[straube]

Hope I haven't posted this before. Feedback welcome.

After a strong club has been overcalled by spades (purportedly natural)

P-other

dbl-GF, balanced

1N-6-7, 5+H, nf

2C-6+, 5+D, usually unbalanced
.....2D-nf
.....2H-nf
.....2S-artificial GF

2D-GF, 5+ clubs, usually unbalanced

2H-6-7, takeout of spades (3-4H, 3-5D, 3-5C)

2S-GF, 5+H

2N-GF, 5+S

3C/3D/3H-invitational with suit


A tally of 100 hands
dbl-23
1N-15
2C-27
2D-16
2H-8
2S-7
2N-1
etc-3

My personal experience is that when an opponent's overcall of 1S is explained as natural, it usually is natural. So I want to gear our defense toward it being natural. If they have a system forget (1S is not natural), there's some machinery here for catching that. If it's a psyche, we additionally may have a legal remedy.

This structure has some strengths and weaknesses. I'll go through each bid individually...

dbl-is frequent and informative, tends to rightside the contracts and allows 1SX to be the final contract sometimes. It also lets opener double other strains when they run.

1N-is frequent and useful. It allows opener to pass sometimes because responder is limited. It wrongsides NT terribly, but very often we have a heart fit and this is rightsided. I can't really figure out what opener's 2m rebids should be. Probably just to play, but this use is infrequent and tends to tell me that 1N is wrong.

2H-is infrequent but we need a bid for this hand type. Opener is most likely to want to support hearts, so he can sometimes pass this bid. I think a 2S rebid by opener is best used to sort out 3 vs 4 hearts but maybe there's a better use for it.

2S-very often opener has a fit immediately and can rebid 3H. If not, he usually has some other bid available. I don't like how high this bid is, but it seems to work out. Between being not very common and usually having a heart fit when it does come up, it seems like the placement of it works.

2N-this provides some protection in case they're funning and don't have spades. Since it's possible they do have spades, 2N should work when we just need the suit stopped.

One thing I like about this is that there doesn't need to be a lot of artificial continuations for any of this.

[Vampyr]

Why would you have a legal remedy if it is a psyche?

Anyway, would you make any modifications if 1♠ is 5+ or 2- spades, or if 1♠ is "present at the table"?

[straube]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-16, 19:12, said:

Why would you have a legal remedy if it is a psyche?

Anyway, would you make any modifications if 1♠ is 5+ or 2- spades, or if 1♠ is "present at the table"?

I wouldn't play this unless 1S was explained as natural. If it's natural, then we're less likely to have spades and more likely to want to play in contracts other than spades.

I used the word "may" in talking about legal remedies for psyches. I'd rather not take this thread on a tangent and assume we're talking about a defense to when the opponents have spades. If you want to start another thread about psyching a spade, I'll contribute to it.

[The_Badger]

Always remember this incident but can't recall the vulnerability, mine or partner's hand. It was in the Swiss Teams at Brighton. Husband and wife opps. Partner opened 1♣ Precision, overcalled by LHO 2♠, me No Bid, passed out.

Opponents had overcalled 2♠ on a 4 card ♠ suit and had 4 card support! (I do remember that.) Psyche, cheating or what? Director was never called as the hand was played slowly, and by the time it was finished everyone was moving and changing seats.

[nullve]

straube, on 2017-September-16, 18:15, said:

1N-6-7, 5+H, nf

But you don't want to play 1N when Responder has 6+ H?

Idea: If you know a good strong diamond system where

1♦*-(P)-?:

1♥ = A
1♠ = B
1N = C
etc.,

* defined the same way as your strong 1♣ opening

then you can play "system on" opposite an imaginary 1♦ opening in that system, i.e.

1♣-(1♠)-?:

P = A
X = B
1N = C
etc.

[straube]

nullve, on 2017-September-17, 03:53, said:

But you don't want to play 1N when Responder has 6+ H?

