[inquiry]

Many players have adopted an artificial relay (cheapest bid) over 1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦ to show either a minimum balanced minimum hand or a minimum unbalanced hand. I was wondering if this type of concept might not be extended specifically to the auction...

1♣-1♦, where

a 1♥ is unbalanced minimum with long clubs or clubs and hearts
a 1♠ rebid shows a minimum balanced hand
a 1NT rebid shows a maximum balanced hand
a 2♣ rebid promises unbalanced mimumim hand with clubs and spades
a 2♦ rebid shows a minimum unbalanced with diamond support


Over 1♠, 1NT/2♣/2♦ are all to play.
Over 1NT = xzy is on
Over 1♥, - 1♠ ask for description. With hearts and clubs rebid 1NT, with clubs only, rebid 2♣

If one wanted to argue that 1♥ and 1♠ are both forcing, one could include some impossible hands into their description as well. For example, 1♠ could be minimum balanced or GF with solid long clubs. If partner bids 1NT, then 3NT shows this hand. I am not advocating such two way descriptions for now, I just want to know if such a scheme is playable. Obviously there are some disadvantages, but using a Walsh based sysem, how important is it to play 1M rebids as natural? At least one huge advantage shows up right away, after a 1♠ rebid by opener, you can play 1NT instead of 2NT.

If you (or in this case, I) would consider such a scheme, what improvements or changes might you suggest. For example, 1♠ could be balanced either weak or monsterly strong (since I don't play 2NT opening bids as strong, this could fill the gap on at least some auctions).

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I certainly agree that traditional bdding structures over a natural 1♣ opening can be improved substantially.

Comment 2: If I were going to adopt some kind of complex rebid schedule after 1♣ - 1♦, I'd wipe the slate clean. Personally, I think that its a mistake to use a 1♦ response to a 1♣ opening as natural bid. I'm not sure what this should show. I do, however, find it quite amusing that the transfer response structure that many folks recommend look suspiciously like MOSCITO's opening structure.

Comment 3: You response structure is going to be dependent on your 1♦ response style. For example, would responder advance 1♦ or 1N holding a 3=3=5=2 hand and the "appropriate" range for 1NT

[MickyB]

The main gain appears to be gaining a level on strong balanced hands, which is certainly helpful if the range is to be 17-19; The main loss appears to be two steps on unbal hands with clubs and a major. This may (or may not) be an improvement on standard methods, but I suspect it is going to be less effective and more complex than transfer responses to 1♣.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Nov 16 2006, 09:40 AM, said:

Comment 3:  You response structure is going to be dependent on your 1♦ response style.  For example, would responder advance 1♦ or 1N holding a 3=3=5=2 hand and the "appropriate" range for 1NT

I will not address the first two comments,

I respond 1NT to 1♣ with 3352 when I hold "top" of the normal range (9 to bad 11), I respond 1♦ when I hold lessor values. An argument could be made to reverse these ranges.

[inquiry]

MickyB, on Nov 16 2006, 09:46 AM, said:

The main gain appears to be gaining a level on strong balanced hands, which is certainly helpful if the range is to be 17-19; The main loss appears to be two steps on unbal hands with clubs and a major. This may (or may not) be an improvement on standard methods, but I suspect it is going to be less effective and more complex than transfer responses to 1♣.

MishovnBg insisted I play the following...

1C-1D
1NT = 17-19 balanced

That rebid worked very well.

However, we played that
1C-1D
1M

was either clubs and the bid major (could be balanced or unbalanced), and indeed the 1M could be a three card suit. To be honest the fact that it could be a 3 card suit (could not rebid 1NT with balanced min) was not the end of the world, but not being able to separate out unbalanced from balanced hands caused repeated nightmares for hand evaluation. So in such a scheme (since balanced hands are frequent, but 17-19 ones are not), this 1M rebid on any hand not strong enough for a reverse and not strong enough for 1NT rebid, has got to go.

[kenrexford]

Straneg that you mention this -- I happened to have thought back this week on an almost-used structure, not used because my partner at the time was afraid that his head would explode.

The idea arose out of the Walsh auction 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠. This auction made little sense and seemed wasted. The thought was to have the 1♠ call be semi-forced (other normal options available). This allowed the 1♥ call to now be artificial. (1♠ retained normal meaning).

