[BRBanger]

The Gold - Forrester card is a big advert for 5cM's. Not only the opening bids, but the responses to 1C and 1D too! http://www.ecatsbrid...d-forrester.pdf

After 1D - 1H is a general relay, denying a 5cM, and with transfer rebids (the 1D opener is unbalanced). That's fine.

After 1C - 1D is the same, and a 1H rebid covers 12-14 bal. (The 1NT rebid is 18-19ish. Gosh, 1C must be nearly forcing...a different post. And it solves the T-Walsh problem of rebidding after 1C-1S).

But, after 1C-1D-1H, how does the bidding continue? How do we find 4-4 M fits? What does a 1S or 1NT response show now? Maybe we give up on finding at least one of the fits (with limited hands) - so no worse that a weak NT opener, albeit less pre-emptive.

Wouldn't it be nice to understand the thinking behind the system(s) of such top players, as well as a bit more information to satisfy our curiosity and to give us a few more ideas for (possible) system improvements / discussions?

It's fascinating to see different ideas from developers working on sequences like these. (1C-1D-1H, 1D-1H, and even 1H-1S-1NT seem to offer whole new worlds of thinking).

[steve2005]

It certainly has merit. Montreal relay does same thing and Precision need a 5M to respond over 1♣ but there club is only strong. It handles interference not too bad as has neg double at its disposal to find 4-4 major fit if responder has enough pts to do. Not in as good shape after a 3♦ overcall or a natural 3♣ overcall but that's life.

Forrester uses 2♥/♠ for Flannery/rev Flannery responses which is interesting

[mgoetze]

At its core, this is a variant of Montreal Relay, which goes

1♣-1♦ = no 5-card major
1♣-1♦-1♥ = 4 hearts
1♣-1♦-1♠ = 4 spades
1♣-1♦-1NT = 12-14 bal no major

and does not enjoy a good reputation around here. I think it's safe to say this is an improvement on basic Montreral relay. How do you find 4-4 fits after 1♣-1♦-1♥? Well... presumably some form of checkback? You have all the space in the world here, it can't be hard. I'll guess 1NT is to play, 1♠ is nat NF (but opener should always raise with a fit), 2♣ is Stayman.

As for rebid problems in T-Walsh after 1♣-1♠... I don't have any. I'm somewhat convinced that using a 1♠ response to show diamonds in a T-Walsh context is wrong (in my T-Walsh system it shows 4+ clubs, no major).

Yes, it would be nice to have more details on everyone's system.

As for 1♥-1♠-1NT, I don't play Kaplan Inversion so I can't comment on how new this idea actually is, but I'm going to bet that several people have come up with transfer rebids in that spot before.

[mgoetze]

steve2005, on 2015-July-15, 06:21, said:

Forrester uses 2♥/♠ for Flannery/rev Flannery responses which is interesting

Both rather wide-ranging, which seems like a pain. People who use those for two different ranges of reverse Flannery have good reason to do so. But of course, it's all about which hand types you have trouble showing otherwise.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-15, 06:32, said:

I'll guess 1NT is to play, 1♠ is nat NF (but opener should always raise with a fit), 2♣ is Stayman.

Roger and I already spoke a little about this. My best guess is that 1♠ after 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ is a further relay with Opener bidding 1NT for 11-13 bal; 2♣ for 11-13 with both minors; and something else with the 15-18 club-based hand. I can think of a number of uses for a Responder's Rebid of 1NT but natural and invitational seems like a good bet. If this were correct then they are burying their major fits whenever Responder is weak with one 4 card major and Opener is 11-13 balanced and holds 4 of that major, unless some form of Creeping Stayman were also included.

We did not go into any of the other sequences yet. We will see where this thread takes us - perhaps PK or Frances even have some first-hand knowledge of playing against this...

[mgoetze]

You've got to be a pretty huge fan of full shape relays to have 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ as a relay there where it is seldom needed (i.e. the sort who would also have 1♠-2♣ as a GF relay). 2♣ as a relay bid is plenty low enough... or even 1NT, to guarantee the unknown hand declares NT contracts. Which would go well with another possiblity for 1♠: puppet to 1NT, either to play or to make another (presumably invitational) bid.

But as I said, you've got so much room, you can play almost anything there and have it work reasonably well.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-15, 07:45, said:

You've got to be a pretty huge fan of full shape relays to have 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ as a relay there where it is seldom needed

It is not clear from the OP but the 1♥ rebid shows 11-13 balanced; 11-13 with both minors; or 15-18 and clubs, so you do need some way of sorting out the various hand types. I would agree with you if 1♥ were only the weak balanced hand.

[steve2005]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-15, 06:34, said:

Both rather wide-ranging, which seems like a pain. People who use those for two different ranges of reverse Flannery have good reason to do so. But of course, it's all about which hand types you have trouble showing otherwise.

