[straube]

1D-1H (natural or GF balanced)

1S-4 spades or 3145
.....2D-GF relay
..........2H-5+ diamonds
..........2S-bal
...............3C-4234
...............3D-4324
...............3H-4243
...............3S-4342
...............3N-4333
..........2N-5 clubs
...............3D-4135
...............3H-4225
...............3S-4315, 6
..........3C-3145
..........3D-4144
..........3H-4045
..........3S-4054, 6
2C-5D/4C
.....2S-GF relay
..........2N-5D/4C
...............3D-1354
...............3H-2254
...............3S-3154, 6
..........3C-5/5, higher
..........etc
2D-4H, 5m
.....2H-sign off attempt
.....2S-GF relay
..........2N-5C/4H
...............3D-1435
...............3H-2425
...............3S-3415, 6
..........3C-diamonds, higher
..........3D-2452
..........3H-3451
..........3S-2461
..........3N-3460
..........4C-2470
..........4D-1471, 6
2H-4H, bal
.....2S-GF relay
..........2N-4S
...............3D-4423
...............3H-4432, 6
..........3C-2434
..........3D-3424
..........3H-2443
..........3S-3442
..........3N-3433
2S-3-suited, short minor
.....P-4S/4H
.....2N-ask
..........3C-higher short
...............3D-invite
..........3D-max, lower short
..........3H-min, lower short
.....3C-GF relay
..........3D-higher short
..........3H-4441
..........3S-4450, 6
.....3H-sign off
2N-5D/6C, max
3C-1345
.....P-to play
.....3D-to play
.....3H-to play
.....3S-QP ask
.....3N-to play
.....4m-invite
3D-higher short, max
.....3H-to play
.....3S-QP ask (presumed 1444)
.....3N-to play
3H-higher short, min
.....3S-QP ask

I think making 1D-1H, 2S promise 4 spades gives us extra chances. For one thing, there's about a 20% chance that responder also has four spades meaning we can still play at the 2-level. The other is that we have more room to sort out opener's shortness so as to judge whether to bid game. We had been playing mini-splinters and this gives them back.

Still taking feedback. I usually dislike 2-way bids, but I'm not seeing much downside here. I think now...

1D-1N natural
1D-2m can show 5+m
1D-2H 5S/4H less than invite
2D-2S 5m/4m
.....2N-asks longer minor
2D-2N natural invite with 3+C/3+D
.....3m-sign off in opener's 5m

This loses 4m/4m to play at the 3-level, but should we care? Seems like 2N ought to be a fine contract.

[wclass___]

Hi there,

you should work on ways how to get exact shape some steps lower, as i see it now it is somewhat on the edge whether relays are worth it or not. Also you should pay more attention to get advancer as declarer.

(I think i have sent you a cc, but here is the idea anyway)
1♦-1♥
...1♠=4♥ so that 1N is Relay (saving space compared to your scheme)
...1N bal no 4♥
...2♣ 5♣+4♠ 0-2♥
...2♦ 5♦+4♠ 0-2♥
...2♥ 514♠3♥

If i remember correctly average step where shape is revealed is 3♣.

(I'm saying this like 100th time, but anyway, FWIW I really dislike an idea of bidding 1♦ with minorish hands (e.g. 5m+4m+ ), I would do everything to get the out of 1♦. 2♣=5♣4♦ or 6♣+ no 4M and 2♦=5♦4♣ or 6♦+ no 4M works really, really well.)

