nullve

Agree. So I actually divide my 1M range ("10-21") into four equally big subranges O1 ("10-12"), O2 ("13-15"), O3 ("16-18") and O4 ("19-21") and play 1♥("10-21, 5+ H, unBAL")-2♣; ?: 2♦ = O2 (all shapes) OR O4, some shapes OR (rarely) O1, afraid of getting passed in 2♥ after 1♥-2♣; 2♥ ...2♥ = relay (GF) ......2♠ = not O2 .........2N = relay ............3♣ = O1 (I don't have any system over this) ............3♦+ = O4, S(♥)|2N-3♣; 3♦+ ......2N+ = O2, S(♥) ...(...) ...I'm also considering ...2N = weak relay (less revealing opposite O2) ......3♣ = O2 ......3♦+ = O4, S(♥)|2N-3♣; 3♦+ 2♥ = O1 (passable with a LR, so maybe not all shapes) ...P = the LR ...2♠ = GF relay ......2N+ = S(♥) ...(...) 2♠ = O4, most shapes ...2N = relay ......3♣+ = S(♥)|3♣+ ...(...) 2N+ = O3, S(♥) and 1♠("10-21, 5+ S, unBAL")-2♣; ?: 2♦ = O1 (all shapes) OR O4, some shapes ...2♥ = GF relay ......2♠ = O4 .........2N = relay ............3♣: not used at the moment (although I have some ideas) ............3♦+ = O4, S(♠)|2N-3♣; 3♦+ ......2N+ = O1, S(♠) ...2♠ = the LR ...(...) ...I'm also considering ...2N = weak relay (less revealing opposite O1) ......3♣ = O1 ......3♦+ = O4, S(♠)|2N-3♣; 3♦+ 2♥ = O2 (all shapes) ...2♠ = relay (GF) ......2N+ = S(♠) ...(...) 2♠ = O4, most shapes ...2N = relay ......3♣+ = S(♠)|3♣+ ...(...) 2N+ = O3, S(♠), where the (relay) structure S(M) is built around 2N = "4+ OM or 1-suited" ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = "1-suited" ......3♥+ = "4+ OM" ...(...) 3♣ = "4+ D" 3♦ = "any 5-5" 3♥+ = "4+ C" and S(M)|3♣+ and S(M)|2N-3♣; 3♦+ are the restrictions of S(M) to the red and blue parts, respectively.

Instead of 1M-2♣; 2♦ = negative or 1M-2♣; 2M = negative, which are the two standard variants, I kind of play 1♥-2♣; 2♥ = negative (and passable) and 1♠-2♣; 2♦ = negative (then 2♠ = LR), which allows 1M-2♣; 2♦-2♥ = GF relay.

I love slapstick robot bridge.

Fairly standard 2/1 auction: 1♦(1)-1♠(2) 1N(3)-2♦(4) 2♥(5)-2♠(6) 3♦(7)-3♠(8) 4♣(9) (1) "11-21, (3)4+ D" (2) "5+, 4+ S" (3) "12-14 BAL", (1)2-3 S (4) ART GF (part of XY-NT, which is now a lot more common than NMF among tournament players at least where I live) (5) 4 H (6) "5+ S" (7) 5 D (8) "6+ S" (9) 2452, club control, could have had less slam interest and then maybe ...-4N(10) 5♦(11)-5♥(12) 5♠(13)-6♠(14) P (10) RKC(♠) (11) 1 key card (12) trump queen ask (13) no trump queen (14) contract

I have tried it. After all, it's the book action on many similar hands. This is why one should NEVER open 1N with a small doubleton! (Only kidding, but this is actually how people used to argue against it.) But yes, I would almost certainly look stupid on this deal. :(

Agree. Do I have a partner who thinks a horrible 11 count is still better than an average 10 count? Or does 1N deny as much as 10 points? I would bid 1N (yes, without a stopper), not 2♦. You didn't say which I believe, but sadly cannot prove, is false. So what can I say? There are still players (including me in previous life but presumably also many top Italian players) that would never open 1N with a 5c major because of the perceived strength of arguments like "If I open 1N with 5 spades, then we could easily miss an 8 or 9c spade fit". What convinced me (and no doubt lots of others) that opening 1N with a 5c major is a good idea was actually opening 1N with a 5c major and getting a feel for the results. I guess bidding 1N without a stopper is similar.

