[Free]

It's better for the strong hand to receive the lead. So with strong NT, you want opener to play. With weak and mini NT you rather want responder to play, since nothing will be known about his hand.

[Gerben47]

Exactly this is the whole point of my response scheme. If you have game interest opposite a 12-14 or weaker you are as strong as the opener but you have the distributional surprises.

In my scheme 2♦ replaces both transfers and lets RESPONDER play if there is a fit, for example:

1NT - 2♦* - 2♠** - 4♥
* Asks for a doubleton major
** Doubleton in ♠

You know something about opener's hand but responder could have 5 spades or very few, who knows... You know he has at least 5 hearts because that's trump and opener showed 3, but that's it.

[pclayton]

Flame, on Sep 19 2004, 08:23 AM, said:

btw does anyone know where i can found Keri in english ? ( i have it in france)

I saw it on Dan Neill's site a few months ago

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.js...%2Fdanhome.html

Go into links, then Dan's systems page, then TOSR, then response system to 1N. Sorry - I'm having problems posting the direct link.

This post has been edited by pclayton: 2004-September-30, 12:32

[1eyedjack]

Chamaco, on Sep 30 2004, 06:45 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 19 2004, 10:11 PM, said:

I read this far and didn't bother any further.

"After a weak 1NT opening (or rebid showing the same kind of hand), the opposite holds as after a normal 1NT. The goal is to get the notrump hand in dummy."

I suppose (hope) it is a translation mistake

Maybe it is supposed to mean:

"The goal is to get the notrump hand TO PLAY THE dummy."

No, I am sure that it was meant as written. And the point is not entirely devoid of merit. It just betrays a total lack of appreciation of the real priorities. There are more important goals than placing declarer.

[Free]

1eyedjack, on Sep 30 2004, 07:20 PM, said:

There are more important goals than placing declarer.

This is quite far from the truth... But if you don't care, so be it, I just want an unknown hand to declare, and I want a known hand to be dummy. Makes it lots harder for defenders!

[luke warm]

it's easy changing all opener's relays to give responder more of an opportunity to declare... and maybe the (slight) advantage makes it worthwhile

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Sep 30 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

I just want an unknown hand to declare, and I want a known hand to be dummy.

I don't even think that should be top priority for placing the hand!

Playing with a fairly normal weak NT, I can bid 4M directly if I have a bunch of kings and queens to protect them, and transfer and then bid 4M if I have mostly aces to protect my partner's kings and queens. That, to me, is far more important than known vs. unknown.

[1eyedjack]

Free, on Sep 30 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 30 2004, 07:20 PM, said:

There are more important goals than placing declarer.

This is quite far from the truth... But if you don't care, so be it, I just want an unknown hand to declare, and I want a known hand to be dummy. Makes it lots harder for defenders!

I never said that I didn't care. I just reckon that it is a lower priority than other factors, such as finding the right contract. Players who concentrate on placing declarer do so, in my judgement, because they do not appreciate the potential for using the bidding space for accurate bidding, which potential is stifled by their focusing on this obsession.

[luke warm]

i obviously agree with jack here, since i can play the relays either way... where he and i disagree are on the unbalanced hands where relays might not be the best way to find the fit/level

i don't think there is a clear superiority of one method vs. the other, i just think relays come out ahead *most* of the time