Bourke Relay

[David Stevenson]

The Bourke Relay was written about by Tim Bourke, possibly with David
Bird. There was a Bridge World article. I also believe it features in
a book. I want to know what it says.

I have tried Google. I have read TSAR which is [allegedly] an
improvement with considerably increased complexity. I have found an old
article here by Chris Ryall but it is so badly formatted as to be
unreadable and I think it was a synopsis rather than what was originally
written.

So, please, can someone let me know exactly what was written in the
Bridge World article? You could transcribe it here: you could
transcribe it into an email and send it to me either at the eddress in
the sig or

b r i d g [at] b l a k j a k {dot] o r g

You could scan it or photograph it and email me.

But please, please will someone tells me what it says.

==========================================

Why do I want to know? Well, it has always been a peculiarity in Acol
that when the bidding goes

1C - 1H - 1S - ?

and you have game try or better values you can always bid fourth suit if
no natural bid suits. But if the bidding goes

1C - 1H - 2C - ?

you have to invent something - and that can cause trouble!

On Wednesday I held

T9x
AJ
x
AKTxxxx

1H from pard, 2C from me, 2H from pard, and I ? 3C is not forcing,
nor is 3H. 4H might be right on a 6-2 fit, 3NT if he stops diamonds and
spades, and 5C could easily be right.

I bid 2S, naturally partner bid 4S! He held

AQ8x
KT8xx
Axx
x

I struggled home. Deep finesse annoying pointed out that 6S was cold,
as was 6NT [spade finesse, clubs QJ stiff onside!]

Anyway, I don't want a very complex thing like TSAR, so can someone
let me know about Bourke please? I expect others might be interested as
well.

[Nick France]

   The Bourke Relay was written about by Tim Bourke, possibly with David
Bird.  There was a Bridge World article.  I also believe it features in
a book.  I want to know what it says.
   I have tried Google.  I have read TSAR which is [allegedly] an
improvement with considerably increased complexity.  I have found an old
article here by Chris Ryall but it is so badly formatted as to be
unreadable and I think it was a synopsis rather than what was originally
written.
   So, please, can someone let me know exactly what was written in the
Bridge World article?  You could transcribe it here: you could
transcribe it into an email and send it to me either at the eddress in
the sig or
   b r i d g [at] b l a k j a k {dot] o r g
   You could scan it or photograph it and email me.
   But please, please will someone tells me what it says.
==========================================
   Why do I want to know?  Well, it has always been a peculiarity in Acol
that when the bidding goes
1C - 1H - 1S - ?
and you have game try or better values you can always bid fourth suit if
no natural bid suits.  But if the bidding goes
1C - 1H - 2C - ?
you have to invent something - and that can cause trouble!
   On Wednesday I held
T9x
AJ
x
AKTxxxx
   1H from pard, 2C from me, 2H from pard, and I ?  3C is not forcing,
nor is 3H.  4H might be right on a 6-2 fit, 3NT if he stops diamonds and
spades, and 5C could easily be right.
   I bid 2S, naturally partner bid 4S!  He held
AQ8x
KT8xx
Axx
x
   I struggled home.  Deep finesse annoying pointed out that 6S was cold,
as was 6NT [spade finesse, clubs QJ stiff onside!]
   Anyway, I don't want a very complex thing like TSAR, so can someone
let me know about Bourke please?  I expect others might be interested as
well.
--
David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways
Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl: [phone]
bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

In "Tournament Acol" by Bird and Bourke, they devout most of a chapter
to the Bourke Relay. His basic comment in the book is

"When the opener rebids his suit at the minimum level, a bid by
responder in the next unbid suit is artificial and forcing to game.
Similar in nature to a fourth-suit bid, it asks the opener to continue
to describe his hand."

He gives the following replies by opener after

1D 1S
2D 2H (BR)

2S - Usually honour doubleton spade support
2NT - Natural, usually 2362, 1363, 2263
3C - Natural 6-4 in the minors
3D - Diamond single suitor
3H - Natural 4 hearts
3S - three card spade support

He also showed that after

1C 1S
2C

The responder could bid

2S - 5-9 sign off
3S - 9-11, invitational
BR +3S - Forcing

He gives several examples after this including how to play in a 6-2
major fit after

1S 2D
2S 3C (BR)
3S 4S

He notes opener would have to find a different rebid after 3C if he
only had 5 spades

Some other rebids by responder after with some examples included
afterwards

1C 1S
2C

3C - 9-11 invitational
BR + 3C - forcing
3D/3H - splinter bids

2H - 8-10 non-forcing but constructive
BR - To seek 4 card heart fit
BR + 3H - forcing, usually 5-card hearts

As an example of finding a 4-4 major fit he gives the example

1H 2C
2H 2S (BR)
3S 4S

He also talks about the downside and includes responder holding a 5422
hand with invitational values that starts

1D 1S
2D

where responder can't bid 2H as that is the Bourke Relay and game
forcing (2NT was the suggestion).

This is obviously a summary as the chapter is 9 pages.

Nick France

[David Stevenson]

Post by Nick France

   The Bourke Relay was written about by Tim Bourke, possibly with David
Bird.  There was a Bridge World article.  I also believe it features in
a book.  I want to know what it says.

