[pilun]

We play symmetric relay with a 16+ 1♣
Our two responses to show balanced hands are both unlimited, causing some angst.

2♣ = 8+ flat, with a 4-card major (10 x 4432, 2 x 433)
2♦ = 8+ balanced, no major (6 x 5332, 2 x 4432, 2 x 4333)

That split works well, with most shapes coming out at 3♦.
However, a final shape-showing bid of 3♥ can put opener under some pressure.
(If 3♥ is end-of-line, there is no issue since describer can zoom to split the range.)

1♣ - 2♦ = 8+ balanced, no Major
2♥ - 3♥ = 3-3-4-3

If we give opener extras, a 3/2/1 strength ask of 3♠ might beget an unwelcome response of 4♣.
That could see us playing 4NT with 20+8 (2 aces). Not a good look.
If opener decides not to risk it, responder might (will) give up with a 13-count, equally concerned that 16+13 might be no fun in 4NT.
Then we will be playing our 20+13 in 3NT

Sometimes opener can break to game early on to show a minimum but that's not always possible. Also, breaking to game might impairs slam bidding when responder has a big hand.

An alternative is to split balanced hands by strength, as many symmetric pairs do, moving the 10 shapes with no major to 2♣:

2♣ = 8-11 balanced, 2♦ = 12+ balanced.

22 hands is too many to house in 2♣. Like most pairs, we treat 5M332s as single-suiters, so they are already excluded. We could do the same with 5m332s, leaving just four patterns to move across. Those additions bump more endpoints to 3♥ and above but the knowledge that responder has 8-11 will ease opener's concerns.

The 12+ hands are a step higher, so more shapes end at the 3NT threshold. That will rarely be a problem.

However, there is a cost in removing the 5m332s. Currently

1♣ - 3♦ = 3-3-1-6, 3♥ = 2-3-1-7, 3♠ = 3-2-1-7

After the change, we get

3♦ = 3-3-2-5
3♥ = 3-3-1-6
3♠ = 2-3-1-7 or 3-2-1-7

So the minor 1-suiters are going to suffer a bit.

Is it worth the move?

TIA

[DavidKok]

It's an excellent post, and with a lot of information. My thoughts on this are pretty brief and blunt, but I've tried to give a bit more context.

I think moving it around is not worth it, but mostly because using one relay over another is such a microscopic difference in your system results that I think almost anything else is higher priority. It simply comes up infrequently, and doesn't gain or lose much between different relay approaches.
Generally I think relay is putting far too much emphasis on exact shape, and can be improved by including strength information. This motivates a split range for balanced hands, as is currently popular, at the cost of taking up more immediate bids and also an EOL of 3♠ or 3NT.
When looking into shape-showing relays I struggled with the balanced hands - if we take only 4333 and 4432 that's 16 hand types, which doesn't fit well into the Fibonnaci number of 21. Adding the 5m332's puts it at 22, one too many. If we want to bump it all the way to the next number of 34 we could say '4333 + 4432 + 5332 + (42)(52)', using 32/34 spaces, but this is also arbitrary and regaining the space on the major-minor canapés doesn't help much. The somewhat popular approach of breaking symmetry with balanced hands and having EOL range from 3♦ through 3NT (for example) seems as good as any, suboptimally using the Fibonacci structure but using that space for earlier strength definition on certain balanced hands only. One good alternative that I've been experimenting with is folding in '4333, 4432 and 4441' hand types together, making 20/21. The downside is that relay breaks are dangerous if you may find a singleton opposite, and it bumps up the EOL of some balanced hands at relatively low gain on the three-suiters.

There is one game forcing relay system over a strong 1♣ that I feel does very well on balanced hands - ZZ relay. It is non-symmetrical though, and a lot of work. Because these relays matter so little for final score I don't think it is worth learning an entirely new one. But, since responder is balanced very often opposite a strong club, if you want to improve your system in the area where it'll have comparatively large impact, maybe that is a direction to consider.

[PrecisionL]

Thoughts from a non-symmetric design long time strong club designer:

We have made a simple relay system for our strong club-canape system that splits the balanced hands into 8-13 and 14+ (or 5+ Controls) including all 5332 hands but excluding 5422 and 6322 hands.

If exact shape for the doubletons is not important, then our modification of KK Relay for balanced hands works well with transfers into 5-cd suits at the 3-level. Because we use acceptance of the transfer as a Beta ask (for A+K totals), instead of looking for doubletons, slam considerations are usually answered by 3NT or 4♣. Memory effort is minimum in this design.

However, this design works well for Match Point Pairs, but is not as good as Symmetric Relay for IMP contests where slam bidding is much more important. (We play IMPs rarely.)

1♣ - 2♣ 8+ One or both minors (excluding 5-5). 2♦ Relay

1♣ - 2♦: 8-13 Balanced, per Rodwell's design.

