nullve

I think you can afford to use 2♥ over 1♥-1♠; 2♦ as an INV+ relay ("range ask"), assuming 2♠ on a 4-3 fit after 1♥-1♠ 2♦-2♠ P is not much worse on average than 2♥ on a 5-2 fit after 1♥-1♠ 2♦-2♥ P.

The 2♦ rebid must cover the whole 1♥ range, then.

Why would opps agree to pass on the same set of hands over 2♦-(P) regardless of what (P) means? The conditional probability that Opener has the strong hand might also drop, this time from Responder's perspective, if the intervening pass is not normal but some variant of "waiting, could be strong".

I think (1N)-P-(P)-P: now also on some strong (18+?) balanced hand types (1N)-P-(P)-X: standard, but now excluding some strong (18+) balanced hand types, might have merit if partner is supposed to pull a standard double even on weak balanced hands. The point is that if Doubler is so strong that he expects partner will pull too often when it would be better to defend 1NX, it might be better to pass and avoid a silly partial after, say, (1N)-P-(P)-X (P)-2♣*. * nebulous

I'm not sure what this is in response to.I hope you're not suggesting that only because my action double could conceivably lead to disaster (as in your not impossible 17 total tricks scenario), then it must be wrong. You often call other people out when they make inferences of that type. I don't know anyone who thinks it is. But if you know of something better than LoTT (that is, LoTT + "adjustments", even in books aimed at intermediates), perhaps you can tell us what it is? Something reducible to LoTT + better adjustments, perhaps? I'm all for it!

In 1st seat? ("[H]ow the heck does partner know what to do?".) Sorry, I assumed 4♥ practically denied opening values. He will expect a total trick more than if I pass, and act accordingly. Whether it's right of me to double with this particular hand, is another matter. Do you really expect only 17 total tricks on this hand?

4♥, then X (= "action", or too much shape to pass, not enough shape to bid). Partner will then try to apply LoTT, of course.

I just want to mention that if, in 1st/2nd seat, P: includes "11-13 BAL" 1N = "14-16 BAL", then the transfer accept 1♣-[1M-1]; 1M obviously doesn't include any "11-13 BAL" hands. So some awkward "14-16 BAL" hands (say, those with 2245 shape, playing Crawling Stayman) could be moved from 1N into 1♣, and the rules for accepting the 1M-1 transfer on those hands could be as in a T-Walsh system with "11-13" NT!

If you want your system after (1m)-1♥ to be more than a few plies deep, which your system after 1m-(P) presumably is, then you could try to play "system on". For a typical T-Walsh pair, that could mean a scheme similar to the one mikeh gave.

2♦-2N; ?: 3♣ = 0-1 D ...3♦ = relay ......3♥ = 4414 ......3♠ = 4405 ......3N = 4504 ...(...) 3♦ = 0-1 H ...3♥ = relay, "asking for 5 C" (1) ......3♠ = 4144 ......3N = 4054 ......4♣ = 4045 (2) ...3♠ = relay, "asking for 5 D" (3) ......3N = 4144 or 4045 (4) ......4♣ = 4054 (5) ...(...) 3♥+ = 0-1 C In detail: 3♥ = 4441 3♠ = 4450 3N = 4540 (1) Responder may be interested in slam only opposite 5 C (2) good news if Responder is interested in slam only opposite 5 C, so can bypass 3N (3) Responder is interested in slam only opposite 5 D (4) both sapes are bad news (5) good news, so can bypass 3N

Suppose 1) 2N is balanced in the classical sense of promising either (4333), (4432) or (5332)) and 2) 2N-3♦; ?: 3♥ = 4-S2H (and therefore 4+m3+Om, because of 1)) ...3♠ = PUP 3N ...3N = 4S5H, CoG ...4♣+ = hands with 3-S5H4+m or 2533 shape only 3♠(or 3N) = 5233 rest = 3+ H. Then 2N-3♦; 3♥-?: (...) 4♣ = slam interest, 5+H3+D3+C ...4♦+ = Structure 4♦+ = slam interest, 3-S5+H4+m2-Om, Structure where Structure is given by 4♦ = either 4 C or (5+ C and even KC(♣)) ...4♥ = 3 C ......4♠ = 5+ C, even KC(♣) .........4N = ♣Q ask .........(...) ......4N = to play ......5♣(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4C, even KC(♥) .........4♦ = ♥Q ask .........(...) ......5♦(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4C, odd KC(♥), no ♥Q ......5♥(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4C, odd KC(♥), ♥Q ...4♠ = 4+ C, even KC(♣) ......4N = ♣Q ask ......(...) ...4N = 4+ C, odd KC(♣), no ♣ Q ...5♣ = 4+ C, odd KC(♣), TQ 4♥ = either 5-H4D or (5+ D and even KC(♦)) ...4♠ = 3 D ......4N = to play ......5♣ = 5+ D, even KC(♦), no ♦Q ......5♦ = 5+ D, even KC(♦), ♦Q ......(...) ...4N = 4+ D, even KC(♦) ......5♣ = ♦Q ask ......(...) ...5♣ = 4+ D, odd KC(♦), no ♦Q ...5♦ = 4+ D, odd KC(♦), ♦Q 4♠ = 5+ C, odd KC(♣) ...4N = ♣Q ask ...(...) 4N = 5+ D, odd KC(♦) ...5♣ = ♦Q ask ...(...) 5♣(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4D, even KC(♥) ...5♦ = ♥Q ask ...(...) 5♦(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4D, odd KC(♥), no ♥Q 5♥(by 3♦ bidder) = 6+H4D, odd KC(♥), ♥Q, might be a way to exchange, at a reasonably safe level, almost all relevant inforrmation about minor suit lengths and key cards, in the case where Opener is 4-S2H and Responder either 3-S5H4+m or 2533. Obviously, Structure can be generalised to the case where Opener is 2M4-OM and Responder either 5+M3-OM4+m or 5M233. --- Fatal flaws anywhere? Added, starting 17 April 2021:

