nullve

Exactly. This was the full deal: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M44949,~~M44947,~~M44948|md|3S3HAKQ8762DQ73CK9,SKJT642H9DATCT873,SA75HT53DJ965CQJ4,SQ98HJ4DK842CA652|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%209|mb|P|mb|P|mb|4H|an|Preempt%20--%208+%20!H;%205-9%20HCP|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DA|pc|D5|pc|D8|pc|D3|pc|DT|pc|D6|pc|D4|pc|DQ|pc|HA|pc|H9|pc|H3|pc|H4|pc|HK|pc|S6|pc|H5|pc|HJ|pc|S3|pc|S4|pc|SA|pc|S8|pc|C4|pc|C2|pc|CK|pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|C3|pc|CJ|pc|CA|pc|S9|pc|H6|pc|S2|pc|S5|pc|H2|pc|CT|pc|HT|pc|D2|pc|CQ|pc|C5|pc|D7|pc|C7|mc|11|]450|300[/hv]

The bidding and two first tricks were the same at four other tables. But there the declarers ended up with only 10 tricks after continuing with the ♥AK (at tricks 3 and 4) followed by the ♣K (at trick 5).

And if that isn't the case, is there a best way of fooling opps into not cashing the ♦K? Yes, that is what happened. Not much, although it rhymes with 'Gowns in Belgium'.

From a Robot Rebate 55% tournament I played today: [hv=pc=n&s&sn=You&s=s3hakq8762dq73ck9&nn=Robot&en=Robot&n=sa75ht53dj965cqj4&wn=Robot&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp4hppp&p=dad5d8d3dtd6d4dq]400|300[/hv] Please press the 'Next' button to see the two first tricks and then take over. (I'm not trying to make fun of GiB here, despite what happened in trick 2.)

Not sure what I was thinking. 1♥ = standard 1♥ or any 18-19 BAL must certainly be much harder to play than 1♥ = Precision 1♥ or any 17-19 BAL.

I mentioned a "Kokish" 1♥ opening here. 1m/1♠ = standard excluding 18-19 BAL 1♥ = "Kokish/Birthright": standard or any 18-19 BAL others = standard looks playable to me. I might even prefer it to standard. :)

In Norway, 'Tartan' is actually Muiderberg.

That's so-called 'Multi 2♣'.

'Benji' is short for 'Benjaminised Acol'.

That might still be possible if the 1N rebid contains a balanced option that is stronger than the unbalanced ones. For example, if 1♣ = Precision minus strong hands with primarily diamonds 1♦ = 11-21, NAT unBAL OR 14-16 BAL 1N = 11-13 BAL others = Precision, more or less, then e.g. 1♦-1M; ?: (...) 1N = a) "10-15, 3-M6+D" OR b) 14-16 BAL, 2-3 M ...P = 4 M only, 1N looks ok opposite b) (then it's probably also ok opposite a)) ...2♣ = INV+ relay ...2♦ = to play opposite a), F2M opposite b) ......P = a) ......2M = b) (...).

Two ideas: 1) (Svorsk Club?) 1st/2nd seat: P: includes 11-13 BAL 1♣ = Precision minus strong hands with primarily diamonds 1N = 14-16 BAL others: as in Swedish Club a la Kungsgeten (where 1♦ = 11-21, 4+ D, unBAL) 3rd/4th seat: P = 0-7, unable to preempt 1♣ = nebulous, includes 8-13 BAL (Swedish T-Walsh over this but with 8-10/11-13 replacing 11-13/17-19 if BAL) 1♦ = strong, possibly excluding some awkward unbalanced hands 1M = 8-15(21?), 5+ M 1N = 14-16 BAL others: as expected, more or less 2) (Precision with "Kokish" 1♥ opening) 1♣ = Precision minus 17-19 BAL 1♥ = 10-15, 5+ H OR 17-19 BAL others: as in Precision 1♣-1♦; ?: 1N = "diamonds" 2♦: freed up others: as in Precision 1♥-?: Maybe something based on Kaplan Inversion and Zirconia: P = wants to play in 1♥ rather than 1N opposite 17-19 BAL 1♠: 0-4 S or wants to get out in a non-H partial opposite 17-19 BAL ...1N = 4+ D OR 11-13, 5H3D(32) OR 17-19 BAL ......P: wanted to get out in 1N opposite 17-19 BAL (then probably an ok contract also if Opener is 10-15) ......(...) ...2♣ = 10-15, 5+H4+ C or 11-13, 3523 ...2♦ = 10-15, 4+S5+H ...2♥ = 10-15, 6+ H 1N = 5+ S, FG opposite 17-19 BAL others: could be standard but FG opposite 17-19 BAL ?