Opener would rebid 2H instead of passing even with two-card support, same as a transfer. From there, responder is free to raise to 3H (with 6) or make some other game try. So yes we'd miss some 6-1 fits when opener passes 1N, but there's also 1C (1S) 3H available if responder has a sufficiently good suit.

nullve, on 2017-September-17, 03:53, said:

Idea: If you know a good strong diamond system where

1♦*-(P)-?:

1♥ = A
1♠ = B
1N = C
etc.,

* defined the same way as your strong 1♣ opening

then you can play "system on" opposite an imaginary 1♦ opening in that system, i.e.

1♣-(1♠)-?:

P = A
X = B
1N = C
etc.

This is a good idea and one that's occurred to me, too. I've also tried various schemes that aim for complete shape relays (though they get rather high).

But in my locale and even on BBO, folks who play 1S natural usually have spades (if only 4 sometimes) and it seems better to put most of my chips on that. Now the double (gf balanced) gives some protection and so does 2N (gf spades) against psyches or skimpy 4-cd overcalls and personally I wouldn't want to psyche a spade against this structure, but the structure doesn't provide a way of showing 6-7 spades (and certain other hands like 6-7 3415 or 2425 etc).

[foobar]

My strong personal preference is to simply ignore the meaning of whatever they claim 1♣ - (1♠) to be.

Too any times:

1) The opponents may not be on the same page regarding what they are playing. This is unlikely to happen in serious competition, but still a possibility
2) They may be psyching
3) They may be playing methods like Psycho-Suction, which may or may not show spades

In other words, there are too many possibilities and IMO, a single method that focuses on showing the known suits immediately (i.e. responder's holding) is a better approach.

AFAIK, awm had had it pretty right in IMP, which uses the metarule that "the cheapest NT is always natural and GF, and the rest are transfers, except that there's no transfer to a suit that couldn't have been bid naturally at the 2-level over their interference":

X: TOX of the assumed ♠ suit
1N: Natural, GF
2♣: Constructive+ transfer
2♦: Constructive+ transfer
2♥: Showing 5+ ♠ regardless of what they claim, ostensibly exposing a psyche
2♠: Constructive+ transfer

It does give up the occasional penalty, but such hands can presumably pass at the right vulnerability and hope for a reopening X.

[straube]

foobar, on 2017-September-17, 10:50, said:

My strong personal preference is to simply ignore the meaning of whatever they claim 1♣ - (1♠) to be.

but...

foobar, on 2017-September-17, 10:50, said:

X: TOX of the assumed ♠ suit

As an aside, I'm thinking to amend my structure such that 1C (1S) 2C P 2D is an artificial GF. I'm also toying with 1C (1S) 2H is takeout and 6+ (so forcing).

Ok, looking at IMprecision's structure...

foobar, on 2017-September-17, 10:50, said:

X: TOX of the assumed ♠ suit
1N: Natural, GF
2♣: Constructive+ transfer
2♦: Constructive+ transfer
2♥: Showing 5+ ♠ regardless of what they claim, ostensibly exposing a psyche
2♠: Constructive+ transfe

If X is takeout, the first forcing bid opener has available is 2S. I also wonder how often responder truly has takeout shape (look at my frequencies) and whether showing a suit first could be an attractive alternative to double. Seems to me that double as takeout is mostly needed for the 6-7 hcp hands and I have a place for that (granted higher)

1N as natural wrongsides NT, especially when responder doesn't have a spade stopper. It also lets the opponents off the hook more often (easier to convert double to penalty if 8+ balanced than 6+ short spades)

2C as transfer. I stole that, but I want opener to have more forcing bids (2N, 3C, 3M and maybe 3D are forcing?)

2D as transfer. So opener has 4144 and does what? Or 4135 even? Remember opener's 2N rebid is a marionette to 3C. If 1C (1S) 1N is 6-7 and 5-6 H then we get to 2H when opener has a doubleton (same) but get to pass when opener is short. Plus we get counter-invites by responder when opener decides to accept the "transfer". With IMprecision the 6-7 and GF heart hands are mixed together and I'm not sure how they are later disentangled.

2H as transfer. So here 2S is spade tolerance and we want to cater to playing a 5-2 spade fit when an opponent may have 5 spades? How often will this come up and how likely to be good?

2S as GF clubs. But this is more likely than responder having spades and is quite high. So continuations are...
.....2N-stopper, not wild about clubs
.....3C-fit? A fit bid shouldn't be the second step.

