[olien]

I am debating between which of the following structures to use:

version 1:
1♦ shows 10-15 HCP 2+♦, not balanced. Opening 1NT is 13-15 and 11-12's in 1st and 2nd seat are passed. In response it's fairly natural:

1M...Natural Forcing
1N...7-11- NF
2♣...GF Relay
2♦...Natural F1
2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV
2♠...INV 6+♣
2NT...Natural INV
3♣...5/4+ minors, <INV
3♦...weak

a 2♣ opening shows 6+♣ and 2♦ opening is 3-suited short in ♦, so 1♦ can be 4xx5 with 2+♦

version 2:
1♦ is the same as above, but balanced hands with 11-12 HCP and at least 1 4-card major are allowed. In response:

1♥...4+♥ F1 or no 4M <GF
1♠....4+♠ F1
1NT...GF Relay
2m...Natural NF
2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV
2♠+ whatever

Reason a 4-card major must be promised if balanced is for the following auction:
1 ♦-1♥// 1NT showing a balanced hand has to promise 4♥ or one would have to raise into what could be a potentially disastorous contract.


or Version 3, which I haven't really looked much into:
1♥...Natural or GF relay
1♠...Natural F1
1NT...Natural NF
2m...Natural (NF?)
2♥+ whatever


Some insight into why one thinks whichever way is better would be good and follow ups would be appreciated on version 3 if that is your choice.

[hrothgar]

Complete confused why 1NT is defined as natural NF.
Opener appears to be promising an unbalanced hand...
Just when will opener pass 1NT? (some 4225 hand???)

I'd use 1♥ as a relay (doesn't necessarily promise values)

1♥ = Relay
1♠ = Natural, 4+ Hearts, forcing
1N = Natural, 4+ Spades Forcing
2♣ = Natural, NF
2♦ = Natural, NF
2♥ = 5+♥, 4♠ NF
2♠+ = whatever

After 1♦ - 1♥

1S = Diamonds and a major
1N = Clubs and a major
2♣ = Two suited with both minors
2♦ = 6+ Diamonds, single suited

[olien]

I am under the rules of the ACBL

So a relay must promise GF values to be playable in most situations. So for us to be able to use that, 1♥ would have to promise GF values. That's why we have 1NT as natural NF, it's basically a weak relay with no 4-card major.

More thoughts are welcome

[wclass___]

IMO version 3 is the most logical and best

2♣ response should be some non-major invite hands+some minor GF
2♦ sound....

1♦-1♥-

..1♠ 4♥
..1N nat bal
..2♣ 5♣4♠0-2♥
..2♦ like 2♣
..2♥ 5+4♠3♥

[shevek]

I like 1NT as relay but work out the relay structure first to decide whether it's playable

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=35856&hl=relay

[Apollo81]

If you're determined to do something along these lines, here's what I'd suggest:

Option 1, but expand the 1NT opening range to 12-15. Invert the meanings of the 1NT and 2♣ responses so that 1NT is the game forcing relay and 2♣ is pass or correct. Seems like you have some flexibility in your further bidding, as you may not need a natural 1NT rebid. You could try playing Keri instead of Stayman after 1NT openings to better handle the wider range.

However, I don't think something like this will be superior to normal methods.

[rbforster]

I think playing 1♦ unbalanced-but-2+ is really underutilizing a very cheap opening. Either play it unbalanced 0+ (3-suited/diamonds/minors), or include the balanced hands too and play it 2+ (bal or natural 4+) and put the 4M-5♣ hands in 2♣..

Just my take on the NT responses... I like to limit my 1N response to "no game on power", so you don't go looking for magic 3N's and go down in 2N.

1♦-?
1N up to 10 (psych?)
2♣ natural or 11-12 balanced (F1)
2N 13-14, sound invite
3N as usual

Over the 2♣, 2♦ showed any minimum (9-11) and would be passed by the balanced hand. Other responses showed varying degrees of extras via relays, and forced to 2N/3m opposite the balanced hand and game otherwise.

[lowerline]

olien, on Jan 14 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

I am debating between which of the following structures to use:

version 1:
1♦ shows 10-15 HCP 2+♦, not balanced. Opening 1NT is 13-15 and 11-12's in 1st and 2nd seat are passed. In response it's fairly natural:

1M...Natural Forcing
1N...7-11- NF
2♣...GF Relay
2♦...Natural F1
2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV
2♠...INV 6+♣
2NT...Natural INV
3♣...5/4+ minors, <INV
3♦...weak

a 2♣ opening shows 6+♣ and 2♦ opening is 3-suited short in ♦, so 1♦ can be 4xx5 with 2+♦

version 2:
1♦ is the same as above, but balanced hands with 11-12 HCP and at least 1 4-card major are allowed. In response:

1♥...4+♥ F1 or no 4M <GF
1♠....4+♠ F1
1NT...GF Relay
2m...Natural NF
2♥...5+♠ 4+♥ <INV
2♠+ whatever

Reason a 4-card major must be promised if balanced is for the following auction:
1 ♦-1♥// 1NT showing a balanced hand has to promise 4♥ or one would have to raise into what could be a potentially disastorous contract.


or Version 3, which I haven't really looked much into:
1♥...Natural or GF relay
1♠...Natural F1
1NT...Natural NF
2m...Natural (NF?)
2♥+ whatever


Some insight into why one thinks whichever way is better would be good and follow ups would be appreciated on version 3 if that is your choice.

Version 1:
I think it is better to open 5♣4M22 with 1NT. Your 1♦ will then show 4+ most of the time (a 3crd is only possible with 1-4-3-5 or 4-1-3-5).
I also think it is better to use the 1NT response as the GF relay. Hands that fit the natural 1NT response can either bid clubs, support diamonds or pass.

Version 2/3:
I do not see how you will be able to sort everything out after the 1NT relay. If you want to include balanced hands in 1♦, I think you will have to use the 1♥ relay (version 3). This will surely complicate things. Loosing the natural 1♥ response is also a lot bigger loss than loosing the natural 1NT response.

Steven

[Free]

I would definitely use version 3 if it's allowed. Natural or GF relay gives up almost nothing. Opener can easily respond (and natural):
1♠ = 4♠ (here you can use XYZ or 2♣ as GF relay)
1NT = any bal or semibal without 4M (here again XYZ or 2♣ GF relay)
2♣ = both minors (here I advise you to play 2♦ or 2♥ forcing, 2♠ is pretty high)
2♦ = singlesuited (2♥ or 2♠ forcing)
2♥ = 4♥ (2♠ forcing)

If you play 1♦-2♥ as weak, you can make a 2♥ rebid forcing so your relays are better.
After 1♦-1♥-2♥ you obviously don't have much space to ask the entire hand, but it's possible to get a decent precision.

I've played a similar structure over a 1♦ opening which was any hand without 5M (so 0+♦, included hands where you'd open 2♣!) and it worked very well.