[straube]

Learned that 8221s have roughly the same frequency as 7330. I’m looking at the following. Suggestions welcomed.

3D 6331
3H 7231
3S 7321
3N 7330
4C 8221
4D 8(32)0
Etc 7330s base +4

3H 5422
3S 5422, base +2
3N 7411
4C 8311
Etc 7411 base +4

3D 5431
3H 6421
3S 6430
3N 7420
4C 7510
4D 8410
Etc 7420 base +4

3S 5611
3N 6511
Etc 5611 base +4

3H 5521
3S 5530
3N 5620
4C 6520
4D 6610
Etc 5620 base +4

[steve2005]

Is showing 8-card suit patterns that useful?
A) they are very rare
B) if they occur opps have 7 or 8 card suit of their own a lot of the time and will jump the bidding very high so you won't be able to show.

[Kungsgeten]

We used to play 6331, 7+ singleton, 7+ void when we used symmetric relay to show one-suiters. If you want to include 8 card suits, maybe:

3D = 6331
3H = 7-card suit and singleton.
3S = 8+ suit and singleton.
3NT = 7-card suit and void.
4C = 8+ suit and void.

My reason for putting 8+ suit and singleton at 3S is that 3NT can be used as a relay; we probably shouldn't play 3NT when opener has an eight card suit? These doesn't resolve shape 100%, so if that's what you want then this might be bad.

If you want to be able to show 8311 perhaps you could put that at 4D above, and have some kind of agreement which singleton you show first when holding two singletons? Perhaps you show your higher "touching" singleton:

Shows short hearts, then bids 4D: 8113
Shows short diamonds, then bids 4D: 8311
Shows short clubs, then bids 4D: 8131

If hearts:

Show spades first: 1813
Show diamonds first: 3811
Show clubs first: 1831

If diamonds:

Show spades first: 1183
Show hearts first: 3181
Show clubs first: 1381

If clubs:

Show spades first: 1138
Show hearts first: 3118
Show diamonds first: 1318

[straube]

I think the higher of two touching is a good idea.

I remember the saying that 8-cd suits are also called "trump" but my last shape for semipositives is 7330 at 3N. So in theory I could have some 9310 being dropped in 3N.

Collectively the 8-cd suits are significantly more frequent than just 7330.

The other issue I'm trying to solve is how to handle the positives (GF) hands whose shapes resolve at 3N. I want to limit them to base to base +3 and then zoom the others after my last freak shape. Is that what others are doing? As it stands now, my 3N is unlimited and asker has to disturb that 3N to make sure that partner doesn't have an overstrength hand.

I remember relaying a 6610 to partner as a 6520. The opponents were quiet throughout. Freaks are infrequent but collectively they happen often enough that I'm concerned.

[straube]

ok, my thought now is always to have 4H show the same pattern as 3N but base +4. I want to avoid a disaster by forgetting how many freak patterns are in this or that module.

3D 6331
3H 7231
3S 7321
3N 7330
4C 8221
4D 8+(xy)0
Etc 7330s base +4

3H 5422
3S 5422, base +2
3N 7411
4C 8311
4D 9211
Etc 7411 base +4

3D 5431
3H 6421
3S 6430
3N 7420
4C 7510
4D 8410
Etc 7420 base +4

3S 5611
3N 6511
4C 6700
4D 7600
Etc 5611 base +4

3H 5521
3S 5530
3N 5620
4C 6520
4D 6610
Etc 5620 base +4

the 7600s are a bit silly

I also have the 6322s and 7222s available. My 7222 resolves at 3N. hm

[rbforster]

Currently I don’t show lots of freak shapes explicitly in relays, but agree to “fudge” things beyond 7 card suits or 65 two suiters. So maybe 8221 shows 7321, 6610 shows 6520, 8311 shows one of the singletons as 7321, etc. From a frequency perspective, you should consider the odds of the various strength of common hands that you could show more easily by excluding these from your relays, which are probably still more likely than all the freak hands of a given shape. Yes, you’ll be worse off when those freaks show up, but more often then you get interference and the relays don’t matter anyway.

Here are the odds including the higher shapes.

http://www.rpbridge.net/7z77.htm#2

[straube]

Thanks for the stats.

I'm not too worried about depriving space for other hands as long as I can zoom the 3N pattern at a reasonable level. What do you think about showing the 7/5s without showing which singleton is held? How would you tweak this? Ideally I want the base +4 to start at 4H

3D 6331
3H 7231
3S 7321
3N 7330
4C 8221
4D 8+(xy)0
Etc 7330s base +4

3H 5422
3S 5422, base +2
3N 7411
4C 8311
4D 9211
Etc 7411 base +4

3D 5431
3H 6421
3S 6430
3N 7420
4C 7510
4D 8410
Etc 7420 base +4

3S 5611
3N 6511
4C 6700
4D 7600
Etc 5611 base +4

3H 5521
3S 5530
3N 5620
4C 6520
4D 6610
Etc 5620 base +4

[DinDIP]

I have played different rules in different partnerships. Mostly, we ignored freaks; in one partnership we showed every shape exactly, and actually had a 7510 come up.

In my most recent symmetric partnership we agreed to use 4♣ to show freaks, with 4♦ and higher bids showing the 3N shape with too much strength to bid a non-forcing 3N. Our experience was that it wasn't worth distinguishing between 8221 and 8320 immediately. Instead, over 4♣, 4♦ asked for singleton/void (zoom with void) then normal (show 3-2-1 points then DCB) and 4N (directly or over a 4♥) rebid was RKC in teller's long suit. (We didn't have enough 8+suits with voids come up to determine whether teller's continuations should be 3-2-1 or 2-1 or KCs.)

With two-suiters we decided that 75s, 84s and the like were so infrequent that we wouldn't show them specifically. Instead, teller had the option of showing such hands as the least freaky shape with that pattern (so 7510 was treated as 5431 because all four suits are of different length, while we showed 8410 as 6421), then taking impossible action later. (This was similar to the original advice from Roy Kerr.)

[straube]

Wouldn't impossible action later be misinterpreted as super-accepting with additional controls or QPs?

Curious if you mean every shape literally, but I'm looking for more of a tradeoff here. I also want to not confuse the 3N shape super-accept with the freaks.

Do you like what I have here or can you reorganize it to be more mnemonic?

[DinDIP]

straube, on 2018-August-30, 19:45, said:

Wouldn't impossible action later be misinterpreted as super-accepting with additional controls or QPs?

Not when made by a limited opener, obviously. At one time I tested an agreement where step one after asker's signoff showed a freak with other steps showing extra QP. Decided it wasn't worth it as extra QP hands seemed more frequent than freaks. (I say "seemed" because they came up more often in the samples I tested, even if the absolute probabilities may suggest otherwise.)

straube, on 2018-August-30, 19:45, said:

Curious if you mean every shape literally, but I'm looking for more of a tradeoff here. I also want to not confuse the 3N shape super-accept with the freaks.

Yes, in one partnership. And we were always lower than the Ultimate Club, which you might recall says after describing the sequence for 0=0=7=6 hands "fall off chair".

straube, on 2018-August-30, 19:45, said:

Do you like what I have here or can you reorganize it to be more mnemonic?

IF you decide to show freaks then you need to
a. make a judgement about which ones are worth showing and how much you are willing to sacrifice (in terms of being a step or two lower with less-freaky shapes but extra QP); and
b. be consistent so that the memory load is minimised.
My decision (to show freaks only via 4♣) reflected my judgement and ensured consistency.