[straube]

Re: GCC question
From: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org To: dastraube@aol.com
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:57 am
Attachmentpic05413.gif

Hi David,

It sounds like you are trying to avoid 2 clubs being the start of a relay system by claiming it is going to be natural, at least three cards. If this is not the case and it will always be at least a three card suit, thus natural, the responder's 2nd rebid may be a relay.

Regards,
Butch

dastraube@aol.com


dastraube@aol.com
10/05/2009 10:13 AM


To
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org


cc



Subject
Re: GCC question



Hi Butch,
I don't understand how that can be right. The GCC states "A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's rebid." 2C would be natural. Opener's rebid is constructive and allowed "All calls starting with opener's first rebid". The first relay is responder's second bid.
Thanks, David


-----Original Message-----
From: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
To: dastraube@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:53 am
Subject: Re: GCC question

Hi David,

It may not be part of a relay system and be GCC legal.

If it is game forcing it is not required to be at least three cards (conventional and alertable).

Opener may make any constructive rebid.

Responder may not make a subsequent relay bid

Regards,
Butch

dastraube@aol.com

dastraube@aol.com
10/05/2009 09:46 AM
To
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

cc

Subject
Re: GCC question



Hi Butch,
Yes, I'm interested in using relays and I want my system to be GCC legal. If I beef the requirement for 2C to be GF and 3 clubs (not 2 clubs) then that's a legal response. Now opener is allowed any constructive rebid (for instance 2D could show one of two suits) and responder's second bid can be a relay (nonsense bid disclosing no information about his hand). Do I have that right?


-----Original Message-----
From: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
To: DAStraube@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:07 am
Subject: Re: GCC question

Hi David,

You may use 2 clubs as a conventional response if it is game forcing and not part of a relay system. If by agreement it does not indicate at least a 3 card suit an alert is required.

Regards,
Butch

DAStraube@aol.com
DAStraube@aol.com
10/03/2009 11:03 AM
To
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

cc

Subject
GCC question



Hi. Under the GCC would it be legal to respond 2C to an opening of 1M when responder has clubs or is balanced? For example, 1S-2C could be bid with 3-4-4-2 or conceivably 2-4-5-2.
I would argue that Standard American players might opt to respond 2C to 1S when holding something like 5-4-2-2 when lacking a forcing bid. Thanks, David

[awm]

These folks at ACBL headquarters don't usually do a good job with this sort of query. The only one I've interacted with who really gives coherent answers is Mike Flader, but he often disagrees with the other ones (perhaps for this reason) and it's hard to determine who is "right."

In any case, I've played against people using Viking Club variants with 2♣=GF relay in general chart events on several occasions, and had multiple national-level directors tell me that this is allowed. So in practice it's probably allowed. At least if you're a well-known internationalist.

[PrecisionL]

Yes, in ACBLand you may use 2♣ as an Artificial Game Force with or without clubs. You may NOT use a 2nd artificial reply (2♦?) as a Game Invitational hand.

Larry

10/20/09 Edit: I forgot to include that this was from an e-mail: rulings@acbl.org

[straube]

I'm really surprised to hear that 2C artificial is being permitted in the ACBL, especially as a relay. Sounds like they're ignoring the plain meaning of the GCC. My initial query was whether I could "get away" with having only two clubs for a 2C response. After all, I've bid 2C myself with only two clubs on occasion and have seen others do so.

[awm]

The General Chart specifically allows responses which are artificial and game forcing. So the only issue with 2♣ showing 2+ clubs is when you're not playing it as forcing to game. Potentially playing a 2♣ response as "invitational or better, balanced or clubs" would be disallowed on the General Chart. However, people can get away with deviations from system too...

The relay thing is a source of a lot of confusion. Last I checked, the ACBL had two definitions of relay, neither of which really matches what we think of as a relay. These were something like:

(1) A bid which forces partner to make the cheapest bid, saying nothing about the bidder's hand (commonly called a puppet).

(2) The cheapest call, saying nothing about the bidder's hand and asking partner for further description.

Since the 2♣ call in question is not the cheapest call and indicates something concrete about responder's hand in terms of shape (i.e. balanced or a club suit) it would not qualify as a relay.

