[helene_t]

To me, natural methods means 2/1 GF. If that implies that I can't play 8-22 major suit openings, so be it. I'm willing to play the 1NT response as only semi-forcing, though.

This is not because I consider 2/1 GF a technically superior principle. I'm unable to judge on that, and besides it seems unlikely that such a simple principle could be the optimal solution.

The reason is that is should be easy to determine the forcing character of a call so that my limited mental resources can be used for more important purposes, such as card evaluation and play. The thread "Is it forcing?" shows that the forcing characters of many calls are not clear to everybody when the agreement is to play SAYC. If you agree to play "Dutch Acol" it's even worse, let alone what will happen if you agree to play "5-card major strong notrump".

Of course, there are many solutions available to would-be light openers. Play Polish Club or Precision, play transfer openings and/or transfer responses, or use a relay system. This may all be better without being more complicated. But then we are not talking about adjustments anymore.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Apr 14 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

Regretfully the world of bridge has not yet established a standard definition of the word relay. At least in North America, a "relay" seems to be an asking bid that people don't like. Asking bids that people do like get fancy names like "Stayman" or "Drury" or "Forcing NT" ("Semi-Forcing NT" for that matter). In either case, the meaning is the same... These bids ask partner to describe there hand.

I agree. But why would you need a formal destiction of "relay" versus "asking bid"? Oh yes, because relays are not allowed in certain events. But then you would need different definitions of "relay" for different types of events. It would be less confusing, for each type of event, to state what is allowed and what isn't in non-ambigous terms. For example: All bids must either show length (3+m or 4+M or 6+ in two hands) in a suit or a certain minimum (15+ in one hand or 19+ in two hands) of HCPs. And then a list of exceptions, including Garbage Stayman. The latter is probably a relay but that doesn't matter.

[Gerben42]

So relay systems are not allowed. Someone tell me the difference between these two sequences:

ALLOWED:

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Stayman)
2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Minor Suit Stayman)
3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (Transfer)
4♥ (accepted) - 5♦ (To play)

DISALLOWED:

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Relay)
2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Relay)
3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (End signal)
4♥ (forced) - 5♦ (To play)

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 15 2005, 01:24 AM, said:

Suppose responder holds something like:

Kx
Qxx
AQJxxx
Qx

If opener has four or even five diamonds, I doubt that defending 3♥ or 3♥X will be a particularly good result. Even if opener holds some hearts as well, say:

AQxx
Axx
Kxxxx
x

It's easy to imagine 3♥ going down only one, whereas 5♦ would seem like a favorite. On the other hand, reverse opener's minor suits and I definitely want a piece of 3♥X.

The example seems rather contrived:

1. Unclear whether responder has a hand that would chose to relay over a 1H opening. Personally, I'd probably bid an immediate 3NT...

2. You posit a player jumping to 3♥ holding (at best) KJTxxxx. The 3♥ bidder is in the sandwich position. He knows that he has strong hands on either side of him with no established fit. Partner rates to be broke. Jumping on the three level with a weak suit doesn't rate to be a long term winner.

3. The opponents have a 10 card club fit that has never been mentioned. Either the 3♥ bidder has a big two suited hand (7-4 or 7-5 or so) OR responder in direct seat passing a 7 card slub suit. Once again, this feels forced...

[Rebound]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2005, 06:16 AM, said:

This is not because I consider 2/1 GF a technically superior principle. I'm unable to judge on that, and besides it seems unlikely that such a simple principle could be the optimal solution.

.... The thread "Is it forcing?" shows that the forcing characters of many calls are not clear to everybody when the agreement is to play SAYC. If you agree to play "Dutch Acol" it's even worse, let alone what will happen if you agree to play "5-card major strong notrump".

It is precisely because it is simple that it has value. Granted, it adds complexity to the 1NT response. However, by definition, this response is rather likely to lead to a partscore - muddier methods will endager fewer points. I tend to play a lot more IMPs than matchpoints and I guess I tend not to fight over partscores as much as most. I'm not in favor of ultra-light openings. For me, opening 11 is pushing it. Fortunately, our system is geared around low-level penalty doubles, so come get me and we'll see what works better lol :-)

Just kidding, of course, but whether they work better or not you won't see me doing it.

[mikestar]

Gerben42, on Apr 15 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

So relay systems are not allowed. Someone tell me the difference between these two sequences:

ALLOWED:

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Stayman)
2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Minor Suit Stayman)
3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (Transfer)
4♥ (accepted) - 5♦ (To play)

DISALLOWED:

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Relay)
2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Relay)
3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (End signal)
4♥ (forced) - 5♦ (To play)

No, both of these are GCC legal in the ACBL. (If other countries have rules against relays, their rules are different.)

ACBL GCC defines a sequence of relay bids as a (prohibited) "system" if the opening is one of a suit and the relays start before opener's rebid. So all relays in resonse to 1NT or higher bids are legal, as are all relays by opener (excluding the possibility of the opening itself being a relay).

ACBL Mid Chart legalizes relay responses to one of a suit, if game forcing. Invitational or weak relay resonses to one of a suit are only legal on the Super Chart.

So in ACBL land, whether or not Stayman is a relay is of no relevance, as relays are unconditionally legal over 1NT.

[han]

Going back to the original topic, it seems that Landen-Pratap succesfully play a 2/1 system where a 1M opening can be very light when white (I believe that this is the only very light opening). Their response system is different depending on the vulnerability. When white, 1NT can be up to 14 HCP and is non-forcing.

For the rest their system is fairly straightforward, I would almost say "standard".

[pbleighton]

Landen-Pratap open all 10 counts NV, per their cc.

They open 4 of a major when light, and may have a longer minor.

It is a more aggressive version of The Science.

I play something like this, except that:
1) 1M openings are a bit lighter.
2) 1NT is 11+-14
3) 1m is sound (12+ unbalanced, 15+ balanced)
4) 2C is weak
5) 2/1 bids are forcing for one round.
6) We do this at all vulnerabilities.

Peter

[luis]

Roland,

I know the problem, I think 2/1 is not well suited for light openings and I also think that light openings win points so the conclusion is that normal 2/1 doesn't work. WIth my current pd we were playing 2/1 but when you know 1s can be opened sometimes with 9, sometimes with 13, sometimes with 17 then it's very hard to know what the hell you should do as responder since the hand tends to go completely out of control. This is even worst if the auction gets competitive.
I had this problem with 2 pds, and I found two different solutions.
With one of them I just changed the system.
With the other I adopted a 2/1 NF constructive approach with 1NT = "forcing game facing a hand that a normal guy would have opened" so after 1M-1NT we used 2c as "I don't have a hand that everybody would have opened" then 2d from responder was "I don't care, FG anyway" while other bids specially 2s would be non-forcing.
We produced a lot of 1M-1N;2c-2M all pass auctions that would have ended in a horrible 9+13 or 9+12 major suit game otherwise.

[Fluffy]

Changing the system takes time, I still remmber inviting with every 10 count, and now it is nearly never, it will come but...

If you are increasing the top level of the lowest range (6-10 or so in the old days), you may as well increase the low level, so you should pass partner's opening with 6 or less. Otherwise the range becomes too wide.