nullve

How can people not bid 3N here?

Their system looks more like Jannersten Precision to me, but with many transfers and (other) applications of Rubens's Useful-Space Principle.

First deal My auction: Partial line in 7♦(S): 1. ♠4 from hand 2.,3. ♦AK If both follow suit: ...4. ♥A ...5. small heart from dummy ...If East follows suit: ......ruff with the J Second deal I'd X* and lead the ♦5. * At MP the alternatives, including P, are even more atrocious.

Again there seems to be confusion because of the word 'takeout'. In Norway we use the word 'opplysende' (Eng. 'enlightening') instead and everyone understands that an opplysende dobling (enlightening double) will get passed more often the higher the level at which it is made.

I believe they play 1♣-1♥ = 8+, 5+ S OR 11-13 BAL

This is what Zelandakh does. It seems that finding 4-4 major fits can be a problem when Responder has less than invitational values. This is not a problem in Zelandakh's system, where (if I've got the details right) 1♦-?: 1♥ = INV+ relay 1♠ = < INV, 4+ S, may have longer H ...1N = 4+ H ...(...) 1N = < INV, 4-5 H, < 4 S, NF (But maybe finding the 5-3 heart fit with, say, 12 hcp, 4351 opposite 9 hcp, 2524 is? I don't know.) Forrester-Gold played an interesting 2/1 system some years ago where (as you can see from their convention card, 1♦-?: 1♥ = "Relay no 5M" 1♠ = "5+♥" 1N = "5+♠" 2♣ = "♣FG or balanced FG" 2♦ = "♥ wk or FG" 2♥ = "♠ wk or FG" 2♠ = "FG 4+♦" 3♣ = "INV" 3♦ = "Mixed" 3M/4♣ = "SPL". Presumably they responded 1♥ on most (all?) positive hands with a 4c, but not 5c, M. I have no idea what they did over that, but obviously a scheme with 2-under transfers could work, e.g. 1♦-1♥; ?: 2x-2(x!=♠) = 2-under transfer ...2x-1 = INV+ relay ......2x = only non-GF bid, NF ......[2x+1]+ = GF ...(...) (...) Or, if you want to keep 2♦ as NAT NF over 1♦-1♥; 2♣, maybe something closer to what benlessard does, in his chapi8 system.

The negative NT, what is it? :unsure: The problem is that you will often not reach a sensible contract after a Polish (or old Precision) 2♣ opening. I believe Dutch Doubleton is a better choice.

BBO thread from 2005: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/9479-question-on-demuy-wolpert-system/

From https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.bridge/c/QLHRefwj87w :

Hurd-Wooldridge this time. See board 14 and comments by Al Hollander here.

Found another board, from #77761 Teams WBT OCBL May CUP R7 T1 : [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|bumportant,kmb24,jjmeck,johnhurd|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4SJ42HKQJ7DJ6C9862%2CSKQ3H9832DCQT7543%2CST9876H54DAQ7532C%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2014%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7C2N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7Cmod%20puppet%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7Cno%20major%20or%205Spades%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7Cart%20ask%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7Cno%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4C%7Can%7C5%2B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7CRKC%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C0%2F3%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cmc%7C12%7C]399|300[/hv]

From #35121 Teams TBL3 - ALT NEWCO EVENT 5 - R5 : [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|kmb24,levin,johnhurd,stevo|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4SQ7HKJ8DAK76CAQJ5%2CSAK9643H54DQT3C98%2CSJ85HAT62D8542CK7%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7Cform%20of%20pupp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C5%21s%20or%20no%20maj%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7CRelay%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7Cno%20maj%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cmc%7C9%7C]399|300[/hv] Seen this Puppet variation before?

