[Crunch3nt]

Which controls method is better? A2 K1 or A3 K2 Q1? I came across A3 K1 recently - seemed ok. I haven't done analysis but what about say 4-2-1?

[Free]

None is better.

In some cases AK21 is better, in other AKQ321 is better. The biggest advantage of AK21 is that you know the number of controls immediately, while AKQ321 is better in getting an idea of the overall combined strength quickly.

[jukmoi]

Even though I have never tried it, I would expect AKQ321 is much harder to read. I mean that with AK21 you often can divine the exact location of honour cards or for example that they must be 2 aces (you hold 3 kings).

[Free]

jukmoi, on Feb 25 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

Even though I have never tried it, I would expect AKQ321 is much harder to read. I mean that with AK21 you often can divine the exact location of honour cards or for example that they must be 2 aces (you hold 3 kings).

It's harder to read initially because it describes general strength better, but after 1 scan of the suits you can usually place most of the tophonours.

[DinDIP]

jukmoi, on Feb 25 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

Even though I have never tried it, I would expect AKQ321 is much harder to read. I mean that with AK21 you often can divine the exact location of honour cards or for example that they must be 2 aces (you hold 3 kings).

It is obviously harder to determine teller's honour combination from just the response (showing some given number of relay points) because, unless that number is very small, there are many more permutations that are possible than for a comparable number of AK21 controls.

But there are ways to reduce that number of permutations significantly: a cheap way of doing so is to have teller show his (non-singleton) king parity* before entering into DCB. One could do as the Swedes did (still do?): stop with even and zoom with odd. Better, however, is to stop with even when holding 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15 RP and stop with odd with other holdings. This is easy to remember (stop with even when 2 or a multiple of 3) and much closer to the actual frequency. (Of course, the parity answer should also depend on how many RP asker has but I don't now of a system that can show that.)

I've done a lot of testing that shows that this method is better than not asking for king parity or asking for ace (or queen) parity; it's still not clear to me whether this is the best method of honour-showing/DCB. (Matt Ginsberg tells me it is clearly not for a computer program but we're interested in what humans can remember at the table.)

David

*This assumes that you wisely count a kingleton as 1RP not 2; again, extensive testing shows this to be much better.

[Valardent]

Hi,

What is the logic behind showing King parity instead of Ace or Queen parity?

If one knows relay (3-2-1) points and King (or/and Ace) parity, obviously, the number of possible cases are reduced.

DCB is then always at least partly redondant, thus giving information one already knows.

Does anyone has (or knows smthng about) some sort of sapce-saving method (algorithmis-like) which would take the RP and parity into account and as a result produces a modified dcb scheme where a stop or a skip have 1 or 2 (or even 3) possible meanings, the RP and parity information allowing relayer to deduce as often as possible RR honor's location?

Another question :

From which number of RP (when both players are aware of it) should a dcb ask begin with scanning queens (or kings) instead of Aces?

For example :

Responder has a GF (6+RP) hand on a 1M opener (11+HCP).

Opener (RR) shows a 17+ hcp hand. R asks RP amount : 13 (total is at least 19)

Knowing that at most one ace is missing, for space saving purpose (for jacks), it is better I think to ask first for queen, then kings, then jacks.

Should 19 be the switch point or is 18 enough ?

Has anyone experienced smthng similar?

Tx for your thoughts.

Patrick

[dake50]

Wouldn't a binary partition work? Eg. A8 K4 Q2 Now no ambiguous as partner starts with some.

[Valardent]

dake50, on Mar 24 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Wouldn't a binary partition work? Eg. A8 K4 Q2 Now no ambiguous as partner starts with some.

I suppose this is some deconstructive 2nd degree comment.

It's not because it looks complicated that it isn't table playable.

Methods can be very easely remembered when you fully understand the logic behind it.

For eg. showing king parity is pbbly better because the delta RP is 2, resolving ambiguity more rapidly because of the lesser amount of possible permutation remaining.

I'm just looking for advice of experienced people who could provide me some guidelines.

Not your case it seems.

[slyq]

it seems to me as everyonr points out sometimes one sometimes the other would the best approach be over 3c / 3d / 3h with low start relatively flat hands 321 might be best and 3s+ ( or 10 cards in 2-suits and a 6 card suit a2 k1 might be better

[the hog]

I've played both and agree with Free - there is not a huge degree of difference. One method that worked well is to use AKQ controls in balanced hands - no stiffs or voids, and to use AK controls in unbalanced hands.
Another possible approach is to always use AKQ controls as the first step, to get an overall picture of strength, or if those controls are what you are seriously interested in, and to use RKC asks otherwise.

[awm]

I've played a lot of both, and recently switched to 3-2-1 points in one of my main partnerships.

