awm's strong diamond system

[straube]

Anyone (Adam?) have a link to awm's strong diamond system? I'm not so much interested in the strong diamond per se as what hand types are covered in the 1C, 2C, and 2D openings and what the responses and rebids are for 1C. I remember transfer responses, but...

[matmat]

Anyone (Adam?) have a link to awm's strong diamond system? I'm not so much interested in the strong diamond per se as what hand types are covered in the 1C, 2C, and 2D openings and what the responses and rebids are for 1C. I remember transfer responses, but...

 

Here's one, mugshots included.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/RecursiveDiamond.html

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/RecursiveDiamondQSun.pdf

[awm]

Here's a more recent version, that is less likely to be a violation of fair use principles. It does seem like bridgeguys are setting themselves up for a lawsuit if anyone is so inclined.

 

Recursive Diamond notes

[straube]

Here's a more recent version, that is less likely to be a violation of fair use principles. It does seem like bridgeguys are setting themselves up for a lawsuit if anyone is so inclined.

 

Recursive Diamond notes

 

Thank you. Your club structure looks very good.

 

I'd been thinking to use relays after a strong diamond. They wouldn't be able to sort out exact pattern. For instance, you'd have to pool 6430, 7420, and 7411 in with 6421. But...

 

1D-

.....1H-2-4 QPs

..........1S-GF relay for approximate shape

.....1S-0-1 QPs

..........1N-17-20

..........opener uses stayman and transfers for 21-22 bal and other hands

..........2N-23-24

.....other-5+ QPs relayed for approximate shape

 

What do you think of this? It seems like assigning 1S on up for 0-5 hcp hands is leaving them too much room. Also, after 1D-1H (6+) you're not quite in a GF.

[awm]

The method you're looking at is very outdated.

 

We switched to 1H 0-4 or GF and others 5-8 a long time ago. This seems better with relay too; in principle you can have opener rebus after 1D-1H similar in style to the direct 1S+

[akhare]

The method you're looking at is very outdated.

 

We switched to 1H 0-4 or GF and others 5-8 a long time ago. This seems better with relay too; in principle you can have opener rebus after 1D-1H similar in style to the direct 1S+

 

The 1♥ response as DN / GF is intriguing.

 

What does responder do over 1♦ - 1♥ - (2Y) - X (where Y < 2♠)? I suppose after 2♠ interference you likely use Lebensohl to distinguish GF from super negative.

 

Also, after 1♦ - 1♥ - (3Y)- X, responder's 3<blah> likely shows the negative hand, right? Is the idea that opener often P with min hands and responder reopens with a X or bids with the GF hand?

[mikestar13]

Most interesting and well-designed system! I'm particularly intrigued by the GF/DN 1♥ response to the strong 1♦.

[awm]

The 1♥ response as DN / GF is intriguing.

 

What does responder do over 1♦ - 1♥ - (2Y) - X (where Y < 2♠)? I suppose after 2♠ interference you likely use Lebensohl to distinguish GF from super negative.

 

Also, after 1♦ - 1♥ - (3Y)- X, responder's 3<blah> likely shows the negative hand, right? Is the idea that opener often P with min hands and responder reopens with a X or bids with the GF hand?

 

We use lebensohl to distinguish the range when available. Opener often passes in competition with minimum hands; basically bidding indicates a desire to compete opposite the 0-4 so you need extra shape or strength or something to justify it. Responder is normally obligated to pass when not forced and holding the 0-4, so balancing actions by responder show the game force.

 

I actually find that this fares better in competition than "negative-to-semi-positive" type responses, because it often becomes more clear which auctions are forcing and which are not. What I find happens fairly often is an auction like:

 

strong bid - pass - nebulous action - 2M

 

Say opener has a balanced hand with minimum values for the strong bid and doubleton in their major. Should he act or not? If responder could have a semi-positive you're in some trouble. Responder will often have the wrong shape to balance (and will either pass or make a mis-descriptive double if you pass). So there is a lot of temptation for opener to make a takeout double on his balanced minimum, but that can get you in big trouble when responder actually has nothing. If responder could have a GF, you can always comfortably pass and responder has a wider range of actions available to him (i.e. 3M cue, or double and then bid on when opener bids responder's doubleton).

