[akhare]

I have always wanted to try the middle of the road approach, i.e., 2/1 bids are NF (7+ to 10) and the 1N response is forcing, but doesn't promise GF strength.

Opener makes the normal responses to the forcing 1N bid. I suppose 5332 hands might be slightly tricky if you want to relay out entire pattern, but it can probably be handled pretty elegantly.

After opener's response, you can play that return to opener's major is to play and cheapest bid continues the relay...

[Free]

I've played some form of symmetric relay after 1M-1NT. However we used 1NT as INV+ relay, not GF. Opener would bid 2♣ with the hand he'd normally bid 2♣ with, or any minimum hand. This way, responder could relay with 2♦ and opener would specify which holding he actually has (2M = min, the rest is bidding out shape in steps). Also, responder could break the relays and bid natural to find the best part score opposite a minimum opener. The biggest drawback is when opener is minimum and responder has a GF. Your relays are off, you're at 2M, and you have only heard about a 5 card M...

In combination with this, we played all 2/1's natural and NF.

[helene_t]

Josh, while I suppose you are right (if only because you are a much better bridge player than I) I have an issue with your argument. Innovation comes from people like JTF who are crazy enough to challenge conventional wisdom. They are wrong most of the time but when they are right it is actually interesting that they are right (if it is ever discovered that they are).

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay. How many bridge authorities have actually experience with such a system? The standard forcing 1NT response is difficult to defend, and opps might actually help you by interfering, for example when you have a Flannery hand or a balanced minimum and you are happy of being relieved of the obligation to rebid. What about a NF 2♣ response to a major? My guess is that it offers less tactical advances than the traditional F1 1NT.

FWIW I have somewhat ambivalent feelings about this issue. From a theoretical POV I would say that if p never passes your openings anyway you might as well take advantage of that by playing Fantunes. OTOH it usually elicits a positive emotional response in me when an opp passes his partner's 1x opening, something that suggests it is bad tactics to do that too often.

[glen]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2008, 06:09 AM, said:

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay. How many bridge authorities have actually experience with such a system?

Wei/Ewen Precision had a 8+ requirement for responder opposite the limited openings. Field testing by everybody, including Wei, proved it a poor idea.

[helene_t]

That's my point. Wei didn't play 1NT as a GF relay.

[glen]

How does a 1NT GF relay change the need to stretch (i.e. Josh's "passing is terrible"), aside from perhaps making it harder to do so?

[han]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2008, 05:09 AM, said:

Josh, while I suppose you are right (if only because you are a much better bridge player than I) I have an issue with your argument. Innovation comes from people like JTF who are crazy enough to challenge conventional wisdom. They are wrong most of the time but when they are right it is actually interesting that they are right (if it is ever discovered that they are).

Innovation in any field comes from experts who challenge conventional wisdom, not from people like JTF. What you are saying is nice but nonsense and you know it.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2008, 05:09 AM, said:

Also, I am not sure if it is right that everyone agrees that you should stretch to respond on all kind of trash if you play a system with 1NT as a GF relay.

I think he is talking about hands with 7-10 and short spades. That is not what I would call "all kinds of trash".

[awm]

So far I like Glen's suggestion of making the cheapest suit possibly three cards (and other suits five plus and NF, but could be invitational). The other approach that seems sensible is (apparently) the original symmetric relay approach where the cheapest two new suits are 4+ cards and basically forcing. Basically it's the difference between playing a 5/5/3/3 style versus a 5/4/4/3 style in response.

[akhare]

♠How about something along these lines that remains within the confines of the GCC -- keep in mind that this is just off the top of my head:

1♣ = 15+
1♦ = 5+♠
1♥ = 5+♥
1♠ = Exactly 4 with longer minor
1N = 11-14
2♣ = 10-14 with possibly 4♥
2♦ = 10-14 with possibly 4♥

Over 1♦, responder relays with 1♥ and opener can clarify min/max at the 1 level. 1♠ is to play and 1N is blah, with 2/1 bids NF.

