nullve

12-14 and 15-17 NTs are meant for systems with rule of 20-ish openings, like (book) standard 2/1. I play a 14-16-ish NT in a system with rule of 19-ish openings, like modern Precision. A 11-13-ish NT would also fit rather well. A 15-17 NT (10-12 NT), on the other hand, would result in an uncomfortably big 11-14 (13-16) NT range deeper in the system. A 12-14 NT would just be unplayable.

Not if you use the trick mentioned by helene_t many years ago: 1♣-1♠: does not contain a BAL invite opposite the split range 12-14 OR 18-19 1♣-1N: invite opposite the split range 12-14 OR 18-19 (Opener rejects/accepts with 12-14/18-19, respectively) Then Opener can comfortably rebid 1N over 1♣-1♠ not only with 12-14 BAL but also with 18-19 BAL. I hereby declare this to be part of Standard T-Walsh.

Haha, I played the match. Just didn't know it was part of a tournament. :) Did I register while sleepwalking? :unsure:

Had to check this with me and 3 basic GiBs at a teaching table: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M11120ri,~~M21592y0,~~M3697sn3|md|3SKJ9HKQ3DAQCT9652,SQT72HT72D863CK87,S6543HAJ85DJTCAQJ,SA8H964DK97542C43|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%2029|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2C|mb|P|mb|2H|an|3+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points;%20stop%20in%20!H;%20forcing%20to%202N%20|mb|P|mb|2S|an|4+%20!C;%203-%20!H;%203-%20!S;%2011+%20HCP;%20stop%20in%20!S;%20forcing%20to%203C|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S2|mc|13|]399|300[/hv]

Yes, because the 1♠, 1♥, 1♦ and 1♣ openings promise 5+, 5+, 3+ and 3+ cards, respectively. Another example is standard 2/1, where 1♦ can be 3c only if 4=4=3=2.

Used as an impersonal pronoun like in Danish/German/Norwegian/Swedish?

What's your structure after 1♦-1♥?

Stupid fantasy: 2♠-3♣!!! 4♣-5♦* 5♠**-7♥ P * ERKCB(♣) ** 1 key card outside diamonds

With 18-19, 5D(332) I'm going to declare NT many, many times for each time it will be useful to show my fifth diamond in competition, so I'd rather open 1♣ and risk playing in a non-fit, just to avoid the information leakage and be able to stop in 1N. With 12-14, 5D(332) it's different.

Top Italians (Lauria et al., Bocchi et al.) have been playing multireverses in their 2/1-like systems for ages. They are also part of Garozzo's Ambra system. A description can be found in this old thread, especially post #13.

This is commonly done with 5M(332) and unwillingness to declare NT 4S5H and insignificant extras* (1M-2♦ only:) 5M4-5C3-D and insignificant extras* Over 1♠-2♥ it is commonly done with 5233 and unwillingness to declare NT 5S4-5m2-H and insignificant extras* * Many (including GiB) play that 1♥-2m; 2♠, 1M-2♦; 3♣ and 1♠-2♥; 3m promise extras despite 1M-2x(x<M) being 100 % GF.

jillybean, are you still interested in T-Walsh? T-Walsh doesn't solve Opener's rebid problem over 1♣-1♥ all by itself, but almost every T-Walsh pair has a way to bid these hands that doesn't require faking a reverse over 1♣-1♥(= 4+ S).

North's hand has changed from AT9 KQ T AKQJ876 to AJ9 KQ K AKQJ876 .

Let me first say that I really like the idea that 1♣-1♠ 2♥-3♥ 3♠ cancels hearts as trumps. But I doubt that is equally obvious everywhere in the world. In Norwegian 2/1, the strong 2♣ opening is not actually borrowed from American 2/1, but has evolved from an opening called Halle's 2♣ that originally showed something like 19-21 hcp with any shape OR a Culbertson 2♣ opening. (The 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ openings were the same as in Culbertson.) Today it is almost indistinguishable from its American counterpart but even very strong players still use it on Acol Two-strength one-suiters to solve rebid problems. I believe this is true of Brogeland-Lindqvist, for instance, so I'd be (mildly) shocked if they had this auction (or the T-Walsh equivalent) and 3♠ were not intended as a cuebid with hearts as trumps.

X, followed by 3♥ (GF, 5+ H) over (2♠)-X-2N The 3♥ rebid is an overbid, of course, but not more of an overbid than Michaels (3♠) or Leaping Michaels (4♦), and it has the advantage of keeping 3N in picture. My nige1an ranking: 1. X 2. 2N 3. 3♠(Michaels)/4♦(Leaping Michaels) 4. 4♥ (sick) 5. 3♥

Without special agreements: 2♣, planning to rebid 2N (22-24 BAL) over a 2♦ response. If I were forced open 1♣ (the systemic opening on this hand), I'd rebid 3N over a 1♦ response 2♦ over a 1M response (less scary than faking length in the unbid major) 2♠ (or maybe 3♦, autosplinter?) over a 1N response

3♥?

I'm afraid I would apply LoTT and pass the double also on the vast majority of hands with 4S3H.

3♠: 6(+)S4-D4-C, a bit too strong for a 2♠ overcall

Two recent threads where Responder also has a slammish hand with 4H6+D: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85477-how-to-transfer-to-diamondsclubs-after-2nt-opening-from-partner/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/85500-13-easy-tricks/ My auction:

Found an error: "> 11" Rerun using "> 10" instead: Frequency W makes 5D: 0 552 1 448 Frequency E makes 4S: 0 537 1 463 Frequency S makes 4H: 0 412 1 588 Generated 45475 hands Produced 1000 hands Initial random seed 1620844908 Time needed 110.964 sec

English language question: If a call A is made in preparation of a call B, isn't it then correct to say that A (but not B) is preparatory and B (but not A) is prepared?

Well, I thought you made such a simulation relevant with your first reply:

Pass

Ok, here's another try: Script: One run: avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.546 avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 10.311 Generated 437839 hands Produced 1000 hands Initial random seed 1620812489 Time needed 65.457 sec So, does 5♦ tend to be a better contract than 4♠ opposite xxxx (interpreted as 8xxx or worse)? Slightly modified script: One run: avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 9.086 avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 8.1 Generated 6302538 hands Produced 500 hands Initial random seed 1620813618 Time needed 41.724 sec Fair enough.