 

Another one that comes up in the same auction is opener bidding something at the three-level. If responder has 0-4 it's obvious to pass (barring a freak or huge fit). If responder has a game force he will do something and we will get to game. But what does responder do with some 6-count? Does opener's 3-level bid show extra values (in which case responder shouldn't pass) or just a long suit (in which case passing could easily be right). Sure, you could play good/bad 2nt here, but this sticks opener for a call if he has a bigger-than-minimum notrump and also wrong-sides a fair number of 3NT contracts.

[straube]

I'd rather separate responder's first responses into DN, SP and P. I think 2-way bids don't empower the other hand to act.

 

With our 1H semipositive response, Atul and I play that 1C P 1H (2S) 3C is a transfer to diamonds. Responder's acceptance can be passed...or opener may further describe his hand.

 

Adam, is a weak NT necessary to your big diamond system? How would you adjust it for a strong (14-16) NT opener?

[awm]

I'd rather separate responder's first responses into DN, SP and P. I think 2-way bids don't empower the other hand to act.

 

With our 1H semipositive response, Atul and I play that 1C P 1H (2S) 3C is a transfer to diamonds. Responder's acceptance can be passed...or opener may further describe his hand.

 

Adam, is a weak NT necessary to your big diamond system? How would you adjust it for a strong (14-16) NT opener?

 

In some sense showing all three ranges would be better. However, there are a number of issues that arise with this. Over a double-negative, you often need to maximize space in order to scramble to the best spot. You also need a way to force when opener has a really big hand. The problem is that if your double-negative bid is 1♠ or something like that, you lose this space. However, you don't really want to sacrifice your cheapest call just to show a rare double-negative. My experience is that the cheapest call as "double-negative or GF" works better than the alternatives.

 

An opening 1NT of 14-16 does not work particularly well in this method. The issue is that you want to keep the strength of the balanced hand in 1♣ near the top of the range. This helps a lot in competitive sequences (where otherwise the balanced hand is substantially weaker than the other options) and also lets you relay more often opposite the shapely hand (because you don't want to relay when this would potentially miss a major suit fit after opener's balanced 1NT rebid). An opening 1NT of 15-17 or 16-18 works reasonably well however.

 

In one partnership I play 1NT at vulnerable is 19-21, with 1♣...1NT is 13-15 and 1♦...1NT is 16-18. This seems better than the more obvious arrangement of those three ranges, because the 19-21 hand is very awkward after a strong diamond and competition. I will say that most of my issues with weak notrump (at least when NV) have to do with the manner in which the strong notrump hands are bid (giving too much information to opponents, possibly wrong-siding contracts) which this system greatly minimizes (because 1♣-1♦-1NT is not particularly informative and doesn't wrong-side any frequent contract).

[akhare]

In some sense showing all three ranges would be better. However, there are a number of issues that arise with this. Over a double-negative, you often need to maximize space in order to scramble to the best spot. You also need a way to force when opener has a really big hand. The problem is that if your double-negative bid is 1♠ or something like that, you lose this space. However, you don't really want to sacrifice your cheapest call just to show a rare double-negative. My experience is that the cheapest call as "double-negative or GF" works better than the alternatives.

 

I think this approach makes a lot of sense. As mentioned above, the 1♣ - 1♠ auctions are cramped and opener frequently has to guess over the 1♠ response. Note that it's possible to unwind most positive hands over 1♣ (using the new 1♠ step), leaving say only balanced or spades / minor GF two suiters in the 1♦ response.

 

Thus one such possible scheme might be:

 

1♦: DN / Bal / S+m two suiter

1♥: SP

1♠: Heart / H+m

1N: Majors

2C: Minors

2D: Clubs, etc

 

Note that that this unwinds the positive response faster as well. In addition, over 1♣ - 1♦, opener can frequenly bid 1N with the common min balanced hand, thereby leading to shorter and and less revealing auctions when game is the limit.

 

Over 1♣ - 1♦ the 1♥ can now serve as natural or ask, after which the 1♠ confirms the DN and 1N+ continue the positive unwinds.

Edited December 12, 2011 by akhare

[straube]

We don't have much of a problem imo with our 1C-1S (DN) sequence. For starters, it usually shows 0-1 QP instead of Moscito's 0-2. Huge difference. The other thing is that Marston has put us onto a great continuation after 1C-1S....

