[mr1303]

I'm looking at putting together a precision style card with symmetric relays, but I'm not happy with the 2C opening. Assuming that you play it normally 5C4M or 6+C, what are your responses?

[hrothgar]

I've played a couple different schemes after a 2D relay

2H = Clubs and Spades
2S = Clubs and Hearts (at +1)
2N+ = single suited with clubs at +1

and

2H = Clubs and Spades
2S = Single suited with clubs (at +2)
2N+ = Clubs and Hearts

I prefer the second scheme

[Zelandakh]

I play 2♦ = 4+ hearts; 2♥ = 4+ spades; 2♠ = range ask; 2NT = 5♠4♥ invite; 3♣ = weak; 3♦ = weak; 3♥ = slam try in diamonds; 3♠ = slam try in clubs. If you want a relay-based structure then Viking Club is one of the best available. Of course you should also look at Meckwell.

[JLOGIC]

Meckwell do not include 5C4M so I'm sure it's a lot different

[benlessard]

2C openings have a lower frequency & you start higher so going for a full relay structure is a dubious proposition.

What I play is design to be able to stop in 2M frequently.

2D many inv or GF with both M
2H inv with 4&5 H (not willing to play 2H if partner has 0-2H)
2S inv with 4&5 S (not willing to play 2S if partner has 0-2S)
2Nt GF with D+M or C preempt
3C GF with C support
rest show single suiters without C fit

[Hilver]

mr1303, on 2012-September-17, 17:27, said:

I'm looking at putting together a precision style card with symmetric relays, but I'm not happy with the 2C opening. Assuming that you play it normally 5C4M or 6+C, what are your responses?

Go to http://home.tiscali.nl/hilver/2C.pdf if You read some Dutch.

Jan

[semeai]

A nice standard structure, from here, based on Rigal's "Precision in the '90s":

Quote

OPENING 2C: promises 11-15 with 6+ clubs or 5+ and a major
Responding- 2D inquiry at least invit.
...2H/S 4 crd major (then 3D stopper ask [rebid major=diam.],jumps spl)
...2NT non-min. bal (3D stopper ask: hd,sd,hs)
...3C min. (3D stopper ask: h,s,d)
...3D 6-4 in minors, non-min. ...3H/S 6-5 in bid suits 3NT solid clubs
2H/S 8-12 5+ suit, invit. NF
2NT relay forces 3C, then...
...pass preempt. raise
...3D GF sing. suiter in diam.
...3H/S/NT GF 2-suiter in hs/sd/dh (suit bid and next one)
3C real invit.
3D/H/S GF natural 3NT to play 4D/H/S splinters 4NT RKC for clubs

You can of course relay over some (but not all) of the rebids after 2C-2D if you like.

You can also use the Fantunes response structure or something like it (their 2C is pretty similar: unbal 5+♣, 10-13, no 5422), see here (search for "2C Opening"). Theirs is a bit better at finding 5-3 major suit fits. Basically, 2C-2D;2M is 3+ cards, and they find out about 4 card majors with further relays.

[CSGibson]

http://www.bridgebas...m-for-students/

In this thread is a Meckwell inspired follow-up structure to 2C (6+ clubs) from a few years ago.

[nigel_k]

If you intend to use symmetric relay, it will work a lot better if there are no four card majors in the 2♣ opening. But if there are, and you also want to be able to relay, you will need a very specific structure of continuations (if one exists at all) to enable efficient relays on the GF hands and also be able to stop in playable part scores on the non-GF hands.

[SteveMoe]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-18, 13:01, said:

http://www.bridgebas...m-for-students/

In this thread is a Meckwell inspired follow-up structure to 2C (6+ clubs) from a few years ago.

A good approach Chris.

I've been playing this one with some success (2♣ promises 6 (5 in 3rd seat)):
2♥/♠ 8-10 5+ cards. Partner may raise to 3 w/4-card raise maximum.
2N = 11-12 Balanced. Might have 4-card major. Opener passes, bid 3-clubs with distributional minimum or bids 4-card major (GF).
2♦ 11+ HCP query, but NOT 11-12 balanced.
......2♥/♠/3♦ = 4-cards suit
......2N = 2 side suits stopped
......3♣ = 1 suid suit stopped
......3♦ = max unbalnced (never open 2♣ with 5=6 in minors).
......3♥/♠ = min 5=6
......3N = Max balanced
......4♥/♠ = max 5=6
3/4/5/6/7♣ to play
3♦ = 5♥s & 4+♠s invitational
3♥ = 6♥ GF
3♠ = 6♠ GF
3N plays
4♦ Redwood
4♥/♠ Plays

Here's a more esoteric approach:

