[straube]

Partner and I are using 1M-2C as a GF relay. When we play GCC events, it requires 3 clubs

Our 1N is semiforcing. Our 2D is GF with 5 diamonds.

We tend to find ourselves using the relay whenever possible, so if we have Axx xx KQxxx AKx we are likely to bid 2C and not 2D.

This means that 2D is underutilized. We usually only bid 2D when we don't have those three clubs (again, the GCC)

Thinking that 1M-2D can show a good 11 to bad 13 with 2-cd support for the major. When playing GCC we also have to have 3 diamonds

Of course, really 1M-2D would be a 2-way bid showing this hand type or the rare hand types with 5+ diamonds and lacking 3 clubs.

1M-2D, 2M would reject game opposite the 2-cd LR. Otherwise, we're in a GF.

I think Chris does something very like this, but his 2D has to handle the GF diamond hands as well. Ours will be less frequent as we prefer to respond 2C.

That's a good thing, too, because of the awkwardness created when 2D does not initiate a GF.

What would a 1N response be? Either less than GI or GI with shortness in the major or lacking that third diamond.

What are the downsides? Sometimes we would have discovered a superior minor suit fit and have to play 2M. Again, the 1M-2D with GF diamond hands are more awkward.

The upsides? Getting to play 2M instead of 2N. Decreasing the frequency of lost 13 opposite 12 hands (say partner is 5332 13 and passes 1N)

When we're playing Midchart, we can use 1M-2D as the LR with 2 and forget about the diamond requirement and forget about the GF with diamonds.

[mtvesuvius]

You would need 3♦ for the 2♦ call, but I don't believe you need 3♣ for the 2♣ call. If you did, many expert 2/1 players would be playing it illegally. I was told by Mike Flader in Orlando this past year, that as long as the responses to 2♣ describe opener's hand in some way (not a forced 2♦ call), it is legal on the GCC.

Therefore 2♣ as an Artificial GFR is allowed and legal.

[glen]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-07, 21:04, said:

You would need 3♦ for the 2♦ call, but I don't believe you need 3♣ for the 2♣ call. ... 2♣ as an Artificial GFR is allowed and legal.

correct

[akhare]

One possible solution is to play what Zelandakh proposed a while back, i.e., bring back the forcing NT and make the 2-level bids as natural, but NF.

The point range for the 2-level bids can be adjusted to taste.


1M
=========
1N = Forcing
2C = 8-11, 4+ clubs
2D = 8-11 4+ diamonds
2H = 8-11, 5+ hearts
2M = 8-10, 3+ M
2N and up = various raises with 4M

Edit: The scheme below may need adjustment to fit all shapes, but this is the general idea

1♥ - 1N
==============
2C = Unbalanced shapes, at least 4 card side suit
2D = 5♥332 shape? -> relay break at 2M
2H = 6+ ♥

1♠ - 1N
==============
2C = Unbalanced with 4+ hearts(2D = GF relay, 2S = LR, 2H/2N/3m = natural invites)
2D = 4+ diamonds (2H = GF relay, 2S = LR, 2N/3m = natural invites)
2H = 5332 shapes / 4+ clubs -> relay break at 2M
2S = 6+ ♠

[straube]

From the GCC...

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

So we could use either 2C or 2D as an artificial GF. The problem is that we want to then subsequently relay. If 2C promises 3 clubs, then the bid is natural and partner can relay out his pattern. Kind of stupid but that's how it appears to me.

So you think Mike Flader would be good with responding 2C artificially with...

1S-2C, 2D showing either 4+ clubs or a 5332 or 5+ diamonds? All to be subsequently relayed?

Hope your answer is yes.

But what of the idea of 2D as GI with 2 of partner's major?

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-March-07, 21:32, said:

One possible solution is to play what Zelandakh proposed a while back, i.e., bring back the forcing NT and make the 2-level bids as natural, but NF.

The point range for the 2-level bids can be adjusted to taste.


