DIP: Control Showing

I’m using WIndows Live Writer for the first time with this blog – let’s see how it goes.  One advantage is that the editing window is far bigger than that provided by default on the WordPress site, which should help for the kind of content of this blog.

Whilst continuing to procrastinate on aspects of DIP, I delve back into others.  This blog assumes some knowledge of relay methods and the need to have a structure for showing controls (whether A=2 or A=3 based).  If you are newer to relay methods, don’t worry about this blog too much for the minute – come back to it when the time is right.

SD and I have discussed the merits of many different possible methods for DIP’s use.  Currently, I favour basing DIP’s method on a Scandanavian method known as JVCB.  This is more difficult than it sounds, because I have an imperfect knowledge of the rationale behind some aspects of JVCB.  For those familiar with the method, this leads me to question and/or change three things

1. Whether to STOP on EVEN when showing Ace parity (and similar considerations for when showing King parity)?
2. Why are A’s & Q’s considered first only in 5+ suits, rather than the outwardly more intuitive 4+ suit option?
3. Why are K’s scanned before AQ’s?

My current ideas with respect to the above three considerations are

1. To try and optimise when to STOP & GO with the parity methods.
2. To switch to showing A’s & Q’s with 4+ suits first (but quite willing to change back to the JVCB default if and when I understand 5+ to be meaningfully superior – any help here appreciated).
3. No change.  Though I don’t understand the rationale (yet at least) maybe there is less information needing to be exchanged this way around, so maybe the reason is that the key to the hand may unlock more quickly showing K’s first.

OK, so how to optimise when to STOP and when to GO when showing A and K parity?  Whenever I have seen parity like methods, they for some reason seem to default to STOP = EVEN and GO = ODD.  SD has done some work with others on optimising K-parity, resulting in something that is difficult to remember, and consequently when used is watered down to an easier to remember form (doing something different with 2QP’s, or multiples of 3 QP’s).  Let’s try and figure out something different that is hopefully easily remembered OR derivable from first principles.

Intuitively, for a given number of QP’s (i.e. an A=3 based control count) which I intend DIP to use by default, the following seem likely to be the most frequent top honour structures, with their proposed GO showing parity steps following

• …
• 4: AQ (most likely, as opposed to KK or KQQ or QQQQ) … so GO = ODD (expecting 1) ace and GO = EVEN (expecting 0) kings
• 5:  AK … so GO = ODD aces and GO = ODD kings
• 6:  AKQ … so GO = ODD aces and GO = ODD kings
• 7:  AKQQ … so GO = ODD aces and GO = ODD kings
• 8:  AKKQ … so GO = ODD aces and GO = EVEN kings
• 9:  AAKQ … so GO = EVEN aces and GO = ODD kings
• 10: AAKQQ … so GO = EVEN aces and GO = ODD kings
• 11:  AAKKQ … so GO = EVEN aces and GO = EVEN kings
• 12:  AAKKQQ … so GO = EVEN aces and GO = EVEN kings
• …

As a guideline to building the above, it is intuitively assumed that

• AKQ (dispersed somewhere within the hand) is a more likely honour structure than KKK, and similarly
• AK is more likely than KKQ
• AQ is more likely than KK
• A is more likely than KQ

That is, to take an overly simplistic example, where H means one of A or K or Q, for a six QP hand, Hxxx Hxx Hxx xxx is (maybe six times) more likely than specifically Kxxx Kxx Kxx xxx.  I hope to be able to confirm this intuition either empirically or theoretically at some point.

I applied this theory to some statistics on parity that SD has previously generated for the 4 to 12 control range.  It appears to work well.  There was an insignificant blip on 8 QP’s for Ace parity (49% versus 51%) and minor blips on 7 QP’s and 12 QP’s for King parity (42% versus 58% and 45% versus 55% respectively).

I’m therefore comfortable with pursuing the above as a working hypothesis as when it is right it is often really right (into the 60%’s or 70%’s).  Let’s call the parity determined from the intuitively most likely case as “Expected Parity” or “EP”.  One key good thing about it is that you don’t have to remember it if you don’t want to – you can derive it from first principles easily when needed.