This structure would have solved some problems for us, if adopted. After the expected 1♠ call, 1NT showed 5♣/4♥; 2♣ same pattern with longer clubs. A direct 2♦ was a simple raise (as 1♣ was the default on all balanced hands, possibly 3352 for example); the delayed 2♦ was a reverse auction, both minors with longer clubs. A direct jump to 2M was normal, but the delayed 2M showed a 5332 17-18 HCP hand, five-card major, because 1M-1NT-2NT is artificial in our approach. A direct 2NT was normal, but a delayed 2NT was semi-gambling. Etc.

I've thought that this makes sense, like Gazilli and Bart and Woolsey for a while, but I have not seen anyone else explore this. It is good to see!

[Echognome]

I think we need to consider what our hand types are for opener in standard.

1♣ can be
(1) min balanced with 3+ clubs
(2) big balanced (17-19 or 18-19 depending on NT range) with 3+ clubs
(3) natural with clubs with any opening range

If you look at siege or polish club, etc then they simply take away the requirement of 3+ clubs and replace it with 2+ clubs.

Now the steps you are gaining I believe are confusing. E.g., consider just the case of 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥, which is unbal min with long clubs or clubs and hearts. Note that it is unplayable if this is not forcing. So responder who was just trying to keep the auction alive or improve the part-score is screwed. If he has hearts, he may want to play in hearts, except you could have 0 hearts. Give him, e.g. a 3=3=5=2, 5 count. Sure, he can go back to 2♣, but then you might miss the better contract of 1♥ or 2♥. Now, let's go on to the invitational hands. What is responder going to rebid now, as he does not know opener's hand type. Presumably opener will clarify it at his next term (maybe naturally, maybe artificially). But I think you're adding a whole lot to what others have suggested is a simpler solution.... play transfer responses.

For example, (and I know there are other treatments), I play:

1♣ - 1♦ (4+ hearts, may have longer diamonds) - ?

1♥ = 2-3 hearts, min bal or min unbal with 5 clubs (e.g. a 4=3=1=5 12 count)
1♠ = Natural unbal (as if 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ in standard)
1NT = 17-19 bal, with 2-3 hearts
2♣ = Natural unbal min (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♣)
2♦ = Natural reverse (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦)
2♥ = Min bal with 4♥
2♠ = Natural high reverse
2NT = 17-19 bal with 4♥ (note all big bal hands bid NT)
3♣ = Natural good clubs (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♣)
3♦ = Mini-splinter (e.g. a 3=4=1=5 hand)
3♥ = Fit Jump (4♥, 5+ clubs)
3♠ = GF splinter
3NT = Semi-gambling (long running clubs, with short ♥)

Could argue that it's better to swap 3♠ and 3NT in case partner's ♥ stopper is positional. But equally likely your outside stoppers could be positional.

Note that at opener's first rebid, his hand type is known, along with an idea about his support for his partner's suit. Over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ we play XYZ and over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT we play 2-way nmf.

We lose out on the long diamond hand, where it goes 1♣ - 1♠ - ?. Here we play 1NT = min bal, 2♣ natural min, unbal, 2♦ = simple raise (like 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♦), 2M = reverse, etc. So we do lose out a level on some of those auctions, but they flow fine I find.

So why try to reinvent the wheel when there are good structures out there? I think you are trying to cater for staying low on the min balanced hands when responder doesn't have a 4 card major. Those hands are both rare and you can play with the rest of the field for what I believe is a minimal gain. If you want to save space, I think you should do as most other systems do and use transfer responses.

[hrothgar]

BTW

Another easy alernative is to shift over to Polish club

The scheme that Misho recommended is very reminescent of Polish Club, however, in Polish Cub the 1♣ opener denies 11+ - 17 with 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major...

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Nov 16 2006, 06:15 PM, said:

For example, (and I know there are other treatments), I play:

1♣ - 1♦ (4+ hearts, may have longer diamonds) - ?

