[MickyB]

As title. I've made 1H:1S as a kind of relay Kaplan Inversion work nicely but I can't quite get 1S:1N to work.

[Free]

Starting from 0HCP, or do you promise at least 'some' values?

[MickyB]

Normal responding hand.

[Zelandakh]

I play 1NT as INV+ (with 2♣♦♥ as natural, non-forcing) and that is already cramped enough. I doubt 5/6+ is workable for the 1NT response. What are you using the other bids for?

[MickyB]

Either C/D/H in some order or lose one of the minors and play 2H as a good raise.

eg over 1H I play

1S = ART F1, includes balanced GFs
1N = 5+spades
2C = 6+diamonds weak or 5+diamonds unbal GF
2D = 6+clubs INV or 5+clubs unbal GF

[Zelandakh]

OK, so the basic structure would be something like

1N = clubs weak or diamonds INV or most balanced hands
2♣ = 6+ diamonds weak or 5+ diamonds unbal GF
2♦ = 5+ hearts
2♥ = 6+ clubs INV or 5+ clubs unbal GF

Since you have taken so many hands out of the 1NT response, it seems like this is actually ok. For example, I started to write up Responder's rebids for transfer rebids by Opener and there was space for everything just playing naturally, at least with a 15-17 NT, so it did not seem worthwhile to post it. Indeed, I suspect that any sensible arrangement that incorporates the weak NT hands into a non-forcing 2♣ rebid will work out so perhaps you could invent some kind of Reverse Gazilli convention to handle this too.

[MickyB]

How would you relay over whichever of 1S:1N, 2H and 1S:1N, 2S shows a two-suiter?

[Zelandakh]

I was not considering making the follow-ups relays! I had a 2♠ rebid as a minimum with clubs and then P = weak; 2NT = bal INV; 3♣ = weak; 3♦ = INV; 3♥ = weak. You want both hands to be showing shape but nonetheless to use relays? That does not seem to make sense to me. For pure relays over 1♠ I think it is much better to separate by good/bad hand (1NT = INV+, 2X = weak) and let Opener describe. I will try and fit in some thinking time for this in the next days but my first thoughts are not overly positive, sorry.

[MickyB]

Yeah we need forcing bids, lol.

I subscribe to the theory that it is best for unbalanced hands to describe rather than ask, relaying on unbalanced hands doesn't work well IME.

Think with some messing around I can get 1S:1N, 2H:3C as bal GF, pretty high though obviously.

[Phil]

MickyB, on 2012-November-20, 10:19, said:

As title. I've made 1H:1S as a kind of relay Kaplan Inversion work nicely but I can't quite get 1S:1N to work.

Not a relay junkie, but why wouldn't these be parallel structures?

[MickyB]

Phil, on 2012-November-21, 10:11, said:

Not a relay junkie, but why wouldn't these be parallel structures?

I too thought they would be at first, but realised I was basically using responder's 2NT rebids twice. Eg

1H:1S!
2D - now 2S = GF relay, 2N = natural invite

1S:1N,
2H - now 2N is needed as both a GF relay and a natural invite

Obviously we don't actually play 1H:1S, 2D as natural but this shows the problem in a nutshell

[akhare]

Is this in context of a limited opening system? It's much easier to design something that works if that's the case...

[c_corgi]

MickyB, on 2012-November-21, 10:26, said:

Obviously we don't actually play 1H:1S, 2D as natural

Thank goodness for that: I was worried the thread might have to be moved to another forum for a moment.

[MickyB]

akhare, on 2012-November-21, 11:43, said:

Is this in context of a limited opening system?

No.

[glen]

The reason why I wrote in Bridge World about putting the GF ♥ hands in 1NT forcing, and the non-forcing hands as a two level response (Two New Bidding Ideas, March 1991, the other idea was transfer responses to 1♣) was to embed relays into the 1NT forcing structure. Five years ago Dimiter Zlatanov expanded on (or reinvented, not sure if he had read the '91 article) on this with Delayed Two-Over-One (May 2007). The idea is that:

1♠-1NT;-2m-2♥ is a game force relay (does not promise ♥s)
1♠-1NT;-2♠ promises 6+♠s, and 2NT is played as an ask
1♠-1NT;-2♥ is the trouble spot, but if responder has a original GF in ♥s there is no problem if responder now has a forcing bid available.

Zlatanov proposed that 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT and 1♠-1NT;-2♥-3♣ be transfers, with 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT;-3♣-3♦ as the game force relay sequence (does not promise ♣s).
Our system trials had 1♠-1NT;-2♥-2NT as an ask (who cares about playing 2NT). This had mixed results, but the conclusion was 2NT as natural invite is necessary.

I now think that the best approach is for 1♠-2♣ to be natural, non-forcing, but up to invite strength based on the long suit. While opener can not pass this as often if 2♣ did not have invite values, in more standard methods, responder with long ♣s and less than invite values has to first bid 1NT, and then will have to rebid ♣s at the three level or higher, and this means that most methods will end up at 3♣ (or higher). This allows for 1♠-1NT;-2red-3♣ to be the game force ask.

[MickyB]

glen, on 2012-November-21, 17:51, said:

I now think that the best approach is for 1♠-2♣ to be natural, non-forcing

Thanks, this might well be what I need, I was considering 2C as nat F1 any strength earlier but this feels better - although presumably 1S:1N, 2H:3C is GF bal/clubs so we are sometimes back to an unbalanced hand doing the asking.

[MickyB]

How would you play 1S:2D and 1S:2H, Glen?

[rbforster]

MickyB, on 2012-November-21, 18:30, said:

Thanks, this might well be what I need, I was considering 2C as nat F1 any strength earlier but this feels better - although presumably 1S:1N, 2H:3C is GF bal/clubs so we are sometimes back to an unbalanced hand doing the asking.

I worked on a system that included in 1S-1N most GF hands, as well as the 6-9ish regular 2/1 forcing NT hands that just pass or preference to opener's natural rebid. This freed up 1S-2X to be natural and non forcing (intermediate 5-11ish), and allowed 3rd suit auctions after the forcing NT (1S-1N-2m-2DH) to be a cheap GF ask.

I came to a similar conclusion that 1S-2C needed to do some extra work. In my case, I had this be inv+ clubs (could be two suited if GF), and was F1. This allowed the NT to include only those GF hands that had one or both red suits. The reason 2C natural helps is that there are many sequences like 1S-1N-2HS where 3C by responses wants to be the cheapest ask and hence it's important to offload the club hands elsewhere. I also played an invitational 2N rebid by responder so that step wasn't available.

[MickyB]

Ok, think I've nailed it, I've gone back to 2C as 5+hcp 5+clubs F1. 1S:2D = hearts, 1S:2H = diamonds. Possibly could include a bad raise to 2S in the 2H bid, who is it that plays that?

[glen]

MickyB, on 2012-November-21, 19:01, said:

How would you play 1S:2D and 1S:2H, Glen?

1♠-2♦ transfer to ♥s
1♠-2♥ invite+ in ♠s (in more detail 1♠-1NT;-any-3♠ is a good invite, 1♠-2♥ is a bad invite or GF+)

MickyB, on 2012-November-21, 22:50, said:

Ok, think I've nailed it, I've gone back to 2C as 5+hcp 5+clubs F1. 1S:2D = hearts, 1S:2H = diamonds. Possibly could include a bad raise to 2S in the 2H bid, who is it that plays that?

That's excellent, and there are others who play 1♠-2♦ as GF ♦s or bad ♠ raise, clever to have 1♠-2♥ do that