Relay Systems???

[fromageGB]

Glen is right : a relay is an asking bid, by definition.

 

If some people find certain words offensive, then you use an alternative word that means the same thing. 3♣ in response to 2NT is an asking bid, and if other words may cause upset, I am happy with this description.

 

Similar to the situation I am sometimes in when partner opens a potentially short club.

"An opening hand, but not necessarily long clubs or strong, it could be a doubleton."

"So it's an asking club?"

"Yes, it usually denies a 5 card major and asks me what I have."

I've never thought of describing it as a relay !

[Zelandakh]

Every bid can be described as an asking bid if you use such a general form. If I open 1♠, then I am asking partner if they have a hand that matches the definition of Pass, or 1NT, or 2♣, and so on. In particular, a forcing 1NT response is an obvious candidate to be described as a relay, since it asks partner if they hold 4 hearts or 6 spades, or (some other stuff). The point of an Asking Bid is that it asks something specific, hence the BW description. Generally, on the first round of an auction there is no such specific question and therefore asks that begin at this stage are usually part of a relay system, since they are asking generally about the whole hand and not about something specific. It does not have to be so, like I wrote, you can define any bid as an ask if you are so inclined, but that would be the norm.

[straube]

I once wrote Beye (top ACBL director?) a question as to the legality of relays in a certain situation. To my surprise, he wrote me back asking what relays were! Between that, discussions with at least one other ACBL director and a few relayers, I've gotten the impression that relays are a bit unfamiliar to directors.

 

I think of myself playing a relay system, but I wouldn't describe it as such to a director because that terminology has a different meaning in the ACBL. I'd be comfortable saying that we use relay bids because I know how to clarify that our system doesn't meet the ACBL definition of a relay system, but if another person used "asking bids" to describe their own similar and legal system, I'd understand their word choice.

 

I understand how the terms "relay" and "asking bid" are chosen for different situations, but I think they amount to the same thing.

[glen]

1NT forcing is a good example, and let me point form the two key points you make about it:

> a forcing 1NT response is an obvious candidate to be described as a relay, since it asks partner ...

> on the first round of an auction ... asks that begin at this stage are usually part of a relay system

 

If you are at the club how would you describe 1NT forcing to someone you think might be unfamiliar with the term?

[Zelandakh]

If you are at the club how would you describe 1NT forcing to someone you think might be unfamiliar with the term?

Over a 1♠ opening? Any hand less than GF strength and without spade support except (insert exceptions list here), or (insert other hand types here). FWiiW, I sometimes like to play 1NT (over a 1♠ opening) as any hand of invitational or better strength without 4 card support. I would call this a relay (it asks if 4 hearts are held and, if not, the range) even though it shows something as well as asking. Indeed, it is the start of a relay system since all GF hands can be relayed thereafter. However, I am informed that this would not be a relay system per the ACBL definition, perhaps because invitational hands opposite a minimum are bid naturally.

 

Luckily I do not live under ACBL jurisdiction and therefore do not need to try and understand what is allowed. If I needed to know I would probably ask Adam, straube and hrothgar, since they seem to have had some experience of dealing with the relevant people. The fact that any bid (other than puppets and unconditional sign-offs) can be described as an asking bid, regardless of how natural it is, should make it obvious that this sort of regulation is pretty silly. It is to me anyway.

[ArtK78]

1NT forcing is a good example, and let me point form the two key points you make about it:

> a forcing 1NT response is an obvious candidate to be described as a relay, since it asks partner ...

> on the first round of an auction ... asks that begin at this stage are usually part of a relay system

 

If you are at the club how would you describe 1NT forcing to someone you think might be unfamiliar with the term?

 

This thread has degenerated into a semantic argument. The last post, suggesting that a forcing 1NT response to a major suit opening is part of a relay system beginning before responder's second bid, just pushed the argument over the cliff.

 

Come on, people. A relay system is a system in large part, if not primarily, based on sequences in which one partner asks a series of questions without describing his hand by making the cheapest bid available and the other partner describes his hand based on a predetermined set of responses that are, typically, not "natural" bids (in the sense that natural bids have something to do with the strain mentioned).

 

Asking bids may or may not be relays, but they are not typically part of a relay system. And well known conventions - Forcing 1NT, New Minor Forcing, Fourth Suit Forcing, Stayman, Blackwood, etc., are asking bids but are not part of a relay "system." They stand alone as asking bids.

[straube]

Something that I think is particularly silly is that one is allowed to use an artificial response that says nothing about the hand except that it establishes a GF as long as it isn't part of a relay system.

 

So 1S-2C can be an artificial GF bid and opener can rebid artificially (for example a 2D rebid could show an unspecified minor)but at some point presumably responder has to break relay. 1S-2C, 2D-2H as an artificial ask and we could run afoul of the law. This makes no sense to me. We're in a GF auction, it's the second round of bidding and 2H as a relay could be interpreted to be illegal...but most of the time having responder continue to solicit information will make the most sense.

