[tomlgoodwi]

I don't have a lot of experience vs. MR, so maybe this is wildly wrong. But, if I were playing against it and heard the bidding go 1C-P-1D to me, I cannot imagine many hands on which I wouldn't bid 1M, either one, regardless of what I actually hold in M. I would of course pre-alert this, as I assume the MRers will pre-alert their method.

In other words, I suspect the MR might collapse under the weight of frequent and fairly random 1M overcalls.

Does anyone have any experience bearing on this?

[hrothgar]

This is precisely the strategy that I use against pairs playing Montreal Relay

Last time I ran across anyone playing Montreal Relay was in a team match in Newton. (Your son and IdiotVig were our team mates, I was playing with a friend of Brads)

The auction started

(1♣) - P - (1♦) - ???

And I decided to stick in an overcall holding a three card Heart fragment.
Once the dust had settled, I scored up 2♥X playing in a 3-3 fit.

(The opponents never managed to figure out who was holding what and were most displeased when their trumps all started crashing on one another)

[tomlgoodwi]

 hrothgar, on 2010-November-04, 08:41, said:

This is precisely the strategy that I use against pairs playing Montreal Relay

Last time I ran across anyone playing Montreal Relay was in a team match in Newton. (Your son and IdiotVig were our team mates, I was playing with a friend of Brads)

The auction started

(1♣) - P - (1♦) - ???

And I decided to stick in an overcall holding a three card Heart fragment.
Once the dust had settled, I scored up 2♥X playing in a 3-3 fit.

(The opponents never managed to figure out who was holding what and were most displeased when their trumps all started crashing on one another)

Sounds like your partner wasn't in on the joke, either . . . .

[kenrexford]

Sure, you could bid 1♥ or 1♠ randomly after the 1♣-P-1♦ start.

But, rather than wait for the opponents to isolate out that a major fit only exists when Opener has a 4-bagger, why not stick it in BEFORE the 1♦ response, and against anyone? In other words, overcall 1♣ with a three-card major?

In other words, there is nothing new about that defense. I thought of that, and even tried it out, some 15-20 years ago. You think that's a new one and that somehow MR is more susceptible to that? Please.

The REAL problem, I would propose, is that the "expert standard" approach is Walsh, and the majority MR players are Flight B players, precisely because of the reaction to MR shown as to this post. Hence, experience playing against MR players is illustrating not problems with MR but rather problems with Flight B players.

What I am proposing is that the MR structure actually works better when employed by a person capable of handling interference after either Walsh or MR. As that person, rare though I may be, I think MR should be reconsidered and am encouraging those with open minds to do so.

Rapid finding of assured fits is ideal. 1♣-P-1♥-P-2♥ as assuring a 5-3 or better fit allows all calls after this start to be effectively used as probes, whereas ambiguity means that these frequent sequences require some sort of re-establishment of fit, and that takes space.

Not playing support doubles allows other purposes for the double. E.g., 1♣-P-1♥-2♦ start. I have no problem finding a 4-4 spade fit with MR, but support doubles makes this difficult. Opener with 4324; Responder with 4432?

These types of subtle gains are much more important and realistic than psychic 1M overcalls.

[hrothgar]

 kenrexford, on 2010-November-04, 14:30, said:

Sure, you could bid 1♥ or 1♠ randomly after the 1♣-P-1♦ start.

But, rather than wait for the opponents to isolate out that a major fit only exists when Opener has a 4-bagger, why not stick it in BEFORE the 1♦ response, and against anyone? In other words, overcall 1♣ with a three-card major?

In other words, there is nothing new about that defense. I thought of that, and even tried it out, some 15-20 years ago. You think that's a new one and that somehow MR is more susceptible to that? Please.

Ken, you might want to pull your head out of your ass and revisit the "Conventional Defenses to short Club" thread...

I certainly agree that there is nothing new to this defense. However, in ACBL land you are banning from using this method over the opponent's natural 1 club opening. On the other hand, anything goes after an artificial 1 opening or, for that matter, an artificial 1♦ response.

