nullve

[Deleted pointless experiment]

So not even once did 1N and 2♠ go off by the same number of tricks??? Something must be wrong... Maybe outcome = x1N_score == x2S_score ? 0 : x1N_score > x2S_score ? 1 : -1 doesn't mean what I thought it does, which (in pseudo-code) is: if (x1N_score == x2S_score) outcome = 0 ; else if (x1N_score > x2s_score) outcome = 1; else outcome = -1; EDIT: Running the script with outcome = x1N_score == x2S_score ? 0 : (x1N_score > x2S_score ? 1 : -1) instead of outcome = x1N_score == x2S_score ? 0 : x1N_score > x2S_score ? 1 : -1 : Frequency : -1 567 0 114 1 319 Generated 1476991 hands Produced 1000 hands Initial random seed 1603879365 Time needed 381.751 sec

Here are 100 deals that satisfy your condition. As you can see, there are many deals where EW would have competed after a 1N opening, giving NS another chance to find a superior 2♠ contract.

Not an error but invite= hcp(south)>=8 and hcp(south)<=9 thingame= hcp(south)>=10 and hcp(south)<=10 safegame= hcp(south)>=11 and hcp(south)<=12 resp5332= shape(south, any 5332) and hearts(south)<=3 and spades(south)<=3 does nothing right now because of condition nt1517 and s5 and weak and (not xfer)

Or use a Fred Gitelman invention* (described in this article): 1♥-1♠ 2♣-2N 3♦(1)-3♥(2) 3♠(3)-3N 4♣ (1) puppet to 3♥ (2) forced (3) 5+ C, GF :) * possibly outside the intended context (= 1M-1N; 2♣-2N only?)

Wouldn't 1♥-1♠ 2♣-2♦/2N 3♣-3any 4♣ logically show 6+H6C and at least some slam interest?

Script: produce 1 action printes (score(vul,x7C,13),\n) Run: 2140 Generated 1 hands Produced 1 hands Initial random seed 1603746614 Time needed 0.000 sec So the first argument is 'vul' if the contract is vulnerable. Haven't figured out what it is when the contract is not vulnerable.

I don't know how to make the 'score' operator work, either, but my guess is that the 'vulnerability' argument does not have everything to do with the 'vulnerable' operator. (For example, if 'vulnerable' is set to 'EW', then the contract is vulnerable iff played by EW.)

action printes ("Number of hearts: ", hearts(north),\n) seems to work.

Versace-Lauria and other top Italians have. The idea seems to be that e.g. 1♣-1♠ 3♥ is not only weaker than 1♣-1♠ 2♥-something 3♥ but also denies the values for a tradtional reverse.

Moving the condition doesn't seem to make much difference when I do it, but maybe it should. :unsure:

Make sure you use http://dealergib1.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php, mentioned by uday here, and not https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php . .

And just for fun: Dealer script: predeal east SK743, HQT, DK53, C7432 south2S = hcp(south)<11 and spades(south)==6 west2ndX = hcp(west)>13 and spades(west)==0 and hearts(west)<6 and shape(west, any 5440 + any 6430) produce 100 action average "Avg. tricks if S plays in spades:" (tricks(south,spades)), average "Avg. tricks if E plays in notrump:" (tricks(east,notrump)), average "Avg. tricks if E plays in clubs:" (tricks(east,clubs)) condition south2S and west2ndX One run: Avg. tricks if S plays in spades:: 7.61 Avg. tricks if E plays in notrump:: 7.53 Avg. tricks if E plays in clubs:: 10.07 Generated 801841 hands Produced 100 hands Initial random seed 1603624250 Time needed 109.008 sec

Pass (LoTT)

BBO (by far the biggest bridge site, isn't it?) has currently 4,711 players online. chess.com (the biggest but just one of many big chess sites) has currently 93,252 players online. Maybe chess does something right after all.