Idea: Robot tournaments consisting of some Just Bid boards (evaluated double dummy, hopefully rewarding traditional bidding skills more by punishing tactics like opening 1N on a 4612 twelve count), some Just Declare boards and (maybe) some Just Defend boards.

K&R counts Goren distributional points but then discounts the first doubleton. It's not like K&R is treating these 23 hcp as 26 hcp because they're exceptional.

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|South,West,North,1parastoo|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S2569H29JDKAC37QA%2CS4JQH46TKAD6C258K%2CS78H35QD58TQC469J%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%209%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7C2C%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2S%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS8%7C]600|450[/hv]

From Jan Eric Larsson's A Bridge System Collection: Note the 2♦ opening.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that J KT632 4 KQJ972 is absolutely useless in defense, but it seems like you might be thinking about the trick-taking potential on defence rather than the offence-to-defence ratio. A hand with a slightly lower offence-to-defence ratio but a slightly higher trick-taking potential on defence is J KQJ72 4 KT9632, so would it qualify for 1♣, in your opinion? If not, then how about J KQJT9 J KQJT98 ? Or are points still irrelevant?

1♣. Looks systemic even in standard 2/1 GF with its slightly conservative rule of 20 openings. Is 1♣ really an invitation to disaster? Here are are some hands using the Dealer code predeal north SJ,HKT632,D4,CKQJ972 produce 100 action printall

Yes.

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~v3fakebot,~~v3fakebot,~~v3fakebot|md|3SKQJT42HK8DJ75CA7,S98765HJ93DQT82C6,SAHQ764D963CKJ985,S3HAT52DAK4CQT432|sv|n|rh||ah|Board 5|mb|P|mb|1C|an|Minor suit opening -- 3+ !C; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points|mb|1N|an|One notrump overcall -- 2-5 !C; 2-5 !D; 2-5 !H; 2-5 !S; 15+ HCP; 18- total points; stop in !C|mb|P|mb|2C|an|Stayman -- 11- HCP; 12- total points|mb|2H|an|3+ !C; 4+ !H; 21- HCP; 15-22 total points|mb|4S|an|2-5 !C; 2-5 !D; 2-5 !H; 5- !S; 15+ HCP; biddable !S; 18- total points; stop in !C|mb|P|mb|5C|an|6+ !C; 11 HCP; 12 total points|mb|P|mb|5S|an|Cue bid -- 2-5 !C; 2-5 !D; 2-5 !H; 5- !S; 18+ HCP; biddable !S; no !DA; no !HA; !SA; 18- total points; stop in !C; forcing|mb|P|mb|6C|an|6+ !C; 11 HCP; 12 total points|mb|P|mb|6S|an|2-5 !C; 2-5 !D; 2-5 !H; 5- !S; 18+ HCP; biddable !S; no !DA; no !HA; !SA; 18- total points; stop in !C|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|C6|pc|C8|pc|C4|pc|CA|pc|S2|pc|S5|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|H4|pc|H2|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|SK|pc|S7|pc|D3|pc|C3|pc|SQ|pc|S9|pc|D6|pc|C2|pc|SJ|pc|S8|pc|D9|pc|CT|pc|ST|pc|S6|pc|H6|pc|CQ|pc|S4|pc|DT|pc|H7|pc|D4|pc|C7|pc|D8|pc|CK|pc|H5|pc|CJ|pc|HT|pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|C9|pc|DK|pc|D7|pc|HJ|pc|C5|pc|DA|pc|DJ|pc|H9|pc|HQ|pc|HA|pc|H8|pc|DQ|]600|450[/hv]

Assuming EW were playing a standard 5cM system: The book call, taught to beginners, is Pass. (Insufficient heart support, no spade stopper, not strong enough for a two-over-one.) Unfortunately, much of the stuff taught to beginners is just losing bridge, and I think this is a good example. So although I would have responded 1N, not worrying much about the lack of spade stopper, I accept that others might genuinely believe 2♥ to be less of a lie than both 1N and 2♦.

