[Apollo81]

nigel_k, on Aug 30 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

After 1NT bid 2♦ next with single suited clubs and 2♥ + with the heart/club two suiter.

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts.

[nigel_k]

Apollo81, on Aug 31 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 30 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

After 1NT bid 2♦ next with single suited clubs and 2♥ + with the heart/club two suiter.

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts.

You're right. I don't know that your way is more symmetric but it definitely right sides the contract more often with the 5+♥ option and breaks even on the other ones.

[Apollo81]

nigel_k, on Sep 1 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Aug 31 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 30 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

After 1NT bid 2♦ next with single suited clubs and 2♥ + with the heart/club two suiter.

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts.

You're right. I don't know that your way is more symmetric but it definitely right sides the contract more often with the 5+♥ option and breaks even on the other ones.

It's more symmetric.

The rule for one suiters is "show your suit, then bid 2s+". 1c-1n-2c-2s resembles 1c-1h-1s-2s, 1c-2c-2d-2s, and 1c-2d-2h-2s. These should all show single suiters.

1c-1n-2c-2d is like 1c-1h-1s-2d, which shows a two suiter not a reverser. Thus this sequence should also show a two suiter not a reverser.

[awm]

The downside of this is that while right-siding can potentially matter in any contract, it matters most frequently in notrump contracts, where you need to protect the control of a particular suit from the lead.

For this reason, I think it's better if 1♣-P-1NT shows a long major suit (or both majors, or some combination including a long major). This is when you're least likely to actually want to play the hand in notrump. If 1NT shows clubs (transfer response), then you'll get a lot of hands where responder is declaring 3NT with a long club suit and the lead comes through opener's only stopper somewhere.

Admittedly the modified responses do a good job of right-siding heart contracts, but I see this as a lot less critical than the 3NTs.

[PrecisionL]

Yes, Adam, our conclusion too.

So we (Dwayne & I) now play 1♣ - 1NT = (a) 5-4 or better in the majors, or (b) 44 in the majors with a minor suit singleton and 11+ hcp.

Our experience is that this maximizes not playing in NT and is easy to untangle (even if 4th hand interferes).

Larry

[Mbodell]

awm, on Sep 1 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

The downside of this is that while right-siding can potentially matter in any contract, it matters most frequently in notrump contracts, where you need to protect the control of a particular suit from the lead.

For this reason, I think it's better if 1♣-P-1NT shows a long major suit (or both majors, or some combination including a long major). This is when you're least likely to actually want to play the hand in notrump. If 1NT shows clubs (transfer response), then you'll get a lot of hands where responder is declaring 3NT with a long club suit and the lead comes through opener's only stopper somewhere.

Right that's why I play basically what Nigel suggested except switching the club and heart single suiters. Thus Nigel plays:

Quote

1♥ any hand with spades except balanced
1♠ either balanced (4333 or 4432) or heart/diamond two suiter
1NT either single suited clubs or heart/club two suiter
2♣ either single suited diamonds, or minor 3 suiter
2♦ single suited hearts
2♥ and higher shows both minors

While I play:

Quote

1♥ most hands with spades.  Exceptions are balanced (5332 isn't balanced, 4333 and 4432 start with 1♠) and minor 3 suiters (4=1=44, 5=0=44, 4=0=(54) all start with 2♣)
1♠ either balanced (4333 or 4432) or heart/diamond two suiter
1NT either single hearts or heart/club two suiter
2♣ either single suited diamonds, or minor 3 suiter
2♦ single suited clubs
2♥ and higher shows both minors

This does act more symmetric because with a major 3 suiter or 2 suiter you bid 1♣-1♥(spades)-1♠-1NT(hearts) so basically NT always shows hearts.

After 1♣-1NT-2♣ now 2♦ shows clubs and so does a direct 2♥/2♣ showing a club-heart reverser (2♠ and up would be single suited hearts over the 2♣ relay) and a long-legged club heart hand would start 1♣-1nt-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ and if instead of 2♠ any higher bid was made it would show 4 clubs and a 5+ heart suit.

After 1♣-1♠-1nt then 2♣ shows the red 2 suiter with 2♦ the relay and 2♥+ now showing reverser, long-legged, etc. and 2♦+ directly over the 1nt relay symmetrizes exactly to the balanced relays in table 14 of the SRME (color, rank, 4333, etc - As an aside this is slightly suboptimal as the minor 4333 goes through 2♦ while the major 4333 bids 2♠ directly, these should be switched IMHO since they are arbitrary and a minor 4333 is more likely to want to play in ♦ - a suit unbid to this point - than a major 4333; but partner and I haven't changed this).

The nice thing about symmetric is all these tweaks are only slight, and by the time you are in 2♥+ everything is the same as in the SMRE booklet or the same as anyone else plays (at least until shape is done and not counting relay breaks).

I have played a little with relays over the non-1♣ bid (using a similar base), and I think they can be made to work, but it is difficult with convention restrictions in ACBL world and my partnership was getting better scores with our GCC card that only relays over 1♣, so we've pretty much switched to that.

I think if you are playing relays though the transfers are quite important as wrong siding the relay lets the defenders often play double dummy after the opening lead.

[Free]

nigel_k, on Aug 31 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

gable, on Aug 30 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

How does symmetric Relay work in competion ?.

Anyone of you found any problems ?

As Wayne said, in competition you use the same structure but may be up to three steps higher. When the interference forces you up four steps or more, the relays are off.

If they interfere directly over 1♣, I would play dbl is any 0-4, pass is any 5-8 and other bids are positive. So 1♣-(1♠)-1NT would be the first relay step. This means that a direct overcall of 2♣ or higher breaks the relay but a 1NT overcall does not.

After the 5-8 pass, dbl or other first step by opener is 19+ and initiates relay. After the 0-4 dbl there is no relay.

Other than that, just go on a step basis, e.g. 1♣-(P)-1♠-(2♥), pass by opener is relay then dbl by responder replaces the 2♣ bid (after a 1NT relay in an uninterrupted sequence) and 2♠ by responder replaces the 2♦ bid. So you are two steps higher.

There is no difficulty with this in theory but you should expect a couple of accidents before you get used to it.

I also used to play this when playing strong ♣ (I don't anymore at the moment), but only a maximum of 2 steps higher. 3 is too much imo. Dbl as double negative works great.

[Zelandakh]

Another version to optimise right-siding:-

1♥ = 4+ spades, unbalanced; or 4=4=(3-2)
1♠ = 0-3♥s, 0-3♠s
1NT = ♥ 1-suiter; or ♥s and ♣s
2♣ = ♥s and ♦s
2♦ = 4-5♥s balanced; or 3-suited with 4♥s and 0-1♠s
2♥ = 4-5♠s balanced
2♠ = 3-suited with 4♠s and 0-1♥s

Another point to note is that if you find the High, Middle, Low shortage idea difficult then you can instead use a fragment approach to patterning out in the relays. This makes the structure asymetric but is alot closer to 'natural' and therefore less of a leap.

As for competition, there are quite a few different ideas floating around which range from very simple (2-step rule) to incredibly detailed and complicated. My suggestion is to start with something simple and focus on learning whichever bidding pattern you choose 100%, then switch to a more complex form later if you find it worth the overhead.