2♣ (11-15 HCP) 6+ ♣, denies 5 Card Side Suit.
........2♦r / Double / Redouble - 11+ Asking
.............[11-13]: 2♠o no Major; 2No – 4 Hearts; 3♣- 4 Spades]
.............[13-15]: 2♥o Bal or 4-Card Major; 2♠r Asks:
..................2No=4 Hearts; 3♣o=4 Spades; 3♦o=2236; 3♥o=2326; 3♠o=3226; 3 No=2227]]
.............[13-15]: 3♦ 3/2=3/2=1=6/7; 3♥ 3/2=1=3/2=6/7; 3♠ 1=3/2=3/2=6/7; 3N 233=6
........2♥r / 2♠r 8-10 5+ Cards Constructive Non Forcing
........2Nr 10-11 Constructive
........3/4/5♣r Plays
........3♦r / 3♥r /3♠r - Good Suit 11-12 Invitational Non-Forcing
........4♦r RKB Clubs
........4♥r /4♠r Plays
........4N Beta Ask (Top Controls A+2, K=1) w/implied preference for NT.

[Kungsgeten]

I like this base:

2C
2D relay, inv+
2M natural, forcing
2NT forcing, invitational without major or GF with diamonds
3C Natural, 6-9
3X Natural, GF
4C Preemptive
4D Void
4M To play

2C-2D;
2H 5C and any 4-card major
2S 6+C, one-suiter with a shortness
2NT 6+C, one-suiter without shortness
3C 6+C, any side suit, minimum
3X 6+C, 4-card suit, maximum

It leaves lot of maneuvering afer 2C-2D. The "bad" thing is that you have to pass 2C unless you have some values.

[bluecalm]

My experience with this opening (popular/standard in Poland) is that it's important to have non-forcing 2M bid. I don't think rest of agreements matter much. I like: 2N = natural invite; 3C = natural non-invite and 3X natural GF (or 3X being transfers to X+1 invite+ ala Meckwell).

Quote

......2N = 2 side suits stopped
......3♣ = 1 suid suit stopped

I don't like it. I think it's more useful to have one of the:
a)shortness/no shortness
b)minimum/maximum

as often played in Poland.
Many people like putting various hand types (including double suited GF's) into 2NT puppet to 3C. I think it's playable but doesn't come up too often and natural 2NT is very useful, especially at matchpoints. Those 5-4's are big part of opener's range.

[Zelandakh]

bluecalm, on 2012-September-26, 23:54, said:

My experience with this opening (popular/standard in Poland) is that it's important to have non-forcing 2M bid.

What were the main drawbacks against 2red as transfers in your experience, blue?

[bluecalm]

I haven't played nor heard of that before ;-) I was referring to 2M forcing idea as being inferior

[PrecisionL]

,

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-27, 03:59, said:

What were the main drawbacks against 2red as transfers in your experience, blue?

I have played 2♦ and 2 ♥ as conditional transfers for over 3 years now (in response to a Precision 2♣ opener).

The 2♣ opener accepts the transfer with xx or better in the suit indicated by the transfer.
Opener with 0-1 cards of the suit shown by the transfer bids 2NT if maximum or 3♣ if minimum.

Responder with invitational hands or better knows what to do after hearing the opener's response to the transfer.

Downside: With both partners minimum and no fit, you might get too high, 3♣. Thus, opener might want to have a good ♣ suit for the 2♣ opener.

It is unclear if this is an ACBL GCC allowable treatment / convention.

[Zelandakh]

PrecisionL, on 2012-September-27, 17:59, said:

The 2♣ opener accepts the transfer with xx or better in the suit indicated by the transfer.
Opener with 0-1 cards of the suit shown by the transfer bids 2NT if maximum or 3♣ if minimum.

Responder with invitational hands or better knows what to do after hearing the opener's response to the transfer.

Downside: With both partners minimum and no fit, you might get too high, 3♣. Thus, opener might want to have a good ♣ suit for the 2♣ opener.

It is better to reverse this so that Opener bids the transfer suit without a fit and higher bids show (various levels of) fit. For example, over 2♣ - 2♦ I play 2♥ = 0-2 hearts; 2♠ = 3 hearts, 4 spades; 2NT = 3 hearts, 0-2 spades, min; 3♣ = 3 hearts, 0-2 spades, max; 3♦ = 4 hearts, min; 3♥ = 4 hearts, max. This provides somewhat more protection when Responder has a weaker hand and has to play at the 3 level. A similar structure is used after 2♥ except that it is not necessary to show anything about hearts (since with 5♠4♥ the response is 2♦ (if game-forcing values) or 2NT (invite)) and therefore 3♥ is an undefined rebid for Opener.

[bluecalm]

How do you guys find 4-4/4-3 major partials playing those transfers ?
I mean, hands like 3-4-5-1/4-4-4-1 etc come up all the time and this is important (at matchpoints especially) to be able to run from 2C.

Quote

It is better to reverse this so that Opener bids the transfer suit without a fit and higher bids show (various levels of) fit.