1M
=========
1N = Forcing
2C = 8-11, 4+ clubs
2D = 8-11 4+ diamonds
2H = 8-11, 5+ hearts
2M = 8-10, 3+ M
2N and up = various raises with 4M

Edit: The scheme below may need adjustment to fit all shapes, but this is the general idea

1♥ - 1N
==============
2C = Unbalanced shapes, at least 4 card side suit
2D = 5♥332 shape? -> relay break at 2M
2H = 6+ ♥

1♠ - 1N
==============
2C = Unbalanced with 4+ hearts(2D = GF relay, 2S = LR, 2H/2N/3m = natural invites)
2D = 4+ diamonds (2H = GF relay, 2S = LR, 2N/3m = natural invites)
2H = 5332 shapes / 4+ clubs -> relay break at 2M
2S = 6+ ♠

When one hand has already shown a 5-cd suit, it makes sense for that hand to continue to show more about its other holdings. This structure does the opposite. It doesn't make sense to me for partner to say "Hey, I have five spades" and then responder say "Hey, I don't have a fit with you but I have four+ diamonds and I want to play at 2D or higher"

[awm]

"Relay System" in the ACBL regulations does not mean the same thing that you (and I) mean when we talk about a relay system. A 2♣ response that is artificial and shows game-forcing values is allowed on the general chart. The only structure which would not be allowed over this response is one where opener is forced to bid 2♦ regardless of his hand. I am not exactly sure why one would wish to play such a structure, but that's what ACBL means when they talk about relay systems.

[straube]

awm, on 2011-March-07, 22:31, said:

"Relay System" in the ACBL regulations does not mean the same thing that you (and I) mean when we talk about a relay system. A 2♣ response that is artificial and shows game-forcing values is allowed on the general chart. The only structure which would not be allowed over this response is one where opener is forced to bid 2♦ regardless of his hand. I am not exactly sure why one would wish to play such a structure, but that's what ACBL means when they talk about relay systems.

hurray! Now what do you think of 1S-2D as 11-12 with 2-cd support?

[mtvesuvius]

It's an interesting idea, and one I haven't seen before.

I think in a limited opener context however, it will get you past the ideal spot of 1NT quite often. In addition, when you don't belong in 1N, you're first searching for a fit at an awkward level. I think it's just barely too high, and would cause more harm than good.

One option would be to use 2♦ as a 3 card 11-12 HCP raise, which I think has a lot of merit.

[straube]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-07, 23:40, said:

It's an interesting idea, and one I haven't seen before.

I think in a limited opener context however, it will get you past the ideal spot of 1NT quite often. In addition, when you don't belong in 1N, you're first searching for a fit at an awkward level. I think it's just barely too high, and would cause more harm than good.

One option would be to use 2♦ as a 3 card 11-12 HCP raise, which I think has a lot of merit.

Yeah. That's so. I'm thinking...

1S-
.....1N-semiforcing
.....2D-2-cd limit raise
.....2H-constructive raise

1H-
.....1N-semiforcing
.....2D-2 or 3-cd limit raise
.....2H-raise

[straube]

Maybe for the Midchart 2D can just show an invitational hand...any with direction.

1S-1N-semiforcing, could be GI if non-directional (short spade or no long minor)

1S-2D (showing 12-13)
.....2H-four hearts, minimum
.....2S-five spades, minimum
..........P-2-fit
..........3m-6m
.....2N-GF, possibly 6 spades
.....3L-GF, 5/5

1S-2H as a constructive raise (9-11)

1S-2N as a LR, probably spade oriented or responder might try a 2D response

1S-3H-GI, 6 hearts

[mycroft]

The "relay system" issues are issues where *responder's first bid* is the first relay (which may show stuff, but the key is that it doesn't force relays, it *is* the relay).

So, (apart from all the other reasons), Traditional MOSCITO is not GCC legal, because 1D-1H is the first relay. Even if it were GF, since it's the first relay, it's not legal. Note, Symmetric Relay Precision - at least Symmetric after 1C - is legal, because 1C-1H (showing spades); 1S is the first relay. As long as opener relays; or responder makes one bid before she starts relaying; you're good.

If 1M-2C means "we are now going to relay out opener's hand", *even if it is an otherwise legal "artificial game force"*, it's part of a relay system and not GCC legal. Which I think is the opposite of what awm is saying. The goal on the GCC is to avoid *total half-duplex* systems where one hand is not even partially described; the goal on the Mid-Chart is to allow it, but require "some strength" in the relay hand (it must be GF).