Knowing that one has a good theory/hypothesis is only part of the work, it remains to decide how to apply it.  There are, to my mind, two options

1. Use it to maximise the number of hands where no stops are required during the Ace-parity and King-parity phases (i.e. you GO then GO), or
2. Use it to minimise the number of hands where two stops are required during the Ace-parity and King-parity phases (i.e. you don’t STOP then STOP again).

To satisfy design criteria (1), one would have the Ace and King parity phases targeted at their “Expected Parity”.  That is, for a 6 QP hand you would STOP on EVEN ace parity (expecting to GO) and STOP on EVEN king parity (once again, expecting to GO) as described in the earlier tabulation.

Part of the reason at present not to aim instead at design criteria (2) is that it is not clear how to achieve it with a simple rule.  My best guess, which I will try when I do further statistical analysis, is to go for EP with Aces and the opposite of EP with Kings.  The reason for this is more readily apparent with lower QP count hands.  If a 3QP hand doesn’t have the Ace predicted by EP, it is far more likely to be KQ than QQQ, so if forced to STOP with no Ace you would then want to GO with one King if aiming to satisfy design criteria (2).  Intuitively, however, I would expect this reverse correlation to lessen slightly for higher QP counts where an Ace might indeed be replaced by three queens.  Hence, only some form of statistical analysis will suffice to confirm or refute this.

Subject to all the above, the rest of DIP control showing is currently planned to work according to my (possibly imperfect) understanding of the JVCB method, as outlined in phases (or “passes’) below

• Determine your QP count (known as ZZ controls in JVCB), A=3, K=2, Q=1, singleton K = 1 (subsequently treated as a Q) and singleton Q = 0 (subsequently treated as a J)
• Show Ace-parity derived from your QP count (GO = EP, STOP = not EP)
• Show King-parity derived from your QP count (GO=EP, STOP = not EP)

Having done the above, it is assumed (occasionally without merit) that partner can derive your exact honour structure (but not necessarily which suits they are in).  Even if he can’t, he may be able to reduce it to a limited number of possibilities and be able to gamble on the percentages if space becomes short.

After that, we intend to scan through the following phases in order, subject to the rules mentioned after

1. K’s in 4+ card suits (STOP = no K, GO = K)
2. A’s and/or Q’s in 4+ card suits (STOP = neither or both AQ, GO = A or Q only)
3. K’s in 2 to 3 card suits (STOP = no K, GO = K)
4. A’s and/or Q’s in 1 to 3 card suits (STOP = neither or both AQ, GO = A or Q only)
5. J’s (STOP = no J, GO = J)
6. Singleton J’s (STOP = no J, GO = J)

The clarifying or modifying rules are

• Scan longest suits first
• Scan lowest suits first when equal length
• Assume partner knows exactly what you’ve shown*, skipping subsequent bids accordingly, see examples inbuilt in some of the points below
  • If you have NO or ALL Kings that you might have (where ALL is 4 for balanced hands, or 3 for hands with a shortage – remember singleton K is treated thereafter as a Q) completely skip phases (1) and (3) above. As per the bullet point above, partner is assumed to know OR will figure it out as soon as a subsequent scanning anomaly reveals it.
  • Similarly, if you have NO or ALL the AQ’s you might have, completely skip phases (2) and (4) above.  For clarity, ALL means 4 aces and 3 queens when holding a singleton.
  • Similarly, if you have ALL Aces and NO Queens (or vice-versa) skip phases (2) and (4).
  • If you have NO or ALL Aces and some Queens (or vice-versa) ignore the NO or ALL one and scan the other one in the King scanning style.
  • Ignore thereafter a suit at all with no free slots (i.e. a void, or a singleton where an honour has been shown or implied)
  • Never scan the last suit with unknown cards during a phase, R is assumed already to know the answer*.

A couple of examples to illustrate the asterisked points above.  Assume you have shown 4441 with 5 QP’s and ODD king parity.  If your King is in diamonds, you show it and then move immediately to AQ scanning – you can’t have another K.  Similarly, if your King is in spades, you deny it in diamonds then deny it in hearts, then move immediately to AQ scanning – partner knows where it must be.

There’s bound to be a mistake, a typo or a mild misunderstanding somewhere above as it’s a fairly complex area (but elegantly simple once you get your head around it).  I’ll correct such things in-situ when I find them.

UPDATE:  I’ve done the number crunching on a million hands a time (thanks to Andrews’ Deal program again) and it seems my intuition was fairly much right.  That is, if you go for design criteria (1) and aiming your parity to match both A’s and K’s with their EP, you get

• Zero stops :  47%
• One stop:  24%
• Two stops:  29%

However, if you go for my guessed solution to design criteria (2) where you match A’s and mismatch K’s with their EP (hoping to get a K match when the A’s value is wrong), you get

• Zero stops:  14%
• One stop:  76%
• Two stops: 10%

So, for a 33% percent loss of zero stops you gain 19% of the two stops back.  It doesn’t seem good value to me, so I am going to stick with my original idea and aim for design criteria (1).

To set a reference point for both the above sets of figures, I have done the stats on the “standard” STOP EVEN, GO ODD approach to parity.  It is self-evidently fairly poor, as you will see from the results below

• Zero stops:  24%
• One stop:  47%
• Two stops: 29%

With reference to all the above statistics, I have ignored the fact that singleton K’s will be treated as Q’s and included them for purposes of this particular analysis. I’ll try and refine this and other aspects of the analysis further in due course, but I wouldn’t expect it to meaningfully alter the apparent lessons.

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Other responses to 1C

Just a shortish blog today (I hope).

To round off the responses to 1C, we now deal with 3C+.

There are a set of hands where the nature of the hand (solid and semi-solid suits) has a higher probability of being more important to get across (first at least) than exact shape.  We deal with these using bids from 3C+.  The responses to 1C are as follows

• 3C:  POS, ART, any solid suit
• 3D:  semi-POS, semi-SOL hearts
• 3H:  semi-POS, semi-SOL spades
• 3S:  semi-POS, semi-SOL clubs
• 3NT:  semi-POS, semi-SOL diamonds

There are probably some sensible uses for 4C+ (I’m open to suggestions) but I’m not going to worry too much about them for the present.

As this is a fairly short blog so far, I’ll touch on my current ideas on continuations after the above.  After 1C 3C(=any SOL POS), then

• 3D:  “I know your suit, tell me your shortage?” – resolve as normal, up 3 steps, specific control showing ignores the known suit
• 3H:  “I can’t determine your suit, tell me what it is?” – 3S=C, 3NT=D, 4C=H, 4D=S, 4H+ D but stronger than 3NT and not wanting to risk a pass
• 3S:  “I know your suit, do you have extra length?” – 3NT = 6, 4C = 7 etc
• 3NT:  To play, suggests a minimum and that the suit is known
• 4C:  ?
• 4D:  ?
• 4H+:  strong suggestion to play – “I either know your suit or don’t care”

As always, open to suggestions for 4C and 4D above.

For the semi-SOL, semi-POS’s, my thoughts were game (any strain) or bid of the shown suit – to play, otherwise, analagous to the SOL stuff, that is first step normal relay, second step asking extra length (remember, the suit is known, so that step is not needed).

As an aside, I first saw the “I know your suit, tell me …” when some Scandanavians were in Challenge the Champs in The Bridge World, sometime in 1997 (maybe it was Fallenius and Nilsland).  They also used 3C over their 1C opening to show a SOL suit, however, they played 3H as that option.  I’m unfamiliar with the rest of their structure, so I can’t tell you if their use for 3D was better, but it seems to me that opener will more often than not know what suit responder has, so the cheapest bid should cater for that possibility if it doesn’t otherwise obstruct the method.  I don’t believe that what I am proposing for DIP does so obstruct:  if you have to ask, only the major suits (or a very strong D hand) force past 3NT.  That’s no problem for the majors, you can play 4M, only losing out on the reasonably rare occasions when you didn’t merely like, but needed to play 3NT (this may be a little different at MPs, but DIP is geared to IMPs).

That’s it for today.

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Semi-Positive Responses to 1C

Back again.

Today, I’m going to blog about semi-POS responses to 1C. This is one of the most controversial areas of this type of system. Firstly, not everyone reckons they’re a good idea in the first place. If you’re in that school, too bad: as described yesterday DIP has them and they are not under consideration for removal. Secondly and thirdly, having decided to have such a semi-POS oriented structure, how do you allocate responders semi-POS bids, and how do you ensure opener has sufficient rebid tools to diagnose appropriate fits when they’re not obvious.

Before I proceed, I should mention that the latest version of “official” MOSCITO that I have seen (circa 2007) if I can use the term “official”, differs from DIP. When I talk about “MOSCITO2007″ from here on, it is this version that I will be alluding to. The main reason for the difference is that it uses 1H rather than 1S as the DBL-NEG. This is uglier for continuations after the DBL-NEG: you need to use 1C-1S-2C, if anything, rather than 1C-1H-1S for very strong hands, as you want to keep 1C 1H(or 1S) 1NT as (wide ranging) natural. However, having 1H (as well as 1NT+) available for the semi-POS structures gives advantages there to MOSCITO2007.

The way MOSCITO2007 chooses to use the above advantage is to differentiate those hands with a 5+ major (bid 1NT+) and those without (start with 1H). 1H will more often than not be BAL in this scenario, so I imagine 1NT is a fairly common rebid by opener. However, this gives responder a second chance, allowing responder a simple correction into a long minor. I think the 1C 1H auctions are a strongish part of MOSCITO2007. However, there is some memory strain (and the already mentioned DBL-NEG relative difficulties) to deal with as a consequence.

Before I proceed, it is probably wise to further discuss nomenclature. I have previously said what “S” and “D” are. During the course of the blogs, you will probably hear the following types of terms and phrases: “D+1″, “up a step”, “down a step”, “loses a step”, “gains a step”. To the initiated in such things, these are probably already meaningful in context. However, they could probably do with some explanation for novices in the area. Let’s consider them by example.

“D” is generally “S+1″. The plus in this context is a bad thing: it means DIP takes one higher bid that Symmetric to descibe a given shape. For example, POS 5431’s in “D” resolve at 3H rather than 3D as they typically do in “S”. I have heard “up a step” and “down a step” used in both directions. Conventionally, I’ll equate “up” to “plus”: that is, “D” is up a step from “S”. However, “gains”, perhaps unintuitively, is used in the opposite sense. As you have seen me use it previously, so “gains” a step is like “down a step” and “loses a step” is like “up a step”. The reason I use “gains” this way is because of the sense of the word (that is, being plus or up a step is a bad thing in this context, hence it loses). I hope that isn’t too confusing and that you can figure it out when you need to.

Back to DIP, it takes a different approach than MOSCITO2007. Only time and use at the table will tell if it is better or worse. I’ll present the semi-POS schema in its probable final form, and then tell you how to get there using first principles from “D” if that helps with the memory*.

• 1S: H (1, 2 or 3 suited, including all 3-suiters with H)
• 1NT: BAL (including all 5332’s)
• 2C: S, not H (2 or 3 suited)
• 2D: D, no M(1 or 2 suited)
• 2H: C (1 suited only, hence 6+)
• 2S: S, not short H (1 suited only, hence 6+)
• 2NT: S, short H (1 suited only, hence 6+)

When I was first devising this structure, I was thinking along normal symmetric lines, in the relay system “order” that I grew up using (S H BAL D C) with the odd tweak. This meant, as it still does, 2H showing 6+C. Then a wise person asked me: what do you do after 1C 2H holding a (relatively common) 5M332 (say 5S332) minimum as opener? With 2S being relay, do you bid 2NT, 3C, 3S … ? As it happens, I am generally a 3C bidder (but maybe, going through 2NT Bad/Good first: that is a story for another blog).

My initial thought to compensate for this was to reverse suit order, something like 1S=C, 1NT = D, 2C = BAL etc. As a different wise person pointed out, this gave a different, and arguably worse set of problems: difficulty in finding major suit fits opposite major/minor hands (amongst other things).

The problem with a semi-POS structure is that there are multiple objectives, and they are usually in conflict. You want to show a major if you have one, explicitly and early. You also want (as per the difficulties in the above example) to have the higher the initial bid meaning it to be more likely you’ll know exactly how to continue as opener (because, if you don’t, you haven’t got much space to figure it out). Finally (for the present at least) you want to be able to diagnose all major suit (and especially, the often difficult 5-opener, 3 responder) fits relatively easily when they exist.

The solution that you now see I think is a fairly optimal compromise between the various objectives, though this is of course somewhat a matter of opinion. Whenever you have a major, you show it, and you show it quickly. The highest two semi-POS’s contain 6+ spades: opener will usually know what to do when he sees that. The 2NT bid as 6+S, short H is needed to allow the semi-POS structure to be no worse than D+1. The good thing about 2NT is that with long H and very short S, opener will be well informed. Similarly, 2S guarantees at least 2H, once again, helping opener to know what is safe with a long H hand.

The relative weaknesses? 1NT risks mild wrong-siding from time to time. There is some pressure on 1S(=H) by including the additional 3-suiter (HDC) but we have devised a fairly efficient way of dealing with this. 2D(=D or D&C) and 2H(=C) are the largest latent weaknesses – there can be some difficulties in constructive auctions diagnosing the best action hence best fit opposite these bids. However, they are not high frequency, they have their pre-emptive effect, and they seem quite good in non-game level competitive auctions.

Most of the semi-POS structure is D or D+1 levels. For example, 1S(=H) is mostly at D levels, but there is a small portion at D+1 to cater for the additional 3-suiter. 1NT is notionally at D-1 level, but in practice, it is at D level, as we intend to use 2C as STAY and 2D as R.

We are going to use a lot of an ASPTRO-like method in opener’s rebids opposite semi-POS’s, so you may want to familiarise yourself with it before subsequent blogs. Here is a useful link for when this comes up

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Asptro.html

I’ll finish by summing up what hasn’t already been mentioned above re DIP versus MOSCITO2007 in the semi-POS area. MOSCITO2007 is better at quick diagnosis of 5 responder – 3 opener major suit fits. DIP is better at quick diagnosis of 4-4 major suit fits and 6 responder – 2 opener spade fits. Also, my development colleague informs me that quite a few of DIP’s semi-POS’s, especially 1NT, have quite good pre-emptive effect, shutting the opponents out of the auction. This is because many of MOSCITO2007’s semi-POS auctions go through 1H, allowing a double of it, or a bid of 1S, to get a major suit in.

Regards, Dipbridge

* roughly speaking, start with D, then

• Swap the meanings of 1NT (now BAL) and 2C (now S). This is so 1NT can be natural, and hence easily passed.
• Take the HDC 3-suiter from 2D and put it in 1S(=H). This is consistent with the DIP idea of showing all majors asap.
• Take all the 2S+ bids from D, which showed both minors, and put them in 2D(+D) using the space vacated by the HDC 3-suiter. Bidding 2S+ with these hands would have been a bit aggressive with only semi-POS strength and you would also often be poorly placed in constructive auctions.
• Unfortunately, the original 1NT – 2C swap meant that 2C(+S) was at D+1 levels. We fix that by taking the spade 1-suiters out of it, and using 2S and 2NT for them. This has a couple of nice pluses: quick spade fit diagnosis and some pre-emptive effect. Also, it is nice to know after 1C 2C that responder has a guaranteed second suit (in the case of a spade mis-fit).
  

DIP: Positive Responses to 1C

Hi again.

Shortly, the POS(itive) responses to 1C in DIP, but first, a very short history lesson.

In the original Symmetric Relay (“S” from hereon), 1D was a negative response to 1C, with 1H+ being NAT(ural), POS and IIRC, FG (forcing to game).  With the advent of FPR (Forcing Pass Relay) the extra step freed up by the use of PASS as strong(ish) enabled the introduction of a semi-POS structure, so 1C was NEG(ative), 1D was ART and POS and 1H+ were mostly NAT semi-POS’s.  Arguably, the semi-POS structure was even more important here, because opposite a 13+ hcp “PASS”, the semi-POS range was even more common.

When FPR became unpopular, largely due to playing restrictions, MOSCITO came into vogue.  Having lost the step gained playing FPR, the semi-POS oriented structure was also lost (for a long time, at least).  Recently, however, it has been re-adopted by some.  On a side note, as well, some people who still play variants of FPR play Pass-1C as the POS and Pass-1D as the NEG, gaining either a further extra step OR the ability to reverse the captaincy of the relay auction.

DIP’s design criteria reflect

1. The desire for a semi-POS (rather than POS) oriented stucture, and
2. The ability to transfer captaincy in POS auctions

The cost of (1) & (2) above is the loss of a step versus “S”.  As will be shown below, DIP retains an admirable symmetry (read:  “relative ease of memory”) between its positive auctions (whether captaincy transferred or not) and its semi-POS auctions.

There are three paths, one with two sub-paths, and one exceptional path, that responding to 1C in DIP can take.

• 1C 1H shows a DBL-NEG (something like 0 to 5 3/4 ppc).  This is analagous to auctions like 1C 1D(=NEG) 1H(=R[elay]*) 1S(=DBL-NEG) in many strong club systems.  I prefer the nomenclature DBL-NEG to distinguish it from the simple 1C 1D(=NEG) which can contain both DBL-NEGs and semi-POS’ in many methods.
• 1C 1S through 1C 2NT show the semi-POS hands, and will be discussed in more detail in the next blog.
• 1C 3C+ show a series of special hand concentrations (the exceptional path):  mainly SOL(id) and semi-SOL suits, which will be discussed in a later blog.
• All POS auctions (10+ ppc or so) begin 1C 1D.  Opener can then transfer captaincy by bidding 1H, or can show shape himself by bidding 1S+.  1C 1D 1S+ and 1C 1D 1H 1S+ show the same shapes, just with a different captain.  This 1S+ structure is the archetypal relay structure for DIP and will be referred to as “D” from hereon.

There are three relevant orders for shape/hand-type showing in DIP.

1. H S NT C D to show general hand-type
2. C D H S when resolving length
3. S H D C when resolving shortage

The “D” structure for DIP is simply an elaboration of these principles in the “S” style, so after 1C 1D or 1C 1D 1H …

• 1S = Hearts (1, 2 or 3 suited)
• 1NT:  Spades (1 or 2 suited)
• 2C:  Balanced (including 5332’s)
• 2D:  Clubs (1 or 3 suited, if the latter, then short in a major)
• 2H:  Diamonds
• 2S:  5+ Clubs & 4 Diamonds
• 2NT:  5+ Clubs & 5+ Diamonds
• 3C:  4 Clubs & 5+ Diamonds, short in Spades
• 3D:  2=2=5=4
• 3H:  3=1=5=4
• 3S:  2=1=6=4
• 3NT:  3=0=6=4, NF (weaker than 4D+)
• 4C:  2=0=7=4 or 1=0=8=4
• 4D+:  3=0=6=4 (same as 3NT, but stronger, not wishing to risk a pass, will be elaborated on in a later) post)

For those who don’t know and wish to understand more about “S” like structures, some notes which discuss it (amongst other things) can be found here, in pdf form.

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/RelayPrecisionKerr2000.pdf

I suppose it remains to explain why one would want to transfer captaincy after 1C 1D, so that system users know when to do so.

Relay systems generally reach more accurate contracts, if a balanced hand is opposite an unbalanced hand, when the balanced hand is R and the unbalanced hand is RR.  This is because R can then evaluate the worth of any honours he holds opposite the shortage.  When able to transfer captaincy, if opener is unbalanced, he can transfer captaincy and begin to show shape immediately, usually gaining if responder turns out to have been balanced.  Similarly, if balanced, opener can instead retain captaincy and bid 1H, usually gaining if responder turns out to be unbalanced.

A second reason for retaining captaincy (and sometimes overriding the desire to show shape) is if the specific honours in your hand would be difficult (lengthy) to show using our (your?) chosen control asking methods.  This will be method specific (and DIP’s will be discussed in another blog), but a common theme here is a hand containing lots of Jacks:  these are typically diagnosed late in most control asking methods.

A final consideration is:  if opener would normally retain captaincy with a balanced hand, then why include steps in the relay structure that show a balanced hand (or even, semi-balanced) hand?  The answer is, you don’t need to, but DIP chooses to.  You have two options

• Keep such steps in the structure, but assign them a similar, but more defined, meaning, or
• Remove them from the structure

I don’t like the latter, because of the memory strain mainly.  But if you wanted to go down that route, you could get rid of the BAL response after 1C 1D and move everything from 2C+ up a step.  Equally, you could, for example, remove 6322’s and 5422’s from other parts of the structure.

DIP, instead, takes a different approach.  If I can explain it by analogy in the first instance.  In some 2/1 methods 1M 2m 3NT shows something like 15-17 BAL.  One of the reasons for this is that it is sometimes difficult to bid a tight slam on power until one partner shows some extras.  DIP adopts a similar approach:  1C 1D 1NT shows a specific range of non-minimum BAL hand.  The specifics of this range will be discussed in a later blog.

Regards, Dipbridge

* Throughout this and subsequent blogs, the person making the enquiry will be known as “R” (Relayer) and the person responding to the enquiry by describing something about their hand “RR” (Relay Responder).