[Flameous]

http://toohighagain....-structure.html

There is the structure I've been playing for a good while with okay results, and we haven't really fine tuned all the relays.
Our responses are quite weird but they seem to work somewhat.

1♦ ->

1♥ = Nat or GF relay
1♠ = Nat
1NT = Naturalish
2♣ = Multi sort of bid, either simple raise in ♦, weak in either major or balanced inv (This sounds horrible but it works when it comes up)
2♦ = Inv+ raise, may have 4 card major (Pretty much always 5+♦)
2♥/♠ = Reverse Flannery
2NT = GF with clubs
3♣ = Inv with clubs
3♦ = Pre

Reverse Flannery might be a bit overkill there to handle all the major hands since 4-4 heart fit would be easy to find after 1♠ too but it does help making some bids forcing. Other use for them might be 4M6+C hands since those are really the hard ones to handle.

[fromageGB]

If you wanted an essentially natural method that distinguishes between 3 and 4 card major support, you could try

After 1♦ 1♥
O bids 1NT = shortage in ♥
Raises = 4 card support
1♠ = either 4351 or 4x6x shape <18 count and then ...
. . R bids 1NT = denies 4 ♠, less than invitational and then ...
. . . . O bids 2/3♥ = 3 card support
. . . . 2/3♦ = 4x6x
. . or 2♣ unnatural forcing, otherwise. And then ...
. . . . O bids 2/3♦ = 4x6x or
. . . . 2/3♥ = 4351 shape, for responder to then bid ...
. . . . . . 2/3♠ with 4 cards
. . . . . . pass to play in hearts
. . . . . . 2NT denies 4 ♠, does not want to play in hearts, invitational

After 1♦ 1♠
O bids 1NT = shortage in ♠
Raises = 4 card support
2♥ = 3451 or 18+ x46x shape and then
. . R bids 2/3♠ to play with 3 card support
. . 3♥ = GF 54xx shape
. . 2/3NT not wanting to play in spades and then ...
. . . . O bids ♦ with x46x shape

With this, responder has the choice of whether or not to play in the major opposite 3 card support.
When responder is 45xx you can always play in the 44 fit rather than the 53
When responder in 54xx you will play in the the 53 rather than the 44 unless responder is GF.

Don't think my partners will take the memory strain, but I think it's sound, and it is natural.

[gnasher]

 MickyB, on 2012-February-05, 17:35, said:

I doubt my reasons are anything new to you, but here goes -

"Unbalanced with a diamond suit" is a better initial description than "clubs or balanced [or strong]". It is more likely partner will be able to support us, either preemptively [1D-(P)-3D-??] or when oppo preempt us [1D-(2S)-3D]. Our hand may not have the expected 5th trump, but it rates to meet partner's expectations, especially as he rates to have some club length given that he hasn't decided to show a major instead.

Yes, but "Unbalanced with five diamonds or 4=4=4=1" is better defined than "Unbalanced with four or five diamonds; may have longer clubs". If 1♦ is nearly always five, you can freely raise with three of them. In your second auction, you gain the ability to compete when you have four diamonds opposite 4-5, but you lose when you have three diamonds opposite five.

[mgoetze]

 fromageGB, on 2012-February-06, 04:58, said:

If you wanted an essentially natural method that distinguishes between 3 and 4 card major support, you could try

What I really want is some comments on the rest of the opening bids given that I want to play transfers. I do appreciate the comments on alternative structures and I will certainly think about them but it's not my main focus at the moment.

[kenrexford]

Having played an unbalanced diamond like this for about 20-some years, I am firmly convinced that simple is best. Therefore, what I do with rebids is to simply bid naturally. This means that a 1NT rebid means a stiff in the major responder just bid, plus four hearts if Responder showed spades.

The only sexy artificial call I like is Golady 2♣. In that, 1♦-P-2♣ is GF and artificial, denying a 5-card major (might have one or both 4-card majors). Opener rebids with one-under, maybe something like:

2♦ = four hearts
2♥ = four spades
2♠ = both minors
2NT = both minors, extras
3♣ = long diamonds
3♦ = long diamonds, stiff club
3major = long diamonds, stiff here

You can add on a "might be invitationbal with support" if you want, or criss-cross works too, or even both (criss-cross being more of a contructive call, as opposed to invitational, then).