But if 2D is GF clubs
.....2H-5 hearts
.....2S-5 spades
.....2N-stopper
.....3C-fit
.....3D-5 diamonds

that's at least better. I mean you could switch around bids (the diamond and fit hands?) if you thought you'd remember it.

[foobar]

straube, on 2017-September-17, 12:19, said:

2C as transfer. I stole that, but I want opener to have more forcing bids (2N, 3C, 3M and maybe 3D are forcing?)

2D as transfer. So opener has 4144 and does what? Or 4135 even? Remember opener's 2N rebid is a marionette to 3C. If 1C (1S) 1N is 6-7 and 5-6 H then we get to 2H when opener has a doubleton (same) but get to pass when opener is short. Plus we get counter-invites by responder when opener decides to accept the "transfer". With IMprecision the 6-7 and GF heart hands are mixed together and I'm not sure how they are later disentangled.

2H as transfer. So here 2S is spade tolerance and we want to cater to playing a 5-2 spade fit when an opponent may have 5 spades? How often will this come up and how likely to be good?

2S as GF clubs. But this is more likely than responder having spades and is quite high. So continuations are...
.....2N-stopper, not wild about clubs
.....3C-fit? A fit bid shouldn't be the second step.

But if 2D is GF clubs
.....2H-5 hearts
.....2S-5 spades
.....2N-stopper
.....3C-fit
.....3D-5 diamonds

that's at least better. I mean you could switch around bids (the diamond and fit hands?) if you thought you'd remember it.

My main concern isn't about the semantics assigned to specific bids (for example swapping 2♦ and 2♠ may be more optimal as you suggested). However, my assertion is that mnemonic load is in an important factor of system design, ergo meta rules to deal with interference, while arguably sub-optimal vis-a-vis tailored methods, are preferable by a wide margin.

For example, it's very tempting to design rules for 1♠ natural, 1♠ (Suction family; they never have ♠), 1♠ (Psycho-Suction and more esoteric bids). Now multiply that by the remaining bids through say 2♦ and it's easy to see how it adds more memory load for situations that may never happen for a prolonged period of time.

Other forum regulars like awm and hrothgar have undoubtedly some thought into it, and it would be interesting if they chime in with their perspective.

[nullve]

straube, on 2017-September-17, 08:32, said:

I've also tried various schemes that aim for complete shape relays (though they get rather high).

Maybe

1♦*-?:

* strong

1♥ = "5-7", any / "8+", 4+S3-H, not 4333
...1♠ = "8+" relay [edit, 13 May 2018: This makes no sense, should be "19+", unBAL / "20+ BAL".]
......1N = "5-7" (yuck)
......2♣ = "8+", S+D 2-suiter
......2♦ = "8+", S 1-suiter
......2♥+ = "8+", S+C 2-suiter
...1N = "17-19 BAL"
...2♣+ = "16-18", unBAL ("NT defence"?)
1♠ = "0-4", any / "8+", 3-S4+H, not 3433
...1N = "17-21 (quasi)BAL"
......P = "0-4", at least no 5+c major
......2♣+: symmetric with 2♣+ over 1♦-1♥; 1♠ on positive hands, but with some bids doubling as weak transfers.
......In more detail:
......2♣ = "0-4", either 5+ D / "8+", H+D 2-suiter
......2♦ = "0-4", 5+ H / "8+", H 1-suiter
......2♥ = "0-4", 5+ S / "8+", H+C reverser
......2♠ = "8+", 5+H5+C
......2N = "0-4", 6+ C / "8+", 5+H4C, S shortage
......3♣ = "0-4", 6+ D / "8+", either 2522 or 2434 (see 2-suited scheme below)
......3♦+ = "8+", 5+H4C, D shortage
...2♣+ = not sure yet, but maybe based on a NT defence?
1N = "8+", either S+H 2-suiter or 3-suited
...2♣
......2♦ = 3-suited (not sure how to continue)
......2♥+ = S+H 2-suiter
2♣ = "8+", D+C 2-suiter
2♦ = "8+", D 1-suiter
2♥ = "8+", (4333)
2♠+ = "8+", C 1-suiter,

where the 2-suited scheme is just like in TOSR except that it also takes care of any 4x4y(32), y<x, as follows:

