2/1 responses in relay system

[glen]

How does a 1NT GF relay change the need to stretch (i.e. Josh's "passing is terrible"), aside from perhaps making it harder to do so?

[han]

Josh, while I suppose you are right (if only because you are a much better bridge player than I) I have an issue with your argument. Innovation comes from people like JTF who are crazy enough to challenge conventional wisdom. They are wrong most of the time but when they are right it is actually interesting that they are right (if it is ever discovered that they are).

Innovation in any field comes from experts who challenge conventional wisdom, not from people like JTF. What you are saying is nice but nonsense and you know it.

[jdonn]

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay.

I think he is talking about hands with 7-10 and short spades. That is not what I would call "all kinds of trash".

[awm]

So far I like Glen's suggestion of making the cheapest suit possibly three cards (and other suits five plus and NF, but could be invitational). The other approach that seems sensible is (apparently) the original symmetric relay approach where the cheapest two new suits are 4+ cards and basically forcing. Basically it's the difference between playing a 5/5/3/3 style versus a 5/4/4/3 style in response.

[akhare]

♠How about something along these lines that remains within the confines of the GCC -- keep in mind that this is just off the top of my head:

 

1♣ = 15+

1♦ = 5+♠

1♥ = 5+♥

1♠ = Exactly 4 with longer minor

1N = 11-14

2♣ = 10-14 with possibly 4♥

2♦ = 10-14 with possibly 4♥

 

Over 1♦, responder relays with 1♥ and opener can clarify min/max at the 1 level. 1♠ is to play and 1N is blah, with 2/1 bids NF.

 

Over 1♥, 1N relays ('forcing"):

 

2♣ = natural min, or any max hand -> 2♦ continues relay

2♦/2♥ = natural min hand -> 2♠ continues relay

 

Over 1♠, 1N asks, then:

2♣/2♦ = natural min

2H/2♠ = max with ♣/♦

 

Granted, it isn't exactly symmetric, but still retains most of the principles...

[jtfanclub]

JT I mean this as honest advice rather than pointless criticism, since I have a little of the same quality myself. You waste a lot of time forming and arguing for your own opinions that go against what everyone else in the universe believes, until someone can literally prove them wrong to you. When 100% of bridge players of virtually all levels do something, you should probably just accept that it's right instead of arguing against it.

Well, if I'm misunderstanding, then I'm misunderstanding, and I apologize.

 

However, my understanding was that when using 1NT as a GF relay here, what we were discussing (passing with less than enough HCP to invite game and no fit) was standard for the system. So the OP is recommending changing the system, and I'm saying that I can see some merit in not changing it.

 

Now, if I've misunderstood, feel free to slap me on the head and send me off in the right direction. But if I'm right, then I'm in favor of keeping the system the way it is, so I can't be alone on this.

 

As somebody pointed out later, CC Wei originally went with this plan, so it's not just people like me who have this idea. But then, he changed it later. So does that mean it's bad for regular Precision? I think so. Does that mean that it's bad for the GF Relay Precision? I don't know.

 

Most of the time when I form arguments that go across the field, it's not that I think the field is wrong. I just don't understand what the field is saying. Usually if I make a counter-argument, and I put some time into it, somebody will dumb it down enough that I'll understand the why (and not just the what). If I just ask why, I get the "because everybody says so" answer, and then I can't extrapolate.

 

We get an awful lot of threads here where somebody asks a question and we get 17 posts that say 3♥ or whatever. But they weren't asking about this one-in-635 billion hand. So if it's of interest to me, I might say "I think it should be 2♥, because of this." And I'll get an answer back of "well, maybe in HCP, but in trick value it's worth a lot more", or "that's not what 2♥ means" or "actually, nothing wrong with 2♥, it's a borderline case", or something like that. And then, well, I've actually learned something. I can certainly accept that 2♥ was the wrong answer before, but if I don't state my objection I never learn why it's wrong. I certainly am not doing it because I think I'm going to convince all 17 of you that I'm right!

