[straube]

First off...Atul, I really think you need to cave on the range for our weak two bids. It would be very helpful if they were stronger. If you think about it...1S-1N, 2S wastes an awful lot of bidding space to show only 1 extra card. It's a loser. If opener's rebid of spades showed a 12 ct, we could effectively enter a GF whenever responder bids 2D.

I was coming to the same conclusion as Adam about 1S-2D rebids...

2H-relay
2S-4 hearts
2N-6 spades

makes a lot of sense at first glance.

But we'd like to play 1N semiforcing, not forcing...and there's a very nice advantage if it can deny a heavy invite at the same time. It means that opener may pass 1N more frequently. I also like 1S-2H as nf if it can be invitational.

Well, I'll have to study this a bit more. Thanks for your time Adam. I like a lot of it.

[straube]

ok. It's growing on me. I missed that you're using a semiforcing NT. I know your preference is for 2H to be forcing but I'm not seeing it. Are you very sure that you're right on this point? I would really like to be able to stop in 2H and I'm quite happy relaying with the minimum GF hands. I just haven't seen a problem doing so.

Can't really move forward until I hear back about our weak 2 range. Prefer 6-11.

[straube]

I think awm pretty much solved this for us.

If weak 2s are 6-11, then...

1S-2H nf invite
.....P-2-fit
.....2S-weakness signal, denies 5th spade, denies 2 hearts
..........P-2-fit
.........2N-other
...............3m-5-cd suit
.........3m-5-cd suit
.........3H-suit can play opposite shortness
.....2N-6 spades, gf
.....3m-4+, gf
.....3H-minimum, 3-fit


anything else better?

[akhare]

Yes...Adam's suggestions look very good. However, I am still not convinced that 2H needs be to NF.

The biggest problem with is that it forces 2♥ to be 6+ cards, which significantly reduces its frequency and forces 2♦ to go through all sorts of contortions (like having a 5 card ♥ suit on the side).

The ability to stop in 2♥ simply isn't worth the tradeoff IMO. For example, consider an auction like 1♠ - 2♦ - (5♣) at unfavorable vulnerability. What does X by responder mean here if it's possible to have 5♥ on the side?


There no problem with a stated 6-11 range for preempts as long it doesn't preclude opening say AJTXXX, KQTXXX, etc. with 2M at the right vulnerability.

By the same token, it's important to exercise judgment while opening hands on the upper end of the range with 2M at favorable, because responder will give opener a lot of leeway for the 2M opening.

[akhare]

Deleted double post.

[rhm]

awm, on 2013-May-20, 20:52, said:

Just out of question:

---

Assess the blame for playing an excellent slam at the two-level.

System agreements.
It shows the flaw in the idea of differentiating strength precisely at the cost of fuzzy distributional information.
What is the point of making a non forcing, game invitational bid of 2♦ with 3 cards in diamonds?
I rather bid a non forcing 1NT with 3 diamonds, strength unclear.

Whether 2♦ is played as game forcing, forcing or game invitational but non-forcing, it should show in my opinion a real diamond suit, or some other hard and useful distributional information at the expense of a game forcing 2♣ response.
A 2♣ response can be fuzzy about distribution, precisely because it is game forcing.
It is better to leave strength imprecise than distribution.
That is the main reason, why often only balanced hands can define their strength in a narrow range.
If both hands are minimum for bidding on, you overbid but may get lucky. (suits break and/or finesses work)
If you miss your fit or like in this case remain unaware of it, you are almost always in trouble, because the trick taking power of the 2 hands can vary much more.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Have posted it before but just in case you have forgotten it:-

1♥
==
1♠ = invite or better (~11+)
1NT = weak with 4+ spades, NF
2m = weak, natural, <4 spades, NF
2♥ = weak, nat, NF
2♠ and up = 4+ hearts


After 1♥ - 1♠
==
1NT = min without 4 spades (now 2♣ = art GF and 2♦ thru 3♣ = nat invites)
2♣ = 4 spades (now 2♦ = art GF and 2♥ thru 3♦ = nat invites)
2♦ and up = GF


Note that 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT/2♣ - 2♥ acts as a limited form of Drury here, which is a nice feature for a light opening system. It also allows you to stop very quickly when Responder has a weak hand putting great pressure on 4th seat to do something.