Again, I understand that there are other ways to interpret these regulations, but this is the interpretation I have seen advanced when 2♣ relay was permitted.

[Phil]

I predict AWM will be on C and C one day.

At least lets hope so.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

The General Chart specifically allows responses which are artificial and game forcing. So the only issue with 2♣ showing 2+ clubs is when you're not playing it as forcing to game. Potentially playing a 2♣ response as "invitational or better, balanced or clubs" would be disallowed on the General Chart. However, people can get away with deviations from system too...

The relay thing is a source of a lot of confusion. Last I checked, the ACBL had two definitions of relay, neither of which really matches what we think of as a relay. These were something like:

(1) A bid which forces partner to make the cheapest bid, saying nothing about the bidder's hand (commonly called a puppet).

(2) The cheapest call, saying nothing about the bidder's hand and asking partner for further description.

Since the 2♣ call in question is not the cheapest call and indicates something concrete about responder's hand in terms of shape (i.e. balanced or a club suit) it would not qualify as a relay.

Again, I understand that there are other ways to interpret these regulations, but this is the interpretation I have seen advanced when 2♣ relay was permitted.

Adam is (obliquely) touching on a significant point:

The ACBL's definition of relay and relay systems is cryptic (at best).

[straube]

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

The General Chart specifically allows responses which are artificial and game forcing. So the only issue with 2♣ showing 2+ clubs is when you're not playing it as forcing to game. Potentially playing a 2♣ response as "invitational or better, balanced or clubs" would be disallowed on the General Chart. However, people can get away with deviations from system too...

The relay thing is a source of a lot of confusion. Last I checked, the ACBL had two definitions of relay, neither of which really matches what we think of as a relay. These were something like:

(1) A bid which forces partner to make the cheapest bid, saying nothing about the bidder's hand (commonly called a puppet).

(2) The cheapest call, saying nothing about the bidder's hand and asking partner for further description.

Since the 2♣ call in question is not the cheapest call and indicates something concrete about responder's hand in terms of shape (i.e. balanced or a club suit) it would not qualify as a relay.

Again, I understand that there are other ways to interpret these regulations, but this is the interpretation I have seen advanced when 2♣ relay was permitted.

I don't think that's quite right.

"CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system."

Artificial GF responses are legal but they can't be part of a relay system in which the relay bid occurs prior to opener's rebid.

The other issue is where the relay bid occurs. I don't think it has (by definition) to be a single step.

[awm]

The issue of "what is a relay" and "what is a relay system" is actually quite complex. For example, take the following 2/1 auction:

1♥ - 1NT(1)
2♠(2) - 2NT(3)
3♣(4) - 3♥(5)
Pass

(1) Forcing; very wide range of strengths and shapes
(2) Natural reverse
(3) Lebensohl; again a very wide range of strengths and shapes
(4) Minimum reverse with at least club tolerance
(5) To play

One could easily rewrite the explanations by calling both (1) and (3) relays. Neither one says a whole lot about responder's hand; both are just forcing calls asking opener for further description. Doesn't this look a bit like a non-game-forcing relay sequence? We could also go on another round if we're willing to be in game by having responder bid 3♦ at third turn, calling it "fourth suit forcing" (i.e. no clear direction looking for a singleton diamond honor opposite for 3NT or to play in the better 7-card major fit) and having opener pattern out.

Obviously ACBL isn't trying to ban this sequence. The upshot is that their definition of what is a "relay" and a "relay system" is quite a bit more complicated (and perhaps not what you'd expect). From various correspondences, it seems virtually impossible to fall afoul of the "relay system" rule on the general chart without also violating some other rules in the process (i.e. artificial nebulous non-GF responses disallowed). A lot of things that you might class as relay systems are not, by the ACBL definition, relay systems.

[jdonn]

1NT = I have less than a game force.
2NT = I have a weak hand (or perhaps another hand type or two, but those would be a little exceptional and I doubt most have any exceptions anyway).
3♦ = I am weak with diamonds (not sure why you would think 3♣ shows any particular tolerance, responder might be weak with 7 clubs).

