GNAT, Deerfly, Blackfly (some such)

[rbforster]

non-game-forcing relay systems are difficult to play on the general chart because most responses to openings which are artificial and not game forcing are disallowed. So in many cases getting that first "invitational or better, artificial" call in there violates regulations.

I agree with Adam on the practical nature of playing relays under GCC - if you can get the first bid in legally (via 1NT forcing, or 1♣-1♦ (all purpose forcing), etc), you can probably continue with an artificial ask on responder's next rebid without any trouble.

 

It seems like you can reduce the overload [of 1M-1N] by moving some of these hands into a 2♣ response.

I have been thinking about this issue as well, and tend to agree with Adam on this point as well. In some sense, I think that using 1M-2♣ NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

 

It seems like splitting some of the hands out of 1NT and into 2♣ could help separate things. To keep it simple, you might have among others a wide range of club hands bid 2♣ F1 instead of 1NT. This could easily include the weak and invitational long club hands (opener could bid an artificial 2♦ over 2♣ to show game interest), letting both of these hand types stop in 3♣. Like I said earlier, I think working out a good system after the 1M-1N... relays would the an important part of this, and once you see what things are problem hand types in those methods you could consider moving some of them to 2♣ (instead of 1N).

[joshs]

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

 

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

 

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

 

Here's the rebid schedule after

 

1♠ - 1N

2♣ - 2♦

 

2♥ = three hearts or a strong doubleton

2♠ = minimum hand lesser Hearts

2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness

3♣ = 5-5 in the black suits

3♦ = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

 

2♦ does not force 2♥. Therefore, 2♦ is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

 

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

[cherdano]

Richard, I think you should accept that "relay" isn't a mathematical definition. Thus you should accept that your sequence 1S `1N 2D (which probably shows any GF hand except a few relay breaks or a couple of hands with a bid spade fit) is a relay because it shows "nothing" about responder's hand, whereas a Bart 2♦, which is one of typically three well-defined hands (5 hearts, or good hand with a doubleton spade, or a good hand with a club fit), is not a relay.

 

If you want to turn "A relay is a bid that only asks about partners hand and shows nothing about your hand" into a mathematical definition then you probably should say s.th. like "A bid with no more than 0.3 bits of information" but this is bridge not mathematics, nobody else would like that definition.

[hrothgar]

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

 

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

 

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

 

Here's the rebid schedule after

 

1♠ - 1N

2♣ - 2♦

 

2♥ = three hearts or a strong doubleton

2♠ = minimum hand lesser Hearts

2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness

3♣ = 5-5 in the black suits

3♦ = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

 

2♦ does not force 2♥. Therefore, 2♦ is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

 

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

According to the notes, the 2♦ is described an artificial bid. It can be made on any number of hand types

 

I agree that people don't normally refer to the 2♦ as a relay (probably because they don't want to run afoul of system regulations). However, it is functionally identical to a relay...

 

2♦ is an artificial bid that asks partner to describe their hand. Yes, there are some negative inferences available, but this holds equally true of other relays.

[joshs]

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

 

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

 

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

 

Here's the rebid schedule after

 

1♠ - 1N

2♣ - 2♦

 

2♥ = three hearts or a strong doubleton

2♠ = minimum hand lesser Hearts

2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness

3♣ = 5-5 in the black suits

3♦ = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

 

2♦ does not force 2♥. Therefore, 2♦ is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

 

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

According to the notes, the 2♦ is described an artificial bid. It can be made on any number of hand types

 

I agree that people don't normally refer to the 2♦ as a relay (probably because they don't want to run afoul of system regulations). However, it is functionally identical to a relay...

 

2♦ is an artificial bid that asks partner to describe their hand. Yes, there are some negative inferences available, but this holds equally true of other relays.

If 2D was truely an ART bid that did not describe there hand but requests for partner to describe his hand (which is not the way anyone I know plays it), and if 1N was also an ART bid that did not describe their hand (again if 1N was limited to below game force values you might claim it did describe the point range if not shape) then I would agree that this is a relay sequence. Of course no one plays it this way....

[jtfanclub]

It seems like you can reduce the overload [of 1M-1N] by moving some of these hands into a 2♣ response.

I have been thinking about this issue as well, and tend to agree with Adam on this point as well. In some sense, I think that using 1M-2♣ NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

I think this is silly, which probably proves my ignorance.

 

Think of the set of hands that you want to include in 2♣. Suppose opener has a 4-1-3-5 9 or 10 count. What percentage of hands would partner's passing your 2♣ bid be bad?