 

1N-17-20

2C-stayman

.....2D-responder has 4+ hearts

.....2H-responder has 4+ spades

.....2S-responder has neither major

2D-transfers to hearts

2H-transfers to spades

2S-mss

2N-23-24

3C-clubs

 

Basically, opener can show his hand and retire to 2N to show 21-22ish or inquire for a major before signing off in 3m. Also, opener can invite by showing 2 suits (e.g. showing spades and then hearts) or can show one suit and then jumping in a second suit.

 

So we're cramped, but usually we're not making much opposite a 0-1 QP hand anyway.

 

I think I see what you mean about using weak NTs here. So what do I do after 1C-1H and I hold...

 

KQxx Axx xx AQxx Pass or 1S?

KQxx Ax xxx AQxx 1S?

KQx Ax xxxx AQxx 1N?

KQx Axx xxx AQxx Pass?

 

I suppose 1C-1H, 2C shows minors

1C-1H, 2H is a raise

1C-1H, 2D is a better raise?

 

One thing that concerns me is the 1C-1N, 2N showing a strong NT. That wipes out all the room for responder to show his shape. They call 2N the slam killer.

 

What is 1C-2M and higher?

[awm]

We don't have much of a problem imo with our 1C-1S (DN) sequence. For starters, it usually shows 0-1 QP instead of Moscito's 0-2. Huge difference. The other thing is that Marston has put us onto a great continuation after 1C-1S....

 

Over our double negative response, we can have opener show two suits and still get out at the two-level in the better fit most of the time. This is basically impossible if 1♠ is double negative. We can also show a balanced hand big enough to make game (like 21+ to 24) and still play 1NT or 2M if responder has nothing, or have responder show a long minor in case we have AKxx or something opposite and can run the suit (or play 3m otherwise). All of this just isn't possible over 1♠ double negative.

 

I think I see what you mean about using weak NTs here. So what do I do after 1C-1H and I hold...

 

KQxx Axx xx AQxx Pass or 1S?

KQxx Ax xxx AQxx 1S?

KQx Ax xxxx AQxx 1N?

KQx Axx xxx AQxx Pass?

 

I suppose 1C-1H, 2C shows minors

1C-1H, 2H is a raise

1C-1H, 2D is a better raise?

 

One thing that concerns me is the 1C-1N, 2N showing a strong NT. That wipes out all the room for responder to show his shape. They call 2N the slam killer.

 

What is 1C-2M and higher?

 

Pass, 1♠, and 1N on the first three. Either of pass or 1NT is okay on the fourth one; I tend to pass though. Yes, 1♣-1♥-2♣, 1♣-1♥-2♦ is a good heart raise (four card support and shortness), 1♣-1♥-2♥ is a raise (four card support, usually balanced).

 

We have swapped some sequences around after 1♣-1NT; I am not sure what version you are actually looking at. Currently 2♣ shows the balanced hand, 2♦/2♥/2♠ are short in that suit, 2NT is short clubs. If responder makes the step bid over 2♦-2N, opener patterns out by bidding the three-card fragment (if any) or the cheaper of notrump and the shortness (for 4441) or the more expensive of notrump and shortness (for 4450). Note that these auctions are different than 1♣-1♦ in order to cater to responder declaring the hands. Over 1♣-1NT-2♣, we play that 2♥+ are basically as if we had bid 1NT-2♣-2♦ and our notrump structure is on (although "invitational" sequences are now GF) so 2M is natural 4+, 2N is keri-style pattern ask, 3m is natural 6+, 3M is fragment with a diamond suit. 1♣-1NT-2♣-2♦ indicates that our response to a 1NT open would've been 2♠+ (quantitative invite, club transfer, or splinter) and forces opener to bid 2♥ after which we continue as if over 1NT.

[benlessard]

Adam, what is your opinions about weak Nt with all 5M332 ? Do you think the unbalanced 1M is a full compensation ?

 

Do you need your system to be GCC or Midchart ? If not your system will be well placed for 1S relay over 1H and transfer rebid the main drawback is your going to play 3C rather than 2C if responder has a stiff S.

 

Did you ever tried to put all balanced hand into 1C and strong unbal into 1D (maybe slightly lower the range for frequency ?) , the very wide range for 1C might seems annoying but in practice it should work well since strong balanced hands are in general very easy to bid.