[awm]

Another alternative:

2d = any 4441/4450/4351 with 4H or 13(45) Max
2h = bal 4h including 2425/2452 or 13(45) min
2s = 4h and 6+d
2n = 4h-5m-22 super Max if these are not 1nt

[straube]

awm, on 2011-December-26, 10:22, said:

Another alternative:

2d = any 4441/4450/4351 with 4H or 13(45) Max
2h = bal 4h including 2425/2452 or 13(45) min
2s = 4h and 6+d
2n = 4h-5m-22 super Max if these are not 1nt

I agree that this is better, but it's going to be harder to memorize. If you look at my last structure, the balanced hands parallel how 1D-1H, 1S-2D mapped out. Perhaps we could lie and treat 2425 as 2434. The other thing is that I'd as soon get rid of the 1345 minimum right away. 1D-1H, 3C; perhaps we have a better strain. Also, our 5m422 max does open 1N. So I like 1D-1H, 2N as 5D/6C or 6D/6C max. These two hand patterns are in danger of not getting another bid after 1D-1H, 2C as partner will not correct with a club fit.

Your structure does a couple of nice things. One is that...

1D-1H, 2D-2N can ask shortness
.....3C-min, higher
.....3D-min, middle
.....3H-min, lower
.....3N-max, 1345

I also like that you show the six diamonds immediately. As they have so much potential, this seems a good thing. It even leaves 1D-1H, 2S- 2N as GF relay but 3C as general invite and 3D to play.

But you have 10 hand patterns with your 2D rebid and space for only 11 things so we will frequently not have room to make a QP ask shy of 3N. If we use 1D-1H, 3D and 1D-1H, 3H to show short spades max and min, then 2D only has to handle 7 patterns. Do you like putting the short spades into 3D and 3H? How would you pattern your 2D hands out?

[straube]

I'm realizing more and more how much deference this last gives the 6+ diamonds. They get the same room as I last gave the 5+ diamond hands. Virtually all of the shapes (including the 47s) resolve prior to 3N, but it places strain on the other shapes.

[straube]

ok, the latest idea is to reserve bids higher than 2H for hands without four spades. After all, as both opponents have had the chance to bid 1S, the reason they haven't is either that they don't have spades or they don't have points. Partner has them. Chances are good that he wants to know our pattern or at least invite game. If he doesn't, then the opponents are asleep and are making a couple of spades.

1D-1H,
.....2D-5 clubs OR 3-suited short minor
..........2S-GF relay
...............2N-5 clubs
....................3D-1435
....................3H-2425
....................3S-3415, 6
...............3C-higher short
....................3H-4414
....................3S-4405
...............3D-4441
...............3H-4450
.....2H-bal, 4 hearts
.....2S-5+ diamonds
..........2N-GF relay
...............3C-higher short
...............3D-2452
...............3H-3451
...............3S-2461
...............3N-3460
...............4C-2470
...............4D-1471, 6
..........3C-game try
..........3D-sign off
..........3H-sign off
.....2N-5D/6C, max
.....3C-1-3-4-5
.....3D-3-suited short spades, max
..........3S-QP ask
.....3H-3-suited short spades, min
..........3S-QP ask

[awm]

Not clear to me this is better than something closer to what Sam and I play after 1♦-1♥:

2♦ = raise with singleton somewhere (and no 6-card diamonds); if 13(45) then max
2♥ = balanced raise including 24(25), or 13(45) min raise
2♠ = raise with 6+♦
2N = raise with a void
3♣ = good 6/5 in the minors (either way)

1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠:

2N = singleton spade with four-card support, resolves by 3♠ as 1435, 1444, 1453 (numeric)
3♣ = 13(45)
3♦ = singleton diamond with four-card support, resolves by 3NT as 3415, 4414 (numeric)
3♥/3♠ = singleton club with four-card support, resolves as 3451, 4441 (numeric)

1♦-1♥-2N-3♣:

3♦ = 04(45); 3♥ asks longer minor/strength
3♥ = 4405
3♠ = 4450 (zoom if you like)

We actually use 2♠ as the "raise with void" because our 1♦ doesn't include hands with 6+♦ and 4♥, which saves us a step there. We also use the direct 2N/3♦/3♥ rebids as very strong raises (4-card support, side singleton, and MAX).

[straube]

I've been looking at hands and I think we can be pretty bold when we're short in spades.

