[Kungsgeten]

Our 2C opening is 12-16 with 6+C or 5C and 4M, so its like the old Precision version. We use a fairly traditional response structure where 2D is a INV+ relay, 2M shows a 5 card suit and is non-forcing but invitational, 2NT+ are transfers containing a raise to 3C, GF hands with 6+ major, weak hands with diamonds, INV hands with 6+ major, slam seeking hands with diamonds and GF two-suiters without clubs. This means that our 2D response currently is:

- Balanced INV+, with or without four card major(s).
- Slam interest in clubs.
- GF with a five card major.

Opener's rebids are inspired by Meckwell (I think?):

2H = A four card major, not 6-4 if max
2S = 6+ clubs and shortness somewhere
2NT = 6+ clubs, no shortness and max
3C = 6+ clubs, no shortness and min
3DHS = 6-4, max

I've been thinking that perhaps we could use the same principles as over our 1D, 1H, and 1S relays. Here we use 2C as a GF relay and two-suiters resolve at 3C+ and one-suiters at 2NT+, like below (not optimal, but easy to remember):

Two-suiters
3C = High shortness
3D = 5422
3H = 5431 low shortness
3S = 5-5, low shortness
3NT = 6-4, low shortness

One-suiters
2NT = 7+ suit or max with 6322
3C = 6-card suit and shortness, min
3D = 6322 min
3H = 6-card suit, low shortness, max
3S = 6-card suit, medium shortness, max
3NT = 6-card suit, high shortness, max

Could this be used over 2C--2D too? I've been thinking along these lines:

2C--2D;
2H = Natural, could be 4-4-0-5 (rebids 2NT after 2S relay)
2S = Natural
2NT = 6+ clubs, no shortness, min (3C is now non-forcing)
3C = 6+ clubs and shortness, min
3D = 6+ clubs, no shortness, max
3H/S/NT = 6+ clubs, low/medium/high shortness, max

I think this may be better than our current structure regarding slam bidding, but probably worse if its about finding the right game/partscore.

Also I know about Zelandakh's transfer structure (which is nice, but partner won't play it), so please try to stay on topic

[The_Badger]

hi Kungsgeten,

I used to play Precision years ago, progressing from the Wei version through to the Sontag version and I'm a great believer that standardising relay bids into 5 or 6 bid blocks with similar meanings for each bid, in essence each step has a defined shape/point count makes life a lot easier in the long run. Obviously, there will be variations depending on what suit you open.

With Sontag, both my partner and I had difficulty remembering the myriad of bids that might crop up infrequently. Trying to remember what 3♥ meant in that sequence, for example...

On reflection, instead of trying to remember what a bid meant, but realising that the bid was, let's say, 4 steps up from the previous bid in a specific block would have undoubtedly made life easier.

Bridge is difficult enough without brain-crunching trying to remember what a specific bid means if you are playing a complicated system.

I like what you have suggested, it looks playable and wish you all the best trying it out

[awm]

One problem with this type of method is that you probably won't be able to play 2NT after a declined invite. This is not such a big deal when the opening promises 6+♣, but can be costly opposite the 4-5 hands. In any case, it seems like you might do a bit better by inverting the rebids to:

2♥ = no four-card major (4♦-6♣ or just 6+♣)
2♠ = four hearts (2NT relays and into your normal two-suited shapes)
2NT = four spades and high shortness (3♦ relays and into your normal two-suited shapes)
3♣ = four spades and low shortness and minimum (3♦ relay)
3♦ = 4405
3♥+ = four spades and low shortness and maximum

There is some assumption here that 4225 can open something else (maybe treat it as a balanced hand).

[johnu]

After a 2♦ relay, I like to play

2♣ 2♦ Relay
2♥ 4 hearts or maximum 2♣ opener
2♠ 4 spades
2NT Minimum, 6+ clubs, one outside stopper
3♣ Minimum, 6+ clubs, 2 (or 3) outside stoppers

After a 2♥ rebid, 2♠ is used as a relay

2♣ 2♦ Relay
2♥ 2♠ Relay
2NT Maximum, 6+ clubs, 2 (or 3) outside stoppers
3♣ Maximum, 6+ clubs, 1 outside stopper
3♦ Fragment, 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3♥ For Precision, minimum, 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3♠ For Precision, maximum, 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3NT For Precision, maximum, 4 hearts, stoppers in other 2 suits

If Opener rebids 2NT or 3♣ either directly over 2♦ or over a 2♠ relay, responder can use 3♦ to ask the location of stoppers for 3NT.