Thanks for playing though...

[straube]

Just curious but how does responder show diamonds with the MR?

Also, do you use XYZ?

1C-1D, 1H-XYZ? This might let you get your invite in and stay at the 2-level where Walsh players have
1C-1H, 2H-3H auctions.

OTOH, it seems like you lose invites after 1C-1M, 2M compared to standard 1C-1M, 1N-2-way

[kenrexford]

 straube, on 2010-November-04, 15:32, said:

Just curious but how does responder show diamonds with the MR?

Also, do you use XYZ?

1C-1D, 1H-XYZ? This might let you get your invite in and stay at the 2-level where Walsh players have
1C-1H, 2H-3H auctions.

OTOH, it seems like you lose invites after 1C-1M, 2M compared to standard 1C-1M, 1N-2-way

If the auction starts 1♣-1♦-1♥, you don't need xyz. If Responder has four hearts, he can raise to 2♥, 3♥, or 4♥, or he can make a slam move. The advantage in this sequence is comparing the parallel of 1♣-1♥-2♥, where Opener might have a 3-piece raise. You end up with some call to both invite game and check on Opener's real heart length, which burns up space and which leaves you in a non0deal situation when Opener has only 3-piece.

If the auction is 1♣-1M-2M, then you do have a loss like you mentioned when Opener has 3-piece support only (with 4-piece the raise would have already occurred in both sequences), because you lose the ability to "invite" and find out about the minimum with 3-piece low enough to stop at 2M. So, when there is specifically a 5-3 fit, you could end up in 3M down one.

Against that, however, is that you end up lower when Opener has only a 2-card suit, as you eliminate out that possible strain. In other words, imagine the three starts when Responder has five hearts:

1♣-P-1♥-P-?

1. Opener has 4-piece support. Both times Opener starts 2♥, so no real gain or loss as to level, but in Walsh Responder knows of the 9-fit.
2. Opener has 3-piece support. Walsh finds the fit later but might be able to stop at 2M opposite a minimum opening, but Walsh bidders may undershoot by not seeking the 3-card fit with some marginal hands.
3. Opener has two-card hearts. Walsh sequences are strained to check for a 5-3 and sometimes end up too high when none exists. MR may stop at 1NT on these hands.

With the 4-card holdings, though:

1. If Opener has 4 hearts, heart fit is still found but the strong hand (Opener) accepts the lead more often.
2. If Opener has a 3-fit, hearts never mentioned (except in comp) and no disclosure. Same if Opener has a 2-fit. In Walsh, the 3-fit raises burn space for unwinds, and then the 4-3 discovery forces strange agreements to re-focus strain in 3N probe or slam sequences.

Major point, though. How many pages of notes do you really need to play xyz? We had a LOT of discussion, and I felt that the various sequences were under-developed. Comparison with almost no pages of notes seems huge.

[tomlgoodwi]

Following up on comments above by Ken and Richard: No, the "short major" overcall of a minor-suit opening bid is not at all something new under the sun. Ken says he toyed with the idea fifteen or twenty years ago, and I don't doubt that he did. In fact, there was an article by Jim Wood in The Bridge World in 1983 entitled "The Anticipatory Overcall," which described exactly this proposed tactic against minor-suit opening bids by people who didn't open five-card majors. (This was before "Could be Short" achieved much of a following, so the minor-suit opening bids in question implied three or more in the suit.) Anticipatory Overcalls were barred by ACBL regulators, who ruled that they were forbidden as controlled psyches.

As Richard suggests, life may have been breathed back into that type of defensive method when the minor-suit opening bid (or the one-diamond response) could be on a doubleton (or less) and as such is conventional, as it appears that they might be in the version of Montreal Relay that Ken describes. It might be fun when opponents announce minor-suit opening bids that could be short to respond that we are playing "Could be Short vs. Could be Short," meaning that our major-suit overcalls could also be on a doubleton.