1D P 1H P and we're looking at --- Axxx AQxxx xxxx, I can be pretty sure that partner has some stuff. I'm actually proposing...

1D-1H
.....3D-1444 weak
.....3H-1444 strong
.....3S-0445
.....3N-0454

I think it's much safer than it looks. Plus that sequence will almost never occur because the opponents really will be bidding spades most of the time. I'm also happy with 1D-1H, 3C showing 1345. I wish I had the room to show min or max, but I think rebidding 2D or 2H will leave us ill-placed on those occasions where the opponents are making something in spades. We could have a 10-card club fit or something and only a 4-3 heart fit.

I'm more worried about 1D-1H, 2S if it showed 5+ diamonds which could be AQx xxxx Axxxx x. Now we're not short in spades and the 3-level may not be safe. I'm also not sure how responder invites intelligently here. He only has 3C and 3D to work with. Can you think of any good meaning for these bids?

I'm also wondering what happens after 1D dbl rdbl (showing hearts) P and what happens after 1D P 1H dbl or 1S. Do we try to relay? I'd guess not, but I'm wondering what you think.

I still like the last scheme I drew up. Partly because the short spade hands should be placed to take us past the 2-level (not to preempt the spades but because partner is likely to hold a good hand) but also because it seems easy to remember.

Atul, do you want to play something like this?

[straube]

1D-1H,

2D-singleton, 4 trump
.....2S-GF relay
..........2N-higher short
...............3D-1435
...............3H-1444
...............3S-1453
..........3C-middle short
...............3H-3415
...............3S-4414
..........3D-3451
..........3H-4441
.....2N-GI ask
..........3C-min, higher short
..........3D-min, middle short
..........3H-min, lower short
..........4H-max
2H-4 hearts, bal
.....2S-GF relay
..........2N-4 spades
..........3C-2434
..........3D-3424
..........3H-2443
..........3S-3442
..........3N-3433
2S-six+ diamonds
2N-void
.....3D-0445
.....3H-0454
.....3S-4405
.....3N-4450
3C-1345
.....3S-QP ask
3D-2425
.....3S-QP ask
3H-2452
3S-max, 5D/6C
3N-max, 6D/6C

[awm]

Not clear to me that you want to be forced to the three-level with 24(25) patterns. You can afford these in your relays over 2♥ (which don't seem very space-optimized) or put them in 2♦ while pushing some of the four-card-support-plus-stiff hands to the three-level.

Also not totally convinced about the 13(45) patterns; if you really can't put them elsewhere then bidding 3♣ on them is okay... but can't you squeeze one more pattern somewhere? Again, I'd rather have four-card-support-plus-stiff hands at the three-level than hands with no known fit.

[straube]

I still like showing the 1345 immediately (as long as partner doesn't have 4432) , but I agree all of your other criticism. I'm just willing to pay a premium for having a structure that is easier to remember. For this latest, we have to remember the initial rebids, but then things unwind in a way that is familiar to us. I think Foobar is following this thread occasionally and I'm wondering what he thinks of the tradeoffs here.

Btw, I'm starting to think ahead about when we would use this relay and when not. For instance, I'm thinking if we have a balanced GF, it is better to show four spades than attempt to relay...even if partner winds up raising with 3-4-1-5 (for example) and we have to sort this out later.

[akhare]

straube, on 2011-December-29, 15:47, said:

I still like showing the 1345 immediately (as long as partner doesn't have 4432) , but I agree all of your other criticism. I'm just willing to pay a premium for having a structure that is easier to remember. For this latest, we have to remember the initial rebids, but then things unwind in a way that is familiar to us. I think Foobar is following this thread occasionally and I'm wondering what he thinks of the tradeoffs here.

Using 3♠ / 3N bids for 6-5 in the minors is OK since they are so rare that it's really unlikely to matter one way or the other.

However, I do share awm's discomfort with being forced to the 3-level with 24(45) hands and it might be best to combine those hands into 2♥.

