[shevek]

Planning a trip across the lake next year.

In Oz, our partnership plays strong club, full relay, 1♦ opening = spades.
Need some adjustments. We'd like to maintain some relay. I was thinking

1♣ - 15+, full relay
1♦ - Prec-style, natural responses
1♥ - 4+♥, unbalanced, denies 4♠s
1♠ - 4+♠s, unbalanced
1NT - 12-14 balanced, full relay
2♣ - 5+♣s, no major, unbalanced, full relay
2♦ - 4-4 or 4-5 majors, unbalanced, Flannery-style
2♥/♠ - weak 2s
2NT - minors

GCC Definitions
3. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of
one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

So we can do what we want over 1NT & 2C, so full relay. Throw 5M332 hands in 1NT

Allowed responses & rebids
7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher.

I think that means anything goes over 1♣, except relay. However, "relay" does not start prior to opener's rebid so all okay. (Note that those who play 1♣ - 1♦ as GFR fall foul of this)

We'll open 1♥ with six or 5+4 with a minor, either way
Can still use a forcing NT, so

Over 1♥
1♠ = forcing, usually 5+
1N = forcing, then new suit forcing; simple preference or 2NT are inv
2♣/2♦ = non-forcing
3♣/3♦ = invitational, 6-carders

That fudge works okay. Note that can't really open 1M with 5M332, since you have no rebid over the forcing notrump.
(If you rebid a minor, responder will pass with most 6-9 balanced, risking the 3-3 fit)

This seems legal & not bad. Views please.

[hrothgar]

15 odd years ago, the President of the United States was impeached for lying under oath.
A lot of the subsequent proceedings hinged on the definition of the word "sex".
One of the congress critters gave a definition of the word sex and then asked Clinton whether he had sex with Lewinsky.
Clinton stated that he had not, which was true under this specific definition, but not under broader, more commonly accepted usage.

By now, you're probably asking yourself why am I reviewing all this past idiocy...

Offered, for your approval, the ACBL's definition of the word relay:

Quote

A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

Its pretty easy to drive a truck through this...
I'm not saying that you should, mind you. Just saying that if you want to play the rules lawyer...

Regardless, I suggest that you remember the following phrase which may come in handy for your visit:

"I have a lawyer on retainer. I spent a bunch of money to fly to attend this tournament. I am more than prepared to sue you personally as well as the ACBL. So you better be damn sure about any ruling that you make."

[steve2005]

the way most people use the word relay is not the way ACBL uses relay so your ok there.

Your 2♦ Flannery cant be 4-4 need to be 5-4 or better

Also, over 1♥ your 1N forcing response cannot guarantee inv values, not sure what your doing there but might want to look into it.edit I see there is some chance of passing so foget it

[chasetb]

Technically 5431 hands are 3-suited (though not all directors know this), so as long as the 4-4 Majors are 44(41) or 44(50), and the Flannery is 45(31) or 45(40), then I can guarantee that it is GCC-legal.

It's tougher if you try to include 4522 hands, since it seems they worded it in a way that 2♦ as both 3-suiters and 9+ cards in the Majors isn't GCC-legal.

And there's no way you can include 44(32) hands into your 2♦ opening, regardless of the above.

[steve2005]

not using Flannery on 4=5=2=2 hands is kinda weird, but does allow 4-4 Flannery under GCC.

the posters methods have 1♥/1♠ as unbalanced which leaves only choice 1N, not ideal unless you have minor suit honors.

but if you didn't have unbalanced restriction on 1♥ and opened 1♥ then your stuck rebidding 2-card ♣ suit or 5-card ♥ suit over 1N. This is a bad choice and one of the reasons for Flannery.

[dake50]

I'll join the chorus.
GCC should be for restricted events (lower masterpoints awarded), not open games.

[blackshoe]

dake50, on 2014-July-26, 08:00, said:

I'll join the chorus.
GCC should be for restricted events (lower masterpoints awarded), not open games.

Heh. Good luck convincing the ACBL of that.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-26, 08:34, said:

Heh. Good luck convincing the ACBL of that.

to convince ACBL. email / write them and tell/post for others to do it

[Mbodell]

Btw, you should be fine with anything over your strong club bids. We play transfer symmetric relay and it is gcc legal.

It is your 2D bid that is most problematic, also likely some of your continuations over 1M. 1nt over 1M can be game forcing. You can even relay over it (when it is always game forcing). 1nt can be weak to inv. But 1nt can't be always inv+ without being always gf.

[rbforster]

Mbodell, on 2014-July-26, 19:54, said:

1nt over 1M can be game forcing. You can even relay over it (when it is always game forcing). 1nt can be weak to inv. But 1nt can't be always inv+ without being always gf.

Right. However, it's possible that he bids 1N with some hands that just pass opener's rebid. It's ok to have all of responder's rebids show invitational+ as long as there are some hands that don't rebid .