There are several reasons that I prefer this approach:

(1) Usually there are alternatives to simply relaying out honor cards. A popular one is RKC asks. The thing is, control asks and RKC asks give you almost the same information (i.e. number/location of aces, to a lesser degree kings, not much about queens except the trump queen). So if you're primarily interested in controls but playing 3-2-1 points, you can break relay and make an RKC ask. If you're primarily interested in a key queen and playing controls, you're fixed.

(2) Whichever way you play, it's important to get an idea of describer's general strength. If you're playing controls, you need to show strength (i.e. points) and then show number of controls. With 3-2-1 points, the number of 3-2-1 points also gives you a good idea of general strength. I know some relayers who've tried to save space by using controls and defining "5+ controls is always extras, 2-3 controls is always min" and this is a complete disaster because it becomes hard to distinguish AAK and out from truly good hands, or distinguish AK+two queens from AK and a jack.

(3) Controls sometimes seems to put artificial constraints on which hands can game force and which cannot. For example, can a three-control hand make a negative? If so, you burn some space in your semi-positive relays.. if not, then you have to GF on A+K and out. Can a one control hand game force? Again, if so, you lose a step on your relays all the time just for the very rare such hand. But if not, you have a lot of trouble when the rare K+Q+Q+Q hand actually comes up and responder has a lack of forcing bids available after the negative and opener's minimum rebid. To some degree this can happen with 3-2-1 count also, but it seems much less common and much less severe.

[straube]

Adam, I know it's a little off topic, but what is your dcb structure after you show QPs? We use QPs but sometimes it seems like we're running out of room.

[rbforster]

straube, on Mar 25 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

Adam, I know it's a little off topic, but what is your dcb structure after you show QPs?  We use QPs but sometimes it seems like we're running out of room.

I think you want to strike a balance between knowing the exact number of QPs and resolving at a low/safe level while still getting useful information. There are at least a couple of ways to try this:

1. have opener "sign off" with any low number of QPs, say 10 or less, especially when signing off in 3N. Then responder can zoom to answering his QPs over 3N starting with some large base value. For example, compare:

...
3C-3D relay, exact shape
3H-4C QP ask (steps starting with 6), 4C=8

vs

3C-3D
3N-4C signoff, 4C=9

Here you've saved one step, although you'd save more if you got shape at 3HS instead of 3D. This is less true over a suit signoff using 4D as your end signal, but you do have more space to ask in that case since you're trying to stop at 4M instead of 3N.

2. have responder combine several "low" values of total QPs into his first response. If you force to game on any hand with enough HCPs, you'll sometimes find quacky hands with only 4-5 QPs (ie. KQx QJx QJx QJx is 14 hcp but only 5 QP). So instead of having

3C-3D relay, exact shape
3H-3S QP ask, 3S=6 (and <6 must start 1D nominally negative and lose relays)

consider

...
3C-3D
3H-3S QP ask, 3S= 4-6 (then in steps of 1 QP)

Now you have a choice whether you should use DCB's without knowing the exact QP count or whether you want to have it be a reask for the exact number of QPs (4/5/zoom into DCBs on 6). I tend towards the former personally.

Another idea would be to use a "super relay" slightly early, say the round before exact shape, to show a hand with a ton of QPs. Now you can afford to have responder answer starting with his (likely low) number of QPs from a lower base (like 4 QPs) to avoid the ambiguity.

If you went this route, it would be useful to refactor your relay structure to make sure all your major suit lengths are known before the final shape resolution, so that a relay break one round sooner would not be too problematic in terms of determining the correct strain. Alternatively, you could use a step+2 at the end as a strong ask to accomplish the same thing, still getting your shape but at the price of being much higher.

IMO, there's often a lot of superfluous shape information showing in relays, especially balanced ones, that might be better used looking for slam and/or stoppers. For example, how often do you really care if responder is 3334 vs 3343? If you design your relays to resolve that bit of information last, you can just skip it and save some space for asking other questions.

[straube]

I can see how grouping 6 and less together can save a step. We're GFing with 8+ hcps which means that 5QP positives are very frequent and I feel like we need to know whether pd has 5 or 6 to place cards. So I could see grouping, but then I'd want to ask again, stopping with 5 and dcbing with 6+.

Still, the dcb part itself seems suboptimal. If partner is very weak (and esp balanced) we frequently can't place cards in time.

[akhare]

Rob F, on Mar 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

I think you want to strike a balance between knowing the exact number of QPs and resolving at a low/safe level while still getting useful information.  There are at least a couple of ways to try this:

I am in the same camp as Rob.

Consider a case for example, where following a positive response to 1C, 3S is the last shape, with 3S=5 QPs, 3N=6/7 and 4C=8+ QPs. IMO, it makes far more sense for 4C to be the DCB ask over both 3S/3N (as opposed to asking for specific number of QPs over 3N).

