nullve

Yes, sorry. But if a hcp range, like the 1♦ range here, is divided into 'minimum' and 'maximum' without further explanation, I just assume these terms refer to the bottom and top halves of that range, respectively. So when you wrote I interpreted 'min' and 'max' as something like "11-15" and "16-21", respectively. Then I probably got confused by because if 'no extras' = 'min' = "11-15", then the statement is simply not true given your structure over 1♦-1M; 1N-2♣, since the range is so wide that Responder will sometimes need to invite and thereby bypass 2M. It might become a true statement, however, if 'no extras' = my 'bad MIN' = bottom half of "11-15". --- With this clarification, may I suggest an improvement to your 1N gadget (which I don't hate, btw)? 1♦-1M; 1N-?: 2♣ = GF opposite MAX, relay ...2♦ = bad MIN ......P = allowed ......(...) ...2M = good MIN ...2OM/2N+ = MAX (GF) (...) 2M = not worth GF opposite MAX (...) But in fromageGB's system, where the 1♦ opening also covers such shapes as 1444, (31)45, (40)45 and (41)35, potentially seriously overloading 1♦-1♠; 2♣(NAT), how about 1♦-1♥; ?: 1N = 3 H other = NAT 1♦-1♠; ?: 1N = "4+ C or 1453" 2♣ = 3 S other = NAT 1♦-1M; [1M+2]-?: 2M-2 = GF opposite MAX, relay ...2M-1 = bad MIN ......P(M=♥) = allowed ......(...) ...2M = good MIN ...[2M+1]+ = MAX (GF) (...) 2M = not worth GF opposite MAX (...) ?

When nullve-nullve played transfer rebids (starting about 20 years ago when, in my hubris, I thought I had invented them (but they apparently invent themselves), 1♦-1M 2M-1 = (bad MIN or INV), 3 M and 1♦-1M 1N*-2♣** P = < INV, < 3 M ["wouldn't I like to know whether or not my partner has 3 cards in my suit or a stiff?"] 2M = good MIN, 3 M ["wouldn't they like to have [...] this sequence show a non-minimum?"] * "clubs" ** a hand that over 1♦-1M; 2♣ in standard 2/1 would either have passed or given a courtesy raise ["when do I accept the transfer?"] As you can see, we don't have to guess now, either.

Why? :)

I solve Opener's rebid problems on minimum (= doesn't meet the rule of 25) hands as follows: 1) I open * 1♣ also on minimum hands with 3154/4054/4144/4153; * 1♦ also on minimum hands with 0445/1345/1435/1444. 2) I play T-Walsh and a version of switched 1M responses to 1♦ where 1♦-1♥ = "4+ S. May have longer H unless GF"; 1♦-1♠ = "4+ H. Less than 4 S unless GF". Because of 1) and 2) I can now play 1♣-1♦("4+ H"); 1♠ = "4+ S or MIN w/ 31(54)"; 1♦-1♥("4+ S"); 1♠ = "4+ H or MIN w/ 13(54)", which basically solves all Opener's rebid problems on minimum "3-suiters" (including 5m(431)) with shortness in Responder's major. 3) I treat minimum 22(54)/4252 hands as balanced. 4) I play 1N over 1♦-1M as a kind of Gazzilli that together with the natural 2♦ rebid takes care of all remaining minimum hands with clubs and less than 3c support for Responder's shown major. This (almost) frees up the 2♣ rebid, which can now be used to cover all minimum hands with 3c support.

Many players sloppily describe the typical system with a natural or balanced 1♣ opening and a natural and unbalanced 1♦ opening as one with a balanced 1♣ opening and an unbalanced 1♦ opening. Is that also more or less what you're doing here, or are you literally talking about systems where one is supposed to open something other than 1♣ and 1♦ on one-suiters with 6+ clubs and 0-1 diamonds?

The auctions may have been different, for example.

Looks like Mulberry, which is typically used only when Teller has shown exact shape so that the sizes of all fits are known to Asker. A kind of RKC that simultaneously asks for support if necessary?

I believe there are about 17 total trumps. My shape suggests that total tricks is on average a little lower than LoTT suggests, but my diamond holding (no wastage) and the possibility of a H+D double fit suggests that it is significantly higher. I clumsily conclude there are about 17.5 total tricks, and pass accordingly.

I agree that in these sequences it's probably a good idea to have two ways to support the major, even at the expense of being able to show clubs. But then it's a good idea whether the 4-level scheme-to-be-modified is Lissabon (say) or natural. And let's say the sequence 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 3♠ were covered by your system notes, but the sequence 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 3♠-4♣ weren't, at least not explicitly. Then you would have to infer the meaning of 4♣ from "general principles", "general bridge knowledge" or whatever, wouldn't you? I believe that for most partnerships those principles or that knowledge would imply that 4♣ referred to C. (For some it would be a C cue agreeing S, for others it would show a C suit.) And I'm primarily interested in whether we could do better than defaulting to "natural" (or 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ referring to C, D, H and S, respectively) in "undiscussed" situations like this.

Maybe also: which fits have been denied. For example, consider the sequence 2N(strong BAL)-3♣(Puppet); 3♠-?: Here a heart fit has been denied and Lissabon would lead to the very USP-violating and inelegant 4♣ = referring to H, so presumably a H cue agreeing S 4♦ = referring to S, so presumably S support and if slam interest then no H control. Allows Advancer to double for the lead. 4♥ = referring to C, so presumably 5+ C and slam interest. Clearly much worse than 4♣ showing the same thing. 4♠ = referring to D, so presumably 5+ D and slam interest. Clearly much worse than 4♦ showing the same thing. But now consider the sequence 1♠-1N; 2♣(Gazzilli)-2♦(positive); 3♠(GF, 6+ S, 1-suited)-?: Here no fit has been denied and the Lissabon scheme 4♣ = referring to H, so presumably long H 4♦ = S support 4♥ = referring to C, so presumably long C and slam interest 4♠ = referring to D, so presumably long D and slam interest may not be obviously worse than the natural 4♣/♦/♥ = NAT or cue, depending on who you asked. At least some 2/1 players feel they should be able to invite slam in S over 1♠-1N; 3♠(INV). 4♠ = to play.

