[DrTodd13]

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat meaning 5+♦, 9-14, and
no 4 card major unless 4450. You have the hand as presented
and your options are:

1N: to play, non-forcing
2♣: artificial, invitational or better, relay...to which pd will respond:
  2♦: with 5+♣
  2♥: with 4♣
  2♠: single-suited hand with ♠ shortness or 3262 or 2362.
  2N: single-suited hand with ♥ shortness
  3♣: 2263
  3♦+: single-suited hand with ♣ shortness
2♦+: to play, non-forcing

What is your bid?

[Gerben42]

Since 2♣ is the only low forcing bid I bid that. What happens?

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: The relay scheme looks very inefficient

1. You can't show 4-4-5-0 hands
2. You can't show 5332s with primary Diamonds (Please note: if 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand, why is 1NT natural and non-forcing rather than the relay?)
3. The following alternative scheme makes much more efficient used of available space

2♦ = single suited with Diamonds
2♥ = 5+ Diamonds and 4 Clubs
2♠ = 5+ Diamonds and 5+ Clubs
2N = 0-4-5-4 shape
3♣ = 4-0-5-4 shape
3♦ = 4-4-5-0 shape

Comment 2: I think that you need to relay...
You have game invitation value. You need to show this.

The main problem is that partner is almost certainly going to zoom to 2♠+ which is going to leave you very poorly positioned...

[Free]

2♣, we probably have a ♣ fit since 1♠ is quite minor-oriented...

[awm]

I'm a definite nonbeliever in the methods. This hand could make slam opposite:

xx
x
KQxxx
Axxxx

This is fairly minimum and even has wastage in diamonds. On the other hand, you can't make much at all opposite:

Jxx
xx
AQJxxx
Ax

Not even particularly close to minimum, and yet 3NT seems pretty poor despite 25 combined and any other game is nearly hopeless.

I don't really understand:

(1) How partner limits his hand so you can stop short of game on "invitational" auctions.
(2) How you can explore for the best strain without being forced to decide on forcing game before you know anything about partner's distribution besides 5+♦.

Anyways, supposing I'm straightjacketed by the methods, when does partner bid versus pass over 1NT? If partner would bid holding 5-5 minors hands, it makes the 1NT call much more appealing. If partner basically always passes then this is bad. What does 2NT show? Can this be a good (but non-GF) hand with two suits not including diamonds (seems a useful treatment)? If I bid 2♥ "to play" will partner pull with a heart void, or does he always leave it in? Assuming the "wrong" answers to all these points, I'll try 2♣ and hope for the best.

[DrTodd13]

5332 with diamonds is opened 1N. You can then relay out the shape and discover the 5♦. 4450 is not lost because you open 1♠. It is shown as one of the single-suited shapes, admittedly at a higher level. Our general approach is that relay breaks after 2♣ below game are natural and invitational. So, relayer will show a minimum but opener can't. The problem which some have noticed is that if you bid 2♣ then you're almost sure to hear partner say 2N+ (doubt he has ♠ shortness...probably more likely ♥ or ♣ shortness) and now you're very poorly positioned to bid anything. As someone noted, the solution may be in defining a 2N bid because at this point it is quite pointless. Maybe 2N could indicate an invitational hand with 0-1♦. I was thinking 2♥ might have some merit. Opener will probably take some action with a max.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 31 2006, 05:01 AM, said:

I'm a definite nonbeliever in the methods. This hand could make slam opposite:

xx
x
KQxxx
Axxxx

This is fairly minimum and even has wastage in diamonds. On the other hand, you can't make much at all opposite:

Jxx
xx
AQJxxx
Ax

Not even particularly close to minimum, and yet 3NT seems pretty poor despite 25 combined and any other game is nearly hopeless.

MOSCITO uses a fairly similar 1♠

1♠ unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds. Either

1. 6+ Diamonds, single suited or
2. Two suited with both minors or
3. 6+ Diamonds and a 4 card major

1NT is used as a relay with game invitational or better values

The methods are quite playable (admittedly, we use 2NT as a Diamond raise with 4+ trump and 2♠ as an invite with 3+ in both minors. Personally, I'd start by bidding 2NT with both hands)

I'm not sure how Todd would handle these two hands. I will note that the hands are far from trivial for a "standard" system. I'd expect hand one to start with

1♦ - 2♦ (inverted minor)
3♣

Hand two would start

1♦ - 2♦ (inverted minor)
3♦

In both cases, the lack of major suit stoppers causes you to burn a lot of bidding space

[Free]

Richard, that's a whole new structure over 1♠... Don't know why it changed, never had problems with the original scheme.