 

But in this case, I just thought that the system said A, and other people thought B was better, so I was trying to make the case in favor of A. So if I was arguing something other than in favor of what was systemic (for the system), I apologize.

[Cascade]

We just play new suits are natural and non-forcing they go from anything that you think is worth a bid up to full blown invitational hands. They show four-card or longer suits. Since they are reasonably constructive we strive to find another bid over the 2/1s.

 

We play 1M 1NT as GF relay and the limited openings are 10-15 - but I have finally found a system in which I can be conservative as I found over the weekend that I passed a number of 10 counts - especially 5-4-2-2s and 5M-3-3-2s vulnerable.

 

I have also played that 1M 2♣ was either natural or an invitational balanced hand.

[ASkolnick]

Along the lines of NT forcing, and this is General Chart legal:

 

We play a version using a ZARS count, with canape openers and major suits are between 4-5 in length.

 

1) a NT is forcing and can be one of 3 hands

a) GF with new suit

:lol: Invitational is suit is raised

c) Drop dead as normal.

 

2) 2 over 1 is constructive (7-10) and non-forcing.

 

So auctions, 1S-1N-2C-2D (GF)

1S-1N-2C-2S (Inv)

1S-1N-2D-P (To play)

 

But since we have quite limited openings to both value and shape, we can play this. This has been verified as GCC legal with Sol Weinstein. You do lose out on those 5-7 count 6 card hands, but lifes rough.

 

As for what relays are legal, I do not know.

[Echognome]

I'm quite late to this thread, but these are an important and useful area for use within any relay system. Gnome club had a similar structure with 5cM and here's what we used.

 

1♥ - ?

 

1♠ - Natural, F1, almost always less than GF

1NT - GF relay

2♣ - Any invite with <3♥ and <4♠ and doesn't fit 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ below

2♦ - 3+♥, INV+

2♥ - <invitational, 3-4 card support

2♠ - Mini-splinter for hearts (unknown shortness), <invitational

2NT - Both Minors, invitational

3♣/♦ - Invitational Jump shift, <3♥

3♥ - Preempt

3♠ - Fit jump (alternatively have used this as splinter)

3NT - Good preempt to 4♥

4♣/♦ - Fit jump (alternatively have used this as splinter)

4♥ - To Play (typical 1M - 4M in precision)

 

1♠ responses are similar but we lose the 2NT both minors bid and replace it with the unknown mini-splinter. So 1M - 2M-1 is the invite with 3-4 card support and 1M - 2M+1 is the mini-splinter. Also, we gained 1♠ - 2♦ which we use to show 5+♥, <Invitational. If the hand is really bad, then we show 6+♥ (that way opener can break with 3-card support and 6-3 hands.

 

1♥ - 2♦ - ?

 

2♥ Any minimum

2♠ Game try with unknown shortness

2NT Long suit game try with spades

3♣/♦ Long suit game try

3♥ Game try with bad trumps

 

1♥ - 2♦ - 2♥ - ?

 

2♠ Game try with unknown shortness

Etc as above.

 

Note the symmetry with the direct and indirect use of 2M+1. Very easy on the memory.

[Apollo81]

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

 

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]

2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts

2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit

2♠: regular single raise

2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite

3x: invitational jump shift

3♠: 4-card limit raise

 

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise. Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

[Apollo81]

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

 

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]

2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts

2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit

2♠: regular single raise

2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite

3x: invitational jump shift

3♠: 4-card limit raise

 

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise.  Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

FWIW (likely nothing), here are 16 random hands with this system, where opener was constrained to have 10-14 HCP with 5-6♠ and responder was constrained to have 0-13 HCP with 0-2♠:

 

1.

Q10xxx

Kxx

xx

AQJ

 

-

Jxxx

ATxxxx

xxx

 

1s-2c-2d-p

 

 

2.