 

It doesn't have to be a narrow bid. Responder could have a 2-4-4-3 12 count, and it's still probably the right place to play (given that you can't play 1NT). You can have a huge variety of hands in the 2♣ response and have it be nonforcing, and with 3NT over 1 spade being to play, that narrows down the number of game forcing calls even further.

 

There are a number of reasons why I like 2♣ to be nonforcing.

 

1) Guarantees that it isn't a relay. If you respond to 1♠ with 2♣ with a 2-4-4-3 12 count and it's a 1RF, your opponents may gripe about it.

 

2) It makes the opening rebids natural and easy to remember.

 

3) My personal pet peeve, it doesn't make two bids with identical descriptions. You can't just describe 1NT and 2♣ as a one round force. If 2♣ promises 3+ clubs, does 1NT deny 3+ clubs? If 2♣ denies spade support, does 1NT promise it? As far as I'm concerned, if you can't explain which bids go in 1NT and which go into 2♣, that shouldn't be legal even in Superchart. And if the answer is that they set up different rebids to describe your hands...well, isn't that the definition of a relay system?

 

If 2♣ means a hand that wishes to play in 2♣ across a minimum 4-1-3-5, and 1NT is a hand that does not wish to play in 2 clubs across that hand, that's a pretty clean dichotomy. I can separate out very nicely in my head which hands would bid 2♣ and which would bid 1NT. The question is, can you describe your 1NT and 2♣ bids so that they have a similar perfect split?

 

Now, it might be better to have the 1NT be the nonforcing bid and 2♣ be the forcing one. Unfortunately, in GCC there is an explicit allowance for forcing NT, and not for 2♣. Oh well.

[rbforster]

In some sense, I think that using 1M-2♣ NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

Think of the set of hands that you want to include in 2♣... You can have a huge variety of hands in the 2♣ response and have it be nonforcing

I'm thinking of a much wider range of hands than your 1(34)5 8-12 counts. Just imagine every hand in 2/1 that starts by bidding 1♠-2♣ for example. I'd consider possibly including all of these

 

x xxx xxx KQJTxx (weak long clubs)

x Kx Qxx AQJxxxx (invite with long good clubs)

- Axx KQxx AKQxxxx (slam invitational with good clubs)

Qx AQxx xx AKxxx (GF with clubs and a side suit)

Kxx Ax Qxx KQxxx (GF with clubs and support)

xx Axx AKxxx Qxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary diamonds)

x AQJxxxx Ax xxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary hearts)

Qx xxx AKJx KJxx (GF balanced, but with an unstopped suit)

etc

 

Basically long clubs from moderate strength up, any GF unbalanced hand with 3+♣s, or any GF balanced hand worried about an open suit for NT. Since 2♣ would be forcing and the weak options are willing to play 3♣, opener gets 5 rebids (2♦-3♣) to show aspects of his hand that will help clarify his shape/values and assist in determining the correct strain opposite a wide range of GF'ing hands.

 

I'm not saying one should include ALL of these GF hands, but you could legally (since clubs is naturally bid) and might want to. Why? The reason I think this could be useful is that there isn't much space after you establish a GF when you go through the forcing NT since there are so many invitational and weakish hands to show. For example, let's suppose we have the auction

 

1♠-1NT(f)-2♦ natural. Responses will be something like

 

Pass - weak semi-balanced, preference for ♦

2♥ - artificial GF relay (not needed as weak since 2♥ direct was NF)

2♠ - weak semi-balanced, preference for ♠

2NT - natural and invitational

3♣ - ? GF something special (since invitational club hands response 2♣ not 1NT)

3♦ - natural raise, invitational

3♥ - natural, invitational with long hearts

3♠ - 3 card invitational spade raise

3NT - natural, to play

 

As you can see, there aren't too many "free" bids (shown in bold above) in response to opener's rebid available to show GF hands. You've got 3NT natural for appropriate balanced hands without extras, one relay bid with the cheapest new suit (which might be as high as 3♣), and maybe another 3 level bid or two depending on how cheap opener's rebid is. Trying to cram every unbalanced GF into either 1NT...3NT or 1NT...(GF relay) while still finding the right strain and level seems like a hard problem. Playing 1♠-2♣ as forcing can help with this.

 

There are a number of reasons why I like 2♣ to be nonforcing.

