nullve

I misread as :(

The finesse almost certainly won't work against GiB(E) or a large percentage of bridge players who will strive to lead passively on this auction. Against them it must be better to hope that the same player (realistically, West) has the ♠K and 5+ hearts.

I believe that is a non-standard treatment almost anywhere in the world. (yet unanswered questions in https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85604-rebid-after-2nt-lebensohl-or-ingberman/page__p__1022274__hl__lebensohl__fromsearch__1#entry1022274 )

In my version of Gazzilli after 1♦-1M 1♦-1M; 1N-2♦ doesn't promise a single diamond, and Opener will always bid again on strong hands with only five.

Déjà vu

Posting this before overthinking (and not posting) it: P = normal / <range 0> BAL? 1♣ = <range>, x+y 2-suiter, y longer if x<y / <range 1> BAL / ? ...1♦ = (positive?) relay ......1♥ = <range>, C+O 2-suiter, O longer / ? .........1♠ = (positive?) relay ............1N = <subrange>, C+D 2-suiter, D longer / ? (=> 2♣ = INV+ relay) ............2♣ = <subrange>, C+H 2-suiter, H longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ............2♦ = <subrange>, C+S 2-suiter, S longer / ? (=> 2♥ = INV+ relay) ............(...) .........(...) ......1♠ = <range>, D+M 2-suiter, M longer .........1N = (positive?) relay ............2♣ = <subrange>, D+H 2-suiter, H longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ............2♦ = <subrange>, D+S 2-suiter, S longer / ? (=> 2♥ = INV+ relay) ............(...) .........(...) ......1N = <range 1> BAL ......2♣ = <subrange>, H+S 2-suiter, S longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ......(...) ...(...) 1♦ = <range>, 1-suiter / <range 3> BAL? / ? ...1♥ = (positive?) relay ......1♠ = C 1-suiter / ? (=> 1N = INV+ relay) ......1N = D 1-suiter / <range 3> BAL? / ? (=> 2♣ = INV+ relay) ......2♣ = H 1-suiter / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ......2♦ = S 1-suiter / ? (=> 2♥ = INV+ relay) ......(...) ...(...) 1♥ = <range>, C+O 2-suiter, C longer / ? ...1♠ = (positive?) relay ......<subrange>, 1N = C+D 2-suiter, C longer / ? (=> 2♣ = INV+ relay) ......<subrange>, 2♣ = C+H 2-suiter, C longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ......<subrange>, 2♦ = D+S 2-suiter, C longer / ? (=> 2♥ = INV+ relay) ......(...) ...(...) 1♠ = <range>, D+M 2-suiter, D longer / ? ...1N = (positive?) relay ......2♣ = <subrange>, D+H 2-suiter, D longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) ......2♦ = <subrange>, D+S 2-suiter, D longer / ? (=> 2♥ = INV+ relay) ......(...) ...(...) 1N = <range 2> BAL 2♣ = <subrange>, H+S 2-suiter, H longer / ? (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) (...) Not sure where to put 3-suiters, 5-5 and 6-6 hands yet. Ideas? Not sure about the ranges either, but maybe** <range> = "10+" (meets the rule of 19, say) <subrange> = "10-15 or 19+"* <range 0>: empty (but my current preference is actually to pass with 11-13 BAL in 1st/2nd seat) <range 1> = 11-13 hcp (could be 17-19 hcp in 1st/2nd seat if 11-13 BAL is in P) <range 2> = 14-16 hcp <range 3> = 17-19 hcp (could be 20-22 hcp in 1st/2nd seat if 17-19 BAL is in 1♣-1♦; 1N) ? * Then e.g. 1♣-1♦; [2m-3]-[2m-2]; 2M 1♦-1♥; 2M [2m-3]-[2m-2]; 2M could all be NAT with "16-18"

Is consistent with (from https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85844-2-hearts-or-negative-double/) ?

