[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Oct 20 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

I agree that "almost nothing" is a sliding scale. But in every relay systems the relay break is infrequent, and most of the time relayer will just continue to relay. Hence (by definition), there is very little information in the relay. I would argue that in every example by Adam, there is considerably more information in responder's sequence of bids than in a typical relay sequence. But again, I admit this is not a black-and-white issue.

Part of my problem with Adam's examples is that he just takes any artificial bid (such as the 2♠ good minor suit raise) and claims it 'asks opener to describe his hand further'. No it doesn't, it shows a good minor suit raise. All it asks opener to do is not-pass. For example opener is free to bid 3NT and attempt to place the contract, it doesn't show anything about his hand by agreement (only by inference). Every forcing artificial bid is not a relay. It would be like saying a response to blackwood is a relay.

So I see 3 problems with most of these examples:
- They show a lot about the 'relayers' hand.
- They don't really ask opener to describe his hand further.
- Even if relays, these bids wouldn't be part of a "relay system" since such a relay in these examples is tending not to be available over other possible bids by opener.

[straube]

Rob F, on Oct 21 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

I agree with Adam and karlson in that the practical rules about relay systems depend much more on how you describe the bid than anything else.  If you have any relay breaks defined, you can just list the hand types not included in those relay breaks and now the "relay bid" sounds descriptive ("showing X,Y or Z") rather than inquiring ("asking for X, Y or Z").

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

In a local tournament, I once had a pair of opponents bid:

1♠(1) - 1NT(2)
...

(1) 4+♠, could be canape with a longer minor
(2) Invitational or better; or a weak hand with 6+♥

Forget the later auction, isn't the 1NT bid itself illegal under GCC?

No, see the weak option highlighted above. For those of you who play under GCC and want to play 1NT forcing and GI+, feel free to extend this to 8+ hearts.

That's clever. I wonder, though how they handle less than GI hands. How do they respond to 1S when they hold x AKxx xxx xxxxx ? or xx AKx xxxx xxxx ?

[rbforster]

straube, on Oct 21 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

That's clever.    I wonder, though how they handle less than GI hands.  How do they respond to 1S when they hold x AKxx xxx xxxxx ?  or xx AKx xxxx xxxx ?

It's possible to use 1♠-2♣ as a "non-forcing NT response" which you bid on most semibalanced hands (of course typically only those with 3+ clubs). It's limited to <GI so opener basically makes his natural rebid as if it went 1♠-1N(f), except that if he would have bid clubs he passes most of the time (or raises with a very strong hand). Specifically,

1♠-?
1N(f) GI+ or 6+♥ weaker than GI
2♣ 3+♣, weaker and usually semibalanced
2♦ 6+♦, weaker
2♥ 5♥, weaker
2♠ 3+ raise as usual

With this you could use 2♦ as a "weak two bid" and 2♥ as natural GF, for example. If you don't need 2♥ as natural GF (which would no doubt help untangle the 1N(f) continuations), you could use it as natural with a decent 5 suit and less than GI values, a spade limit raise (to stay low), etc.

Remember that if you're bidding 2♣ on 3+ clubs and don't have support for spades, you've got at least a 5 card red suit. With less than GI values, passing is certain an option with some of these (esp with short spades), and the 6+ suits can usually show their suit somehow. The version with 2♥ as 5 and 1N(f) with 6+ covers basically all the common shapes except 2452.

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Oct 21 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

In a local tournament, I once had a pair of opponents bid:

1♠(1) - 1NT(2)
...

(1) 4+♠, could be canape with a longer minor
(2) Invitational or better; or a weak hand with 6+♥

Forget the later auction, isn't the 1NT bid itself illegal under GCC?

No, see the weak option highlighted above. For those of you who play under GCC and want to play 1NT forcing and GI+, feel free to extend this to 8+ hearts.

I disagree with you. I don't think adding one specific possibility changes the general meaning of the bid. Otherwise you could define every bid as 'either something otherwise-illegal or 13 clubs' or something like that.