[awm]

Adam, what is your opinions about weak Nt with all 5M332 ? Do you think the unbalanced 1M is a full compensation ?

 

Well it's a slight loser, but I think not a big loser. The issue is that these hands do fairly often belong in 1NT (which you can't reach if you play a forcing notrump after a 1M opening), and also that by opening 1NT you find all responder's long suits (some of which can be hard after opening 1M). Your sequences also give the opponents less information which is sometimes a plus. When you catch responder with 4-card support and not enough to bid it's a disaster though. The unbalanced 1M is actually really huge, because you get all the advantages of playing 1NT forcing without most of the disadvantages. I like the tradeoff.

 

Do you need your system to be GCC or Midchart ? If not your system will be well placed for 1S relay over 1H and transfer rebid the main drawback is your going to play 3C rather than 2C if responder has a stiff S.

 

Our methods are GCC, which mattered a lot at the time I played strong diamond frequently and not so much anymore. Note that relays are fine after 1♦-1♥ because in order to be defined as a "relay system" the first relay must be prior to opener's rebid.

 

Did you ever tried to put all balanced hand into 1C and strong unbal into 1D (maybe slightly lower the range for frequency ?) , the very wide range for 1C might seems annoying but in practice it should work well since strong balanced hands are in general very easy to bid.

 

Disagree with you here. I think that opening or rebidding 1NT on balanced hands is hugely advantageous over effectively starting your auction at 2NT. In general I try not to "bid balanced hands" -- I try rather to announce my balanced hand at a low level so that partner can do the describing. I don't see how I can put all the balanced hands into 1♣ and still have the three-suiters in there and somehow still show all my balanced hands by the one-level.

[straube]

I don't see how you're able to stop in 1N with 21+ to 24 opposite a bust. Your bidding would often go 1D-1H, 1S (3-suited or 21+)-2C(0-4 not shapely). Also, opener can't show 2-suiters except 1D-1H, 2M showing that major and another suit, right? Frequently you'll scramble into the right spot when opener has a 3-suiter opposite a bust as in 1D-1H, 1S-2C, 2D-? I'm not sure if I'm looking at your current version.

 

Feels to me that your system does a better job in the part score/game area. You find fits faster. Both opener and responder are able to offer a 6-cd minor to play at the 2-level. Responder is able to offer a 6-cd major opposite a 3-suited hand possibly short in that major. Etc. I was attracted to the strong diamond because 1) opponents so often chew up space anyway that I might as well use it myself and 2) I thought I could use the same relay structure for both semipositive and positive hands. Note that the loss of a step means that we can only approximate shape (like a 5521 or a 6421)

 

1D-1N+ for positive relays

1D-1H, 1S-1N+ for semipositive relays

 

Same structure. Opponents can overcall 1S and we're not at all disrupted.

 

So do you think this is flawed or are the tradeoffs close to being acceptable? I was hoping to entice some partners into trying a "simple" relay system and the relays I'm envisioning would be a lot simpler than the system I use with akhare. OTOH, if it's just not good. Your structure looks very good, but I think it requires more memorization than a relay structure.

 

One thought I had was that after your 1D-1H and subsequent RHO interference that opener will sometimes not be able to act. Let's say RHO bids 2S and opener has a decent 5-cd heart suit but a minimum hand. Opposite a known GF, he'd likely show hearts, but opposite a possible 0-ct, he likely would not. So he passes and LHO raises spades and now the partnership is on more of a guess. Does that sort of thing come up very often? If you're in a GF, you can use PXI etc to cope with pesky opponents.

[awm]

I am sort of mixing up two systems here. It's a strong club system where we can bid one notrump on all ranges.

 

I've put in some time thinking about relays over a strong 1♦ and I don't really think it works. Losing two steps in a relay system is huge; by starting description at 1nt+ you are probably better off with a more natural/cooperative structure. You might be able to do something by showing semi-positives via 1♠+ and a two-way 1♥ where opener describes when responder is GF, but even this is going to be tight a lot of the time. I also don't really agree that a mostly-natural style is more memory work than relay; it's not the basic relays themselves that are hard to remember, it's knowing whether relay is on/off in competition, counting steps under time pressure, etc. that is very error-prone.

