[Zelandakh]

straube, on Oct 13 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

This doesn't seem workable to me. If 1S-2D can show 10 points and a 5 card suit and a 2H rebid can be 0-2 hearts, then they are either committed to playing a non-fitting 2H or 2N with say 21 hcps between them. Maybe they can only show 5 card suits when they have spade tolerance? So then 1S-2D, 2H-2S=nf? Still seems like they're bidding too much too fast.

I do not have more details but I would imagine that you can pass 2H with a 6-card suit but that with 5 hearts and 10-12 you bid 2S or 2NT having showing your suit along the way. Then the GF hands are shown at the 3 level in exactly the same way as the natural auction 1S - 2H - 2S but with a slightly tighter strength certainty. Why would this be too much - it is precisely the same as the auction quoted above but with additional options and, most importantly, freeing up the 2H bid to use as a cheap raise.

Just to throw you something completely different since I believe from your other discussions that you use limited openings within a relay system. You might like to play around with my structure...

1S opening
1N = inv+ relay
2C = 6-9, 4+ clubs
2D = 6-9, 4+ diamonds, usually 0-3 clubs
2H = 6-9, 5+ hearts, usually 0-3 in both minors
2S = 6-9 raise
2N and up = various 4-card raises

1S - 1N
2C = any min without 4 hearts
2D = 4 hearts
2H = 4+ clubs, GF
2S = 6+ spades, 1 suited, GF
2N and up = 4+ diamonds, GF

1S - 1N - 2C
2D = GF relay
2H = 5+ hearts, invitational
2S = 3 card limit raise
2N = invitational
3m = 6+ suit, invitational

1S - 1N - 2D
2H = GF relay
2S = 3 card limit raise
2N = invitational
3m = 6+ suit, invitational
3H = 4+ hearts, invitational

Of course this might not work within your relay system since it starts a level higher. In compensation you have more narrowly defined opener's range which makes judging the relays simpler and saves 1 or 2 steps later on. You have also removed all of the hands with both majors. Finally, it may look strange to bid a 4 card club suit before a 5 card heart suit but testing has shown this approach to be better. On the auctions where opener has extras to explore game the fit will come to light. When opener is minimum the ability to stop quickly in a low level 7 or 8 card fit is handy.

[straube]

Hm. I still think they get too high to fast. Are they using unlimited openings? We have to be very careful because opener is 10-15 and it's best to avoid 2N without 23 hcps or so.

I think RobF has worked out a structure similar to yours. You might compare with him.

One practical difficulty is that I don't think 1N can be used as GI+ in the ACBL. Or if it can, then I think there's a legal problem with a relay system that doesn't promise GF values (and I'm assuming Midchart).

I get the basic idea of how 1S-2C might work, but it still seems wrong to me. I like 1N as semiforcing here. Sometimes we get to stop in 1N. More important is that opener doesn't take another bid without a reason...so his rebids take on more meaning. The other thing is that responder already knows 5 of opener's cards and it seems incorrect to start showing opener 4 of responder's cards. Why not let opener continue to show the rest of his shape? to the extent that his strength allows? In effect, we have 1N as a weaker (nf) relay and 2C as a GF relay.

I'd hate to be playing in a 4-3 club fit when we should be in a 5-2 spade fit. Etc. And I suppose you can't have constructive raises (1S-2S) like you can if 1N is semiforcing and can conceal a weaker raise.

But you've tested it and I haven't so I might be missing something.

[rbforster]

Zelandakh - interesting structure

straube, on Oct 15 2010, 01:35 AM, said:

I think RobF has worked out a structure similar to yours.  You might compare with him.

My major non-raise structure is pretty boring right now, but that's mostly the ACBL's fault for forbidding most innovation on those sequences. I've tried a few things (like 2/1 weak, or 1N and 2C as F1 including all GF hands), but I can't say I'm particularly happy about those. Right now I play 2/1 with lots of special jump raises.

Quote

One practical difficulty is that I don't think 1N can be used as GI+ in the ACBL.  Or if it can, then I think there's a legal problem with a relay system that doesn't promise GF values (and I'm assuming Midchart).

