nullve

Could this game be just as easy as HOOL, but more similar to real bridge than HOOL is?

12 cards.

2/1 fantasy: [hv=pc=n&s=sa4hkqdaj963cajt4&n=sk762haj4dkq852c3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2cp2d(5+D3-C)p3dp3np4d(slam interest, no club control)p4n(RKC)p7dppp]266|200[/hv] Opener would bid the same way with ♣Kxx, of course, so 7♦ still not bid with certainty.

Inspired by this: 1♣-1♦; ?: 1♥ = 12-14 BAL, either 4 S or no major / strong options ...1♠ = 0-4 / 5-7, either 3S3-H or 4+ S ......P = 12-14, 4 S ......1N = 12-14, no major ......(...) ...1N = 5-7, either 3-S4H or 2-S3H ......(...) ......2♥ = 12-14, 4 H ......(...) ...2♣ = 5-7, "3-S3-H5+C". Necessary with 2245 ...2♦ = 5-7, "3-S3-H5+D". Necessary with 2254. ...2♥ = 5-7, 3-S5+H ...(...) 1♠ = 12-14 BAL, 3-S4H / strong options (...) Here the idea is that if a Moysian is reached after * 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠-P, at least it will be played at the 1-level; * 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1N; 2♥-P, at least the hand with only 3 trumps is not (4333).

The robot could just sim whether the void is useful before answering.

12 cards

Then the lead is probably from AJTx(x), as East would need a good reason to play low at trick 1 from Axxx(x). If it's from AJTx, then there doesn't seem to much else to go by at the moment, except that a small minority might have doubled 1♥ or overcalled 1♠ on a) AJTx Axxx xx Qxx but not on b) AJTx Axxx xx xxx. If it's from AJTxx, then how much more would West have needed to overcall 1♠? Would ♣Qxx be enough? Or maybe AJTxx xxx xx xxx but not AJTxx xxx xx Qxx has high enough ODR in opps' opinion to qualify as a WJO? In a perfect world you should be able to find out about these things by asking the right questions. Anyway, it cannot cost to play two more rounds of diamonds first, ending in hand. Perhaps a small fraction of the time an opp will help you (or "help" you - see my previous post) by discarding a club. An encouraging heart discard by West is interesting, because if taken at face value it means that West cannot have five spades. Depending on opps' style it might also mean that West cannot have a hand like a).

Defensive idea: [hv=pc=n&s=skqhkqjt9dat2c932&w=sajt93h8542d75c75&n=s72hdqj9643cakj64&e=s8654ha763dk8cqt8&d=s&a=1hp2dp2hp3cp3nppp&p=sjs2s5sqc3c5cac8dqdkdad5d2d7djd8d3ctdth5]399|300[/hv]

Instead of 2N-3♠; 3N-4♣; 4♦ = RKC(♣) one could always play 2N-3♠; 3N-4♣; 4♦ = controls in diamonds, hearts and spades (so "showing", not "asking") 2N-3♠; 3N-4♣; 4♦-?: 4♥ = Do you have at least 4 key cards, partner? ...4♠ = Yes, but I don't have the trump Q. ...5♣ = No. ...other = Yes. I also have the trump Q, but I don't have ___ 4♠ = Do you have at least 3 key cards, partner? ...4N = Yes, but I don't have the trump Q ...5♣ = No ...other = Yes. I also have the trump Q, but I don't have ___ 4N = Do you have either at least 2 key cards and the trump Q or at least 3 key cards, partner? ...5♣ = No. ...other = Yes, but I don't have ___ 5♣ = Do you have at least 2 key cards, partner? ...P = No ...other = Yes, but I don't have ___.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

How about something like 1♣ = 12-14 BAL / 11-16, "4451 minus 1 card" / "11-16, 6+ D" / "strong" 1♦ = "4+ C, unBAL" 2♣ (or 2♦?) = 11-16, (41)53 1♣-1M; ?: 1♠ = NAT 1N = "12-14 BAL, 2-3 M" 2♣ = "strong" 2♦ = "11-16, 2-M6+D" (...) or 1♣ = 12-14 BAL / 11-16, "4451 minus 1 card" / "strong" 1♦ = "4+ C, unBAL" 2♣ = "11-16, either 6+ D or (41)53" 2♣-?: 2♦ = to play opposite a 1-suiter ...P = 1-suiter ...2♥ = 1453 or 4+H6+D ...2♠ = 4153 or 4+S6+D ...(...) (...) ?