AKQTx

QJT

J

xxxx

 

xx

Axxx

xx

AKxxx

 

several possible sequences

a. 1s-2c-2[d,s]-2n-?

b. 1s-2h-?

 

in a. opener could either bid 2d allowing a pass or choose to rebid the strong spades, after the 2n bid it's probably useful to have some agreements....maybe suits show shortness? opener could also bid 3h natural, having denied 4 already

 

in b. opener's 3d is probably a superaccept, which he could bid. not sure what to do after that

 

 

3.

KJ98xx

Kxx

Axx

x

 

x

QJT9xxx

KJx

Ax

 

1s-3h-4h

 

 

4.

KJ9xxx

Axx

x

QJx

 

T

K9x

QJxxx

Kxxx

 

1s-2d-2s-p

 

 

5.

ATxxx

x

Qxx

KJxx

 

xx

K9xx

AJT9x

Tx

 

1s-2c-2d-p

 

this lets responder play in 2M if opener is fitting and 2d otherwise

 

 

6.

ATxxx

QT9

Ax

QT9

 

Qx

Kxxxx

T9xx

Ax

 

a. 1s-2c-2d-2h-p

b. 1s-2d-2s?-p

 

not sure which of these sequences is better; a. is lucky here but could land the partnership in a 5-1 fit; b. seems more normal but opener has no good rebid here; both a. and b. find 6-2 spade fits and 5-4 heart fits

 

7.

AQT9x

K9x

Kxxx

9

 

xx

xxx

AT9x

KTxx

 

1s-2d-p

 

 

8.

AQTxx

Axx

x

K9xx

 

9x

Jxx

Q9

AJTxxx

 

1s-2c-2d-3c-4c-p

 

 

9.

AQTxx

9

9

ATxxxx

 

xx

Qxxx

KJxx

QJx

 

1s-2d-3c-p

 

 

10.

J9xxx

Qx

KT

KQTx

 

T

Kxxx

AQ9xxx

xx

 

1s-2c-2d-p

 

 

11.

AKJxx

QJ9xx

xxx

-

 

Qx

Kxx

KQJxx

Jxx

 

1s-2c-2h-2n-3h-4h

 

 

12.

AQTxx

x

KQ9xx

Jx

 

x

Q9xx

ATxx

KT9x

 

1s-2d-p

 

 

13.

K9xxxx

x

A

AJTxx

 

AJ

Q9x

Txxx

Kxxx

 

1s-2d-2s-3s-?

 

presumably 4c is natural here; if opener bid that then the partnership might reach 5c rather than 4s (I think 6c is doubtful)

 

 

14.

A9xxx

xx

AQTxx

x

 

xx

AKTx

J9x

T9xx

 

1s-2d-p

 

15.

AK9xx

Q9xxx

Qxx

-

 

Jx

Jx

Axx

KQJxxx

 

1s-3c-?

 

i dont have enough experience with IJS to state whether opener should pass or bid 3h

 

 

16.

KQ9xx

Axxx

xx

Kx

 

xx

xx

A9xxx

ATxx

 

1s-2d-2h-2s-p

[Apollo81]

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

 

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]

2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts

2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit

2♠: regular single raise

2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite

3x: invitational jump shift

3♠: 4-card limit raise

 

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise.  Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

Also could make 2n "any weak JS", send the 13(45) invites thru 2c...2n, and then you also have the option to bid 2c...3x on an inv js hand if you're curious whether pard has 6 spades or 4 hearts

[awm]

I don't think Noble's examples are necessarily that convincing. It seems like at times responder is selecting a convenient bid that happens to work out. Some issues:

 

4. What does opener bid over 2♦ with 5323 or with 5♠/4♣? It seems like 2♦ doesn't promise diamonds, just a pass of a 2♦ rebid, so passing 2♦ on 1-2♦ is kind of weird. But if opener would very frequently rebid 2♠ with only five of them, reaching the 5-1 fit at the two level is not a success either.