This structure allows agreement on a major at a lower level, which allows cuebidding better, which is what I like. You probably would first do a pattern unwind, though. E.g., 1♦-2♣!, 2♦(hearts)-2♥(agreed), 2♠ = 3451 or so, 2NT = 1453 or so.

You might even want to use "Smolen" after this specific auction. In other words:

1♦-2♣, 2♦(hearts)-?

2♥ = spades
2♠ = hearts agreed

That allows all majors to be agreed at the two-level (Opener can re-rebid 2♠ with 4-4-4-1 or 4-4-5-0).

[fromageGB]

> What I really want is some comments on the rest of the opening bids given that I want to play transfers.

OK, comments.

Before you get to opener's transfer rebids, my thoughts on the immediate responses :
> 2♦ = 6+ either major, 5-8(9) points
I found it was too high when responder bids 2M with weak 6 card opposite a shortage, as I used to do. Admittedly with 2♦ you have the option of playing in 2♦ when you are long in ♦, but with a misfit I would prefer to play in 1NT. Make it 7+ and it's good.
> 2♥ = 5 spades, 4 hearts, 6-9 points
Again too high when opener has the hand with both minors only.
> 2NT (semi)balanced invite
May get a problem when the opposition reel off the first 5 tricks in your shortage suit when you are 3 suited. If this could be incorporated in the 2♣ response then at least opener can play in long diamonds, or perhaps bid his shortage to allow responder to escape from NT if his holding in the shortage suit is poor.

As to the transfer opener rebids, I have never played them, but see no problem other than weakish opening hands with a shortage in that major. After 1♦ 1♠, what do you do? It seems that all possible replies mean something else.

If you are supposing that you will want to play in 2♣ with a 1444 opener opposite a 5323 (and many similar configurations) then it's not something I would choose. And if responder is supposed to pass your 1NT transfer when he is 5233 then you are in trouble when you have the 2155 hand.

By not playing transfers, you have an extra bid, of course, to handle this.

[Phil]

Sorry to continue the threadjack, but I agree with AWM - the continuations after responder's call are the most interesting.

Gnome and I developed 1N to be sort of Gazzilli - that folded in all kinds of awkward strong hands. Responder would rebid 2♣ with any GF (8+) hand, else support diamonds or rebid his major with something weak. Looking back I don't think the hand types were optimal, but I haven't seen anything superior to it either.

Back to the thread, I would treat the responses to 1♦ the same as if the call isn't unbalanced.

[phil_20686]

Sorry to be boring, but I play a 5+ or 4441 opening, and basically play the major suit response structure over it, with Jacoby, mixed and simple raises etc. I have always found thsi to be effective. I open one club with 5 diamonds in a balanced 18-19 count, but I open 1d in a weak nt if the diamonds are good, and like the major suit response structure, it works on the principle that you can always fine a rebid over a semi forcing NT if you need to since you always have four diamonds. 4441 are a nightmare, but I basically always just pass a NT with a 4441 in the 12-14 range, as partner always has long clubs and it is always a misfit so opposite a hand limited to be invitational, it is always worth a downgrade. If partner bids 3C invitational with good clubs and you are 4441 then you just have to lump it, but it doesnt happen very often, and a lot of the time the 6-1 fit is your best spot anyway.

[mgoetze]

 awm, on 2012-February-05, 12:15, said:

Suppose 1♥/1♠ are natural. What does it mean when opener rebids 1NT, since he cannot have a balanced hand? It makes some sense to play that 1♦-1♠-1NT shows four hearts. The problem patterns are 1453, 0454, maybe 1444 if that opens 1♦. Other than these shapes, opener has four spades or four clubs or six-plus diamonds all of which offer pretty easy rebids. There is some advantage to playing 1NT as "four hearts minimum" so that you can play 1NT on some misfits, but I think it's probably better to let the 1NT rebid be forcing (four hearts, any strength); this lets you rebid 1NT with 4♥/6♦ without worrying about playing in a silly spot, helps on some "in-between" hands where you are not quite strong enough to reverse, and also frees up opener's 2♥ rebid for some other use (perhaps a spade raise, to distinguish two types of raises at a low level). This structure also lets you play 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ as a possibly artificial one-round force (since your need to find 4-4 heart fits has disappeared); you could play it as 5/5 majors NF but I suspect this will be low-frequency and you might be better off passing (since opener will always have six-plus diamonds in that sequence and will never have four hearts).