2♥ = 4x5+y (as in TOSR) or 4x4y23
...2♠
......(...)
......3♣ = 4x5y22 (as in TOSR) or 4x4y23
.........3♦
............E.g.
............3♥ = 4x5y22
............3♠+ = 4x4y23
.........(...)
......(...)
(...)
3♣ = 5x4y22 (as in TOSR) or 4x4y32
...3♦
......E.g.
......3♥ = 5x4y22
......3♠+ = 4x4y32
...(...)
(...),

and

1♣*-(1♠)-?:

* strong

P = same as 1♥ over 1♦-(P) above
...X = same as 1♠ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above
...1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above
X = same as 1♠ over 1♦-(P) above
...1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above
1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P) above

?

[straube]

foobar, on 2017-September-17, 13:54, said:

My main concern isn't about the semantics assigned to specific bids (for example swapping 2♦ and 2♠ may be more optimal as you suggested). However, my assertion is that mnemonic load is in an important factor of system design, ergo meta rules to deal with interference, while arguably sub-optimal vis-a-vis tailored methods, are preferable by a wide margin.

For example, it's very tempting to design rules for 1♠ natural, 1♠ (Suction family; they never have ♠), 1♠ (Psycho-Suction and more esoteric bids). Now multiply that by the remaining bids through say 2♦ and it's easy to see how it adds more memory load for situations that may never happen for a prolonged period of time.

Other forum regulars like awm and hrothgar have undoubtedly some thought into it, and it would be interesting if they chime in with their perspective.

That's a little disheartening.

Have you seen this neighboring thread? http://www.bridgebas...-relay-methods/

In it, David describes a method for regrouping the 5431, 6421, and 6430 patterns. In so doing, he adds a new relay break that allows asker to identify whether a suit can play for only one loser opposite xx. Pretty neat stuff. Everyone seemed to think so. Some extra memory load though. No one mentioned.

The one spade overcall is unique in being the only suit overcall that allows the opponents to play at the 1-level and removes just enough room to prevent the opening side from playing their system. So good reward/risk ratio and small wonder that many folks are satisfied with playing 1S as natural.

[straube]

Nullve, if I understand your (yuck) comment correctly, the 5-7 is unworkable. I knew something was off because you're +0 so much of the time. Clever how you use transfers with 0-4 and 8+ but that's a small victory.

If the opponents are showing spades, I'm going to react to that. Also not interested in incorporating 2 or 3-way bids which leave me poorly placed after RHO raises spades.

[Vampyr]

The_Badger, on 2017-September-17, 00:38, said:

Always remember this incident but can't recall the vulnerability, mine or partner's hand. It was in the Swiss Teams at Brighton. Husband and wife opps. Partner opened 1♣ Precision, overcalled by LHO 2♠, me No Bid, passed out.

Opponents had overcalled 2♠ on a 4 card ♠ suit and had 4 card support! (I do remember that.) Psyche, cheating or what? Director was never called as the hand was played slowly, and by the time it was finished everyone was moving and changing seats.

Or perhaps a little paranoia? I think that much depends on the opponents' style. If a typical 2♠ overcall is a balanced Yarb with five little spades, partner does not want to hang him for getting in the way. Besides, you never know, you might buy it in 2♠.

Partner has already done the hard work. Bumping it up,to 3♠ is just asking to be doubled and go for a number.

[straube]

After 1C (1S) 1N which shows 6-7 and 5+H I need a continuation which is easy to remember. How about...

2m-natural, GF
2H-to play, possible 2-fit
2S-natural, GF
2N-natural invite
3m-to play
3H-invite

I've lots of things I have to do, allowing opener to show spades and ask for a spade stopper, give an invitational and a separate forcing heart raise.
I'd rather not allow opener to immediately ask for a spade stopper until he shows some of his distribution.

An alternative...

2C-requests 2D for pass or invite
2D-artificial GF denying spades
2H-likely 2-fit
2S-GF spades
2N?
3m-?
3H-?

or maybe...