 

5. It seems evident that opener will sometimes bid 2♦ over 1♠-2♣ holding a singleton diamond; in fact this is even mentioned as a possibility on hand 2 and you had opener do it on hand 8. So are we really planning to "transfer to diamonds" and pass when holding two spades?

 

13. Does 2♠ really show six here? Did we not bid 2♠ on hand 6? We have decided to show this hand as a sub-invite by bidding 2♦; it seems 2♠ could be a 5(332) hand or 5♠-4♣ or 6♠. How does this hand now upgrade to an invite opposite what could be no fit, and how do we know to raise spades rather than look for clubs?

[Echognome]

I didn't put in our scheme after 1M - 2♣, although it is one of our more difficult sequences.

 

1♠ - 2♣ (note 3♥ or an IJS)

 

2♦ Any minimum (may have 4♥, 6♠), then:

--2♥ 4♥, NF, usually 1444, 14(35), or 04(54)

--2♠ Hx, NF

--2NT NF

--3♣ 6-card suit, not worth an IJS

--3♦ Same, but most would pass 2♦

2♥ 4+♥, Extras, GF

2♠ 6+♠, Extras, GF

2N 5♠, bal or semi-bal (may have 4m), Extras, GF

Higher Natural, GF

 

Similar after 1♥ - 2♣, except now 2♠ and higher are natural and GF.

[ASkolnick]

The problem with playing 2♣ any invitational is it is not legal in the GCC. I believe you can play it mid-chart, but I am not sure. If not, I would have used that for my bids.

 

It is true, there are certain hands you get screwed, but some bids are also "blocking" bids, since your opponent has the cards. With your 5 count, you don't always have to improve the contract.

 

Looking at the system I play. My auctions were almost the same except using 1N forcing, instead of 2♣

 

I agree my 4-5's may be distored a bit, since most of the time when I bid the minor it rates to be longer than the major, but one can look at the hand and say

 

Axxxx,J,Kxx,KQT9 and figure that bidding 1S-1N-2C is OK.

 

 

Only issues:

 

Bd 1: I am screwed. I can live with occasional casualties.

Bd 15: Probably overbid to 3N. Depends if he chooses to bid 2C NF const-invite or 1N forcing. Maybe get out in 2N if he decides not to show clubd with no fit.

[rbforster]

I was thinking some about the differences between 1♥-1NT (GF) and 1♠-1NT (GF) and the implications for the rest of your invitational hands. Wouldn't it make sense to play some sort of Kaplan-style inversion so that 1♥-1♠ became the GF and 1♥-1N was available as something else (spades?). Among other things, it would give the same level of relay resolution for both hearts and spades (whereas the 1♥-1N will be more cramped currently).

 

Along these lines...

 

I didn't put in our scheme after 1M - 2♣, although it is one of our more difficult sequences.

 

1♠ - 2♣ (not 3♥ or an IJS)

 

2♦ Any minimum (may have 4♥, 6♠), then:

--2♥ 4♥, NF, usually 1444, 14(35), or 04(54)

--2♠ Hx, NF

--2NT NF

--3♣ 6-card suit, not worth an IJS

--3♦ Same, but most would pass 2♦

2♥ 4+♥, Extras, GF

2♠ 6+♠, Extras, GF

2N 5♠, bal or semi-bal (may have 4m), Extras, GF

Higher Natural, GF

 

Similar after 1♥ - 2♣, except now 2♠ and higher are natural and GF.

