the difference is between 1S and 2H.

[david_c]

I would go so far as to say that if you're not playing transfers over 1♣ : (1M) then there is something seriously wrong with your system. It is absolutely vital to have a way to show a semi-positive hand with a good suit, and no less vital to get the suit in when you have a strong hand.

Actually if I'm playing a strong club I prefer two-under transfers: an idea that we got from this forum a few years ago. Opener uses the intermediate step as a kind of Lebensohl - extremely useful for hands which are not good enough for game but do have a good suit which it seems important to bid. Otherwise what else do you do with 6 spades and a 16-count, say?

We played:
1NT = diamonds
2♣ = hearts
2♦ = spades
2M = clubs
2OM = 5-5 with minor NF constructive
If their overcall showed 4+ cards in a suit, then the transfer to that suit became a random GF positive.

[shevek]

straube, on Feb 21 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

shevek said:

1♣ (16+) - (1♥) - ?

X   limited takeout
1♠  usually 5+, forcing
1NT  5-7 stopper
2♣  5+ ♦s
2♦  stopper ask? Michaels?
2♥  5+ ♠s
2♠  5+ ♣s
2NT  5-5 minors
3♣+  natural GF, usually 6+

Does the double promise a rebid? If not, how does opener establish a GF? Does he have to jump or cue bid?

1N as a nf bid seems wasteful and possibly low frequency as well.

Like sireenb, I'm also wondering what the difference is between 1S and 2H.

I assume the takeout doubler can pass opener's rebid so - yes - opener needs to jump or cue to force.

I seem to bid 1NT quite a lot. Like this after 1♠:
♠Kx  ♥xx  ♦Kxxx  ♣xxxxx
I side-issue but short stoppers are fine, could find opener with ♠Qxx. Note this is better than me with ♠Kxx & opener with ♠Qx.

Transfer with 2♥ on GF hands, partly to right-side.
Bid 1♠ mostly to compete, though could be a 4-carder like
♠AJ9x  ♥xxx  ♦x  ♣Qxxxx

[straube]

shevek said:

I assume the takeout doubler can pass opener's rebid so - yes - opener needs to jump or cue to force.

I seem to bid 1NT quite a lot. Like this after 1♠:
♠Kx  ♥xx  ♦Kxxx  ♣xxxxx
I side-issue but short stoppers are fine, could find opener with ♠Qxx. Note this is better than me with ♠Kxx & opener with ♠Qx.

Transfer with 2♥ on GF hands, partly to right-side.
Bid 1♠ mostly to compete, though could be a 4-carder like
♠AJ9x  ♥xxx  ♦x  ♣Qxxxx

Glad to learn 1N comes up a lot. I've spent some time recently on 1C interference ideas but haven't tried them out yet.

My concern with your structure (or ones like it) is that dbl doesn't promise a rebid. I suppose you transfer and Stayman after 1N so opener can force, but he might lose some practical meaning like a 2D transfer to hearts. Thanks for explaining the 1S bid; I might have the same concern if that bid doesn't promise a rebid; how does opener force over that? I prefer not to play structures that require opener to consume bidding room with good hands.

For 1H interference specifically, we're trying to stay in system. We play a Moscito-esque structure so...

P-GF
dbl-semipositive without a 5M/4 or 6M
1S-negative
1N-semipositive with hearts
2C-semipositive with majors
other-semipositive with spades

All of these bids are forcing (even pass obviously) and opener has relay bids available to force if he wants.

Maybe you could use 1C (1H) dbl (P) 1S as an artificial GF. That would coincide with what we do.

[dake50]

Play forcing pass at 1-level? 2-level? To find our fit on invites. Let opener reopen and thus puts some responses into a pass with meaning. Let X warn no S-fit (eg.), negative: 'on your own, partner'. Now M-xfers are invite+(new or cue to follow for GF), whereas m-xfers are GF( would have used a forcing pass if invite on minors).

[shevek]

straube, on Feb 21 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

shevek said:

I assume the takeout doubler can pass opener's rebid so - yes - opener needs to jump or cue to force.

