[straube]

1C-1S shows about 5-11 hcps and either 5+ diamonds or balanced

1C-1S, 2M shows a 5M/4+ side suit and 16-19

1C-1S, 2H-2S asks the side suit but 1C-1S, 2H-2N shows a maximum with a doubleton heart.

Shouldn't 1C-1S, 2H-2S promise 5 diamonds?

So currently

1C-1S, 2H-2S
.....2N-4 spades
.....3C-4 clubs
.....3D-4 diamonds

But how about...

1C-1S, 2H-2S
.....2N-4 spades
.....3C-4 clubs
.....3D-3 diamonds, min?
.....etc-better diamonds?

or

1C-1S, 2H-2S
.....2N-4 spades
.....3C-4 clubs, min
.....3D-4 clubs, max
.....3H-4 diamonds, min
.....3S-4 diamonds, max

Also looking at 1C-1S, 2S-2N which is a lot more difficult because we don't have 2N to show a max with a doubleton. 2N is the asking bid.

Currently

1C-1S, 2S-2N
.....3C-4 clubs
.....3D-4 diamonds
.....3H-4 hearts

So either 2N is a balanced hand or diamonds. At least opener can rebid high when he is both maximum and has a fit for diamonds

1C-1S, 2S-2N
.....3C-4 clubs
.....3D-4 hearts
.....3H-5 hearts
.....3S-min, 4 diamonds
.....3N-max, 4 diamonds

Any suggestions Adam?

[straube]

I'm coming up with...

1C-1S, 2H-2S

.....2N-other
.....3C-5 clubs
.....3D-3-fit
.....3H-6H/4D
.....3S-max, diamond fit, stopper ask
.....3N-max, diamond fit, spade stopper

The bad is that 1C-1S, 2H-2S, 2N could be 2524.

The good is that we're now responding to what responder has...which is 5+ diamonds and a hand that can't force game. Looking at hands and while it loses some 4/4 club fits, it gains some 5/3 club fits.

[straube]

In conjunction with...

1C-1S,
.....3H-5S/5H, min
.....3S-5S/5H, max, nf


1C-1S, 2S
....P-2 spades, bal, minimum
....2N-weakness, diamonds, nf
.........P-other
.........3C-5C
.........3D-3D
.........3H-4H, max
.....3C-2 spades, bal, medium+
.........3D-4D
.........3H-4H
.........3S-4C, min
.........3N-4C, max
.....3D-5+D, GF
..........3H-4H
..........3S-4D
..........3N-4C

[straube]

1C-1S, 2H
.....P-2 hearts, minimum
.....2S-minimum, 5+ diamonds
..........2N-other
..........3C-5 clubs
..........3D-fit
.....2N-2-fit, bal, medium+, forces to at least 3H
..........3C-clubs
..........3D-diamonds
..........3H-minimum, spades
..........3S-maximum, spades
.....3C-gf, 5D/4C
.....3D-gf, 6D
..........3H-6H/other
..........3S-4S
..........3N-4C
..........4D-fit
.....3H-raise


1C-1S, 2S
....P-2 spades, minimum
....2N-weakness, diamonds, nf
.........P-other
.........3C-5C
.........3D-3D
.........3H-4H, max
.....3C-2 spades, bal, medium+, forces to at least 3S
.........3D-4D
.........3H-4H
.........3S-4C, min
.........3N-4C, max
.....3D-5+D, GF
..........3H-4H
..........3S-6S/other
..........3N-4C
..........4D-fit
.....3H-5+D/4C, GF
.....3S-raise

I think the tricky one is 1C-1S, 2S-3H showing GF with 5+D/4C. It's better for responder to show clubs than for opener to show clubs because responder may have at most four clubs and will not know when it is right to choose clubs over NT if as far as he knows there is only an 8-cd club fit.

[awm]

I agree that 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠ in principle shows five diamonds, and that it might be possible to design better rebid structures. Your first one is not that bad, although I'd go with shortness showing bids like:

2NT = 4513 or 4522
3♣ = 4+♣ not 3♦
3♦ = 3♦ or 5242
3♥ = 6♥/4♦
3♠/3NT = 4+♦ and high/low shortage

I'm not enthused by the other sequences you gave.

[straube]

awm, on 2013-June-23, 19:11, said:

I'm not enthused by the other sequences you gave.

Any suggestions?

I don't think 1C-1S, 2S-2N, 3H presumably handling 16-19 and any 5/4, 6/4, 5/5 combinations is playable. I may not be understanding how you use that 2N rebid. Anyway, I did test this scheme if only for a few hands and it did seem to work pretty well.

[awm]

I think you misunderstand the 16-19; we will GF with most 19s and some 18s. Basically you have responder saying he is inv+ and then opener saying he rejects an invite. Now you are trying to distinguish a slightly better invite from a slightly worse invite.... we are really not compulsive point counters to this degree.

Basically we are trying to do three things here:

1. Reach the right game when responder in fact has a GF.
2. Find a major fit or big minor fit that could lead to a light game.
3. Reach a playable partial.

We are not trying to reach 18-7 game while avoiding 18-6 or 17-7. Basically we are willing to play game on 19-5 and not 18-7 if there is no fit... again all these "point counts" get a lot of adjusts on shaped hands and we tend to give wide ranges in our notes rather than specify all the hand evaluation we do at the table.

[straube]

I'm not lost in point count. My understanding, however, is that you'll respond 1S with x xxx Axxxx Jxxx. Maybe less? In which case, opener needs a fair amount to make a GF relay bid here.

[straube]

awm, on 2013-June-23, 21:06, said:

I think you misunderstand the 16-19; we will GF with most 19s and some 18s. Basically you have responder saying he is inv+ and then opener saying he rejects an invite. Now you are trying to distinguish a slightly better invite from a slightly worse invite.... we are really not compulsive point counters to this degree.

Basically we are trying to do three things here:

1. Reach the right game when responder in fact has a GF.
2. Find a major fit or big minor fit that could lead to a light game.
3. Reach a playable partial.

We are not trying to reach 18-7 game while avoiding 18-6 or 17-7. Basically we are willing to play game on 19-5 and not 18-7 if there is no fit... again all these "point counts" get a lot of adjusts on shaped hands and we tend to give wide ranges in our notes rather than specify all the hand evaluation we do at the table.

I've read through this again and I think I understand what you're doing and the tradeoffs you're making. I think there's a lot of merit in relaying with marginal gf hands because learning responder's distribution and getting to the right strain (if overboard sometimes) is worth a lot. If memory serves, your 1C pretty much always promises 16 and I would probably open 1C on Axx AKxx Axxxx x to convey the 11 QPs should pd become captain. In any case, I'd like to explore the idea of subdividing opener's non-gf rebids. I know you feel this is the wrong approach, but if you have suggestions along these lines I could use the input. Otherwise I'll just look at some more hands and see if this has more wins than losses.