At least one World Champion pair, Bocchi-Duboin, have advertised that they were playing "canape overcalls" over standard minor-suit opening bids. By this they meant the 1M overcall would be on two or three cards, with a 5+-card suit somewhere else in the hand. I don't think they played that 1M might also be just a normal long-suit overcall. (Woods' Anticipatory Overcall could be either short or long.) I don't know what kind of results they had with canape overcalls, and I don't know whether anyone is still playing them.

[MickyB]

It depends what you are intending to do with the space, but playing 1C:1D as spades is arguably as good as playing it as hearts, and is GCC ok I believe. Unfortunately, I think 1C:1M has to be game-forcing if artificial, so you would be stuck with something like -

1D = 4+S
1H = 4+H
1S = GF, no four-card major
1NT = non-forcing, denies 4M/6m
2C = NF 5-cards
2D = NF 6-cards
And possibly 2NT or 3C for the minors, 5=5 or possibly (1-3)=5=4 when the conditions are right.

1C:1D, 1H as natural solves the "responder's reverse flannery" hands. 1C:1H, 1S is a matter of taste - options that spring to mind are -

12-14 balanced [1NT showing 18-19]
5C4D [No rebid problems on 1345]
Three spades

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2010-November-04, 17:56

[Siegmund]

Now that is an interesting idea, Micky. I'm going to play around with that. (I've been experimenting with 1D=H, 1H=S over Polish style clubs but that's not GCC and your approach would be.)

As for original Montreal Relay - I read Rosenthal's book on it, since it was one of very few things on 1D promising real diamonds and could-be-short clubs in print at the time, and was very unimpressed by 1C-pass-1D sequences. I have seen a number of pair playing it the last 5 years, and sort of wondered if there had been some big innovation in the system that inspired the comeback.

One very good point, however, was raised: 1C-pass-1H-2D, Ken mentioned how much happier he was being able to use X to find spades here rather than having to use it to show 3-card support. That IS one sequence where the 5-card heart response gains. In fact, even playing 4-card heart responses, that treatment has merit -- when I played Polish Club in the mid and late 90s, we used support doubles, with the explicit exception that 1C-p-1M-overcall-X was negative, not support - it felt like the much more important meaning for the bid (and responder could feel free to rebid a 5-card major if he didn't have another 4-card suit to show.)

[straube]

What about for responses to 1C....

1D-four spades and could have four or more hearts
.....1H-three hearts
.....1S-four hearts
1H-four+ hearts, denies 4 spades
.....1S-3-cd hearts
1S-five+ spades

Now after 1C-1H (2D) you need support double and don't need other major double

After 1C-1D (2D) you need only double to show four hearts

[hrothgar]

 straube, on 2010-November-06, 22:39, said:

What about for responses to 1C....

1D-four spades and could have four or more hearts
.....1H-three hearts
.....1S-four hearts
1H-four+ hearts, denies 4 spades
.....1S-3-cd hearts
1S-five+ spades

Now after 1C-1H (2D) you need support double and don't need other major double

After 1C-1D (2D) you need only double to show four hearts

And what, pray tell are you doing with hands like the following

♠ 9
♥ 962
♦ KQ732
♣ A752

or

♠ J2
♥ 962
♦ KQ73
♣ AQ52

[straube]

 hrothgar, on 2010-November-07, 05:42, said:

And what, pray tell are you doing with hands like the following

♠ 9
♥ 962
♦ KQ732
♣ A752

or

♠ J2
♥ 962
♦ KQ73
♣ AQ52

Good point. I'd asked earlier what MR did with diamond hands. Does 1C-1D show either a major or hands with diamonds? I was thinking just the former when I posted.

[kenrexford]

 straube, on 2010-November-07, 11:08, said:

Good point. I'd asked earlier what MR did with diamond hands. Does 1C-1D show either a major or hands with diamonds? I was thinking just the former when I posted.

1♣-P-1♦-P-anything-P-diamonds = diamonds real
1♣-P-1♦-P-1M-P-2OM = COULD BE real diamonds 5-4, but COULD BE power raise of M.