[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Mar 20 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 20 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

If you really have a grasp on all of the cuebidding options, and nuances, and inferences from jumps, delayed jumps, and failures to jump, then this idea of a bid that is dedicated to "balanced hands" first seems like a really poor alternative.  But, that's just my opinion.

How is this comparison worth a lick of salt?

Is it comparing 2♣ showing real clubs GF or 2♣ showing clubs or balanced GF. When 2♣ arises which do you think would fair better?

Obviously the point isn't to add a multi-way to make a bid more convoluted. The point is to make 1M - 2♦ clearer, free up 1M - 2NT to show a raise rather than be balanced GF (which is a reasonable treatment) etc. etc.

So given that we want to include balanced GF's in with our 2♣ bid, how is any of what you mentioned relevant? If you aren't interested in such a treatment, that's fine. But you've gotta put those hands hands somewhere.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. I'm not sure, but I think maybe you were confused about what I am saying. So, maybe I'll try to explain my thoughts better.

1. I very much prefer and like for 2♣ to be GF after a major opening with either a real club suit or balanced, preserving 2NT as fit-showing.

2. In fact, I would bid 2♣ with a lot of shocking holdings, including hands with three-card support for the opened major and five cards in the other major.

3. Some also like this idea, whether of limited application or of expansive application.

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

9. It seems that option #1 leaves the "fit-or-no-fit" question ambiguous, whereas option #2 leaves the "clubs-or-fake-clubs" question ambiguous, and I'd rather first clarify fit than first clarify clubs.

As to the "fringe benefit" of having 1M-P-2♦ less ambiguous, this is true. I, however, will also occasionally fudge diamonds with balanced hands, if as a sort of advanced cue. I will probably lack a club control for this to occur, and I will likely have two of the top three diamonds. Something like (43/34)-AQx-xxx works.

[Cascade]

jtfanclub, on Mar 21 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 20 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

cwiggins, on Mar 21 2008, 12:55 AM, said:

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

Do whatever you like:

"ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call." GCC

Nope. #7 is nice, but it's #3 that makes 2♣ legal.

#3 says "May NOT be part of a relay system".

2♣ forcing 2♦ from partner is a puppet, and a puppet is considered part of a relay system. Therefore, I would argue that it should be illegal.

(edited for clarity)

I was saying anything after 2♣ is legal.

I did not investigate the legality of 2♣.

[foo]

So if I understand these systems,1st principle dictate something like?

1= 1M-2C!;foo-3N= 3cM min GF 4333 (w/ 4cM, you use J2N) CoG
2= 1M-1N;foo-4M= 3cM min GF 4432
3= 1M-2C!;foo-2N= Slam interested 4333's and 4432's w/ 3-M
4= 1M-2C!;foo-4M= 3cM in something like min GF 5332
5= 1M-2C!;foo-2M= shape as above, but slam interest.
6= 1M-2C!;foo-new= denies support, honest shape.

Interesting.

[david_c]

kenrexford, on Mar 21 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

If you play 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ as showing 3-card support then you're probably right that your way is more efficient.

However, I don't play 2♠ as promising three. I think we've had this discussion before! In fact if I'm playing 2♣ as clubs or balanced then I usually try to arrange things so that 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ is an artificial GF promising 5+ clubs, saying nothing at all about spades. (Partly this is because I want it to be the same over a 1♥ opener.)

Also, the continuations after 2NT are relay-like, and I maintain that this is a better way to bid balanced hands than a cue-bidding sequence. Responder does not actually need to show support at all, he just relays out. (If you're playing under GCC rules you call it something different, of course...)

I know you (Ken) don't agree with this philosophy, but those are my reasons.

[kenrexford]

david_c, on Mar 21 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 21 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

If you play 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ as showing 3-card support then you're probably right that your way is more efficient.

However, I don't play 2♠ as promising three. I think we've had this discussion before! In fact if I'm playing 2♣ as clubs or balanced then I usually try to arrange things so that 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ is an artificial GF promising 5+ clubs, saying nothing at all about spades. (Partly this is because I want it to be the same over a 1♥ opener.)

Also, the continuations after 2NT are relay-like, and I maintain that this is a better way to bid balanced hands than a cue-bidding sequence. Responder does not actually need to show support at all, he just relays out. (If you're playing under GCC rules you call it something different, of course...)

I know you (Ken) don't agree with this philosophy, but those are my reasons.

Actually, we agree here.

IMO, there are two decent ways to bid. I misunderstood and thought you were advocating something entirely different.

If Responder's next call of two of Opener's major agrees a fit, then, as you suggested, it seems that forcing Responder to validate clubs also with that call, in the context of an "artificial" 2♣, seems unnecessary and ill-advised. It kind of defeats one purpose of the call.

