[effervesce]

After IC - 1S double negative we played (based on Marston's moscito notes)

1S Responses
1S is negative: approximately 0-4HCP, less than 3QP
	1NT = 15-20 balanced/semi-balanced
		2C = Stayman
		2D/H/S/NT = polish-style transfers, non-acceptance is natural
	2C = GF
		2D = balanced
		2H/2S/3C/3D = natural, 5+
		2NT = minors
	2D/2H/2S/3C = polish-style transfers
	2NT = 21-22
		3C = Stayman (after 3C:3D then 4NT = NNF)
		3D/3H = transfers (then 4NT = NNF)
		3S = minor suit Stayman. Only show minor if want to.
		3NT = to play
		4C = aces 0123 then 5C is kings 0123
		4D/4H = transfers, then 4NT = RKC
		4NT = NNF
	3D/3H/3S = NNF
	3NT = to play

Of course, the 1C-1S is crap and its what you pay for playing 1C-1D as GF. You need to make the 1C-1D GF positive and other semipositive bids so good and worth it so much that the opponents want to bid with garbage over your 1C to minimise your losses on 1C-1S.

[foobar]

 effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 06:32, said:

Of course, the 1C-1S is crap and its what you pay for playing 1C-1D as GF. You need to make the 1C-1D GF positive and other semipositive bids so good and worth it so much that the opponents want to bid with garbage over your 1C to minimise your losses on 1C-1S.

I am still curious about this assertion. If second hand interferes, everyone is on the same playing field regardless of the 1C opening strength. So, the gains for SPs to offset the losses from 1♣ - 1♠ have to come from auctions that would have previously gone 1♣ - 1♦ (0-9, playing 15+ 1♣).

In your experience, was there significant interference by fourth hand over 1♣ - 1♦? IME with 16+ ♣, second hand tends to be active over 1♣, but fourth hand less so after 1♣ - 1♦.

[effervesce]

Like you said, if the opps will interfere over 1C its a wash.

The comparison in performance is in the uncontested auctions.

You need to compare the performance of traditional precision with the new responses.

The whole point of 1C - 1S as neg is give you extra space to have better pos and semipos auctions, with worse negative auctions.

If you have 1C - 1D as GF then neither of you have described any shape. In my experience, the better the opponents, the more likely they are to bid.

That said, many of them actually make unproductive interference bids like 1H where space is a wash, or even 1D over 1C where you actually have extra space.

The 1C - 1D auctions are extremely good except for the cases where the unbalanced hand is asking the balanced hand.

It would be much better to have a 1C - 1D system where the balanced hand asks the unbalanced hand's shape and strength imho.

[nullve]

effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 06:32, said:

		2D/H/S/NT = polish-style transfers, non-acceptance is natural

What are Polish-style transfers?

[Zelandakh]

After a great deal of playing around, what I decided is that if I wanted to play SPs, the better solution is to play that 1♦ is "DN or GF with ♥". In effect that allows you to have 1♦ as GF except a specific rebid, and of course you then arrange it so that the key sequence becomes 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠, thus getting you back to 1♠ DN but allowing Opener to pull specific difficult hands out along the way. I think that works quite well, much better than the direct 1♠ DN systems. You could probably achieve something very similar in a RR scheme but as I don't have a system of that type in my arsenal, I have not played around with the ideas at all within such a context. In the end though, what I really thought is that the gains to be had by rearranging things in this way are distinctly minor. For my system (where 1♣ is 15-17 ♣/bal or 18+ any) switching to SPs simplifies some things but makes others more complicated. So while I have kept some notes around for a couple of different options that I feel still have some potential, I have not (as of yet) made this change. In other words, the proper take away from the subject is that SPs just allow you to make some gains and some losses but are not generally a fix. In designing a system you should select the set-up that works most harmoniously with everything else, because the response scheme of itself, assuming it is set up efficiently, is not going to be the breaking point.