I seem to bid 1NT quite a lot. Like this after 1♠:
♠Kx  ♥xx  ♦Kxxx  ♣xxxxx
I side-issue but short stoppers are fine, could find opener with ♠Qxx. Note this is better than me with ♠Kxx & opener with ♠Qx.

Transfer with 2♥ on GF hands, partly to right-side.
Bid 1♠ mostly to compete, though could be a 4-carder like
♠AJ9x  ♥xxx  ♦x  ♣Qxxxx

Glad to learn 1N comes up a lot. I've spent some time recently on 1C interference ideas but haven't tried them out yet.

My concern with your structure (or ones like it) is that dbl doesn't promise a rebid. I suppose you transfer and Stayman after 1N so opener can force, but he might lose some practical meaning like a 2D transfer to hearts. Thanks for explaining the 1S bid; I might have the same concern if that bid doesn't promise a rebid; how does opener force over that? I prefer not to play structures that require opener to consume bidding room with good hands.

For 1H interference specifically, we're trying to stay in system. We play a Moscito-esque structure so...

P-GF
dbl-semipositive without a 5M/4 or 6M
1S-negative
1N-semipositive with hearts
2C-semipositive with majors
other-semipositive with spades

All of these bids are forcing (even pass obviously) and opener has relay bids available to force if he wants.

Maybe you could use 1C (1H) dbl (P) 1S as an artificial GF. That would coincide with what we do

After 1♣ - (1♠) - 1NT

we play Stayman but not transfers. Not good to put overcaller's partner on lead and the strong hand on the table. There is a case for 2♣ as relay but we don't.

After 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♠

opener's new suit is forcing and 1NT does not guarantee a stopper.

I supopose you could keep relay after 1♣ - (1♥) - but we don't, though we used to. We sometimes pass them out in 1♥, which has turned out well.

We don't play Moscito so the current 1♦ positive & 1♠ double negative would be a big change. Not appealing.

(As an aside, I was playing Burgess - Marston in Canberra in January when they bid 1♣ - (no) - 1♦. I held
♠xxx  ♥xx  ♦QJxxx  ♣xxx
and bid 2♦. This got them to 3NT when partner had ♦Axx and opener ♦Kx so down they went. Basically I'm not keen on 1♦ as any positive.)

With that caveat, your method after 1♥ looks good.
Swings and roundabouts.

[straube]

Curious why you don't like 1D as a positive.

I've had very limited experience using it, but I've noticed that after 1C-1D, we're quite likely to have more than sufficient strength for game. Moscito requires 15 for the opening and 6 QPs for the response (jacks aren't counted), so responder seldom has less than 10 HCP. On average, we're a point better than standard Precision methods which are typically 16 and 8.

The semipositives come up most often (they're supposed to) and it seems like we're getting to game with over half of these responses. I like finding the division of strength very early.

I noticed that the latest version of Moscito uses a 1D response that could be GF, a semipositive or even a negative...based on responder's distributions. Yuck. I bet they switch back from that. I bet they're lost after you stick your 2D bid in there.

I've been curious how the top experts view Moscito and also relay systems generally. Part of me thinks that perhaps they're being lazy in not adopting newer methods and part thinks that maybe they know better than to play these methods.

[shevek]

straube, on Feb 22 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

Curious why you don't like 1D as a positive. 

I've had very limited experience using it, but I've noticed that after 1C-1D, we're quite likely to have more than sufficient strength for game.  Moscito requires 15 for the opening and 6 QPs for the response (jacks aren't counted), so responder seldom has less than 10 HCP.  On average, we're a point better than standard Precision methods which are typically 16 and 8.

The semipositives come up most often (they're supposed to) and it seems like we're getting to game with over half of these responses.  I like finding the division of strength very early.

I noticed that the latest version of Moscito uses a 1D response that could be GF, a semipositive or even a negative...based on responder's distributions.  Yuck.  I bet they switch back from that.  I bet they're lost after you stick your 2D bid in there.

I've been curious how the top experts view Moscito and also relay systems generally.  Part of me thinks that perhaps they're being lazy in not adopting newer methods and part thinks that maybe they know better than to play these methods.