2♥ Relay

2♠: No 5-cd Suit

2NT Asking:

3♣: 3-3-3-4 / 3-3-4-3

3♦: 4♥

3♥: 4♠

3♠: 2=3=4=4

3NT: 3=2=4=4

2NT: 1-U 5♣
3♣: 1-U 5♦
3♦: 1-U 5♥
3♥: 1-U 5♠
3♠: 3=3=3=4 / 3=3=4=3
3NT: x=x=4=4

2♠: SAB-3♠

2NT: SAB-3♥

3♣: SAB-3♣

3♦: SAB-3♦

1♣ - 2♥: 8+ Any 4441 hand. 2♠ is the ask for 1-U singleton.

1♣ - 2♠: 8+ Any 5-5 hand: 2NT Relay. Another Rodwell idea.

1♣ - 2NT: 14+ Balanced. 3♣ Ask (not relay) Baron Like (Forcing to 4NT)

[awm]

I think it makes sense to separate balanced hands by strength. When I used to have balanced hands describe this way, I had a min/max ask where max started around 13 high card points after shape resolved. We have also never had a problem with being unable to distinguish (32)17 patterns (it rarely seems to matter).

Now I try to let the shapely hand describe and the balanced hands relay. The structure for this is complicated though.

[foobar]

 pilun, on 2025-March-30, 04:52, said:

We play symmetric relay with a 16+ 1♣
Our two responses to show balanced hands are both unlimited, causing some angst.

2♣ = 8+ flat, with a 4-card major (10 x 4432, 2 x 433)
2♦ = 8+ balanced, no major (6 x 5332, 2 x 4432, 2 x 4333)

That split works well, with most shapes coming out at 3♦.
However, a final shape-showing bid of 3♥ can put opener under some pressure.
(If 3♥ is end-of-line, there is no issue since describer can zoom to split the range.)

1♣ - 2♦ = 8+ balanced, no Major
2♥ - 3♥ = 3-3-4-3

If we give opener extras, a 3/2/1 strength ask of 3♠ might beget an unwelcome response of 4♣.
That could see us playing 4NT with 20+8 (2 aces). Not a good look.
If opener decides not to risk it, responder might (will) give up with a 13-count, equally concerned that 16+13 might be no fun in 4NT.
Then we will be playing our 20+13 in 3NT

Sometimes opener can break to game early on to show a minimum but that's not always possible. Also, breaking to game might impairs slam bidding when responder has a big hand.

An alternative is to split balanced hands by strength, as many symmetric pairs do, moving the 10 shapes with no major to 2♣:

2♣ = 8-11 balanced, 2♦ = 12+ balanced.

22 hands is too many to house in 2♣. Like most pairs, we treat 5M332s as single-suiters, so they are already excluded. We could do the same with 5m332s, leaving just four patterns to move across. Those additions bump more endpoints to 3♥ and above but the knowledge that responder has 8-11 will ease opener's concerns.

The 12+ hands are a step higher, so more shapes end at the 3NT threshold. That will rarely be a problem.

However, there is a cost in removing the 5m332s. Currently

1♣ - 3♦ = 3-3-1-6, 3♥ = 2-3-1-7, 3♠ = 3-2-1-7

After the change, we get

3♦ = 3-3-2-5
3♥ = 3-3-1-6
3♠ = 2-3-1-7 or 3-2-1-7

So the minor 1-suiters are going to suffer a bit.

Is it worth the move?

TIA

FWIW I have been toying with completely giving on the resolution of the (32) for all balanced hands and options for strength resolution.

There is definitely scope for improvement, but this is ine less thing to remember:

So:

1C:


....2D: Balanced, 8-11/15+, then symmetric with the below
....2S: Any 5332, then S/H/D/C over 2N
....2N: 4432 with 4♠, 12-14
....3C: 4432/4333 with 4♥, 12-14

[foobar]

 foobar, on 2025-March-30, 15:02, said:

FWIW I have been toying with completely giving on the resolution of the (32) for all balanced hands and opting for strength resolution.

There is definitely scope for improvement, but this is ine less thing to remember:

So:

1C:


....2D: Balanced, 8-11/15+, then symmetric with the below
....2S: Any 5332 with 8-11, then S/H/D/C over 2N
....2N: 4432 with 4♠, 12-14
....3C: 4432/4333 with 4♥, 12-14

[foobar]

 PrecisionL, on 2025-March-30, 06:34, said:

Thoughts from a non-symmetric design long time strong club designer:

We have made a simple relay system for our strong club-canape system that splits the balanced hands into 8-13 and 14+ (or 5+ Controls) including all 5332 hands but excluding 5422 and 6322 hands.

If exact shape for the doubletons is not important, then our modification of KK Relay for balanced hands works well with transfers into 5-cd suits at the 3-level. Because we use acceptance of the transfer as a Beta ask (for A+K totals), instead of looking for doubletons, slam considerations are usually answered by 3NT or 4♣. Memory effort is minimum in this design.

However, this design works well for Match Point Pairs, but is not as good as Symmetric Relay for IMP contests where slam bidding is much more important. (We play IMPs rarely.)