Ok, that makes sense. Sorry. True. I agree that it's rarely a good idea to run in direct seat if partner can have (but doesn't promise) six spades. But 2♠ could also be be Muiderberg (5S4+m), "preempt with exactly five spades" (quite popular in Norway), Velociraptor (4S5+m),...

If we are talking about auctions starting (2♠)-X: 1. One exception, of course, is when Overcaller is 2(443) or 2(533) and can rebid 3♣ over 2N (as in standard lebensohl). Another exception is when opps try to escape from 2♠X. (See below.) 2. I'm not so sure about that. While it may be better on average for the defenders to lead a suit through Overcaller than through Advancer, it's probably harder for Opener than for Responder to pick a suit (and a card) that will work the defense. 3. The 3♣ advance is also used on GF hands with 3-H4+C. 4. True. If we are talking about auctions starting (2♠)-P-(P)-X: 1.,3.,4. Same. 2. True. One win is that if Responder has a misfitting hand on which he cannot afford to pass (2♠)-X, which can easily be the case if opps are playing more exotic stuff than a classic weak two, then the 15-17BAL/18-20BAL inversion means we will let them off the hook less often. And it is at least conceivable that a fit can be found after, say, (2♠)-X-(3♣)-P (P)-X*, * takeout of clubs that cannot be found after (2♠)-2N*. * standard overcall Yes, relatively rare. But not so rare that those advantages can be ignored.

It's always fun to see if GiB can recover from temporary insanity: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|~~M3137a5c,~~M10812jt,~~M9130j8p,~~M107122q|md|3SK96HAQ753DAK52C5,SQ5HT92DQT8CQJT84,SJT872H4D74CAK976,SA43HKJ86DJ963C32|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|1H|mb|P|mb|2N!|an|Jacoby%20-%3E%20support;%20balanced%20--%204+%20!H;%2013+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|4H|an|Balanced%20minimum%20--%202+%20!C;%202+%20!D;%205+%20!H;%202+%20!S;%2011-14%20HCP;%2012-15%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|C3|pc|C5|pc|CT|pc|CK|pc|CA|pc|C2|pc|D5|pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|S3|pc|H3|pc|C4|pc|DA|pc|D8|pc|D7|pc|D9|pc|DK|pc|DT|pc|D4|pc|DJ|pc|D2|pc|DQ|pc|H4|pc|D6|pc|S8|pc|SA|pc|S6|pc|S5|pc|S4|pc|SK|pc|SQ|pc|S7|pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|S2|pc|H8|pc|D3|pc|H5|pc|H9|pc|C7|pc|HT|pc|C6|pc|H6|pc|HQ|pc|HA|pc|CJ|pc|ST|pc|HK|pc|S9|pc|CQ|pc|SJ|pc|HJ|]450|300[/hv] (I opened 1♥ and then left the seat to GiB.)

Here are 100 random deals using the following Dealer code: predeal south S4, HAKQJ2, DAQ8752, CA produce 100 I guess the auction could go 1♦-AP on board 45.