On the legality, well I would say that this fails but Adam has pointed out that it is ok for the way the ACBL defines things providing you are careful with the follow-ups not to run afoul of the relay system clause.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-21, 02:37, said:

Have posted it before but just in case you have forgotten it:-

1♥
==
1♠ = invite or better (~11+)
1NT = weak with 4+ spades, NF
2m = weak, natural, <4 spades, NF
2♥ = weak, nat, NF
2♠ and up = 4+ hearts


After 1♥ - 1♠
==
1NT = min without 4 spades (now 2♣ = art GF and 2♦ thru 3♣ = nat invites)
2♣ = 4 spades (now 2♦ = art GF and 2♥ thru 3♦ = nat invites)
2♦ and up = GF


Note that 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT/2♣ - 2♥ acts as a limited form of Drury here, which is a nice feature for a light opening system. It also allows you to stop very quickly when Responder has a weak hand putting great pressure on 4th seat to do something.

On the legality, well I would say that this fails but Adam has pointed out that it is ok for the way the ACBL defines things providing you are careful with the follow-ups not to run afoul of the relay system clause.

Not legal in ACBL-land for GCC. My current understanding of relay systems is that this is legal for Midchart because it allows all constructive responses and an artificial 1S response as GI+ is not defined as a relay bid (see prior post). Aiming to have something legal for both charts.

[Zelandakh]

Having established the GF, you do not have to play relays for the resulting auction. Then it is (arguably) legal, depending on who you get as TD.

[straube]

akhare, on 2013-May-21, 01:08, said:

Yes...Adam's suggestions look very good. However, I am still not convinced that 2H needs be to NF.

The biggest problem with is that it forces 2♥ to be 6+ cards, which significantly reduces its frequency and forces 2♦ to go through all sorts of contortions (like having a 5 card ♥ suit on the side).

The ability to stop in 2♥ simply isn't worth the tradeoff IMO. For example, consider an auction like 1♠ - 2♦ - (5♣) at unfavorable vulnerability. What does X by responder mean here if it's possible to have 5♥ on the side?


There no problem with a stated 6-11 range for preempts as long it doesn't preclude opening say AJTXXX, KQTXXX, etc. with 2M at the right vulnerability.

By the same token, it's important to exercise judgment while opening hands on the upper end of the range with 2M at favorable, because responder will give opener a lot of leeway for the 2M opening.

I'm suggesting that we respond 2H with as few as 5 hearts now but make the response non-forcing. If we also up our 2M range it makes opener's rebids much easier.

1S-2H
.....P-2 hearts minimum
.....2S-0-1 heart, minimum, only 5 spades
.........P-2 spades
.........2N-misfit
...............3m-5+
.....2N-6 spades, GF

Now opener always has a sensible action after 2H. Otherwise what does he do with Axxxx x xx AQxxx ? I mean if opener could have a bland 10 ct with six spades, then I imagine a 2S rebid would be right for that and 2N would be right for this. With this suggestion, he first rebids 2S to deny a sixth spade and if patner rebids 2N indicating spade shortness, he shows the clubs.

Actually 7-11 would be better but I don't want to get too hung up on hcps. Certainly you'd preempt with AQxxxx and out; if your points at the low end are concentrated in your suit then it's worth getting that message across but so of. Certainly you'd open 1S with AJTxxx x KQTxxx.

Finding a 6-2 heart fit is rather difficult. Let's say 1S-2H were forcing. Then we could...

.....2S-0-1 heart, minimum, only 5 spades
.....2N-2 hearts, minimum, only 5 spades
.....3C-GF 6 spades?
.....3D-GF diamonds?
.....3H-minimum fit?
.....3S-GF clubs?