However, if the theory is not to establish the fit immediately but to explore pattern fully, with 2M as waiting-ish, then the dynamics are substantially altered and my analysis is not applicable in the same way at all. In that scenario, I like your thoughts.

I happen to believe that patterning out is a very good approach, as I would prefer this in the context of a canape system, for example. I just happen to have concluded that patterning out is perhaps slightly but IMO substantially less effective than enhanced cuebidding in a 2/1 system. Without enhanced cuebidding, and simply normal cuebidding, I think patterning out is better.

[han]

awm, on Mar 20 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

I'm not sure why the structure Han (for example) suggests is supposed to be better than this one.

Not sure who supposed that our structure is better so not sure where this comment came from.

If you compare the two structures then you'll see that they really are quite similar. Garozzo groups the hands a bit differently than we do, so on some hands we have more room than he does and on other hands he has more room than we do.

The main appeal that this method has for us is that it is our own method. We know how we came to this which makes it easier to remember, not only the first few rounds but also later rounds. For example if we find a major fit then we know when frivolous 3NT is on and whether we cuebid or pattern out.

It is not a structure that we devised at once. We've been playing artificial follow-ups to 1M-2C for a few years now, and both the meaning of 2C and the meaning of the different follow-ups have evolved over time. We have recently made a drastic change (we no longer bid 2C on 3-card limit raises) and we will likely fine-tune opener's rebids more in the future.

I posted it not because I claim that it is better than what somebody else is playing. In an earlier thread by wereagles I had commented that his idea (2S and 2NT catch-alls over 1S-2X) is not optimal over a 2C response. So I wanted to show how we use both 2D and 2H as catch-all, quite similar to the way he proposed.

[awm]

It's just always seemed strange to me that a lot of times:

(1) There is some sort of bidding problem/idea that people want to explore.
(2) A method for what they want to do already exists in the bridge literature, well documented and often proposed and vetted by one or more elite-level players.
(3) Nonetheless, people come up with their own pet method to do the same thing, without even considering what's already out there.

Han is far from the only person to do this. I have seen people re-invent relay methods from scratch without glancing at symmetric relay on dozens of occasions.

Now obviously there are situations where you actually want something different (for example if you play intermediate twos in the majors this changes the set of 1M openings and so maybe you want your 1M-2♣ followups to take advantage of that). And there are also situations where you can improve over what's out there, or where you can come up with something that's easier for you to remember because it's more similar to something else in your methods.

This is all fine, but the practice of not even considering and rejecting what's already out there has always seemed weird to me.

[Echognome]

awm, on Mar 21 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

It's just always seemed strange to me that a lot of times:

(1) There is some sort of bidding problem/idea that people want to explore.
(2) A method for what they want to do already exists in the bridge literature, well documented and often proposed and vetted by one or more elite-level players.
(3) Nonetheless, people come up with their own pet method to do the same thing, without even considering what's already out there.

Han is far from the only person to do this. I have seen people re-invent relay methods from scratch without glancing at symmetric relay on dozens of occasions.

Now obviously there are situations where you actually want something different (for example if you play intermediate twos in the majors this changes the set of 1M openings and so maybe you want your 1M-2♣ followups to take advantage of that). And there are also situations where you can improve over what's out there, or where you can come up with something that's easier for you to remember because it's more similar to something else in your methods.

This is all fine, but the practice of not even considering and rejecting what's already out there has always seemed weird to me.

(1) Whom are you referring to? Do you not think that people that actually take the time to explore variants on methods do not actually research other methods? Or, for example, that they discuss these methods with other people who play similar methods? Or that they ask good players what they think of the methods?

(2) Do you think there is nothing to learn from going through the process of coming up with the methods from scratch and considering all of their ramifications?

(3) I find it funny that you have concern about re-inventing relay methods from scratch. That was one of the most interesting things I've done with bidding. And once done, (I have a big Excel spreadsheet), it's so much easier to do going forward. Yes. I re-invented relays, but kept them symmetric. Did I have a reason? Yes! I moved 5-5 majors hands from a 1♥ opening (in Tarzan) to a 1♠ opening (in modified Tarzan). I changed the 1♠ GF relay over 1♥ to a 1NT GF relay over 1♥. I could not have done this without changing the relays. The other interesting aspect was to do a diagnostic on the relays once I had all of the hand types listed. So I knew how many of each shape went it to what bid. This told me how much room each bid had to handle more shapes (or if it was already overloaded). Then I could group similar hands into similar bids. It certainly felt like a worthwhile exercise to me. But then again, I just like playing around with Excel.