Thought I should post my notes on the defense against 2-level suit preempts that nullve-nullve play against nullve-nullve. ---------- I've long been convinced that the standard overcall scheme, where (2x)-?: (...) X = takeout, but 18(19?)+ if BAL w/o tolerance for all unbid suits 2N = 15-17 (or, God forbid, 15-18) BAL (...), should be replaced with (2x)-?: (...) X = takeout, except that the range on BAL w/o tolerance for all unbid suits is 15-17/21+ (=> 2N+: see below) 2N = "18-20 BAL" / see below (...), for several reasons, e.g.: There will be more ways to avoid no-play 2N contracts when Advancer has very little opposite 15-17 BAL; It will be possible to stop below game when Advancer has very little opposite 18-20 BAL; Doubling with 15-17/21+ instead 18+ BAL if BAL puts more pressure on opps, especially if 2x doesn't promise 6+ x so that Responer might attempt to improve the contract; The 2N overcall (made with 18-20 instead of 15-17(18) if BAL) is more amenable to including a weaker option (such as a "bad" standard 3♣ overcall), which in turn could make it easier to play a very different type of overcall scheme. (See below.) The main price to pay is that advances to the double have to be different and likely include a 2N advance that allows Overcaller to pass with with 15-17 BAL. And that would mean a loss of precious bidding space although I believe it's still possible to have a decent structure. Anyway, here is, holes included, what nullve-nullve have been playing for many years, when x=♠: (2♠)-X-?: P = normal (i.e. LoTT-based, as usual), but see below 2N = NF lebensohl, 4- H ...P = "15-17 BAL" w/o tolerance for all unbid suits ...3♣+ = as opposite normal lebensohl 3♣ = 0-7, 5+ H / INV+, 4+ D / GF, 3- H ...3♦ = would have passed a 3♦ advance playing standard lebensohl ...3♥ = P/C, GF opposite the D hand ......P = 0-7, 5+ H ......3♠+ = NAT GF ...3♠+ = NAT GF 3♦ = INV+, 5+ H ...3♥ = would have passed a 3♥ advance playing standard lebensohl ...3♠+ = NAT GF 3♥ = INV, 4 H 3♠ = GF values, 4 H, either no S stopper or very strong 3N = GF values, 4 H, S stopper. NF (...). As in Transfer lebensohl and GUCI lebensohl, there is no way to show INV with lcubs and the following hand types become particularily problematic (and maybe more problematic than in Transfer lebensohl/GUCI lebensohl): 1) 9-10, 4S4C(32) 2) 9-10, 3334 3) 9-10, 2335 4) 9-10, 3(32)5 5) 8-10, 1-suited w/ 6+ C (list probably not exhaustive) It's obviously possible to play something very similar to this over (2♥)-X, e.g. with 3♦ = 8+, 5+ S and 3♠ = INV, 4 S, but because Overcaller will bid again over (2♥)-X-2♠ with 15-17 BAL, it might be better to do away with mild spade invites by Advancer and play (2♥)-X-?: P = normal (i.e. LoTT-based, as usual), but see below 2♠ = < strongly INV, 4+ S (or, maybe, 3334/3(32)5 --- see below) ...P = MIN ...2N = "15-17 BAL", 2-3 S (=> 3m = to play) ...3♠ = mildly INV (also with 15-17 BAL), 4+ S ...3♣+ = normal, or maybe ...3♣ = extras, 3S5(+)C ...3♦ = extras, 3S5(+)D ...(...) 2N = NF lebensohl, 4- S ...P = "15-17 BAL" w/o tolerance for both minors ...3♣+ = as opposite normal lebensohl 3♣ = INV+, 4+ D / GF, 3- S ...3♦ = would have passed a 3♦ advance playing standard lebensohl ...3♥+ = NAT GF 3♦ = GF (or strongly INV+?), 5+ S 3♥ = GF values, 4 S, either no S stopper or very strong 3♠ = ? (strongly INV w/ 4 S is an option) 3N = GF values, 4 S, H stopper. NF (...). Again, there is no way to invite with clubs, so the following hand types are particularly problematic: 6) 9-10, 4H4C(32) 7) 9-10, 3334 8) 9-10, 3235 9) 9-10, 2335 10) 8-10, 1-suited w/ 6+ C 11) 9-10, 3325 (list probably not exhaustive) My "solutions" to the above problems are based on the fact that Responder didn't raise, so opps have most likely 8- trumps. 1),6) Pass. Not so attractive from a LoTT perspective with 4 small trumps, but... 2),7) Pass(!!). The 4C333 shape is a negative adjustment factor (~ 1 total trick?), so from a LoTT perspective defending against 2MX is easily the best we can do if partner has 2+ M, as suggested by Responder's failure to raise M. Alternatively, if M=♥, 2♠, hoping for a 4-3 fit. 3),8) 3♣. Partner seems to have 3+ S and therefore 15-17 BAL or better. 4),9) Maybe nderbid 2N with 9 (expecting game to be somewhat marginal opposite 15-16 BAL) and overbid 3♣ with 10, hoping partner has a little extra. 