[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 06:36 PM, said:

I, as most, watched a great deal of the Spingold and I wasn't dazzled by the many relay structures used, especially the ones in 2/1 auctions and after forcing raises. It seemed a lot of room was used showing shapes but then there was a lot of guessing then at the 4-level of whether to try for slam or not. Some good slams were bid and some were missed - in my eyes, relay didn't seem to be show much of a net plus or net minus compared to more standard methods.

Which pairs in the Spingold were playing relay systems?

[kenrexford]

Scoring: IMP

---

For those who would open East with 1NT, change the hearts to xxxx.

Using a relay and/or asking bid approach, can this slam be bid? I have no idea if it can, but I am curious. "Natural" works here...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 25 2006, 10:40 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 06:36 PM, said:

I, as most, watched a great deal of the Spingold and I wasn't dazzled by the many relay structures used, especially the ones in 2/1 auctions and after forcing raises.  It seemed a lot of room was used showing shapes but then there was a lot of guessing then at the 4-level of whether to try for slam or not.  Some good slams were bid and some were missed - in my eyes, relay didn't seem to be show much of a net plus or net minus compared to more standard methods.

Which pairs in the Spingold were playing relay systems?

I recognize that you are a brilliant mind - I am not. I don't remember specifics but it seems that Meckstroth/Rodwell as well as the Italian pairs had a lot relay structures.

I also freely admit that I have never played a "pure" relay structure, so I cannot criticize its effectiveness - and do not mean to do so. My attempt is to compare and see if a more natural method might adequately do the job.

The idea of a having game-forcing hand opposite an opening bid take charge and start asking questions is unique to me but I am flexible enough of mind and opinions to see that this may indeed be the best method - I just have not seen much of it nor read much of it. But I can see the sense of it. It may be the standard of bidding 10 years from now.

I also know my partner would have a real problem adapting. So I was wondering how much better is it verses other methods - can other methods well-constructed compete.

When you see something being played by world-class players, it makes you believe that maybe they are on to something, no?

[hrothgar]

Using a relay and/or asking bid approach, can this slam be bid? I have no idea if it can, but I am curious. "Natural" works here...[/QUOTE]
Playing modern MOSCITO with East as opener

Stage 1: Reveal shape

1♣ - 1♦ (1♣ = strong, 1♦ = game force)
1N - 2♣ (1N = minimum hand, balanced or any 4441, 2♣ = relay)
2♦ - 2♥ (2♦ = 4+ Hearts, 2♥ = relay)
3♦ (3♦ = 2-4-3-4 shape)

Stage 2: Ask for controls

3♥ - 3N (3H = Slam point ask, 3N = 10 slam points)

Stage 3: Place controls

4♣ - 4♦ (4♣ = DCB, 4♦ = 0 or 3 heart honors)
4♥ - 5♦ (4♥ = DCB, 5♦ = honors in ♣♦♠♣, no second ♦)
5♥ - 5♠ (5♥ = DCB, 5♠ = no second spade honor)

After 5♠, relay responder is marked with

AK of Clubs
A of Diamonds
K of Spades

Sadly, there isn't enough room to safely ask for the Jack of Clubs so you need to settle for 6♥

BTW, given that the natural bidders are so much better at placing jacks, i'd love to see a convincing sequence that can different between

AK86 and
AKJ6

in the East hand

With West as Dealer, the auction is pretty similar

Stage 1

1C - 1♦
1N - 2♣
2♦ - 2N
3♣ - 3♠

3♠ shows a minimum strong club opening with 3=5=3=2 shape

Stage 2

Ask for controls

4♣ - 4♥ (4♥ = s10 lam points)

Place controls

4♥ - 4♠ (4♥ = DCB, 4♠ = 0 or 3 Hearts honors)
4N - 5♦ (4N = DCB, 5♦ ♠ honor, no Diamond honor)
5♥ - 5N (5♥ = DCB, 5N = Club honor, no second Spade honor)
6♥

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

Dealer: East Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ A93 ♥ AKQ103 ♦ 1043 ♣ Q9 ♠ K4 ♥ J965 ♦ A86 ♣ AK86

For those who would open West with 1NT, change the hearts to xxxx.

