nullve

So e.g. 1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts) 1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥ 1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥ looks close to unplayable, too? An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally. E.g. 1♣-1♦ 1♥-2♣* 2♥** * marionette to 2♦ ** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥ 1♣-1♦ 1♥-2♦* 2♥-2♠/2N/3♣/3♦ 3♥ * GF relay As for wasting bidding room, the point for me, at least, is to avoid invitational sequences ending in 3♥ after 1♣-1♦ 2♥-invite.

1♣-1M; 2N-3♣ = 5+ M or strong 1♣-1♥; 2N-3♣; ?: 3♦ = 3S2-3H or 3433 ...3♥ = relay w/ slam interest ......3♠ = 3S2H .........3N = relay ............4♣ = 3244 (=> 4♦ = PKC(♣), 4♥ = PKC(♦)) ............4♦ = 3235 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ............4♥ = 3253 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) .........(...) ......3N = 33(43) .........4♣ = relay ............4♦ = 3334 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ............4♥ = 3343 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) .........(...) ......4♣ = 3433 (=> 4♦ = PKC(♥)) ......4♦ = 3325 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ......4♥ = 3352 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) ...(...) 3♥ = 4S2-3H ...3♠ = relay w/ slam interest ......3N = 4S2H .........4♣ = relay ............4♦ = 4234 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ............4♥ = 4243 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) ......4♣ = 4333 (=> 4♦ = PKC(♠)) ......4♦ = 4324 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ......4♥ = 4342 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) ...(...) 3♠ = 2S3H ...3N = relay w/ slam interest ......4♣ = 2344 (=> 4♦ = PKC(♣), 4♥ = PKC(♦)) ......4♦ = 2335 (=> 4♥ = PKC(♣)) ......4♥ = 2353 (=> 4♠ = PKC(♦)) ...(...) 3N = 2S4H ...4♣ = relay w/ slam interest ......4♦ = 2434 ......4♥ = 2443 ...(...) 4♣ = 4S4H ...4♦ = relay w/ slam interest ......4♥ = 4423 ......4♠+ = 4432, PKC(♥) responses ...(...) 4♦ = 3424 4♥ = 3442 where PKC is Parity Key Card Blackwood. 1♣-1♠; 2N-3♣; `: similar

1♠X-7 on a 0-0 fit against 7♠= is a fantastic result NV vs. V. So could even a bid like 1♠ = 0 hcp and 0 spades be natural?

Try to give partner a club ruff, maybe?

[hv=pc=n&s=s82hkjt854dj43ck7&n=saj4ha32dakq8cq62&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2np4dp4hp4np5cp6hppp&p=c8c7cac2cjc6c4cks2s5sas6cqs7]399|300[/hv]

You're right. I guess I took for granted that the hope was for something possible to happen. :(

South's double doesn't look like it's for takeout.

V = void S = singleton D = doubleton So simple LTC is to equivalent to a point count method where A = 3 K at least doubleton = 3 Q at least third = 3 doubleton = 3 singleton = 6 void = 9 Must be good!

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq7daktcj976532&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=4s?]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sha7daktcj9765432&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=4s?]133|200[/hv] etc.

5♣

What if your (say) M+♣ two-suiter is too good for 4M? X followed by 4N over 4M is not an option?

[hv=pc=n&s=saq9642hkq8dkj2ck&n=s3h97642daqt6cq76&d=s&v=b&b=7]133|200[/hv] nullve(S)-nullve(N) 1♠(1)-1N(2) 2♣(3)-2♦(4) 2N(5)-3♣(6) 3♦(7)-3♠(8) 4♥(9)-P (1) "10-21, 5+ S, unBAL" (2) "5-12, NF" (3) Gazzilli-like: "10-15, 4+ H" OR "16-18, any" (4) "8+, relay" (5) "16-18, either 4+ C or 1-suited" (6) "relay" (7) "1-suited" (9) "5(+) H" (9) "3 H, not a particularly good hand in context"

Exclusion advances to double of one-of-a-suit were also part of Roman Club at some point.

Ok, np.

?

[hv=pc=n&e=saqj984hkj9dak3ca&w=skha765djt842cq97&d=n&v=n&b=5]266|100[/hv] (rotated for convenience) nullve(W)-nullve(E): P(1)-2♦(2) 2♥(3)-2N(4) 3♣(5)-3♦(6) 3♥(7)-3♠(8) 3N(9)-4♦(10) 4♥(11)-4♠(12) 5♣(13)-5♦(14) 5♥(15)-6♣(16) 6N(17)-P (1) normalish (in 2nd seat) (2) 2- or 3-suited canapé preempt in spades OR unBAL GF with primary spades (3) P/C opposite the preemptive type (4) GF, roughly either 1-suited or 5+S4+C (5) relay (6) 1-suited (7) relay with slam interest (8) 62(32) or something with C (6331, 7(21)3, 7330, 8221, ...) (9) relay (10) 6331, usually 22-24 (non-walrus) hcp (11) Parity Key Card Blackwood in D (12) even # of key cards (13) trump Q ask (14) no trump Q (15) ♥K ask (16) ♥K, ♠Q, no ♥Q (17) contract (at MPs)

nullve(N)-nullve(S): 1♣(1)-1♥(2) 2♥(3)-2N(4) 3N(5)-4♦(6) 4♥(7)-4N(8) 5♦(9)-5N(10) 6N(11)-7♣(12) P (1) "10+, NATish unBAL" or "11-13/17-19/23+ BAL" (2) "0+, 4+ S" (3) "13-15, 4+ S, unBAL" or "11-16, 6+C5R" (4) GF relay (5) 13-15, 4054 (6) Parity Key Card Blackwood in C (7) even # of key cards (8) ♦K ask (9) ♦K, no ♠K (10) ♦J ask (11) ♦J, ♠J, ♦T, ♠T, no ♦9 (12) contract

What was I thinking? That X was takeout of spades? :(

If X is takeout: 1N If X shows spades: 2♠. I'm not going to compete to 3♠ with this shape (4trumps333, which tends to make total tricks < total trumps) and I want to make it as hard as possible for opps to find their best spot.

Zelandakh's transfer scheme over 1♣-1♠; 2♥: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85552-i-have-a-hand-for-you/page__view__findpost__p__1021893

But then I can't see that he is defining 'best trump fit' or 'longest trump fit' anywhere in the book. So is he using these terms interchangably or is he defining 'total trumps' in two incompatible ways?

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4hkj9dj74ct9864&n=sak753ha865dat82c&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s1nppdpprp2cppdpp]266|200[/hv] X of 2♣ is takeout

Bidding system? Form of scoring?

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4hkj9dj74ct9864&n=sak753ha865dat82c&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s1nppdpp]266|200[/hv]