1♥ = 2-3 hearts, min bal or min unbal with 5 clubs (e.g. a 4=3=1=5 12 count)
1♠ = Natural unbal (as if 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ in standard)
1NT = 17-19 bal, with 2-3 hearts
2♣ = Natural unbal min (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♣)
2♦ = Natural reverse (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦)
2♥ = Min bal with 4♥
2♠ = Natural high reverse
2NT = 17-19 bal with 4♥ (note all big bal hands bid NT)
3♣ = Natural good clubs (same as 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♣)
3♦ = Mini-splinter (e.g. a 3=4=1=5 hand)
3♥ = Fit Jump (4♥, 5+ clubs)
3♠ = GF splinter
3NT = Semi-gambling (long running clubs, with short ♥)

As you know Han and I play it very similarly. Some minor differences:

- We use 3H for the minimum range of standard 1C-1H-3H, and 2N for all better heart raises that are not splinter or picture jumps.
- We don't require the transfer acceptance to be minimum, it can be up to invitational with 3 card suport. E.g. with the BW death hand, we would bid 1C-1D-1H, then jump to 3C next. (With 2326 and nice minimum we would bid 1H, then hope to bid 2C naturally.) With 1345 but quite good enough for a reverse, we would bid 1H, then hope to bid 2D over 1N. 1C-1D-2C pretty much denies 3-card support (unless the hand is really weak), and so does 1C-1D-3C.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Nov 16 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

Many players have adopted an artificial relay (cheapest bid) over 1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦ to show either a minimum balanced minimum hand or a minimum unbalanced hand. I was wondering if this type of concept might not be extended specifically to the auction...

1♣-1♦, where

a 1♥ is unbalanced minimum with long clubs or clubs and hearts
a 1♠ rebid shows a minimum balanced hand
a 1NT rebid shows a maximum balanced hand
a 2♣ rebid promises unbalanced mimumim hand with clubs and spades
a 2♦ rebid shows a minimum unbalanced with diamond support


Over 1♠, 1NT/2♣/2♦ are all to play.
Over 1NT = xzy is on
Over 1♥, - 1♠ ask for description. With hearts and clubs rebid 1NT, with clubs only, rebid 2♣

I got to dislike 2-way bids. They are fine when responder is happy to ask, but you lose out when responder has a hand that needs to be shown. E.g. after 1C 1D 1H 1S 2C (clubs and hearts), i suppose 2H is to play, but how does responder invite to game in hearts? How does he force to game with a club fit? With a heart fit? If responder doesn't ask with 1S after this start, which bids by opener imply which of the two hand types? Etc. This needs A LOT of partnership practice until it works as well as natural bidding with XYZ or similar.

Anyway, I guess it's a matter of taste. I have learned that I play a lot better when most bids are natural. My mind just works that way. In fact when I like gadgets, then it's because they in effect allow to show more hands naturally.

[Robert]

hi everyone

I adore two way bids. I use a bunch of 'double' transfer bids to show assorted hands type when the bidding room is too crowded to show the posssible hand types.

Natural bidding is good when it works, however, sometimes extra bidding room 'or' better defined auctions will result in better contracts. Sometimes the fact that a 'bidding' auction 'did not' take place will also provide more information to partner.

I do not see the value in bidding 1C-1D-1S with min. balanced hands and 1NT with max. balanced hands. The XYZ convention seemed almost too good a bidding tool when I first discovered the convention.

That auction 1C-1D-2C showing min. values with clubs and spades 'crowds' the auction and takes away bidding space from responder.

Support with support is a really good bidding idea. With diamond support, I raise after a 1C-1D auction. "If' the auction shows 4+ hearts, other methods might be better.

I play a Big Club system so my 1C-1D-1NT auction shows 18-20HCP.

If I played a natural system, I am sure that I would like to play 1C- transfer replies(assuming that they are legal in ACBL land)

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

This kind of thing will depend a lot on how you play the 1♦ response. If you typically bid suits up the line, then you need to be able to show either major in opener's hand with balanced distribution, so the method described doesn't work.

If you typically show majors first (Walsh) then letting 1♦ be a natural bid is highly inefficient use of space (it makes the 1♦ response much less common than 1♥/1♠) and you probably want to consider transfer responses.

Of course, the weirdness of acbl-world, where a high percentage of players prefer walsh but transfer walsh is disallowed by regulation (on the general chart) might give this method an opportunity to "shine."

[rbforster]

awm, on Nov 16 2006, 06:22 PM, said:

If you typically show majors first (Walsh) then letting 1♦ be a natural bid is highly inefficient use of space (it makes the 1♦ response much less common than 1♥/1♠) and you probably want to consider transfer responses.

Of course, the weirdness of acbl-world, where a high percentage of players prefer walsh but transfer walsh is disallowed by regulation (on the general chart) might give this method an opportunity to "shine."