Although Opener had to superaccept with 4-5 M in my example structure, my favourite super-accept scheme in a more standard NT structure is actually 1N-[2M-1]; ?: 2M = 2-3 M or 4M333 2M+1 = 4-5 M but not 4M333 because * 4M333 behaves more like 3c M support wrt LoTT; * having only one super-accept means less information leakage * there is still enough room to relay out Opener's shape after 1N-2♦; 2♥/♠. Of course, not super-accepting on all hands with 4 M means sometimes missing a 4-4 M fit after 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1]; 3m-P, but then it will also be missed by IMPrecision and some standard systems after 1N-[3m-1]; 3m-P, right? I actually had a look at IMprecision's INT structure before starting this thread, precisely because I thought it might be an example of a structure where Opener's one-step relay over 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1] is mandatory. If it isn't, and I accept that awm is the final arbiter of that, it doesn't really matter, because there are other possible structures that are, and I thought you were making the more general point that my idea was incompatible with relaying Responder's shape as effectively as in IMprecision. I see what you mean, although it's possible to play 1N-2♦; 2♠-?: (...) 3m-1 = PUP 3m 3♦ = PUP 3♥ (aka retransfer to H) 3♥ = shape relay (with H agreed) (...) and 1N-2♥; 2N-?: 3m = WK, 3M3-OM6+m 3♥ = PUP 3♠ (aka retransfer to S) 3♠ = shape relay (with S agreed) (...). I'm not sure what competitive auctions you have in mind, but 1N-[2M-1]-(3m) is probably one of them. I care about LoTT, so I'd never raise to 3M with only 3c support here even if 2M-1 were a standard Jacoby transfer promising 5 M. But I might double ("takeout") with 3M2m, leaving the final LoTT decision to partner. Just allow 1N-[2M-1] and 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1]; 3m-P on weak hands with 4M6+m. That's it, I believe.

One of us has a blind spot. Suppose 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-?: (...) 2N = WK, 3-4M6+C OR as in IMprecision ...3♣ = forced ......P = WK, 3-4M6+m ......3♦+: as in IMprecision 3♣ = WK, 3-4M6+D OR as in IMpresision ...3♦ = forced ......P = WK, 3-4M6+D ......3♥+: as in IMprecision (...). Do you still think my idea is incompatible with IMprecision?

You seem to like IMprecision's NT structure a lot. The version I have in front of me seems to contain the following substructure: 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-?: (...) 2N = GF, 4+M4+C, unBAL ...3♣ = mandatory relay 3♣ = GF, 5+M4+D, short minor-module ...3♦ = mandatory relay (...). So it seems that 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1] is indeed a puppet to 3m in that structure. So at least in this instance it's not clear that I'm sacrificing anything. But maybe you thought I meant to use those PUP 3m bids for weak hands only?

Suppose 1N-[2M-1] is "transfer to M" and 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1] effectively a puppet to 3m. Then it makes sense to use the transfer also on weak hands with 4M6+m, expecting an auction like 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-[3m-1]; 3m-P, 1N-[2M-1]; [2M+1]*-[3M-1]**; 3M-P or 1N-[2M-1]; [2M+1]*-[3M-1]**; 3M-4M; P, since it's probably be better to play 3M than 3m if a 4-4 or 5-4 M fit exists. But why not extend this idea (which I, and probably others, have mentioned before) and respond 2M-1 also on weak hands with 3M(!)3-OM6+m, since it's probably better to play 3M than 3m if a 5-3 M fit exists? For example: 1N-[2M-1]; ?: 2M = 2-3 M ...(...) ...3m-1: now also on weak hands with 3M3-OM6+m*** ...(...) 2M+1 = 4-5 M ...2N(M=♥) = relay ...3m = WK, 3M6+m**** ......P = 4 M ......3M = 5 M ...(...) ...3M = WK, either 5+ M or 4M6+m***** ...(...) ...Alternatively, if M=♥: ...3m-1 = PUP 3m ...3♦ = PUP 3♥ ...(...). * superaccept promising 4-5 M ** retransfer *** potentially wrongsiding 3♦ if M=♥ and m=♦ **** potentially wrongsiding 3m ***** potentially wrongsiding 3M

Can you find all 5-3 and 6-2 major fits while consistently avoiding silly 7c fits? Can you really afford to bypass 3N on all GF hands with 3-S3-H6+D and a stiff non-A C?

