nullve

I agree.

I would have passed 3♥ (forcing or not).

Here are 100 deals dealt randomly (using the Dealer script ) on the condition that North has something resembling a classic Weak 2♥ in terms of hcp and shape (so a hand with 5-S6H and 5-10 hcp that doesn't meet the rule of 20); East has 12 hcp and 4225 shape (because we want to know to do on "similar" hands, not just one that we will almost certainly never be dealt again).

I'll go first: I played 1x/N-(2y)-?: (...) X = mildly penalty-oriented (partner assumes 3 y) ...P = usually 3+ y ...step 1 = Fishbein-like "takeout" (NF) ...(...) step 1 = Fishbein-like "takeout" (NF) (...) for a while as a junior. It may have been in the context of a 4c major system, if that makes it any better. I also once presented a partner with a 60+ page generalisation of this that was meant to cover most(!) competitive situations. He responded politely by lending me his copy of Robson/Segal's Partnership Bidding.

Then why not bid 6♣ (say) instead of 5♥? If NS were human experts playing basic/undiscussed 2/1, I'd expect the bidding to go something like [hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp2cp2d(waiting)3sd(takeout)4s4n(2 places to play)p5cp5s(A or void)p6c(insufficiently encouraged)ppp]133|100[/hv]

P ("going plus")

P

I voted.

What was it?

Unless 2♥ is (delayed) Flannery (aka ELC).

How about [hv=pc=n&w=st2hq2da98765cj83&e=saj8hak9843dkt2ck&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1h2cppdp2dp2n(!?)p3nppp]399|300[/hv] ?

But he might be able to show the suit without actually bidding it. For example, instead of 2♣-2♦; 3♣-3M = 5+ M (standard) one could play 2♣-2♦; 3♣-3M = 5+ OM.

Strong hand declares: hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7 produce 1000 action average tricks(north, hearts) One run: 10.255 Generated 3740085 hands Produced 1000 hands Initial random seed 1599551247 Time needed 24.116 sec Weak hand declares: hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7 produce 1000 action average tricks(south, hearts) One run: 10.269 Generated 3762687 hands Produced 1000 hands Initial random seed 1599551345 Time needed 22.677 sec :unsure:

14 cards

Well, we would want the stronger and less known hand to become declarer. So that's one argument for transfer positives (and against a near-mandatory 2♦ response :().

The 2♣ opening is for all practical purposes not just limited but has, for each unbalanced shape, a quite narrow range. Let me illustrate this by using the Dealer script shape(north,1534) and hcp(north)>21 produce 100 action frequency (hcp(north),22,33) at http://dealergib1.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php to generate 100 hands where the 2♣ Opener (sitting North) has 1534 shape and at least 22 hcp (hands with 11-21 hcp can open 1♥ instead). Here's the result of one (hopefully fairly typical) run: Frequency : 22 56 23 24 24 11 25 6 26 2 27 1 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 33 0 Generated 4931460 hands Produced 100 hands Initial random seed 1599464059 Time needed 5.339 sec So, suppose Responder is able to find out (via relays, say) that partner (who has already opened 2♣) has 1534 shape. Then he can quite safely assume that Opener's range is something like 22-25 even though it's strictly 22-33 (with A-AKQJx-AKQ-AKQJ being the best hand possible). Something similar is true for all other shapes. So why waste precious bidding space on describing Responder's range? Now compare your positive response structure with a typical rebid structure over 2♣-2♦(waiting), 2♥ = "5+ H, unBAL" / 25+ BAL ...2♠ = waiting ......2N = 25+ BAL ......3♣+ = "5+ H, unBAL" 2♠ = "5+ S, unBAL" ...2N = waiting 2N = 22-24 BAL 3♣ = "5+ C, unBAL" 3♦+ = "5+ D, unBAL". As you can see, contracts tend to be played by the strong hand here is well. If what I said is correct, then Opener's range is (for all practical purposes) more narrowly defined here than Responder's range is in your structure. There is more room available here for describing Opener's unbalanced shape than there is for describing Responder's unbalanced shape in your structure. Since 2♣-2♠; 2N = 22-24 BAL (and not just a relay asking about Responder's shape only) in your structure, you don't have more room available to describe balanced shapes, either.

I play it as encouraging the Obvious Shift.

Where is the abuse? :) Btw, GiB would also overcall 2♠ with the black suits reversed, i.e. on [hv=pc=n&w=skj8765432hdca864]133|100[/hv] (I just checked.)

1♣-1♥ 1♠-2♠ 3♠*-P * leaks less than 3♦

System = ?

Probably true, but not opening 2♠ is not the same as passing. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of tournament players in Norway would find some kind of opening (2♦(Multi), 2♠, 3♠) on this hand. [hv=pc=n&e=s9876532h6dj43ca5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1h?]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sakjth843d752c764&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1h2s?]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&n=shak9752daq8ckjt3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1h2spp?]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sakjth843d752c764&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1h2sppdp?]133|200[/hv]

So what is the correct rebid over 1♠-2♦ in Acol with, say, 12 hcp and 5314?

♠Q (not just a spade)

Gratulerer med dagen!

Including all unbalanced 10-13 hands with primarily clubs and no major?