[straube]

How do relay breaks showing voids work? What are the continuations?

I posted a thread about a bidding problem. Partner opens 1S (10-15 5cd+) and I can GF relay with...

xxx Qxx AKQJTxxx void

I'm supposing that if partner has AKQxxx Kxx xx xxx the bidding might go...

1S-2C,
2D-3C,
4H-etc

where 2D shows various patterns, 3C shows a club void, and 4H shows 8 QPs starting at a base of 2.

Anyone have a better idea?

[Zelandakh]

Idea a. relay it out. Depending on your relay structure you can probably find out partner's heart length and whether they have the right major suit cover cards.
Idea b. set spades as trumps -> check on a heart control -> use Exclusion.

I do not think you need specialised void-showing relay breaks for this.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-02, 00:54, said:

Idea a. relay it out. Depending on your relay structure you can probably find out partner's heart length and whether they have the right major suit cover cards.
Idea b. set spades as trumps -> check on a heart control -> use Exclusion.

I do not think you need specialised void-showing relay breaks for this.

I just think we get too high. Do you have a method to sort out AKQxx Kxx xx xxx from QJxxx xxx xx AKQ before we get too high? What is your exclusion method for example?

I see a lot of potential for showing voids...and even singletons.

Let's say I have xxx x AKxxx AKxx and partner opens 1S. I need almost a perfecta to be in slam here, but partner can have that....AKQxx xxx Qx Qxx. So our bidding could go...

1S-2C (nat, GF relay)
2D-3H (various, singleton heart)
4N-6S (8 working QPs, to play)

Currently our method would go...

1S-2C (nat, GF relay)
2D-2H (various, relay)
3C-3D (a 5332, relay)
3S-? (5323)

We're way high here and 4C asks QPs for all suits. Partner could disappoint us with a 4H response (showing 7 and meaning that we can't play 4S because it's a relay bid) or by having 8+ of the wrong sort of QPs.

[hrothgar]

Looks like a hand where it is better to show than ask

I'd prefer not to relay unless I have no other options for showing a GF hand.
Vaguely tempted to just punt 4S opposite a limited opener

[straube]

So our 1M-2C, 2D includes various minor suit hands but also the 5332s (which are far more frequent).

So maybe....

1M-2C,
2D-
.....2H-relays
.....2S-wants to show a void
..........2N-relays
...............3C-void club
...............3D-void diamond
...............3M-void major (may be partner's major)
.....2N-nf (13 with doubleton support)
.....3C-singleton club
.....3D-singleton diamond
.....3M-singleton major (may be partner's major)


We also happen to play
1C-1H (16+, 2-4 QPs)
1S-2D (GF, bal)

so....
.....2H-relays
.....2S-wants to show a void
..........2N-relays
...............3C-void club
...............3D-void diamond
...............3M-void major
.....2N-natural, right-siding, demands puppet stayman and transfers
.....3C-singleton club
.....3D-singleton diamond
.....3M-singleton major

Seems symmetric and frequent enough. It ought to catch most of the hands where responder is balanced. Obviously, opener must have a good idea for the final trump contract when he does this and responder will only know what trump is after a break.

My main question is what the base for working queen points should be. As 1C-1H promises 2-4 QPs and our 1M opening promises 6 QPs, I'm thinking that we should subtract 2 from base.

So after 1C-1H base is 0
After 1M base is 4

[straube]

hrothgar, on 2012-May-02, 10:00, said:

Looks like a hand where it is better to show than ask

I'd prefer not to relay unless I have no other options for showing a GF hand.
Vaguely tempted to just punt 4S opposite a limited opener

I agree with these sentiments. Unfortunately, we currently can't show this hand. Plus it's a little difficult to show 1) fit 2) side void) and 3) solid source of tricks. At the table, I splintered the hand (lying about my trump support), but 4S might have been better. Relay wouldn't have helped me at all. I realize the splintering this hand is bad, but the hand has got me looking for a better solution.

[hrothgar]

straube, on 2012-May-02, 10:49, said:

I agree with these sentiments. Unfortunately, we currently can't show this hand. Plus it's a little difficult to show 1) fit 2) side void) and 3) solid source of tricks. At the table, I splintered the hand (lying about my trump support), but 4S might have been better. Relay wouldn't have helped me at all. I realize the splintering this hand is bad, but the hand has got me looking for a better solution.

If I were playing MPs I'd be happy to punt 4S. I suspect that a quick, non-informative auction might mean lots of nice overtricks.
IMPs things are a bit more difficult

FWIW, I have relay breaks that are designed to show shortage in responder's suit. However, they don't apply opposite a limited opener.

With this hand I would be forced to relay to "completion".

[straube]

So what do you think of my scheme?

The problem hand again is xxx Qxx AKQJxxx void and I'm worried about AKQxx Kxx xx xxx vs QJxxx xxx xx AKQ

1)

1S-2C (nat, GF)
2D-2S (various, void)
2N-3C (relay, club void)
4C-6S (8 working QPs, to play)


2)

1S-2C (nat, GF)
2D-2S (various, void)
2N-3C (relay, club void)
3D-4S (4 or fewer QPS, to play)

I'm interested in what base should be. Like is 2 under base too high?

[hrothgar]

straube, on 2012-May-02, 11:19, said:

So what do you think of my scheme?

I reserve comment

I think that your initial relay break is too valuable to waste on showing a void so I haven't given much thought to optimizing response schemes thereafter.

