[straube]

For 1D=11-13 bal, 10-15 unbal without a 5M or 6m (unless 6m5m)

The basic idea is that 1D-1S is much more preemptive than 1D-1H and perhaps should require more strength.

1H-could be weak 5S/4+H
.....1S-4S or 31(54)
..........2C-GF relay
..........2D-GI
...............2H-min, 0-1 hearts
...............2S-min, 2-3 hearts
..........2H-GI 5H
.....1N-11-13 bal
..........2S-5S, weak
.....2C-5D/5C
..........2H-GI 6H
..........2S-GF relay
.....2D-unbal raise (includes 13(54))
.....2H-bal raise
.....2S-44(50)
..........2N-GF relay
.....2N-04(54)
..........3C-GF relay
.....3C-5/5 inv

1S-could be invitational+ 5S/4+H
.....1N-11-13 bal
.....2C-3-suited short spades (e.g. 1354, 0445, 1435)
..........2H-GF relay
..........2S-GI 6
..........2N-GI, possibly 5S/4H
...............3H-4H
..........3L-GI, 5-cd suit
.....2D-5/5 minors
..........2H-GI+ relay
...............2S-min
....................2N-GF relay
..........2S-GI 6
..........2N-GI, possible 5/5 majors
...............3H-0355
...............3S-3055
.....2H-good raise, same patterns as...
.....2S-bad raise
.....2N-void raise
.....3C-5/5 inv

1N-bal
2m-natural, f
2M-wjs
2N-weak minors
3m-weak

So this can lose 9-cd spade fits to 8-cd heart fits and can lose spade fits altogether in competition. Things I like include using 2M as weak and knowing opener has 2-3 spades after 1D-1S, 1N. Separating the "anything but spades" hands from 5/5 minors hands after 1D-1S is nice in that responder may raise/invite with 3-cd support and it also makes the relays easier to remember.

[foobar]

IMO, it's better to use 2♥ / 2♠ for the reverse Flannery hands with non-invite / invite strength.

This avoids some of the downside of losing the ♠ fits. Also, any hand that can rebid the major after opener shows 5-5 in the minors must be invitational perforce.

BTW, another point to emphasize here is that relays are a "nice to have", i.e., they are the means to an end and not an end onto themselves. Having several different relay schemes (one for each opening) is a huge memory load for most players, so much so that it might even degrade table performance.

My guess is that the asymmetry between the 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ semantics is simply to accommodate relays (and adds unnecessary complexity).

[awm]

This seems a lot worse than the structure Sam and I use; in particular:

1. You can lose spade fits in competition by responding 1H with longer spades.
2. You cannot find partner's longer minor at the two level after the 2c rebid. This is especially bad after the 1S response where 2c can be 5-3 either way!
3. You cannot play 2c when opener has both minors. You also may have trouble distinguishing 3c correction from 3c invite.
4. You may miss a 4-4 heart fit when responder is invitational.
5. You lose opportunities to play in 1S on a 4-3 because opener will rebid spades on three.

In exchange all you seem to get is that the 1nt rebid cannot be on singleton spade. And this isn't necessarily even a win because 1nt is fairly often the best partial there!

If you really want to avoid bidding 1nt on singleton, I think you have to use reverse flannery. But honestly I think the 1nt bid on singleton is a winning method -- its a high scoring MP spot, very difficult to defend correctly, and helps a lot in your other rebids.

[straube]

I've already been persuaded that 1D-2M as WJS is better than Reverse Flannery because 1) it (and especially 2S) is more frequent and 2) it solves a rebid
problem for the GI strength hand after 1D-1M, 2C and 3) it's almost always playable (there's the rare misfit with Reverse Flannery).

I'm not bothered by rebidding 1N with a stiff, except that then partner can't know whether I have tolerance for spades or not (or hearts if my practice is to rebid 1N with 31(54). I don't like responder passing 1N with Kxxxx x xxx KQxx. 5S/4m hands are more frequent than 5S/4H. Responder might also preference 2S with certain 5S332s. The decision to pass 1N or preference 2S accounts for the majority of different outcomes between this and a structure that rebids 1N with a stiff.

Meckwell used to play 1D-1S, 2C could be 5-3 either way and I imagine this was to preserve 1N as balanced. To be able to rebid spades? I'm thinking they gave that up, meaning that they rebid 1N with a stiff now. Does anyone know? But their situation was a little analogous in that they'd removed their 5S/4H hands with Reverse Flannery and the likelihood of finding a minor suit fit was higher. So their 1D-1S, 2D had to show diamonds, but using it for 5/5 is pretty descriptive and allows for an invite in clubs and an invite with 3-cd support which 1D-1S, 2C would not do.

