In general, limiting responder’s strength is more advantageous in non-competitive auctions, while showing shape caters well to competitive auctions. So, why not make the strength distinction once both opponents have passed?
Consider a 1♠ response showing 5+H (part of a transfer set of responses). Opener can ask with 1NT. Now responder can describe his strength and, if maximum, show shape:
2♣ = minimum (~8-11), exactly 5H (opener can ask again with 2♦)
2♦ = 6+H, strength not yet defined (2♥ asks for strength and shape)
2♥ = maximum (good 11+), a four-card or longer minor (2♠ asks which minor and side-suit shape)
2♠ = maximum, 4+S (2NT asks for shape)
2N = maximum, BAL
3m = maximum, good 5+m
Note an important consequence: with minimum strength responder reveals nothing about his shape unless he has something extra to show (a six-card or longer suit). When I played this, my partner and I had lots of auctions that went 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♣-4♥, telling the opponents very little about either hand.
Revealing unnecessary information – information that makes the defence easier and doesn’t help your partnership bid more accurately – is a significant problem for strong-club players who use a symmetric relay structure.
Most symmetric players use unlimited responses. This is advantageous if the opponents compete. However, it mean that the partnership frequently leaks information because opener typically relays out responder’s complete shape before asking about responder’s strength. Even with transfer responses, some of the time responder will bid the strain the partnership ends up declaring, meaning the defence has a complete picture of declarer’s shape, and often some idea of strength. Experiments in the early 1980s (shortly after Roy Kerr had devised the symmetric structure) to divide responder’s bids by strength to avoid relaying when slam was unlikely – 1♥ showed any 12+ and 1♠ and higher were all 8-11 – were unsuccessful.
At one stage Paul Marston and Stephen Burgess (and other pairs) experimented with a “weak relay”: using step+1 after shape had been resolved to ask responder to show controls only with a good hand, otherwise to bid the first step. This proved useful on a small number of hands but the strength information usually came too late, especially if opener would have liked to revert to natural bidding if responder were minimum.
A significant improvement is to give opener the option of a weak relay after the initial shape-showing response. Consider a variant of symmetric where the responses have been ordered so that a 1NT response shows 5+H, either one-suited, with diamonds or with exactly four clubs. Much of the time opener will relay with 2♣ and responder will resolve shape as usual.
With a minimum-strength hand opener has the option of bidding 2♦ instead. This asks responder to bid the first step with a minimum and higher with a maximum, showing shape as usual.
At first glance it looks like this has pushed the partnership two steps higher for little, if any, gain.
The important consideration, however, is typically not the level at which shape alone is resolved, but both shape and strength.
Consider the example of a 7RP 1-6-3-3 hand (where RP = relay points, commonly A=3, K=2, Q=1, with kingleton = 1 and singleton Q = 0).
On the standard track the shape would be resolved at 3♥, then responder would show strength at 4♦. After the weak relay, the shape is resolved at 3NT and strength at 4♦ (or 4♥, if your partnership agrees to allow good 6RP hands, perhaps x AQJ9xx KJx JTx, to respond positively to the weak relay).
An important advantage of the weak relay is that direct auctions are now possible. For example, opener can bid hearts cheaply after responder shows a minimum expecting responder to bid game unless holding top of the range AND lots of extra shape, such as 6430 or 6511.
As well, the partnership can get out of relay mode. This can be helpful on those deals where knowing the location of stoppers and strong suits helps the partnership choose the right game, as well as those where an excellent fit is required for slam.
The downside, as keen readers will have noticed, is that the step to show a minimum over the weak relay after the auction starts 1♣-1NT-2♦ is 2♥, meaning responder will be declarer if the partnership plays in hearts. This is a price to pay but note that responder is unable to transfer to hearts in most symmetric structures, so there is always a degree of randomness as to which partner will bid hearts first.
I’m interested in feedback on this idea and how best to implement it. The structure I’m currently experimenting with is:
1♥ = 4+S, not 4432 or 4333 or three-suited with both minors
1♠ = diamond one-suiter (not 5332) or diamond and club two-suiter or club one-suiter (not 5332) or two-suiter with 5+C and 4H
1NT = 5+H, one-suiter, two-suiter with exactly 4D or two-suiter with 4+C
2♣ = BAL (4333, 4432 or 5m332), 11+HCP or 7RP (so AAQ or AKK)
2♦ = BAL 8-10, 4-6RP
2♥ =4H and 5+D
2♠ = 5+H and 5+D
2NT = three-suiter with both minors and spades
3♣+ = three-suiter with both minors and hearts
After a 1♥ response and 1♠ relay, 1NT and 2♥/2♠ show the same shapes as above, but with spades instead hearts. 2♣ shows a spade-heart two-suiter (with either suit longer), 2♦ shows a three-suiter with both majors, and 2N+ four spades and five or more clubs.
All the suit-showing responses (in response to 1♣ and after 1♣-1♥-1♠) are designed to allow opener the opportunity to make a weak relay, except when responder has a three-suiter short in spades.
The tradeoffs compared with standard symmetric seem to me to be these:
- Many long minor suit hands respond 1♠, so opener will be declarer in the most likely game (3N) after relaying with 1N.
- Hands with a long minor and exactly four hearts bid 2♥ at some stage, making responder declarer if hearts is the strain we play in. Note that this no different from standard symmetric where these hands would bid 2♥ as the reverser.
- The 1♠ response is more vulnerable to competition than 1N showing D or D+C.
- The 1N response is less vulnerable than the 1♠ counterpart in standard because responder has promised a 5+card suit.
- Memory strain as a result of a complex set of responses compared with the simple standard ones.