It seems to me responder's actions you describe are at times vague regarding shape, but each action gives a fair amount more information than the prior action.

One more difference I can think of is responder can't relay over other common rebids by opener such as 2♦ or 2♥. I would think a relay system allows you to continue relaying over essentially any rebid by opener. So sure they should define 'relay system' but I can't see how this could be considered one.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

One more difference I can think of is responder can't relay over other common rebids by opener such as 2♦ or 2♥. I would think a relay system allows you to continue relaying over essentially any rebid by opener. So sure they should define 'relay system' but I can't see how this could be considered one.

I always thought that the definition of a relay system needed to included elements like recursion

[awm]

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

1♠(1) - 1NT(2)
2♠(3) - 2NT(4)
3♣(5) - 3♠(6)
Pass

(1) 4+♠, could be canape with a longer minor
(2) Invitational or better; or a weak hand with 6+♥
(3) 5+♠ and a side suit
(4) Invitational or better; forcing; asking side suit
(5) 4+♣
(6) Preference, exactly invite

This looks an awful lot to me like a relay system, and a non-game-forcing one to boot. The director initially agreed with me, and asked my opponents about this. They said "2NT is not a relay." Director said "okay."

What's a relay is very much a judgment call. But the policy on the ground (as the directors rule in real ACBL tournaments) as best I can tell is that no system can fall afoul of the relay system prohibition. Obviously most non-GF relay systems will have a problematic first response to the opening (because the general chart normally does not allow non-game-forcing artificial responses to openings) but this is a separate issue.

[jdonn]

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)
2♠(3) - 2NT(4)
3♣(5) - 3♠(6)
Pass

(1) 4+♠, could be canape with a longer minor
(2) Invitational or better; or a weak hand with 6+♥
(3) 5+♠ and a side suit
(4) Invitational or better; forcing; asking side suit
(5) 4+♣
(6) Preference, exactly invite

Forget the later auction, isn't the 1NT bid itself illegal under GCC? Or was this midchart? In any case I disagree with you that this is a relay system. If the 1NT bid is allowed and opener can do whatever he wants, then 2NT with this meaning follows naturally. It's unreasonable to disallow them to ask for the minor if they are allowed to play the 2♠ rebid with that meaning.

[awm]

My point is just that defining "what is a relay" is far from easy to do. The simple definition is something like "it's a cheap forcing call that says nothing about bidder's hand and just asks partner to describe further." But this definition is very much insufficient, because a lot of methods that are part of regular systems like 2/1 would then qualify as relays or as sequences of relays.

In fact the most common property of what most of us would call relay sequences is that describer's bids are artificial. There are many relay-like sequences where describer's bids are natural that are part of common bidding systems. Yet we know that starting from opener's rebid, any assigned meaning of calls is allowed. This creates a bit of a jumble, and it becomes even worse when we consider augmenting standard systems with a few artificial calls.

For example, suppose we decide that 2/1 is not a relay system, even though the forcing notrump is basically a relay and there are follow-ups in some sequences (i.e. 1♥-1NT-2X-2♠) which are artificial and forcing and ask opener to describe further. Okay, how about if we augment 2/1 with Gazzilli, so that opener's 2♣ rebid is artificial and responder's 2♦ rebid over that shows a modicum of values and asks further description. Now is it a relay system? How about if we play BART and 2♣ is basically natural, with the 2♦ rebid by responder still being artificial? Does it matter if opener's 2♣ rebid is 2+ rather than 3+? What if opener's rebids are all transfers and responder's accept of the transfer is an artificial one-round force asking for pattern? Does it matter if the forcing notrump contains some game-forcing hands or not? The point is that there's a vast fuzzy gray area and what qualifies as a relay system is very much in the eye of the beholder. I reiterate that the facts "on the ground" are that nothing will ever fall afoul of this rule.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 21 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

My point is just that defining "what is a relay" is far from easy to do. The simple definition is something like "it's a cheap forcing call that says nothing about bidder's hand and just asks partner to describe further." But this definition is very much insufficient, because a lot of methods that are part of regular systems like 2/1 would then qualify as relays or as sequences of relays.

