[kenrexford]

Opener has, on wto consecutive deals, the exact same hand:

♠Jx ♥Qxxxx ♦Kx ♣AKJx

Responder, on these two consecutive deals, has almost identical hands:

♠Ax ♥AKJx ♦Axx ♣Qxxx
♠Axx ♥AKJx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx

Obviously, the partnership can make 7C fairly easily on the first, but 7C has no prayer on the second. The problem seems to be rather simple to resolve (how to get to 7C on the first but stop at 6C/6H/6NT on the second), but few could on RGB.

One noted pro piped in with some gibberish nonsense.

I expect that this issue is not all that difficult for the folks here, so I thought I'd share it.

BTW -- as a bonus. Switch Opener's diamonds and spades (♠Kx, ♦Jx) and then bid the hand with each of Responder's hands. I found that the most difficult to handle was this switched-pointeds for Opener and Responder with Case #1, but with a very interesting solution to that problem.

[hrothgar]

Getting to 7♣ on 1 and stopping at the 6 level on 2 is trivial if you're playing a relay system. Here's the catch:

Playing MOSCITO, its unclear whether one would want to relay:

After the initial opener, responder has a choice between:

1. Relaying for shape
2. Bidding 2♠, showing a limit raise or better with 4+ trump

I will (often) prefer the 2♠ raise because I'm worried about intervention during the relay auction. After the limited one level opening, the partnership is pretty much limited to a maximum of 32 HCP between them. I'm not going to be thinking about exploring for a perfect grand and I have plenty of tools to investigate a small slam after the Jacoby type raise.

BTW, Ken...

Your the last person who should be commenting about people posting gibberish nonsense.

[Echognome]

I also looked at these hands and didn't think I could get there without relaying. As Richard, I don't think I'd relay these hands anyway. I'd rather show my primary support and use the slightly more blunt tools thereafter. I agree it's fairly trivial with relay, although I could only relay the opening hand out to: xx Qxxxx Kx AKxx. Couldn't quite locate the J of clubs at a safe level.

[han]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

BTW, Ken...

Your the last person who should be commenting about people posting gibberish nonsense.

Next to last Richard, next to last.

[han]

Possible auction on the first with Arend:

1H - 2NT
3D - 3H
4C - 4NT
5C - 5D
5S - 7C
all pass.

2NT = 4+ support, inv+, we use a slight variation of the Martel structure.
3D = no shortness, extras (this is a close call but we open fairly light)
3H = ask
4C = side suit
4NT = RKC
5C = 1
5D = queen ask
5S = spade king or both minor suit kings.
7C = clearly minor suit kings because otherwise the hand can't be good enough.

If opener rebids 3C (any minimum) then opener would still show 2-5-2-4 but responder wouldn't be able to read the kings.

[kenrexford]

I didn't say that posting gibberish nonsense was a bad thing.

I don't understand why the relay folks think a relay system is necessary to make the right call at the end, other than propoganda.

Responder needs a limited number of pieces of information to make the right call:

1. That Opener has the heart Q, club A-K, and diamond K. That question is easy to have answered, if merely by RKCB, a Queen-ask, and answer of the club King (and yes), and a 6♦ call.

2. That Opener has four clubs. That question also seems relatively easy. You either bid 2♣ as your first call, because that's the info that you need to know for the seven-level, or you may have a means of gaining this info after a Jacoby 2NT response. That cannot be all that difficult.

3. That Opener has a doubleton (or longer) spade without a control (Ace or King). That also does not seem too difficult. The easiest route is by way of a failure of Opener to show a spade control.

The simple auction I thought of:

1♥ (Opening Hand)
2♣ (GF, natural)
3♣ (fit)
3♥ (fit)
4♣ (cue, no spade control, possible serious/nonserious implications if playing that)
4NT (RKCB)
answer
Queen-ask
6♣ (I have the Q, plus this specific king)
6♦ (this one also?)
yes
7♣

But, with Axx in spades, Responder has no ditch for the spade and resigns to the small slam. With Ax, the fifth heart provides the pitch.

As Opener would rebid hearts with 6♥/4♣, Responder will not expect two spade pitches in any route.

