[straube]

In a strong club setting, trying to combine a few things I like...

1) knowing whether partner is bust or not before RHO intervenes
2) right-siding (specifically attempting to have the big hand declare)
3) allowing for reverse relays (a balanced responder can be captain)

The basic responses to a 16+ club

1D-5-7 any or 8+ bal (including 5332s)
1H-S, 8+
1S-0-4
1N-H, H/D
2C-C/D
2D-H/C
2H-D
2S-3 suited, short M
2N-C, bal

After 1C-1D

1H-H (may have longer spades)
.....1S-GF bal
.....1N-S, S/C, S/D
..........2C-relay
.....2C-C/D
..........2D-relay
.....2D-C
..........2S-relay
.....2H-bal, 2 or 3H
.....2S-D
..........3C-relay
.....2N-3-suited, short H
.....etc-fit-showing hearts

1S-S, not hearts
.....1N-GF bal
.....2C-diamonds, bal
.....2D-hearts
.....2H-clubs
.....2S-fit

1N-17-19

2C-C/D
.....2D-GF bal

2D-D
.....2H-GF bal

2H-3-suited, both minors
.....2S-weak ask
.....2N-GF bal

2S-C, limited
.....2N-GF bal

2N-bal, 20+

3C-C, bal, GF
3D-C, higher, GF
etc

[wclass___]

good luck.

[32519]

I don't have much experience with relays, although I do believe they allow for more accurate description of hand distribution. In the USBC I don't recall too many players using relays. Why not? Perhaps it has something to do with mental fatigue in long matches. What I witnessed in the USBC are sound but not overly complicated continuation structures. USA's top players may be presenting a message to the rest of us here. Keep your system sound but not exotic.

[straube]

32519, on 2012-May-05, 11:50, said:

I don't have much experience with relays, although I do believe they allow for more accurate description of hand distribution. In the USBC I don't recall too many players using relays. Why not? Perhaps it has something to do with mental fatigue in long matches. What I witnessed in the USBC are sound but not overly complicated continuation structures. USA's top players may be presenting a message to the rest of us here. Keep your system sound but not exotic.

That's no fun

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-May-05, 11:50, said:

USA's top players may be presenting a message to the rest of us here. Keep your system sound but not exotic.

The systems used in the US primarily reflect the system regulations.

For example relay systems are banned in most events

[straube]

Throwing the semipositives with 4+ hearts into the relay. Realistically, it's hard to stop in 2H with a 4-fit and semipositive strength opposite a 16+ unbalanced hand...

1C-1D

1H-H, unbal, may have longer spades
.....1S-relay, GF or 4+ heart fit
.....1N-S/C, S/D, 4+S bal
..........P-minimum/misfitting
..........2C-relay
...............2D-C
...............2H-bal
...............etc-D
..........2C-C/D
...............2D-relay
..........2D-bal, no major
...............2S-relay
..........2H-S (6+)
...............2N-relay
..........2S-D (6+)
..............3C-relay
..........2N-3-suited, short heart
..........etc-6 clubs

[akhare]

In general, I think you are on the right track, but your 1♦ response may need more overloading to maintain symmetry (a la Rob F's idea).

BTW, in response to 32519's comments, I find that symmetric relay bidding over 1♣ is (IMO) vastly superior to anything else out there, especially for slam bidding.

In terms of memory load, I find it extremely easy to learn, because the responses just follow a template and you really don't have to think too much (except for the order in which suits are shown).

Granted, there's sometimes the problem of "too much information" and sometimes one can't infer strength in doubletons etc. (for stopper purposes).

That said I would rather play a system that used relays over 1♣ than not; the problems mentioned above can be addressed via intelligent use of relay breaks and even if not, the advantages far outweigh the shortcomings.

[32519]

hrothgar, on 2012-May-05, 12:15, said:

The systems used in the US primarily reflect the system regulations.

For example relay systems are banned in most events

I don't buy this for the USBC. These guys are going to represent the USA in the 2012 World Bridge Games later this year. Whatever you intend playing there, you have an excellent opportunity to put to the test now and patch up any holes or misunderstandings that may take place in this tournament.

mike777, on 2012-April-26, 17:40, said:

UNITED STATES BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIP STARTS FRIDAY
The 2012 USBC, which will select the Open USBF team for the 2012 World Bridge Games this summer, starts on Friday, April 27th at 10:00 am. The 2012 USBC is being held at the Woodfield Hyatt in Schaumburg, IL. There are 18 teams entered, 3 of which have byes to the Knockout phase of competition. The other 15 teams will be playing a complete Round Robin on Friday and Saturday. Eleven of those teams will advance from the Round Robin to the Round of 16, which starts Sunday, April 29th. The Fleisher team will join those 11 teams in the Round of 16, which is a Knockout round played on Sunday and Monday. The six winners from the Round of 16 will join Nickell & Diamond in the Quarterfinal on Tuesday and Wednesday.
http://www.usbf.org/

[straube]

Finding that many of the problems can be solved if the relays don't guarantee GF values. For instance 1C-1D, 1S-1N could be planning a GF or a relay break somewhere....i.e. you can't drop opener. So you only relay if you can stand partner's response.