[straube]

We can do that. So right now we play...

1D-1H, 1S-2D, 2S is balanced and...

.....3C-4234
.....3D-4324
.....3H-4243
.....3S-4342
.....3N-4333

Obviously, the 3C and 3D are underloaded. So we could change to

.....3C-4 clubs or 4333
..........3H-4234
..........3S-4324
..........3N-4333
.....3D-4243
.....3H-4342

and now 1D-1H, 2H-2S

.....2N-4 spades
..........3D-4423
..........3H-4432
.....3C-4 clubs or 3433
..........3H-2434
..........3S-3424
..........3N-3433
.....3D-2443
.....3H-3442
.....3S-2425
.....3N-2452

which achieves a bit of symmetry although the latter's 2N is underloaded compared to 3C.

Or we can relay these hands out differently. Suggestions?

Or we can treat a 2452 as a 3442 making sure that the partner is aware of the doubleton minor so he doesn't mistakenly pick a 5-2 fit. Sorry partner, had a club in with a spade. This would rankle most relay enthusiasts, but we're relaying an awful lot of situations now. Actually, that's how I'd like to handle it.

And then we have to decide what to use our 3D and 3H rebids for. In fact, 3D on up bids are affected.

[benlessard]

The problem with 1H nat or GF is that many directors will consider it a relay. So its superchart not midchart. Other than that it make no sense to use 1Nt relay instead of 1H relay.

[straube]

benlessard, on 2011-December-29, 23:16, said:

The problem with 1H nat or GF is that many directors will consider it a relay. So its superchart not midchart. Other than that it make no sense to use 1Nt relay instead of 1H relay.

Rats. Is that right? I had thought this would be legal for midchart. I don't suppose it matters if the bid is constructive and promises 2+ hearts? Yeah, can't we argue that the bid is natural or GF balanced without a major and thus descriptive?

[straube]

So I read the Midchart and it says that relays are not legal unless they are game forcing. Isn't the idea that one can't bid 1H saying nothing about the hand, hear partner's response and then sign off somewhere shy of game?
But our bid would be either natural (4+) or artificial and constructive (2+). After opener's rebid, we make a GF relay bid or bid something else confirming hearts. Not that it really matters, but at the end of the auction the defense knows either responder has hearts or a balanced hand without a major. How's my logic?

[awm]

I wouldn't worry about this on the ACBL mid-chart. Logic doesn't really apply to these rules, but suffice to say the ACBL definition of "relay" is not the same as yours (or mine).

There is an issue with the general chart, in that 1♥ = "hearts or GF" is not allowed there, whereas 1NT = "any GF" would be.

[benlessard]

The stronger the field the more they will let you roll with it, not finishing late every round will also help and giving clear explanations is always a must. But Nat or GF, Weak or GF, is not the same as a pure GF relay and if a knowledgable opps call the director, he might easily rule against you and you will have no recourse available. In practice it depend on where you play and it might easily be ok, but im not as confident as AWM.

[awm]

If you need a logical explanation it goes like:

"The 1♥ bid is not a relay." (this will be enough for most directors but if you must continue...)

"Responder was not forced to bid 1♥, and will not bid 1♥ on all or even a majority of hands. The 1♥ bid does not force opener to make any particular call, and in most cases opener's next call will be natural. After opener's rebid, responder's next call will usually be natural unless he is willing to force game, so there will never be a sequence of relays that is not game forcing."

[straube]

awm, on 2011-December-30, 21:34, said:

If you need a logical explanation it goes like:

"The 1♥ bid is not a relay." (this will be enough for most directors but if you must continue...)

"Responder was not forced to bid 1♥, and will not bid 1♥ on all or even a majority of hands. The 1♥ bid does not force opener to make any particular call, and in most cases opener's next call will be natural. After opener's rebid, responder's next call will usually be natural unless he is willing to force game, so there will never be a sequence of relays that is not game forcing."

I like it. I just copied it into our system notes.