Granted, it is possible to miss the grand slam if Opener holds ♠Jx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣AKJxx, but I'll pay off to that one. THAT is the hand where a relay system may help.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

I didn't say that posting gibberish nonsense was a bad thing. 

I don't understand why the relay folks think a relay system is necessary to make the right call at the end, other than propoganda.

Responder needs a limited number of pieces of information to make the right call:

1. That Opener has the heart Q, club A-K, and diamond K.  That question is easy to have answered, if merely by RKCB, a Queen-ask, and answer of the club King (and yes), and a 6♦ call.

2. That Opener has four clubs.  That question also seems relatively easy.  You either bid 2♣ as your first call, because that's the info that you need to know for the seven-level, or you may have a means of gaining this info after a Jacoby 2NT response.  That cannot be all that difficult.

3. That Opener has a doubleton (or longer) spade without a control (Ace or King).  That also does not seem too difficult.  The easiest route is by way of a failure of Opener to show a spade control.

The simple auction I thought of:

1♥ (Opening Hand)
2♣ (GF, natural)
3♣ (fit)
3♥ (fit)
4♣ (cue, no spade control, possible serious/nonserious implications if playing that)
4NT (RKCB)
answer
Queen-ask
6♣ (I have the Q, plus this specific king)
6♦ (this one also?)
yes
7♣

But, with Axx in spades, Responder has no ditch for the spade and resigns to the small slam.  With Ax, the fifth heart provides the pitch.

As Opener would rebid hearts with 6♥/4♣, Responder will not expect two spade pitches in any route.

Granted, it is possible to miss the grand slam if Opener holds ♠Jx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣AKJxx, but I'll pay off to that one.  THAT is the hand where a relay system may help.

I don’t think that the relay bidders are engaged in “propaganda” when they emphasize that relay auctions will make it easier to make an informed decision regarding the grand slam. Rather, this is a simple consequence of the fact that the relay auctions will end up with specific information about shape and controls that will prove critical in making this decision.

What I do find curious is the following: By and large, the relay bidders are stating that they would start out with a Heart raise. Your simple auction eschews the Heart raise in order in order to make a 2/1 in Clubs holding Qxxx in that suit. Please note, I readily agree that there are a number of hands where a 2/1 bid should be preferred to a Jacoby 2NT type raise. However, in my mind, most of these examples involve a 5 card suit where I want to know about a single fitting honor. Not a this pile of feces. In short, I question whether your decision to recommend this on this hand isn’t shaped by your knowledge about the Club fit.

More importantly, if you aren’t willing to make a game forcing Heart raise with this hand, what do you require for a Jacoby 2NT type bid.

[FrancesHinden]

Our forcing raise methods would get us there.

1H - 2S
2NT - 3C
3H - 3S
4D - 4S
5D - 5S
6C - 7C

2S = 16+ FG 4+ hearts
2NT = no singleton or void
3C = asks
3H = 2524
3S = asks
4D = 14+ HCP (roughly), 1 keycard
4S = asks (theoretically 4H is a sign-off)
5D = queen of hearts, king of clubs, not the king of spades
5S = asks (again theoretically 5H is non-forcing)
6C = king of diamonds, not the queen of clubs
7C = don't quite have room to ask for the jack of clubs below 6H

(opener's shape actually worked quite well on this hand, as over the 3C ask opener has to bid 3NT with a 2542 and we'd have slightly less room)

On the second responder's hand responder gives up when the SK is not opposite (and probably bids 6NT at the end as well given he knows they are 30+ high).

the only reason I put this in is because is uses Spiral asks, as advertised by Echo on the other thread.

But to be honest, if I bid this hand to 7C I would expect a very large swing.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Sep 11 2007, 10:14 AM, said:

I don’t think that the relay bidders are engaged in “propaganda” when they emphasize that relay auctions will make it easier to make an informed decision regarding the grand slam.