Contrast this with the case where the shape is resolved at 3N (say 7330) following a positive response and responder can't bid 4C+ unless holding 8+ QPs. This means 3N spans a 5-7 QP range and this might be the only case where 4C as the clarifying QP ask makes sense.

In other words, the idea is to skip the second ask for QPs following a zoom situation unless the range can span more than 2 QPs.

Similarly, as Rob suggested, following say a 3C bid that shows a 44(32) pattern, a 3H bid can just skip to QP ask. This allows showing of 3S=5/6 and 3N showing 7 instead of 3C - 3D ® - 3H (high short) - 3S ® - 3N (5-7). For purposes of DCB it can be assumed that the higher ranking suit is the longer fragment.

Note that the "assumed shape" asks might work in several other situations. For example, after 1C...2D (single suited)...2H...2S (no shortness)...one can bid 3♣ to start an "assumed 6322 shape QP" ask...

[akhare]

straube, on Mar 25 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

Still, the dcb part itself seems suboptimal.  If partner is very weak (and esp balanced) we frequently can't place cards in time.

One possible solution might be something along the lines of "Partner, it's nice to know that you are balanced. Please assume that your shape is 4=4=3=2 and go on to show your QPs and DCB accordingly".

So, say over 1♣ - 1♥ (SP -- 3-5 QPs) - 1♠ ® - 2♦ (bal hands) - 2♠ = special ask:

2N: 3 QPS
3C: 4 QPs
3D+: 5 QPs, zooming into DCB with assumed shape

Note that the "assumed shape" asks might work in several other situations. For example, after 1C...2D (single suited)...2H...2S (no shortness)...one can bid 3♣ to start an "assumed 6322 shape QP" ask...

[straube]

That's a very interesting idea.

[rbforster]

You could even do stuff where the steps ordered which suit to start with, when shape is only partially known, i.e. step = shape relay, step+1 = start with S, step +2 = start with H, etc.

[Free]

Rob F, on Mar 26 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

You could even do stuff where the steps ordered which suit to start with, when shape is only partially known, i.e. step = shape relay, step+1 = start with S, step +2 = start with H, etc.

Yes, you have many shapes where this is applicable. Many so called "12 or 14 card hands". Here are some examples:

Balanced:
4333 with unknown 4-card = 3333
4432 with unknown 3-2 (4-4 known) = 4433
5332 with unknown 3-3-2 (only 5 card known) = 5333
(If you combine 5332/4333 in 1 bid (with known 4 card suit), you can also consider this 5333)

S1:
1-suited with known shortness = 6331
6322 with unknown 3-card = 6222
7321 with unknown 3-2 = 7331
(If you combine 7222/6322 in 1 bid (with known 6 card suit), you can also consider this 6222)

S2 (this method is least useful for 2-suiters imo):
2-suited with known shortness and longest suit = 5431
5-5 with unknown shortness = 5522 (not always useful since you'll now scan 4 suits instead of 3)

S3:
3-suited with known shortness = 4441 (ignore 5440)

There may be even more shapes, but these are most common.

In such case, you can use step 1 as relay for exact shape, and steps 2 and higher as immediate slam investigations (exactly the same as after exact shape is known, so 3NT signoff, 4♦ terminator,...). This saves a lot of space (which is most useful with balanced hands).!

[rbforster]

Free, on Mar 26 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

Rob F, on Mar 26 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

You could even do stuff where the steps ordered which suit to start with, when shape is only partially known, i.e. step = shape relay, step+1 = start with S, step +2 = start with H, etc.

Yes, you have many shapes where this is applicable. Many so called "12 or 14 card hands". Here are some examples:

Balanced:
4333 with unknown 4-card = 3333
4432 with unknown 3-2 (4-4 known) = 4433
5332 with unknown 3-3-2 (only 5 card known) = 5333
(If you combine 5332/4333 in 1 bid (with known 4 card suit), you can also consider this 5333)

...This saves a lot of space (which is most useful with balanced hands).!

I agree that this is most useful for balanced hands. For example, to facilitate this, I designed my own version of balanced symmetric relays to replace the default "Crash"-style ones. In mine, for example, you know before the final ask information like this:

4M333
4m333
43=(42)
42=(43)

with the obvious priority that knowing exact major shape (even only 3 cards) is more important for strain decisions than resolving the minor shape. Of course you can still ask for shape, but you have most of the information you want in case you want to break relay early, something that the TOSR Crash relays for 4432's are pretty bad about (you must always ask with any 4cM since they might fit you). You can even reprioritize the shape asking bid to be higher than the next step...

1C-1S GF bal, among others...
1N-2H bal, no 4cM
2S-2N 4m333

3C QP ask
3D asks for the minor
3HS RKC for majors, or stopper asks, to taste
etc