 

1)  Guarantees that it isn't a relay.  If you respond to 1♠ with 2♣ with a 2-4-4-3 12 count and it's a 1RF, your opponents may gripe about it. 

Under GCC 2♣ would either have to be one of: natural 3+ (could be any values), or GF values (could be any shape). Opponents often gripe at me for playing weird things, and I don't let this stop me certainly not when it's legal! :P

 

2) It makes the opening rebids natural and easy to remember.

Well if you're willing to play a system where you put almost all your GF's into 1NT forcing, I guarantee you'll have to remember a bunch of complex continuations. Those to 2♣ will be no different, but hopefully you can split the complexity between the two responses in a way that gets your hands described effectively without getting too high in either case.

 

3)  My personal pet peeve, it doesn't make two bids with identical descriptions.  You can't just describe 1NT and 2♣ as a one round force.  If 2♣ promises 3+ clubs, does 1NT deny 3+ clubs? 

Obviously it makes no sense to have both 1NT and 2♣ serve as a "forcing NT" bid. I'm not sure what split of hands you ideally want between the two, but once I figure it out, I'd certainly be happy to explain it to the opps in as much detail as they want. Maybe 1NT = "forcing, could be GF'ing," or in more detail "forcing, including constructive semibalanced hands, single suited ♦ or ♥ invitations, 3 card limit raises, GF balanced, or GF ♥♦ two suiters". In contrast, 2♣ would be "3+ clubs, constructive or better values, many hand types," or in more detail "constructive+ values with long clubs, GF single suited in any suit, or any slam invitational or better hand with 3+ clubs."

 

Now, it might be better to have the 1NT be the nonforcing bid and 2♣ be the forcing one.  Unfortunately, in GCC there is an explicit allowance for forcing NT, and not for 2♣. 

I actually think that the extra space you get from having 1NT forcing makes it the better choice for a forcing bid (even if it means you can't play in 1NT), but I think it's probably better to make both of them forcing to have more options for dialogue between partners during the bidding. In a midchart context, you could play Kaplan Interchange which might help some since it moves your legal "forcing NT" bid down one to 1♠ over 1♥ which might give enough extra space to work out all or at least more of the GF hand types. Playing 1♥-2♣ as NF makes a lot more sense than 1♠-2♣ NF, but that's for kind of complicated reasons (ask me if you care).

[akhare]

Sounds very interesting.

 

I have always meant to ask about the frequency of the 3C/3D/3H (6+ with 3 card support for opened suit) bids over a 1M opening. It seems that given that these bids rarely come up, it might be much better to use them for a different purpose.

 

What are opener's rebids over 1N forcing? I suppose the worst hands will be the ones with clubs and a major because 2♣ will likely show a balanced hand (unless all 5332 hands are opened 1N perforce).

[jtfanclub]

1) Opponents often gripe at me for playing weird things, and I don't let this stop me certainly not when it's legal!  ;)

I guess I'm not convinced this is legal. I'm also not convinced I see the point.

 

Take the hand x AQJxxxx Ax xxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary hearts)

 

You're going to have to have a bid for

x AQJxxxx Axx xx,

xx AQJxxxx Ax xx, and

x AQJxxxxx Ax xx

 

But you can't legally put either of those in 2 clubs- 2 clubs can mean 3+ clubs, or it can mean GF, but it can't mean "3+ clubs or GF". So where are you putting those bids, and why can't you put the example hand with them?

 

1♠-1NT-2♦-3♣ can be used for all of:

 

Qx AQxx xx AKxxx (GF with clubs and a side suit)

Kxx Ax Qxx KQxxx (GF with clubs and support)

- Axx KQxx AKQxxxx (slam invitational with good clubs)

 

You've got the space left to differentiate.

 

Now this one is interesting....

Qx xxx AKJx KJxx (GF balanced, but with an unstopped suit)

 

I've always just blown these to 3NT, but I don't know that it's a good method to use.

[rbforster]

Having thought a little more about this, I like the 2/1 NF idea for red suits, but 2♣ as natural F1 with the invitational and GF club hands (including 5/4+ 2 suiters with clubs and another possibly longer other suit). This seems good for a couple of reasons -

 

1) Opener is very likely to have club length opposite a 1NT forcing bid, and thus often rebid a natural 2♣. Responder then has a very efficient GF relay with 2♦, and both 2♥ and 3♥ will be available to describe the invitational and certain GF heart hands.

