[Gerben42]

Almost all strong Club systems so far have GF positive responses? The Jassem - Martens CC not vuln. doesn't have this.

I'm thinking, why aren't more pairs playing invite-or-better responses to strong ♣?

[helene_t]

I have given this some thought and couldnt get it playable.

In uncontested auctions, both partners have the responsibility of showing a couple of HCPs extra to make the auction GF. In contested autions, you would like a pass to be forcing, but if one of the reasons for making a forcing pass is "we might not have game so lets take our +300" it becomes more nebolous than it already is.

I'm sure this could be playable if a smarter person than I put some effort into it, but unless I missed Columbus' Egg, it's quite complicated.

[Gerben42]

But if you have already made a bid after 1♣ - Pass, you should not be overly scared of competition anymore, should you?

I can imagine something like:

1♣ 15+ (Pass) ?

* 1♦: 0 - 6 any / GF 4441 / 13+ balanced
* 1♥/♠: 7+ with 5+card
* 1NT: 7 - 9 balanced no 5M (or 4441 short minor)
* 2♣/♦: GF 5+card
* 2♥/♠: 7 - 9, 3-suited short other major
* 2NT: 10 - 12 balanced
* 3m: Invite, 6-card suit

(might have missed something, who knows)

[Free]

Playing a 15+ strong ♣, most hands will be semipositive, and only 10% will be double negative. It's useful to have some bids showing semipositives for sure! Here's what I used to play:

1♦ = GF, almost any hand
1♥ = semipos, bal OR unbal without 5M
1♠ = double negative, any hand
1NT = semipos, 5+♥ with a side suit
2♣ = semipos, 5+♠ and 4+♣/♥
2♦ = semipos, 5+♠ and 4+♦
2M = semipos, 6+M, singlesuited
2NT and higher showed GF 3-suiters

This definitely has some advantages since the semipos hands are limited and describe some of their distribution. Disadvantage obviously is that you don't know anything after 1♣-1♦, so it's a bit vulnerable to preemption. This is of minor concern imo, since you have forcing passes and penalty doubles (you're in a GF auction) so opps can't overbid the hand that easy... The double negative is more of a problem, but it's acceptable.

[matmat]

in the US i think there is some legal problem with invitational hands over a strong club in that you're only allowed to have relay sequences if you are forced to game. I dunno. i could very well be wrong here, someone who has clue may need to correct/expand on that

[Gerben42]

I'm not talking about relay, but about natural bidding after a strong ♣ (for some value of natural). BTW I'm not playing in the ACBL so I'm not concerned with "ACBL legality".

[matmat]

yeah... perhaps i was just offering why the north american club systems are gf for the most part.

[awm]

Perhaps for the same reason that people play game-forcing 2/1 bids over their natural openings? And for the same reason people play 4th suit forcing to game? I think there was a clear evolution away from bids which are "forcing one round" and towards bids which are "forcing to game."

There are several reasons for this change. I think the idea is that game forcing hands are both more common and more important than hands in the exactly invitational range. A structure based on one-round forces often requires you to have an additional one-round force at the next call when you hold a game-going hand. This additional one-round force takes up space, cramping your slam-bidding auctions and making it harder to really describe the hand. It also makes the overall method more complicated (perhaps needlessly so).

Certainly one can argue that in certain methods, the invitational hand type becomes sufficiently common that this approach is wrong on merits. For example, if you are opening very light (say opening range 8-14) then a game force hand for responder is quite infrequent (16+) whereas the "invitational" hand type becomes more common (11-15) and opener can't afford to be jumping around on random 14-counts because you will still respond quite light (say 6+). In such a context playing all 2/1 responses as game-force seems silly, but the prevailing culture has shifted so much towards game-forcing responses that I see a number of people try to play them even opposite light opening bids. Similarly you could argue that a "strong" club, when it becomes sufficiently light in values, has a very wide "invitational" range of hands where responding a negative diamond becomes too frequent and impractical, but again the "prevailing culture" as well as long-standing tradition prevents people from adopting the invitational approach.

Sam and I actually play a structure where we respond on invitational hands and use relay:

1♦ = 0-4 hcp (any) or GF balanced or GF with 7+ AKQ points
1♥ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 4+♠, maybe canape, not 3-suited short clubs
1♠ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, either balanced w/o 4♠ or primary ♦ w/o 4♠
1NT = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 5+♥, either one-suited or with 4+♦ or with 4♣
2♣ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 5+♣, maybe 4+♦ but no other 4+ side suit possible
2♦ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 5+♣ and 4+♥
2♥ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 1444 or 0(445) shape short in spades
2♠ = 5+ hcp, 2-6 AKQ points, 4441 or (445)0 shape short in clubs
2NT+ = various one-suited game-force hands with a very good 6+ card suit

However, getting this structure to work involved a lot of complexity.