Thoughts? I don't like it.

If 2H is nf then we get an extra bid to "show" the doubleton which is pass. We lose out on games where responder just wants a 6-2 fit but we stay at the 2-level more often and avoid the dangerous three level.

So Adam's been a big help so far and I know he favors 2H as forcing. Does he think passing with a doubleton is very wrong or just not to his taste? Using...

1S-2H
.....P-minimum, 2-fit
.....2S-minimum, 5 spades, 0-1 heart
.....2N-6 spades, GF
.....3C-natural, GF
.....3D-natural, GF
.....3H-minimum, fit

I don't want to be in game every time we find an 8-cd major suit fit, but I want as many of our 8-cd major suit fits to be announced as much as reasonably possible (knowing that I'm missing some 6-2 heart fits with this scheme).

[awm]

It is pretty clear that an artificial 1♠ response to a 1♥ opening that is not always GF would not be allowed on the general chart. This has nothing to do with relays.

As for whether 1♠-2♥ should be forcing it seems that there are three options:

2♥ is 6+ and NF. This lets you play one level lower any time opener rejects. But you have some pretty serious issues on hands where responder has five hearts, to the degree that I think this is clearly inferior to...

2♥ is 5+ and NF. This lets you play in 2♥ when opener has exactly doubleton and min. This is good when responder has a decent heart suit, but bad if 7 hearts (might miss game) or a better fit elsewhere (most common if responder is 5/5 or has doubleton spade). At IMPs the losses can be expensive (though rare); at MP you wind up playing 2♥ instead of 2nt a lot which can be good or bad.

The third possibility is 2♥ forcing which is good when opener is min with doubleton but 2♥ is not the right contract, and also allows you to add in a few GF hands.

My view is that if you really think you would rather relay on all GF hands then 2♥ 5+ NF vs. forcing is probablt a wash (but 6+ NF is worse); but I don't think relay is that good when relayer has certain hand types, especially since the 2♣ relay puts youa step up from symmetric.

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-21, 07:56, said:

Finding a 6-2 heart fit is rather difficult. Let's say 1S-2H were forcing. Then we could...

.....2S-0-1 heart, minimum, only 5 spades
.....2N-2 hearts, minimum, only 5 spades
.....3C-GF 6 spades?
.....3D-GF diamonds?
.....3H-minimum fit?
.....3S-GF clubs?

Thoughts? I don't like it.

If 2H is nf then we get an extra bid to "show" the doubleton which is pass. We lose out on games where responder just wants a 6-2 fit but we stay at the 2-level more often and avoid the dangerous three level.

I don't think your proposed continuations over an ostensibly forcing 2H are right. As Adam suggested, the 2♠ rebid by opener (not forcing) can serve multiple purposes.

Granted, this occasionally misses out playing in the 5-2 heart fit when opener is balanced and one can avoid committing to the 4♥ game in the 5-3 fit by making opener's 3H bid NF.

1♠ - 2♥:
... 2♠ = relay, min hand or fairly balanced (can be passed with spade tolerance)
-----> 2NT = flat or short spades, not 5/5
-----> 3m = 5/5 invite (NF)
-----> 3♥ = 6+♥ sound invite
-----> 3♠ = GF "picture" hand
-----> 4m = self splinter with great hearts
... Others = natural, GF
... 3H: NF?

As noted, the crux of issue is whether all GF hands should be processed through 2♣. IMO, 2♣ a great tool hands with *clear cut* slam potential or for GF hands that can't force using other methods. On hands on which game is the limit, conducting a less revealing auction via the forcing 2♦ / 2♥ bids might be a good tradeoff.

[straube]

Well, I think I'd like to adopt this. Wondering if...

1S-3C=GI and better clubs than 1S-2N

and keeping

1S-3D=LR
1S-3H=MR

I'd prefer 1S-2H as GI nf. The continuations are so much easier...