Gnome - I notice that your 1♥-2♣ bid seems pretty narrowly defined, being an invite without

 

3♥ (else 2♦)

4♠ (else 1♠)

both minors (else 2N), or

a long good minor (else 3m)

 

This pretty much just leaves balanced hands - 3244 and 32(53), plus maybe some 6 card minors with poor suits and/or some xx(54)'s if you don't bid 2N with those. Do you think it would be too much of a stretch to include these hands in 1NT forcing and maybe leave a 2N rebid by responder as a natural invitation? I'm not sure what response structure you're playing over your 1M-1N GF relay, so I don't know if this would fit in well (for example if higher bids than 2N showed extras). If you did this, you could maybe include your IJS in clubs or both minors in 2♣ now (maybe even the IJS in diamonds?), and have more space to sort things out, as well as freeing up 3♣ and/or 2N for Bergen raises or something. I notice that your current scheme doesn't give you a mixed raise of opener and while 2♦ (3+♥s) is great for constructive bidding but 2♦ or 2♥ doesn't exactly shut out the spade-holding opponents when you've got a random 6 count with 1=4 majors as responder.

 

Of course over 1♠-2♣, I can see the point that you have hands with 4♥ that you want to be able to find the heart fit (basically all the 4 card 1♠ response shapes with swapped majors), so this covers a lot more ground than does the 1♥-2♣ bid.

[Echognome]

Gnome - I notice that your 1♥-2♣ bid seems pretty narrowly defined, being an invite without

 

3♥ (else 2♦)

4♠ (else 1♠)

both minors (else 2N), or

a long good minor (else 3m)

 

etc..

Rob,

 

I appreciate what you are saying. Note that including non GF hands into the relay makes it no longer midchart compliant. As far as I am aware, everything else I've described is midchart compliant. That means we can play the system in some F2F events. If I'm going to play a system that's not midchart, then I'd go for Echo Club instead of Gnome Club, which is my variant on Moscito (think something between TOSR and Moscito and you'll be close).

 

Also, I want to add that we're not all that excited that we have to pass non-fitting hands that are less than invitational. I consider this a loss in the system, but I just don't see a place to put them. Second, the 1M - 2♣ is pretty unwieldy unless narrowly defined. These are hands that in standard will often go 1M - 1N - 2m - ? So the room you lose might seem minimal (one step), but it really takes away opener's potential rebids. (You just have no place to show a minimum hand with 5M/4♣.) So we just alter things slightly and then tried to take as many hands out of the bid as possible. What may not be clear is that the 2NT showing the minors (and we pretty much reserve for 5-5) is only over 1♥ (since over ♠ it shows a mini-splinter). So over 1♥, the 2♣ bid is a LOT more well defined than over 1♠. However, we also can show 5♥ and a weak hand directly over 1♠ which is nice. Majors rule, minors drool... you know how it goes.

[joshs]

Gnome - I notice that your 1♥-2♣ bid seems pretty narrowly defined, being an invite without

 

3♥ (else 2♦)

4♠ (else 1♠)

both minors (else 2N), or

a long good minor (else 3m)

 

etc..

Rob,

 

I appreciate what you are saying. Note that including non GF hands into the relay makes it no longer midchart compliant. As far as I am aware, everything else I've described is midchart compliant. That means we can play the system in some F2F events. If I'm going to play a system that's not midchart, then I'd go for Echo Club instead of Gnome Club, which is my variant on Moscito (think something between TOSR and Moscito and you'll be close).

 

Also, I want to add that we're not all that excited that we have to pass non-fitting hands that are less than invitational. I consider this a loss in the system, but I just don't see a place to put them. Second, the 1M - 2♣ is pretty unwieldy unless narrowly defined. These are hands that in standard will often go 1M - 1N - 2m - ? So the room you lose might seem minimal (one step), but it really takes away opener's potential rebids. (You just have no place to show a minimum hand with 5M/4♣.) So we just alter things slightly and then tried to take as many hands out of the bid as possible. What may not be clear is that the 2NT showing the minors (and we pretty much reserve for 5-5) is only over 1♥ (since over ♠ it shows a mini-splinter). So over 1♥, the 2♣ bid is a LOT more well defined than over 1♠. However, we also can show 5♥ and a weak hand directly over 1♠ which is nice. Majors rule, minors drool... you know how it goes.