[awm]

Hmm, I think Richard is misinterpreting. I'm giving possible hands for opener and arguing that responder is badly placed with Dr Todd's hand, since we can easily have slam opposite a "minimum" opening bid or have no game opposite a "maximum" -- it all depends on how the hands fit together.

It's a fairly common situation that partner opens, and you have a decent but not great hand without a good fit for partner's suit. You'd like to either give partner some information about your hand, or get some more information about partner's hand. If it turns out you actually have a fit in some suit (likely not the suit partner opened) then you're probably going to game (or maybe even further). If it turns out you have no good fit, then you try to get out in a decent partial.

My feeling is that any methods that can't deal with the situation described above really need some revision. The methods DrTodd describes really seem to fail on this hand. We have no fit for diamonds, but could easily make a game in hearts or clubs, or even a slam in clubs opposite a good fit. We'd like to either tell partner something about our hand, or find out something about partner's hand. But it seems like the only forcing bid that finds out about partner's hand is the 2♣ relay, which basically forces to game when partner has the one-suiter in diamonds (exactly the wrong hand for us). And all the bids which tell partner about our hand are basically signoffs, especially annoying since the hands that make slam in clubs are among the most likely to pass our 2♥ "signoff" and leave us in a partial that may well go down.

If I was forced to play methods where 2♣ response here is inv+ relay, and opener will zoom up to the three level with some hands without distinguishing max from min... I'd rather have the zoom be on hands with both diamonds and clubs. Then at least I can bid 2♣ on hands like this one with some protection and get out when all partner has is diamonds. After all, I already knew partner had diamonds for the opening -- telling me he has six diamonds instead of five is unlikely to upgrade my invite to a game force, whereas telling me he is 5-5 in the minors is more likely to do so.

[hrothgar]

Free, on Jan 31 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Richard, that's a whole new structure over 1♠...  Don't know why it changed, never had problems with the original scheme.

Which structure are you talking about?

The relays that I suggested for Dr. Todd or the response structure over MOSCITO's 1♦ opening?

In terms of the MOSCITO response structure: Paul decided to tweak things again

1N = relay
2♣ = transfer to Hearts
2♦ = transfer to Spades
2♥ = transfer to Clubs
2♠ = game invite with 3+/3+ in the minors
2N = game invite+ with 4+ Diamonds

The main gain is the transfer to clubs, along with the 2♠ raise.
The main lose is the weak jump shift to 2M. As I understand matters, it was felt that hands suitable for a WJS to 2♥/2♠ were few and far between..

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 31 2006, 01:04 PM, said:

Hmm, I think Richard is misinterpreting. I'm giving possible hands for opener and arguing that responder is badly placed with Dr Todd's hand, since we can easily have slam opposite a "minimum" opening bid or have no game opposite a "maximum" -- it all depends on how the hands fit together.

Sorry, I got things backwards....

For what its worth, MOSCITO uses 1NT as the relay, after which

2♣ = two suited with both minors
2♦ = single suited with Diamonds
2♥ = 6+ Diamonds and 4 (bad) Hearts
2♠ = 6+ Diamonds and 4 (bad) Spades

we don't zoom past 2♠

Personally, I think we're a lot better positioned....

(I also think that the alternative relay scheme that I suggested to Dr. Todd works better)

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

Free, on Jan 31 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Richard, that's a whole new structure over 1♠...  Don't know why it changed, never had problems with the original scheme.

Which structure are you talking about?

The relays that I suggested for Dr. Todd or the response structure over MOSCITO's 1♦ opening?

In terms of the MOSCITO response structure: Paul decided to tweak things again

1N = relay, game invite+
2♣ = transfer to Hearts
2♦ = transfer to Spades
2♥ = transfer to Clubs
2♠ = game invite with 3+/3+ in the minors
2N = game invite+ with 4+ Diamonds

The main gain is the transfer to clubs, along with the 2♠ raise.
The main lose is the weak jump shift to 2M. As I understand matters, it was felt that hands suitable for a WJS to 2♥/2♠ were few and far between..

You also seem to have lost the ability to play in one of partner's suits at the 2 level - or had that gone a while back?