[Elianna]

jdonn, on Oct 21 2009, 06:57 AM, said:

Rob F, on Oct 21 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

In a local tournament, I once had a pair of opponents bid:

1♠(1) - 1NT(2)
...

(1) 4+♠, could be canape with a longer minor
(2) Invitational or better; or a weak hand with 6+♥

Forget the later auction, isn't the 1NT bid itself illegal under GCC?

No, see the weak option highlighted above. For those of you who play under GCC and want to play 1NT forcing and GI+, feel free to extend this to 8+ hearts.

I disagree with you. I don't think adding one specific possibility changes the general meaning of the bid. Otherwise you could define every bid as 'either something otherwise-illegal or 13 clubs' or something like that.

There are pairs that do precisely this, and get away with it, because they tell directors "it is NOT a relay system". That's all they have to say, and the director believes it.

[straube]

Rob F, on Oct 21 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

straube, on Oct 21 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

That's clever.    I wonder, though how they handle less than GI hands.  How do they respond to 1S when they hold x AKxx xxx xxxxx ?  or xx AKx xxxx xxxx ?

It's possible to use 1♠-2♣ as a "non-forcing NT response" which you bid on most semibalanced hands (of course typically only those with 3+ clubs). It's limited to <GI so opener basically makes his natural rebid as if it went 1♠-1N(f), except that if he would have bid clubs he passes most of the time (or raises with a very strong hand). Specifically,

1♠-?
1N(f) GI+ or 6+♥ weaker than GI
2♣ 3+♣, weaker and usually semibalanced
2♦ 6+♦, weaker
2♥ 5♥, weaker
2♠ 3+ raise as usual

With this you could use 2♦ as a "weak two bid" and 2♥ as natural GF, for example. If you don't need 2♥ as natural GF (which would no doubt help untangle the 1N(f) continuations), you could use it as natural with a decent 5 suit and less than GI values, a spade limit raise (to stay low), etc.

Remember that if you're bidding 2♣ on 3+ clubs and don't have support for spades, you've got at least a 5 card red suit. With less than GI values, passing is certain an option with some of these (esp with short spades), and the 6+ suits can usually show their suit somehow. The version with 2♥ as 5 and 1N(f) with 6+ covers basically all the common shapes except 2452.

Thanks. That seems very playable and has the advantage of responder being able to show 5 hearts and only constructive values. I think I still like 1N with constructive/ GF and 2C GF relay; seems like using 1S-2L for constructive hands gives too much space for constructive hands and too little for GI+ hands.

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Oct 21 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Rob F, on Oct 21 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

No, see the weak option highlighted above.  For those of you who play under GCC and want to play 1NT forcing and GI+, feel free to extend this to 8+ hearts.

I disagree with you. I don't think adding one specific possibility changes the general meaning of the bid. Otherwise you could define every bid as 'either something otherwise-illegal or 13 clubs' or something like that.

You can disagree and maybe most random TDs would likely to agree with you, but that's not what's written on the GCC:

GCC, on Allowed Responses, said:

ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round; cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.

It doesn't say, usually has inv+ values, or 90% of the time has inv+ values. It says it cannot 100% guarantee inv+ values. If there's a hand type with less than invitational strength that systematically bids 1N(f), this is GCC legal. It doesn't say that the weaker hand type(s) have to be at least X% of all hands that bid 1N or anything like that, despite what some people might wish.

[akhare]

straube, on Oct 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Thanks.  That seems very playable and has the advantage of responder being able to show 5 hearts and only constructive values.  I think I still like 1N with constructive/ GF and 2C GF relay;  seems like using 1S-2L for constructive hands gives too much space for constructive hands and too little for GI+ hands.

Playing 2L responses as SAYC style (GI), but with almost no slam interest might work too.

Basically, most hands with serious slam interest bid 1N (but it could very well be a weak hand that wants to sign off). It may not allow responder to sign off at the 2 level with a weak single red suited hand, but are those really that frequent?

