[y66]

Have you tried this method using any of the variations described here or here?

Fred G's discussion of 1M 2N is here.

[P_Marlowe]

I played "Power Acol", which means that

1M 2D = art., gf
2C = art. inv.

I liked it, and you can come up, with some sensible
follow ups, so it works.
But it needs add. agreements.

And it is certainly nothing i would play without a lot of
discussion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

Surprisingly enough Han and me play a method very similar to the one posted by Han in the BBF thread you linked to above

[benlessard]

I think 2C art showing a fit and 10+ or huge balanced hand is better. Instead of bergen raise and jacoby the rest show different clubs GF hands.

What you want is to avoid balanced & clubs hand in the same spot.

[Free]

I play 1M-2♣ as a GF relay and would definitely recommend it in a 2/1 GF system. I would not recommend it in 2/1 10+HCP systems however.

When 2♣ is GF, opener can respond artificially. He's able to show minimum and maximum, every 5-4 shape, balanced hands, and 5-5/6-4 with shortness. This is almost as good as full relays in a natural system!

[lexlogan]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 27 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I played "Power Acol", which means that

1M 2D = art., gf
2C = art. inv.

I liked it, and you can come up, with some sensible
follow ups, so it works.
But it needs add. agreements.

And it is certainly nothing i would play without a lot of
discussion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I'd thought of using 2C = invite, 2D = GF myself. Never saw it written up anywhere. Unfortunately, in ACBL land, 1M-2C as an artificial game invitation by an unpassed hand is not GCC legal. It is legal to play 2C (or 2D) as an artificial game force, if it's not a relay.

For 1M-2C art. GF (balanced or with clubs) I like the suggestion that the balanced hand always rebids 2NT, to give opener another chance to describe his hand.

[TylerE]

Unfortunatly my understanding is that this treatment is NOT GCC.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure I would call it "artificial," but I play that 2♣ might be extremely "canape," in a sense. In other words, 2♣ could be bid with a three-card suit (lies with a two-card OK), if (a.) balanced (and not right for some other way of showing balanced) or (b.) fit (could be hiding a side five-card suit, even other major).

The "reseravtions" would be tactical and somewhat complicated. Generally, a hand where showing a "buried" suit is not better even with space forfeiture, and generally only manufactured if either necessary or if in possession of a control (K+).

[paulg]

kenrexford, on Dec 29 2008, 10:10 PM, said:

I'm not sure I would call it "artificial," but I play that 2♣ might be extremely "canape," in a sense.  In other words, 2♣ could be bid with a three-card suit (lies with a two-card OK), if (a.) balanced (and not right for some other way of showing balanced) or (b.) fit (could be hiding a side five-card suit, even other major).

I would call this artificial. When you have no real intention of bidding your longer suit on the next round, I think it is misleading to include canape in the description.

I play 1M-2♣ as either inv+ with clubs or game forcing with fit or game forcing balanced. I do not play in GCC events.

p

[twcho]

My version of 1M - 2♣ has multi meanings as follows:
1. limit raise in M with 3 card support, partner will bid 2♦ with all minimum hand and responder will then rebid 2M which is passable. This allows the partner to stop at 2M while most other methods will force the partnership to 3M.
2. The other possibility is natural ♣ GF or bal GF hand. This will be clarified by the 2nd round bidding.

[keylime]

I use 1M-2C in a 4 card majors, canape setup, and love it. I can also see how this would help the 2/1 GF's by allowing opener to slow down the auction. You could with a little work play the Gazzilli (someone check my spelling - it's my birthday and writing a bridge post with cake and wine, be afraid) method with this.

[neilkaz]

twcho, on Dec 29 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

My version of 1M - 2♣ has multi meanings as follows:
1. limit raise in M with 3 card support, partner will bid 2♦ with all minimum hand and responder will then rebid 2M which is passable. This allows the partner to stop at 2M while most other methods will force the partnership to 3M.
2. The other possibility is natural ♣ GF or bal GF hand. This will be clarified by the 2nd round bidding.

I like this idea and would like to hear a bit more about the followups here.

[brianshark]

Playing a system where 1M is limited to 10-15, I have been recommended to have 2 ways to make a 3-card raise, 2M-1 to show a constructive raise and 2M to show any rubbish hand with 3 card support and no game interest. (And 2♦ over 1♠ to show hearts.)

But this means playing an artificial GF 2♣ that not only includes 3 card support, balanced hands and clubs, but possibly a 5+ card ♦ suit. Does anyone play this, or a employ 2♣ art GF bid that is similar to this?

[marcD]

Free, on Dec 27 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

I play 1M-2♣ as a GF relay and would definitely recommend it in a 2/1 GF system. I would not recommend it in 2/1 10+HCP systems however.

When 2♣ is GF, opener can respond artificially. He's able to show minimum and maximum, every 5-4 shape, balanced hands, and 5-5/6-4 with shortness. This is almost as good as full relays in a natural system!

could you elaborate on why you think it is not playable in a 2/1 10+ HCP ? I play 2♣ GF with generally balanced hand or inv+ clubs (repetition of clubs is only NF sequence). the overall system is ambra like (2♦ shows hearts 8/p+ and 2♥ shows diamonds inv+, 1NT semiforcing).

[david_c]

brianshark, on Dec 30 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

But this means playing an artificial GF 2♣ that not only includes 3 card support, balanced hands and clubs, but possibly a 5+ card ♦ suit. Does anyone play this, or a employ 2♣ art GF bid that is similar to this?

I used to play this with Mark, but we used Symmetric Relay over 2♣ which I felt was not working (there's not enough space - plus I don't like relaying with unbalanced hands). Since then I've played around with various ways of making better use of the available space (such as this), but I haven't ever tried them out at the table. Currently my thinking is that while having 2M-1 as a raise is nice, it's not worth the extra layer of complexity that it adds to the 2♣ bid.

[cherdano]

neilkaz, on Dec 29 2008, 10:59 PM, said:

twcho, on Dec 29 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

My version of 1M - 2♣ has multi meanings as follows:
1. limit raise in M with 3 card support, partner will bid 2♦ with all minimum hand and responder will then rebid 2M which is passable. This allows the partner to stop at 2M while most other methods will force the partnership to 3M.
2. The other possibility is natural ♣ GF or bal GF hand. This will be clarified by the 2nd round bidding.

I like this idea and would like to hear a bit more about the followups here.

We used to play this but gave up on it. I am not saying it's bad but it leads to some awkward auctions after opener shows extras.

[mr1303]

Being the Mark that David_c used to play it with, I agree with him. We used to play a strong club system with symmetric relays after 1C openings, and wanted to have full relays whilst keeping some of our other useful bits in.

The 1M P 2C relays weren't that great, and some of the rubbish that we had to play to incorporate it (such as 1S 2D as hearts) was quite cringeworthy

Good fun though I miss those days. Perhaps we should dig out the system notes at some point and revisit it.