[dake50]

Somewhere I've seen a write-up on 3-seat 1C. That jist being GF unlikely, neg unlikely, so most middling --let neg/GF give up/catch up. That seems what you suggest.

[whereagles]

A friend of mine played transfer responses to 1♣ starting from 5 hcp. Follow-ups were:

complete transfer = 18+ GF, no fit implied
other bids = 15-17, NF. Now min bids by responder were 5-7 hcp.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 21 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

There are several reasons for this change. I think the idea is that game forcing hands are both more common and more important than hands in the exactly invitational range. A structure based on one-round forces often requires you to have an additional one-round force at the next call when you hold a game-going hand. This additional one-round force takes up space, cramping your slam-bidding auctions and making it harder to really describe the hand. It also makes the overall method more complicated (perhaps needlessly so).

Certainly one can argue that in certain methods, the invitational hand type becomes sufficiently common that this approach is wrong on merits. For example, if you are opening very light (say opening range 8-14) then a game force hand for responder is quite infrequent (16+) whereas the "invitational" hand type becomes more common (11-15) and opener can't afford to be jumping around on random 14-counts because you will still respond quite light (say 6+). In such a context playing all 2/1 responses as game-force seems silly, but the prevailing culture has shifted so much towards game-forcing responses that I see a number of people try to play them even opposite light opening bids. Similarly you could argue that a "strong" club, when it becomes sufficiently light in values, has a very wide "invitational" range of hands where responding a negative diamond becomes too frequent and impractical, but again the "prevailing culture" as well as long-standing tradition prevents people from adopting the invitational approach.

Many of the latest MOSCITO variants have adopted game invitational responses to the strong club opening for precisely the reasons that Adam identifies:

1. The MOSCITO strong club opening is very light
2. The frequency of GF responses was sufficiently low that the 1♦ had become badly overloaded

We sue a structure in which

Responses of 2NT+ show special GF hands (5440s and solid suits)
1♦ shows any other GF

1♠ shows a double negative

Bids between 1♥ and 2♠ show game invitational hands

[Hilver]

What about this structure of responses to 1♣? My pard and I use this structure in The Revision Club, a Big Club bidding system.

1♥ / ♠: 0-7 HCP, 5+-card
1NT: 4♥ and 4♠, 0-7 HP
2♣ / ♦: 6+-card, 0-7 HCP. at most a doubleton in the other minor
2♥: 4-7 HCP, 5+ card ♥ and ♠
2♠: 8-11 HCP, any 4-4-4-1
2NT: 12+ HCP, any 4-4-4-1
3♣ / ♦: 5-7 HCP in the minor, 7+ card
3♥ / ♠: 5-7 HCP in the major, 7+-card
3NT: Gambling NT (A long minor, headed by AKQ))
4♣ / ♦: Namyats
1♦: relay, excludes the above mentioned responses; maybe weak, intermediate or strong.

Most of the time You will respond 1♦. The advantage is that opener will bid his suit and You will never respond NT with a balanced hand and 7-14 HCP.

[SteelWheel]

Millenium Club uses pretty much all transfer responses to one club openings, regardless of hand strength:

1♦ = 0+ HCP, at least 4 card hearts
1♥ = 0+ HCP, at least 4 card spades
1♠ = 0+ HCP, "catch-all" with (most) hands without a four card or longer major
etc..
NT responses are "perfect-o" hands for notrump, i.e., quacky hands with some kind of slow values in every suit (or else bid the 1♠ catch-all)

Opener "accepts" the transfer with a modest 1♣ opener and a fit, otherwise does something else more dramatic. Interesting approach.

I've also seen a schedule of responses where 1♦ was either 0-3 or a game force, allowing responses in other suits to be be semi-positive, 4-7 type hands. Also an interesting way to go.

[rbforster]

matmat, on Sep 21 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

in the US i think there is some legal problem with invitational hands over a strong club in that you're only allowed to have relay sequences if you are forced to game. I dunno. i could very well be wrong here, someone who has clue may need to correct/expand on that

All responses are allowed GCC to a strong (15+) opening. The only restriction, not limited to strong openings, is that you aren't supposed to start your relay system until opener's first (asking) rebid, which is easy enough to do with transfer positives or other similar methods. As a matter of practice, no one seems to know what the authors of the GCC meant by a relay system anyway (Stayman?) let alone in particular if a forcing 1♣-1♦ sequence starts one, so I'd say effectively you can play whatever you want over a strong club. (Aside - what you were thinking of Matt is that you can play arbitrary GF conventional responses to any opening (in contrast to a strong opening), but only a select few allowed conventions when you might have invitational or weaker values.)

Free, on Sep 21 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

1♦ = GF, almost any hand
1♠ = double negative, any hand

Disadvantage obviously is that you don't know anything after 1♣-1♦, so it's a bit vulnerable to preemption.  This is of minor concern imo, since you have forcing passes and penalty doubles (you're in a GF auction) so opps can't overbid the hand that easy...  The double negative is more of a problem, but it's acceptable.

