[jjbrr]

jmc, on Jul 1 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

Jlall can you explain why it doesn't work well? I believe the jdonn description is very similiar to the Berkowitz-Cohen response structure given in Precision Today. Do they still play that?

Because you can show with three steps what he's using four steps for.

[jdonn]

jjbrr, on Jul 7 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

jmc, on Jul 1 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

Jlall can you explain why it doesn't work well?  I believe the jdonn description is very similiar to the Berkowitz-Cohen response structure given in Precision Today.  Do they still play that?

Because you can show with three steps what he's using four steps for.

Only by bypassing 3♣, what am I missing? Show me the better way? (Even if there is one it doesn't mean what I said doesn't work very well, but I'm always happy to find an improvement)

What I assumed you are referring to is this

2NT: Spades
3♣: Min with hearts, etc

But then over spades, you either use 3♣ to ask in which case you can't stop there, or you use 3♣ as a nf ask and 3♦ as a forcing ask in which case you haven't saved a step.

[jjbrr]

you can use 2N shows ♥, then 3♣/♦ spades min/max. after 2N, you can sign off in clubs, show a slam try in clubs, invite in hearts, or slam try with hearts using the next 4 bids. after 3♣ min spades, you can slam try in clubs, slam try in spades, or invite in spades with the next bids. after 3♦ you can slam try in clubs, set spades with the next two bids.

[jdonn]

That is probably better, although I still think what I said works well.

Edit: I'm not so sure actually. Over hearts you are making a slam try for hearts or clubs without even having split up into min/max, and over all these you aren't finding out shortness in case you are interested in 3NT. In fact the more I think about it the less I like it. I definitely don't think you can claim this is clearly better than what I said. At least over the spade hands I would just use the next bid as a shortness ask.

[Jlall]

Sorry I never read this sub forum. I was referring to Hearts/Spades min/Spades max. Thats what kmb and I played and now I play it with jjbrr.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, here's the system I devised for relay after a 2♣ opening that shows 6+ clubs.

2♣ - ?

2♦ Any GF relay or invitational with exactly 4M
2♥/♠ 5+ Invitational exactly
2NT Can either be played as natural invitational OR as puppet to 3♣ either to play or slammish with clubs (shortness shown next)
3♣ Preemptive OR if playing the latter 2N treatment above it can be a puppet to 3♦ showing an invitational hand with 6M or choice of games
3♦+ However you like

2♣ - 2♦ - ?

2♥ 4♥ or 4♠, or 6322 any strength, then
--2♠ GF relay, then
----2NT 4♥, then as 3♦+ below
----3♣ 6322 or 7222
----3♦ 4♠, High short
----3♥ 4=1=1=7
----3♠ 4=2=1=6
----3NT 4=3=0=6
----4♣+ 4=2=0=7
--2NT Invitational with 4♥
--3♣ Invitational with 4♠
2♠ Min opening unbal, then as 3♣+ below if relayed with 2NT. 3♣ is to play showing an invite with a 4 card major.
2NT 4♦, side suit, max hand (so this is the only exception we make that we open 4♦, 6♣ mins with 1♦)
3♣ Max opening, High short
3♦ Max opening, Middle short
3♥ 3=3=1=6
3♠ (23)=1=7
3NT 3=3=0=7

So you can invite with 4M, 5M, or 6M and can relay out exact pattern.

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

That is probably better, although I still think what I said works well.

Edit: I'm not so sure actually. Over hearts you are making a slam try for hearts or clubs without even having split up into min/max, and over all these you aren't finding out shortness in case you are interested in 3NT. In fact the more I think about it the less I like it. I definitely don't think you can claim this is clearly better than what I said. At least over the spade hands I would just use the next bid as a shortness ask.

We just like to set trumps. Opener can clarify his strength on his next bid, usually, via 3N, 4m, or 4♥.

You can ask shortness over our way if you'd like. We don't play 3N after finding a major fit when one hand is 6-4 too often, sadly. I'm skeptical knowledge of the location of the stiff would determine your decision often enough to make that a real reason you'd want to know where it is. For slam bidding, it's a fine idea.

Edit: are we both talking in the context of 2♣ promising 6+? I just realized OP's system has 5C/4M. I wrongly assumed you knew we play this as 6+, i think.

[jdonn]

Yes talking about 6+ clubs, and I am refering to looking for 3NT when there is no major suit fit. Your way you have to either agree one of opener's suits or bid 3NT.

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Yes talking about 6+ clubs, and I am refering to looking for 3NT when there is no major suit fit. Your way you have to either agree one of opener's suits or bid 3NT.

sort of surprised you think finding the location of one spot card in one of two suits is more important than setting trumps in auctions where we have potentially a lot of tricks and need to know how well the hands fit.

[jdonn]

Inquiring about opener's shortness doesn't help to judge how well the hands fit? Ok...

I think I would rather be responder after
2♣ 2♦
2♥ 2♠
3♦ 3♥
3♠
and know opener has hearts, a max, and short spades

than be opener after
2♣ 2♦
2♥ 2♠
2NT 3♠
and be aware of our heart fit but partner doesn't know either my range or my shape.

Granted my way you have to define the later bids since a suit is not agreed, but it seems to me you exchange a lot more information.

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Inquiring about opener's shortness doesn't help to judge how well the hands fit? Ok...

I think I would rather be responder after
2♣ 2♦
2♥ 2♠
3♦ 3♥
3♠
and know opener has hearts, a max, and short spades

than be opener after
2♣ 2♦
2♥ 2♠
2NT 3♠
and be aware of our heart fit but partner doesn't know either my range or my shape.

Granted my way you have to define the later bids since a suit is not agreed, but it seems to me you exchange a lot more information.

so we lose when we have a slam try opposite hearts and the knowledge of the location of the stiff is the only crucial information and we win when we can stop in 3♣ without a M fit or when we're better placed to find slams because we can set trumps cheaply in all the auctions except one, ie we always get a couple extra bids when we're slam trying in clubs. close to a wash? probably a small advantage to you.

and when we have spades, i think ours is much better given we dont have to bid 3♥.

[jdonn]

(Btw in all this, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sure mine is better. But I think it would take a fair amount of examination to determine, and I think one could hardly claim either is much better than the other.)

I think you underestimate knowing the range before inviting slam. Inviting slam opposite 10-15 and inviting slam opposite 13-15 is a very different, so knowing the shortness is not the only advantage. But a shortness ask (really just any further shape ask) seems better to me since you combine searching for slam with a fit and investigating notrump without a fit. There are definitely lots of holdings where you are much less comfortable declaring 3NT knowing partner is short than you would be if he had a doubleton (which might include an honor). Q9xx, AJx, KJx, Axx(x), etc.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

(Btw in all this, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sure mine is better. But I think it would take a fair amount of examination to determine, and I think one could hardly claim either is much better than the other.)
<snip>

Mine is better.

[jjbrr]

agree shortness ask has lots of merit. people much smarter than i don't use it, and maybe they should.

i think they're not good for your methods if opener shows any max since youre at or above 3N without setting trumps yet sometimes. so you have to pick and choose when you want to use them. ours is better suited to use them if we chose.

you're right the wide range opp a slam try isnt great, but at least we can evaluate better than most given we know of 10 cards in openers hand, including a fit and a source of tricks. bad, but not fatal.