1♣ - 2♣ 8+ One or both minors (excluding 5-5). 2♦ Relay

1♣ - 2♦: 8-13 Balanced, per Rodwell's design.

2♥ Relay

2♠: No 5-cd Suit

2NT Asking:

3♣: 3-3-3-4 / 3-3-4-3

3♦: 4♥

3♥: 4♠

3♠: 2=3=4=4

3NT: 3=2=4=4

[indent][indent]2NT: 1-U 5♣
3♣: 1-U 5♦
3♦: 1-U 5♥
3♥: 1-U 5♠
3♠: 3=3=3=4 / 3=3=4=3

This scheme looks pretty good, but two ways to show 4m333 is a typo? Also, how do we show 4=4=(32) vs. 4M4m?

[PrecisionL]

[quote
This scheme looks pretty good, but two ways to show 4m333 is a typo? Also, how do we show 4=4=(32) vs. 4M4m?
[/quote]
Not a typo. Space under 3NT is minimal.

WIth 4-4 in the majors responder shows ♥ and Opener can ask about ♠ if poor fit for ♥.

[pilun]

awm, on 2025-March-30, 11:17, said:

I think it makes sense to separate balanced hands by strength. When I used to have balanced hands describe this way, I had a min/max ask where max started around 13 high card points after shape resolved. We have also never had a problem with being unable to distinguish (32)17 patterns (it rarely seems to matter).

Now I try to let the shapely hand describe and the balanced hands relay. The structure for this is complicated though.

7-(321)s with a long major don't care much about residue but the same shape with a long minor may need to find a 5-3 major fit.
Likewise 6m(331) would appreciate lower resolution, the point being that the 5-level may be an unattractive alternative to 3NT. Asker needs to assess the risk of a 4♣ response to a strength ask, which is unlikely to be embarrassing opposite a long major.

[pilun]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-30, 05:35, said:

It's an excellent post, and with a lot of information. My thoughts on this are pretty brief and blunt, but I've tried to give a bit more context.

I think moving it around is not worth it, but mostly because using one relay over another is such a microscopic difference in your system results that I think almost anything else is higher priority. It simply comes up infrequently, and doesn't gain or lose much between different relay approaches.
Generally I think relay is putting far too much emphasis on exact shape, and can be improved by including strength information. This motivates a split range for balanced hands, as is currently popular, at the cost of taking up more immediate bids and also an EOL of 3♠ or 3NT.
When looking into shape-showing relays I struggled with the balanced hands - if we take only 4333 and 4432 that's 16 hand types, which doesn't fit well into the Fibonnaci number of 21. Adding the 5m332's puts it at 22, one too many. If we want to bump it all the way to the next number of 34 we could say '4333 + 4432 + 5332 + (42)(52)', using 32/34 spaces, but this is also arbitrary and regaining the space on the major-minor canapés doesn't help much. The somewhat popular approach of breaking symmetry with balanced hands and having EOL range from 3♦ through 3NT (for example) seems as good as any, suboptimally using the Fibonacci structure but using that space for earlier strength definition on certain balanced hands only. One good alternative that I've been experimenting with is folding in '4333, 4432 and 4441' hand types together, making 20/21. The downside is that relay breaks are dangerous if you may find a singleton opposite, and it bumps up the EOL of some balanced hands at relatively low gain on the three-suiters.

There is one game forcing relay system over a strong 1♣ that I feel does very well on balanced hands - ZZ relay. It is non-symmetrical though, and a lot of work. Because these relays matter so little for final score I don't think it is worth learning an entirely new one. But, since responder is balanced very often opposite a strong club, if you want to improve your system in the area where it'll have comparatively large impact, maybe that is a direction to consider.

22 is not perfect but it's pretty good.
After 2C showing the 22 balanced 8-11s with a 5-card major, relay gets them out by 3S, with one over the top.
It's easy enough to make a Fibonacci structure that's logical and easy to remember:

2H = 8: 6 x 5m332 + 2 x 44m. They come out neatly as 3-2-1-1-1
2S = 5: 4 x spades, not hearts. 2 x S & D, 4-2-3-4, 4-3-2-4, 4-3-3-3
2N = 4? 4 x hearts, not spades but drop 3-4-3-3. One shape over the top at 3NT. (3-4-4-2 for us)
3C = 2: 4-4(32)
3D = 1: 3-4-3-3
3H = 1: 3-3-4-3
3S = 1: 3-3-3-4

A 3S endpoint is okay because describer can zoom to split the range in two.
It's the 3H response that's awkward, since 3S strength ask needs to cope with 4C on Base+1.

[DavidKok]

Over 3♥ endpoint you have two range asks, 3♠ if you can endure 4♣, and 3NT if you can only endure a much stronger hand. In this they are similar to zooming past EOL 3♠ last round, where you might use 3♠ and 3NT for two ranges of not-quite-that-strong and 4♣+ for the really strong hands. You get the same strength resolution though you're one step higher on the 3♥-3♠ branch.

I agree that this is easy, what I'm challenging is whether it gains.