Over 1♥, 1N relays ('forcing"):

2♣ = natural min, or any max hand -> 2♦ continues relay
2♦/2♥ = natural min hand -> 2♠ continues relay

Over 1♠, 1N asks, then:
2♣/2♦ = natural min
2H/2♠ = max with ♣/♦

Granted, it isn't exactly symmetric, but still retains most of the principles...

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

JT I mean this as honest advice rather than pointless criticism, since I have a little of the same quality myself. You waste a lot of time forming and arguing for your own opinions that go against what everyone else in the universe believes, until someone can literally prove them wrong to you. When 100% of bridge players of virtually all levels do something, you should probably just accept that it's right instead of arguing against it.

Well, if I'm misunderstanding, then I'm misunderstanding, and I apologize.

However, my understanding was that when using 1NT as a GF relay here, what we were discussing (passing with less than enough HCP to invite game and no fit) was standard for the system. So the OP is recommending changing the system, and I'm saying that I can see some merit in not changing it.

Now, if I've misunderstood, feel free to slap me on the head and send me off in the right direction. But if I'm right, then I'm in favor of keeping the system the way it is, so I can't be alone on this.

As somebody pointed out later, CC Wei originally went with this plan, so it's not just people like me who have this idea. But then, he changed it later. So does that mean it's bad for regular Precision? I think so. Does that mean that it's bad for the GF Relay Precision? I don't know.

Most of the time when I form arguments that go across the field, it's not that I think the field is wrong. I just don't understand what the field is saying. Usually if I make a counter-argument, and I put some time into it, somebody will dumb it down enough that I'll understand the why (and not just the what). If I just ask why, I get the "because everybody says so" answer, and then I can't extrapolate.

We get an awful lot of threads here where somebody asks a question and we get 17 posts that say 3♥ or whatever. But they weren't asking about this one-in-635 billion hand. So if it's of interest to me, I might say "I think it should be 2♥, because of this." And I'll get an answer back of "well, maybe in HCP, but in trick value it's worth a lot more", or "that's not what 2♥ means" or "actually, nothing wrong with 2♥, it's a borderline case", or something like that. And then, well, I've actually learned something. I can certainly accept that 2♥ was the wrong answer before, but if I don't state my objection I never learn why it's wrong. I certainly am not doing it because I think I'm going to convince all 17 of you that I'm right!

But in this case, I just thought that the system said A, and other people thought B was better, so I was trying to make the case in favor of A. So if I was arguing something other than in favor of what was systemic (for the system), I apologize.

[Cascade]

We just play new suits are natural and non-forcing they go from anything that you think is worth a bid up to full blown invitational hands. They show four-card or longer suits. Since they are reasonably constructive we strive to find another bid over the 2/1s.

We play 1M 1NT as GF relay and the limited openings are 10-15 - but I have finally found a system in which I can be conservative as I found over the weekend that I passed a number of 10 counts - especially 5-4-2-2s and 5M-3-3-2s vulnerable.

I have also played that 1M 2♣ was either natural or an invitational balanced hand.

[ASkolnick]

Along the lines of NT forcing, and this is General Chart legal:

We play a version using a ZARS count, with canape openers and major suits are between 4-5 in length.

1) a NT is forcing and can be one of 3 hands
a) GF with new suit
Invitational is suit is raised
c) Drop dead as normal.

2) 2 over 1 is constructive (7-10) and non-forcing.

So auctions, 1S-1N-2C-2D (GF)
1S-1N-2C-2S (Inv)
1S-1N-2D-P (To play)

But since we have quite limited openings to both value and shape, we can play this. This has been verified as GCC legal with Sol Weinstein. You do lose out on those 5-7 count 6 card hands, but lifes rough.

As for what relays are legal, I do not know.

[Echognome]

I'm quite late to this thread, but these are an important and useful area for use within any relay system. Gnome club had a similar structure with 5cM and here's what we used.

1♥ - ?