 

We have not had much trouble in competitive auctions in this method. One issue is that opponents can't "bid crazy" because they really want to reach a decent spot when responder has 0-4. Another is that when opponents find an actual fit and we have GF values, backing into the auction is extremely safe.

[benlessard]

Note that relays are fine after 1♦-1♥ because in order to be defined as a "relay system" the first relay must be prior to opener's rebid.

because 1H can be weak it wont be consider a relay ? As for balanced hands I didnt meant really all of them but most of the them. It seems that if your having a 1C that is forcing (or nearly forcing) you might as well put some big stuff in there and the only big stuff that you can always control the auction are big balanced hands not being able to pass 1C is insignificant. Im not saying it could work I was just asking if you or someone you know tried toying around it.

 

For the last 15 years I believe that the strong hands and weak hands can go together and its the inv/intermediate hand that are annoying and require some "swindling" however I still dont know wich one we should show first ? Neg and GF in a direct matter (transfers are a must imo) and a catch all Semi-pos bids or the opposite ? Its seems at first that 0-4(5) and 9+ should be showned first but im practice the semi pos (5-8) are very frequent and most likely to pose problems. Your system has a little bit of both so im wondering what is your opinion on this ? Also are opps allowing to play any defense over a strong diamond in GCC/midchart ?

[awm]

ACBL's treatment of relays is really odd. Suffice to say that anything goes over an artificial strong bid, and that multiple directors have ruled our methods to be legal on the general chart.

 

Certainly I'm aware of methods where both 1m openings are forcing. However, I find that "knowing partner is unbalanced" is very unhelpful in a competitive auction if you don't know anything about partner's suit holdings. For this reason I find methods like Marshall Miles' "unbalanced diamond" kind of silly, and also don't see much benefit to offloading balanced hands (which are by far the easiest hands to bid in competition) from the strong opening. The only way I could see this working is to use a very different response scheme to 1♣ (i.e. transfers) which isn't obviously bad but loses you the relays opposite the three-suiters and also means you will be giving opponents more information on your balanced hand auctions.

 

My current preferred methods divide hands into: (1) double negative (2) semi-positive to min game force (3) strong game force. The idea is that the second category is by far the most frequent so we want to show shape immediately on those hands. The first and third category start with the cheapest response (1♦ to strong club, in our methods) and let opener describe.

[straube]

Not sure, but 1H doesn't feel like a relay response to me. 1H says something about the hand (weak or strong)while a relay bid doesn't say anything about the hand. Also, it doesn't seem like relays continue (which they would for it to be considered a relay system). I know in the GCC that it's legal for 1S-2C to be an artificial GF; apparently that's legal but responder can't continue to relay; very dumb imo.

 

You can play any defense over a strong opening and awm has a section on defenses such as Mathe.

 

It looks like awm gives most of the space (like 60%) to semipositives. The responses of 1S and higher have more room than the 1H response (which has to handle positives and negatives). Compare and contrast...

 

Big Diamond

 

1H positive and negative

1S+ semipositives

 

Moscito's 1C

 

1D positive

1H and 1N+ semipositive

1S negative

 

Atul's and my 1C system

 

1D and 1N+ positive

1H semipositive

1S negative

 

So even though the strong diamond has much less room to work with than these 1C systems, it gives far more room to the semipositives. Btw, I'm thinking that 1D-2C as a semipositive with 6 clubs is pretty expensive; 1D-2C all pass sometimes. Maybe 1D-2C as both majors?

 

I've thought that for a strong club system, it's expensive to use the 2 and 3 levels for semipositives. For example, Moscito uses 1N and higher as semipositives. They're all set up for relays. But the point is that frequently opener doesn't have the strength to continue to relay them. So they have 1C-2S, P sequences. Feels like a misfire.

[akhare]

Moscito's 1C

 

1D positive

1H and 1N+ semipositive

1S negative

 

<snip>

I've thought that for a strong club system, it's expensive to use the 2 and 3 levels for semipositives. For example, Moscito uses 1N and higher as semipositives. They're all set up for relays. But the point is that frequently opener doesn't have the strength to continue to relay them. So they have 1C-2S, P sequences. Feels like a misfire.

 

To be fair, the most common Moscito SP response is likely 1♥ (bal or no 5CM), after which opener typically bid 1N.