It makes sense that (3♣)-X-(P)-4♦ = NAT INV, but if we decide that all 4-level advances should be GF here, then this becomes an example of the type of situation that I wanted to discuss in this thread. There I suggested replacing "natural" (or ♣,♦,♥,♠ referring to C,D,H,S, respecitvely) with e.g. Lissabon (♣,♦,♥,♠ referring to H,S,C,D, respectively), which in cases where clubs is no longer a possible trump suit might be realised as 4♣ = "hearts" 4♦ = "spades" 4♥ = "two or three places to play including (3+ ) hearts"*, NF 4♠ = "diamonds". * inspired by Helene's use of the 4♥ advance

I'd much rather declare 1N than defend 1♦ opposite a 3334 12 count.

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M1728,~~M1726,~~M1727|md|4SKJ6HDAKQ76532C96,SQT843HAT86DJTC83,S7HJ7432D9CAKT542,SA952HKQ95D84CQJ7|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%206|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|1N|an|One%20notrump%20overcall%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015+%20HCP;%2018-%20|mb|P|mb|2D!|an|Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205+%20!H%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|2S|an|4+%20!S;%208-%20HCP;%208+%20total%20points%20|mb|3C|an|4+%20!C;%203-%20!D;%205+%20!H;%208+%20total%20points%20|mb|3S|an|3+%20!C;%204+%20!S;%2013-16%20total%20points%20|mb|3N|an|2-5%20!C;%205-%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015+%20HCP;%20rebiddable%20!D;%2018-%20total%20poin|mb|P|mb|4H|an|4+%20!C;%203-%20!D;%206+%20!H;%209+%20HCP;%2010-14%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|4S|an|Cue%20bid%20--%202-5%20!C;%205-%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2017+%20HCP;%20rebiddable%20!D;%20!SA|mb|P|mb|5H|an|4+%20!C;%202-3%20!D;%206+%20!H;%2011+%20HCP;%20no%20!CAK;%20no%20!DAK;%2011-%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|5S|an|Cue%20bid%20--%202-5%20!C;%205-%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2018+%20HCP;%20rebiddable%20!D;%20!SA|mb|P|mb|6H|an|4+%20!C;%202-3%20!D;%206+%20!H;%2011+%20HCP;%20no%20!CAK;%20no%20!DAK;%2011-%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|6N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S4|pc|S7|pc|SA|pc|S6|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|DJ|pc|D9|pc|DK|pc|DT|pc|C2|pc|D8|pc|DQ|pc|S8|pc|C4|pc|H9|pc|D7|pc|HT|pc|C5|pc|S2|pc|D6|pc|H8|pc|H2|pc|C7|pc|D5|pc|C8|pc|H3|pc|H5|pc|D3|pc|C3|pc|H4|pc|CQ|pc|D2|pc|S3|pc|H7|pc|S9|pc|SK|pc|SQ|pc|HJ|pc|S5|pc|SJ|pc|ST|pc|CT|pc|CJ|mc|12|]600|450[/hv] 4♠: Silly me was hoping partner would use RKC, but I should probably have bid 4N (RKC?) myself, hoping for a 5♦ response.

I do: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/78097-outsmarted/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/79303-grosvenor-in-a-box/

Found this thread: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/22791-1nt-response-structure/

Not necessarily true if X = PEN, because you can no longer separate all of * 6+ M * 5M4+m * 4M5+m using only the 2♦ and 2M overcalls. Btw, in Norway, what is meant by 'Multilandy' is typically (1N)-?: X = penalty 2♣ = both majors 2♦ = long major, could be 5M4+m 2M = 4(+)M5+m 2N = both minors. No, there is not a single hand type that is suitable for Multilandy (with or without X as PEN) but not any of the Astro-like defences. And the cost of not being able to show the major immediately should be negligible if you know how to play Multi 2♦. Before doing anything more drastic, how about * switching to Asptro (in terms of handling major 2-suiters: Astro/Cappelletti/DONT < Asptro < Landy/Mohan/Multilandy) * not overcalling with 4M5m22 (worse than 4M5m(31) if cross-ruffs are needed) ?

Nice idea! Is this MKCB (a variant of?) kenrexford's Middle Key Card Blackwood?

A Weak NT defence should ideally be able to separate at least all the following hand types without touching the double: * 4+S5+H * 5+S4+H * 6+M3-OM * 5M3-OM4+m * 4M3-OM5+m. Asptro (part of the Astro family) can do that. Mohan, modified Woolsey and modified Meckwell cannot.