5),10) 3♣, hoping the club suit will be a sufficient source of tricks in 3N. 11) 2♠, hoping for a 4-3 S fit. Of course, these "solutions" will sometimes lead to silly results. When x=m I think Kokish-Kraft advances are the way to go. (Thx for the tip, dokoko!) I.e. something like (2♣)-X-?: P = allowed 2♦ = Herbert 2M = "constructive, 4+ M" 2N = puppet to 3♣ ...3♣ = forced ......3♦ = INV+, 4+S4+H ......3M = "GF, 4+ M, C stopper" ......(...) 3y-1(y>♣) = "INV+, 4+ y" 3♠: undefined 3N = suggestion w/ C stopper (...) and, similarly, (2♦)-X-? P = allowed 2M = "< INV, 4+ M" 2N = "WK w/ C" OR ...3♣ = to play opposite the weak hand ......P = the weak hand ......3♦ = INV+, 4+S4+H ......3M = "GF, 4+ M, D stopper" ...(...) 3♣ = "INV, 4+ C" 3M-1 = "INV+, 4+ M" 3♠: undefined for now (but a kind of transfer to C in the Kokish-Kraft notes) 3N = suggestion w/ D stopper (...) So what should the remaining overcall structure look like? I can imagine three different schemes: I ("natural overcalls"): (2x)-?: X: as above 2N = "18-20 BAL" 3N: starts at 21 hcp if BAL other: normal II ("transfer overcalls"): E.g. (2M)-?: (...) 2♠(M=♥) = normal overcall 2N = normal C overcall or "18-20 BAL" 3♣ = unlimited D overcall 3♦(M=♠) = unlimited H overcall (...) III ("Concept/Flash" overcalls1): Main idea: To be able to separate "good" and "bad" overcalls when a Good/Bad 2N-like bid is not available. (2♣)-?: P = normal X = takeout with the above 15-17 BAL/18-20 BAL "inversion" 2♦ = normal2 D overcall or bad2 H overcall 2♥ = good2 H overcall or bad S overcall 2♠ = good S overcall or reds at least 5-5 2N = 18-20 BAL 3♣ = very good2 D overcall or majors at least 5-5 3♦ = very good H overcall or pointeds at least 5-5 3♥ = very good S overcall or good overcall with reds at least 5-5 (...). (2♦)-?: P = normal X = takeout with the above 15-17 BAL/18-20 BAL "inversion" 2♥ = normal H overcall or bad S overcall 2♠ = good S overcall or bad overcall with roundeds at least 5-5 2N = bad C overcall or 18-20 BAL 3♣ = good C overcall or majors at least 5-5 3♦ = very good H overcall or blacks at least 5-5 3♥ = very good S overcall or good overcall with roundeds at least 5-5 (...), Advances to the double have to be a bit different, and the "NT system" after (2♦)-2N-3♣ has to be clever, since Responder can't just transfer to M with 5+M3-OM. One idea: (2♥)-?: (...) 2♠ = normal S overcall (incl. bad overcall 5+S5+m) or bad overcall with minors at least 5-5 2N = 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall 3♣ = good C overcall or bad D overcall 3♦ = good D overcall or good overcall with blacks at least 5-5 3♥ = strong S overcall or good overcall with minors at least 5-5 3♠ = very strong C overcall or good overcall with pointeds at least 5-5 (...) (2♠)-?: (...) 2N = "18-20 BAL" or bad C overcall 3♣ = good C overcall or bad D overcall 3♦ = good D overcall or bad H overcall 3♥ = good H overcall or minors at least 5-5 3♠ = very strong C overcall or reds at least 5-5 (... More on Concept/Flash overcalls In order for these overcalls to work when Advancer cannot safely force, he must initially bid as if he can "see" what type Overcaller has, i.e. much like when responding to a "Flash-type" (Major Flash, Red Flash,...) opening bid. With enough to force, he can either show a suit of his own or reality check with either 2N (if available) or a cuebid (if not). Ex.: (2♠)-3♣-? Case: Advancer can "see" that Overcaller has a good C overcall: P = would have passed a normal 3♣ overcall 3♦/3N+ = same as over a normal 3♣ overcall 3♠ = reality check Case: Advancer can "see" that Overcaller has a bad D overcall: P = long C, no D fit, no game interest 3♦ = would have passed D overcall known to be bad 3♥/3N+ = same as over a normal 3♦ overcall, except maybe a bit sounder 3♠ = reality check Concept/Flash overcalls could also be used against higher preempts, e.g. The 2N overcall in II and III Again, Advancer must often bid as if he can "see" which hand type partner has, but now he will systemically transfer to 3M (presumably opposite 18-20 BAL) with 0-5, 5+ M whenever M is an unbid major. Ex.: (2M)-2N-?: P = wants to play 2N opposite 18-20 BAL 3♣ = would have passed the 3♣ overcall, GF opposite 18-20 BAL ...P = the C overcall ...3♦+ = "18-20 BAL" 3OM-1 = 0-5, 5+ OM / ? (...) 1 First outlined here, but I took the name from 'similar opening preempts (Concept Preempts, Major Flash and Red Flash) described here, at Chris Ryall's Weak Two Archive. 2 By 'bad', 'normal', 'good' and 'very good' ranges I'm currently thinking of something like "11-13", "11-16", "14-16" and "17+", respectively. But (very) good and not-too-unbalanced hands in the "14-16" and "17-19" ranges may be shown as "15-17 BAL" and "18-20 BAL", respectively, if that is more convenient. (It often will be.)