[straube]

akhare, on Oct 21 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

straube, on Oct 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Thanks.  That seems very playable and has the advantage of responder being able to show 5 hearts and only constructive values.  I think I still like 1N with constructive/ GF and 2C GF relay;  seems like using 1S-2L for constructive hands gives too much space for constructive hands and too little for GI+ hands.

Playing 2L responses as SAYC style (GI), but with almost no slam interest might work too.

Basically, most hands with serious slam interest bid 1N (but it could very well be a weak hand that wants to sign off). It may not allow responder to sign off at the 2 level with a weak single red suited hand, but are those really that frequent?

First, I think you'd do better to have your 2L bids be GI only. Something like...
1S-2C=semi-balanced or clubs
1S-2D=six diamonds
1S-2H=six hearts
1S-2S=simple raise
Maybe something better is possible. The point is that it would give opener the option to pass, introduce a second suit at the 2-level or force game with 2N or higher.

As far as 1N being less than or better than GI, I still think this overloads the bid and you'll have trouble sometimes sorting it out.

One problem is that opener's rebids may not be able to be organized efficiently. For instance, if 1N were GF, then a 2C rebid could show a side club suit or a single-suited spade hand. If 1N can be weak or strong, then opener's 2C rebid might just have to show clubs.

This isn't a huge problem for 1S. After 1S-1N, 2H-2N is the relay bid and you have almost enough room. After 1S-1N, 2S-2N is the relay bid and again you have probably enough.

I bet it's harder for 1H. 1H-1N, ? with limited 4-5-3-1? I bet you don't have nearly enough room to relay this out after say 1H-1N, 2D-2S. After 1H-1N, opener is even more constrained by not knowing whether a GF is in the offing; knowing right away allows him to make better use of space.

I think your right about the frequency of responder having a six-card red suit that he needs to show, but it happens often enough that I'd want to know why I was giving it up.

The other issue is what happens in competition. It's really nice to establish a GF because it adds meaning to passing, doubling, and further bidding. I mean, there's a big difference between 1S P 1N 3D P P 3H depending on the meaning of 1N. I'm sure one could cite examples where interference was dealt with handily, but I bet there are more where interference causes a problem.

I still think the ideal response structure is

1S-1N semiforcing
1S-2C GF relay
1S-2D hearts
1S-2H good spade raise

It's what Sabine Zenkel plays (though her 1N is probably forcing).

[akhare]

straube, on Oct 22 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

One problem is that opener's rebids may not be able to be organized efficiently.  For instance, if 1N were GF, then a 2C rebid could show a side club suit or a single-suited spade hand.  If 1N can be weak or strong, then opener's 2C rebid might just have to show clubs.

I think that most common shapes can still be resolved by 3N:

1M - 1N (forcing)

2♣ -> Bal or ♣ (with 2+ ♣)
2♦ / 2♥: 4+ -> 2N=LL, 3C=High short, 3D=5422, etc.
2M: 6+

Note that the 2♣ with 2+ isn't that far removed from standard 2/1 where it shows 3+.

The problem hand of course is 5♥-4♠, but that can probably be fitted as an exception somewhere (unless Kaplan inversion is allowed)....

[straube]

akhare, on Oct 22 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

straube, on Oct 22 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

One problem is that opener's rebids may not be able to be organized efficiently.  For instance, if 1N were GF, then a 2C rebid could show a side club suit or a single-suited spade hand.  If 1N can be weak or strong, then opener's 2C rebid might just have to show clubs.

I think that most common shapes can still be resolved by 3N:

1M - 1N (forcing)

2♣ -> Bal or ♣ (with 2+ ♣)
2♦ / 2♥: 4+ -> 2N=LL, 3C=High short, 3D=5422, etc.
2M: 6+

Note that the 2♣ with 2+ isn't that far removed from standard 2/1 where it shows 3+.

The problem hand of course is 5♥-4♠, but that can probably be fitted as an exception somewhere (unless Kaplan inversion is allowed)....

Good solution, and Kaplan inversion ought to work, too.

I've been thinking about GI 2/1 responses to 1S and I think the 2C response would have to promise 3 clubs, so the other bids would have to have relaxed requirements (like promising only 5 cards). Still don't like it.