What should East have done, in your opinion?

From the perspective of a hypothetical bridge player using the best hcp method possible* it would look like most bridge players play overlapping NT ranges. say 1x-1y; 1N = 11-15 1N = 14-18 etc. or worse. So even if being able to invite 3N opposite a 5-point (or wider) range might be a good idea in this absurd-looking (but common!) system, would it also be useful in this bridge player's own system with non-overlapping ranges 1x-1y; 1N = 12-14 1N = 15-17 etc. ? I may not use the best hcp method possible, but I'm confident that my 3-point ranges are narrower in the above sense than those of average bridge player. Inviting 3N opposite such "narrow" 3-point ranges has always felt like a waste of bidding space, so when some say they need to be able to invite 3N opposite a 3 hcp range (in their system), then I suspect that either the hcp method they are using must be bad or they just have very little experience with "pass or bash". * with the equivalent of expert judgement e.g. about "texture" baked into it

Ok, so I didn't invent "shape-oriented conditional key card asks", either. (They are "shape-oriented" in the sense that "min/max" is interpreted as having more to do with shape (e.g. 5143 is "worse" than 5044) than general values.) In my system, these conditional key card asks are used in situations where Teller's shape is only nearly resolved, in the sense that he can still have different but qualitatively similar shapes, at the level of 3♠ or higher; Teller's hcp will be known to lie within a certain narrow range once shape is fully resolved; bidding space is so scarce that key card investigations cannot always wait until Teller's shape is fully resolved. If 4T+1 is available as a conditional key card ask with trump suit T, then the continuations are 4T+2 = best shape ...Now steps as if responding to Parity Key Card Blackwood, i.e. ...4T+3 = even # of working* key cards ......4T+4 = TQ ask ......(...) ...4T+4 = odd # of working* key cards, no TQ ...5T = odd # of working* key cards, TQ others = worst shape, steps as if responding to Parity Key Card Blackwood In detail: 4T+3 = worst shape, even # of key cards ...4T+4 = TQ ask ...(...) 4T+4 = worst shape, odd # of key cards, no TQ 5T = worst shape, odd # of keycards, TQ. * i.e. outside any void (if any) in Teller's hand Note that switching 'best' and 'worst' doesn't work as smoothly, because over 4T+2 (now: worst shape), there must be a reliable way to get out in 5T if Asker was only interested in slam opposite the best shape. If 4M-1 is available as a conditional key card ask with the major suit M as trumps, then the responses are usually 4M = worst shape(s) others = best shape, steps as if responding to Parity Key Card Blackwood (but steps as in regular RKC would obviously work as well) although in at least one case I currently play 4M = worst shape(s) 4M+1 = best shape (steps as if Responding to Parity Key Card Blackwood over this) others = next best (next worst) shape, steps as if resonding to Parity Key Card Blackwood. --- I'd like to know more about similar (shape-oriented) structures, including Rosenkranz's (the original?) and Zelandakh's.

Yes, transfer rebids are probably close to standard, anyway, among pairs willing to play 1N-2N as some sci-fi [P?p?]uppet. Then one option that solves the related problem of finding the 5-3 OM fit when Opener has 5 OM and Responder has 5 M and 3 OM, is: 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-?: (...) 3m-1 = GF, 4+ m 3♦(M=♠) = INV+, 5+ H [if you wish] 3M-1 = a) INV+, 6+ M b) CoG w/ 5 M and 2 OM ...3M = would reject the invite in a) ......P = a) with INV values only ......3N = b) ......other = a) with GF values ...3N = accepts game opposite a), to play opposite b) ...other = accepts game opposite a), wants to play 4 M opposite b) 3M = CoG, 5 M and 3 OM (...) 3N = CoG, 4 M and 2 OM (...)

Some versions of Smolen use one or both of Responder's 4m rebids on GF 5-5 hands. E.g. the one described here (by Ana Roth? Paul Lavings?), which in a little more detail seems to be 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: (...) 3M = GF, 4 M and 5+ OM ...(...) ...3N = suggestion opposite 4 M and 5 OM ......P = 4 M and 5 OM, not slammish ......4♣ = 4 M and 6+ OM, slammish ......4♦ = 4 M and 6+ OM, not slammish ......(...) ...(...) (...) 4♣ = 5+ S and 5+ H, slammish 4♦ = 5+ S and 5+ H, not slammish (...).