 

The reason opener is likely to have clubs is that when responder isn't balanced, the only club hand responder can have is a weak signoff with long clubs (1♠-1NT-2X-3♣ to play). All other 1- and 2-suiters with invitational or better strength will have red suits since these corresponding hands with clubs would bid a direct 2♣.

 

2) Most of the hands bidding 1♠-2♣ will be GF'ing, meaning you can start your game/slam explorations at a lower level than if you had to go through a forcing NT and bid clubs naturally at the 3 level. Just reserve your 3♣ rebid as invitational, and keep opener's responses at or below 3♣ whenever he doesn't have extra values and everything should work out.

 

3) Separating the weak and invitational club hands (in 1NT and 2♣ respectively) means you can handle long club 2-suiters effectively (e.g. 4♥6+♣). The heart fit won't be lost since both auctions stay low initially (unlike playing 1♠-3♣ invitational) and allow opener a chance to show his hearts. This is nice since the 3♣ rebid in both sequences 1♠-1NT/2♣-2♥-3♣ can show different values based on whether the first bid was 1NT or 2♣. In normal 2/1, with 4♥6♣ you're stuck with either the weak or invitational strength on this shape since you have to start with a forcing NT but your 3♣ rebid is either weak or invitational (meaning it may be unsafe to bid 1NT in the first place if you've got the wrong one, or you'll have to fudge a 2NT invite with a very unbalanced hand).

 

I'll have some time off work this coming week and maybe I'll see if I can't work something out for this in more detail.

[hrothgar]

Here's another possible response structure over the 1M openings:

 

Using this structure would eliminate relays over 1M and (optionally) would allow some balanced hand patterns to be placed back in the 1M opening. The down side is that it would require that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT.

 

If I were to use this structure, I'd ditch including the strong hand types in the 1NT response. I don't think there would be that significant a gain in constructive bidding and there would be a significant increase in memory load.

 

Over 1♠:

 

4♦ = Splinter

4♣ = Splinter

3N = to play

3♠ = Value raise (4+ Spades)

3♥ = Strong jump shift

3♦ = Strong jump shift

3♣ = Strong jump shift

2N = Limit raise

2♠ = Value raise (4+ Spades)

2♥ = 5+ Hearts

2♦ = Neopolitan style, 3+ Diamonds

2♣ = Neopolitan style, 3+ Clubs

1N = Natural and non forcing

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 3♥

 

is a canape reverse in Hearts

3+ Diamonds and 5+ Hearts GF values

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 4♣

 

Slam invite with 4+ Spades

Club control, No Diamond control

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 4♦

 

Slam invite with 4+ Spades. Either

first round control of both C+D or

second round control of both C+D

[han]

The goal is to create something that is

 

1. Fun

2. Legal

...

Another paradox?

[the hog]

The goal is to create something that is

 

1.  Fun

2.  Legal

...

Another paradox?

Paradox or oxymoron?

[glen]

Just combine and get fugal (no, this is not yet defined in the urban dictionary)

[helene_t]

Just combine and get fugal (no, this is not yet defined in the urban dictionary)

Derived from Latin "fuga" (flight). "Fugal" is the adjective form of "fugue", which means, a.o.:

 

2.  Psychiatry: A pathological amnesiac condition during which one is apparently conscious of one's actions but has no recollection of them after returning to a normal state. This condition, usually resulting from severe mental stress, may persist for as long as several months.

 

Fugal bridge is probably something to strive for: "Focus on the current board, not the previous one".

[akhare]

The goal is to create something that is

 

1.  Fun

2.  Legal

...

Another paradox?

Paradox or oxymoron?

I vote for oxymoron. Although in the case of ACBL, such a quest might qualify for quixotic as well :)...

[Al_U_Card]

Abstruse, anyone?

 

"Look THAT up in your Funk & Wagnall's!"

 

Dick Martin, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in, circa '69

[akhare]

Abstruse, anyone?

You are spot on if you are referring to ACBL policies regarding system regulations :)...

[the hog]

Abstruse, anyone?

 

"Look THAT up in your Funk & Wagnall's!"

 

Dick Martin, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in, circa '69

Here come de judge, here come de judge, everybody say now here come de judge.

[hrothgar]

Tim and I spent a couple hours testing GNAT in the practice bidding room yesterday evening. Based on our experience, I’ve already implemented one critical system change. I also think (hope?) that we might be slowly converging on a reasonable 4 card major based light opening system.

 

The most critical change is that we’re moving balanced hands with 11+ - 12 HCP from the 1NT opening to 1M. This will significantly decrease the frequency that we pass out 1NT when we have a 4-4 or 5-3 major suit fit available.