(4) Perhaps I'm being unfair because you mention the practice of "not even considering and rejecting," which does not refer to me or the system designers with whom I typically correspond. So maybe you know some of these people and they should not design systems.

[han]

awm, on Mar 21 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

This is all fine, but the practice of not even considering and rejecting what's already out there has always seemed weird to me.

You are making assumptions that aren't justified.

[awm]

Echognome and relays is not an example of what I'm talking about.

He clearly made the decision to use symmetric relay, then modify it slightly to better fit his chosen opening structure (which is different from the opening structure in the symmetric relay notes).

However, you don't have to read very many threads in the Non-Natural Systems forum to notice many people playing relay-based methods whose relays don't look a thing like symmetric relay. Now certainly it could be that there are good reasons for this, or that people have read the symmetric relay notes and decided they can do better. But in surprisingly many cases symmetric relay is very clearly both simpler and more efficient than what these folks are using!

The structure Han/Echognome are using over 1M-2♣ does seem rather similar to what Garozzo has been using for years. But it's different. So my question is: why is it different? There seem to be three possibilities:

(1) Han/Echognome were not aware of Garozzo's structure and so came up with something on their own.

(2) Han/Echognome knew about Garozzo's structure, but decided that it is flawed or too complex or that it doesn't fit well with the rest of their methods for some reason. So they came up with their own.

(3) Han/Echognome knew about Garozzo's structure, but didn't care, because it was more fun to re-invent the wheel.

Any of these is fine... but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of (1) and (3) going on in the amazing world of bidding conventions, and that folks tend to advertise and/or defend their own methods to the extreme, and that the proliferation of similar methods without relationship to existing methods makes things a lot more confusing for people trying to figure out what is a good method to play.

In any case, I am interested in what are good methods to play here. My default would be to go with Garozzo's method because, well, he's a world champion player and system designer. But if other people have methods that they believe improve upon Garozzo's method, I'm happy to hear about their versions and why their versions might be better (or at least easier to remember). On the other hand, if people are just re-inventing the wheel for the fun of making up their own pet methods, I'd rather stick with Garozzo's approach.

[kenrexford]

When I face the problem of who to trust (Han, Echognome, or Garozzo?), I trust myself. I find that I am the person who most agrees with me.

Then, I look at the ideas of the other folks (Han, Echognome. and Garozzo), understand them, and think through whether it works. I might adopt any of these, or I might do my own thing.

If you want to use a default, because you do not have time to think about it, fine -- go with Garozzo. Makes sense. But, if you do have time to think about it, which you seem to have if you enjoy BBF, then think about it, referring to thoughts of others and analyzing with your own view of what makes sense, based on your own acumen at theory.

It seems rather silly to point out what you would do if you were lazy. It seems rather more silly to object to people who are not lazy and do not therefore use defaults as crutches.

[david_c]

awm, on Mar 21 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

In any case, I am interested in what are good methods to play here. My default would be to go with Garozzo's method because, well, he's a world champion player and system designer. But if other people have methods that they believe improve upon Garozzo's method, I'm happy to hear about their versions and why their versions might be better (or at least easier to remember). On the other hand, if people are just re-inventing the wheel for the fun of making up their own pet methods, I'd rather stick with Garozzo's approach.

For me, I suppose it is mostly for the fun of it. But, as others have said, if you really want to learn a system like this, it helps a lot if you've actually thought about the logic for yourself. It's much easier to remember if you understand why things are the way they are. And usually there are a few things that don't seem quite right, and then you end up writing out something which looks a little different.

Actually I have a version of this thing (here) which is very similar to Garozzo's version. (But designed so as to relay out as near as possible to the complete shape.) But that's quite old - if I was doing it now I think there are some things I'd do differently:

(i) Garozzo's scheme is pretty much as symmetric as possible. I'd prefer it to be slightly "bottom-heavy" - that is, putting more hands into 2♦ and using the higher bids less. That's because I like to break with an unbalanced hand, and there you can't afford to start too high.

(ii) It gives away unnecessary information. After a 2♦ rebid, the next relay reveals the second suit. What I'd really like is 1M:2♣,2♦:2♥,2♠ showing a "boring" hand (minimum, precisely 5-card major, no other 5-card suit), and then much of the time you can set the contract in 3NT or 4M immediately.

[han]

awm, on Mar 21 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

(1) Han/Echognome were not aware of Garozzo's structure and so came up with something on their own.

(2) Han/Echognome knew about Garozzo's structure, but decided that it is flawed or too complex or that it doesn't fit well with the rest of their methods for some reason. So they came up with their own.

(3) Han/Echognome knew about Garozzo's structure, but didn't care, because it was more fun to re-invent the wheel.

How about none of these three? Is it possible that there is a third?