[awm]

The solution we have used is to play:

1D-1M-1NT-2M shows 5M and a 4+ side suit. Opener can then correct with singleton and we usually have a minor fit. Further, we can use 2nt vs. 3C by opener to distinguish lengths.

Of course it is possible to have complete misfit (1453 vs 5314) but this has never come up.

[Kungsgeten]

I think the nebulous diamond where it always have a 4-card major if unbalanced is better if you want to use relays, I may be wrong though. You could also include 5-5 minors in this opening if you want to exclude opening strength with 5-5 minors from the 2-level. You basically use 1H as hearts or GF relay:

Edit: Some changes to make the structure more symmetric and to cater for 4441s

1D--1H;
1S = 4 spades, not 4 hearts
..1NT = To play, but unbalanced hand may bid 2m
..2C = Checkback
..2D = GF relay
....2H = 5+ clubs
....2S = Balanced or three-suited with short hearts
......2N = Relay
........3C = 4-4 clubs + spades (but followed by 3NT is 4-0-4-5)
........3D = 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-5-4
........3H = 4-2-4-3
........3S = 4-3-4-2
........3N = 4-3-3-3
....2N+ = 5+ diamonds
1NT = Balanced, no 4 card major
2C = Unbalanced, 4 hearts
..2D = Relay
....2H = 5+ clubs
....2S = Three-suited with hearts, so 4441 or 5440
......2N = Relay
........3C = Short spades (1-4-4-4, 0-4-4-5, 0-4-5-4)
........3D = Short diamonds
........3H = 4-4-4-1
........3S = 4-4-5-0
....2N+ = 5+ diamonds
2D = 5-5 minors
2H = Balanced with 4 hearts

After a natural 1S:

1D--1S;
1N = Balanced
2CD = 5+ minor, 4 hearts
2H = Unbalanced spade raise
2S = Balanced spade raise
2N = 5-5 minors, min
3C = 5-5 minors, max

[straube]

 awm, on 2015-February-24, 10:24, said:

The solution we have used is to play:

1D-1M-1NT-2M shows 5M and a 4+ side suit. Opener can then correct with singleton and we usually have a minor fit. Further, we can use 2nt vs. 3C by opener to distinguish lengths.

Of course it is possible to have complete misfit (1453 vs 5314) but this has never come up.

I imagine it's more likely you find 8-cd fits. I suppose 1D-1H, 1N-2H, 2S finds a Moysian, 1D-1S, 1N-2S, 2N is longer diamonds?

I had assumed that your immediate rebid of 2S showed 6 while 1D-1S, 1N-2C, 2D-2S showed 5, so now I'm thinking you use the latter to show 5+ and opener removes with shortness.

Well, I've always liked your 1D-1M structure and I see you've a solution for catching most of your spade fits. Seems a lot better than this structure. Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

Creating relays for this opening is very easy as the number of patterns is comparatvely small, for example:

1♦ - 1♥ = INV+ relay
==
1♠ = unbal min (then 1NT GF relay and responses as per 2♣+ below)
1NT = 11-13 bal
2♣ = GF, 5 diamonds, <5 clubs
... - 2♦ = relay
... - ... - 2♥ = 4 spades (4054, 4153, 4252, 4351, 4450)
... - ... - 2♠ = 4 clubs (1354, 2254, 3154)
... - ... - 2NT+ = 4 hearts (0454, 1453, 2452, 3451)
2♦ = GF, 5 clubs, 4 hearts (0445, 1435, 2425, 3415, 4405)
2♥ = GF, 5 clubs, 4 spades (4045, 4135, 4225, 4315)
2♠ = 5+-5+ minors
2NT = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds (1345, 2245, 3145)
3♣ = 1444
3♦ = 4144
3♥ = 4414
3♠+ = 4441

The problem is finding a workable system on weak hands without losing the heart suit or getting overboard. Perhaps something like this would be possible:

1♠ = weak, 4+ spades
1NT = weak, 0-3 spades, 0-4 hearts, 0-4 minors
2m = weak, 5+ suit
2♥ = weak, 5+ hearts
2♠ = max weak, 6+ spades

The obvious problem is missing 4-4 heart fits. Taking that on board it might well be that natural works better here. The classic 1♥ = nat or GF response also has to be a reasonable option. Finally there are skip-bid responses: 1♥ = any hand without 4 hearts; 1♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades; 1NT = both majors willing to play 1NT opposite 11-13 bal; 2♣ = both majors, INV+.

