[wclass___]

IMO 1♥ GF relay/nat is way superior to 1N GF.

From my experience relay methods really start to kick in only if you can get shape+controls till 3N, so that you can bid 4♣ starting next relay step. This guarantees safety for marginal hands, else you often have to think if it is safe to bid one more as you have risk going too high. That takes a lot of thinking, logics, time and energy, so IMO, if you can't get this information low enough, relays are not worth it.

I am recently toying about idea to divide hands in relayable/not relayable .

Let's say you opened 1 ♥ and partner starts relaying. There are a decent number of high frequency hands like 5(332)/5(422)/5(431)/6(322) that you are generally willing to relay. Probably you can add some other shapes to these 15, and still get shape+controls at very comfortable level. But there are A LOT of other shapes that you wont get out at comfortable level plus they put pressure on high frequency shapes to get described. So reserve one bid for other shapes and use different approach for further bidding. You don't need to always say ''No'' to relays after this response, if it goes something like

1♥-1♠(Rel)-2♣(other hands)-2♥ (showing fit)

fit guarantees safety and you may as well keep your relaying. (Not that 2♣ would show nothing and much would be lost)

[awm]

The point is that 1♥ = natural or any GF is clearly allowed on the mid-chart, which allows any constructive responses to opening bids.

The question is whether the system becomes a "non-game forcing relay system" which is not allowed on the mid-chart. I don't think this is really the case, because such a system has to have a "sequence of relays" starting prior to opener's rebid. The 1♥ bid itself is not necessarily even a relay, and if responder's hand is less than GF there certainly isn't a "sequence of relays." However, it's still reasonable to check with ACBL (not that this really gives you anything concrete either, these days).

[Apollo81]

How about something like the following:

pass: weak hands, or 3343 up to 9 hcp, or 5♦332 up to 8 hcp
1NT: game forcing relay
2♣: 3+♦/4+♣, 8-9 hcp
2♦: 4+♦/4+♣, 9-11 hcp (2♥ asks)
2♥: 6+♣ inv or bal 10-11 (2♠ asks which)
2♠: bal 12-13 (wants partner to declare NT)
2NT: bal 12-13 (wants to declare NT)
3♣: 4♦/5+♣, 5-8 hcp
3♦: 6+♦, inv

This way you have a lot of options when you can't bid a major, you don't have to worry about 1M not having the suit, and you still get to play 1NT game forcing relay which I know you prefer.

Do I think this is better than not playing 1NT game forcing relay? No...

[awm]

I am confused by Noble's method as to where the following hand types go:

3325 shapes, less than game invitational
(32)26, 3316, and hands with 7♣, less than game invitational
(13)54 and 12-13 hcp (or is this GF opposite what is usually 11-13 balanced?)

[straube]

awm, on Apr 25 2010, 10:44 PM, said:

The point is that 1♥ = natural or any GF is clearly allowed on the mid-chart, which allows any constructive responses to opening bids.

The question is whether the system becomes a "non-game forcing relay system" which is not allowed on the mid-chart. I don't think this is really the case, because such a system has to have a "sequence of relays" starting prior to opener's rebid. The 1♥ bid itself is not necessarily even a relay, and if responder's hand is less than GF there certainly isn't a "sequence of relays." However, it's still reasonable to check with ACBL (not that this really gives you anything concrete either, these days).

Seems to me that the ACBL's definition of a relay is (more or less) a bid that doesn't provide distributional information about a hand. 1D-1H (tell me more) is a relay and the fact that the bid is likely to show hearts is neither here nor there. The bid doesn't promise hearts. It's a relay and relays that don't promise GF values aren't permitted.

[awm]

straube, on Apr 26 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

Seems to me that the ACBL's definition of a relay is (more or less) a bid that doesn't provide distributional information about a hand. 1D-1H (tell me more) is a relay and the fact that the bid is likely to show hearts is neither here nor there. The bid doesn't promise hearts. It's a relay and relays that don't promise GF values aren't permitted.

(1) I don't think this is ACBL's definition of a relay. For example, I know that 2♣ artificial GF response to 1M opening is allowed on the general chart, and that relay follow-ups are permitted.

(2) There is no rule against relays, even relays that don't promise GF values. The rule is against relay systems. A relay system is defined as a "sequence of relays started prior to opener's rebid." Regardless of what a relay is, a "sequence of relays" would seem to imply more than one. So even if the 1♥ bid is a relay, to have a non-GF relay system there would have to be a second, non-GF relay after opener's rebid.