nullve-nullve: 1♠(1)-2♣(2) 2♠(3)-2N(4) 3♣(5)-3♦(6) 3♥(7)-3♠(8) 4♦(9)-4N(10) 5♦(11)-5♥(12) 6♦(13)-7♦(14) P (1) "10-21 (or, rather: meets the rule of 19, but not the rule of 31), 5+ S, unBAL" (2) "NAT, quasi-BAL or Drury" (3) "19-21" (or, rather: meets the rule of 28, but not the rule of 31), very rarely 1-suited, not 4+ H unless 5S5H (4) relay (5) usually 4+ D, but never 5S5D2-C (6) relay (7) either 5242, 6S4D(21), 6+S0H4+D or 8+S3(!)D (8) relay (9) 6S4D(21), hence 18-20 hcp (10) Key card ask agreeing S (11) odd # of key cards, no trump Q (12) ♦K ask (13) ♦K, 6241, ♥K, no ♦Q (14) contract, hopefully (or ♦8 ask :(. I need more precise rules here.)

I've long been toying with the idea that 3N is always ART if bid directly over a 3-level bid by an opponent. For this to work, a double ("takeout" (a misnomer!), as usual) must somehow include the "3N NAT" hands. But that doesn't work very well if partner is inclined to respond at the 4-level even when 3N could be the last making game. So if (3x) is the last bid made by the oppoenents, the idea is to play ...(3x)-X-?: P = LoTT-based (so much more frequent than someone with no knowledge of LoTT might expect) 3y = NAT, NF 3N = "lebensohl"*, but would have passed 3N (NAT) over (3x) using standard competitive methods ...P = would have bid 3N (NAT) over (3x) using standard competitive methods ...4♣ = P/C, analogous to 3♣ over lebensohl 2N 4-level: possibly ART, would hardly have passed a NAT 3N bid over (3x) using standard competetitive methods * This is another crazy idea that (iirc) Paul Marston seems to have come up with before me. One I've mentioned before is a 2♣ opening showing 11-13 (or so) BAL. I'm confident lebensohl 3N is the least crazy of the two, though. :)

A "not especially good" or a "really good" hand?

Yes, even with 5-5 and "2 good suits but not an especially good hand".

I'd prefer to separate 5m4Om from 6+ m before it's too late, so maybe 1N = 10-15, (31)54* / "10-15", 6+ D, no M / "10-15", 5D5C / "16+", unBAL, no M ...2♣ = to play opposite 10-15, 5D4C ......P = "10-15, 4+ C" ......2♦ = "10-15", 6+D4-C ......2♥+ = "16+" ...2♦ = to play opposite "10-15" ......P = "10-15" ......2♥+ = "16+" ...(...) 2♣ = "10-15", 6+ C, no M 2♦ = 10-15, (31)45. ? A slight variation that enables Responder to pass 2♦ more often, but at the cost of having the 1N opening only promise 4 D: 1N = 10-15, (31)45* / "10-15", 6+ D, no M / "10-15", 5D5C / "16+", unBAL, no M ...2♣ = to play opposite 10-15, 4D5C ......P = "10-15", 5+ C ......2♦ = "10-15", 6+D4-C ......2♥+ = "16+" ...2♦ = to play opposite "10-15" ......P = "10-15" ......2♥+ = "16+" ...(...) 2♣ = "10-15", 6+ C, no M 2♦ = 10-15, (31)54. * treating instead 22(54) as BAL

So Opener knows Responder has 6+ C?

P: normal 1♣ = Boring 1♦ = "10+", either C 1-suiter or C+O 2-suiter 1♥ = "10+", either D 1-suiter or D+M 2-suiter 1♠ = "10+", either H 1-suiter or H+S 2-suiter 1N = "10+", 3-suiter 2♣ = "10+", S 1-suiter (...) 1♦-?: 1♥-?: 1♠-?: 1N-?: 2♣-?: I'm not sure about the ranges yet, but for now just assume that the positive and semi-positive relays are GF opposite "16" and "19", respectively.