Disclaimer: this isn't "law from Memphis", even though occasionally I work for the ACBL (in other words, I'm just speaking for myself!) but given the relevant GCC quote:

"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."

I think I'm right. Please note that every phrase in there is required to avoid silly things like Double-Barrelled Stayman with Baron Corollary being a "relay system".

I realize the definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't fit with what most people would think - because, as I said, I believe that 1M-2C "art GF; forces 2D so I can relay out my hand" isn't, in fact, a "relay system" in the GCC meaning. 1M-2C "art GF; relay out *your* hand" is.

[straube]

mycroft, on 2011-March-08, 11:17, said:

The "relay system" issues are issues where *responder's first bid* is the first relay (which may show stuff, but the key is that it doesn't force relays, it *is* the relay).

So, (apart from all the other reasons), Traditional MOSCITO is not GCC legal, because 1D-1H is the first relay. Even if it were GF, since it's the first relay, it's not legal. Note, Symmetric Relay Precision - at least Symmetric after 1C - is legal, because 1C-1H (showing spades); 1S is the first relay. As long as opener relays; or responder makes one bid before she starts relaying; you're good.

If 1M-2C means "we are now going to relay out opener's hand", *even if it is an otherwise legal "artificial game force"*, it's part of a relay system and not GCC legal. Which I think is the opposite of what awm is saying. The goal on the GCC is to avoid *total half-duplex* systems where one hand is not even partially described; the goal on the Mid-Chart is to allow it, but require "some strength" in the relay hand (it must be GF).

Disclaimer: this isn't "law from Memphis", even though occasionally I work for the ACBL (in other words, I'm just speaking for myself!) but given the relevant GCC quote:

"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."

I think I'm right. Please note that every phrase in there is required to avoid silly things like Double-Barrelled Stayman with Baron Corollary being a "relay system".

I realize the definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't fit with what most people would think - because, as I said, I believe that 1M-2C "art GF; forces 2D so I can relay out my hand" isn't, in fact, a "relay system" in the GCC meaning. 1M-2C "art GF; relay out *your* hand" is.

I don't know who is right. I read it the same way as you but others feel differently. In support of their argument, I have to say that allowing a 2C (or other) artificial GF is by definition a relay of sorts in that it says nothing distributionally about that hand and solicits (obviously) more information from opener. I suppose if responder is not allowed a 2nd, 3rd, etc relay, then it won't be a relay system. But why would the ACBL support a structure that is that bad? At the 2nd, 3rd, etc relay, the opponents are not in the bidding. If you allow us a first relay, why not successive relays?

[bluecalm]

Just play that after 2♣ 2♦ shows most normal hands and higher bids is something very unusual and you bypassed ACBL regulations :-)

[kenrexford]

Years ago, I was talked into playing "Toddler 2D" as part of a weird canape syste,:

http://www.members.s...ica/toddler.htm

You might find something in there that makes sense.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-08, 15:22, said:

Years ago, I was talked into playing "Toddler 2D" as part of a weird canape syste,:

http://www.members.s...ica/toddler.htm

You might find something in there that makes sense.

Thanks for that. It's nice to know someone has already been thinking along these lines.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking that we can't relay with 2C unless 2C promises 3 clubs. That means that we need 1M-2D to promise 3+ diamonds and include the GF diamond hands. So I'm thinking that a GCC legal structure would be...

1N-semiforcing, may have invitational strength when short partner's suit

2C-3+ clubs, could have longer diamonds, GF and relays commence

2D-3+ diamonds, could have longer clubs, promises 2-cd support for the major and GI strength OR 5 diamonds and GF strength
.....2M-nf
.....all else starts a GF

1S-2H-natural and GF

1M-2M-constructive

[glen]

straube, on 2011-March-08, 15:49, said:

... I'm thinking that we can't relay with 2C unless 2C promises 3 clubs. ...

No, making 2♣ 3+ does not allow relays. Please see the GCC chart and under disallowed "5. Relay (tell me more) systems.". You need to make 2♣ a game force ask.