I can see that clarifying the values this way makes preemption more manageable over 1♣-1♦(GF), in contrast to say Adam's version where the GF and the double negative hands are combined into 1♦.

Free - what are your methods for finding fits after the double negative sequence 1♣-1♠? How do you show very strong hands there?

[Free]

Rob F, on Oct 22 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

Free, on Sep 21 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

1♦ = GF, almost any hand
1♠ = double negative, any hand

Disadvantage obviously is that you don't know anything after 1♣-1♦, so it's a bit vulnerable to preemption.  This is of minor concern imo, since you have forcing passes and penalty doubles (you're in a GF auction) so opps can't overbid the hand that easy...  The double negative is more of a problem, but it's acceptable.

I can see that clarifying the values this way makes preemption more manageable over 1♣-1♦(GF), in contrast to say Adam's version where the GF and the double negative hands are combined into 1♦. What are your methods for handling the double negative, especially for strong hands opposite weak ones?

Takeout Doubles and common sense...

[mycroft]

Oh come on. I realize that the GCC isn't the clearest thing in the universe, but the definition of Relay System is right there in plain letters, and it's carefully written to be easily testable without banning the relays everybody plays (Stayman and Blackwood being the obvious examples).

DEFINITIONS, 3:
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.

1C-1H; 1S relay? fine.
1NT-2C relay? fine.
(2H)-X-2NT relay? fine.
2C-2D automatic? fine.
1C-1S relay? not fine (GCC), fine if GF (Mid).

Relative to the original issue:

RESPONSES, 1:
ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to ONE CLUB.

and

RESPONSES, 3:
CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME
FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay
system.

and

RESPONSES, 7:
ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),
forcing opening bids...

(I know of people who play 16+ or 6+AK controls, who can't rely on RESPONSES, 7. I think they're insane.)

Michael.

[awm]

The problem is that the word "relay" is not itself defined. What exactly is a relay?

The ACBL definition (this is from talking to a lot of directors and people on the laws committees, I don't think it's spelled out anywhere) seems to be that a relay is one of:

1: A bid which forces a particular other bid. This is more commonly referred to by bidding system designers as a puppet. Lebensohl is a popular example. Transfers may or may not fall into this category, since they are not "simply puppets" and actually show length in a specific suit.

2: A bid which simply requests partner to further describe his hand, without giving any information about the bidder's hand. The most popular example is 1NT (forcing).

Because of this, I have had a number of directors rule that a 2♣ response to 1M which is artificial and shows game-forcing values is legal on the general chart, and that relays can follow. The basic point is that this 2♣ call does not force a particular bid (so not type 1, opener is supposed to describe his hand) and that it does in fact give information about bidder's hand (shows game forcing values). While this seems a bit dubious to me, it has been confirmed by a lot of people at the national level.

[bhall]

In Blue Team Club, the 1♥ response was "semipositive," 6 HCP up with 0-2 controls, while 2M showed 6 cards in the suit and less than 6 HCP. The other responses below 2M were control-showing and GF. Getting out under game after 1♣-1♥ was never a problem.

Many people have played around with split 1♦ responses, but they have a significant vulnerability to 4th-hand preemption. Invitational-or-better transfers work well over balanced openers, but tend to create problems when opener may be 5431, stiff in the transfer suit.

I think the problem comes in trying to combine natural responses with the invitational+ range. A system where opener relays over positive responses when accepting the invitation, or shows his shape when in doubt, should be pretty straightforward to design.

[nbailey]

I play a 14+ club and use 1D as a semi-positive (any 7-10) hand and 1H as the negative (0-6). 1S upwards are GF and show various stuff. I originally thought we would be vulnerable to preemption by the 4th hand but it has been fine, just got to know what your doubles are.

[PrecisionL]

SteelWheel, on Oct 22 2007, 02:52 AM, said:

Steel Wheel:

I've also seen a schedule of responses where 1♦ was either 0-3 or a game force, allowing responses in other suits to be be semi-positive, 4-7 type hands.  Also an interesting way to go.

Yes, American Forcing Minor by Lutz & Fink, 1995, ISBN 0-939460-52-2.

1♣ = 18+ hcp balanced, 17+ hcp Major suit, 21+ ♦ hand, 16+ ♣ hand

1♦ Response = 0-3 hcp / 8-13 hcp
1M Response = 4-7 hcp & 3-6 cards in the Major
1NT Response = 14+ hcp
2♣/♦ = 4-7 hcp & 6+ cards
2♥/♠ = 4-7 hcp & 7+ cards
2NT = 4-7 hcp & 6♦ + 5♣
3♣ = 4-7 hcp & 6♣ + 5♦
X = 9+ hcp
XX = 10+ hcp

Larry