[straube]

I think that a 2C response to 1M has to be natural (3+) for the GCC. You know the wordage, "unless specifically allowed"...

and here's what it says is allowed under the GCC...

"TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to third or fourth-seat major-suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid."

so not to 1st and 2nd seat.

I checked with Bruce Campbell from the ACBL about stuff like this and learned that we can start relaying after a natural 2C response (i.e. has to promise 3 clubs).

Interesting point about relays vs relay systems. I suppose then that one could respond 1H to 1D under the Midchart with a relay bid, but then it seems like responder wouldn't be able to relay again without it becoming a relay system...and that would limit its usefulness. Do I have that right?

[akhare]

straube, on Apr 26 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Interesting point about relays vs relay systems. I suppose then that one could respond 1H to 1D under the Midchart with a relay bid, but then it seems like responder wouldn't be able to relay again without it becoming a relay system...and that would limit its usefulness. Do I have that right?

As long as it becomes GF after the second relay, it's kosher:

2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

[straube]

akhare, on Apr 26 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

straube, on Apr 26 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Interesting point about relays vs relay systems.  I suppose then that one could respond 1H to 1D under the Midchart with a relay bid, but then it seems like responder wouldn't be able to relay again without it becoming a relay system...and that would limit its usefulness.  Do I have that right?

As long as it becomes GF after the second relay, it's kosher:

2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

If say the bidding goes 1D-1H, 1N where 1N shows four hearts (just for sake of argument), then responder bids 2C as a further now GF inquiry, then one has a relay system which started with the first relay of 1H. Isn't that right? Since 1H doesn't promise GF values, then that relay system would be disallowed.

[awm]

The rules are different under general chart and mid-chart.

For general chart:

Notice item 3 under allowed responses/rebids "Conventional responses which guarantee game-forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system." Thus a 2♣ response to 1M which is artificial and game forcing is okay. Whether you can play relays after this is less clear, as it depends on whether you categorize the 2♣ response showing GF values as a relay. However, in practice I have seen this method allowed in general-chart events by several national-level directors.

The 1♥ response to 1♦ which shows "hearts or any GF" is not allowed under the general chart. It's pretty easy to see this from the allowed responses section.

For mid-chart:

The 1♥ response to 1♦ which shows "hearts or any GF" is allowed since all constructive responses are allowed (item 3 on the mid-chart). Note that no suggested defense is needed.

Game-forcing relay systems are allowed on the mid-chart. So 1♦ - 1♥ (hearts or GF) - 2♦ (natural) - 2♥ (GF relay) is fine since while it is arguably a "relay system" it is forcing to game. The only problem comes up if both you believe the 1♥ response to be a relay (questionable) and you have a second relay at responder's next turn and the auction is still not game forcing. For example an auction like the following is no good: 1♦ - 1♥ (tell me more; any hand except a few specific exceptions) - 2♦ (diamond one suiter) - 2♥ (tell me more) - 3♦ (minimum with no shortness) - PASS. Here we have two consecutive relays and the auction was not forced to game.

[akhare]

straube, on Apr 26 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

akhare, on Apr 26 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

straube, on Apr 26 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Interesting point about relays vs relay systems.  I suppose then that one could respond 1H to 1D under the Midchart with a relay bid, but then it seems like responder wouldn't be able to relay again without it becoming a relay system...and that would limit its usefulness.  Do I have that right?

As long as it becomes GF after the second relay, it's kosher:

2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

If say the bidding goes 1D-1H, 1N where 1N shows four hearts (just for sake of argument), then responder bids 2C as a further now GF inquiry, then one has a relay system which started with the first relay of 1H. Isn't that right? Since 1H doesn't promise GF values, then that relay system would be disallowed.

I think awm addressed this question. Basically, since the 2♣ bid is GF, the 1♥ is now just part of a GF relay, though the GF wasn't established when 1♥ was bid and is therefore completely legal.

If responder *didn't* have hearts for the 1♥ response *and* dropped opener short of game, it could be argued that the 1♥ response was just the start of a GI relay sequence.

[straube]

awm, on Apr 26 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

The rules are different under general chart and mid-chart.

For general chart:

Notice item 3 under allowed responses/rebids "Conventional responses which guarantee game-forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system." Thus a 2♣ response to 1M which is artificial and game forcing is okay. Whether you can play relays after this is less clear, as it depends on whether you categorize the 2♣ response showing GF values as a relay. However, in practice I have seen this method allowed in general-chart events by several national-level directors.