What I do find curious is the following: By and large, the relay bidders are stating that they would start out with a Heart raise. Your simple auction eschew the Heart raise in order in order to make a 2/1 in Clubs holding Qxxx in that suit. Please note, I readily agree that there are a number of hands where a 2/1 bid should be preferred to a Jacoby 2NT type raise. However, in my mind, most of these examples involve a 5 card suit where I want to know about a single fitting honor. Not a this pile of feces. In short, I question whether your decision to recommend this on this hand isn’t shaped by your knowledge about the Club fit.

More importantly, if you aren’t willing to make a game forcing Heart raise with this hand, what do you require for a Jacoby 2NT type bid.

As to the "propaganda" comment. It is not that relay works that bothers me. I just do not get why the relay folks seem to be unable to make the right call with standard techniques. If both work, great! Suggesting superiority because a relay works but natural does not is faulty on this set of hands when natural works very well. Note that I conceded that a relay system might better handl;e the xx-Qxxxx-K-AKJxx hand, one that I cannot handle.

As to the decision to bid 2♣ rather than 2NT. I hate Jacoby 2NT, passionately, to be honest. I try to find any way to not bid 2NT if I can. It preempts too much. As you may recall from other posts I have provided, I like to be able to bid 2♣ on a three-card suit, so Qxxx is MUCH better than my minimum holding.

That, and the fact that I want to bid into the sole plausible location for a possible superior strain at the slam or grand level.

I personally would also not bid a Jacoby 2NT with a side Queen-fourth. I reserve Jacoby 2NT auctions for extermal primes, external touching primes (AK combo's), external spaces (Jxx or worse), and internal slows (K/Q of trumps OK).

That being said, I also noted that Jacoby 2NT auctions will work decently, assuming a pattern description, which I play when I actually bid Jacoby 2NT. Others who use Jacoby more frequently also will presumably have methods to unwind pattern and controls equally well.

[han]

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

As to the "propaganda" comment. It is not that relay works that bothers me. I just do not get why the relay folks seem to be unable to make the right call with standard techniques.

Agree.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

As to the "propaganda" comment.  It is not that relay works that bothers me.  I just do not get why the relay folks seem to be unable to make the right call with standard techniques. 

...

That being said, I also noted that Jacoby 2NT auctions will work decently, assuming a pattern description, which I play when I actually bid Jacoby 2NT.  Others who use Jacoby more frequently also will presumably have methods to unwind pattern and controls equally well.

Looking at the different auctions that people are suggesting, one thing strikes me as blindingly obvious:

The folks who are getting to 7♣ after a Jacoby 2NT raise are using what you describe as a "pattern description". Hannie, Frances, and you are all asking for shape, placing controls, and then setting the contract. (Frances even goes so far as to use Spiral Scan) Simply put, you're using relay type sequences after the 2NT response.

Two specific comments here

1. I don't consider these pattern options as a "standard" part of Jacoby 2NT. I don't think that there is anything wrong with using this method. Indeed, as this hand shows, such methods can be highly effective. However, I think its ludicrous to claim that the relay players can't find the grand playing standard methods when you are

(A) Relaying
(B) Not playing standard methods (For example, most of the standard Jacoby variants use 3x to show shortage and 4x to show 5-5 patterns)

2. When I am playing relay, I DON'T build pattern asks into my Jacoby 2NT sequences. Simply put, if I want to ask about pattern, I have much better methods available. When I bid 2♠ as a Heart raise, I do so because I specifically want to transfer captaincy to my partner. (In much the same way, when I make a splinter, I conciously want to transfer captaincy)

I readily admit, my decision to bid 2♠ probably means that myartnership will lose out on the club fit, and therefore, not be in a good position to explore the grand. This is a deliberate choice that I am making, based on the fact that I know that partner is limited to a 14 count and my desire to minimize the dangers associated with a competitive auction.

[mikeh]

When I played relay, I'd relay (via an artificial 2♣ call) and now the auction is trivial no matter what opener's hand was... we'd reach the best contract, since we could even descend to the level of the club J

However, as Ken noted, relay is not essential. I really like Frances' sequence: I wouldn't mind seeing her forcing raise notes

My less sophisticated current method would start with J2N:

1♥   2N
3♦   3♥   3♦ some side 4 card suit, 3♥ relay
3♠   4♣   3♠ = ♣s, 4♣ sets suit

then cuebidding, with responder taking the appropriate inference from opener's refusal to cue a second round spade control.