A quick Google Translate-based translation of the excerpt I quoted in this post: " Distribution points (dp) Doubleton = 1 dp Singleton = 2 dp Void = 3 dp Unguarded honours lose 1 dp in the following combinations: A-J, K-Q, K-J, K, Q-J, Q-x, Q, J-x, J When notrump is bid, you do not count on any distribution points. Support points When you support your partner's suit, you reevaluate your hand like this Doubleton = 1 dp Singleton = 3 dp Void = 5 dp In return, you deduct 1 dp for: a) 4-3-3-3 distribution b) Support with only 3 trumps Finally, you upgrade the following trump combinations with 1 dp: K, Q, J, Q-J When your partner has supported your suit --- or when you have your own solid trump suit (no more than 1 loser) --- you add 1 dp for the suit's fifth card and 2 dp for each following card in the suit."

From a recent Robot Rebate 55%: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|nullve,~~M32095,~~M32093,~~M32094|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S3JH5TQKD56QKAC4A%2CS68TQH89JAD24C57T%2CS249H2347D37C2369%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2011%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-2%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7COvercall%20--%205%2B%20%21D%3B%2015%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C3%2B%20%21D%3B%2011-13%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21D%3B%2015-19%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020%2B%20HCP%3B%2020-%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CCA%7C]399|300[/hv] Could this be the worst GiB auction ever?

Working through every logical possiblility is often not practical. But what you can do on every deal is to guess the (approximate) layout based on the information you have so far. That should help you in forming a plan. For example, on board 7: [hv=pc=n&n=saqt93h62d4ckqjt9&e=s52ht743dq72ca872&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1sp2dp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Opening lead: ♣6 Guess the layout.

Klaus Nomi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf6ViwumljY

Ok, how about 1♣-(1♥)-X-(P); 2♣ = 11-15, 2-S5+C, could be 2335 without a heart stopper, then? Do we want to tell beginners that they should rather risk playing in a 5-1 or 5-0 minor fit than playing in 1N with a potentially wide open suit?

What makes a bidding or defensive signalling method playable?

Anyone here who thinks the alternative, 1♣-(1♥)-X-(P); 2♦ = NAT, could be 2344 without a heart stopper, is playable? I'll start a thread about what 'playable' means right now.

So what?

The defence was less spectacular at my table despite GiB(W)'s decisions at tricks 5 and 6 costing no less than four tricks: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|3SKJ762H87DKQ2CAJ8,SQ4HQJ4DAJ984CK95,SAHKT632D75CQT742,ST9853HA95DT63C63|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2D!|an|Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205+%20!H;%2011-%20HCP;%2012-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2H|an|Transfer%20completed%20to%20H%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|D|an|Takeout%20double%20--%203+%20!C;%203+%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203+%20!S;%2014-20%20total%20points|mb|3C|an|New%20suit%20--%204+%20!C;%205+%20!H;%2011-%20HCP;%2010-12%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3N|an|No%20good%20support%20in%20C.%20No%203rd%20H%20--%202-4%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D8|pc|D5|pc|D3|pc|DK|pc|S6|pc|S4|pc|SA|pc|S5|pc|C2|pc|C6|pc|CJ|pc|CK|pc|SQ|pc|D7|pc|S3|pc|S7|pc|DA|pc|H2|pc|D6|pc|D2|pc|D9|pc|H3|pc|DT|pc|DQ|pc|SK|pc|H4|pc|H6|pc|S8|pc|SJ|pc|C5|pc|HT|pc|ST|pc|CA|pc|C9|pc|C4|pc|C3|pc|C8|pc|DJ|pc|CQ|pc|H5|pc|CT|pc|H9|pc|H7|pc|D4|pc|C7|pc|S9|pc|H8|pc|HQ|pc|HK|pc|HA|pc|S2|pc|HJ|]300|300[/hv] Ineresting decision to double 2♥, though.

I found some more info. (See edit.)

Also: But he didn't say more about it, did he? Edit: He does say what the responses to 2M are: I guess "asks for the doubleton" (my emphasis) implies that the hand contains exactly one doubleton, which is the case if 2M shows 5M(332) shape (and maybe also 10-12 hcp) specifically, but not if 2M is a more common type of Weak Two.