The 1♥ response to 1♦ which shows "hearts or any GF" is not allowed under the general chart. It's pretty easy to see this from the allowed responses section.

For mid-chart:

The 1♥ response to 1♦ which shows "hearts or any GF" is allowed since all constructive responses are allowed (item 3 on the mid-chart). Note that no suggested defense is needed.

Game-forcing relay systems are allowed on the mid-chart. So 1♦ - 1♥ (hearts or GF) - 2♦ (natural) - 2♥ (GF relay) is fine since while it is arguably a "relay system" it is forcing to game. The only problem comes up if both you believe the 1♥ response to be a relay (questionable) and you have a second relay at responder's next turn and the auction is still not game forcing. For example an auction like the following is no good: 1♦ - 1♥ (tell me more; any hand except a few specific exceptions) - 2♦ (diamond one suiter) - 2♥ (tell me more) - 3♦ (minimum with no shortness) - PASS. Here we have two consecutive relays and the auction was not forced to game.

Well, I'm getting confused.

My understanding of "Conventional responses which guarantee game-forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system." is that the conventional response can either...

1. show something about responder's hand. For instance, 1M-2C could be a GF raise of spades or
be a GF bid showing a balanced hand.

2. be an artificial GF which essentially functions as a relay (gives opener a second chance to tell about his hand ('cause what else is he going to do?)) but responder would be barred from relaying a second time because that would result in a relay system (sequence of relay bids). Of course, this is the GCC we're talking about.

The fact that certain directors at the National level have permitted 1M-2C to be a GF relay for the GCC is very interesting to me. It flies in the face of what I've been told by Campbell (who I understand is not the ultimate authority but is the contact person the ACBL has regarding what is and isn't permitted) but more importantly is in direct contradiction to the plain reading of "May not be part of a relay system." I wonder if 1) they're confused or 2) they think it's hopeless to police allowing an artificial GF response while forbidding relay continuations.

1D-1H as natural or relay is (for me) clearly a relay bid, even if responder usually has hearts. Usually, too, opener's rebids are set up so as to facilitate further relaying.

Your point about a sequence implying more than one relay makes sense. I think I'm convinced that one is allowed one relay but to relay a second time would require that the partnership enter a GF.

So do I rewrite our 1D structure so as to relay with 1H? Is this even good?

[straube]

Hi David,

This is allowed under #3 of the Mid-chart.

Regards,
Butch

dastraube@aol.com


dastraube@aol.com
04/26/2010 09:55 AM


To
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org


cc



Subject
1D-1H



Hi, we're having a discussion on BBO about having a 1H response to 1D
show either hearts or be an artificial GF relay. Is this allowed under
the Midchart? Why or why not? thanks, David

[olien]

[edit]

[mycroft]

The answer to a lot of the "why is this GCC legal/illegal" isn't hard, just read the definition of relay *system*:

"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."

So 1C-1H (showing spades); 1S (first relay) is perfectly legal, first relay is opener's rebid.
Stayman sequences are legal, the opening is in NT.
Blackwood is legal, except possibly 1x-4NT; response-relay;... but nobody's going to care about one insanely rare sequence.
Relays after Mexican 2D or strong 2C are fine, the opening is at the two level.
1D-1H "tell me about your hand" is not legal. 1D-1H "hearts, or first relay in a GF" is not legal.

A quick side check, although it was covered: 1x-1NT GFR is not legal (see RESPONSES 2 "may not guarantee GI+ values" and RESPONSES 3 "may not be part of a relay system).

Note that RESPONSES 8 explicitly allows relay systems, provided they don't fall under the definition of "relay systems" - I play one (symmetric relay after 1C-positive).

[awm]

I'll mention that my reading of the general chart is a bit different from mycroft's with regard to a 1NT response showing GF values.

#3 under responses allows "Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system." This would seem to allow a 1NT response which is an artificial game force.

#2 under responses allows "One notrump response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round; cannot guarantee game invitational or better values." However, my reading of this is that a 1NT response which is simply forcing and would not otherwise be allowed will be allowed only provided that it does not guarantee invitational or better values. In other words, it does not contradict #3 under allowed which explicitly permits 1NT guaranteeing GF values, nor would it bar a natural 1NT response which guaranteed game invitational values (i.e. 1NT response showing 10-11).