[Gerben42]

How about:

1NT = invite+ relay
2♣ = if you have ♣ I want to play there instead of in ♦
2♦ = to play
2♥♠ = NF natural
2NT = GI with 3+3+ minors
3♣ = GI with 4+♦
3♦ = preemptive

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Jan 31 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

You also seem to have lost the ability to play in one of partner's suits at the 2 level - or had that gone a while back?

Not sure what you mean:

I always have the option of bidding 1NT and passing partner's response...
(Note that all the response are natural)

[DrTodd13]

After viewing this thread and some discussion, foobar and I are going to switch to the following and see how it works. It is hard to determine this because 1♠ has such a low frequency but let's see what people think. After 1♠ we have:

1N = relay, invite+ or weak hand with ♦ support
   2♣ = single-suited ♦ hand
      2♦ = to play
      2♥ = shape relay
   2♦ = 4♣
   2♥ = 5+♣, high-shortness
   2♠ = 5+♣, equal-shortness
   2N+ = 5+♣, low-shortness, various shapes
2♣ = 5+♥, F1
2♦ = 5+♠, F1
2♥ = to play, probably 6♥
2♠ = to play, probably 6♠
2N = 5/5 majors invite

The idea is we don't want to jump to show single-suited ♦ hands because that leaves us poorly placed. We still want to be able to play 2♦ much of the time after a 1♠ opening and we retain that because after that 1N relay, opener's most likely bids are 2♣ or 2♦ (5♦4♣ more common than 5/5 that's why 2♦ is 4♣ instead of 2♥ which would be more symmetric but we give symmetricness up for practicality). After 2♣, 2♦ is to play. If opener responds 2♦ then responder can pass that. If opener shows 5/5 minors then now maybe you know you have a fit in 3♣ but in the worst case you may have to fall back to 3♦. We aren't that sure about the 1♠-2N sequence but it seems like this might be the trouble hand, 5/5 in both majors invite. If in practice some other invitational hand is more troublesome than 5/5 majors then we'll try to work it into 2N.

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 31 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

You also seem to have lost the ability to play in one of partner's suits at the 2 level - or had that gone a while back?

Not sure what you mean:

I always have the option of bidding 1NT and passing partner's response...
(Note that all the response are natural)

I believe 1NT didn't promise values before. Now it is defined as inv+.

[hrothgar]

Once again, I think you can tighten this up

1♠ - 1N = relay, not necessarily strong

2♣ = two suited with 4+ Clubs and 5+ Diamonds
----- 2♦ = relay
--------------- 2♥ = 5+ Diamonds and 5+ Clubs
--------------- 2♠+ 5+ Diamonds and 4 Clubs
2♦ = single suited with 6+ Diamonds
2♥ = 5440 patterns with 5 Diamonds

You're saving a step with your single suited patterns which are much more common than your 5-5s

Personally, I dislike relaying with hands with an 8+ card fit. The opponents always seem to crach our auctions. I really recomment using 2NT as a Diamond raise

[hrothgar]

Pay no attention to the typo behind the curtain

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Once again, I think you can tighten this up

1♠ - 1N = relay, not necessarily strong

2♣ = two suited with 4+ Clubs and 5+ Diamonds
----- 2♦ = relay
--------------- 2♥ = 5+ Diamonds and 5+ Clubs
--------------- 2♠+ 5+ Diamonds and 4 Clubs
2♦ = single suited with 6+ Diamonds
2♥ = 5440 patterns with 5 Diamonds

You're saving a step with your single suited patterns which are much more common than your 5-5s

Personally, I dislike relaying with hands with an 8+ card fit. The opponents always seem to crach our auctions. I really recomment using 2NT as a Diamond raise

If the idea is to be able to play 2♦ after the 1N relay then you can't use 2♦ as the relay after a 2♣ response by opener. I might change my mind and make 1♠-1N-2♥ the 4450 hand and then push the existing 2♥+ up one step which is actually more symmetric.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jan 31 2006, 10:34 PM, said:

If the idea is to be able to play 2♦ after the 1N relay then you can't use 2♦ as the relay after a 2♣ response by opener.

Are there really all that many hands where you specifically want to takeout to 2♦?
(This is a genuine question... Playing MOSCITO we typically are either happy to pass 1♠, pass a 2♣ advance, or raise to 3♦ from the get go...

The fact that you promise 5 Diamonds makes it more likely that you want to pull Clubs to Diamonds. At the same time, it makes raising to 3♦ more attraction.

I guess that the problem hands are the 4=5=2=2, potentially 5=4=2=2s