Italian 2/1, almost: P: includes 0-13 BAL 1♣/1♦ = "10-21, NAT unBAL" 1M = "10-21, 5+ M, unBAL" 1N = "14-16 BAL" 2♣ = "17-20 BAL" 2♦ = "23+ BAL or any GF" 2M = Weak 2N = "21-22 BAL" (...) (1st/2nd seat only) 2♣-?: P = "(4)5+ C, weak" 2♦ = "4+ H or strong" 2♥ = "4+ S" 2♠ = PUP 2N 2N = NAT INV (...) And maybe 2♣-[2M-1]; ?: 2M = "17-18", either 2-3 M or 4M333 ...P = "(4)5+ M, weak" ...2♠(M=♥) = relay w/ slam interest, says nothing about H ...(...) 2♠(M=♥) = "17-18", 4-5 H, not 3433 ...2N = GF relay, says nothing about H ...(...) 2N = "19-20", 2 M (...) ?

nullve-nullve: 1♦(1)-1♥(2) 1♠(3)-2♦(4) 2N(5)-3♣(6) 4♣(7)-4♥(8) 4♠(9)-4N(10) 5♣(11)-5♥(12) 5N(13)-7♦(14) P. (1) "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "20-22 BAL" (2) "0+, (3*)4+ S" (3) "10-21, 4+ H, unBAL" OR "10-15, 13(54)" (4) relay, GF unless Opener has 10-12 hcp and 13(54))** (5) "19-21" (or, rather: meets the rule of 28 but not the rule of 31) (6) relay (7) 18-20 hcp, 3460 (8) key card ask agreeing D (9) even # of key cards (10) trump Q ask (11) no trump Q (12) ♠K ask (13) ♠K, no ♥J (14) contract * I recently removed all BAL hands from the 2♣ response (it was getting very crowded after 1♦-2♣, and much more so than after 1M-2♣), but before that the auction would have gone something like ** Using 2♦ as an "almost GF" relay is a new idea, thanks to being forced to look over my XYZ-like structure so I could bid the above hands properly! Until now i've been using 2♣ as the almost GF relay, and continuations were designed to mimic the continuations after 1♥-2♣. This led to ugliness in the form of tons of idle bids and exceptions. Not that it matters here --- by using the structure with 2♣ as the LR or GF relay the auction would have gone

Relay stuff, unfortunately:

I guess Swedish system regulations are the main reason you open 2♣ instead of 1♦ with (41)35. (1♦ = "4+ D" gets 0 dots, whereas 1♦ = "4+ D or (41)35" gets 2 dots.) Your "12-15" range sounds rule of 21-ish to me, so I assume you already pass hands with 10-11 hcp and either (41)35 or 4405 shape. Since most of these are opened by virtually all tournament players these days, your system appears to have a hint of Silent Club to it, by comparison. But if you don't mind taking your system a tiny step further in the direction of Silent Club, how about P = "normal" OR 10-12 hcp and either (41)35 or 4405 2♣ = "(10?)12-15, 6+ C" OR 13-15, (41)35 or 4405 ? Here the 2♣ opening promises either 6+ C or MAX, so every sequence that currently ought to be F2N only, like the sequence 2♣-2♦; 2♠-2N(NF) in classic Precision, can now quite comfortably be played as F3♣.

Not a serious suggestion, but I think 1♠-(X)-XX = "hearts" is interesting, because it could solve problems that may exist after 1♠-(P)-1N* * NF, SF or F1 when Responder has 5+ H. Something analoguous to Kaplan Inversion is also possible, e.g.: 1♠-(X)-XX = "4- H" 1♠-(X)-1N = "5+ H".

With my last regular partners I played 1N-2♣ = (extended) Garbage Stayman, but not used on weak hands with 2-S4H5m (unprepared for 1N-2♣; 2♠) 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: P = weak, 5+ D 2♥ = (extended?*) Crawling Stayman. ...P = 2S3H** ...2♠: otherwise 2♠ = weak, 4S3-H5C 2N = puppet to 3♣ ...3♣ ......P = weak, 6+ C (...) * I remember we discussed using Crawling Stayman also with 3415, but I don't think we ever agreed to do that. (And Opener's rebids over 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥ suggest we didn't.) ** If Crawling Stayman is used also with 3415, then maybe Opener should pass also with 3352 and not risk ending up in 3♣ on the 5-2 fit after 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P? 1N-2♣; 2♥-?: P = weak, 3+ H 2♠ = weak, 4S2-H5+m 2N = puppet to 3♣ ...3♣ ......P = weak, 6+ C ......3♦ = weak, 6+ D ......(...) (...) 1N-2♣; 2♠-?: P = weak, 3+ S 2N = puppet to 3♣ ...3♣ ......P = weak, 6+ C ......3♦ = weak, 6+ D ......(...) (...).

4405 shape and no heart wastage, together strongly suggesting that total tricks > total trumps (~ 16?). The number of points shouldn't matter, since opps' bidding has made it clear to partner what the approximate distribution of points around the table is. Possible hand (worth 10 BB$?): KJxx Axxx --- JTxxx.