Well I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. There are many non-GF relays in bridge (stayman for instance). What was illegal in the midchart was a sequence of relay bids that do not promise game forcing values. Its sort of unclear what a sequence is in the definition, but its certainly not 1 bid.

 

So I see nothing wrong with

1S-1N(10+ HCP, any shape)-2C(any min)-2H(Non-forcing, about 10-12) in the midchart.

 

(Note: I have always interpreted GFing to mean forcing to 3N or higher, so stopping in 4m is ok, but that more based on general bridge principles then anything that is explictly written anywhere).

 

Aloso, on occasion, a sequence can technically be GFing, but a player gambles and passes. I don't think there is a problem with that.

 

Anyway, here is my system suggestion:

1H:

1S Forcing 1 round

1N:INV+ Relay

2C Any Min (2D=GF Relay, others NF)

2D+ GFing

2C: Constructive, both minors (4+4+)

2D: 5+D, NF

2H: Normal raise

3C: 6+C, NF

 

and I will leave it to the reader to figure out the other bids.

 

Over 1S things are more interesting:

1S-1N(INV+ Relay)

2C Any Min (2D=GFing relay)

2D+GFing

1S-2C: Constructive, 0-2 spades, usually 3+ cards in the other suits, but could be 1525 (will then correct 2D to 2H)

1S-2red: NF

1S-3C: 6+C, non-forcing

 

Now in this scheme the main problem is if opener is a min, and responder has an Invite with exactly 4 hearts you might lose a 4-4 heart fit over 1S-1N-2C.

 

Consequently, I think the rebid that shows side hearts over 1S-1N should not promise any extras, but thus needs to be either 2D or 2H so responder can bid 2N on up as INV.

[glen]

Well I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. There are many non-GF relays in bridge (stayman for instance). What was illegal in the midchart was a sequence of relay bids that do not promise game forcing values. Its sort of unclear what a sequence is in the definition, but its certainly not 1 bid.

 

...

1N:INV+ Relay

...

If you define 1NT as "INV+ Relay", which to TDs will mean "Relay" and "Invite or bettter", I promise you ACBL TDs will decide you are playing a "Relay" without GF values, and will not allow it in Mid-chart events. In other words, they will not agree with your "interpretation of the rules".

 

Edit: Here's a term that might produce another reaction: 1N: Waiting, Inv+. No TD, not a relay, just one of those waiting bids everybody uses. Oh, you read the non-natural & out-2-lunch BBO forum - I didn't know TDs did that

[joshs]

Well I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. There are many non-GF relays in bridge (stayman for instance). What was illegal in the midchart was a sequence of relay bids that do not promise game forcing values. Its sort of unclear what a sequence is in the definition, but its certainly not 1 bid.

 

...

1N:INV+ Relay

...

If you define 1NT as "INV+ Relay", which to TDs will mean "Relay" and "Invite or bettter", I promise you ACBL TDs will decide you are playing a "Relay" without GF values, and will not allow it in Mid-chart events. In other words, they will not agree with your "interpretation of the rules".

 

Edit: Here's a term that might produce another reaction: 1N: Waiting, Inv+. No TD, not a relay, just one of those waiting bids everybody uses. Oh, you read the non-natural & out-2-lunch BBO forum - I didn't know TDs did that

I repeat, relays are allowed, just not relay systems (defined as a sequence of relays) that do not promise a game force.

 

Can you tell me the difference between:

a. 1S-1N(Forcing, 5-11, any shape)

b. 1S-1N(Forcing, 12+ Any Shape)

c. 1S-1N(Forcing, 5+ Any Shape)

 

These bids are either all relays, or all not relays depending on whether you think the point count shown means its descriptive in some way. Or the negative inference of the hands that would bid something else provides significantly more definition (it provides some extra definition in each of these but not a lot)

 

Some people even play

d. 1S-1N(Forcing, 0+ Any Shape).... [Who amoung you has not bid 1N forcing on xxxx xxxx xxx xx over 1S?]