1♠ - Natural, F1, almost always less than GF
1NT - GF relay
2♣ - Any invite with <3♥ and <4♠ and doesn't fit 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ below
2♦ - 3+♥, INV+
2♥ - <invitational, 3-4 card support
2♠ - Mini-splinter for hearts (unknown shortness), <invitational
2NT - Both Minors, invitational
3♣/♦ - Invitational Jump shift, <3♥
3♥ - Preempt
3♠ - Fit jump (alternatively have used this as splinter)
3NT - Good preempt to 4♥
4♣/♦ - Fit jump (alternatively have used this as splinter)
4♥ - To Play (typical 1M - 4M in precision)

1♠ responses are similar but we lose the 2NT both minors bid and replace it with the unknown mini-splinter. So 1M - 2M-1 is the invite with 3-4 card support and 1M - 2M+1 is the mini-splinter. Also, we gained 1♠ - 2♦ which we use to show 5+♥, <Invitational. If the hand is really bad, then we show 6+♥ (that way opener can break with 3-card support and 6-3 hands.

1♥ - 2♦ - ?

2♥ Any minimum
2♠ Game try with unknown shortness
2NT Long suit game try with spades
3♣/♦ Long suit game try
3♥ Game try with bad trumps

1♥ - 2♦ - 2♥ - ?

2♠ Game try with unknown shortness
Etc as above.

Note the symmetry with the direct and indirect use of 2M+1. Very easy on the memory.

[Apollo81]

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]
2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts
2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit
2♠: regular single raise
2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite
3x: invitational jump shift
3♠: 4-card limit raise

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise. Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

[Apollo81]

Apollo81, on Jun 16 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]
2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts
2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit
2♠: regular single raise
2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite
3x: invitational jump shift
3♠: 4-card limit raise

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise.  Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

FWIW (likely nothing), here are 16 random hands with this system, where opener was constrained to have 10-14 HCP with 5-6♠ and responder was constrained to have 0-13 HCP with 0-2♠:

1.
Q10xxx
Kxx
xx
AQJ

-
Jxxx
ATxxxx
xxx

1s-2c-2d-p


2.
AKQTx
QJT
J
xxxx

xx
Axxx
xx
AKxxx

several possible sequences
a. 1s-2c-2[d,s]-2n-?
b. 1s-2h-?

in a. opener could either bid 2d allowing a pass or choose to rebid the strong spades, after the 2n bid it's probably useful to have some agreements....maybe suits show shortness? opener could also bid 3h natural, having denied 4 already

in b. opener's 3d is probably a superaccept, which he could bid. not sure what to do after that


3.
KJ98xx
Kxx
Axx
x

x
QJT9xxx
KJx
Ax

1s-3h-4h


4.
KJ9xxx
Axx
x
QJx

T
K9x
QJxxx
Kxxx

1s-2d-2s-p


5.
ATxxx
x
Qxx
KJxx

xx
K9xx
AJT9x
Tx

1s-2c-2d-p

this lets responder play in 2M if opener is fitting and 2d otherwise


6.
ATxxx
QT9
Ax
QT9

Qx
Kxxxx
T9xx
Ax

a. 1s-2c-2d-2h-p
b. 1s-2d-2s?-p

not sure which of these sequences is better; a. is lucky here but could land the partnership in a 5-1 fit; b. seems more normal but opener has no good rebid here; both a. and b. find 6-2 spade fits and 5-4 heart fits

7.
AQT9x
K9x
Kxxx
9

xx
xxx
AT9x
KTxx

1s-2d-p


8.
AQTxx
Axx
x
K9xx

9x
Jxx
Q9
AJTxxx

1s-2c-2d-3c-4c-p


9.
AQTxx
9
9
ATxxxx

xx
Qxxx
KJxx
QJx

1s-2d-3c-p


10.
J9xxx
Qx
KT
KQTx

T
Kxxx
AQ9xxx
xx

1s-2c-2d-p


11.
AKJxx
QJ9xx
xxx
-

Qx
Kxx
KQJxx
Jxx

1s-2c-2h-2n-3h-4h


12.
AQTxx
x
KQ9xx
Jx

x
Q9xx
ATxx
KT9x

1s-2d-p


13.
K9xxxx
x
A
AJTxx

AJ
Q9x
Txxx
Kxxx

1s-2d-2s-3s-?

presumably 4c is natural here; if opener bid that then the partnership might reach 5c rather than 4s (I think 6c is doubtful)