The first two examples posted by Ken show that natural bidding can prevail, but I disagree with what I see as his unwarranted criticism of relay(ers). There is absolutely no argument, that I can think of, against the proposition that, on hands of this general nature, relay wins hands-down. Look at Ken's own posts. His thesis is that good natural bidding can match, but not outdo, relay on the first two hands, but he has to concede that there are other layouts on which relay works better than natural.

Relay has its problems, which accounts (in part) for the relative lack of relay bidding at the highest levels.

Relay, when done well, is incredibly memory-intensive. That can have a detrimental impact on the rest of one's game, because so much mental energy is devoted to the bidding, for a low-frequency gain compared to natural bidding. One reason I remember the relay triumphs we had (staying out of a 37 hcp grand because we could tell that there was no squeeze and only 12 tricks was one) is that they were rare. Yes we got to a lot of good spots, but, when in a good field, our opps usually got there faster

Relay can work out poorly on weird hands, altho I think a well-constructed relay is not as handicapped there as conventional wisdom suggests.

Relay can be disrupted by interference.. altho in my experience this was not usually a significant problem. I note that a the earlier relayer posters suggested they would not relay on the problem hands for that reason, but I frankly don't see it as much of a problem when responder has 18 high and a balanced hand. If they are preempting over 2♦, they are preempting (even more so) after a gf raise.. when they know you have a fit and thus are unlikely to settle for a 3 or 4 level defence.

Unless you play a popular (?) relay method, you are going to have problems finding partners. The current top canadian relayers are L'Ecuyer and Marcinski... I am willing to bet that they have NO other partners with whom they can play their methods.

And in NA, at least, relays are frowned upon by the all-knowing ACBL: you can't have an artificial gf relay response to a natural bid...relays are permitted only after the 1st round, which is silly but the law (it made practicing in tournaments very difficult when I played relay). So if you are trying to play a lot of ACBL events, which top pros have to in order to make a living, you can't play relay even if you have a client who is capable of it.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Sep 11 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

However, I think its ludicrous to claim that the relay players can't find the grand playing standard methods

Actually I think it's unfair for a different reason.

Most people are only going to be able to give complex auctions to grand in whatever system they know well and play a lot.

My auction used a load of kit I've agreed with my usual partner. Ken's auction used some fairly specific control asks late on. None of this is 'standard'.

I have a vague idea how Precision works but I couldn't give you a convincing Precision auction because I don't play it. If you dedicate your system work to your relay methods, then all you need is a vague idea how other systems work to understand opponents' bidding. You are under no obligation to be able to use their system to its best advantage.

[hrothgar]

Hi Mike

I disagree with your critique of relay methods based on memory load. I agree that there are some god awful relay systems out there, that are a nightmare to remember. However, well designed relay systems are based on a short set of rules that are applied in a logically consistent manner. The end result is that a very short rules set can be mapped onto an enormous number of bidding sequences. (Personally, I suspect that most of the comments about relay systems being complicated are largely a reflection of the ACBL’s antipathy towards such methods. The well designed comprehensive relay systems aren’t legal here in North America. The relays that can be used typically grafted onto existing systems as an afterthought)

I’ve always thought that the big problem with relay systems is exploring 3NT as a possible contract. I think that natural stopper asking / stopper showing bids are often much better than relay methods. Playing relay, we’re often left knowing that partner has three Hearts (worse yet, two hearts) opposite my xxx, with no idea whether there is an actual stopper.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

As to the "propaganda" comment.  It is not that relay works that bothers me.  I just do not get why the relay folks seem to be unable to make the right call with standard techniques.

Agree.

I seriously don't understand. Both Richard and I said we can get there if we relay and that neither of us would relay. If we don't relay, then we are using standard techniques. Then we both say that we don't get there because in our standard techniques we do not find out full shape. Yet others (and I don't blame them) are finding out shape and spiralling for controls. That's great.