FYP

I usually want to distinguish between the following 5 Responder ranges in my 1N structures, WK: The weakest range. Responder has no game interest. INV: The only invitational range. Responder wants to be in game if and only if a sufficient trump fit exists. GF1: The weakest GF range. Slam is at best a remote possibility and the focus is solely on finding the right game. GF2: The intermediate GF range. Slam is possible only if Responder is unbalanced, but then he is not strong enough violate the balanced hand principle. GF3: The strongest GF range. Slam is likely and Responder is strong enough to relay, possibly violating the balanced hand principle, But a lot of things have to be different than in the regular Stayman + Crawling Stayman-based structure(s) I currently play, and this is what I've come up with so far: 1N-?: (...) 2♣ = WK, various shapes* / INV, 5+M4+OM / GF1, either 4S4H1-m or 5+M4+OM / GF2, either 44(41) (44(50)), (54)22 or "unBAL w/ D" 2♦ = WK, 3-S5+H / INV, 5H5+m / GF1, either 3-S4+H1-m or 1-S4+H / GF2, "unBAL w/ H" / GF3 2♥ = WK, 5+S3-H / INV, 5S5+m / GF1, either 4+S3-H1-m or 5+S1-H / GF2, unBAL w/ S" 2♠ = GF2, "unBAL w/ C" 2N = "nullve/Kungsgeten Puppet" (described here), here supposed to take care also of all GF2 (5422) shapes except (54)22 3♣: currently WK with 5+D5+C, but now I can probably respond 2♣ with this hand type as well, so... 3♦ = GF1, 1-M3-OM 3♥ = GF1, 3-S3-H1-C 3♠ = GF1, 3-S3-H1-D 3N = to play (...) * including 4+S4+H, (43)(51), 4S2-H5m and 4-S4-H6+m 1N-2♣; ?: 2♦+: as in the variation above where 2♦ = 4-5 M or 33(52) (= Almost inside-out Stayman?) (I'm still not sure what Opener should do with 22(54) if that those shapes are allowed. One option is 2N = 2245 3♣ = 2254, which is e.g. what Bocchi-Duboin played over 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥(Crawling Stayman), but clearly that won't always work either.) 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: P = WK, either 3-S3-H6+D or 5+D5+C 2♥/♠: as above 2N = WK, 3-s3-H6+C / INV, 5+M4+OM / GF1, either 4S4H1-m or 5+M4+OM / GF2, either 44(41) (44(50)) or (54)22 ...3♣ = forced ......P = WK, 3-S3-H6+C ......3♦+: not sure, but maybe ......3♦ = INV, 5+M4+OM / GF2, (54)22 .........3♥ = 33(52) ............P = INV, 4+S5+H ............3♠ = INV, 5+S4+H ............(...) .........(...) .........4M = to play ......3♥ = GF1, 4S4H1-C / GF2, 4441 (4450) .........3♠ = range ask ............3N = GF1 ............4♣ = GF2 ........(...) ......3♠ = GF1, 4S4H1-D ......3N = GF2, 4414 (4405) ......4♣ = GF1, 5+M4+OM .........4♦ = 4S4H ("bid your shorter major, partner!") .........4M = 4-5 M, to play ......(...) 3♣+ = GF2, "unBAL w/ D" 1M-2♣; 2M-?: P/2♠: as above 2N = WK, 3-S3-H6+C / GF1, either 4S4H1-m or 5+M4+OM / GF2, either 44(41) (44(50)) or (54)22 ...3♣ = forced ......P = WK, 3-S3-H6+C ......3♦+: not sure, but maybe ......3♦ = GF1, 4+M5+OM / GF2, 4M5OM22 .........3♥ = anti-SPL C .........3♠ = anti-SPL D .........(...) ......3♥ = GF1, 4S4H1-C / GF2, 4441 (4450) .........3♠ = range ask ............3N = GF1 ............4♣ = GF2 .........(...) ......3♠ = GF1, 4S4H1-D ......3N = GF2, 4414 (4405) ......(...) ......4M = to play 3♣+ = GF2, "unBAL w/ D" * just like 3♦ over 1N-2♣; 2♦-2N; 3♣, which is nice, although it really goes against my principles to invite here 1N-[2M-1]; ?: 2M = 2-3 M or 4M333 2M+1 = 4-5 M, not 4M333 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-?: 2♠(M=♥) = GF3 (relay) 2N = INV, 5M5+m / GF1, either 4+M3-OM1-m or 4+M1-OM / GF2, 4M144 ...3♣ = 2 M ......P = INV, 5M5+C ......3♦ = INV, 5M5+D ......3♥ = GF1, 4+M1-OM / GF2, 4M144 .........3♠ = range ask ............3N = GF1, 4-5 M ............4♣ = GF2 ............