[effervesce]

nullve, on 2024-October-01, 16:08, said:

What are Polish-style transfers?

canape transfer.

first transfer bid is shorter than second bid. Ie 1C-1S-2D-2H-3C shows longer clubs than hearts.

[foobar]

effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 10:26, said:

If you have 1C - 1D as GF then neither of you have described any shape. In my experience, the better the opponents, the more likely they are to bid.

It's been several years since I took a look at the 1♦ GF scheme, but it in addition to the above, the reverse relays were awkward. So effectively, we have three different schemes, each so similar, but yet with slightly differing semantics:

• Relay scheme after SP response (and bespoke relay breaks if needed)
  
• Relay scheme for responder's hand over 1♦
  
• Relay scheme for opener's RR

I would much rather have a single ~symmetric relay scheme that can be used over most openings.

effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 10:26, said:

It would be much better to have a 1C - 1D system where the balanced hand asks the unbalanced hand's shape and strength imho.

Since all GFs are compressed into 1♦, opener's RR is just making a guess. Maybe one way to get around it might be to put some balanced GFs into a 1♥ GF response in addition to 1♦ GF (a la Charron relay), but this gives up the 1♥ SP.

[foobar]

Zelandakh, on 2024-October-01, 18:27, said:

For my system (where 1♣ is 15-17 ♣/bal or 18+ any) switching to SPs simplifies some things but makes others more complicated.

Now that you are back, it will be great to learn more about your system on a different thread (hint, hint ).

Zelandakh, on 2024-October-01, 18:27, said:

After a great deal of playing around, what I decided is that if I wanted to play SPs, the better solution is to play that 1♦ is "DN or GF with ♥". In effect that allows you to have 1♦ as GF except a specific rebid, and of course you then arrange it so that the key sequence becomes 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠, thus getting you back to 1♠ DN but allowing Opener to pull specific difficult hands out along the way. I think that works quite well, much better than the direct 1♠ DN systems.

IMPrecision uses a variation of this idea (1♦ is either super-positive or DN).

Zelandakh, on 2024-October-01, 18:27, said:

In other words, the proper take away from the subject is that SPs just allow you to make some gains and some losses but are not generally a fix. In designing a system you should select the set-up that works most harmoniously with everything else, because the response scheme of itself, assuming it is set up efficiently, is not going to be the breaking point.

Indeed; we have examples of several 1♣ systems that seem to do just fine at the highest levels with a traditional 1♦ response. Tarzan Club, which uses a 1♦ negative with a 15+ 1♣ has done exceedingly well.

[DavidKok]

Zelandakh, on 2024-October-01, 18:27, said:

After a great deal of playing around, what I decided is that if I wanted to play SPs, the better solution is to play that 1♦ is "DN or GF with ♥". In effect that allows you to have 1♦ as GF except a specific rebid, and of course you then arrange it so that the key sequence becomes 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠, thus getting you back to 1♠ DN but allowing Opener to pull specific difficult hands out along the way. I think that works quite well, much better than the direct 1♠ DN systems.

This is similar to my attempt at folding semipositives into symmetric relay, I ended up at 1♦ being a double negative or a semipositive(+) hand with hearts.

[nullve]

effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 20:08, said:

canape transfer.

first transfer bid is shorter than second bid. Ie 1C-1S-2D-2H-3C shows longer clubs than hearts.

Just to get a feeling for this:

1♣-1♠
?

a) 18 hcp, 3613 (2♦, intending to pass 2♥, right?)
b) 18 hcp, 3514
c) 18 hcp, 4513
d) 18 hcp, 5413
e) 18 hcp, 3145
f) 18 hcp, 3154

[foobar]

 DavidKok, on 2024-October-02, 11:53, said:

This is similar to my attempt at folding semipositives into symmetric relay, I ended up at 1♦ being a double negative or a semipositive(+) hand with hearts.

This sounds like great idea for someone really wanting to play SPs, since it's always +0, right?