In fact the most common property of what most of us would call relay sequences is that describer's bids are artificial. There are many relay-like sequences where describer's bids are natural that are part of common bidding systems. Yet we know that starting from opener's rebid, any assigned meaning of calls is allowed. This creates a bit of a jumble, and it becomes even worse when we consider augmenting standard systems with a few artificial calls.

For example, suppose we decide that 2/1 is not a relay system, even though the forcing notrump is basically a relay and there are follow-ups in some sequences (i.e. 1♥-1NT-2X-2♠) which are artificial and forcing and ask opener to describe further. Okay, how about if we augment 2/1 with Gazzilli, so that opener's 2♣ rebid is artificial and responder's 2♦ rebid over that shows a modicum of values and asks further description. Now is it a relay system? How about if we play BART and 2♣ is basically natural, with the 2♦ rebid by responder still being artificial? Does it matter if opener's 2♣ rebid is 2+ rather than 3+? What if opener's rebids are all transfers and responder's accept of the transfer is an artificial one-round force asking for pattern? Does it matter if the forcing notrump contains some game-forcing hands or not? The point is that there's a vast fuzzy gray area and what qualifies as a relay system is very much in the eye of the beholder. I reiterate that the facts "on the ground" are that nothing will ever fall afoul of this rule.

Bet that MOSCITO would...

[cherdanno]

awm, on Oct 20 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

For example, suppose we decide that 2/1 is not a relay system, even though the forcing notrump is basically a relay and there are follow-ups in some sequences (i.e. 1♥-1NT-2X-2♠) which are artificial and forcing and ask opener to describe further. Okay, how about if we augment 2/1 with Gazzilli, so that opener's 2♣ rebid is artificial and responder's 2♦ rebid over that shows a modicum of values and asks further description. Now is it a relay system? How about if we play BART and 2♣ is basically natural, with the 2♦ rebid by responder still being artificial? Does it matter if opener's 2♣ rebid is 2+ rather than 3+? What if opener's rebids are all transfers and responder's accept of the transfer is an artificial one-round force asking for pattern? Does it matter if the forcing notrump contains some game-forcing hands or not? The point is that there's a vast fuzzy gray area and what qualifies as a relay system is very much in the eye of the beholder. I reiterate that the facts "on the ground" are that nothing will ever fall afoul of this rule.

I think all of your examples are bogus. The point of relay bids is not that they are artificial, it is that they tell almost nothing about relayers hand. 1H-1N-2C-2S is a good club raise, how on earth can this be a relay? The forcing NT is a better example, but again it says something - responder does not have GF values (unless maybe balanced in some versions of 2/1). Bart shows one of a few possible hand types, making this not even a catchall bid.

[karlson]

cherdanno, on Oct 20 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

cherdano said:

I think all of your examples are bogus. The point of relay bids is not that they are artificial, it is that they tell almost nothing about relayers hand. 1H-1N-2C-2S is a good club raise, how on earth can this be a relay? The forcing NT is a better example, but again it says something - responder does not have GF values (unless maybe balanced in some versions of 2/1). Bart shows one of a few possible hand types, making this not even a catchall bid.

I think this is just semantics -- how do you define "almost nothing"? Almost all relay systems have some kind of defined relay breaks, so there's always some information given with the relay bid.

It seems that maybe you could have some definition that a non-relay promises some length in a particular suit that wasn't shown before, or promise some strength range. Of course that's not workable as it is, but maybe something along these lines.

[cherdanno]

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.

[straube]

I think we're talking about weak relays vs strong relays. The ACBL doesn't mind weak relays. They dislike strong (GI+) relays.

The ACBL permits 1M-1N to be forcing as long as it isn't limited to being a strong (GI+) relay.

In theory, one could use 1N forcing and then relay after that. One would argue that responder's first bid was legal and responder's second bid was his first relay.

In practice, this is a very expensive way to force.

1S-1N, 2H-2S a relay?

When we play 2-way NMF or XYZ we gain clarity by dividing the invitational from the GF hands. Similarly, we do better to separate weak vs strong relays. For example, 1S-1N (weak relay) and 1S-2C (strong relay).

It's just that we apparently have to have 3 clubs

[rbforster]

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.