[straube]

Which is better?

Playing 1C=15+, I can have either

1D=neg
.....1H-19+
..........1S-second neg
...............1N-19-20
...............2C-23+
...............2N-21-22

or a semipositive structure with...

1S=second neg
.....1N=15-bad 20
.....2C-23+
.....2N=good 20-22

I like the semipositives when I get a semipositive response...but I have difficulty with the big hand because I haven't been able to tell partner about my extra values. Not only when I have a NTish hand, but if I have a distributional hand. Partner just doesn't know when it's safe to invite for fear that I'm a minimum.

So are semipositives worth this difficulty?

[hrothgar]

I think that this depends on how weak your strong club can be and how sophisticated a response structure you are willing to use...

The weaker your strong club opening, the less frequent the positive response, and the more important it is to show semi positives.

If you're willing to play a relay structure, its pretty easy to sort out a lot of different hand types.

[shevek]

Perhaps the new way is better but it sure is messy.
When Paul Marstron introduced 1♦ positive and 1♠ 2nd negative, Moscito became unwieldy.

[dake50]

I like semi-pos for a passed hand, ie 3-seat, 4-seat 1C. But just as you note the big hands become awkward when they are possibles.

Have you tried a catchall strong response as 11+ (11-13 has 3+controls)?

[straube]

Just had a talk with a local expert (Zwerling) who plays a relay system but had never heard of semipositives. He strongly disliked the idea.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative).
He agreed on this point.

[rbforster]

straube, on Jan 31 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative).

Yes. I think there are two reasonable alternatives, both involving more complexity:

1) play 1♦ neg and 1♠ 2nd negative (with +2 step relays over 1♣-1♦-1♥ stronger)

2) play "positive" but not game forcing suit responses, which gets tricky since you need to define your relay breaks, how you can stop in part scores, etc. You can then use 1♦ for double negatives, as well as maybe some strong hands too.

[akhare]

straube, on Jan 31 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

Just had a talk with a local expert (Zwerling) who plays a relay system but had never heard of semipositives. He strongly disliked the idea.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative).
He agreed on this point.

IMO, SPs leave you better placed than the standard 1♣ - 1♦ auctions.

1♣ - 1♠ can be difficult, but:

1) It's not very frequent
2) There are several schemes to tackle it with arises (including the one you posted)

[glen]

The 1♠ negative was in action today, playing a game.

See board 19 of:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...ch.php?id=12598

NS in the closed room play Spry, one of several systems that has the 1♠ negative response.

[straube]

glen, on Jan 31 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

The 1♠ negative was in action today, playing a game.

See board 19 of:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...ch.php?id=12598

NS in the closed room play Spry, one of several systems that has the 1♠ negative response.

Couldn't see the auction. Do you have a link to Spry or other notes that show continuations after 1C-1S (DN) ?

[glen]

The hand record is in BBO's handviewer format - click on Next repeatedly to see the bidding and play.

[the hog]

straube, on Jan 31 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Just had a talk with a local expert (Zwerling) who plays a relay system but had never heard of semipositives. He strongly disliked the idea.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative).
He agreed on this point.

As the 1S negative shows 0-4, as Atul says, it is infrequent. Also, as has been pointed out, there are schemes to deal with them. How worse off are you after 1C 1S 2C gf than any standard system? Imo you are better off as you are at a comparatively low level and already know responder has trash.
I also agree that semi positives do leave you far better placed. They are more messy in relay structure though.

[akhare]

The_Hog, on Jan 31 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

straube, on Jan 31 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Just had a talk with a local expert (Zwerling) who plays a relay system but had never heard of semipositives.  He strongly disliked the idea.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative). 
He agreed on this point.

As the 1S negative shows 0-4, as Atul says, it is infrequent. Also, as has been pointed out, there are schemes to deal with them. How worse off are you after 1C 1S 2C gf than any standard system? Imo you are better off as you are at a comparatively low level and already know responder has trash.
I also agree that semi positives do leave you far better placed. They are more messy in relay structure though.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that it might be best to eschew relays after SP responses.

Since the most common SP response is 1♣ - 1♥ (mostly balanced hands, some minor suited hands) something along the lines of this should work pretty well:

1♣ - 1♥:

1♠: Showing extras, forcing. Responder clarifies hand type, new suits by opener forcing

1N: Balanced or semi-balanced 15-17(18-)
2♣: Majors (forcing)
2♦: Single suited in a major (forcing)
2♥/2♠: 5CM, 4+ minor, NF

[straube]

The_Hog, on Jan 31 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

straube, on Jan 31 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Just had a talk with a local expert (Zwerling) who plays a relay system but had never heard of semipositives.  He strongly disliked the idea.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to have constructive auctions after 1C-1S (negative). 
He agreed on this point.

As the 1S negative shows 0-4, as Atul says, it is infrequent. Also, as has been pointed out, there are schemes to deal with them. How worse off are you after 1C 1S 2C gf than any standard system? Imo you are better off as you are at a comparatively low level and already know responder has trash.
I also agree that semi positives do leave you far better placed. They are more messy in relay structure though.

All good points. I still haven't located continuations for 1C-1S and I've been doing a lot of Googling.
I would like 2C to be a GF. Is that what the Moscito players are doing? Are 2D and 2H transfers?

[the hog]

I have to post an answer to this tomorrow, as i am at work at the moment. My notes are on my home PC

[rbforster]

I don't think there is any question that direct semi-or-GF positives will work better for the semipositves than "standard precision" (starting 1C-1D) if your auction is uncontested. The dangers of semipositives are that either:

1) combining semi and GF responses makes competition worse (no forcing pass, no clear game force), and needs complicated continuations

2) having pure semipositives will be very efficient when they come up, but necessitate extra responses for the same GF hand types (half the total space), or merging all the GF repsonses into one (1C-1D?), which makes it much more vulnerable to preemption.