 

Also, Marston played around quite a bit with the SP responses and in the later versions, the ones with 5+ major used something like an 2-under scheme with multiple meanings so that it was easier for opener to show a different suit or relay...

[straube]

Yeah, that's a good point. The nice thing about a bid like 1C-2S (semipositive 6 spades) is that opener can pass and use 2N as a relay and 3C for something else; this compared to 1C-2C (semipositive 6 spades) in which opener's bid of 2S is a sign off. The bad thing about 1C-2S (semipositive 6 spades) is that responder can be passed when he might light to make another try.

 

Other subtle differences...our 1H semipositive is 2-4 QPs whereas Marston is 3-5 QPs and awm's semipositives are 5-8 hcps.

[awm]

You may be missing the point somewhat on this strong diamond system. The responses to 1D are not particularly optimized -- it is certainly possible to do better and what I play now is substantially better on technical merit. You are right for example that 1d-2c showing 6+c is unlikely to be best.

 

The goal wasn't the "best" response structure though, it was a simple structure. The 1d-2m auctions are same as our 2m openings. The 1d-1s auctions are just 1nt "systems on." The 1d-1nt-2c relays are the same as 1c-1nt-2d+. The goal here was to minimize memorization. The most complicated part of the system is the 1nt structure and that comes up a lot because we use it opposite all balanced ranges.

 

I'm sure moscito-style semi-positive relays (or my current system) is "better"... but at a high memory cost.

[straube]

Makes sense. I appreciate the memory load aspect.

 

I think I'm still interested in the relay possibilities over 1D. +2 is bad, but I think we'd still be better off than natural bidding. At least one hand knows the other's approximate shape...and many times will know the exact shape (all of the balanced and 5431 patterns for example). On the more distributional hands, we can only give an approximate shape. We might even "lie" and describe AQJTxx Jxxxx x x as a 6421 rather than a 5521 pattern. Opener is still more likely to have a picture of responder's hand than if responder were bidding naturally because opener is making S1 bids instead of simultaneously trying to show his own shape. I mean, I could argue that lack of room is exactly why we need relays. Maybe we could use relay breaks to show opener's self-sufficient suit.

 

With a strong club of 16+ (17+ balanced), we've found that requiring only 5 QPs for a positive and lowering semipositives to 2-4 QPs means that we have more relay auctions...and these are our best game auctions. Your 1D is as strong as our club, so I'm thinking the same ranges for responses.

 

I've started to understand why 1C works best with a weak NT opening; for one thing, if opener retires to 1N (like after 1C-1S, 1N) one might easily be doubled otherwise knowing that say an 11-13 was opposite a max 8. Did you look at all at having 1C-1D be 9+ instead of 9-13? Would this violate the GCC as it seemingly starts a non-GF relay auction? Seems like it would save room for game/slam investigation and it would free up 1N for something else....maybe to play. If one has Kxx Ax xxxxx xxx one could respond 1N rather than 2C or 2D.

[awm]

I've started to understand why 1C works best with a weak NT opening; for one thing, if opener retires to 1N (like after 1C-1S, 1N) one might easily be doubled otherwise knowing that say an 11-13 was opposite a max 8. Did you look at all at having 1C-1D be 9+ instead of 9-13? Would this violate the GCC as it seemingly starts a non-GF relay auction? Seems like it would save room for game/slam investigation and it would free up 1N for something else....maybe to play. If one has Kxx Ax xxxxx xxx one could respond 1N rather than 2C or 2D.

 

In the 2004 version (and really the last few versions before that too) 1♣-1♦ is 6-13. It would be the normal response on your example hand. The 6-8 range is special because if you have exactly four cards in a major, it is better to respond 1M so as not to lose a major suit fit after 1♣-1♦-1NT. However, 6-8 without a major (or 6-8 with a five-card major, for that matter) normally bids 1♦.

 

We have tried without 1NT game force. However, the 1NT game force offers a number of fairly substantial advantages. It allows you play virtually all contracts from the hidden hand. It also caters to better slam bidding, because you can set the suit early (for example 1♣-1NT-2NT-3♥ sets hearts and starts cuebidding, whereas 1♣-1♦-1♠ and both 2♥/3♥ are NF, and even 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♣-2NT-3♥ would be invitational). Basically responding with 1NT gives you the option of having a cuebidding auction rather than being forced to relay all the time, which can be a big advantage.