I like 2♦ for Flan 2♥ for rev Flan but Forrester using 2♦ as multi weak 2 so no choice

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-15, 07:03, said:

Roger and I already spoke a little about this. My best guess is that 1♠ after 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ is a further relay with Opener bidding 1NT for 11-13 bal; 2♣ for 11-13 with both minors; and something else with the 15-18 club-based hand. I can think of a number of uses for a Responder's Rebid of 1NT but natural and invitational seems like a good bet. If this were correct then they are burying their major fits whenever Responder is weak with one 4 card major and Opener is 11-13 balanced and holds 4 of that major, unless some form of Creeping Stayman were also included.

We did not go into any of the other sequences yet. We will see where this thread takes us - perhaps PK or Frances even have some first-hand knowledge of playing against this...

Yes, 1♠ over 1♥ is a relay. As I recall they play(ed) 1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT as 4/4 in the majors NF. When Responder has one 4-card major and not worth an invitational move they would bid 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-Pass thus missing quite a few 4-4 major suit fits on paper. But against that they find the 5-3 fits quicker than in standard methods.

The convention card linked was from 2013 but more recently they have been playing variable NT (11-14 NV, 15-17 V) which adds another slight complication.

[phoenix214]

Well, in you only have limited space - so you do have to give up somethings to play like this. From what it seems they give up on finding 4-4 fits, to stay a level lower with the strong balanced hand.
So what are the tradeoffs. We can look at different auctions in TWalsh compared to this.
Over 1♣-1♦(Hearts):
We have 1NT as strong bal(same), 1♥ as weak bal(same), but when responder has a H fit we are ahead(also in comp auctions). We lose on the 5-3 fits, but we have the ability to stay on level one, and the bal hand with a good hand can raise again, so I do not think it is that bad.
Over 1♣-1♥(Spade):
We have basically the same pluss and minus.
Over 1♣-1♠(Bal hand):
Here we have a losing scenario - if partner is strong then he is forced to bid on level 2. This might turn out bad if you do not have a major, but then again we can risk a pass(Hoping that 1♣ plays better than 2NT), and opps will usually balance here, because they have major suits, and might feel that they are missing something.

From what i see - there is not much upside to play this, and I would prefer to play TWalsh

[mgoetze]

Also if finding 5-3 fits is the priority then you can play the style of T-Walsh where completing the transfer shows 3. (I prefer my style to that one, so...)

[BRBanger]

Jeffrey, thank you for putting me out of my misery by explaining the 1C-1D-1H-1NT response as both majors (4-4) limited. This makes a lot of sense, and, given that we may lose the occasional major fit where responder has only one 4cM, at least we catch one where responder has both M's. Yes, the CC dates from 2013, but I also picked up the Gold-Forrester card from this years Camrose and it looks pretty much the same. The next question is how to find the 4-4 M fit when opener has an unbalanced hand with 5+clubs and 4M, where finding the M fit is more critical (either 11-14 or 15-18 types). Can you help me out with this one please?

Aleksis (pheonix214) provides a good analysis of the method, compared to T-Walsh. Interesting to note that you play 1C-1S as 4+clubs, adding some definition to the otherwise "no major" meaning. I've also played the 1S response as showing 4+diamonds, and 1NT as 4+clubs only (but with 6-11 points, happy to pass 1C with 4+clubs and <6 points).

Where folk like to play the 1NT / 2C responses as 5+C / 5+D GF, it seems to me that the 1S responses gets over-burdened, making the awkward 2NT rebid with 17-18ish feel even worse than usual. I note that some (e.g. Welland-Fallenius)play(ed) 1C-1S-2D as the big balanced hand, and 2NT as the genuine reverse into diamonds (forcing to 4m), in an attempt to mitigate the problem. Maybe I'm overly concerned about being in 2NT with inadequate values (and a potential nice minor fit), but I guess it's not that frequent.

[Zelandakh]

BRBanger, on 2015-July-16, 03:37, said:

The next question is how to find the 4-4 M fit when opener has an unbalanced hand with 5+clubs and 4M, where finding the M fit is more critical (either 11-14 or 15-18 types). Can you help me out with this one please?

My guess is that they play 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ as 11-14 with clubs and hearts. The 11-14 club-spade hands and 5+♣4M 15-18 hands are no problem: 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 2M respectively.

[BRBanger]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-16, 05:19, said:

My guess is that they play 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ as 11-14 with clubs and hearts. The 11-14 club-spade hands and 5+♣4M 15-18 hands are no problem: 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 2M respectively.

But 1C-1D (relay, no 5M)-1H (covers weak NT) -1S (relay)-2M showing 15-18 with 5+clubs and 4M has no guaranteed fit; we may wish we were back in 2C. I'm still left guessing how the Gold - Forrester system works here. As Jeffrey points out, all is fine if responder can bid 1NT to show both M's <INV. Maybe I'm missing something, and it wouldn't be the first time!

[mgoetze]

BRBanger, on 2015-July-16, 03:37, said:

Interesting to note that you play 1C-1S as 4+clubs, adding some definition to the otherwise "no major" meaning. I've also played the 1S response as showing 4+diamonds, and 1NT as 4+clubs only (but with 6-11 points, happy to pass 1C with 4+clubs and <6 points).