You won't be able to play in 2M then with 5 cards. Seems like big loss. I am again talking from matchpoint perspective. What we often done here is to play 2M as non forcing but partner don't pass with 0-1 in that suit nor with support (usually), making 2M bids non-forcing but wide ranging. 2C is awful opening when it comes to partials and it seems the methods you propose cripple it even more (I am talking matchpoints wise).

[PrecisionL]

bluecalm, on 2012-September-28, 02:32, said:

How do you guys find 4-4/4-3 major partials playing those transfers ?
I mean, hands like 3-4-5-1/4-4-4-1 etc come up all the time and this is important (at matchpoints especially) to be able to run from 2C.

We don't have the 4-4 major problem because we do not open 2♣ with a side 4-cd major.

However, Reese first proposed the transfer in Precision Bidding and Precision Play, 1981, ISBN 0-346-12501-4 (Paperback), Simon & Schuster, NY, Cornerstone Library:

"2♦: Transfer to 2♥. Responder uses this bid freely when he has four hearts or more. Opener with a singleton heart and good clubs may spurn the transfer and bid 3♣. With a doubleton heart he will normally bid simply 2♥; responder who has only four hearts will then bid 2NT or advance in some other way. With three hearts and fair values opener will make a forward more of some kind. With four hearts opener will jump to 3♥."

[awm]

The non-forcing 2M response comes under the category of bids I don't really understand. I tried playing this for quite some time and it never seemed to work very well.

It falls under the common category of a non-forcing call which is not tightly limited in terms of strength and shape, and which could be up to "just short of GF values." The problem with these calls is that while they are technically non-forcing, partner can very rarely pass and even when he does there is some chance of being in the wrong strain or missing a game. I find that generally it's better to use forcing bids in these situations. To give some examples, after 2♣-2♠:

♠Kxx
♥AJxx
♦x
♣Kxxxx

Non-descript minimum, I suppose you pass? But partner could hold ♠AQxxxx ♥Kx ♦xxx ♣xx and game has great chances? Seems like you must raise with 3-card support.

♠Kx
♥Ax
♦xxx
♣AKxxxx

Max with doubleton support; again you cannot pass since partner could hold the hand given above where game is cold. Even if partner has one less spade and one more diamond you have pretty good odds for 3NT.

Okay, so you have to bid with 3+ support and you have to bid with doubleton and a max. You also have to bid with singleton or void because 5-1 (5-0?) fits when you have half the values don't generally score well. So I guess the only time you can pass is with doubleton support and a minimum?

♠xx
♥x
♦Axxx
♣AQxxxx

Not too likely to miss game this way, but what if partner has ♠Kxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣Kxx? Wouldn't you rather be in 3♣ (which is basically cold)? Or what if partner happens to hold ♠Axxxx ♥xxx ♦KQJxx? Now you missed a pretty good 5♦ game. Or what if partner has ♠AQxxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣x? Even when opener has the "perfect hand to pass" with doubleton support and a min, you can land in the wrong partial or miss a game.

Playing 2M forcing is great for coping with hands having "two places to play" (like a 5M and secondary club fit, or a 5/5 invite) or with hands having a very long single suit, and also helps on some GF auctions where 2♦ relay doesn't necessarily shine (like hands where a side stopper is a big issue). Losing the ability to play 2M when opener has exactly doubleton and a min seems like a small loss (and sometimes not even a loss, see the example above).

[lalldonn]

Adam those are generally not likely hands. I don't see a single example where partner has length or strength in your short suit, so the opponents are making something in pretty much all of them.

The 3415 hand is a completely clear raise to me.

The 5350 10 count opposite a minimum gets you to 2♠ when the "field" is in 2♣ so you are already ahead of the game generally opposite that shape reaching a 5-2 instead of a 6-0.

With Kxxxx xxx Kx Kxx I think partner should raise clubs not bid 2♠, but in your example the opponents make 3♥ easily anyway.

You are oversimplifying to say partner should not pass with a "max with a doubleton". He should not pass with "a super max and doubleton honor" perhaps, but like xx KJx Kx AKxxxx is an easy pass where you are unlikely to miss anything. Definitely any hand with xx of spades should pass short of having either very wild shape (2506?) or long solid clubs thinking it might make 3NT.

Pretty much partner would pass most of the time (90%?) with a doubleton or a singleton honor, and maybe a very bad hand with 3 (xxx Qx Kx KQJxxx). That's a lot more mileage than you are describing.

Even in your examples, if you are playing 2♠ forcing what do you want opener to do? Take Kx xx Axx AKxxxx, does he bid 3♣ on both a min and a max, or go above 3♣ when responder could have those bad 5323 example hands? What about the 2146 10 count, how can he afford to bid above 3♣ anyway? Or you are thinking responder will bid 3♦ over 3♣? That's really bad if opener has to go back to either 3♠ or 4♣, and responder sounds like a stronger hand then anyway.