[foobar]

Zelandakh, on 2026-April-02, 08:54, said:

It's my own modification of Symmetric Relay and I posted a fair bit about it back when you and straube were together. I don't mix 7411 in with 54xx, 2NT here is 54(31)/5422 with 74xx now resolving up at 3♦. The system base is similar to Polish Club, with 1♣ = "15+nat/bal or 18+ any", but is built much more around a Strong Club response structure. Relays only occur if Opener is 18+ (and Responder GF opposite 15) or if Responder to a 1 level opening is INV+ and the auction becomes game forcing. I haven't played it for a while so I've just started reviewing it with an eye to making a few small optimisations I've had in mind for a while. But the rules behind it are generally fixed and (I think) it works pretty well.

Ah yes, that did jog my memory. I was trying to locate the thread with your specific scheme and only found one where you mentioned a preference for using 1♠ as the relay over 1♥. straube mentioned looking at your relays over 1♠, but that might have been in a private thread.

So, what are your adaptations to the symmetric scheme and how do they unfold?

[Zelandakh]

foobar, on 2026-April-02, 19:10, said:

Ah yes, that did jog my memory. I was trying to locate the thread with your specific scheme and only found one where you mentioned a preference for using 1♠ as the relay over 1♥. straube mentioned looking at your relays over 1♠, but that might have been in a private thread.

So, what are your adaptations to the symmetric scheme and how do they unfold?

That's right, I use the first step as an INV+ relay over 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ rather than 1NT as a GF relay. This is more efficient at the cost of not having established a game force if the opps intervene. It also fits with my idea of using ther other calls as natural and non-forcing, which I think adds considerable pressure to opps in auctions that are potentially dangerous for them to enter and therefore difficult to judge.

For the relay schemes, the biggest change is in 1-suiters. I used to organise these purely according to fragment-showing shown at the traditional 2♦ but in the new re-write am looking to move over to a more major-focused scheme that, in many cases, gets shown at 2♣.

Major 1-suiter:
Step1 = 6-7 in M, 0-2 in oM, not (72)22 (8 hands)
Step2 = 8+M or (72)22 (4 basic hand types; 7 hands if you also resolve voids)
Step3 = 6-7 in M, 3 in oM, 0-2 both minors (3 hands)
Step4 = (63)13/(73)03
Step5 = (63)31
Step6+ = (73)30

Minor 1-suiter:
Step1 = 0-2S, 0-2H (7 basic hand types; 10 hands if you also resolve voids)
Step2 = 6-7m, 3H, 0-2S (5 hands)
Step3 = 6-7m, 3S, 1-2H, 1-2om (3 hands)
Step4 = 31(63)/30(73)
Step5 = 3361
Step6+ = 3370

1.5-suiter (this is my name for the short-legged 2-suiter from Sym Relay); typically shown at 2H:
Step1 = 54xx (3 hands)
Step2 = 6403/6412
Step3 = 74xx (this is still officially the scheme but I'll probably soon switch it to: Step3 = 6421/6430 and Step4+ = 74xx, which has some advantages I quite like, one of which is matching the (new) 2-suited scheme below)
Step4 = 6421 }
Step5+ = 6430 } (these 2 hands resolve one step higher in the alternative scheme)

2-suiter; typically shown at 2S:
Step1 = 5503/5512
Step2 = 5521/5530
Step3 = 56xx
Step4+ = 65xx

Relay breaks follow a pretty simple concept - break in a potential fragment is a stopper ask; break in partner's suit starts a frivolous/cue auction; break to 2NT is an invite to 6NT; break in a short suit is mostly either a surrogate for a stop ask that wasn't available or a puppet to follow up with a slam try that wasn't otherwise available.
There's a bit more detail beyond this but that's the basics. Basically I am more suit/fragment-focused than pure symmetric and try to resolve the key lengths as quickly as possible, rather than building around where my shortage sits and relying on additional relays to sort it out later. I find this approach both more practical (less leakage) and also easier to remember. True Sym Relay officianados would probably disagree.