[Flame]

sorry to bather you again with this but now with more expirence i want to ask again about relay rather then breaking it with some examples.
partner open 1C showing 16+
respoder (GF unlimited) showed:
1. 6!H 0-2!S ending with 2!S.
2. 5!H4!D 0-2!S ending with 2NT.
3. 5-5 !H!C ending with 2!S
4. 4-4-(32) ending with 2NT.
5. 5-(332) ending in 2NT
The question is, should a well design relay system use the next relay to ask for strengh rather then continue shape ?
In all these examples there is still a chance of fit in one of respoder short suit which can be up to 3 cards, yet this chance isnt so big and knowing strengh is important at this point.

[hrothgar]

As I noted earlier, I don't think that its useful to use low level breaks to qualify strength.

If you have a well designed relay scheme, your relays are designed to maximize the change that RR is going to be dummy. There will be some occasion's where RR is declarer, but (hopefully) this won't occur that often. You might find the act of relaying distasteful, but it really doesn't cost you that much.

In your example 4+5, I would normally expect that

Step = Starts Stopper ask
Step + 1 = relay for shape
Step + 2 = Exclusions sequences

In your examples 1 - 3, I'd expect that

Step = relay for shape

Step +1 =

1. Relay for shape
2. Establishes the we're using RKCB rather than Denial Cue Bids
3. Excludes RR's longest suit from Keycard

Step + 2 =

1. Relay for shape
2. Establishes that we're using RKCB rather than DCB
3. Excludes RR's second longest suit from Keycard

[david_c]

Flame, on Feb 28 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

The question is, should a well design relay system use the next relay to ask for strengh rather then continue shape ?

In my opinion, yes, this is often more efficient, but it does depend on exactly how much space you've got.

For example, I spent a lot of time working out relays to use over a 1♠ opening (after a 2♣ GF relay response). In this case, if you start by showing strength, then you find that the most important hand types resolve at exactly 3NT. So this is ideal - but if there was any less space it would fall apart, and if there was any more space you wouldn't be using it efficiently.

I'm not sure what happens over a strong club. You have more space there. I think I would be happiest with it from a technical point of view if as soon as the basic hand type had been shown (eg. "single-suited spades"), the next relay asked primarily about strength, before continuing with the complete shape later. But that would make the scheme a lot more complicated than if you show the complete shape immediately.

[Flame]

Thanks
Richard you say in 4/5 step ask for stoppers which make sense with a bal hand. but assume we find the right stopers how will we know if we have the strengh for slam or should stop at 3NT ?
And David this is exactly as i see it, a natural relay system you might call it.
Now you dont have to answer im strong, you just zoom with strong so u actually lose only 1 step.
I dont think im going to try to implement it into my currect system since it will go over 3NT too many times, but i do believe this is the way a system should be designed in the first place. initial shape then strengh then complete shape.

[glen]

david_c, on Feb 27 2007, 08:36 PM, said:

For example, I spent a lot of time working out relays to use over a 1♠ opening (after a 2♣ GF relay response). In this case, if you start by showing strength, then you find that the most important hand types resolve at exactly 3NT. So this is ideal - but if there was any less space it would fall apart, and if there was any more space you wouldn't be using it efficiently.

In looking at 1M-2♣ I found a lot of hands were stopping at 3NT, assuming responder was not starting with a M fit at go. Thus it seemed the ideal was:

2♣: Extra major length or length in OM or big hand?:
--2♦: No
----2NT: Anything shapely to tell me about?
------3NT: No

So it wasn't just strength or shape first, it was tell me if you have extra strength or if you have shape that I should know about first. And, in a majors first philosophy I believe that shape should be length in the majors.

So for example, one can have, after a 1♦ opener:

2♣: Please bid one under your major or show extra strength.
--2♠: No major, no extra strength
----2NT: Anything shapely to tell me about?
------3NT: No

Or perhaps on these sequences, 3♣ should be no, and 3NT showing some shapely hand (better).

If I was trying over a strong ♣ and negative reply of 1♦, something like Relay-Kokish could be tried:

1♥: Do you have a five card major or extra strength?
--1♠: No
----1NT: Shows some range (or, better, re-asks if 1♣-1♦--1NT covers all less than 20)
----2♣: re-asks
----Rest: ♥s
--2♣: 5♠s
----2♦: re-asks
----2♠: shows the range for 1♥-1♠-1NT
----Rest: if below 3♠ shows ♥s, 3♠ and above shows ♠ fit.
--2♦: 5♥s
----2♠: re-asks
----2♥: shows the range for 1♥-1♠-1NT
----Rest: ♥ fit
Rest: Extra values, showing hand type if not 1NT bid.

After the strong ♣ opener, there are many design options following a majors-first or extra strength approach. For example one could try after 1♣:

1♦: negative, not 5+♠s - now "Relay Kokish" above becomes easier (so Easy Over Kokish)
1♥: 5+♠s, fewer than 4♥s. 1♠ now relays.
1♠: Any game force without a five card or longer major. 1NT relays, see below.
1NT: Game force with 5+♥s.
2♣+: 2♣ and some of the higher bids are used to show 5-4+ in the majors.

After 1♣(strong)-1♠(GF, no five card major)--1NT(relay), following the same approach:
2♣: no major, no extra strength.
--2♦: relay
--2NT: Anything shapely?
2♦: 4♥s, 2♥ re-asks.
2♥: 4♠s, 2♠ re-asks.
2♠+: Extra values, no major, shows hand type.

[hrothgar]

>I dont think im going to try to implement it into my currect system since it
>will go over 3NT too many times, but i do believe this is the way a system
>should be designed in the first place. initial shape then strengh then complete
>shape.

Relay systems are designed to place three distinct pieces of information:

1. Shape
2. Strength
3. Controls

There has been considerable debate about the best way to order these asks, however, I've seen two predominant approaches. The first is best epitomized by Ultimate Club

1. Start with general information about strength
2. Follow with precise information about shape
3. Allow an option to ask for controls

The second approach is the one used by the Symmetric relay family (though its far from unique in this regard)

1. Start with specific information about shape
2. Follow with strength
3. Allow an option to place controls

(It can be argued that many Symmetric Relay systems alreayd have some information about strength built into the system as a whole. Relays following a limited opening bid are one obvious example. The 1♣ - 1♦ positive that was adopted by MOSCITO is another)

I believe that the second approach is gaining in popularity, largely based on issues like simplicity and elegence.

You're suggesting a very different scheme. My own belief is that the complexity that your relay break process will impose will far outweigh any benefits that you might get reordering the range ask.