2C-artificial GF (I have a relay already for this, including 5S/5H possibilities)
2D-5+S/2H, less than GF
2H-to play, possible 2-fit
2S-6S/0-1H, nf
2N-5D/5C, nf
3m-to play
3H-inv

[awm]

A few comments:

The 1NT bid seems flawed. There are basically two cases:
1. Responder six hearts. Now you really want to play in hearts, but opener passes 1nt with singleton. If opener bids over 1nt you probably break even.
2. Responder five hearts. Now you gain if opener is min and three suited short hearts (can play 1nt) but you lose if opener has extras without 3h and you need to play 3nt from the right side. The latter scenario seems way more common than the former, especially since 17-19 bal with two hearts is super common here (and the top of that range is worth 3nt if you can right side).

The use of 1nt also may cost you when you have gf with hearts as space becomes tighter.

As for penalizing, I'm not going to try to defend 1Sx when spades are 3-3 (or even 4-2) and we have game values. The best time to defend 1Sx is when the spade split is really foul (say 5-1 or worse) and we have only 23-24 HCP such that our game is in doubt. We get to defend in this situation and you don't!

I confess that it is likely better to play 2h=clubs and 2s=spades than vice versa, but this goes against our general transfer structure and seems not to gain much esp. if you don't assign some special artificial meaning to 2s over the 2h transfer (a lot to remember for one auction).

[straube]

Lots of tradeoffs. If you have the time, I posed three possible solutions after 1C (1S) 1N. Which do you think is the best? Or do you have another solution?

[mikestar13]

straube, on 2017-September-17, 17:43, said:

That's a little disheartening.

Have you seen this neighboring thread? http://www.bridgebas...-relay-methods/

In it, David describes a method for regrouping the 5431, 6421, and 6430 patterns. In so doing, he adds a new relay break that allows asker to identify whether a suit can play for only one loser opposite xx. Pretty neat stuff. Everyone seemed to think so. Some extra memory load though. No one mentioned.

The one spade overcall is unique in being the only suit overcall that allows the opponents to play at the 1-level and removes just enough room to prevent the opening side from playing their system. So good reward/risk ratio and small wonder that many folks are satisfied with playing 1S as natural.

In general, partnerships for whom memory load is a factor really ought to consider whether or not to play comprehensive relay methods at all. I think the thread cited above presupposed a partnership that uses such methods would not have memory issues.

[straube]

I ran 13 deals to look at how problematic the 1N bid might be. The constraints I used were 17+ for South, 7+ and 5-6S but 0-4H for West, and 6-7 with 5-6H for North. It's occurred to me that many defenders would make a Mathe bid with 5/4 in the majors, but I allowed for 5S/4H. I didn't throw out hands (including the 5/8 freak bd 13) and I didn't make judgments whether west would pass or bid 2S or whatever....and the point of that was to eliminate bias.

13 hands is a small number, but I've also looked at previous deals on my own and I didn't expect many problems. There's potential for bad things to happen, but the contract is seldom wrongsided when it matters and rarely do we miss a 6-1 heart fit at the 2-level. Usually opener has 3+ hearts (9 of 13 here). Always opener knows whether or not we're in a GF and I think separating GF from invitational heart hands greatly simplifies the follow-ups compared to lumping them in a transfer. For example, after 1C (1S) 1N opener can invite game and has room to do so whereas after 1C (1S) 2D transfer he may want to invite game even though responder is planning a GF.

1)
..............63
..............J97632
..............QJ6
..............K2
Q9842.....................KT7
K4........................85
75........................K943
QT84......................J976
..............AJ5
..............AQT
..............AT82
..............A53

Opener makes some invite here? Or just bids game? Is there a way to both invite and force in hearts after a transfer start?

2)
..............87
..............QT982
..............K3
..............J976
JT965.....................Q43
A3........................K76
2.........................QT8654
QT854.....................3
..............AK2
..............J54
..............AJ97
..............AK2

3)
..............K7
..............QJ954
..............94
..............6432
QJ965.....................432
K73.......................862
J6........................QT72
QJT.......................987
..............AT8
..............AT
..............AK853
..............AK5

3N probably not any better from South's side? You have to rise with the SA at trick one regardless.