Or (from https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76983-point-count-contracts/page__p__927865#entry927865): Later, while still playing in protected environment, they could graduate to a game just like bridge except with an extra contract/opening bid, 0N (< 1♣), available. An elementary system could be based on something like 0N = 12-14/18-19 BAL or 11+ hcp, (4441) 1x = 11-21 hcp, 5+ x, unBAL 1N+ = standard stuff except not (4441)

I'm confused. If a player thinks it's close between Pass and 1N on a), b) or maybe a different hand c) that also has 3442 shape, what would your advice be? Some methods are genuinely worse than others. The others don't have to be good for that to be true. (Which hand valuation methods have I said are good?)

Nor after just one round of bidding (e.g. 1♠-1N) for that matter. I thought it was clear that 1) LTC is already (equivalent to) a point count method 2) I don't think it should be used by anyone

Make the opener based on what? Shape (3442) and... ?

a) Axx ATxx A9xx xx (8 losers) b) KQx KQTx Q9xx xx (6 losers) LTC tells us that b) is much better a). Double dummy analysis (hardly the last word on hand evaluation, I admit) tells us a) is better than b).

I've never meant to say that. (When did I say it?) What I meant to say is that if you're going to use a method just as a tie-breaker, then it probably shouldn't be LTC, because it's a terrible method. That it is a terrible method may not be obvious until you view it as a point count method designed to measure essentially the same thing as the Goren point count method, namely the value of high cards and short suits. Then you get apparent absurdities like AJ843 AK93 Q9 A6 and Q9843 KQ93 T9 K6 being both worth 18 LTC-derived points (but 19* and 12 Goren points, respectively). Good luck constructing a pair of hands where it is the Goren count and not the LTC-derived count that leads to absurdity! So why not use the Goren count as a tie-breaker instead of the LTC? How can that not be (much) better? * not counting a distributional point for ♦Q6 doubleton

LTC is a disguised way of counting points for high cards and short suits, so a better comparison would be with Goren points, a method desgined to measure the same thing.

2N. Not obviously a distortion.

As many (e.g. Zelandakh) have pointed out on these forums, the standard LTC is equivalent to counting 3 points for each each * ace * king at least doubleton * queen at least third and 3, 6 and 9 points for each doubleton, singleton and void, respectively. Why would any good player use that method as a tie-breaker?

1♠-1N 3♥-4♠* P * intended as Kickback, expecting a better hand ?

I must have bid a zillion hands against my own 2-level artificial garbage preempts (but very possibly without learning anything of value :() and my favourite defense is to pretend RHO has opened a Weak Two. So Ekren 2♦/♥ are treated like Weak 2♦/♥, respectively. This makes it easy to find the spade fit and even the spade slam.

The (standard) losing trick count doesn't distinguish between AJ843 AK93 Q9 A6 and Q9843 KQ93 T9 K6, which is not even an opening hand. I believe this is wrong. First, and most importantly, because it is possible to model exactly when partner would pass 2♥. Secondly, because simulations can be extremely useful even if not entirely realistic. (Think science or engineering.) Jeff's Magic Elixir, right? I think you have written everything I know about the convention. Seems like the obvious alternative to Meckstroth Adjunct if giving 2N up as a natural invite over 1M-1N is not an option. They are also a good advertisement for Gazzilli, a convention typically used (as I'm sure you know) in 2/1-like systems where the 1N response to 1M is (at most) SF. So 2/1 players don't necessarily have a nasty problem here. I guess the reason you don't play Gazzilli is that you play 1M-1N as F1 and (partly therefore) prefer Bart/Lisa.

Using Meckstroth Adjunct in 2/1*: 1♠-1N 2N(1)-3♣(2) 3♥(3) (1) GF**, no 5c or longer side suit (2) relay (3) 4 H * Described (by Jeff Meckstroth!) in Max Hardy's Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st century ** Opener might be stretching a bit here, but 2♥ (11-18(!), 4+ H in Hardy's 2/1) looks suicidal and now Responder can (I think) either bid 3♠ with doubelton support, over which Opener will bid 3N with 5-4 only, or 3N, showing willingness to play there even opposite 6-4. How I wouldmight bid the hand in my system: