[chastey]

I have recently read Glen Ashton's "ETM Gold" system and I want to ask your opinion about some ideas included there.

2 over 1 responses to 1 of a major opening

2♣ is either:
- GF with balanced hand. May have 3 or longer in M, intending on finding out about opener’s hand instead of showing hand type
- GF with long minor, not five or longer in OM, and not exactly 3 in M

2♦ over 1♥ and 2♥ over 1♠ is:
- 3 in M or 4 in M with 4-3-3-3, and GI or better values, denies 5+ in the OM

2♦ over 1♠ opening is:
- 6+♥s, fewer than 3♠s, any strength that meets requirements for responding to an opening bid
- 5+♥s, 3+♠s, GI
- GF with 5+♥s, may have 3+♠s.

Artificial and quite sophisticated continuations over these responses (especially 2♣)

What are your thoughts on that and how well may it work with limited openings (11-17)

[awm]

This has some resemblance to Garozzo's methods from the Ambra notes, which I think include:

2♣ response clubs GF or balanced GF or 3-card LR
2♦ to 1♥ natural GF or very weak heart raise
2♦ to 1♠ showing hearts
2♥ to 1♠ natural GF or very weak spade raise

In any case, the structure Glen proposes here will win on the supporting hands, especially the three card limit raise hands where you can now get out at the three-level. It will also win on the one suited heart hands too weak to make a normal 2/1 bid, especially when opener would rebid 2♠ or three of a minor over 1NT forcing.

The only down side is that many hands have been folded into 2♣. Exactly how bad this is will depend on the follow-up structure, but in general it will be worse for bidding distributional hands than a scheme with natural and game forcing 2m responses (having structured rebids here should be a win on the more frequent balanced hands, but you can have this over 2♣ "natural or balanced" too). I think the biggest problem will be bidding responder hands with 5-5 in the minors.

Nonetheless, frequency-wise this is probably better than the normal 2/1 approach. Unfortunately it's mid-chart for ACBL events.

[glen]

This type of approach was used before ETM Gold in various systems (i.e. not mine), and I just incorporated these ideas into the system. They continue to be used in various ways - here's a pair on the Danish team for the worlds, but using 1NT as the GF relay and 2♣ handling some of the 1NT forcing hands:

Denmark - Askgaard-Bjarnarsson.pdf

Here's their note 2:

2. Special responses to 1M

1M - 1NT = ART gameforce, any hand – expect hands suitable for splinters or a direct 4M

1M - 2♣ = ART transfer: Signoff with ♦ OR any INV without fit & without 5+OM
1M - 2♣, 2♦ - pass = Sign-off, long diamonds
1M - 2♣, 2♦ - 2M = INV, double M, not 4OM
1M - 2♣, 2♦ - 2NT = INV, 0-1M, not 4OM, ‘both minors’ (bad6-good3 ok)
1M - 2♣, 2♦ - 3mi = INV, onesuiter
1♥ - 2♣, 2♦ - 2♠ = INV 4♠ and long minor, NF, 2NT asks minor
1♠ - 2♣, 2♦ - 2♥ = INV 4♥, 0-2♠, NF, (long minor ok)

1M - 2♣, 2M = 6M, correction from diamonds
1♠ - 2♣, 2♥ = 5-5
1M - 2♣, 3mi = good 5-5

1♥ - 2♦ = Good 3card raise, (9)10-13

1♠ - 2♦ = 5+♥. Sign-off or INV (any follow up is invitational NF)

1♠ - 2♥ = Good 3card raise, (9)10-13.

[marcD]

I play a similar scheme based on Ambra and 2♣ relay (derived from http://www.geocities...5/2CRelay.html) ; it works well , the only downside being that it does not occur that often and it is a fairly serious memorization effort (for my partners)
the basic structure is
over 1♠ : 2♣ GF relay or clubs INV+ , 2♦ Hearts inv+ , 2♥ diamonds inv+
over 1♥ : 2♣GF relay or clubs inv+, 2♦ diamonds inv+


1NT is semi-forcing 'ambra styke) with 2♣ by opener Gazilli.

[dake50]

Has anyone tried GoLady 2C with Toddler 2D responses to 1M? (Colin Ward e-files) Seems a fit check(GoLady) with a side suit check(Toddler) is just what is needed here.

[glen]

I appreciated Colin's efforts to get stuff out on the Net in the days when most stuff was on dead trees or in r.g.b., and also liked the way he named his ideas.

Quick links:
Golady
Toddler

First, Toddler covers too much ground:
a.) any normal 2♦ reply
b.) certain simple raises of M
c.) any flat 10-12 NT
d.) certain limit raises of M
e.) game force raises of M with 3 trumps and 13-15

There is no way to unwind this all properly (not including all the fun that happens if the opponents bid). In one of his example hands, he has opener reply 2NT to 2♦ with KQT9x x Qxx AKxx - and now 3M is non-forcing by responder - try bidding out all of a, c, d, and e here.

Golady is one style of GF relay 2♣, and transfers are a decent method for opener's rebid - one that I like. The auction 1M-2♣(gl);-2NT showing exactly 4♦s may get the NT wrong sided. Aside from a few minor points like that, a nice method, and I've been surprised not to see it played more.

Thus quite playable would be:
a.) Golady asis
b.) Mini-toddler (aka Gobaby) with some hand types taken out, and moved elsewhere (back in a semi-forcing 1NT for example). I certainly do not like 10-12 NT mixed up with a set of raises.

[Free]

I use 2♣ as a relay, showing either balanced, 3 card support or ♣. 2♦ and 2♥ (over 1♠) natural with good 5 card. Over the various responses after 2♣ we can show the different hand types (♣ with support included), but we can also ask the distribution of opener's hand (not full relays, but exact shape is given in most cases (5431, 5422, 5-5 or 6-4)).

I think there are advantages of using 2♦ to show 5+♥, but I haven't played something like that yet.

[akhare]

1N as a GF relay seems really appealing in terms of space efficiency, but isn't the inability to play in 1N a big loss?

Assuming you aren't playing xfer openings, do you just pass the 1♥/1♠ opening with a balanced 6 - ~9 count (if you can't make a 2 level bid or support pard's suit)? I suppose the 5m332 hands and 44m32 hands at the top end of the range bid 2♣ and then correct to the 2M of the opened major.

Has anyone used such a scheme and how well does passing opener with 6-~9 and no other bid work?

[rbforster]

akhare, on Sep 8 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

1N as a GF relay seems really appealing in terms of space efficiency, but isn't the inability to play in 1N a big loss?

Well losing the ability to play in 1N is something all the 2/1 players gave up already, so perhaps you're just going with the herd/field by having a forcing NT.

akhare, on Sep 8 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

Assuming you aren't playing xfer openings, do you just pass the 1♥/1♠ opening with a balanced 6 - ~9 count (if you can't make a 2 level bid or support pard's suit)? ... Has anyone used such a scheme and how well does passing opener with 6-~9 and no other bid work?

Passing with 6-9 and a doubleton will miss a decent fraction of games when opener has a 6+ suit and a good distributional hand (previous discussion). In 2/1, when you bid 1N forcing with these 6-9 hands as responder and opener jumps to 3M (1M-1N-3M-?), you're raising to 4M with intention of making at least on the high end of your range. You don't really want to play those hands in 1M+3, and the opponents are relatively weak and may not balance.

akhare, on Sep 8 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

I suppose the 5m332 hands and 44m32 hands at the top end of the range bid 2♣ and then correct to the 2M of the opened major.

Similar to your suggestion, I think Adam discussed a suggestion at some point here where 2♣ was kinda like a forcing NT (~6-9, usually balanced but with some clubs), but I couldn't dig up the link.