[RunemPard]

Hello,

Trying to put together a fairly good 1C reply system to relay as much information about suit length/strength. Would like to know what you use/recommend I do to make it better. I have not had a chance to test these bids in real bidding situations yet so all of my bids are theory. The main goal is to allow for information about 4/5cMs to be sent to partner ASAP while also allowing for descriptive bids.

I appreciate all feedback! Thanks very much.

If I put an * before a bid, I am looking for much input on improvements to this reply.

What I am currently thinking about using is this...(AF)=artificial forcing)/(F)=forcing/(NF)=non-forcing/(SI)=slam invite

1♣ -> 12-19 HCP (2+♣)(NO 5cM)
---1♦ -> 6-10 HCP (4cM)(May have clubs/dimes)(F)
---1♥ -> 6-10 HCP (5+♥)(NF)
---1♠ -> 6-10 HCP (5+♠)(NF)
---1N -> 6-10 HCP (NO 4cM)(NF)
*--2♣ -> 11+ HCP (stayman)(AF)
*--2♦ -> 11-14 HCP (5+♦)(NF)
---2♥ -> 11-14 HCP (5+♥)(F)
---2♠ -> 11-14 HCP (5+♠)(F)
*--2N -> 11-14 HCP (NO 4cM)(F) -> (3♦=Asking for HCP range[3♥=11-12(AF)/3♠=13-14](AF))
---3♣ -> 11-12 HCP (5+♣)(NF)
*--3♦ -> 15-18 HCP (5cM[Asking for 3cM])(AF)(SI)
---3♥ -> 15-18 HCP (6+♥)(F)(4♣=Asking for HCP range[4♦=15-16/4♥=17-18])
---3♠ -> 15-18 HCP (6+♠)(F)(4♣=Asking for HCP range[4♦=15-16/4♥=17-18])
*--3N -> 15-18 HCP(NF) (4♦=Asking for HCP range[4♥=15-16(AF)/4♠=17-18](AF))
---4♣ -> 13-14 HCP (6+♣)(NF)
*--4♦ -> 19+ HCP (5cM[Asking for 3cM])(AF)(SI)
---4♥ -> 19+ HCP (6+♥)(SI)
---4♠ -> 19+ HCP (6+♠)(SI)
---4N -> ACE ?

The reason I chose to add the 3/4♦ reply is because 3♥/3♠ promise 6 in the suit. I need a way to show a strong GF/SI 5cM.

[Free]

I don't understand 2♦/M and 3M as semiforcing. Do you want to design a system that misses easy 25+HCP games?

And when do you bid 2M with a 6 card M?

[fromageGB]

Drop the adjective "semi-forcing"; a bid is either forcing or it isn't. (A pet hate of mine ) But Free's point is very valid.

Personally I don't agree with any method that takes the bidding so high when there is no fit. Take a 6 card major, which replies 3M. How can you have any sensible discussion to end in a realistic contract - ie a fitting suit and the right level?

How does opener show length in either or both minors?

As a natural system it seems so unworkable as to be untrue. If it supposed to be an artificial relay system then far too many bids are used to show far too little information.

[mgoetze]

RunemPard, on 2012-January-29, 11:38, said:

Trying to put together a fairly good 1C reply system to relay as much information about suit length/strength.

[...]

I have not had a chance to test these bids in real bidding situations yet so all of my bids are theory.

You might try building on a system base which anyone has actually ever played. You might get more answers that way. You might even be able to exceed "fairly good".

As I said in your other thread, I consider the basic premise of your system to be flawed. So I don't see why anyone would put much effort into helping you with it. But the obvious thing to do after a 1♣ opening is to use transfers.

With your fixation on 4- and 5-card majors, you may enjoy the following type of system:

1♣ 16+ any
1♦ 11-15 "I have a 4-card major" (0-9 diamonds)
1♥/♠ 10-15, 5+ hearts/spades
1NT 12-15 (semi)balanced, no major
2♣ 10-15, (5)6+ clubs, no major
2♦ 10-15, (5)6+ diamonds, no major

[RunemPard]

I also have been thinking about the jumps and am thinking of ways to make them more workable. I enjoy designing system/response bids when not playing, even if I may never use it. I like to put them up here to see what others think, or if they have potential to be better.

And yes, I will drop the semi-forcing, I agree.

To mgoetze, I have been thinking about playing Precision based systems and am reading about them as well. I like to try all systems and know how they work.

I do appreciate the feedback as I have been playing Bridge for about a year live. Although, I have played cards since I was 10. (12 years)



Many thanks,

Don

[RunemPard]

Thanks,

I caught a mistake with 2H, 2S, 3H, 3S. Was repetitive for 11-14 5+ major and 11-14 6+ major. I made a jump to 3 much stronger. I understand that a huge jump can take away a lot of room for bidding the hand. I also feel that this can benefit at times on the table.

1C-P-3S-P
3N-P-P--P

27+ HCP and no real signals to opponents about hand layout. Leaving a lead to 3N purely hand based or judgement calls. Against my local club players this would work just fine IMO. If the opener feels that 3N is extremely risky, he does have the option to seek out another suit.

I must say though, that I really do need to test all of these out a lot. Am enjoying myself though.

[Zelandakh]

I think you need to start by deciding whether you want to create a relay system or whether you want approximately natural. In the latter case you could do worse than to start from a Transfer Walsh base - 1♦ = 4+ hearts and 1♥ = 4+ spades. If you want relays then assign a bid as a relay and then assign all the non-relay hands to the other calls. For example:-

1♣
===
1♦ = INV+ relay
1♥ = 6-9, 4+ hearts
1♠ = 6-9, 4+ spades
1NT = 6-9, 4+ diamonds
2♣ = 6-9, 4+ clubs
2♦♥♠ = weak jumps


1♣ - 1♦
=========
1♥ = unbalanced min (then 1♠ is a GF relay and responses as over 1♦)
1♠ = balanced (then 2♣ GF relay)
1NT = 4 diamonds, GF
2♣ = 4 hearts, GF
2♦ = 1-suited, GF
2♥ = 4 spades, GF


Obviously you can move these bids around to taste and I have made no attenpt to optimise anything. The point is that there is ample space to relay these hands if that is your desire. You could equally use a GF relay as the above INV+ relay scheme; I simply have more experience of designing INV+ relay methods so used it as a quick example.

I don't want to discourage you but to be honest I would tear up the current framework and start again. Some examples of methods which might appeal to you because they share similarities with yours are Montreal Relay (1♦ response to 1♣ to deny a 5 card major but showing more hand types than yours); Gerard's system (I forget the name but someone can give it) which has your stepped structure and will demonstrate why this is a bad idea; Symmetric Relay/TOSR (which will show you how to relay information efficiently in a strong club context); and 2/1 with Transfer Walsh and unbalanced diamond (which will give you a natural starting point for what you are doing with some expert standards).

I would also recommend extensively playtesting any new method you are considering, in particular by comparing the results against a standard system such as 2/1. Remember to include competition in this. If your system idea does not come close to 2/1 then the base is probably flawed and should be abandoned; if it is close then optimisation might make the difference for the system to be workable. Optimisation is a long process though...