[mike777]

I was sent an email about this convention that I guess has been around for awhile.
What does the forum think about it?


"However, after 1M-2C play a toy: 2D shows 6M or a 5-(3-3-2) minimum and a 2M rebid shows diamonds (5-4, 5-5 or 6-4 with extras).


I strongly recommend this for those willing to put in a little work. The best convention I have added in the last decade.


After 1M-2C-2D-2H asks (the normal bid) and opener bids:


2S= 6+ of the major, no side suit.
2N= 5-3-3-2 12-14. If 3 clubs, both red suits stopped.
3C= 5-(3-2)-3 with a most one red suit stopped. 12-14
3D= 6-4 minimum with diamonds
3H= 6-4 minimum with clubs
3S= 6M, good suit, minimum
4m= void, 7M, minimum
4H= void other major, 7M, minimum.


This has a bunch of advantages. It lets you show 6M conveniently. It doesn't force you to bid 2N on hands like AKxxx xx xxx AJx, it lets you show several tricky hands well (the 6-4 minimums with a minor, particularly clubs, a good suit in a minimum hand, exactly 3 clubs in a concentrated hand).


After 1M-2C-2D responder can bid 2N if he wants to be declarer, and now opener bids 3N with the 5-3-3-2 minimum hands, so all others show 6M.


1M-2C-2D-3M shows a non slammish 3 card raise (so 3N by opener is now natural). Bidding 2H first, then 3M is slammish, so we play that 3N over that 3M bid is a mild slam try."

[glen]

I like it, useful, works, relatively easy. Is the name "toy" or "play a toy" or something else?

[jdonn]

I think it's good. One possibility then is for opener's 2NT rebid to be natural but 15+, which solves a lot of problems with there is slam when each hand has about 16-17 but no one gets to show it. Another possibility is something like transfers starting with opener's 2NT rebid, although I might rearrange since after 1♠ 2♣ when opener has a club raise it's a lot more likely I want responder to declare notrump than opener.

[kenrexford]

I completely understand and agree with the motivation. That said, I'm not sure why one would split the diamond holdings.

I mean, I have for a long time played that 1M-P-2♣-P-2♦ showed real diamonds or 5332 balanced, with 2M always a six-card suit. The same type of unwind exists, in a sense.

The email proposal sets forth the diamond length quickly but the major length through relay. My approach sets forth the major length immediately but the diamond length "through relay." That distinction seems to favor diamond-unknown rather than spades-unknown, IMO.

When spades will be raised by Responder, however, the email approach seems possibly better, somewhat. Repeating the major probably occurs less frequently, which means that 2M can be bid more rapidly more often.

It just seems more natural for 2D to be "diamonds or 5332" to me, though, with any possible benefits to the other approach, if there are any, not worth the trouble.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 10 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

It just seems more natural for 2D to be "diamonds or 5332" to me, though, with any possible benefits to the other approach, if there are any, not worth the trouble.

I think the reason the other way seems more natural to me is that in 'natural' bidding, rebidding your major shows either balanced or 6+ so this maintains them being shown by the same bid.

Anyway I don't agree with your criticism regardless because the structure named (or something like it if you prefer any sort of rearrangement) describes hands with 6 in the major at least as well as if you had to rebid 2M with them (I assume when he said 6-4 with clubs he meant with hearts).

But, I really don't think it's that important. If you put balanced hands in the cheapest bid that is what's most important. The rest can essentially be however you like it.

[glen]

jdonn, on Sep 10 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

... If you put balanced hands in the cheapest bid that is what's most important. The rest can essentially be however you like it.

Agreed. For example, one can have:

2♦: flat or OM, 2♥ asks
2OM: ♦s
2M: 6+

[bluecalm]

I remember toying with those schemes some time ago.
I think there are better ones than just reversing 2D and 2M.
For example:

2D = any minimum without 6card major
2H = 6card major any strength
2S = any 5-4 max
2NT = natural, max (5-3-3-2)
3C/3D/3H 5-5 natural, max

After 2D you can bid 2H asking and follow ups are symmetrical.

Is one very simple scheme without all the relays which I think is very good.