[kenrexford]

I see no problem with the GCC and 2♣ as a multi-purpose GF.

[awm]

The ACBL definition of "relay system" is a sequence of relays started prior to opener's rebid, as stated above. What this doesn't include is the definition of a relay.

My understanding from correspondence with ACBL and discussion with directors is that a relay involves making the cheapest call available in a way that says nothing (or nearly nothing) about the bidder's hand. The 2♣ game forcing call mentioned here is not a relay, because: (1) it is not the cheapest call (2) it says something fairly significant about bidder's hand -- game forcing values. Opener's rebid is not a relay either, because while it is artificial it actually carries substantial information about opener's hand (i.e. if opener bid 2♦ always or "almost always" it might be a relay, but here 2♦ shows something specific and less than half opener's hands will qualify). So the first relay is responder's second bid, which carries no real information about responder's hand other than what's already known (GF values) and maybe some pretty vague negative inferences about not breaking relay. However, this is not a relay system because the first relay is after opener's rebid.

I've played against methods where 2♣ is artificial GF much like you describe in general chart events at nationals, and asked some national-level directors about it receiving basically the above response.

On to your 2♦ method, the issue is that your best fit will fairly often not be in opener's major suit. If you have a big minor suit fit, finding it will lead you to a better partial and quite possibly a nice game contract that you might otherwise miss bidding 1M-2♦-2M. I've seen people play this as "any invite" (for example I think it is part of Marshall Miles' unbalanced diamond system) but it doesn't seem to me that this works too well. I'd rather play 2♦ as natural and invitational-plus, with opener rebidding 2M on non-fitting minimums. This allows you to use it sometimes as a two-card limit raise (with side diamonds), but it also helps with: (1) diamond invite hands (2) hands where you have a real diamond fit you find it rather than having to play 2M on a 5-2 (3) two-suited minor invites, which can be hard to bid in other methods (4) certain kinds of fitting slam tries where knowledge of a nice side diamond suit in dummy may be key to a slam decision.

[straube]

awm, on 2011-March-08, 17:24, said:

The ACBL definition of "relay system" is a sequence of relays started prior to opener's rebid, as stated above. What this doesn't include is the definition of a relay.

My understanding from correspondence with ACBL and discussion with directors is that a relay involves making the cheapest call available in a way that says nothing (or nearly nothing) about the bidder's hand. The 2♣ game forcing call mentioned here is not a relay, because: (1) it is not the cheapest call (2) it says something fairly significant about bidder's hand -- game forcing values. Opener's rebid is not a relay either, because while it is artificial it actually carries substantial information about opener's hand (i.e. if opener bid 2♦ always or "almost always" it might be a relay, but here 2♦ shows something specific and less than half opener's hands will qualify). So the first relay is responder's second bid, which carries no real information about responder's hand other than what's already known (GF values) and maybe some pretty vague negative inferences about not breaking relay. However, this is not a relay system because the first relay is after opener's rebid.

I've played against methods where 2♣ is artificial GF much like you describe in general chart events at nationals, and asked some national-level directors about it receiving basically the above response.

On to your 2♦ method, the issue is that your best fit will fairly often not be in opener's major suit. If you have a big minor suit fit, finding it will lead you to a better partial and quite possibly a nice game contract that you might otherwise miss bidding 1M-2♦-2M. I've seen people play this as "any invite" (for example I think it is part of Marshall Miles' unbalanced diamond system) but it doesn't seem to me that this works too well. I'd rather play 2♦ as natural and invitational-plus, with opener rebidding 2M on non-fitting minimums. This allows you to use it sometimes as a two-card limit raise (with side diamonds), but it also helps with: (1) diamond invite hands (2) hands where you have a real diamond fit you find it rather than having to play 2M on a 5-2 (3) two-suited minor invites, which can be hard to bid in other methods (4) certain kinds of fitting slam tries where knowledge of a nice side diamond suit in dummy may be key to a slam decision.

What's really driving this is that we don't like missing 13 opposite 12 games. We also don't like getting to 2N when we could stop at 1N or 2M.

How many diamonds would you require for 1M-2D?