4)
..............Q53
..............KQT85
..............62
..............974
KJ964.....................T872
976.......................J3
A873......................K95
2.........................KT63
..............A
..............A42
..............QJT4
..............AQJ85

5)
..............9
..............Q87542
..............A94
..............854
QT743.....................AJ652
J93.......................T
KQ6.......................J8732
T3........................J7
..............K8
..............AK6
..............T5
..............AKQ962

6)
..............Q4
..............Q9752
..............T62
..............QT4
98762.....................T5
4.........................KJT83
AQJ4......................K85
653.......................J98
..............AKJ3
..............A6
..............973
..............AK72


7)
..............K2
..............A7543
..............9872
..............98
A9863.....................QJ75
6.........................KJT92
QJ54......................T63
532.......................Q
..............T4
..............Q8
..............AK
..............AKJT764

South wants to be able to ask for a spade stopper here. Maybe relays are a bad idea. Btw, North might just GF with this hand.

8)
..............J82
..............JT8743
..............QJ9
..............J
AKQ73......................65
52.........................KQ96
K752.......................643
76.........................T843
..............T94
..............A
..............AT8
..............AKQ952

idk but the 1N didn't cost.

9)
..............K4
..............A9654
..............96
..............9876
A9875.......................63
7...........................JT83
J3..........................T754
AKQJT.......................432
..............QJT2
..............KQ2
..............AKQ82
..............5

10)
..............Q653
..............97543
..............K82
..............Q
AK972........................J84
T2...........................86
QJ3..........................AT54
976..........................9543
..............T
..............AKQJ
..............976
..............AKJ82

11)
..............84
..............KJT86
..............J975
..............J4
AJT65........................Q2
2............................9753
K642.........................AQT3
T98..........................632
..............K973
..............AQ4
..............8
..............AKQ75

12)
..............Q9
..............AT532
..............953
..............J93
A8753.......................JT4
76..........................J9
AQ..........................JT742
QT65........................742
..............K62
..............KQ84
..............K86
..............AK8

13)
..............J84
..............KQ987
..............3
..............9872
AQT65.......................K3
void........................JT42
KJT98765....................2
void........................KT6543
..............972
..............A653
..............AQ4
..............AQJ

[straube]

mikestar13, on 2017-September-19, 20:01, said:

In general, partnerships for whom memory load is a factor really ought to consider whether or not to play comprehensive relay methods at all. I think the thread cited above presupposed a partnership that uses such methods would not have memory issues.

I presupposed that too and I liked David's idea and tried to contribute to the thread (maybe a bad idea, idk). I was surprised to have defend my idea for 1C (1S) defense in the nonnatural forum to someone (foobar) who is known to play complicated relay systems. I brought up David's thread as much to say "We're not complaining about memory load there. Can't I get that consideration here?"

I think my defense is actually less complicated than some others because the follow ups are more straightforward. Even if I'm wrong about that, I'd really rather get a critique based on the merits (as Adam has done) than memory load.

[straube]

awm, on 2017-September-19, 08:04, said:

As for penalizing, I'm not going to try to defend 1Sx when spades are 3-3 (or even 4-2) and we have game values. The best time to defend 1Sx is when the spade split is really foul (say 5-1 or worse) and we have only 23-24 HCP such that our game is in doubt. We get to defend in this situation and you don't!

This is true, but I think if 1N is GF balanced, then dbl will be takeout 6+ as well as GF balanced without a stopper. So possibly an uncomfortable hand like xxx KQ AJxx xxxx? I just wonder about lumping the invitational takeout hands with others that may not promise hearts or spade shortness. Do you have a way of forcing before the rebid of 2S? Does 1C (1S) dbl P 3H set hearts or invite hearts or what? How many hearts does opener show here? It seems responder will sometimes have to sort out 6-7 takeout from 8+ takeout from 8+ balanced no stop.

I like, too, the idea of dbl as GF balanced because opener has the first crack at declaring NT, whether responder has a stopper or not.

I think I might occasionally pass with four spades, depending on the vulnerability and strength of my hand. I mean if I had a 20 ct and thought I might make 4N, it might be better to set spades a bunch.