Lall's article doesn't deal with the case where Opener's second suit is clubs, so like you I can only guess that he would then use 3♦ (instead of 3♣) as the lebensohl-like device, resulting in a scheme like 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2N; ?: P = bad minimum, usually neither 6+ H nor 5+ C 3♣ = 5+ C, NF 3♦ = puppet to 3♥ ...3♥ = forced ......P = 6+ H, wanted to get out in 3♥ ......3♠ = (by elimination) 5+ C, FG ......3N = diamond suit or fragment (so either 1534 or 0544) 3♥ = 6+ H, FG 3♠ = 3 S, FG 3N = contract This type of problem is also dealt with in part III of Gitelman's Improving 2/1 GF series, but for some reason only after 1M-1N; 2new-2N and not 1♥-1♠; 2new-2N. But based on Gitelman's scheme over 1♥-1N; 2♣-2N: 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2N; ?: P = bad minimum, usually neither 6+ H nor 5+ C 3♣ = 5+ C, NF 3♦ = puppet to 3♥ ...3♥ = forced ......P = 6+ H, wanted to get out in 3♥ ......3♠+ = GF hands with 6+ H or 5+ C. The article doesn't go into details but I'm guessing ......3♠ = 6+ H, FG ......3N = 5H5C, NF ......(...) 3♥ = diamond suit or fragment (so either 1534 or 0544), FG 3♠ = 3 S, FG 3N = contract

A perfect hand for 1♦-1M/N; 3♣.

So Moscito 2005, at least, doesn't have particularly light limited openings, and I wonder what the real reason is for starting 1♣ at 15 rather than 16 even on unbalanced hands. (Starting at 15 on balanced hands seems more natural if 1N is to cover almost all balanced hands in the 12-14 range.)

You're forgetting that some play "2/1 GF except when suit rebid". (Which is the default 2/1 style in Norway, btw.)

Two obvious ways in which continuations after a 1M-2m and 1♠-2♥ can be totally independent of the 1N opening range: 1) 5M(332) hands are always opened 1M if in range for 1N 2) 5M(332) hands are never opened 1M The 2/1 system described in the book Il Sistema Bocchi-Duboin and played by then already multiple world champions Bocchi-Duboin, is an example of a system of type 1). Their 1N opening was 12-14 or 15-17 depending on seat and vulnerability, btw. The 2/1 GF system described in these influential notes by another (then) world-class pair, Welland-Fallenius comes very close to being a system of type 2). (1M is somewhat optional with 11-13 and 5M(332).)

Many world class pairs play 5c majors + wk NT. Does that make it playable? (Not a rhetorical question!) One example of such a system is the Kokish-Kraft system. (Eric Kokish is one of the world's most respected bidding theorists.) I'm having a deja vu writing this.

I have a ton of (qualitative, subjective :() experience with including all 1st/2nd seat 11-13 BAL in Pass when playing with myself against myself, and my impression is that that is not only playable (whatever that means, there should be a thread about it!) but seems to lead to more aggressive/preemptive bidding on average, thanks in part to sequences like P-(1x)-2y, than if 11-13 BAL is opened with, say, a natural-or-balanced club or a nebulous diamond. So while looks more than ok, I'd rather play something based on 1st/2nd seat: P = "normal" or 11-13 BAL 1♣ = "16+ unBAL" or "17+ BAL" 1N = "14-16 BAL" 3rd/4th seat: P = 0-7 walrus Milton Work, usually BAL 1♣ = 8 walrus Milton Work to 10, usually BAL OR "16+ unBAL" OR "17+ BAL" 1♦ = "10-12", unBAL shapes consistent with a Precision 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening OR 11-13 BAL, not 5M(332) 1M = Precision (or even standard) 1N = "13-15", unBAL shapes consistent with a Precision 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening OR 14-16 BAL, including all 5M(332) 2♣+ = preempts P-1N; ?: (...) 2♣ = weak with 5(+)M3-OM ...P = 5+C1-M' (can "see" that partner has 5(+) M') ...2♦ = 5+D1-M' (can "see" that partner has 5(+) M') ...2♥/♠ = P/C (...) where M' is a major not necessarily the same as M.