To be honest though, this is always the issue with this minor suit structure. This is why I think the version where 1♦ shows one minor but never both (and 2m cover hands with both minors) tends to be easier in practise.

[straube]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-February-25, 05:45, said:

The obvious problem is missing 4-4 heart fits. Taking that on board it might well be that natural works better here. The classic 1♥ = nat or GF response also has to be a reasonable option. Finally there are skip-bid responses: 1♥ = any hand without 4 hearts; 1♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades; 1NT = both majors willing to play 1NT opposite 11-13 bal; 2♣ = both majors, INV+.

I think 1D-1H has to include natural meanings. I like it as nat or GF.

[straube]

As much as I hate 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-2-5-5 eventualities, I want to avoid 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-4-5-3 languishing in 2C.

1D-2S WJS
1D-2H WRF

This reduces the types of hands held after 1D-1S, 2C that would like to offer to play 2M. Still left are IRF (invitational Reverse Flannery)
and IJS

Btw, I stole a basic idea from awm and sieong that 1D-1S, 1N may contain a collection of minimum hands with stiffs while maximum hands are compelled to
rebid 2C.

1D-1S
.....1N-bal or 3-suited 10-12 with 8 or 9 minor suit cards
..........2C-puppet, handles 5S/4H and 5S and other invites
..........2D-GF
..........2H-6S invite
..........2S-5S/4m sign off
.....2C-5/5 minors or 8 or 9 minor suit cards with 13-15 (so 1-4-5-3 possible)
..........2D-correction
..........2H-inquiry
...............2S-5/5 minors, thus possibly weak
....................2N-GF relay
....................3m-invite
...............2N-8 minor suit cards, 4 hearts, 13-15
...............etc-9 minor suit cards, 13-15
..........2S-6S, GI
..........2N-GI, possibly 5S and possibly 5S/4H
...............3H-checkback, 13-15 always accepts game
..........3m-light invite with 5-fit, basically probing for 5m or possibly 3N opposite a very max hand
.....2D-13-15 1-4-5-3 or any 0-4-(54)
..........2H-sign off
..........2S-use awm's structure

1H-
.....1S-4S or 3-1-(54)
..........1N-
...............2C-13-15 3-1-(54) or 4-1-4-4
..........2C-GF relay
..........2D-GI ask
...............2H-min, 0-2 hearts
...............2S-min, 3 hearts
..........2H-weak, 6 hearts
.....1N-bal
.....2C-5/5
..........2D-sign off
..........2H-GI 6H (losing here weak 6H)
..........2S-GF relay

I still like rebidding 1S with 3-1-(54) because it saves so much room. Otherwise 1D-1H, 2C with perhaps 4-6-1-2 opposite 3-1-5-4 but even if such
rarely comes up, rebidding 1S allows responder to separate WJS from IJS heart hands. Also, after 1D-1H, 2C now we know 5/5 and we have less room now
1D-1H, 2C-2S than 1D-1S, 2C-2H for sorting out the 5/5s from the 9m hands.

[awm]

You know that we never rebid 2C with 1453 right?

Our 2C rebid after 1D-1S is one of:

5+D/4+C not 4H
1444 14-15 HCP
1435 14-15 HCP
1345 14-15 HCP

Because diamonds are at least as long as clubs when minimum, we tend to preference diamonds a lot. The 14-15 hands with unusual shapes are taking another call over that.

[straube]

Just emailed you what you had lent me from your structure. Maybe you can let me know if you've made any changes.

What do you think of this latest?

[awm]

We haven't changed the structure; there is a place in the relays for a shape that doesn't exist (but all the earlier references in the doc have it right). With 1453, we bid 1NT if 11-13 and 2♦ if 14-15. The 2♣ rebid is always 4+♣ (and will have 5+ diamonds if less than 14-15 hcp).

I've actually wondered if it's better to bid 2♦ with 1444 and extras, so the 2♣ rebid is always 5♣ if "off shape" to mitigate any risk of passing.

For the structure you gave, my questions would be:

1. What happens after 1♦-2♥ when opener has 5/5 minors? Isn't this a more frequent problem than the one you're trying to solve, where responder has 5503/5413 and opener has short spades and too much extra to rebid 1NT?