 

To compensate for this change, a 1N response to a 1M opening is now semi-forcing. Opener will pass any time he holds a minimum strength balanced hand.

 

We’re also adopting an artificial 2M – 1 rebid by responder (when available) to show a flat 3 card limit raise

 

1♠ – 1N

2♣ – 2♥

 

is game invitational with 3 Spades

 

1♥ – 1N

2♣ – 2♦

 

is game invitational with 3 Hearts

 

If the 2M - 1 bid isn't available, we might be forced to rebid 2M +1

 

1♥ - 1N

2♦ - 2♠

 

is a game invite with 3 spades

 

1♠ - 1N

2♥ - 2N

 

is an invite to 3N (and might include 3 Spades)

[Tcyk]

So... I'm vaguely considering creating a GCC legal MOSCITO variant. The goal is to create something that is

 

1. Fun

2. Legal

3. Minimal memory load

4. Reasonably effective (give the constraints of the GCC)

 

Here's the current thinking

 

(All three suited hands are opened either 1♦ or 1♥)

(All balanced hands are opened 1NT)

 

2N = 5+ Clubs and 5+ Diamonds (~ 7 - 11 HCP)

2♠ = 6+ Spades, single suited (~ 8- 11 HCP)

2♥ = Two suited with both majors (~ 11 - 14 HCP)

2♦ = 6+ Diamonds, (~8-11 HCP)

2♣ = 6+ Clubs (~ 9 - 14 HCP)

1N = 11+ - 14 balanced

1♠ = 4+ Spades, unbalanced, might have a longer minor (~9-14)

1♥ = 4+ Hearts, unbalanced, might have a longer minor (~9-14)

1♦ = 4+ Diamonds, unbalanced (~9-14 HCP)

1♣ = Strong art forcing

 

Over 1♠

 

4H/4D/4C = Splinters

3N = To play

3♠ = Value raise

3H/3D/3C = Fit jump (6+ in bid suit, 3 card trump support)

2N = Limit+ with 4 pieces

2S = value raise

2D = natural and non forcing

2C = natural and non-forcing

1N = forcing

I have read this entire discussion (to date) and I think it is interesting.

 

First, I want to point out that objects 3 and 4 are contradictory. Minimum memory and reasonably effective just don't belong together. A "system" is much more than just an opening bid and a response and a few gadgets. Many who say they play 2/1 or SAYC think they are playing a system but they aren't. What they are playing is very incomplete. Hrothgar only has to look at his own Moscito book to recognize what a "system" is. I recommend that everyone read John Montgomery's book, "Revision" which is available on Daniel's systems page, http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/ It gives a great insight to some modern conventions, how they inter-mesh with each other, and the direction that modern expert bridge is heading.

 

Second. It is interesting that 2/1 responses whether game forcing or non-forcing don't come up near as often as you might think. In John Montgomery's book, he states that in almost 800 deals in world championship play there were only 33 deals that qualified for either a forcing or non-forcing 2/1 response. He said that in 30 of these deals either method would have ended with the same result, 1 GF system would do better and 2 NF system would do better than the other. Evidently it makes little difference which method you use as long as you know your methods.

 

Third. I think it would be great if you could incorporate Frelling 2-bids as limited 2-level opening bids (with the strength required for a limited Moscito opening bid). I'd be willing to give up weak two bids. If 2-level transfer openings are allowed they could be like Boomerang 2-bids except the same suits would be shown whether weak or strong.

 

Fourth, I am a certified director but I took the test in 1978. I asked ACBL if I was still a certified director. They said yes. It hardly seems right that someone that hasn't directed a game in over 25 years should still be certified. I need to go back and relearn the laws. I will never be an expert even though I have a good memory. Being able to remember a complex system helps but is not a substitute for good judgment (and a little luck) at the bridge table.

[RogerGe]

try this one:

i do not find the polish club a very good variation of the Blue Team Club system and by the way, SAYC is in fact 99% the standard ITALIAN system !

my friend, Flaviu DR re-developed the Blue Team Club system adding some very sound variations and modern day conventions. I did work on a presentation in Power Point Viewer 2007 (i dont have enough knowledge in programing to do it in another program) which i am sure can help anybody trough its interactive facilities to understand the system and to memorize its mechanism. i can e-mail it free to anybody intrested: its not 100% completed and i would like some feed back.

e-mail a request at:

gdumites@bigpond.net.au