 

 

And just because a director might or might not know the rules (I sadly would bet against most of them) the main question is what the rules say. Our announcement of "Forcing" or "INV+Relay" shouldn't matter. If we announced forcing, but the bid really promised 10 HCP, its still not GCC legal (1N response can not guarantee Inv values), although don't get me started on that rule.

[rbforster]

True a "relay system" is a pretty poorly defined, perhaps impossibly defined creature, at least if you define relay breaks for both bidders. Surely a 2/1 GF auction isn't a "relay system" so why would it this be if both sides could make any bid except that we've assigned artificial (rather than natural) meanings to those? I think most people think of a relay system as one where (say) responder keeps making the cheapest bid and opener keeps making artificial descriptive bids, but good systems will also have at least somewhat useful and somewhat frequent meanings for responder's non-step rebids so then the cheapest step is really a specific sort of ask rather than a relay.

 

If we announced forcing, but the bid really promised 10 HCP, its still not GCC legal (1N response can not guarantee Inv values), although don't get me started on that rule.

As for the 1NT forcing not guaranteeing INV+ values, this doesn't take much creativity to avoid. Perhaps there is some hand that is willing to pass all of opener's minimum responses? Or maybe a weakish one suiter that is going to bid 4OM next time to play?

[benlessard]

in practice what is allowed (mid-chart) is that the first response can be artificial 6+ forcing "say like 1Nt forcing" and that your next relay is GF. What director wont allow you to play is 2 or 3 relays or waiting responses that dont show GF values or 0+ responses. After a strong C opening you can play whatever you want BTW.

 

What im 100% sure is that

 

1- after 1H opening play 1S as the relay and not 1Nt.

 

2- dont play light opening if you want to play 1NT as absolute GF, so when you say 10-14 its should be great 10 count with 2 aces & 6+ cards suit not overcall type of hands.

 

3- if you play superchart-- put non inv & non GF hands in your relay. Setting FP is nice but getting better partscore will be more important. Plus its tougher for the opponents to overcall.

 

1H--(pass)---1Nt-gf----(???) (here he can bid with crap just so that you dont relay)

 

1H-----1Nt (6+)----here he should overcall with sound values because it might be their hands.

 

4- its nice if your 1M openings are unbalanced. So if you are playing weak NT then 1Nt 12-14 with 5M possible & 1M opening as unbalanced is a better setup.

 

Our setup is

 

1H (12-14 or 18-22) 1S--- relay 6 +

???

 

1NT clubs 12-14 or jump shift strenght

2C diamonds 12-14 or jump shift strenght

2D 6H 12-14 or jump shift strenght

2H 5H + 4S 12-14

2S 5H +5S jump shift strenght (or 6H +4S 18-22 if you open 1S with 5-5)

2Nt 4522 jump shift strenght

3C 4513 jump shift strenght

3D 4531 jump shift strenght

rest is voids

[glen]

Certainly I like 1NT 6+, may be GF

 

1M-?

--1NT: 6+, forcing, less than GF will be flat or short in M with 3+ length in other 3 suits

---- after opener's rebid, cheapest bid by responder not M is artificial GF

---- pass, cheapest bid in M show less than an invite

---- raise of opener's last suit, jump to 3M, 2NT (if not artificial GF) are all invites

---- other bids, not including the artificial GF, are natural GF

 

--2X: 5 or longer, up to an invite, non-forcing

 

--2NT: natural invite, fewer than 4 in the other major

[awm]

I know a lot of people here love their 1NT response that shows any of three or more totally different hand types some of which are weak and some of which are strong. These kinds of bids seem nice when you're designing a bidding system in isolation, or when you play against opponents who always pass. But in real bridge, opponents tend to bid, especially when you are making nebulous calls that give virtually no information about shape or values. Even simple interference seems to be tough to deal with using these kinds of methods: take 1♥-P-1NT-2♠. If the 1NT bid could potentially be some 5-count without a real fit, you don't really want opener to be doing anything but passing here with the vast majority of 10-14 hcp hands. But if opener has to almost always pass in competition, then responder has no real information at second turn to bid, and pretty much has to double with a wide variety of hand types that include real values. In some cases it becomes hard to distinguish hands that were "invitational" from hands that are "game force" because your cheap relays are no long available. And it becomes very difficult to defend on any hand, because you have neither a penalty double nor a takeout double available.