[ArtK78]

Something that I think is particularly silly is that one is allowed to use an artificial response that says nothing about the hand except that it establishes a GF as long as it isn't part of a relay system.

 

So 1S-2C can be an artificial GF bid and opener can rebid artificially (for example a 2D rebid could show an unspecified minor)but at some point presumably responder has to break relay. 1S-2C, 2D-2H as an artificial ask and we could run afoul of the law. This makes no sense to me. We're in a GF auction, it's the second round of bidding and 2H as a relay could be interpreted to be illegal...but most of the time having responder continue to solicit information will make the most sense.

It is illegal because it is pretty clear at this point that the bids are part of a relay system. Responder made an artificial game forcing call, opener made some sort of artificial informative response and responder made another artificial inquiry by making the cheapest bid available. That is exactly the definition of a relay system.

 

Indeed, those relay systems that I am familiar with use a 2♣ response to one of a suit (other than the strong 1♣ opening) to commence a relay sequence.

[straube]

It is illegal because it is pretty clear at this point that the bids are part of a relay system. Responder made an artificial game forcing call, opener made some sort of artificial informative response and responder made another artificial inquiry by making the cheapest bid available. That is exactly the definition of a relay system.

 

Indeed, those relay systems that I am familiar with use a 2♣ response to one of a suit (other than the strong 1♣ opening) to commence a relay sequence.

 

I think it's stupid. In the second round of bidding folks should be allowed the best bidding that they can devise. I can see an argument whether 1S-2C (for example) should be allowed as an artificial GF bid, but once it's been decided in the affirmative, it doesn't make sense to me to hobble continuations.

[barmar]

Every bid can be described as an asking bid if you use such a general form. If I open 1♠, then I am asking partner if they have a hand that matches the definition of Pass, or 1NT, or 2♣, and so on.

But that's a useless interpretation. The whole auction is a process of players passing questions and information back and forth. If everything is an asking bid, then there's no point in having the term -- it needs to mean something more specific than just "call". "Asking bid" is generally interpreted as a bid whose only purpose is to get more information from partner, not say anything specific about their hand. If a bid isn't artificial, it isn't an asking bid.

 

Calling a natural opening an asking bid is like calling "Hello" a question because it "asks" the person you're speaking to if he wishes to converse with you.

 

You might be able to get away with calling a takeout double an asking bid -- it usually asks partner which is their longest suit. But it also usually says something about the doubler's hand: either it's short in the opponents' suits and has support for the other suits, or it's very strong. So it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid.

[ArtK78]

But that's a useless interpretation. The whole auction is a process of players passing questions and information back and forth. If everything is an asking bid, then there's no point in having the term -- it needs to mean something more specific than just "call". "Asking bid" is generally interpreted as a bid whose only purpose is to get more information from partner, not say anything specific about their hand. If a bid isn't artificial, it isn't an asking bid.

 

Calling a natural opening an asking bid is like calling "Hello" a question because it "asks" the person you're speaking to if he wishes to converse with you.

 

You might be able to get away with calling a takeout double an asking bid -- it usually asks partner which is their longest suit. But it also usually says something about the doubler's hand: either it's short in the opponents' suits and has support for the other suits, or it's very strong. So it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid.

In keeping with this thread's semantic and nitpicking bent, I am going to point out that a double is a call and not a bid. Therefore, a takeout double is a descriptive call and not a descriptive bid (let alone an asking bid).

[barmar]

In keeping with this thread's semantic and nitpicking bent, I am going to point out that a double is a call and not a bid. Therefore, a takeout double is a descriptive call and not a descriptive bid (let alone an asking bid).

Yeah, I know that. Notice that earlier in my post I was careful to refer to just "call".

 

From then on I reverted to common parlance -- "bid" can be used as a synonym for "call" when context makes it clear what is meant (which I think is at least 90% of the time).

[blackshoe]

Some of us just ignore him.

[glen]

... I do not live under ACBL jurisdiction and therefore do not need to try and understand what is allowed ...

point taken

 

... A relay system is a system in large part, if not primarily, based on sequences in which one partner asks a series of questions without describing his hand by making the cheapest bid available and the other partner describes his hand based on a predetermined set of responses that are, typically, not "natural" bids (in the sense that natural bids have something to do with the strain mentioned) ...

This is excellent definition, and another one might be "a system that uses artificial initial responses to ask opener to describe hand type artificially", which is what I think they were trying to ban.

 

ACBL TDs do not have your excellent definition, and almost all of them have never played a relay system, or defended against a relay system. They are given this definition by the ACBL:

 

DEFINITIONS

5. 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.

There is no definition of "relay bids", except for this:

 

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

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

 

(note that this idea of a relay to next-step would produce an interesting "relay system")

 

Using that, the ACBL TDs are asked to enforce this:

 

DISALLOWED

5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

In another section, it notes:

 

Relay systems (one player tells nothing about his own hand while interrogating partner about his hand through a series of conventional calls) are not allowed.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf

 

Make things easier for the TDs and opponents, and describe the bids as you would properly explain them to a club level player. Do not assume your definition of "relay" is their definition of relay. Likewise do not assume they will know what a marionette is, and who advancer might be.

[straube]

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

 

This sounds like a marionette to me...

 

Marionette = partner usually makes a particular bid but is allowed to bid something else on occasion

[barmar]

There is no definition of "relay bids", except for this:

DEFINITIONS

5. 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.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

 

(note that this idea of a relay to next-step would produce an interesting "relay system")

Whoever wrote that was clearly confusing relay with puppet. When it's followed by "to", the ambiguity is removed -- an asking-type of relay bid isn't a relay "to" anything.

 

I have a small bit of sympathy -- the intuitive interpretation of the word "relay" doesn't suggest anything asking-like. I wonder how this meaning came about. Maybe it was some kind of inverstion: puppets may have been called relays at one time. Asking-style relays involve the asker bidding the next suit, which is similar to what the responder to a puppet does. So they both involve a player bidding the next suit artificially, to allow his partner to complete his description of his hand (although in the case of a puppet, the puppeteer may pass if what he wanted to show was the next suit).

[fromageGB]

Having seen all this, if I was in ACBL land I would certainly never use the word "relay", as they don't know what it means.

 

Also note that you are not allowed to use Gazzilli if playing 2 over 1. The sequence 1♠ 1NT 2♣ is an opening bid, responder makes a relay, opener makes a relay. The sequence of relay bids following an opening of one of a suit is the very definition of a relay system.

[straube]

Having seen all this, if I was in ACBL land I would certainly never use the word "relay", as they don't know what it means.

 

Also note that you are not allowed to use Gazzilli if playing 2 over 1. The sequence 1♠ 1NT 2♣ is an opening bid, responder makes a relay, opener makes a relay. The sequence of relay bids following an opening of one of a suit is the very definition of a relay system.

 

I think Gazzilli is allowed and I know folks who use it in ACBL-land. I think 1N forcing is specifically allowed as long as it doesn't promise GI+ values. This requirement limits the usefulness of the bid because if it did promise GI+ values then opener could make better use of his rebids (e.g. make more frequent use of higher bids and combine uses for lower bids expecting to have rebids later to sort these out). So I don't think opener's rebid has to be natural (it can be a puppet or a relay, etc) and after opener's rebid, responder could start to make a series of relay bids.

[Free]

Has anyone of you ever seen a puppet which is not to the next step??

 

Puppet = obligates partner to make a certain bid. The point is to either signoff or to describe your hand, and the puppet creates extra space to be able to show more han types. In my experience this is always the next step, to save space (example 2C in XYZ)

Transfer = shows a particular suit and allows partner to describe his support. This is usually the next suit, but 2-under transfers are not exceptional (example 4m Namyats)

[barmar]

Has anyone of you ever seen a puppet which is not to the next step??

Probably not. I think the lexicographers are just being non-committal, so they don't need to come up with a new word if someone comes up with a puppet variant. It's that whole "never say always/never" philosophy in bridge -- as soon as you think you've discovered a hard and fast rule, someone will find a way to break it.

[blackshoe]

I think Gazzilli is allowed and I know folks who use it in ACBL-land.

Having already established that (many? most? all?) ACBL directors do not know what a relay is, or what a relay system is, or how to judge whether a particular call or series of calls that might include one or more relays is legal, it does seem that the fact that folks use Gazilli in ACBL-land (and do not get in trouble with the law for doing so) does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gazilli is legal per the regulation.

[barmar]

I found another definition of "relay system" on the Limited Conventions page of the Convention Charts webpage:

one player tells nothing about his own hand while interrogating partner about his hand through a series of conventional calls

 

In general, can use of a specific convention, like Gazilli, really imply that the system is a relay system?

[PrecisionL]

[snip] ... I think 1N forcing is specifically allowed as long as it doesn't promise GI+ values. This requirement limits the usefulness of the bid because if it did promise GI+ values then opener could make better use of his rebids (e.g. make more frequent use of higher bids and combine uses for lower bids expecting to have rebids later to sort these out). So I don't think opener's rebid has to be natural (it can be a puppet or a relay, etc) and after opener's rebid, responder could start to make a series of relay bids.

As I understand 1NT forcing, it can NOT be game forcing for the General Convention Chart.

 

Edited: can NOT GUARANTEE (with thanks to Aquahombre)

[glen]

I found another definition of "relay system" on the Limited Conventions page of the Convention Charts webpage

I had quoted that above

[aguahombre]

 

As I understand 1NT forcing, it can NOT be game forcing for the General Convention Chart.

To clarify for the casual reader: It cannot guarantee G.F. or even inv+ values for the GCC. But, the forcing NT response can include either of those possibilities in addition to weaker hands.