A great line containing no less than four plays with a deceptive element to them (at tricks 1,2,3 and 6), the first even being a kind of Turing test! The line would probably not have worked this time, though. (I checked by replaying the hand against "basic" robots. Maybe the Daylong uses "advanced" robots?) This line is similar to than mine (but objectively better), and it would have succeeded. (One player chose the same line and would have made the contract if he hadn't ruffed too high in hand at trick 5.) The full deal: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|3SKQ962HJ72D2CAJT9,SAT85HAK5DAT94CQ4,SJ743H984DKQ87CK7,SHQT63DJ653C86532|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20!S;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|1N|an|One%20notrump%20overcall%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015+%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points;%20stop%20in%20!S|mb|3S|an|4+%20!S;%206-9%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|CQ|pc|C7|pc|C2|pc|CA|pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|DQ|pc|D6|pc|CK|pc|C3|pc|C9|pc|C4|pc|D7|pc|D5|pc|S2|pc|D9|pc|CT|pc|S8|pc|SJ|pc|C8|pc|D8|pc|D3|pc|S6|pc|DT|pc|CJ|pc|ST|pc|H4|pc|C6|pc|DA|pc|DK|pc|DJ|pc|S9|pc|SQ|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|H6|pc|HK|pc|H8|pc|H3|pc|H2|pc|HA|pc|H9|pc|HT|pc|H7|pc|S5|pc|S4|pc|C5|pc|SK|pc|HJ|pc|H5|pc|S7|pc|HQ|]450|300[/hv] My line --- which is hardly as good as nige1's or shyams', and would actually cost me a trick double dummy because of the 4-0 trump split --- felt so natural at the time that I would have quickly forgotten about the board it if I hadn't got an unshared top on it in a large field (of 147 contestants). So what did the other players (at least those who were not just less lucky than me) do "wrong"? It seems to me that most of the field did not even try any of the deceptive plays in nige1's line. The most routine ones for a good player are probably 1) (nige1, shyams, me) Lead a diamond towards dummy's ♦KQxx early. It's just not true that LHO will always rise with the ace (on any layout, not just this one) if he is any good. (I might illustrate this by posting a recent hand (if I can find it) where it was critical to play low in a similar situation. Edit: Here it is: .) 2) (nige1, me) Play three rounds of clubs but try too hide the fact that the third club from hand is a winner. Then LHO must figure out whether he can afford to ruff if partner has the missing winner.

Opening 1♣ might have worked. Test (againt basic robots): [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M1044681,~~M3888w48,~~M5322po8|md|1SAHKQJT985DAT3CJ7,SQJ986532HA7DJ85C,SK4H432DQ962CAT98,ST7H6DK74CKQ65432|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%2019|mb|1C|mb|3S|an|Aggressive%20weak%20jump%20overcall%20--%207+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%203+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|3N|an|3+%20!C;%205-%20!H;%205-%20!S;%2021%20HCP;%2022%20total%20points;%20likely%20stop%20in%20!S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|DT|pc|HK|pc|HA|pc|H2|pc|H6|pc|SQ|pc|S4|pc|S7|pc|SA|pc|HQ|pc|H7|pc|H3|pc|C2|pc|HJ|pc|S2|pc|H4|pc|C3|pc|HT|pc|S8|pc|C8|pc|C5|pc|H9|pc|S9|pc|D6|pc|C6|pc|H8|pc|S6|pc|C9|pc|C4|pc|H5|pc|S5|pc|CT|pc|ST|pc|C7|pc|D8|pc|CA|pc|CQ|pc|SK|pc|D7|pc|CJ|pc|SJ|pc|D9|pc|DK|pc|DA|pc|DJ|pc|D3|pc|S3|pc|DQ|pc|CK|]4400|300[/hv] The same tactic backfired in yesterday's BBO Forums Sunday Daylong, though: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|1SK74HAKQJ62DT43CA,SAJ2H9874DKJ7CT54,S863HDA8652CKQ987,SQT95HT53DQ9CJ632|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%207|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1D|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20!D;%206+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2N|mb|P|mb|3C|an|4+%20!C;%204+%20!D;%207+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3N|mb|P|mb|5C|an|5+%20!C;%204+%20!D;%2011-13%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|6N|an|3-5%20!C;%202%20!D;%202-4%20!H;%202-4%20!S;%2018-19%20HCP;%2022-%20total%20points;%20partial%20stop%20in%20!H;%20partial%20stop%20in%20!S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H4|pc|S3|pc|HT|pc|HQ|pc|HA|pc|H7|pc|S6|pc|H5|pc|HK|pc|H9|pc|D2|pc|H3|pc|HJ|pc|H8|pc|D5|pc|ST|pc|H6|pc|C4|pc|D6|pc|S9|pc|H2|pc|D7|pc|S8|pc|D9|pc|CA|pc|C5|pc|C7|pc|C6|pc|D3|pc|DJ|pc|DA|pc|DQ|pc|CK|pc|C3|pc|S4|pc|CT|pc|CQ|pc|C2|pc|D4|pc|DK|pc|D8|pc|S5|pc|DT|pc|S2|pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|C8|pc|SQ|pc|SJ|pc|C9|pc|CJ|pc|S7|]400|300[/hv]. :(

That can be done in 24 different ways.