I also don't understand how one could worry about others using 'standard techniques' when they make a 2/1 on Qxxx holding four card support.

I think Mike's point about relaying being a lot safer given our strength is a good one. I have played both where we relayed on ALL game-forcing hands with or without a fit (so that there were no other bids to actually game force) and I have played where you could either show a fit and have game forcing values or you could relay. I still think this hand is close depending on how light you open.

As far as Mike's point about memory load, I think that depends on awful lot about how much time you put into competitive bidding. In my old regular partnership, we could still relay up to a 4-up track. Once you start going up and down track, you have to really think through the steps. That could sometimes be a burden on the memory. However, I agree with Richard that the memory load is greatly reduced by playing symmetric (and maybe the efficiency loss is, e.g. not being able to find the ♣J here). Also, you just get to a point where the relays become automatic.

I agree that it may be difficult to find partners, but there are an awful lot of variations of symmetric relay. I don't think it would take me long to learn, e.g. TOSR. I played Tarzan Club with three different partners in England and my own variation of MOSCITO with my regular partner. I guess it depended on the area where you lived. Now that I'm back in the U.S. I don't expect to play any relay at all.

Finally, I want to note that none of the posters that mentioned relay said in any way that it was a superior bidding system overall. We simply said that it worked on this hand. I will say that if you put me in a bidding contest where the conditions were that all auctions would be uncontested, I would personally choose a relay system. But we're not stupid enough to think that most auctions are uncontested these days.

[han]

If with standard methods Richard means learn-to-play-bridge 1&2 then I agree, it is not possible to bid these slams accurately. But good partnerships that I know of have more and better agreements than those.

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

If with standard methods Richard means learn-to-play-bridge 1&2 then I agree, it is not possible to bid these slams accurately. But good partnerships that I know of have more and better agreements than those.

My definition of "standard methods" is pretty basic:

If a random (well read) expert partner and I can discuss have a 30 second discussion about a given convention and expect to be playing the same methodology, I call that a standard method.

If it's necessaary to have a 5 minute long discussion about a highly customized set of followups and then sit down and memorize said agreements, then its not standard.

[han]

Not how I view bridge but that's fair.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Sep 11 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

In most of my partnerships I would have no shot of getting to 7C

That's scary.

Back to the relay debate. I posted this thing initially because I found it amazing that som many people had problems making the final decision. I assumed that the folks here would have little trouble, whatever approach is used, apparently Jlall being a noted exception.

I still don't understand why these hands are such a mystery to handle. If they are a mystery in anyone's approach, then the approach seems flawed, IMO. These are not strange, exotic hand combinations. 5422 opposite 4432 seems rather mundane, and yet problems seem to abound.

I did notice, on the RGB site, that some of the approaches "got to the right contract" with glaring problems. For instance, one uber-natural pro had Opener bidding 3NT as a natural game offer after he had only shown hearts and clubs and his partner had only shown balanced with heart support -- one positionally poor diamond stop and no spade stop, but 3NT to play??? Some committed to the five-level with great lack of safety, excusing it because Opener would never open 1♥ with 10xxxx in hearts (???). Some committed to a grand slam without any idea if Opener had the heart Queen (same issue). These strange claims were made by natural players, relay players, strong club players, whatever.

BTW -- no one has taken up the challenge of the change in Kx's (spades instead of diamonds). For me:

1♥-P-2♣(GF)-P-
3♣-P-3♥(same start)
3♠-P-3NT(Serious)-P-
4♣-P-4♦(LTTC -- need for diamond control -- a "lie")-P-
4♥(no diamond control)-P-4NT(1430)-P-
5♣(1)-P-5♦(Q?)-P-
5♠(yes, plus this King)-P-5NT(others?)-P-
6♣(this one)-P-?

With Axx in spades, Ax in diamonds, the grand is there; with Ax in spades, Axx in diamonds, the grand is not (unless the weird 5521 with a stiff King). Note that the cure is a tactical fib, to check on a diamond control before launching. There are a few follow-up issues if Opener has a diamond control. If he cues 4♠, Responder takes over with 4NT. If something else, it gets a tad complicated, but it can be resolved.