1C-1D,

.....1H-4+ hearts, unbalanced, could have longer spades
..........1S-relay, not necessarily GF, handles all single-suited spades
...............1N-S or 3-suited short minor
...............2C-clubs
...............2D-single-suited
...............etc-diamonds
..........1N-S, nf
...............2C-relay
....................2D-S/C
....................2H-bal
....................etc-S/D
..........2C-C/D, nf
...............2D-relay
..........2D-bal no major
...............2S-relay
..........2H-single-suited clubs
...............2S-relay
..........2S-3-suited, short heart
..........2N-diamonds balanced
..........3C-diamonds, high short
..........3D-diamonds, mid short
..........etc.


1C-1D,

.....1S-unbal, not 4+ hearts
..........1N-relays, may not plan GF, includes C/D and D
...............2C-clubs
...................2S-2-fit
...............2D-single-suited
...................2S-2-fit
...............etc-diamonds
..........2C-C/H
..........2D-C
..........2H-H
...............2N-relay
..........2S-3-fit, balanced

1C-1D
.....1N-17-19
.....2C-C/D, f
.....2D-6D, f
.....2H-3-suited, short major
.....2S-clubs, min
..........2N-relays
.....2N-bal, 20+
.....etc-clubs, max
.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-May-05, 13:18, said:

I don't buy this for the USBC. These guys are going to represent the USA in the 2012 World Bridge Games later this year. Whatever you intend playing there, you have an excellent opportunity to put to the test now and patch up any holes or misunderstandings that may take place in this tournament.

Interesting theory...

In practice, top players in the US often cite that they strongly prefer not switching systems between events.
They benefits from (potential) gains from switching to some new method is outweighed by the dramatic increase of a system forget.

They typically identify the lowest common denominator and stick with this.

[rbforster]

It seems to me that if you want 1♦ to be SP or some GFs, you should consider a couple things:

1. Try to use symmetric relays, so avoid things like 2♣ being ♣+♦, while 2♦ is ♣+♥.
2. Include heart GFs for transfer purposes, especially if opener is going to rebid 1♥ a lot (whatever it means).
3. For continuations, consider something that shows extras by opener and requests relays even by the SP hand. For example,

1♣ - 1♦ (SP any, or GF bal, or GF H/H+m) - ?

1♥ no extras, balanced or single suited or minors
........1♠ SP only (others show GF hands by relaying)
.................natural bidding, NF
........1N reverse relay, askes opener to show his shape (responder is GF balanced)
........2♣ H/D
........2♦ H
........2♥+ H/C

1♠ extras, GF relay (your favorite relay scheme starting at +2)
1N 5+ clubs and 4M, limited
2♣ majors, limited
2♦ 5+ diamonds and 4M, limited
2M 5M and 4+m, limited
2N+ strong specific hands by opener not wanting to relay

Here could be the opening symmetric structure:

1♦ SP, GF bal or H/H+m
1♥ S unbal
.......1N S/H or 3 suited majors
.......2♣ S/D
.......2♦ S
.......2♥+ S/C
1♠ DN
1N free! maybe some SP hands here not in 1D
2♣ D or 3 suited minors
2♦ C
2♥+ C/D

[Cthulhu D]

32519, on 2012-May-05, 13:18, said:

I don't buy this for the USBC. These guys are going to represent the USA in the 2012 World Bridge Games later this year. Whatever you intend playing there, you have an excellent opportunity to put to the test now and patch up any holes or misunderstandings that may take place in this tournament.

The reality is pros are sinking years of understanding into a system, so playing different systems in different events makes no sense. I think BridgeMatters has an interview with Rodwell where he talks about their NT ranges and notes that he'd probably play something different at IMPs, BAM and MPs if the goal was an optimal system, but for ease of use they play the same thing at all forms of scoring.

This is a guy that plays in the world championships and he doesn't want to change a comparatively minor part of his system. Switching from 2/1 GF to relay precision is a much more significant change.

[32519]

If this is true....

hrothgar, on 2012-May-05, 12:15, said:

The systems used in the US primarily reflect the system regulations.For example relay systems are banned in most events

Then this is an interesting theory...

hrothgar, on 2012-May-05, 17:09, said:

Interesting theory...