[awm]

It seems really important to be able to agree opener's second suit at the three-level in these auctions, so you can negotiate for the best game or possible slams. Bluecalm's scheme doesn't quite seem to manage it.

The suggestion I've seen that seems simple and good is to just play transfers below opener's suit rebid (which shows the cheapest suit). So for example:

1♠ - 2♣
.... 2♦ = hearts
.... 2♥ = 6+ spades or 5(332) not wanting to bid 2NT
.... 2♠ = diamonds

This seems to have the advantage of allowing hearts to be agreed at the two-level, without losing much on the hands which are 5(332) or long spades.

[kenrexford]

The more we all discuss 2/1 GF, the more Lawrence seems silly.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It seems really important to be able to agree opener's second suit at the three-level in these auctions, so you can negotiate for the best game or possible slams. Bluecalm's scheme doesn't quite seem to manage it.

Yes, right. I worked out follow ups which allow this but then it stops being so simple.
You can reverse 2♥ and 2♠ bid gaining one more step which make it easier to agree 2nd suit (because then 2♠ is relay and you show 4card suit by transfer).

So it would go like this:

1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - ????

2♠ = relay, show your suit by transfer (then accepting transfer shows 4 card support, bidding openers suit shows 3+card support; one can agree that accepting transfer asks to show shortness too). 2NT/3♣/3♦ are all free to use here. Following ideas from Ambra one can use 2NT as slam try in clubs and 3♣ as hand with 6 clubs but without slam aspirations.
The problem is that with minimum you don't have this step available. Anyway, this is one of many schemes possible.

Quote

1♠ - 2♣
.... 2♦ = hearts
.... 2♥ = 6+ spades or 5(332) not wanting to bid 2NT
.... 2♠ = diamonds

I like it on first view. The possible issue is with showing 5-5 later (responder may be interested in making slam attempt in diamonds for example opposite 5-5 but not 5-4 and it would be useful to have room to show both strength and diamond length which seems to be difficult to achieve here.

Quote

The more we all discuss 2/1 GF, the more Lawrence seems silly.

Well there is something going for natural bidding. You won't forget and maybe gains from artificial scheme aren't that big. That being said I think 1M - 2c sequence is one of those when it's really worthwhile to play something different than standard.

[hanp]

awm, on Sep 10 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

The suggestion I've seen that seems simple and good is to just play transfers.

This is what I play too, we call it transfer relays. For example:

... 1S
2C - 2D (hearts)
2H - 2S (exactly 5-4)
2NT - 3H (5-4-1-3)
3S - 3S (minimum)

Similarly after 1D - 2C:

2D = 4+ hearts
2H = 4+ spades
2S = 4+ clubs

[bluecalm]

Interesting. Could you give some more details for bidding after responses showing minor suit ?

For example:

1♠ 2♣
2♠/2NT - ???

It seems to me there may be problem with space in those.
Also what 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ after 2♣ mean ?

[jdonn]

I don't like 2♦ being hearts. If there's one thing that's unimportant to me it is agreeing the second suit on the 2 level. But of course if it's the start of completely artificial relays then it may well be fine.

[awm]

I'm not really convinced that relays are the way to go here. The 2♣ response to 1M puts you quite a bit higher than you'd like to be, so a lot of shapes will resolve pretty high. Opener's range of strength is also really wide, and there are some hands where opener needs to be able to take control (like opener has 18-19 and responder 12-13), which is awkward when the auction has been totally one-sided.

For example Hanp's sequence seems to get to opener rebidding 3♥ without any clarification of strength from opener or any clarification of fit (or lack thereof) from responder. Then it continues with 3♠ asking strength and (apparently) opener making the insufficient bid of 3♠ to show a minimum. And this is likely one of the most efficient sequences; I'm not convinced things will go as well if opener's second suit wasn't hearts.

With that said, it's not a criticism of Hanp's relay structure so much as a comment that compared to the pretty efficient symmetric relay (for example) you are a step higher (starting relay with 2♣ rather than 1nt) and opener has a much wider range of strength (11-21 or so in a 2/1 base, compared to about 10-15 in symmetric). There just isn't room to sort things out efficiently.