Personally I think something like #1 is probably best without interference, but that something more like standard is better when opps are likely to interfere often.

[akhare]

Rob F, on Feb 1 2010, 12:39 AM, said:

I don't think there is any question that direct semi-or-GF positives will work better for the semipositves than "standard precision" (starting 1C-1D) if your auction is uncontested. The dangers of semipositives are that either:

1) combining semi and GF responses makes competition worse (no forcing pass, no clear game force), and needs complicated continuations

2) having pure semipositives will be very efficient when they come up, but necessitate extra responses for the same GF hand types (half the total space), or merging all the GF repsonses into one (1C-1D?), which makes it much more vulnerable to preemption.

Personally I think something like #1 is probably best without interference, but that something more like standard is better when opps are likely to interfere often.

Isn't 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 any) more vulnerable to preemption than 1♣ - 1♦ (GF)?

One can argue that 1♣ - 1♥ (mostly bal 4-7ish) is vulnerable too, but at least opener has some idea of the likely hand type...

[the hog]

Ok, looked up my notes. I can't guarantee that this is what Paul still plays as I have not played Bridge in Australia for some years now. This is what we played and it was ok.

1C 1S
P obvious
1N 15-20, frequently off shape
2C GF Now 2D 0-2, 2H some 2 suiter, 2S flat, 2NT 3 suited, 3C+ trfs
2D/H/S natural
2NT 21-22
3 any good suit, nf but do you have a trick?
Rest obvious

[rbforster]

akhare, on Feb 1 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

Isn't 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 any) more vulnerable to preemption than 1♣ - 1♦ (GF)?

It shouldn't be, for at least two reasons:

1) against the GF 1C-1D, the opponents are more likely to want to preempt, since they are always weak and you've established a cheap-but-ambiguous GF with good slam tools (ideal to disrupt)

2) against the weak 1C-1D, the opponents are sometimes strong and want to bid constructively rather than preemptively or you may land in a bad spot on your own

In addition, remember too that the 1C-1D(0-7) auction is typically a poor one for precision, especially with distributional hands, which are more common than usual given a potential preempt. Standard players are much better off when bidding hands in the common (16-19) vs (5-7) range, since they have gotten in opener's best suit naturally at the one level, and responder has almost always been able to show his 4 card major(s), if any, at the one level. In contrast, precision auctions like 1C-1D-2m or 1C-1D-2H(nat NF) (since 1H was artificial strong) are quite poor in terms of finding the right fit compared to their standard analogues (missing 4-4 major fits, or playing in a poor major fit vs a better minor, or playing 2M instead of 1M, etc).

Finally, the stakes are much higher at IMPs to disrupt a game-vs-slam decision by interfering, whereas the payoffs are much less favorable over the negative response which will often lead to merely a part score competition.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Feb 1 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

akhare, on Feb 1 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

Isn't 1♣ - 1♦ (0-7 any) more vulnerable to preemption than 1♣ - 1♦ (GF)?

It shouldn't be, for at least two reasons:

1) against the GF 1C-1D, the opponents are more likely to want to preempt, since they are always weak and you've established a cheap-but-ambiguous GF with good slam tools (ideal to disrupt)

2) against the weak 1C-1D, the opponents are sometimes strong and want to bid constructively rather than preemptively or you may land in a bad spot on your own

In addition, remember too that the 1C-1D(0-7) auction is typically a poor one for precision, especially with distributional hands, which are more common than usual given a potential preempt. Standard players are much better off when bidding hands in the common (16-19) vs (5-7) range, since they have gotten in opener's best suit naturally at the one level, and responder has almost always been able to show his 4 card major(s), if any, at the one level. In contrast, precision auctions like 1C-1D-2m or 1C-1D-2H(nat NF) (since 1H was artificial strong) are quite poor in terms of finding the right fit compared to their standard analogues (missing 4-4 major fits, or playing in a poor major fit vs a better minor, or playing 2M instead of 1M, etc).

Finally, the stakes are much higher at IMPs to disrupt a game-vs-slam decision by interfering, whereas the payoffs are much less favorable over the negative response which will often lead to merely a part score competition.

You fail to consider one very important point: After 1♣ - 1♦ (GF) we have a forcing pass established...

This makes a VERY big difference

[Free]

I used to play semi positive responses, and I'm very happy with them. Some remarks:
- 1♣-1♦ is vulnerable to preemption, but since you already established a GF you have forcing passes and penalty doubles available. So preemption shouldn't be too agressive.
- 1♣-1♥ is also vulnerable to preemption, but again, your opps know you have some values and you have an idea of partner's shape. Still, preemption may be agressive, but you can handle this most of the time. You might want to agree on playing forcing passes in some situations.
- 1♣-1♠ is imo pretty easy to handle. You know partner doesn't have much, so opener is able to set the contract in many situations. You can play whatever structure you want after this, with multi's or canapé transfers. I would advise to keep a strong option in 2♣ though. I used to play 2♣ as strong, partner bid 2♦ with most hands or a suit with length and absolutely nothing of strength.
- there are some cases where you have better options after 1♣-1♦ negative (1M natural and forcing for example), and sometimes it's just better if partner showed his hand immediately with a semipositive.
- relays are more efficient if you use semipositives. If you'd use a base scheme from 1♥ and up for GF hands, your semipos are +2 steps. Using semipositives immediately, your GF hands are +1 step, and your semipos are +1 step or base level. Because the semipos are more frequent, your relay structure is better.