Then he must have misbid. Can you see why?

Result of sim generously assuming North and East would have opened the bidding with 11+ hcp, that only classical balanced shapes ((4333),(4432) and (5332)) are in South's 8-10 or 14-16 1N and that West would not have passed with 13+ hcp: Frequency : 8 4185 9 13609 10 27066 11 0 12 0 13 0 14 75282 15 74007 16 68130 Generated 10000000 hands Produced 262279 hands Initial random seed 1592742339 Time needed 19.122 sec using the following Dealer script: hcp(north)<11 and hcp(east)<11 and ((hcp(south)>7 and hcp(south)<11) or (hcp(south)>13 and hcp(south)<17)) and shape(south, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332) and hcp(west)<13 action frequency (hcp(south),8,16) So the 14-16 NT is only about five times as likely as the 8-10 NT, which means that is already a huge exaggeration. Sorry about that. :( And, yes, the odds get considerably worse when North has 9 or 10 hcp, 9-10 hcp being the problem range*. Frequency : 8 4332 9 13516 10 22776 11 0 12 0 13 0 14 35804 15 31025 16 25255 Generated 10000000 hands Produced 132708 hands Initial random seed 1592742180 Time needed 19.080 sec using hcp(north)>8 and hcp(north)<11 and hcp(east)<11 and ((hcp(south)>7 and hcp(south)<11) or (hcp(south)>13 and hcp(south)<17)) and shape(south, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332) and hcp(west)<13 action frequency (hcp(south),8,16) . Now the 14-16 NT is only about twice as likely. * Someone used to a "pass or bash" style opposite a 14-16 NT would probably happily pass most balanced 9 counts, though.

From yesterday's Free Just Declare Daylong (MP): [hv=pc=n&sn=You&s=skq962hj72d2cajt9&nn=Robot&n=sj743h984dkq87ck7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1s1n3sppp]266|200[/hv] Opening lead: ♣Q

Sometimes that "someone" is a couple of robots: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M8243581,nullve,~~M201buhv|md|1ST7632HA432D6C643,SKHQDAK5CAKQJT985,SAQJ8HKJ7DQ943C72,S954HT9865DJT872C|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%2027|mb|2H|mb|D|an|3-5%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203-4%20!S;%2013+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2N!|an|Lebensohl%20-%20Forces%203C%20by%20partner%20--%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|3C|an|Transfer%20completed%20--%203-5%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203-4%20!S;%2013-18%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|C7|pc|H5|mc|10|]600|450[/hv] (2♥ = canapé preempt) Btw, this might be the most amazing auction I've ever seen. Edit: I was bidding this while looking at all four hands, and I guess I was too shocked to make a takeout double as North over 3♣. So what would have happened if I had? God is Bidding: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M8243581,nullve,~~M201buhv|md|1ST7632HA432D6C643,SKHQDAK5CAKQJT985,SAQJ8HKJ7DQ943C72,S954HT9865DJT872C|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%2027|mb|2H|mb|D|an|3-5%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203-4%20!S;%2013+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2N!|an|Lebensohl%20-%20Forces%203C%20by%20partner%20--%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|3C|an|Transfer%20completed%20--%203-5%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203-4%20!S;%2013-18%20total%20points%20|mb|D|mb|P|mb|3S|mb|4C|an|5-%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-%20!H;%203-4%20!S;%20rebiddable%20!C;%2013-18%20total%20points;%20two%20stops%20in%20!C%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|C7|pc|H5|pc|C3|pc|CT|pc|CA|mc|10|]600|450[/hv]

My very small sims have suggested that if the bidding goes P*-(P)-1N**-(P), * 0-10 if BAL ** BAL with either 8-10 or 14-16 hcp then Opener will nearly always have 14-16 hcp even though points could easily be divided rather evenly (say, 10-8-10-12) around the table. So, assuming Responder can now more or less pretend partner has opened a 14-16 NT (well, using the normal NT structure might not be a good idea), maybe this Woodson-like 8-10 or 14-16 NT in 3rd seat is "playable" in the more normal sense where Overcaller's body language is ignored?

You get 1.50 BB$ back.

I don't know whether I really (strongly) agree or (strongly) disagree with this, but I voted 'Strongly disagree' since I strongly disagree with those who say that robot bridge requires little or no bridge skill (and therefore cannot be real bridge).

I was looking for a title that stuck out without giving away any clues about the play. So I chose one evidently not about bridge.