Using a relay and/or asking bid approach, can this slam be bid?  I have no idea if it can, but I am curious.  "Natural" works here...

This is a joke right? Let's start with that in many relay systems you can choose whether to relay OR to show support immediately. For example, here I could either bid 1♠ GF relay or 2♦ Limit raise or better on the East cards. I can make a simple argument that the 2♦ bid is 3 steps lower than a 2NT bid in natural and therefore has more room to explore. But here is the relay sequence as we would bid it (not I'm going to use the weak relay rather than the strong b/c of the balanced opposite balanced issue in reaching slam).

I will make West opener as asked. Note that in "Tarzan club" you need 16 hcp to open 1♣, whereas in MOSCITO it's 15. Nevertheless, it's easy enough even opposite a limited opening (and certainly easy enough opposite a strong club).

Stage 1 - Set GF and find out complete shape

1♥ - 1♠ (GF relay)
3♦ (5=3=3=2)

Stage 2 - Find out general values (alternatively ask for controls or keycard)
... - 3♠ (weak relay - are you min/max?)
4♦ (max with 5 controls)

Stage 3 - Place honours
... - 4[hi] (asking)
4♠ - 4NT (4♠ showed 0 or 3 top ♥)
5♦ - 5♥ (5♦ showed A/K of ♠ and not of ♦)
5NT - 6♥ (5NT showed A/K/Q of ♣ and no ♥J)
Pass

Ok, the decision in essence being made by the 4♠ bid (as there's a risk to get too high over 4N.) Responder knows that opener is AAK (for controls) and has AKQ of hearts. But furthermore, responder knows that opener is not minimum (has 14-15 hcp). So aside from holding the ♠A and ♥AKQ, he must also hold another honour or honours (Q, J, or 2 jacks). If in spades, it's at worse on a finesse AJx of spades on a finesse. AQx of spades, laydown. If in diamonds, it will be if the K is onside Qxx of diamonds or no play (same hand but Jxx of diamonds). If in clubs laydown if the Q and a 50% chance if the J on a non-diamond lead. Of course you cannot find out exactly, but you have very accurate "guesswork." So the possibilities are:

Slam is laydown:
AQ3 AKQT3 T43 93
A93 AKQT3 T43 Q9

Slam is 50%:
AJ3 AKQT3 J43 93
AJ3 AKQT3 T43 J3
AJ3 AKQT3 T43 93
A93 AKQT3 Q43 93

Slam is <50%:
A93 AKQT3 T43 J3
A93 AKQT3 J43 93

Can your system distinguish all of these hands?

[kenrexford]

This looks good, but I have a lurking question. Have hearts been agreed as trumps? If not, when could the partnership sign off? Each bid along the way seems to ask relevant questions, but are all the calls safe if the answer is poor? In other words, is this series of Q&A calculated to end at game when slam is off?

For that matter, I assume that 1♣ promised 15+? Change the hearts to xxxx, and will this auction be the saqme, or will a different auction work as well to the same slam?

[kenrexford]

FYI -- assuming a 1♣ natural opening from East, my "natural" approach defines this hand very well. Responder bids 1♥ and is raised to 2♥. 2♠ by West is now a long suit game try or a spade cue. As east can accept, he starts to cue. 2NT by East accepts the game try (maximum, probable help in spades) and denies thereby good trumps. West clarifies his intentions by cuebidding 3♣, showing a top (A/K/Q) club honor, clarifying that 2♠ was a cue. It also shows good trumps (a "cover" for East's poor trumps).