Right now playing walsh standard, the 1♦ response to 1♣ is overloaded a little to show different NT ranges. Even if you can't play transfer walsh responses thanks to the ACBL, maybe you can use 1♦ for an artificial force (say with GF hands including those with a 4M). This might clarify the hand types that bid 1M and make auctions more precise in the cases where you did (or did not) respond 1♦ and subsequently show a GF with a major.

[keylime]

Ben,

There is a certain logic to your approach, and I think with some work you got something that will function efficiently.

Couple of questions:

1. What would 2♥/♠ mean? 2NT?
2. Would responder be playing weak jumps? delayed fit showing jumps? splinters?

[inquiry]

keylime, on Nov 17 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

Ben,

There is a certain logic to your approach, and I think with some work you got something that will function efficiently.

Couple of questions:

1. What would 2♥/♠ mean? 2NT?
2. Would responder be playing weak jumps? delayed fit showing jumps? splinters?

Over 1m-1M, I use 2NT as the strongest possible raise (akin to what cherdano spoke about above for his 1c-1d-2NT where 1D promised hearts).

Over 1c-1D, I use 2NT to show a good 20-bad 22 hcp hcp hand that is balanced. I know this hand is not possible for most of the world, but I use an opening bid of 2NT for MisIry, so that is what I do.

Over 1c-1D, 2M is a very good hand, generally 4 in the bid major, and 6 in the first minor, strong.

Over 1c- responder 2D is "criss-cross" (limit raise)
over 1C- responder 2H is 4+H, 5+ spades and weak (also over 1D)
over 1C- responder 2S is same but stronger version or spades weak (depends upon partners preference).

If transfer Walsh was legal, that clearly seems a reasonable way to go. I know Misho and I used that for a while, and he is/was (anyone seen him lately) working on an improved version of that last we spoke. I haven't played any of the suggestions in my original post, I was just trying to "fix" the 1c-1d-1M problem where it can be balanced or unbalanced, and as few as a 3 card suit. I am unhappy with the results of that.

[glen]

I like the idea and certainly quite workable as is.

If Walsh is being used I suggest a modified version for opener's rebid:

1♥: Unbalanced, ♣s and unspecified second suit
1♠: Min balanced
1NT: Max balanced
2♣: Long ♣s, no second suit
2♦+: the usual

Over 1♥, 1♠ asks for second suit, with 1NT showing ♥s and 2♣ showing ♠s and 2♦ shows (gasp) ♦s (also 2♥/♠ can be used to show top maximum with that major, and 3X to descriptively show top maximum with ♦s).

The reason for this approach, if using Walsh, is that responder will often not care what opener's major is, so can just describe hand over 1♥ instead of asking for second suit - opener will bid again if second suit was ♦s.

In addition, a nice suggestion in a post above was to include some strong types into the 1♦ response (perhaps with 3+♦s always to make it ACBL GCC legal). For example 1♦ could be all game force balanced/semi-balanced hands. Then over 1♥, 1NT is a GF reask (opener rebids one-under the second suit, and then cheapest suit bid by responder re-asks). After 1♣-1♦--1♠/1NT 2♣ re-asks (opener rebids one-under most descriptive rebid), and after 1♣-1♦--2♣ 2NT re-asks.

[inquiry]

Thanks glenn.. i will be looking for some guinea pigs to spring this on (ie force them to play it) so i can see how it works. I will go with your modificiations....

[rbforster]

officeglen, on Nov 17 2006, 05:24 PM, said:

In addition, a nice suggestion in a post above was to include some strong types into the 1♦ response (perhaps with 3+♦s always to make it ACBL GCC legal).  For example 1♦ could be all game force balanced/semi-balanced hands...

There is no need to restrict yourself to 3+♦ under GCC. Under specifically allowed,

GCC said:

RESPONSES AND REBIDS
1. 1♦ as a forcing, artificial response to 1♣.

Since you were playing 1♦ as forcing anyway, I don't see any problem with it having short diamonds if that's what you feel like.

[glen]

That's cool!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Many players have adopted an artificial relay (cheapest bid) over 1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦ to show either a minimum balanced minimum hand or a minimum unbalanced hand. I was wondering if this type of concept might not be extended specifically to the auction...

Ben, I think you are comparing apples/oragnes here. In 1C/2C and 1D/2D we have a known fit so the goal now is to find the right strain and level between only two choices: NT and the minor.

In 1C-1D there are no such assurances of a playable fit and to launch into an artificial auction at this point is of no value unless the 1C is defined or the 1D is defined or both are defined (best case).