Our auction was: 1♦-1♠ 2♣-2♥ 2N-3♣ 4♣-4♦ 4♠-5♣ P

From a team match with IMP scoring at a local club a couple of days ago: Dealer: W Vul: NS [hv=pc=n&w=sajht8daqjt3ckq98&e=sq732hkq7dk7cat43&]266|100[/hv] I was playing basic 2/1 with a very good partner and we only got to 5♣. 6♣ was found at only two of twelve tables.

I don't know, but using a gerbified version of a gadget that nullve-nullve play and given that South is crazy enough to launch it directly over 1N, the auction would start 1N(1)-4♣(2) 4♦(3)-4♥(4) 5♥(5) (1) 15-17 BAL (2) "K-Q Gerber" (3) even # of kings (4) asking (5) odd # of queens, ♣Q, ♦Q, no ♥Q, and then Responder would know about 2 aces + ♣Q + ♦Q + ♠Q in Opener's hand.

Here is part of a 2/1-like system I played in 1998/99. I had no access to the internet at the time and actually thought I might be the inventor transfer responses to (a not-too-unnatural) 1♣ and transfer rebids over 1M-1N. :( But at a MP tournament, probably in 1999, I spoke with another Norwegian player who told me he had also come up with a version transfer responses to 1♣ (very close to "Dutch" T-Walsh, it turns out) and transfer rebids over 1M-1N, so it might have been a Zeitgeist thing. On the English-language Wikipedia page on T-Walsh there is a link to a pdf document (in Norwegian) describing (a possibly much more recent version of) his system.

P/X: un-Law-ful calls 5♥: Law-ful (even without the double fit) 5♠: Law-ful (because of the double fit) 5N+: overbids My call: 5♠. (DD probably about as good as 5♥. But will RHO believe I have suppressed a 6c heart suit when LHO leads his singleton heart? :))