East now cues 3♦, a control. West cues 3H to clarify that his hearts are two top honors (or better). East clarifies that his "help" in spades was the Ace or King, with 3♠. This allows West to cue 3NT (Serious), contextually expected to indicate at least one unshown control, of course.

When East solidifies clubs (4♣ -- two top honors), West knows that East holds a maximum, with Kx(x) in spades, xxxx in hearts, a diamond control, and AKx(x) in clubs. 10 tricks are obvious from power alone, if Opener holds the death Kxx-xxxx-Kxx-AKx. An 11th will come from a diamond finesse, if needed, and the 12th from a spade or diamond shortness. 4D LTTC will work.

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S. 4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

This looks good, but I have a lurking question.  Have hearts been agreed as trumps?  If not, when could the partnership sign off?  Each bid along the way seems to ask relevant questions, but are all the calls safe if the answer is poor?  In other words, is this series of Q&A calculated to end at game when slam is off?

For that matter, I assume that 1♣ promised 15+?  Change the hearts to xxxx, and will this auction be the saqme, or will a different auction work as well to the same slam?

Take away the Jack of Hearts and the hand is not longer suitable for a strong club opening.

The auction would start with a 1♦ opening showing 4+ Hearts. I personally would make a conventional 2♠ response showing 4+ Hearts and game invite+ in values (I don't like to relay with a big fit since it increases the chances that the opponents will intervene and decreases your ability to punish them when they do)

If I did relay, the auction would start

1♦ - 1H (1♦ = 4+ Hearts, 1♥ = relay)
1M - 2♣ (1NT = balanced or 4 Hearts, 2♣ = relay)
2♦ (2♦ = balanced with 4+ hearts...)

The remainder of the auction would be identical

This indicates one of the nice features of a relay auction... You are applying a standardized system rather than special casing everything

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S.  4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

All very impressive, if a bit contrived...

I am, however, curious why 6♣ specifically asked for the Club Jack...
What if you needed the club Queen instead?

[Winstonm]

Quote

BTW, given that the natural bidders are so much better at placing jacks, i'd love to see a convincing sequence that can different between

AK86 and
AKJ6

in the East hand

The only time I've been able to show/place jacks was years ago when I played Sontag/Weichsel Power Precision - in the suit asking bids they devised, if responder showed a positve and a suit, the 1C opener could then ask and responder could show a suit with honors plus the jack.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Jul 25 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S.  4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

All very impressive, if a bit contrived...

I am, however, curious why 6♣ specifically asked for the Club Jack...
What if you needed the club Queen instead?

As you already showed the club Queen, you cannot need that card. As partner showed AKx+, his "missing potential value" is the club Jack. Voila!

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

Quote

BTW, given that the natural bidders are so much better at placing jacks, i'd love to see a convincing sequence that can different between

AK86 and
AKJ6

in the East hand

The only time I've been able to show/place jacks was years ago when I played Sontag/Weichsel Power Precision - in the suit asking bids they devised, if responder showed a positve and a suit, the 1C opener could then ask and responder could show a suit with honors plus the jack.

Discovery of missing Jacks is not all that difficult. In my cuebidding approach, I can discover Jacks in many sequences.

First, most Picture Jumps promise three of the top four honors in a specific suit. If the fourth is held by partner, the Jack is known to be held by the partnership.

Second, after Picture Jumps, some asking bids request information about the side suits, seeking Jacks.

Third, when a series of cues have located the A, K, and Q, or two of these with a known gap, a later cue is often the Jack.

Fourth, 4NT is occasionally bid when control count is known, such that "anything else" concepts allow introduction of Jacks.

A simple example where Jacks are known all over:

1S-P-2C-P-2D-P-2S. Starts out with GF and spades trumps.

If Opener now bids 4C, he is known to have two top honors (or better) in spades, three of the top four honors in diamonds, and a stiff in clubs. If Responder holds the diamond Queen, for example, Responder knows about the diamond Jack.