Re: 1♦ positive. Don't like the idea of the 9+ hand asking the 15+. In our case, it's 8+ vs 16+ so even less attractive.
Even if that is not a concern, the lack of room is. You lose steps because two ranges are split into three, also you can't use 2♥+ effectively..
1♥+ is too vague & complicated, 1NT too frequent & wrong-siding.

Don't know the current incarnation. When we played them over 32 boards in January, B-M were opening 1♥ with hearts, 1♠ with spades. Full circle, thanks in part to the ACBL.

Relay still has a following at the top. For instance, Viking Club is okay if complicated. However, most prefer something that is legal everywhere, that they can play with a number of partners.

[straube]

Thanks for answering.

You really only lose one step. After 1C-1D, 1H relays so responder starts to describe his hand with 1S up as opposed to 1H up if 1D had been a negative.
Still, losing one step is significant.

If opener relays his hand, you don't lose any steps, but I'm having some philosophical problems about self relays. We wrote our relays so that 1C-1D, 1S would show (mostly) spade hands so that the strong hand can declare. So far so good, but if responder decides to relay opener's hand entirely, he gives away opener's shape whenever he declares. Perhaps its worth it or perhaps we made a wrong decision trying to let the big hand declare.


We've improved the semipositives a lot (I think)

1H-as for Moscito
1N-5H
.....2D-6H
.....2H-5H/4+C
.....2S-5H/4D
.....2N-5H/5D
2C-5/4 in the majors
2D-5S/4+C
2H-6S
2S-5S/4D
2N-GF, 5440 void major
3C-5S/5D

Moscito made mistakes like having 1C-2S show a semipositive with spades. Aside from wrong-siding the contract, it prevented responder from taking a second bid with extra length or jacks.

[akhare]

straube, on Feb 22 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

If opener relays his hand, you don't lose any steps, but I'm having some philosophical problems about self relays.  We wrote our relays so that 1C-1D, 1S would show (mostly) spade hands so that the strong hand can declare.  So far so good, but if responder decides to relay opener's hand entirely, he gives away opener's shape whenever he declares.  Perhaps its worth it or perhaps we made a wrong decision trying to let the big hand declare.

Responder should NOT relay out opener's hand completely after a reverse relay without slam interest. Given that opener's hand is usually limited to < 12 QPs, the probability of slam shrinks dramatically unless responder is really shapely or holds a 9+ QPs. Also, it's perfectly possible to explore slam with a very distributional hand after a reverse relay by reverting to natural bidding -- we are already in a GF and still at the one level at that.

In most cases, responder may relay opener's hand once or twice to resolve relative suit length, but shouldn't continue beyond that without serious slam aspirations.

[straube]

akhare said:

Responder should NOT relay out opener's hand completely after a reverse relay without slam interest. Given that opener's hand is usually limited to < 12 QPs, the probability of slam shrinks dramatically unless responder is really shapely or holds a 9+ QPs. Also, it's perfectly possible to explore slam with a very distributional hand after a reverse relay by reverting to natural bidding -- we are already in a GF and still at the one level at that.

In most cases, responder may relay opener's hand once or twice to resolve relative suit length, but shouldn't continue beyond that without serious slam aspirations.

How about...
AKJxx x AQxx Kxx opposite Qxx xxx Kxxx AQJ
11 QPs................................7 QPs

The first hand has a bit of shape, but the responding hand doesn't. It just so happens that opener has the right shortness and a fit (or double fit). I don't like throwing away these sorts of hands.

And it could be even worse...
AKJxx V AQx Kxxxx opposite Qxx xxx Kxxx AQJ

I don't want to bring back 4S making 7 to our teammates when they know we play a relay system.

My thought is that reverse relays should be a little more restricted in terms of QPs and possibly that the bids should be organized so that responder (doing the relaying in this case) gets to play the hand more often.

Also, it seems like whenever opener is balanced , he ought to be the one doing the asking....unless perhaps his hand can't be improved by shortness.

Sorry to take over your thread shevek. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this tangent, however.