[gnasher]

If you take Justin's post in context (Jlall: "2C, clubs or bal GF". Gwnn: "I think this (agreeing to 2+♣, 5+♦) almost requires artificial follow-ups to 2♣." Jlall: Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural ..."), it's obvious what was intended.

On the other hand, these were buried in amongst many other, much longer posts, and Justin hadn't bothered to quote the post he was replying to.

This sort of misunderstanding occurs all the time on internet forums. Usually the best way to deal with it is for one party to say "I misunderstood", and the other to say "I didn't make it very clear".

[Jlall]

OK, I guess when it was still explained to Cascade and he STILL did not understand he is just not very smart. Fair enough. I had always assumed his literal take on everything without thinking of context was on purpose rather than stupidity. My bad.

Gnasher: You say it was obvious in the context, but that I should say I didn't explain myself very clearly. That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. I will assume all readers have read a thread and don't just read my post individually and take it out of the context of the thread.

[Free]

Jlall, on Aug 14 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

OK, I guess when it was still explained to Cascade and he STILL did not understand he is just not very smart. Fair enough. I had always assumed his literal take on everything without thinking of context was on purpose rather than stupidity. My bad.

Gnasher: You say it was obvious in the context, but that I should say I didn't explain myself very clearly. That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. I will assume all readers have read a thread and don't just read my post individually and take it out of the context of the thread.

You assume a lot

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Aug 14 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

If you take Justin's post in context (Jlall: "2C, clubs or bal GF".  Gwnn: "I think this (agreeing to 2+♣, 5+♦) almost requires artificial follow-ups to 2♣." Jlall: Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural ..."), it's obvious what was intended.

There is nothing inherently obvious in the connection that you are making.

1. Gwnn's post that you are quoting is 10 posts prior to Jlall's

2. Gwnn's post that you quoted does not mention relays. It mentions artificial follow-ups. Artificial follow-ups and relays are not synonymous.

3. There is another post by Gwnn two post's before Jlall's post that is the first post in the thread to mention relays. That post does not make it clear what the relay is nor whether the responses to the relays are artificial. The one auction that is quoted is 1Maj 2♣; 3♣. There is no mention of the length of the club suit shown by the 2♣ bid but I assume two. The rebid 3♣ however is described as showing five clubs which certainly appears to be natural.

4. Given this context I am imagining an auction that develops

1Maj 2♣ Artificial Relay
3♣ and other rebids followed up by more relays. Both Gwnn and Jlall use the plural "relays" not the singular "relay" which strongly suggests more than one "relay".

My understanding of "relay" is a bid usually very economical that is used as a waiting bid that simply asks for further information from one's partner. In this context it appears that the constrained 2♣ response is the first relay.

5. In this context Jlall writes "Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs ..."

His construction suggests that he is contrasting "relays", which from the context appear to start with an artificial 2♣, with "natural". This "natural" is emphasized by the preceding phrase "just bidding" as if "natural" is the only style employed in the auction. He then appears to contradict himself with a description of a non-"natural" 2♣ response. This non-"natural" 2♣ response and its like have been characterized as "natural' elsewhere on these forums and in other places.

6. In his reconstruction of what he had earlier written Jlall writes "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..."

To me there is a big difference between "relays" which emphasizes the relay bids although could be used for the entire structure - relays and responses - and "relay responses to". In fact rather than "relay responses to" I would construct "responses to the relay" with some preceding qualifier. The responses are not "relays". Or at least I don't think that that is what Jlall intended. Jlall also removes the emphasis on "natural" with the omission of the qualifier "just" in this reconstruction.

Therefore I don't think it was at all unreasonable to point out that this 2♣ bid is not "natural".

I certainly don't expect to be called names or attacked personally for reasoning as above.

[Free]

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else? Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing. Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations. Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open. Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:
@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it
@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway
@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

[Cascade]

Free, on Aug 15 2009, 06:06 AM, said:

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else? Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing. Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations. Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open. Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:
@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it
@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway
@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

Non-friendly may be your euphemism for anti-social and plainly rude.

You telling me to grow up is not a whole lot better than Justin's insults.

I made what I thought was quite a normal post disagreeing that 2♣ was natural.

I don't expect to have to be publically subject to a barrage of insults from Justin, cherdanno and now you. I don't believe that is the purpose of these forums. In fact I am pretty sure that it is outside the terms of use.

I try to make constructive posts that are on topic but I will not agree to just ignore posts from Justin, cherdanno, JDonn, yourself or others if you wish to insult me. I will respond as I see fit and I will report posts that are primarily insulting.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Aug 14 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

Free, on Aug 15 2009, 06:06 AM, said:

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else?  Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing.  Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations.  Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open.  Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:
@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it
@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway
@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

Non-friendly may be your euphemism for anti-social and plainly rude.

You telling me to grow up is not a whole lot better than Justin's insults.

I made what I thought was quite a normal post disagreeing that 2♣ was natural.

I don't expect to have to be publically subject to a barrage of insults from Justin, cherdanno and now you. I don't believe that is the purpose of these forums. In fact I am pretty sure that it is outside the terms of use.

I try to make constructive posts that are on topic but I will not agree to just ignore posts from Justin, cherdanno, JDonn, yourself or others if you wish to insult me. I will respond as I see fit and I will report posts that are primarily insulting.

Wayne, you should be able to catch the irony in Fred's post, don't be that over-sensitive.

Obviously you and Justin (and Josh, before he left) use any possibility to quarrel. Intentional or not.

There's no point in trying to blame one or the other, it takes two to tango.