In "Tournament Acol" by Bird and Bourke, they devout most of a chapter
to the Bourke Relay. His basic comment in the book is
"When the opener rebids his suit at the minimum level, a bid by
responder in the next unbid suit is artificial and forcing to game.
Similar in nature to a fourth-suit bid, it asks the opener to continue
to describe his hand."
He gives the following replies by opener after
1D 1S
2D 2H (BR)
2S - Usually honour doubleton spade support
2NT - Natural, usually 2362, 1363, 2263
3C - Natural 6-4 in the minors
3D - Diamond single suitor
3H - Natural 4 hearts
3S - three card spade support
He also showed that after
1C 1S
2C
The responder could bid
2S - 5-9 sign off
3S - 9-11, invitational
BR +3S - Forcing
He gives several examples after this including how to play in a 6-2
major fit after
1S 2D
2S 3C (BR)
3S 4S
He notes opener would have to find a different rebid after 3C if he
only had 5 spades
Some other rebids by responder after with some examples included
afterwards
1C 1S
2C
3C - 9-11 invitational
BR + 3C - forcing
3D/3H - splinter bids
2H - 8-10 non-forcing but constructive
BR - To seek 4 card heart fit
BR + 3H - forcing, usually 5-card hearts
As an example of finding a 4-4 major fit he gives the example
1H 2C
2H 2S (BR)
3S 4S
He also talks about the downside and includes responder holding a 5422
hand with invitational values that starts
1D 1S
2D
where responder can't bid 2H as that is the Bourke Relay and game
forcing (2NT was the suggestion).
This is obviously a summary as the chapter is 9 pages.

Thanks, very interesting. I wonder whether a local library has a
copy? Neither of the online libraries from which I borrow eBooks has a
copy. Nor can I find a copy in their catalogue on their websites.
Perhaps I better consult my wife: she worked for them for over 30 years!

Having read the above and TBW article sent me by David Goldfarb I
think I might try it if my regular partner agrees. One of my main
objections is the sequence

1D 1S
2D ? where playing Bourke makes a 5-4 invitation hand very difficult.
Both above an TBW seem to suggest not worrying and that may be the
answer, on the balancing gains and losses principle. No, I don't want
to play 1D - 2H as that hand, thanks very much. :)

Another snag it seems to me is knowing what to show after the BR when
there is not much room:

1H 2C
2H 2S
?

If you bid 3S with four spades then finding a 6-2 heart fit might be
tricky! But a 3H response: does not 3S now suggest 6-5?

Anyway, I think the time has come to try it.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by David Stevenson
The Bourke Relay was written about by Tim Bourke, possibly with David
Bird. There was a Bridge World article. I also believe it features in
a book. I want to know what it says.
I have tried Google. I have read TSAR which is [allegedly] an
improvement with considerably increased complexity. I have found an old
article here by Chris Ryall but it is so badly formatted as to be
unreadable and I think it was a synopsis rather than what was originally
written.
So, please, can someone let me know exactly what was written in the
Bridge World article? You could transcribe it here: you could
transcribe it into an email and send it to me either at the eddress in
the sig or
b r i d g [at] b l a k j a k {dot] o r g
You could scan it or photograph it and email me.

This would have been easier if you had actually specified what
issue of the Bridge World the article was in.

Fortunately for you, Jeff Rubens' article about TSAR is on the
BW web site, and references the original Bourke Relay article,
so a Google search readily turned it up. The original article
is indeed by Bourke with Bird, and is quite short, only a page
and a half. I have scanned it to a PDF (you may find it a little
hard to read, in which case I apologize; I did take some trouble
to make it as clear as I could) and sent it to the address you
give quoted above.

[David Stevenson]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by David Stevenson
The Bourke Relay was written about by Tim Bourke, possibly with David
Bird. There was a Bridge World article. I also believe it features in
a book. I want to know what it says.
I have tried Google. I have read TSAR which is [allegedly] an
improvement with considerably increased complexity. I have found an old
article here by Chris Ryall but it is so badly formatted as to be
unreadable and I think it was a synopsis rather than what was originally
written.
So, please, can someone let me know exactly what was written in the
Bridge World article? You could transcribe it here: you could
transcribe it into an email and send it to me either at the eddress in
the sig or
b r i d g [at] b l a k j a k {dot] o r g
You could scan it or photograph it and email me.

This would have been easier if you had actually specified what
issue of the Bridge World the article was in.

If I had know I would have said.

Post by David Goldfarb
Fortunately for you, Jeff Rubens' article about TSAR is on the
BW web site, and references the original Bourke Relay article,
so a Google search readily turned it up. The original article
is indeed by Bourke with Bird, and is quite short, only a page
and a half. I have scanned it to a PDF (you may find it a little
hard to read, in which case I apologize; I did take some trouble
to make it as clear as I could) and sent it to the address you
give quoted above.

Thanks. It is perfectly clear. If anyone else wants it ask me at one
of the two eddresses specified and I shall forward it.

[S. Needham]

Anyway, I don't want a very complex thing like TSAR, so can someone let
me know about Bourke please? I expect others might be interested as well.

I delved into these structures some time ago. The BW article and the
chapters in _Tournament Acol_ are fundamental, but this page by Glen Ashton
provides much more bang:
http://www.bridgematters.com/gadget.htm You will also find a bunch of
threads on BBO and a couple on BridgeWinners (search also for "3rd suit
forcing")

It is apparent to me that effectively implementing this structure without
the Gadget requires Reverse Flannery Responses.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[S. Needham]

typoed: should read "It is apparent to me that effectively implementing this
structure with or without the Gadget requires Reverse Flannery Responses."