2. You have to weigh the potential gains from finding a heart fit with 1♦-2♥ (real, but rare given the tendency to rebid 1NT off-shape) against the losses from not having the direct weak 2♥ bid. I think the latter are fairly serious, since you lose the opportunity to preempt fourth hand as well as the ability to show an invite at the two-level in 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥.

3. I remain unconvinced that rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) is a good idea.

[foobar]

 awm, on 2015-February-28, 11:57, said:

3. I remain unconvinced that rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) is a good idea.

I too am deeply skeptical about rebidding 1♠ with 31(45) (hate it would be a more appropriate characterization).

To put things in perspective, imagine the following auction in the proposed structure:

1♦ (0+ ♦) - 1♥ (2+ ♥) - 1♠ (3+ ♠) - (3m)

After three rounds of bidding we know 5-cards between the 2-hands and IMO, such situations are very vulnerable to preemptive bidding by the opponents. Granted, there are interferences available since the number of shapes are limited, but frankly, it's difficult to see the advantages of the proposed method.

straube said:

Otherwise 1D-1H, 2C with perhaps 4-6-1-2 opposite 3-1-5-4 but even if such rarely comes up..

Is this hand really that big of a problem to warrant bidding showing only 3 1♠ with much more common hands? The 6-1♥ fit should have a play in 2♥.

straube said:

Also, after 1D-1H, 2C now we know 5/5 and we have less room now 1D-1H, 2C-2S than 1D-1S, 2C-2H for sorting out the 5/5s from the 9m hands.

How common are the 5-5 hands? Also, how important is to determine opener's complete shape in a 10-15 HCP hand? My conjecture is that any reasonable structure can find minor suit slams when responder holds a balanced hand strong enough to drive to slam (without the need to resolve complete pattern).

To surmise, it seems what we are really missing here is a step by step deconstruction of what OP thinks are the shortcomings in the (excellent) original structure. In the absence of clear articulation (and supporting evidence), we'll have to speculate why this should be deemed as an improvement.

[straube]

 foobar, on 2015-February-28, 12:29, said:

To surmise, it seems what we are really missing here is a step by step deconstruction of what OP thinks are the shortcomings in the (excellent) original structure. In the absence of clear articulation (and supporting evidence), we'll have to speculate why this should be deemed as an improvement.

Feels like you're grandstanding here. Besides which, what original structure are you referring to?

[foobar]

 straube, on 2015-February-28, 17:42, said:

Feels like you're grandstanding here. Besides which, what original structure are you referring to?

My assumption is that this is an adaptation of the original IMPrecision 1♦ structure (or at least inspired by it to a great extent).

It's odd that a legitimate critique of the proposed methods should be considered as grandstanding. Surely, my efforts at that wouldn't be wasted on posting to obscure bridge forums ?

[straube]

A lot of folks use a nebulous diamond, and I liked it even before I'd heard of IMPrecision. Like many other (even natural) structures, the nebulous diamond is in a tight spot after (particularly) 1D-1S and I wanted to get feedback on an idea that was meant to help there. Looks like it was a bad idea, but I think the only things it had in common with IMPrecision were 1) nebulous diamond and 2) WJSs.

Regarding IMPrecision's 1D, I'm still not sure I know all of the structure. Adam doesn't agree with how I try to preserve space for hands short in hearts with 1D-1H, 1S but he does so with 1D-1S, 1N for some hands short spades. So the 5/5 hands, the 5D/4C hands, the max 4D/5C hands and the strong 1-4-4-4 and 1-4-3-5 hands rebid 2C. He capitalizes on the false preference (essentially relay) that responder will often give to 2D (because opener will always have 5D when weak) in order to give opener another rebid when strong. But after 1D-1S, 2C-2D the partnership will often be too high if opener removes to 2H with a 14 ct 1-4-3-5. Or if opener has a 14 ct 1-3-4-5 does he rebid 2N after the false preference? Raise to 3D with 1-3-5-4?

Atul, when you wrote that IMPrecision was "excellent" I wonder whether you really understand it well enough to say. You haven't played the 1D structure and had as many or more of the misconceptions about it than I did. You also are more a fan of Reverse Flannery than I am and IMPrecision doesn't use Reverse Flannery. The other thing is that the structure is more complicated than the stuff I've been proposing and you've written a lot lately how you like things to be simpler. For example, the following does not seem to me to be something that you would like...

1D-1S, 2D-2S*
.....2N-0445
..........3C-invite
..........3D-QP ask
.....3C-0454 min
..........p/3D-invites
..........3H-QP ask
.....3D-1453 max
..........3H-QP ask
.....3H-0454 max, 6

So it's not the main thing, but complexity is a consideration.