I've thought about this some more. It seems that even if I like the 2♦ bid as nonforcing with 3-card support, I have 3 hand types to divide between 1NT and 2♣: those with 4 clubs, those with 4 hearts and those with 6+ diamonds and no side-suit. Looking at it this way, it does seem pretty obvious that the 4 hearts hand is the more important one, and it makes sense to bid 1NT with 4 hearts and lump the other two into 2♣. The disadvantage is that we'll sometimes play in 2♦ when we had a better club fit available. The advantage is that we don't need reverse Flannery, and we might be able to free up the 2♥ rebid as well. Does this seem coherent?

[glen]

 mgoetze, on 2012-February-17, 07:49, said:

... The disadvantage is that we'll sometimes play in 2♦ when we had a better club fit available ...

If you play in 2♦ when you have a better ♣ fit available, the opponents have missed playing in their major.

[WGF_Flame]

When I played 1D unbalanced, i made a structure that will let us bid both natural 2D which could be even with 3 card support, and also a bid for an inverted like to show stronger hands, for this i had to give up the natural 1NT, which i thought its not a problem since opener is unbalnced anyway.
it was something like this:
1M - nat
1NT - clubs 6-10 or GF
2C - relay inv+ could have 4M
2D - normal support (6-9) 3+D
2NT - nat inv
3C - 6Cs inv
3D - prempt.


i had a nice structur over 2C which i have writen somewhere.

I like the natural 2D very much and at worse i had to bid 1NT(showing clubs) with 3325 which i dont think its the end of the world.

[mgoetze]

The T-Walsh system I opened this thread for is now on the back burner as I need to get Swedish Club working in the next two months. So my current 1♦ is 11-16, 4+ diamonds unbalanced, includes 4441, 4144, 1444, (13)45, possibly 2245 when we don't treat it as balanced.

Partner does not want to play 1♦-1NT GF relay so that is out.

Given the limited opening it seems to make sense to define the responses of 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ as "to play".

I think awm has me convinced that 1♦-1♠-1NT should show 4 hearts. 2♣ will the have to be ambiguous as to which is longer. 2♥ and 2♠ will be spade raises (any suggestions as to the difference between those?) or perhaps 2♥ = 15-16 nat. 2NT can be the BWS standard death hand and possibly other hands as well. That leaves 2♦. Thinking aloud, can I get 2♦ to show 3-card spade support? What else do we need it for - anything two-suited is accounted for, leaving 2362, 2263, 1363 and 7+ diamonds. I could open 1♣/1NT on the 2362/2263, fudge a 2♣ rebid on 1363, and rebid a horribly wide-range 3♦ on 7+. Is it worth it? I dunno, probably not.

OK, 1♦-1♥. 1♠ nat is pretty obvious. Here's an idea: 2♦ shows 3-card support 11-14 (15-16 bids 2NT), 2♣ is canapé, and 1NT shows either 4+ clubs with ♦>♣ or single-suited diamonds, with no 3 hearts. Does that sound clever?

[straube]

I don't see much need to raise hearts with only 3-cd support and even less need to reserve a 2D rebid for the 1354 and 1345 patterns.

1D-1H
.....1S-4 spades or 3145
.....1N-6+ D
.....2C-5D/4C, possibly 3 hearts
.....2D-4 hearts with singleton
.....2H-4 hearts balanced
.....2S-4 hearts and void
.....2N-4 hearts and 6 diamonds
.....3C-1345

This is similar to what we play and is based on awm's structure (he doesn't like our 3C jump rebid). You might ask him for help.

[dake50]

How about reserving one/two bids for 'tell me more'
with the rest of the scheme showing 'I got this'.