Yeah I really don't like 1♠=diamonds. Here's a quick summary of my method (which I stole from karlson):

1♣-1♠ = 4+ clubs no major
1♣-1♠-1NT = 11-13 nat
1♣-1♠-2♣ = 11-15 nat
1♣-1♠-2x = 16+ with values in the suit bid (could be a 3-card suit, could be 17-19 bal but could also be unbal)

1♣-1NT/2NT/3♦/3NT = bal with 4+ diamonds various ranges
1♣-2♣ = 6+ diamonds weak or 5+ diamonds GF (can have 4M in the latter case)
1♣-2♦ = 6+ diamonds invitational

[phoenix214]

As for the 1♠ response over 1♣:
In general - does it make any sense for it to show any minor suit?
If it promises 4+ in a minor: Are we motivated for some reason to play there? If we have a 4-4 fit, in matchpoints we want to play 1N anyway - in IMPs - not that close - but some of the field is going to be in 1NT anyway - and are we that sure that the suit is better then NT. Also if we have a minor fit - will we ever be able to play 2 minor? Most good players wont let you do that anyway - but there is a higher chance that they will let you play 1NT.
So in that case - there are 2 alternatives for 1♠ response that seem to be reasonable:
a) Use it a weak hand w.o interest for major suits or some strong options(maybe both minors).
over this 1NT - minimum balanced, 2C - unbalanced with clubs(no interest for 1NT) 2D - strong balanced
1C-1S-1N, 2C Both minors and a weak hand for example
Here 1NT is usable as a clubs, or as INV to 3NT. An interesting thing is that looking at Kokish-Kraft, for example. In their system 1C-1NT is 8-10 bal, if you had a weaker balanced hand, you would bid it through 1D. The same idea applies here.
b) Use the 1S bid as a GF relay as Auken - Welland do. This fits better in a relay type of an approach if you its your cup of tea.

[mgoetze]

phoenix214, on 2015-July-16, 21:37, said:

As for the 1♠ response over 1♣:
In general - does it make any sense for it to show any minor suit?
If it promises 4+ in a minor: Are we motivated for some reason to play there?

If opener has 11-13 balanced? No, it doesn't really matter. But, you know, sometimes opener will have the unbalanced variant, and it's nice to know that responder has support (and we don't need to bother looking for another fit) right away. Or responder could be strong, and opener having 17-19 balanced could put us on the road to 6♣... but only if we establish the fit in time.

[BRBanger]

My thoughts exactly Michael - opener is not always balanced.

There is scope to use 1S (and some higher responses)to add definition. Current trends seem to like using 1NT and 2C as GF transfers (wow, so much space), or maybe 1NT as INV bal (which has appeal, although about two thirds of the time you have a 4cM), and 2m as 5+m GF. Also using 2M to show some of the tricky limited hands with (say) both M's (personally I like 2D as a Multi alongside 2M as limited with both M's). A bonus, sometime overlooked perhaps, is that sequences like 1C - 1S (let's say this is natural for the sake of this example!)- any rebid - 2H cannot be the limited 5-4 M's (we would have bid 1C - 2H).

So with T-Walsh 1S to say "nothing much" is ok, and fine if opener is balanced. However, some folk (see above) prefer to go completely the other way and use 4 or 5 bids all showing diamonds (er...I really don't like this - do we really need that many?). Again, this idea has support, but it seems a bit of a waste, maybe even a backward step in terms of development. It feels to me a bit like we've improved quite a bit of the system, but forgot to think about diamonds.

I'm not meaning to denigrate the "loads of responses showing diamonds". After all (in a 5M system), if we open 1C (whether or not we have a real club suit) the most likely other suit we have is diamonds. To be fair (to both Michael and Aleksis), perhaps I'll take a middle road, with 1S=4+c, 1NT=4/5d limited, 2C=6d weak or 5+d GF, and if I can't use 2D as a Multi, then I'll pick 2D to show 6d INV (but I'd choose to squeeze this and the INV+ 4/5d hands into the 2C response). Phew - I've only used 2 or 3 bids to show diamonds! Feeling better already.

Anyone else for some kind of "balance", or "all those in favour of the nebulous 1S"?

Sorry, I've drifted away from the original post: T-Walsh or some other method of responding which (at least some of the time) allows a 1NT rebid to show the 17-18/19 range.

[phoenix214]

Well you have the space to assign you get.
Over 1C-1S(not defined)-2C, now you have a million forcing bids available to add some definition - so you can find a fit there -(you can agree on clubs as trumps searching for slam at the level of 3C)
Since responder does not have majors and opener does not have majors - then they rate to have a minor fit. You can have a bid such as 2D or 2H as a force to check what partner has or to use it as some puppet.
Over 1C-1S 2D(strong balanced... TO SAVE SPACE) you can practically again have the same method of asking. Obviously this might be too difficult to remember so there might be better alternatives.

[FrancesHinden]

The Gold-Forrester system changes frequently. I lose track as to what current methods may be; what I last played against may well be not what is current.