Responder might then bid 4H, asking about clubs. Sure, clubs are stiff, but the responses are 4S (low stiff), 4NT (stiff Jack), or 5C (stiff Queen).

After 4NT (stiff Jack), Responder might bid 5H, asking for the spade Jack.

I have to admit that this "natural" approach includes some asking bids after Picture Jumps. However, similar principles and definition can exist in non-jump cuebidding. For example, if one person shows the exact hand necessary for a Picture Jump, but does not do this, we "know" that he is missing the Jack in his side suit, often.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 25 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

Here is my contention and my partner and I have discussed this very issue.
When we sit down against Hamman/Hamman/Lall/Lall or other teams of this caliber, we are underdogs. But for us that is the fun of the game and those are the players against whom we want to compete. We don't chase masterpoints - better to play a WC and getted knocked out day 1 than reach the finals against someone of your own level. Oddsmakers would make us 3-1 or 4-1 against in a 24 board match, let's say. If we all reached the same contracts and we relied on card play and defense to win, our odds would go down to some 99-1.

The only way to for us to compete with them is to outbid them. If we were talking about evenly matched opponents, I would agree with you. But if your goal is to be competetive against these types of players, unless you yourself can match their level of play the only advantage you can have is in the bidding.

On average, these teams are 12-13 imps better than us at the start. If we can reach just 1 slam that they cannot, we have brought this spread back to near even and then the match is on.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 25 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

Here is my contention and my partner and I have discussed this very issue.
When we sit down against Hamman/Hamman/Lall/Lall or other teams of this caliber, we are underdogs. But for us that is the fun of the game and those are the players against whom we want to compete. We don't chase masterpoints - better to play a WC and getted knocked out day 1 than reach the finals against someone of your own level. Oddsmakers would make us 3-1 or 4-1 against in a 24 board match, let's say. If we all reached the same contracts and we relied on card play and defense to win, our odds would go down to some 99-1.

The only way to for us to compete with them is to outbid them. If we were talking about evenly matched opponents, I would agree with you. But if your goal is to be competetive against these types of players, unless you yourself can match their level of play the only advantage you can have is in the bidding.

On average, these teams are 12-13 imps better than us at the start. If we can reach just 1 slam that they cannot, we have brought this spread back to near even and then the match is on.

Winston, First off Congrats, a big Congrats on having your article published in BW! That is great. Of course we forum posters got to read it more than a year ago it seems. Now the rest of the bridge world can catch up with us.

Secondly I do not accept your proposition that the GNT winners bid slams better than your team so that is the number one area your team needs to focus on to win.

I do know when my late night online partner/buddy lost to the GNT winners it was not slam bidding that was their downfall.

Hopefully I can coax an email out of him or his partner to give their thoughts on the loss. It would be great to hear more from Phil, Uday, Han and other forum posters who played in the Spingold and their thoughts.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston, First off Congrats, a big Congrats on having your article published in BW! That is great. Of course we forum posters got to read it more than a year ago it seems. Now the rest of the bridge world can catch up with us.

Secondly I do not accept your proposition that the GNT winners bid slams better than your team so that is the number one area your team needs to focus on to win. 

Thanks a lot Mike. That's why I like this forum so much. Alternate views can be given and respected - respected being the key word.

Perhaps I made myself unclear. What I meant is that these types opps do not bid slam better than we do - and if we turn a match into a "par" event we have no chance. Their advatage is in card play and judgment and experience. The only hope we have to gain an advantage is in the bidding. (Given that no matter how hard we try we will not totally catch up to them in card play/experiece.)

For those not familiar with the BW article, it started with the simple premise of being unhappy with traditional responses to major-suit weak two bids. To me, the most likely game contract is 4 of the opened major, yet most methods seemed to be geared to reaching 3N. "A Losing Trick Count Over Weak Two Bids" is designed to bid the major suit game ahead of the quest for 3N.