1M-1N(f) is restricted to Midchart+ if it guarantees inv or better values. This is mildly annoying, but can sometimes be handled by putting in one or two rare weak hands. Here are a few variations:

1M-?
1N GF relay
2C "forcing NT" hands with 3+ clubs (could be inv with clubs); opener passes if he would have rebid 2C
2D 5+ inv
2H 5+ inv
P less than an invite and unwilling to bid 2C

or you can go with the 1N inv+ and throw in a few weak hands (which of course makes the relay structure a little worse/more natural. For example, if you play something more natural for opener's rebid:

1M-1N-?
2C any min
2DH 4+
2M 5+
3C 5+

and now let responder pass or correct to 2M with certain weak hands like long clubs. This makes responder's 2M rebid into a weak hand instead of the 3 card limit raise from Zelandakh's structure, which is obviously worse but maybe not too bad given there are so many low-level forcing sequences.

or finally, you can play something kinda like Gazelli where 2C has all the strong hands instead of all the weak ones:

1S-1N
2C any max, or 4+ hearts min (now 2D is relay, 2H or 2S pref's)
2D 4+ min
2H 4+ clubs min
2S 6+ min

(over 1H-1N you can do something similar, but play 2C as max or clubs rather than max or hearts).

[Zelandakh]

Hanlon-Mcgann play Swedish Club (1C = 11-13 bal or 17+ any) so yes, their opening bids are limited.

I do not live in America so the ACBL regs do not affect me. If I was working under those restrictions then I would probably settle for 2/1 and Forcing 1NT too. Including weak hands into 1NT would not work since the relay sequences are already at maximum capacity.

The pros and cons of a forcing versus semi-forcing 1NT response go back and forth. My opening 1S bid cannot be 5332 so semi-forcing makes less sense than when this is possible. The reason why it is useful for Responder to also describe shape is that on less than GF auctions Opener cannot get enough information across always to be guaranteed of a good spot. This is essentially the methodology behind my scheme.

Playing in a 4-3 club fit rather than a 5-2 spade fit is not a big deal at imps but huge in Pairs. At imps it can even be an advantage if the opps are cautious about coming in and wait too long. Naturally you have to adapt these non-forcing sequences to MP scoring and prefer any sort of major fit. It is not like the opps will let you play that 4-3 fit in 2m anyway most of the time, and getting your suits out quickly in what is usually going to be a part-score battle can be very advantageous.

[straube]

I still don't like 1S-2D, 2S weak with six spades. The trouble is that it takes up so much room. It also means that 1S-2D, 2N can conceal six or even seven spades.

How about....

1S-2D, 2H-any minimum not fitting hearts
1S-2D, 2S-any maximum not fitting hearts or possessing a sixth spade
1S-2D, 2N-any maximum with a sixth spade

This leaves

1S-2D, 2S-2N as a temporizing bid which allows for finding 4-4 minor suit fits, etc.


I suppose we might need 1S-2D, 3S as minimum with a very good suit

[the hog]

Auken and von Arnim play this. However for them it is not gf, and shows 5+H. Playing it as 6+H looks too limiting to me.
Should also point out that they play it in context of a strong C, 4 card M canape system.

[straube]

the hog, on 2010-October-24, 19:05, said:

Auken and von Arnim play this. However for them it is not gf, and shows 5+H. Playing it as 6+H looks too limiting to me.
Should also point out that they play it in context of a strong C, 4 card M canape system.

Thanks. I read that they did this, but I forgot that they canape. It would be nice to find the continuations that they use.

[the hog]

If you ask Gerben he may be able to help with this.

[Gerben42]

Auken - von Arnim play:

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

2♥: Minimum, does not show any fit
2♠: 5+♠, no fit, nonforcing
2NT: ♥ support maximum
3♣♦: not minimum, possibly canapé, no fit
3♥: Minimum with good support
3♠: good 6+♠, maximum
4♣♦: splinter

[straube]

Gerben42, on 2010-October-30, 11:16, said:

Auken - von Arnim play:

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

2♥: Minimum, does not show any fit
2♠: 5+♠, no fit, nonforcing
2NT: ♥ support maximum
3♣♦: not minimum, possibly canapé, no fit
3♥: Minimum with good support
3♠: good 6+♠, maximum
4♣♦: splinter

I kind of like their use of 2N as maximum with heart fit. The trouble with that is having to jump with non-minimums with six spades. It may preempt us out of our best fit. Remembering that we open 5-cd majors, I've wondered about...