It's time the two of you stop this. Either by not commenting each other posts, or doing your best to try to understand each others posts instead of doing your best (worst?) to misunderstand whenever possible. Or, if the other one posts something seemingly incredible or stupid, try a polite question to clear up a possible unclear point.

[helene_t]

Agree with Frederick and Harald.

[Fluffy]

Frederick is the man.

Mate I missed you so much, thx for coming back.

But I think you ain't as crazy anymore . Have you grown up?, I hope not much!

[inquiry]

For what it is worth, I think this thread has some good ideas in it or I would have deleted it. As a moderator, I have been forced to edit extensively a number of post that attacked people rather than the ideas they expressed. A few players will get reminded of the rules of this site privately, but come on, try not to be intentionally antagonistic.

The editing was way more (more post, more words) than usual. So for instance three specific examples of words spoken against one player was changed to "attacked personally". I hope I did not change the flavor of the BRIDGE discussion...

[Sadie3]

For what is is worth, in ACBL talk, a response of a minor suit to a Major opening is considered natural if it consists of a minimum 3 card suit according to the GCC. Most 2/1 bidders have several ways to show a gf without resorting to using 2c (with 2) as an option. Many play that any 2 level gf bid except clubs promises 5 (and sometimes lie). Many have modified Jac 2 NT to be 3 card gf support. Many use 3NT as the gf force bid, and many just bid 1S over 1H even with gf values because 1S is forcing if bid by an unpassed hand.

To get on target here, if 2C could be a 2 card suit, I think it is an illegal bid in ACBL land. I am not sure it is accepted even if alerted as "could be short". Can anyone quote GCC on this issue?

[awm]

Under allowed on the General Convention Chart in ACBL:

3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system.

So 2♣ showing "clubs or balanced" is perfectly fine as long as it's game forcing. If it includes invitational hands as well it would be mid-chart. Of course, it does require an alert. I'd argue that even if 2♣ shows 3+ clubs, if it is frequently bid on 3 clubs in hands with longer diamonds, it would be "highly unexpected" and thus require an alert (but this is obviously more opinion than clear-cut because "highly unexpected" is basically director's discretion).

[Sadie3]

Conventional responses require an alert. Natural responses do not and 3C and 3D with a minimum of 3 is considered a natural response.

"1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it
shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more
cards in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced
(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

[Jlall]

inquiry, on Aug 15 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

For what it is worth, I think this thread has some good ideas in it or I would have deleted it. As a moderator, I have been forced to edit extensively a number of post that attacked people rather than the ideas they expressed. A few players will get reminded of the rules of this site privately, but come on, try not to be intentionally antagonistic.

The editing was way more (more post, more words) than usual. So for instance three specific examples of words spoken against one player was changed to "attacked personally". I hope I did not change the flavor of the BRIDGE discussion...

heh, fair enough.

[awm]

Sadie3, on Aug 15 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

Conventional responses require an alert. Natural responses do not...

This is simply not true. From the ACBL alert chart:

Natural calls not specifically noted:

No alert if about expected strength and shape
Alert if highly unusual strength, shape, etc.

More details are available in the alert procedure document on the ACBL site. Suffice to say that it is clear that many natural calls are alertable, with examples including weak jump shifts and non-forcing 2/1 calls.

Openings in the majors which could be canape (i.e. 1♥ showing 4+♥ frequently including a longer minor) are also alertable in ACBL. It's not clear exactly what criteria would make a 2♣ response to 1M which shows 3+♣ alertable. However, it seems clear that if the 2♣ call often contains 3-4♣ with a much longer side suit (i.e. if I bid canape style) then it would be alertable. For example if I normally bid 1♠-2♣ with 1363 shape (6♦, 3♣) then this would be highly unexpected and require an alert.

Whether bidding 1♠-2♣ with 3343 is "highly unexpected" is certainly a judgement call. If this is "just bridge" for you, how about (32)53? The line is very fuzzy but there is certainly a line where it becomes alertable.

[jillybean]

gwnn, on Aug 12 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Kathryn, in the relays Han taught me

1♠-2♣
3♣

showed a good hand with 5-5 (and I think it's something that is usual in this style). Why not bid 3♣ with 5-5? You can describe your hand relatively cheaply.

I missed this until now, good point thx.

[Winstonm]

If you play 1M-3M as forcing and 2N as natural you don't have this problem.

[Winstonm]

inquiry, on Aug 15 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

For what it is worth, I think this thread has some good ideas in it or I would have deleted it. As a moderator, I have been forced to edit extensively a number of post that attacked people rather than the ideas they expressed. A few players will get reminded of the rules of this site privately, but come on, try not to be intentionally antagonistic.

The editing was way more (more post, more words) than usual. So for instance three specific examples of words spoken against one player was changed to "attacked personally". I hope I did not change the flavor of the BRIDGE discussion...

Does this mean I can't call Justin an asshole anymore?

[gwnn]

Except we're in 2009 not 1959

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on Aug 16 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

Except we're in 2009 not 1959

The screw up that occurred between 1959 and 2009 was not in 1M-3M as forcing and 2N as natural but in stuffing all limit raises and forcing raises inside the two lousy ideas of 3M and J2N.

Just utilize a better major raise structure and you have it all covered.

1M-2N: forcing
1M-3C: 4-card limit raise or different types of game-forcing raises
1M-3D: 3-card limit raise or game forcing raise with no slam interest
1M-3M: Forcing raise with limited controls that would cooperated with a slam try

Once you have better raise structures, the problem of 2/1 minors is largely resolved.