[awm]

One of my regular partners and I have been playing a strong ♣ system for some time. Until recently our responses included 1♦ as negative or semi-positive, and other replies as game forcing (we used transfer-oriented relays).

Recently we decided to try something different. We experimented for a bit with 1♦ guaranteeing semi-positive and 1♥ double-negative. We lose a step in describing the good hands in exchange for better resolution on the semi-positives and the ability to get out a bit lower and more accurately opposite the double negative.

We've also been looking at Marston's most recent version of Moscito, where he suggests 1♦ as positive. This has the advantage of very nice two-sided relay auctions (i.e. either player can be describer). It also allows us to make a descriptive bid early with the semi-positive hand, where a competitive auction might be more likely. The 1♠ double negative is a bit high for our tastes (makes it hard to get out in 1M or to scramble effectively for a partial) but this might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

A combination of 1♦ positive, 1♥ double negative, and others semi-positive might appear to have advantages, but the main problem is that we would like to be able to play 1NT with a balanced minimum opposite a minimum semi-positive. If 1NT isn't the relay after 1♠ we lose too much space.

Anyways, I'm curious what people think is most effective here. Perhaps a related question would be: is it most important to communicate shape information immediately with strong hands, or with semi-positives? When should we be most afraid of preemption?

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 13 2005, 02:48 AM, said:

One of my regular partners and I have been playing a strong ♣ system for some time. Until recently our responses included 1♦ as negative or semi-positive, and other replies as game forcing (we used transfer-oriented relays).

Recently we decided to try something different. We experimented for a bit with 1♦ guaranteeing semi-positive and 1♥ double-negative. We lose a step in describing the good hands in exchange for better resolution on the semi-positives and the ability to get out a bit lower and more accurately opposite the double negative.

We've also been looking at Marston's most recent version of Moscito, where he suggests 1♦ as positive. This has the advantage of very nice two-sided relay auctions (i.e. either player can be describer). It also allows us to make a descriptive bid early with the semi-positive hand, where a competitive auction might be more likely. The 1♠ double negative is a bit high for our tastes (makes it hard to get out in 1M or to scramble effectively for a partial) but this might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

A combination of 1♦ positive, 1♥ double negative, and others semi-positive might appear to have advantages, but the main problem is that we would like to be able to play 1NT with a balanced minimum opposite a minimum semi-positive. If 1NT isn't the relay after 1♠ we lose too much space.

Anyways, I'm curious what people think is most effective here. Perhaps a related question would be: is it most important to communicate shape information immediately with strong hands, or with semi-positives? When should we be most afraid of preemption?

Given that I'm the one who suggested the 1♦ positive scheme to Marston, my biases are pretty well known. With this said and done, I think that the subject is quite a bit more complex than you suggest...

The reason that I originally started critiquing MOSCITO's traditional response structure was based on a set of simulations that suggested that the 1♦ response was severely overloaded. MOSCITO's "strong" club opening is so weak that absolutely game forcing responses are few an far between. Accoridngly, I wanted to optimize the response structure to focus attention on the common/tricky hand types. The reverse relay options is just gravy...

Playing a more traditional "strong" club like Blue I'm happy to use more bidding space for game forcing positives at the expense of the semi-positive hands

[bearmum]

WHY play anything except "anything except 1♦" is GF?

OR am I having a "senior" moment and TOTALLY missing something????

[Free]

I've been playing the traditional MOSCITO relaystructure over 1♣ with my f2f partner. It's easy and efficient, but as Richard pointed out, we start an aweful lot with a 1♦ response. It's almost like a transfer opening!
When we get intervention in 4th seat, we still don't know anything about partner's strength and shape.

Using semipositives helps a lot in that matter. You immediatly know a lot more about partner's hand, and if partner is GF opps won't intervene that much anyway, so no urgent need to show shape immediatly.

About that double negative: it's not very difficult to find a decent contract. Ok, it's a little more difficult, because opener might be an absolute minimum or invite opposite a maximum double negative. Using canapé transfers makes things quite playable.

Imo, 1♦ as GF and 1♠ as double negative is the best. Showing 'any semipositive' with 1♦ might be a good idea, but not showing shape is a disadvantage. 1♦ as negative and others as GF is ok, but not as good as making an immediate difference between double negative and semipositive.

Bearmum: yes, imo you're totally missing the full picture over strong 1♣ openings. Opponents like to intervene (beginners might be afraid, but any decent player will intervene quite a lot), so you have to be able to handle that in all situations. Using an overloaded negative makes handling intervention VERY hard. Using one or more semipositive responses makes the bidding more relaxed.

[mikestar]

I must say that the 1♦ positive 1♠ double negative seems like a good idea to me, especially over weaker big clubs. As for not being able to get out in 1M, so what? neither can the field unless responder passes a natural 1M opening--and they will only get to play it on a misfit.

And you don't lose all chance to play in 1♠--since it is double negative, opener can have a hand with long spades where game is impossible--then his rebid is pass!

You sure can't pass a 1♦ negative or semi-positive response--responder could have enough that game is sure opposite a fit but not be strong enough for a GF response. Take for example ♠QTx ♥Kx ♦Qxxx ♣xxxx -- clearly not enogh to guarantee game opposite any minimum big club, but wouldn't you expect 3NT to fetch if partner had 6-7 decent diamonds in even a dead minumum big club? Yet this is they very hand he would pass 1♦ on if he dared.

Maybe 1♥ double negative would be even better, but loses a step in the relays for the minimum semi-positive, which is likely to be a bit of a catch-all. For those not using relays or only using them after GF responses, the saving of the step on the double negative might be more important.

Hmm... perhaps 1♦ positive, 1♥ double negative, 1♠-2♥ transfer semi positives, etc?

[bearmum]

Free, on Aug 14 2005, 09:00 AM, said:

Bearmum: yes, imo you're totally missing the full picture over strong 1♣ openings.  Opponents like to intervene (beginners might be afraid, but any decent player will intervene quite a lot), so you have to be able to handle that in all situations.  Using an overloaded negative makes handling intervention VERY hard.  Using one or more semipositive responses makes the bidding more relaxed.

Ty for response BUT I thought the original question was NOT about the responses over an intervening bid over a Precision 1♣

That is a horse of a different colour -- and there are LOTS of ways to convey your point count and distribution over intervening bids

[Free]

Bearmum, people are allowed to intervene in 4th hand after 1♣-pass-1♦-... and there you get problems if you don't use semi-positives, I thought it was clear from my explanation. After intervention in 2nd seat, most use pass as double negative, but this is a completely different topic.

[whereagles]

I'm not convinced 1♣-1♦ as game force is superior to the usual scheme of 1♣-1x = gf. But I must confess I never tried it, so I might change my mind after I try it.