[Echognome]

I would say my interest is more along Adam's 2nd option.

I was looking for a scheme that would be more parallel with the rest of my system. Han initially showed me the idea in a separate context (with an additional hand type) and I thought it was a nice idea. I looked at the Ambra notes and they weren't very intuitive to me, so I was thinking of a way that would be closer to other system that I played. All that being said, it's still in a stage where I'm working through the various bidding choices.

You can get accurate shape information this way at a low level, it's just the best way to go from there. And playing this system with Phil or with Jason would lead to different continuations (since we have different histories of systems we play together). With Phil I want to set suit as low as possible and then get into frivolous/serious/cuebidding auctions. With Jason, once shape is known (or known as much as it's going to be), I would go into weak relay/strong relay/denial cuebidding auctions. Again, for the reason of fitting well with the rest of the structure. Of course, Jason and I don't have such a sequence since we are playing a GF relay structure, but the design goals would be different if we weren't.

[paulg]

I use Garozzo's methods and it seems to work fine. Bocchi-Duboin play something very similar, but seem to flip the minors suits - so where Garozzo's methods says 5M+4♦, it would show 4♣ for them.

We believe that the 2♣ response is Mid Chart, but we don't really care as we only play Mid Chart events.

Paul

[foo]

The consensus of most TD's I know is that 1foo-2C! when it might be a "Short C by Responder" is GCC as long as it promises GF values and you actually have 2+C.

If your GF 2C! is completely artificial and says nothing at all about the presence or absence of ♣'s in R's hand, then you have to worry about whether or not your continuations could be considered a relay structure.

...and of course, if 2C! is not GF it is not GCC.

[hrothgar]

cancel

[qwery_hi]

Echognome, on Mar 21 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 21 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

It's just always seemed strange to me that a lot of times:

(1) There is some sort of bidding problem/idea that people want to explore.
(2) A method for what they want to do already exists in the bridge literature, well documented and often proposed and vetted by one or more elite-level players.
(3) Nonetheless, people come up with their own pet method to do the same thing, without even considering what's already out there.

Han is far from the only person to do this. I have seen people re-invent relay methods from scratch without glancing at symmetric relay on dozens of occasions.

Now obviously there are situations where you actually want something different (for example if you play intermediate twos in the majors this changes the set of 1M openings and so maybe you want your 1M-2♣ followups to take advantage of that). And there are also situations where you can improve over what's out there, or where you can come up with something that's easier for you to remember because it's more similar to something else in your methods.

This is all fine, but the practice of not even considering and rejecting what's already out there has always seemed weird to me.

(1) Whom are you referring to? Do you not think that people that actually take the time to explore variants on methods do not actually research other methods? Or, for example, that they discuss these methods with other people who play similar methods? Or that they ask good players what they think of the methods?

(2) Do you think there is nothing to learn from going through the process of coming up with the methods from scratch and considering all of their ramifications?

(3) I find it funny that you have concern about re-inventing relay methods from scratch. That was one of the most interesting things I've done with bidding. And once done, (I have a big Excel spreadsheet), it's so much easier to do going forward. Yes. I re-invented relays, but kept them symmetric. Did I have a reason? Yes! I moved 5-5 majors hands from a 1♥ opening (in Tarzan) to a 1♠ opening (in modified Tarzan). I changed the 1♠ GF relay over 1♥ to a 1NT GF relay over 1♥. I could not have done this without changing the relays. The other interesting aspect was to do a diagnostic on the relays once I had all of the hand types listed. So I knew how many of each shape went it to what bid. This told me how much room each bid had to handle more shapes (or if it was already overloaded). Then I could group similar hands into similar bids. It certainly felt like a worthwhile exercise to me. But then again, I just like playing around with Excel.

(4) Perhaps I'm being unfair because you mention the practice of "not even considering and rejecting," which does not refer to me or the system designers with whom I typically correspond. So maybe you know some of these people and they should not design systems.

It would be nice to have an understanding that when people propose new systems in the forum, they say what the system was inspired by and provide a reference. Since they went to all the trouble of designing the system, perhaps they could do a comparative analysis of these systems and tell us in which auctions theirs is better.

[TylerE]

foo, on Mar 22 2008, 08:03 AM, said:

The consensus of most TD's I know is that 1foo-2C! when it might be a "Short C by Responder" is GCC as long as it promises GF values and you actually have 2+C.

If your GF 2C! is completely artificial and says nothing at all about the presence or absence of ♣'s in R's hand, then you have to worry about whether or not your continuations could be considered a relay structure.

...and of course, if 2C! is not GF it is not GCC.

Most of the good structures I've seen use relay responses by opener, which is non-GCC (Relay started before openers rebid)