 

In a typical five-card major system, the 1♠ opening is more frequent than the 1♥ opening. This is because 5-5 major hands open 1♠, and otherwise the hand types are symmetric. So I don't see a particularly strong reason that the relay over 1♥ needs to be 1♠.

 

Josh's structure using 2♣ as "all minimums" doesn't seem that great to me. You've basically lost a full step in your relay resolution because of this (okay 2 steps if opener has the minimum). So you might get cheaper resolution by using 2♣ as a fully game forcing relay (which gets you back a "normal" forcing notrump response). The fact that 1NT isn't game forcing also loses some forcing pass situations which can help you in competition after a game-forcing relay. And my feeling is that shape is very important on invitational hands (often a good minor suit fit upgrades your hand to bid a light 3NT or try a 5m game, or a 4-4 heart fit upgrades you to game on a pair of shapely hands without a lot of points). If you're going to bid 1♠-1NT-2♣(any min) and now you have to bid 2♥+ to break the relay, it seems like it will be very hard to find these fits. For example say opener has 5-1-4-3 and responder 2-3-5-3. Are you even going to find the diamond fit, or are you going to bid 1♠-1nt-2♣-2♠-pass? It's not even totally clear that you find 5-5 side-suit fits on this bidding (give opener 5-1-5-2 minimum, he might bid 3♦ over 2♠ but then again, can't responder be 2-4-2-5?).

 

My feeling is that relays really shine on slam decisions. Usually when opener is pretty tightly limited and responder can't game force opposite opener's minimum, you're not really making a slam decision. It'd be nice to have a system where relay is available for possible slam decisions, but where you're not trying to multiplex virtually every constructive response to the opening bid into some kind of relay (which makes you very vulnerable in competition, forces you to relay on game-only hands where natural bidding is often better, and loses you steps because you have to be able to bail out of the relay early when you don't even have game).

[hrothgar]

Last couple weeks at work have been quite hectic, so I haven’t had much time to post on this topic. However, I do have some (fairly) strong opinions.

 

First: I pretty much agree with a number of AWM comments. Relays are great for some things. For example, they are fantastic for intelligently investigating slams. However, relays also suffer from some very significant flaws. Most notably, relays are great for discovering shape; however, many pairs will have trouble investigating stoppers below 3N. There are ways to compensate for this (many pairs will build in a relay break to switch from asking about shape to asking about stoppers, but this increases memory load)

 

Second: I think that a lot of the discussion here puts the cart ahead of the horse. I view relays in much the same way that I view strong club openings. I hate opening 1C playing MOSCITO. I expect to score badly. (I try to make sure that my 1C opening is as effective as possible, but I still consider it a weak point of the system) Even so, I am very happy to play a strong club system because I think that the benefits from the light / limited openings more than compensate for the costs.

 

In much the same way, I don’t play relays over limited openings because I believe that relays are the best way to bid. Rather, I play use relays because I don’t want to waste 5+ responses to my 1H opening showing various game forcing hands. If I open 1H (showing 4+ Spades and ~ 9 – 14 HCP) my primary goals are:

 

Preemption with a fit and no game interest

Intelligent game investigate with a fit

Identifying the best part score with weak hands

 

Playing relay methods allows me to free up a whole lot of bidding space all sorts of useful stuff. I’m willing to sacrifice a bit with my game forcing hands (and game invites with no fit) to facilitate more useful parts of the system.

 

In short: I don’t really understand a conversation that starts with the assumption that you want to play relays and then asks what to do with the remaining bids. If you’re asking this question, you probably don’t want to play relay methods.