14.
A9xxx
xx
AQTxx
x

xx
AKTx
J9x
T9xx

1s-2d-p

15.
AK9xx
Q9xxx
Qxx
-

Jx
Jx
Axx
KQJxxx

1s-3c-?

i dont have enough experience with IJS to state whether opener should pass or bid 3h


16.
KQ9xx
Axxx
xx
Kx

xx
xx
A9xxx
ATxx

1s-2d-2h-2s-p

[Apollo81]

Apollo81, on Jun 16 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I haven't read more than one or two of the previous posts; how about something like this after a 1♠ opening:

2♣: "i want to make a descriptive bid" i.e. like 1s-1n-2x-[2d, 2h, 2n, 3c, 3s]
2♦: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2d" i.e. diamond tolerance without long hearts
2♥: "i would pass after 1s-1n-2h" i.e. short in diam/spade without a long suit
2♠: regular single raise
2NT: 13(45) naturalish invite
3x: invitational jump shift
3♠: 4-card limit raise

After the 2♣ response, opener would bid 2♥ or 2♠ naturally if possible or usually 2♦ otherwise.  Then responder would show his hand similarly to after a forcing NT.

Also could make 2n "any weak JS", send the 13(45) invites thru 2c...2n, and then you also have the option to bid 2c...3x on an inv js hand if you're curious whether pard has 6 spades or 4 hearts

[awm]

I don't think Noble's examples are necessarily that convincing. It seems like at times responder is selecting a convenient bid that happens to work out. Some issues:

4. What does opener bid over 2♦ with 5323 or with 5♠/4♣? It seems like 2♦ doesn't promise diamonds, just a pass of a 2♦ rebid, so passing 2♦ on 1-2♦ is kind of weird. But if opener would very frequently rebid 2♠ with only five of them, reaching the 5-1 fit at the two level is not a success either.

5. It seems evident that opener will sometimes bid 2♦ over 1♠-2♣ holding a singleton diamond; in fact this is even mentioned as a possibility on hand 2 and you had opener do it on hand 8. So are we really planning to "transfer to diamonds" and pass when holding two spades?

13. Does 2♠ really show six here? Did we not bid 2♠ on hand 6? We have decided to show this hand as a sub-invite by bidding 2♦; it seems 2♠ could be a 5(332) hand or 5♠-4♣ or 6♠. How does this hand now upgrade to an invite opposite what could be no fit, and how do we know to raise spades rather than look for clubs?

[Echognome]

I didn't put in our scheme after 1M - 2♣, although it is one of our more difficult sequences.

1♠ - 2♣ (note 3♥ or an IJS)

2♦ Any minimum (may have 4♥, 6♠), then:
--2♥ 4♥, NF, usually 1444, 14(35), or 04(54)
--2♠ Hx, NF
--2NT NF
--3♣ 6-card suit, not worth an IJS
--3♦ Same, but most would pass 2♦
2♥ 4+♥, Extras, GF
2♠ 6+♠, Extras, GF
2N 5♠, bal or semi-bal (may have 4m), Extras, GF
Higher Natural, GF

Similar after 1♥ - 2♣, except now 2♠ and higher are natural and GF.

[ASkolnick]

The problem with playing 2♣ any invitational is it is not legal in the GCC. I believe you can play it mid-chart, but I am not sure. If not, I would have used that for my bids.

It is true, there are certain hands you get screwed, but some bids are also "blocking" bids, since your opponent has the cards. With your 5 count, you don't always have to improve the contract.

Looking at the system I play. My auctions were almost the same except using 1N forcing, instead of 2♣

I agree my 4-5's may be distored a bit, since most of the time when I bid the minor it rates to be longer than the major, but one can look at the hand and say

Axxxx,J,Kxx,KQT9 and figure that bidding 1S-1N-2C is OK.


Only issues:

Bd 1: I am screwed. I can live with occasional casualties.
Bd 15: Probably overbid to 3N. Depends if he chooses to bid 2C NF const-invite or 1N forcing. Maybe get out in 2N if he decides not to show clubd with no fit.