Of course, assuming that we want a fairly cooperative style of bidding (like in 2/1 and standard) it still might make sense to move a few rebids around. For example, in 2/1 you have 1♠-2♣-2♦ showing diamonds. This leaves you the cheapest step (2♥) as either an artificial force (which is great if 2♣ wasn't GF, but very rarely useful if it was) or as a natural bid (which might help you describe the rare 5/6 hand but otherwise seems sort of silly since opener won't have four hearts). Since this is a fairly non-useful call, it makes sense to move the diamond-showing rebid higher (to say 2♥ or 2♠) and gain the space back on another hand type.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Sep 11 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

I don't like 2♦ being hearts. If there's one thing that's unimportant to me it is agreeing the second suit on the 2 level. But of course if it's the start of completely artificial relays then it may well be fine.

meh, 2D as 5332 or hearts, and 2H as 6+ spades seems to maximize our chance of suit agreement at the 2 level

[mike777]

Copied from email how OP might work:

"AQxxx xxx AQx xx



Playing the Maneuver, the auction begins: 1S-2C-2D-2♥-2NT. As any 5-3-3-2 hand (with a minimum in HCPs), regardless of stoppers , bids 2NT at this point (along with hands that may have 3 clubs, but have both unbid suits stopped).



Now, suppose responder is himself is weak in one of the unbids. Give him Kx Jx Kxx AKxxxx for example. He can bid his stopper, 3D, and when opener cannot rebid 3NT, we scramble into 4S which has some play compared to the doomed 3NT. But flip the red suits, and the partnership gets to 3NT. If responder’s “weak” side suit is as long as three cards, he can raise to 3NT anyway, knowing that the opponent’s have only 7, and therefore are less likely to cash 5 in the suit on us (and besides we’d have to lose 3 tricks in the suit playing in another spot!).



And, and, more cool is the fact in the above auction, responder knew opener only had 2 clubs, so it was easier to bail to 4S rather than try 5C.

Change opener’s hand ever so slightly so we have:



AQxxx xx AQx xxx

Kx Jx Kxx AKxxxx



Now, it goes: 1S-2C-2D-2♥-3C-3D-??



Again, responder is bidding the unbid suit where he has strength, and again opener cannot rebid NT. But this time responder can try 5C in the 9 card fit. Sure, it requires a 2-2 club break to make that, but for 4 spades to come home, you’d need 2-2 clubs PLUS a 3-3 spade break."

[jdonn]

JLOGIC, on Sep 11 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 11 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

I don't like 2♦ being hearts. If there's one thing that's unimportant to me it is agreeing the second suit on the 2 level. But of course if it's the start of completely artificial relays then it may well be fine.

meh, 2D as 5332 or hearts, and 2H as 6+ spades seems to maximize our chance of suit agreement at the 2 level

Yes that's much better lol, what I don't like is the one where 2♦ is hearts and 2♥ is 6+ or balanced. But still I don't think suit agreement on the 2 level is important, I'd rather use the extra space to just make a further asking bid about shape.

[PrecisionL]

I have been working on such a scheme for about 2 years. Currently, Keylime and I are somewhat agreed on (playing 4-cd Majors and a 1M opening does not have a 5332 hand):

1M - 2♣ Game Force (usually without 4-cd support of the major)
2♦    Balanced, or 3-suited, or 6+M
2♥ and up = various 2-suited hands, or 3-suited with 5M

1M - 2♣
2♦ - 2♥ = relay
2♠  = 3-suited with 5-cd minor 5440
2NT = balanced hand
3♣  = 4-4-4-1 / 4-4-1-4
3♦  = 6M or better
3♥  = 4-1-4-4
3♠  = 1-4-4-4
3NT = AKQxxx in the Major Opened

[mich-b]

Since I found some of the ideas in this thread interesting -
Is there any way to apply similar ideas after 1M-2♦? And if not, does that mean that you respond 2♣ more often than standard? (any balanced? any GF? can have 4 card M support? can have 5 cards in ♦s or ♥s?)

[PrecisionL]

We play 1M - 2♦ as natural and invitational values only, Not Forcing.

In ACBLand, one can not have 2 artificial Game Forcing suit bids at the 2-level over an opening bid of 1 of a suit.