[the hog]

sorry, duplicate post.

[shevek]

The_Hog, on Mar 11 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

Nick or Nicoletta

1C 1S
2C
would show S and a D suit and 15-17. You are showing the suit that responder BID, not showed, and shape

1C 1S
2S
S low shortage, (assuming 2S low sht, 2NT mid sht and 3D+ high sht)

1C 1S
3D
5233 shape exactly and 15-17, etc etc

1C 1H
1NT

Balanced 15-17

This is the original version played by Paul, and imo by far the best. Justin and I have experimented with natural relay breaks and found them a waste of time. Btw we disagree with your failure to use the end signal. We found this very useful.

OKay I see. No thanks.
David Morgan likes end signal but like you with natural breaks, I found 4D a waste of time. I guess the appropriate hands didn't turn up.

Hands for natural breaks are quite common though

Scoring: IMP

---

We bid 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT - pass!

Nick

[rbforster]

Looking at the above hands posted by Nick, I wouldn't be comfortable forcing to game with 5M332 and 2 aces opposite a 15+ club. Of course opposite most 15+ hands, two aces will be enough either because there's a fit with good controls and/or because partner has the extra strength I lack.

So one philosophy for relay breaks could be to show a misfitting minimum, to compensate for aggressive bidding by responder. Essentially this turns into a non-game-forcing relay system.

[shevek]

Rob F, on Mar 12 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

Looking at the above hands posted by Nick, I wouldn't be comfortable forcing to game with 5M332 and 2 aces opposite a 15+ club.  Of course opposite most 15+ hands, two aces will be enough either because there's a fit with good controls and/or because partner has the extra strength I lack.

So one philosophy for relay breaks could be to show a misfitting minimum, to compensate for aggressive bidding by responder.  Essentially this turns into a non-game-forcing relay system.

Old-fashioned 16+ for us. I guess West "added a point for a decent 5-card suit" which would be better with spades.
However, auctions starting 1♥ (or 1♦ showing 4+ hearts) tend to be awkward with this shape.
We play 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣ as Aspro

[the hog]

Rob F, on Mar 12 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Looking at the above hands posted by Nick, I wouldn't be comfortable forcing to game with 5M332 and 2 aces opposite a 15+ club. Of course opposite most 15+ hands, two aces will be enough either because there's a fit with good controls and/or because partner has the extra strength I lack.

So one philosophy for relay breaks could be to show a misfitting minimum, to compensate for aggressive bidding by responder. Essentially this turns into a non-game-forcing relay system.

No, I wouldn't gf on this either.

[DinDIP]

How best to make use of the available bidding space when not relaying is an insufficiently explored area, IMO. However, it is clear that failing to provide alternatives to relaying is wrong.

Over a response showing a BAL hand it is clearly right for O to break rather than relay with shapely hands lacking substantial extra strength (in my experience this means less than 21 or 22 HCP or the equivalent in playing strength). This is because it is the BAL hand that can tell how well the hands fit: whether the SPL is opposite KQx or xxx. Ideally O should be able to show two-suiters as well (i.e. by showing the long suits rather than just the SPL); however, space considerations often mean there are no sequences available for this purpose.

When the response shows an UNB hand it is not clear, IMO, how best to make use of the space. I think the emphasis should be on hand types that are often ineffective when relaying. I think this set includes most hands with voids (relaying is OK if very strong) [TWF -- The Way Forward --, a Cambridge symmetric variant from the 90s, had an interesting idea for handling such shapes]; two-suiters; and minimum misfits. There is also something to be said for a special asking bid for freak hands which only need to know if partner has a couple (rarely more) of specific cards [while it has many other flaws, Viking Club is surprisingly good with a number of these]. It can also often be good to be able to show rather than ask with minimum hands with support and a singleton [though it can be hard to tell in advance which hands fall into this category; often it’s easier to see afterwards that, on a particular deal, O should have described instead of relaying].

Even if it were agreed that these were the right hand types to be breaking the chain with, there are still a number of issues to be resolved. These include:
* memory load (the principal reason Nick, Nicoleta and I play chain breaks as analogous to similar bids after the comparable one-level opening is that there is no additional memory load);
* maximum strengths (how strong should two-suiters and hands with voids be before they ask rather than tell?); and
* the number of cards required for a support-showing bid. (With one partner I played that support-showing breaks promised a 9+card fit so the partnership had some certainty there was not a longer outside fit. However, that meant relaying with some hands that were not well suited to doing so.)

There is also a linkage between initial and later breaks: for example, if you play that later breaks show support and shortage then there is less danger with an initial relay. However, there are other considerations: for example, if you play that a 1H response to 1C shows S then this will mean that the hand that will declare a S contract is now describing itself.

David
(David Morgan)