1S-2H, 2S=I'm stuck
1S-2S, 2N=6S, GF

Not sure if we need anything fancy after

1S-2D, 2S showing 4+ hearts

because responder is going to want to bid 2N, 3C, 3D, 3H or 4H but never 3S or 3N.

What would 1S-2D, 3H and 3S be? I'm thinking

1S-2D, 3D is a forcing raise of diamonds
1S-2D, 3C is probably forcing with clubs

We have to have opener be able to distinguish between minimum 5S/5H and forcing 5S/5H hands as well as minimum 6S/4H and forcing 6S/4H hands

So can we remember...

1S-2D,
.....3H-minimum 6S/4H
.....3S-maximum 5S/5H

now

1S-2D
.....2S (showing hearts)
..........2N (misfit)
...............3H-minimum 5S/5H
...............3S-maximum 6S/4H

Last thing is that if 1S-1N, 2H-4H shows GI with hearts and clubs then we might want to consider rebidding 2H with a hand that doesn't want that response. I.e. should have something extra in terms of shortness or hcps or fifth heart. Maybe pass with AQxxx Qxxx Kx xx.

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-21, 12:58, said:

Well, I think I'd like to adopt this. Wondering if...

1S-3C=GI and better clubs than 1S-2N

and keeping

1S-3D=LR
1S-3H=MR

If the intent is to use 3♣ as natural GI, then 2N can potentially be used as a 2-way bid that combines LR OR mixed raise. This might have some advantage since it frees up 3♦ for WJS and 3♥ as a good invite with a suit that can play opposite a stiff (and might cover some losses in marginal hands in the 2♥ NF).

[straube]

I'd rather not combine the mixed and limit raise. We have the opponents to think of and there's a big enough difference that I'd like to know right away. Also feel the WJS in diamonds is less important. We can often get there after 1S-1N, 2C-2D

We could go with

2N-GI clubs
3C-limit
3D-mixed
3H-GI hearts, better

I suppose we'd have some clarity now if opener rebids 3S over that since it promises extra and should be forcing. Perhaps we'd get to the 6-2 spade fit when it's right.

What do others think? Do we need this 3H GI? And is 1S-2N a command to bid 3C or not? Thinking it's only a suggestion.

[rbforster]

I'm a bit late to this, but I worked on a similar system at one point over 1M. My broad conclusions were that

1. Having two invites is good, and allows light openers to clearly have more advantages than disadvantages

2. Having the cheapest responses to 1M be forcing helps A LOT. This probably means giving up the semi forcing NT i know you wanted to keep, but at least give it some thought. Similar thoughts apply to the forcing 2♦ vs NF one.

My approach was to having a natural Inv+ 2C showing 4+ cards (possibly GF canapé), while other GFs without clubs went through either 1N(f) or 2♦♥. Ask me sometime if you want more details.

[straube]

rbforster, on 2013-May-21, 15:05, said:

I'm a bit late to this, but I worked on a similar system at one point over 1M. My broad conclusions were that

1. Having two invites is good, and allows light openers to clearly have more advantages than disadvantages

2. Having the cheapest responses to 1M be forcing helps A LOT. This probably means giving up the semi forcing NT i know you wanted to keep, but at least give it some thought. Similar thoughts apply to the forcing 2♦ vs NF one.

My approach was to having a natural Inv+ 2C showing 4+ cards (possibly GF canapé), while other GFs without clubs went through either 1N(f) or 2♦♥. Ask me sometime if you want more details.

I really like a semiforcing NT, but I'm curious what you came up with if you'd like to share.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2013-May-21, 16:51, said:

I really like a semiforcing NT, but I'm curious what you came up with if you'd like to share.

I was never entirely happy with the followups, but the basic idea was to have a dialogue-style bidding similar to 2/1 after 1M-2♣, with some relays after 1M-1N(f) starting with "third suit GF" by responder (I.e. 1M-1N-2♣-2♦ was an artificial GF). This worked well with 1M-2♦♥ as weakish NF to handle the 2 level sign offs that normally go through 1N(f) in 2/1.