1S-2D,
.....2H-no fit, minimum, possibly six spades
..........2S-artificial GF
..........2N-spade agreement
.....2S-GF, six spades
.....2N-max, heart fit
.....3m-GF, 5m
.....3H-min, heart fit
.....3S-min, strong spades

This means that we'd possibly play a 6-0 heart fit when there's a 6-2 spade fit available.

[Crunch3nt]

Hi Straube,

Quote: "Our 1S-2C is a GF relay and we can pretty much relay for every single shape. A basic question to ask is when ought we show hearts (GI+ or GF) as opposed to relaying? I would think that 1S-2D ought to be a hand that has minimal interest in slam."

That is a very good question. Why do you overlap the GF Heart hand?

Most people put it into their GI or GF relay and play 2D (or 2H) as NF values. That is the reason why von-arnim - Zenkel's structure is not best for you. (interestingly their structure is exactly the same as mine btw. We play 4 card major canape too with 2D showing hearts but less than GI opposite a minimum opening, but our major openings are 11-20, not limited)

Philosophically over transfer responses, you pretty much have a straight choice between a) the acceptance of the transfer promising a fit (2+) and all the other bids say they hate the transfer or the acceptance of the transfer says I hate the transfer, and all other bids say they like the transfer suit, differentiating 2, 3 or 4 card support, strength, side suits etc.

For most transfer methods doesn't work as there isn't sufficient values to sort it all out, but in your method there probably is.

Playing a) 2H should definitely be forcing.

[straube]

Crunch3nt, on 2010-November-15, 00:44, said:

Hi Straube,

Quote: "Our 1S-2C is a GF relay and we can pretty much relay for every single shape. A basic question to ask is when ought we show hearts (GI+ or GF) as opposed to relaying? I would think that 1S-2D ought to be a hand that has minimal interest in slam."

That is a very good question. Why do you overlap the GF Heart hand?

Most people put it into their GI or GF relay and play 2D (or 2H) as NF values. That is the reason why von-arnim - Zenkel's structure is not best for you. (interestingly their structure is exactly the same as mine btw. We play 4 card major canape too with 2D showing hearts but less than GI opposite a minimum opening, but our major openings are 11-20, not limited)

Philosophically over transfer responses, you pretty much have a straight choice between a) the acceptance of the transfer promising a fit (2+) and all the other bids say they hate the transfer or the acceptance of the transfer says I hate the transfer, and all other bids say they like the transfer suit, differentiating 2, 3 or 4 card support, strength, side suits etc.

For most transfer methods doesn't work as there isn't sufficient values to sort it all out, but in your method there probably is.

Playing a) 2H should definitely be forcing.

We don't know much about the method. Never saw a write-up of the continuations. I'd like to see whatever you have. I thought 2D could handle hands with minimal GF values so as to speed the auction along and cope with interference better. Relays leave opener out of the picture. So far we've agreed acceptance of the transfer dislikes hearts (2 or fewer). Perhaps it should be 0 or 1?

[olien]

I have a set of notes from Auken - Von Arnim, and their continuations after 1♠-2♦ are not quite what Gerben posted.

They are:

1♠-2♦:
2♥ = min, does not promise any support
.......2♠ = INV (now 4♣/♦ = COG in ♥/♠)
.......2NT = INV
.......3m = Natural forcing
.......3♥ = 6+♥ forcing (I guess they pass if INV)

2♠ = 5+♠ no ♥ support, NF (again, in context of 4cM canapé)
.......2NT = forcing

2NT = Natural, not MIN, may have 3/4♥ BAL

3m = Natural, no good ♥ support, GF, may be canapé

3♥ = 1 suiter in ♠

3♠ = any splinter, min or max, 3♥
.......3NT = ask short but only if MAX
................4m=shortness
................4♥ = min
......4♣ = ask short regardless of strength

3NT = 4♥ MIN, any splinter

4m = splinter, 4+♥, max

4♥ = 5♠ 4♥ min


These are all thats written in their notes about this section, including the continuations. Hope it helps

[straube]

Thanks for the notes. Haven't digested them yet but it seems like we would have to tweak it for a 5-cd major system. Apparently they don't relay (2C) all of their GF heart hands.