After the IMPrecision sequence 1D-1S, 1N you and I both recently believed that a 2S contract couldn't be reached if responder had a weak hand with something like a 5134 pattern. I regretted losing so many spade contracts, but I think you thought that many played as well in 1N. So we found out that awm and sieong play that 1D-1S, 1N-2S shows a 5S/4m pattern. That's something we didn't know and something that could have led to bad results if I had not bothered to question it or awm to give us the answer. They lose only their 5S332 hands, but they are occasionally forced to 3m whereas they might have rested in 2m if 1D-1S, 2C had been permitted. Also, they have no way (I assume) to now separate invitational 5S from 6S hands...which probably means that after 1D-1S, 1N-2C, 2D-2S that opener has to remove with a stiff. I don't know if there is a work-around for that.

So loss of spade fits was a chief concern of mine and I understand now how they get most back. The other was loss of heart fits. They find most of their heart fits because of 1D-1S, 1N with minimums short spades. They also find hearts after 1D-1S, 2D and after 1D-1S, 2C-2D, 2H (at risk as mentioned of getting too high). But it seems like they at least occasionally lose heart fits after 1D-1S, 2C for such as 5-4-1-3 opposite 1-4-4-4 or 5-5-1-2 opposite 1-4-3-5 or 1-4-4-4. Infrequent then, but seems fair to look at these if we also are looking at Reverse Flannery and 5-4-2-2 opposite 1-2-5-5 etc.

awm has obviously done a lot lot more thinking about his 1D structure. It seems to me probable that it's the best structure possible. I'd like, however, to be able to discuss other solutions as well. Or other tweaks at least. Btw I'd vote for 1D-1S, 2D including the 1-4-4-4s.

[awm]

This hand type (1444 or 1435, slightly too strong for a weak no-trump) is difficult in virtually all systems. You are not quite strong enough to treat it as a strong hand by reversing (in "natural" systems) or opening a forcing club (in a strong club system) but you are too strong to rebid 1NT (whatever that range is). There are various unpalatable options (slightly different depending on methods). Weak no-trump based systems can solve these, but exchange them for a much more common problem on the weaker hands with the same distribution.

However, these hands are really rare and most people are having trouble with them, and I think it's better to "stay fixed" on this hand type rather than try to "solve" them by inventing a method which typically is worse on much more common hand types (that most players have no trouble with whatsoever).

[straube]

Good point.

Something I don't like about Reverse Flannery is that there's no in-between range. There needs to be an"invitational if we have a fit" sort of hand.
For example, if I hold KQxxx KJxxx xx x and respond 1S, I could invite game after a raise, especially if I can find help in hearts. With Reverse Flannery I might respond 2H and have partner take me for Axxxx xxxx xx xx or 2S and then Qxxxx AJTx AJ xx...for which partner may want to play 3N. My example hands may not be the best, but I think I have a point here.

I don't really understand the objection to 1D-1H, 1S as 3-1-(54). Playing a nebulous diamond I've had to play a 4-0 diamond fit at least once and probably a lot of 4-1 fits as well. Aren't we in the camp that agrees to take our lumps when we've invested little in the auction? And if we're considering passing the 1S rebid when responder has 3 spades, opener will only have 3 spades maybe 6-7% of the time and then will have a ruffing potential. We also pick up when responder has something like Qxxx xxxx xx Qxx and passes. More important...

1) we get to invite with hearts and play 2H when we have 5 hearts as well as 6 hearts
2) we avoid guessing opener's longer minor when we're dealt 4522
3) we get to notrump from responder's side which keeps hearts protected
4) we lose some big minor fits (when they exist) but we keep out of a lot of 4-3 minor suit fits
5) 1D-1H, 2C can mean 5/5 minors which allows raises of either minor with 3
6) responder can sign off in hearts with suitable 5H332s after 1D-1H, 1N. Maybe Kxx QJ98x xx xxx
7) opener can show extras after 1D-1H, 1S-1N with 2C (14-15 3-1-(54) as well as 4-1-4-4)

[benlessard]

Ive wasted a lot of brain power after 1D-1H and my number one conclusion is that 1D-1H-1S should be a very frequent start. 1D-1H-1S as showing 4S is seriously inefficient. IMO most system where 1D-1H-1S is 2 or 3 types of hands with seriously outperform most system where 1D-1H-1S is spades.

My first inclination would be to keep 1H as inv+ or natural.

1D-1H-??

1S bal or...
1NT 4S denies 4H