In practice, top players in the US often cite that they strongly prefer not switching systems between events. Their benefits from (potential) gains from switching to some new method is outweighed by the dramatic increase of a system forget.

They typically identify the lowest common denominator and stick with this.

[straube]

rbforster, on 2012-May-05, 18:46, said:

It seems to me that if you want 1♦ to be SP or some GFs, you should consider a couple things:

1. Try to use symmetric relays, so avoid things like 2♣ being ♣+♦, while 2♦ is ♣+♥.
2. Include heart GFs for transfer purposes, especially if opener is going to rebid 1♥ a lot (whatever it means).
3. For continuations, consider something that shows extras by opener and requests relays even by the SP hand. For example,

1♣ - 1♦ (SP any, or GF bal, or GF H/H+m) - ?

1♥ no extras, balanced or single suited or minors
........1♠ SP only (others show GF hands by relaying)
.................natural bidding, NF
........1N reverse relay, askes opener to show his shape (responder is GF balanced)
........2♣ H/D
........2♦ H
........2♥+ H/C

1♠ extras, GF relay (your favorite relay scheme starting at +2)
1N 5+ clubs and 4M, limited
2♣ majors, limited
2♦ 5+ diamonds and 4M, limited
2M 5M and 4+m, limited
2N+ strong specific hands by opener not wanting to relay

Here could be the opening symmetric structure:

1♦ SP, GF bal or H/H+m
1♥ S unbal
.......1N S/H or 3 suited majors
.......2♣ S/D
.......2♦ S
.......2♥+ S/C
1♠ DN
1N free! maybe some SP hands here not in 1D
2♣ D or 3 suited minors
2♦ C
2♥+ C/D

One of my concerns is that I don't want 1C-1D, 1N to be 17-19 and now have responder try to show a shapely H or H/m hand. OTOH, I don't really mind rebidding 1N when I know that partner has either a semipositive hand or a GF balanced hand.

The question is whether the semipositives can relay and then break relay low enough. Pretty clearly we'll get too high some fraction of the time. Perhaps it could be worthwhile.

Thanks for your suggestions. If you have any ideas for making 1D as GF balanced/semipositive work, let me know. I remember we worked on 1C-1H as DN a long time ago and we did pretty well with it. I have a feeling 1D as GF balanced/semipositive won't work, but it would be nice if it did.

[straube]

1C-1D,

.....1H-4+ hearts, unbalanced, could have longer spades
..........1S-relay
...............1N-S or 3-suited short minor
...............2C-clubs
...............2D-single-suited
...............etc-diamonds
..........1N-S, nf
...............2C-relay
....................2D-S/C
....................2H-S/D
....................2S-single-suited
....................2N-5S/5D
....................etc-bal, not 4H
..........2C-5C/4+D or 6C
..........2D-5D/4C or 6D
..........2H-3H, bal
..........2S-5D/5C
..........2N-3-suited, short heart
..........3C-3H/6C
..........3D-3H/6D
..........3H-4H/min


1C-1D,

.....1S-unbal, not 4+ hearts
..........1N-relays, may not plan GF, includes C/D and D
...............2C-clubs
...................2S-2-fit
...............2D-single-suited
...................2S-2-fit
...............etc-diamonds
..........2C-C/H or C
..........2D-D/H
..........2H-6H
...............2N-relay
..........2S-3-fit, balanced
..........2N-3-suited, short spade
..........3C-6C/3S
..........3D-6D/3S
..........3H-6H/3S
..........3S-4 spades

1C-1D
.....1N-17-19
.....2C-C/D, f
.....2D-6D, f
.....2H-3-suited, short major
.....2S-clubs, min
..........2N-relays
.....2N-bal, 20+
.....etc-clubs, max
.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-May-05, 23:35, said:

If this is true....

Then this is an interesting theory...

I can point to multiple quotes from top US internationalists which support my claim.

Cthulhu_D has already provided one

[32519]

hrothgar, on 2012-May-06, 04:03, said:

I can point to multiple quotes from top US internationalists which support my claim.

Cthulhu_D has already provided one

Richard

I apologise if it appears as though I was trying to be clever in my post. That was never the intention. The point I was trying to make is this:

If you have limited opportunities for playing a relay system, why expend all the energy to develop one? If the players in the USBC didn’t believe that there was anything to gain in doing so, why would lesser mortals think differently? In a different thread someone else posted, “It is better to play a poor system well than what it is to play a good system badly.”