4N (RKC). I know partner has 5+ S and 2+ D, and East's failure to support hearts suggests that partner also has heart length and therefore club shortness. So I don't expect any club losers and can practically count 11-13 tricks depending only on how many aces partner has. Did 5♦ also deny the ♣A? If so, what is partner supposed to believe?

The jump to 5♦ isn't the problem?

I'm looking for alternatives to "natural" as the default meaning of non-jump 4-level suit bids in situations where GF has already been established and continuations are just supposed to follow general principles. For example, the new default could be that if the auction is currently at * 3♣, then 4♣ is NAT; * 3♦, then 4♣ and 4♦ are NAT; * 3♥, then 4♦ is NAT while 4♣ and 4♥ refer to H* and C*, respectively; * 3♠ or 3N, then 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ refer to H*, S*, C* and D*, respectively; * 4♣, then 4♥ is NAT while 4♦ and 4♠ refer to S* and D*, respectively; * 4♦, then 4♥ and 4♠ are NAT; * 4♥, then 4♠ is NAT. I haven't thought very hard about any of this, so maybe some of you have better ideas? * The inspiration comes from Liggins Gerber (4♣ refers to H) and Lissabon (♣,♦,♥ and ♠ refer to H, S, C and D respectively). I'm surprised how often situations seem to come up where I need to be able show a major at the 4-level with a non-jump and create a force at the same time!

I'm not aware of any standard system that always allows you to explore a 4-4 spade fit after 1♦-2♣, or 1♥-2♣/♦ for that matter (see this newer but similar thread), without forcing to game. So if you think a typical hand with 12 hcp, 5 clubs and 4 spades is only worth an invite, it might be wiser to respond 1♠. Are you sure that isn't already what Acol/SAYC players are supposed to do? Agree.

I thought 'MAFIA' were short for 'MAjors FIrst Always'.

Then what do you mean by 'situation'?

7♠.

My other forcing and not-so-forcing openings: 1♣ = "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "11-13/17-19/26+ BAL". Forcing. 2♣ = "weak w/ either 6(+)M3-OM or 5M3-OM4+m" OR "unBAL GF w/ primarily hearts". Not strictly forcing. 2♦ = "weak canapé preempt in spades" OR "unBAL GF w/ primarily spades". Not strictly forcing. A few analogous auctions using these other openings:

nullve-nullve: [hv=pc=n&s=st5hj9876d2cjt532&n=sak4hdakq983cakq6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp3cp3dp4cp4hp4sp4np5np7cppp]266|200[/hv] 1♦ = "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "20-22 BAL" 1♠ = "0+, 4+ H" 3♣ = "GF (rule of 31 or better), usually 5+D4+C but never 2-H5D5C" 3♦ = relay 4♣ = 3064 (hence 21+ hcp) 4♥ = key card ask with clubs agreed 4♠ = even number of key cards 4N = trump Q ask 5N = trump Q + ♦K + ♠K + ♦Q, no ♠Q 7♣ = contract

Then how do you invite with 2-S4H3-D5-C after 1♠-2♣; 2♥? Ok. My guess here was based on

I see some problems with it, but then I may not fully understand it. Anyway, how would you bid the following hands 1) W: Axxxx QTxx Kxx x, E: x Axx QJxxx Axxx 2) W: Axxxx QTx Kxxx x, E: x Axxxx QJx AJxx 3) W: AQxxx KQTx Kxx x, E: xx Axxx QJx Jxxx using Relays with Double-Barreled Invites? My guess, based on what I've read: 1) 1♠-1N; 2♥-2N; P 2) 1♠-2♣; 2♥-2N; P 3) 1♠-P

Aren't constructive weak 2M openings also part of the "solution" in an IMPrecision context? If so, are you able to open anything on, say, KQTxxx xxx Qxx x? (I think most bridge players would hate not being able to do that.)

I'd treat the hand as 22-24 BAL and open 2♣.

Then how about something based on 1♣ = NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL 1♦ = NAT unBAL 1M = 5+ M 1N = 14-16 BAL 2♣ = 11-13, 5S(332), 20-21 BAL or any GF 2♦ = Weak Multi 2♥ = 11-13, 5H(332) 2♠ = ? 2N = 22-24 BAL 2♣-?: 2♦ = a) wants to play 2♥ opposite 20-21 BAL b) GF opposite 20-21 BAL, does not want to play 2♥ opposite 11-13 ...2♥ = 11-13, 5S(332) OR 20-21 BAL OR GF, 5+ H, unBAL ......P = a) ......2♠ = d), P/C .........P = 11-13 .........2N = 20-21 BAL .........3♣+ = GF, 5+ H, NAT ......2N+ = d), does not want to play 2♠ opposite 11-13 2♥ = c) wants to play 2♠ opposite 11-13 d) to play opposite 11-13 BAL, else FG ...P = 11-13 ...2♠ = 20-21 BAL ......P = c) ......other = d) ...2N+ = GF (...) ? (The 2♣-2♦; 2♥ "Kokish or weak option with spades" idea is stolen from Glen Ashton's (glen's) Wicked Weak/Strong 2♣ opening.)

Is HardVector wrong because you have never seen or heard of such a pair?