I will note the following:

From my perspective, the Achilles heel of relay systems is the ability to make an intelligent decision regarding strain during GF auctions.
More specifically, if all you have available is information about shape its very difficult to make an intelligent decision regarding whether one should play 3N versus a Moysian versus 5m...

I would humbly suggest that low level relay breaks should be designed to transition to natural bidding rather than worrying about rare slam oriented hands.
Who knows... you might event find that this allows you to intelligently explore for the slam.

[straube]

What you say makes sense. OTOH, we'd have to have rules that explain why opener is transitioning to natural bidding. Is it a stopper ask in the other major? Does it deny or confirm a fit? Show a solid suit? Show a suit that needs help? Show a minimum? I'm aware of the pitfalls of relay bidding, but absent rules for relay breaks I'm tempted to adopt these.

[hrothgar]

straube, on 2012-May-02, 11:39, said:

What you say makes sense. OTOH, we'd have to have rules that explain why opener is transitioning to natural bidding. Is it a stopper ask in the other major? Does it deny or confirm a fit? Show a solid suit? Show a suit that needs help? Show a minimum? I'm aware of the pitfalls of relay bidding, but absent rules for relay breaks I'm tempted to adopt these.

One way or another you are establishing a system of relay breaks

In one case your relay breaks are designed to show a void
In the second, your relay breaks are designed to transition to natural bidding

The simplest scheme is probably one in which

Step +1 asks for stoppers or a 4+ card suit
Step +2 and on shows length and denies support for opener

[straube]

hrothgar, on 2012-May-02, 11:50, said:

One way or another you are establishing a system of relay breaks

In one case your relay breaks are designed to show a void
In the second, your relay breaks are designed to transition to natural bidding

The simplest scheme is probably one in which

Step +1 asks for stoppers or a 4+ card suit
Step +2 and on shows length and denies support for opener

Thanks. I think I'd only want to use that if partner had a limited hand (PH or limited opener, etc), but those situations are frequent.

[straube]

I tested the idea for both 1C-1H, 1S-2D auctions as well as 1S-2C, 2D auctions....with the latter assuming opener has a 5332. It worked very well. Frequently, captain knows exactly what cards partner has with his working QP response.

I expect that when responder has an unbalanced hand (thinking major suit openers) and opener decides to show shortness with the assumption of a 5332, that we will miss out on some slams. It's very hard for relay to diagnose working cards with shortness in both hands.

The one annoying thing is that I'd like to use this idea when opener has a strong club (5/5) hand opposite a balanced (4432 or 4333) hand. In these cases, opener finds out how well the cards mesh before learning of the best fit. I suppose if opener likes his hand, he can use 5N as choice of slam or something like that.

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2012-May-02, 09:51, said:

I just think we get too high. Do you have a method to sort out AKQxx Kxx xx xxx from QJxxx xxx xx AKQ before we get too high? What is your exclusion method for example?

I open weak 5M332 hands 1NT so it is kind of moot for me - the cue bidding will find out we are missing a side AK on hand 2. On hand 1 Opener will show controls in the majors and not in clubs - having denied a club control we do not even need Exclusion. If you take instead a (for example) 5314 hand (AKQxx/Kxx/x/xxxx versus QJxxx/xxx/x/AKQx) then hand 1 might be bid
1♠ (5+) - 1NT
2♣ (min) - 2♦
2♥ (♣) - 2♠
3♣ (5-4) - 3♦
4♣ (5314, 4 controls) - 4♦
4♠ (♠, not ♣) - 4NT
5♦ (♥, not ♦) - 6♦/♠

I say might since there is some danger in Responder looking for slam here. It is certainly true that on some hands we would be too high - the big problem hand here is something like QJTxx/Jxx/x/AKQ where even 4♠ is down. Hand 2 is simple though, even if we take the very rosy view of looking for the slam.

1♠ (5+) - 1NT
2♣ (min) - 2♦
2♥ (♣) - 2♠
3♣ (5-4) - 3♦
3NT (5314, 3 controls) - 4♣
4♦ (not ♠) - 4♠

Here it is easy to find out we are missing the ♠AK below 4♠. I suspect there is something wrong with your relay structure if you need to jump to 4NT with the most balanced hand pattern possible and not enough controls to give 5 level safety. On your second auction I have to ask why Opener cannot respond 4♦ with the most disappointing number of QPs. Of course you still have the problem of 8+ of the wrong sort. Duplication of values sucks sometimes - you just have to take the percentage action for the given case. No system gets everything right all the time and this looks like a particularly bad hand for the QP method. Perhaps an interesting option within a QP system would be to have relay breaks for solid suits where queens are often less useful and aces gold.


In (natural) auctions where Exclusion is required I have effectively given up on 5 level cue bidding to accomodate it. Assuming that a suit is agreed at the 3 level then denial cue bids/asking bids apply up to 4X and higher bids are Exclusion from the unknown hand or key card showing from the known hand. It is not always perfect (sometimes partner shows key cards before we get a chance to use Exclusion) but it works on the vast majority of hands and requires much simpler agreements than Standard.

[straube]

Just to clarify, but our 5332 shapes are shown at 3H, 3S, and 3N.

The trouble is that's rather high to start asking for QPs, so the scheme I came up with asked partner to exclude QPs that aren't working opposite his singleton or void. In the first auction, he showed 8 working QPs so that responder can picture a slam. In the second auction he showed 4 or less, so responder signed off.

This scheme feels like a patch to me, but I think it would still be helpful. I tested it out on BBO and lots of times responder knows exactly which cards opener has.