[effervesce]

nullve, on 2024-October-02, 12:40, said:

Just to get a feeling for this:

1♣-1♠
?

a) 18 hcp, 3613 (2♦, intending to pass 2♥, right?) 2D tf hearts correct
b) 18 hcp, 3514 2D tf hearts
c) 18 hcp, 4513 2D tf hearts
d) 18 hcp, 5413 2H tf hearts then bid spades
e) 18 hcp, 3145 probably 1NT, dont really want to bid to 3m
f) 18 hcp, 3154 probably 1NT, dont really want to bid to 3m

Like I said, its a crapshoot option after 1C - 1S.

If anyone has better continuations Im happy to hear them.

[DavidKok]

foobar, on 2024-October-02, 16:28, said:

This sounds like great idea for someone really wanting to play SPs, since it's always +0, right?

I think not quite. There was some finagling with the both majors hand type in my structure though it's at +0 but a bit awkward, and also I think the three-suiters (4x1 or 5440) are higher (though instead I opted for partial resolution instead), but other than that I believe so.

1♣-?

• 1♦: DN or SP(+) 4(+)♥ unbal not 4(+)♠
  
• 1♥: SP(+) 4(+)♠ unbal not 4(+)♥
  
• 1♠: SP(+) 5(+)♦ no 4(+)cM not 5(+)♣, or 5-10 or 14+ bal
  
• 1NT: SP(+) 5(+)♣ no 4(+)cM not 5(+)♦
  
• 2♣: SP(+) (54)+ majors either way
  
• 2♦: SP(+) any 4441 or 5440
  
• 2♥: SP(+) 55+ minors
  
• 2♠+: CR4SH 11-13 balanced

[nullve]

effervesce, on 2024-October-02, 16:39, said:

Like I said, its a crapshoot option after 1C - 1S.

If anyone has better continuations Im happy to hear them.

I'm still not sure what your continuations actually are.

Quote

e) 18 hcp, 3145 probably 1NT, dont really want to bid to 3m
f) 18 hcp, 3154 probably 1NT, dont really want to bid to 3m

So the 1N rebid doesn't really show a balanced or semibalanced hand after all. Then what do you do with

g) 18 hcp, 4153, small singleton
h) 18 hcp, 4144, small singleton

Do you rebid 1N or do you force to 3-level (1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠; 3♦) at least with g)? If 1N, then your 1N rebid is starting to look like it could be part of a structure based on Woolsey, as in the example structure I sketched above.

I also wonder if you sometimes use the Polish-style transfers on GF hands. If you do, then it seems pretty extravagant to keep the 2♣ rebid as an ART GF, since your partscore bidding suffers immensely (IMO) as a result. If not, do you ever need to be able to transfer to clubs/diamonds via 2♠/3♣ instead of just jumping to 3♣/3♦? (Freeing up 2♠ could be useful.)

[Zelandakh]

effervesce, on 2024-October-02, 16:39, said:

Like I said, its a crapshoot option after 1C - 1S.

If anyone has better continuations Im happy to hear them.

For the PC/AUC opening style, the obvious structure is to play

1NT = 15-18(19) bal
2♣ = 15-18 nat
2♦ = art, strong
2M = 18+ nat
2NT = (19)20-21 bal
3m = Acol 2

and increase the top end of the 1♦ opening slightly to compensate. It is probably also a good idea to play a natural 2NT opening in this case too, allowing the 2NT rebid to be stronger and for the artificial 2♦ to become a game force. By this point though, you are making enough compromises to shoehorn in the 1♠ DN as to remove most of the potential efficiency gains of the system structure, so you are just adding complexity for little overall benefit.

If the opening 1♣ is 18+, which seems to be the basis of the post above, then one very simple solution is just to play Transfer Walsh at +/-6hcp and not worry about relays at all. I would not be at all surprised if that ends up being more efficient than a 1♠ DN scheme. You can achieve something similar in a more typical strong club setting too with a little tweaking, for which the Italian Nightmare system is probably the best known example.