[wank]

i remember playing against this once. the system was fairly normal precision except 1H could be upto 18 (unbal).

this frees up the 1H rebid after 1C-1D for your preferred relay toy without damaging the rest of your 1C follow ups. obviously the downside is the lost definition for your 1♥ opener.

any views?

[glen]

I used a version of this in Spry, and it works well since the bid is still limited:

http://www.bridgematters.com/spry.pdf

[wclass___]

You can't fix a mirror if it ain't broke.

[perko90]

Sounds pretty good to me, too. I would make the max for 1♥ 17 HCP, but that's splitting hairs. Making room for the relay makes sense to me.


And I like that Spry system. I tend to discount non 5-card Major systems, but that one has promise.

[the_clown]

And what do you rebid after 1♣-1♦ with 5♥s and 19 points?

[straube]

I don't think this is a very good idea. One reason is that it's useful to have a more limited 1H opening; it's easier for partner to preempt against a narrower point range (e.g. 1H-4H) and easier to bid slam opposite a narrower point range.

I did experiment on paper with this idea along with...

1C-1D, 1H as 20+

This leaves 1C-1D, 1S as 16-19 and 1C-1D, 2H as 19-20

However, if one is going to use 1C-1D, 1H as 20+, one might as well use something like TOSR for the rest...

After 1C-1D

.....1S-various unbal with 5-cd minor
.....1N-17-19
.....2C-majors
.....2D-a single major
.....2M-5M/4m
.....etc

which adequately handles the 16+ hearts anyway. So why not include them in the strong club?

Or if you prefer natural rebids after 1C-1D, then more space is necessary for a 1H rebid since it has to handle more heart/spade patterns (3-suited patterns primarily) than does the 1C-1D, 1S sequence. Besides which, a natural 1H rebid is useful for 4H/5m unbalanced shapes.

[chasetb]

I would maybe move 1♥ up to include most 16s and a few very REALLY bad 17s where you are short in Spades, but most 17s and any 18 is a tad silly. I also don't like the 1♥ relay, natural hands with 5+ or 4 with a longer minor come up WAY too much, and not every balanced hand with 5 Hearts should have to rebid 1NT and hide the suit.

Now, if you were talking about making 1♦ be up to 18 or 19, then I can agree with that, and have toyed with it (just mental thinking though). To the normal nebulous 1♦ (2+), I would add 16-18 hands with: 6+ Diamonds, both minors, 5+ Diamond - 4 Heart hands (or a REALLY bad 5) with shortness in Spades. This releases a lot of tension from the 1♣ - 1♦; 2♦, and creates the possibility of utilizing it for multiple hand types, like the minors any strength, a GF balanced hand, etc.

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2012-June-09, 19:35, said:

However, if one is going to use 1C-1D, 1H as 20+, one might as well use something like TOSR for the rest...

After 1C-1D

.....1S-various unbal with 5-cd minor
.....1N-17-19
.....2C-majors
.....2D-a single major
.....2M-5M/4m
.....etc

On 16 opposite 0? You are a brave, brave man.

[dake50]

Close to what I think is optimum.
Take big Heart hands out of 1C-force.
Up the 1H top somewhat - say 18 if 0-2 Spades.
Add Heart-showing jump(s)/forces after 1D opener
for 18+ 5+H.
Eg. After 1D-1S-, some Gazzilli-like 2C force
with big Hearts or H+2nd.

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-10, 03:21, said:

On 16 opposite 0? You are a brave, brave man.

Really? And btw it is very rare to have exactly 16 opposite 0. I was describing TOSR (Transfer Oriented Symmetric Relay) which does a pretty good job at finding a good part score after 1C-1D (0-7). I can't think how their structure can be described as brave. Maybe something like Meckwell is a tad more conservative, but Meckwell's 1C-1D, 1M is forcing which means they can't stop at the 1-level either if that's what you meant. What did you mean?

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2012-June-10, 10:09, said:

Really? And btw it is very rare to have exactly 16 opposite 0. I was describing TOSR (Transfer Oriented Symmetric Relay) which does a pretty good job at finding a good part score after 1C-1D (0-7). I can't think how their structure can be described as brave. Maybe something like Meckwell is a tad more conservative, but Meckwell's 1C-1D, 1M is forcing which means they can't stop at the 1-level either if that's what you meant. What did you mean?

Compare how many more opportunities the opponents have to communicate with each other whether they would like to compete or penalize you when you bid 1♣-1♦-2♦(either major) compared to 1♣-1♦-1M.

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-10, 11:17, said:

Compare how many more opportunities the opponents have to communicate with each other whether they would like to compete or penalize you when you bid 1♣-1♦-2♦(either major) compared to 1♣-1♦-1M.

Thanks for the example. I'd think the opponents have more opportunities to compete over 1M than 2D, but artificial bids and transfers do let them double. I'm not very concerned about it and I don't worry that opponents might double Stayman or Jacoby although sometimes they will do well to do so. I take your point, but I don't feel that one has to be very brave to play TOSR continuations.

[Siegmund]

Playing Polish-family systems I typically play 1M as 11-18, so I can't see why it would be too much of a problem to do the same for 1H only in Precision, if you gain something from it elsewhere. The 11-15 range is VERY limited, more limited than I want it to be, to be honest.

[JLOGIC]

To me you are giving up on the best part of the system if you do this for not enough compensating gain.

[akhare]

Siegmund, on 2012-June-13, 23:26, said:

Playing Polish-family systems I typically play 1M as 11-18, so I can't see why it would be too much of a problem to do the same for 1H only in Precision, if you gain something from it elsewhere. The 11-15 range is VERY limited, more limited than I want it to be, to be honest.

The 11-15 range is conservative for sure -- that's why we use the 9(10) - 15 range instead . In fact, on shapely two suited hands, we might even consider opening 1M on a 8 count instead of a 2M preempt.

That said, I really don't understand the appeal of extending the 1M range to 18/19 in a Precision context...

[Siegmund]

If you are already going down to 9 I wouldn't also go up to 18 (or at all) except in 4th seat - that already adds a lot of frequency to these. I just happen to have conservative enough partners and a conservative enough regulatory environment that opening a lot of 9s in 1st seat isnt happening for me.