Let me ask you this - exactly what are your shapes and strengths that are allowed to pass the SF NT? Just 5332 min, or some 5422s with weak side suits, etc? Adam's suggestion of putting weak invites into the NT response might accomplish both goals. I still think making it forcing can help a lot, since it frees up some jump rebids by responder that are otherwise certainly lost (perhaps for rare GF hands that don't want to relay?). Also, you say you want to be able to stop in 1M-2♦, but are coming around to having that be forcing. I agree stopping at a low minor like that is a super narrow target, especially on the first round of bidding with so little described, and with all the hands in 1N(sf) I think a similar argument might apply. Certainly 1N scores better than 2♦ and also is a lot more likely to win the bidding, but you gain so many more sequences that it seems worthwhile (weak sign offs could free the direct WJS bids for custom major raises, etc).

[straube]

On the point of 1S-3H as GI 6 hearts...presumably a suit willing to play opposite shortness...

Is this really what is needed? If we have a suit willing to play opposite shortness then whether pd has doubleton support by definition is not key.

1S-2H,
2S-3H (5S/1H), self-sufficient suit

accomplishes this already, right?

The more important problem is when responder has a suit like KJxxxx and needs to know about doubleton support. He occasionally would be disappointed to hear partner pass 2H with a doubleton. In fact this is a problem hand for other folks, too. Does responder brave the 3H level to invite?

I'd been thinking that 1S-2H, 2N as a spade rebid and thus game forcing should be replaced with...

1S-2H, 2N as an artificial GF. There's time enough to check back for spades. So that's one idea for 1S-2H, 2N.

The other idea is

1S-2H as any GI with hearts but

1S-2H
.....P-minimum, 2-fit
.....2S-stuck, 5S,0-1H, minimum
.....2N-medium, 2-fit
.....3C-artificial GF
..........3D-4 diamonds
..........3H-6 hearts
..........3S-2 spades
..........3N-4 clubs
.....3D-medium raise of hearts
.....3H-minimum raise of hearts
.....3S-6 spades, nf (12-13) allowing for a misfit


or something like that. The basic idea is using the 2S and 2N rebids to distinguish between doubleton and short hearts

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-21, 23:09, said:

On the point of 1S-3H as GI 6 hearts...presumably a suit willing to play opposite shortness...

Is this really what is needed? If we have a suit willing to play opposite shortness then whether pd has doubleton support by definition is not key.

1S-2H,
2S-3H (5S/1H), self-sufficient suit

accomplishes this already, right?

The more important problem is when responder has a suit like KJxxxx and needs to know about doubleton support. He occasionally would be disappointed to hear partner pass 2H with a doubleton. In fact this is a problem hand for other folks, too. Does responder brave the 3H level to invite?

I'd been thinking that 1S-2H, 2N as a spade rebid and thus game forcing should be replaced with...

1S-2H, 2N as an artificial GF. There's time enough to check back for spades. So that's one idea for 1S-2H, 2N.

The other idea is

1S-2H as any GI with hearts but

1S-2H
.....P-minimum, 2-fit
.....2S-stuck, 5S,0-1H, minimum
.....2N-medium, 2-fit
.....3C-artificial GF
..........3D-4 diamonds
..........3H-6 hearts
..........3S-2 spades
..........3N-4 clubs
.....3D-medium raise of hearts
.....3H-minimum raise of hearts
.....3S-6 spades, nf (12-13) allowing for a misfit


or something like that. The basic idea is using the 2S and 2N rebids to distinguish between doubleton and short hearts

How about something simpler?

P: Min hand with 2+ ♥
2S: NF, min hands that don't want to pass 2♥
2N: GF, other hands, including 6♠ without 2+♥
3m: GF, 4+m
3H: NF, 3+♥ raise
3S: GF, 6S with 2♥
3N: To play (rare)
4M: To play