[antonylee]

Here is what I currently play in a Polish framework, with 1♦=4+crd unbalanced, 11-bad18, could be 4♦5♣ if 11-14:
1♦-1♥...
1♠ nat
1N 4♦5♣, if opener bids over responder's preference it's nat, 15-18
2♣ 5♦4♣ (not sure whether distinguishing the two is worth it)
2♦ 6+♦
2♥ normal raise
2♠ reverse(?)
2N 6+♦, not 3♥
3♣ 5♦5♣ max
3♦ 6+♦3♥
etc.

and
1♦-1♠...
1N 54 minors either way (this way opener can always take a third bid over responder's preference)
2♣ 5♦4♥
2♦ 6+♦
2♥ 6+♦, 5 bad ♥ (again, not sure whether it's worth it, probably should be used as some sort of raise)
etc.

Over an artificial rebid by opener, responder's lower bids are usually signoffs, and bidding the suit that hasn't been shown is 4SF. So it's true that responder will have to go fairly high to force the auction (typical problem auction: 1♦-1♠-2♣!-3♣! (4SF)); OTOH opener has an easier time forcing the auction as his rebid will usually at least trigger a preference from responder.

[benlessard]

If you play in "liberal" midchart or higher and do your job properly you should be able to show nearly all shapes before 3Nt, of course since you are well placed right from the start you can expect good result by playing very basic, but if you want the best using 1H as a relay is obvious. 1D-1H-1S (showing clubs is also obvious once you started playing it). The only uncontested contracts we seems to go off is when slam is good because of a stiff K/Q in side suits, or sometimes 3Nt isnt the best spot despite having no fit & sometimes 3NT is the best spot because partner got a stiff K.


18-22
3064=3S
4450=3S


11-17
0355=3S

11-14
3073= 3S
6D bal 14+= 2S
3145= 3C

1D-(P)-1H-(??) can be annoying however but you should be ok if 1H showed at least 3H or good 9+ pts

[Zelandakh]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-17, 07:15, said:

Partner does not want to play 1♦-1NT GF relay so that is out.

That probably means 1♥ INV+ relay is out too? If not, well here is what I like to play...

==
1♦
==
1♥ = any INV+ (see below)
1♠ = natural, non-forcing, possible canape
1NT = hearts, non-forcing, possible canape
2♣ = natural, non-forcing
2♦ = natural, non-forcing
2M = ~3-7, 6+ suit
2NT = mixed raise
3♣ = ~3-7, 6+ suit
3♦ = weak raise

=======
1♦ - 1♥
=======
1♠ = min, <4 spades unless 4441 or 4450 (see below)
1NT = 4+ spades (see below)
2♣ = max, 4+ clubs, <4 spades, <4 hearts except 1444 or 0454, GF (2♦ relay (see below))
2♦ = max, 6+ diamonds, 1-suited, GF
2♥ = max, 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts, GF
2♠ = max, 4441, GF
2NT = max, 4450, 0-3 controls, GF

=======
1♦ - 1♥
1♠
=======
1NT = GF relay (continuations as 2♣ and higher over 1♥ but controls start at 2
2bids = natural with invitational hand
3bids = natural, GF

=======
1♦ - 1♥
1NT
=======
2♣ = GF relay (see below)
2bids = natural, invitational
3♣ = natural, invitational
3♦♥♠ = natural, GF

=======
1♦ - 1♥
1NT - 2♣
=======
2♦ = min
2♥ = 5 spades or 3-suited
2♠ = max, 6+ diamonds, 4 spades
2NT = max, 5 diamonds, 4 spades
3♣ = max, 4144
3♦ = max, 4054, 0-3 controls

=======
1♦ - 1♥
2♣ - 2♦
=======
2♥ = 5+ diamonds, 4 clubs
2♠ = 5+ diamonds, 5+ clubs
2NT = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds
3♣ = 1444
3♦ = 0454, 0-3 controls


For me, minimum is ~10-13 and maximum is ~14-17. That should be just fine for 11-13 (min) and 14-16 (max). Obviously it is a lot more to remember (and get wrong) than a more natural scheme though.