Apologies for a second time.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-May-06, 06:06, said:

That was never the intention. The point I was trying to make is this:

If you have limited opportunities for playing a relay system, why expend all the energy to develop one? If the players in the USBC didn’t believe that there was anything to gain in doing so, why would lesser mortals think differently? In a different thread someone else posted, “It is better to play a poor system well than what it is to play a good system badly.”

de gustibus non est disputandum

With this said and done, I think that it would be a grave mistake to think that motivations of players in the USBF are aligned with those of "lesser mortals".

The USBF is dominated by professionals. The Beer Card had an interesting post a week or so back noting how difficult it is for non-professionals to even participate in this event.
http://thebeercard.b...etired-and.html

Said professionals have a strong vested interest in clamping down on variance.
I'd go so far as to argue that a primary goal of the system regulations in North America is decreasing variance.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2012-May-06, 00:29, said:

One of my concerns is that I don't want 1C-1D, 1N to be 17-19 and now have responder try to show a shapely H or H/m hand. OTOH, I don't really mind rebidding 1N when I know that partner has either a semipositive hand or a GF balanced hand.

Well, that depends on what 1N shows. If 1N is bal, you can just play a strong NT structure without relays. Still, SP hands aren't going to make high responses, so you can put some of the strong relay shapes there. In my example, I put single suited, balanced, and both minors minimum openers into a 1♥ rebid. This works out very well when you have that (or extras to relay with 1♠), but unloads the problem hands of unbalanced minimum two-suiters into rebids of 1N-2♠.

I admit I didn't think though everything with the proposed structure I gave above (most strong NT interference schemes can be adopted instead, Meyerson or whatever, and you don't need to include single suiters). For the 1N-2♠ by opener, the design goals for your system would be very different than mine so I'd have to think hard about the best thing there. Ideally you want openers bids to be well defined with respect to major length but also NF so the SP responder can stop low (pass) without worrying about missing a better partial. You also want space for forcing asks in case responder is strong ( possibly relays?), etc. In my case own system, I have the DN responder hands to manage, and that means having opener make natural passable rebids a lot whereas you might want to be thinking more along the lines of transfers with step being GFR and relay breaks being SP. Obviously this has to be worked out for each of openers rebids, so it's not an easy task.

Quote

The question is whether the semipositives can relay and then break relay low enough. Pretty clearly we'll get too high some fraction of the time. Perhaps it could be worthwhile.

This can be done, but it's very tricky and involves a lot of thought/planning in laying out your bidding structure. How do you use high responses by opener to the non-GF relay ask? Either you need to give up these since they aren't safe vs SP asker or start separating your relay responses into extra--vs-not so all high ones show extras (which breaks symmetry often and uses up more space). It often helps if you can limit the number of SP hands by unloading some of them elsewhere. This makes it easier for there to be a sensible SP relay break opposite each possible low level relay response by opener. For example, in my prior structure with 1♦ SP/GF bal/H/H+m, a direct 1N was free and might be used for SP H/H+m so there was no ambiguity in the 1♦ continuations about what values responder had when showing those shapes.

straube, on 2012-May-06, 01:41, said:

1C-1D,

.....1H-4+ hearts, unbalanced, could have longer spades
..........1S-relay
...............1N-S or 3-suited short minor
...............2C-clubs
...............2D-single-suited
...............etc-diamonds
..........1N-S, nf
...............2C-relay
....................2D-S/C
....................2H-S/D
....................2S-single-suited
....................2N-5S/5D
....................etc-bal, not 4H
..........2C-5C/4+D or 6C
..........2D-5D/4C or 6D
..........2H-3H, bal
..........2S-5D/5C
..........2N-3-suited, short heart
..........3C-3H/6C
..........3D-3H/6D
..........3H-4H/min

I'm not sure I see a safe bid as SP responder above with 3244? Is that 2N? You can't really relay since you get forced past 3♦ when opener has H/D. You have a diamond fit, sure, but no guarantee of safely at the 4 level or values for 3N.

[straube]

I've been thinking of another benefit of this that might offset getting too high sometimes. At the moment, we have to separate GF from SPs at responder's first opportunity. With this, we could defer the decision. Responder could basically relay as long as he felt he had the wherewithal to do so and would break off ASAP with a misfit or continue to relay with (say) less than 8 hcps but a big fit.

i've been looking at hands and am encouraged so far. I'm thinking that 1C-1D, 1M-2M should promise exactly 3 cards and potentially be unbalanced. That way responder can show a 2-fit preference after a 1-round relay.

I'm less concerned about getting too high. I'm more concerned about splitting opener's NT ranges. In one example, opener had 25 balanced. His systemic rebid was 2N, but partner had a 5/5 hand in the majors and slam was on. I'm sure continuations could be invented, but a 2N rebid as 20+ even GF is a problem.