[straube]

2C-2D

2H-4H or max 4S
.....2S-ask
..........2N-min, 4H
...............P-misfit
...............3C-to play
...............3D-GF ask
..........3C-max, 4S
..........etc-max, 4H
2S-min 6C
.....2N-ask
.....3C-to play
2N-min, 4S
.....P-misfit
.....3C-to play
.....3D-GF ask
3C-max, 6C, bal
3D-max, 6C, higher
3H-max, 6C, middle
etc

I've left out 4405. It could fit in somewhere at the cost of symmetry.

[Kungsgeten]

awm, on 2016-September-19, 09:20, said:

One problem with this type of method is that you probably won't be able to play 2NT after a declined invite. This is not such a big deal when the opening promises 6+♣, but can be costly opposite the 4-5 hands. In any case, it seems like you might do a bit better by inverting the rebids to:

2♥ = no four-card major (4♦-6♣ or just 6+♣)
2♠ = four hearts (2NT relays and into your normal two-suited shapes)
2NT = four spades and high shortness (3♦ relays and into your normal two-suited shapes)
3♣ = four spades and low shortness and minimum (3♦ relay)
3♦ = 4405
3♥+ = four spades and low shortness and maximum

There is some assumption here that 4225 can open something else (maybe treat it as a balanced hand).

Not being able to play 2NT is a loss, but we have that problem in our current structure too. Your suggested structure looks nice, even though 3D as 4-4-0-5 is a bit high (but its an uncommon pattern).

Our 2C opening does not contain 5-5 hands, so this hand type could be removed from the two-suiter scheme. One option could then be to swap that bid with 4-4-0-5, and perhaps show the strongest major first with that pattern.

[Kungsgeten]

straube, on 2016-September-20, 00:02, said:

2C-2D

2H-4H or max 4S
.....2S-ask
..........2N-min, 4H
...............P-misfit
...............3C-to play
...............3D-GF ask
..........3C-max, 4S
..........etc-max, 4H
2S-min 6C
.....2N-ask
.....3C-to play
2N-min, 4S
.....P-misfit
.....3C-to play
.....3D-GF ask
3C-max, 6C, bal
3D-max, 6C, higher
3H-max, 6C, middle
etc

I've left out 4405. It could fit in somewhere at the cost of symmetry.

This seems to be too high with two-suiters resolved at 3H+ without knowing the (potential) shortness.

[straube]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-September-20, 01:14, said:

This seems to be too high with two-suiters resolved at 3H+ without knowing the (potential) shortness.

You'll know min/max and high/no/low shortness but not full pattern. Since your 2C promises only 5 clubs, I don't see how you can choose a structure that doesn't allow you to bail in 2N with a misfit.

awm, on 2016-September-19, 09:20, said:

One problem with this type of method is that you probably won't be able to play 2NT after a declined invite. This is not such a big deal when the opening promises 6+♣, but can be costly opposite the 4-5 hands.

[DinDIP]

There is a way for responder to offer either 2N or 3♣ as final contracts when he is minimum and opener is potentially minimum and has only 5C and a 4M. This assumes you are playing a traditional response structure where 2M just shows four cards in that major. It does come with a price that you may judge not to be worth paying.

After
2♣ - 2♦ relay
2♥
Responder can use 2♠ as the relay at relatively little cost. (Alternatives are to play it as NAT, INV and NF -- aiming at a small target; or as NAT and GF, which is of marginal utility to a pair with a good relay method.)

This allows 2N to be NF, catering for INV hands with 4S and not 4H, and C shortness

INV hands with 4H that don't want to risk a possible 5-1 (or 5-0!) C fit respond a direct 2N to 2♣.

There are two obvious costs. One is that 2N can no longer be used for some other purpose. The other is that INV hands without 4M and with short C (so 3-3-5-2 or 3-3-6-1) also need to be included in one of the sequences; I'd opt for including them in the 2D sequences. That has some risk of getting overboard when opener is 4-4-0-5 minimum.

While the idea of such a narrowly defined INV response will not appeal to many, I'd note that playing 2N (either directly or delayed) as promising shortness in clubs is a significant asset in helping opener to make a sensible choice about whether or not to accept the INV. (See Jeff Rubens' article TSAR in the esoterica section of The Bridge World website.)

David