(...) .........(...) ......3♠ = GF1, 4+M3-OM1-C ......3N = GF1, 4-5M3-OM1-D ......(...) ...3♦ = 3 M or 4M333 ......3♥ = GF1, 4M1-OM / GF2, 4M144 .........3♠ = range ask ............3N = GF1 ............4♣ = GF2 ............(...) .........(...) ......3♠ = GF1, 4M3-OM1-C ......3N = GF1, 4M3-OM1-D ......(...) ......4M = 5+ M, to play 3♣+ = GF2, "unBAL w/ M" except that 3♣, a n actual puppet to 3♦), can also be WK with 4-M5+D Here's an idea for the unBAL 3♣+ structure on GF2 hands: 1N-2♣; 2x-3♣+ = Can(♦). See Can(x) below. 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-3♣+ = Can(M). See Can(x) below. 1N-2♠; 2N-3♣+ = Can(♣). See Can(x) below. Can(x) ('Can' for 'canapé'): This is essentially a more sophisticated and canapé version of the relay structure I described here If lo, mi and hi are resp. the lowest, middle and highest suits outside x, then 3♣ = 4+x5+lo, but not 5x5lo OR 1-suited ...3♦ = relay ......3♥ = 1-suited ......3♠+ = U(x,lo). See U(x,y) below. ...(...) 3♦ = 4+x5+mi, not 5x5mi ...3♥ = relay ......3♠+ = U(x,mi). See U(x,y) below. 3♥ = "5-5" (although I'm not sure how to best split shapes corresponding to the six combinations of 5a5b (a and b different suits) evenly among the four "5-5" bids (one for each x)*) 3♠+ = U(x,hi). See U(x,y) below. * But if ab(x) = the "adjacent" suit "below" x (S,C,D,H if x is C,D,H,S, respectively) na(x) = the suit not "adjacent" to x (H,S,C,D if x is C,D,H,S, respectively) Or(x) = the other suit of the same rank as x, to borrow some definitions from the same post, then maybe 3♥ = 5x5ab(x) or 5x5na(x)2+Or(x) ...3♠ = relay ......3N = 5x5ab(x), high shortage .........4♣ = relay ............4♦ = 5x5ab(x)03* ............4♥ = 5x5ab(x)12* ......4♣ = 5x5na(x)2+Or(x) ......4♦ = 5x5ab(x)30* ......4♥ = 5x5ab(x)21* ...(...) * Resolving (5530) shapes more cheaply than (5521) shapes makes sense in a key card-oriented relay structure if the fragment is a potential trump suit but not the doubleton. ? U(x,y): 3♠ = 4x5y13 (4x5y04) 3N = 4x5y31 (4x5y40) 4♣ = 4+x6+y0hi (but not 4x6y0hi) or 5x6y11 ...4♦ ......4♥ = 5x6y11 ......4♠ = 5x6y02 ......4N = 4x7x02 ......etc. 4♦ = 4x6y(21), final shape resolution after spiral scan for key cards 4♥ = 4x7y11 4♠ = 5x6y20 4N = 4x7y20 etc. (The "even shortage" shapes (5x6y11 and 4x7y11) are split between the "high shortage branch" (4♣) and "the low shortage branch" (4♥+).) (Why canapé? Because responses to Opener's 3♦ relay commits us to the 4-level, which is ok if Responder promises a 6c major (as in Can), but not necessarily ok if he only promises a 6c minor (as in a non-canapé version of Can).) If you wonder where the (6430) hands have gone, the answer is that I want this hand type to be shown below 4♥ as long as there are three possible trump suits, so it has to be shown independently of Can. Then maybe the above structure can be adjusted so that 1N-2♣; 2x-2N; 3♣-3♥; 3♠-4♦/♥ = GF2, 4630/6430 (only 2 possible trump suits) 1N-2♣; 2x-2N; 3♣-4♦/♥ = GF2, 4603/6403 (only 2 possible trump suits) 1N-2♦; 2♥-2N; 3♣-3♠; 3N-4♣/♦ = GF2, 3460/3604 1N-2♦; 2♥-2N; 3♣-4♣/♦ = GF2, 3406/3604 1N-2♥; 2♠-2N; 3♣-3♠; 3N-4♣/♦ = GF2, 4360/6340 1N-2♥; 2♠-2N; 3♣-4♣/♦ = GF2, 4306/6304 1N-3♦; 3♥-3♠; 3N-4♣/♦ = GF2, 3046/3064 1N-3♦; 3♥-4♣/♦ = GF2, 0346/0364 ? WARNING: I will almost certainly continue editing this post! 11 May 2019: Here are 100 EW hands (with some auctions after a "14-16" NT) dealt randomly on the condition that West has either 15 walrus points and strictly balanced shape or 14 walrus points and 5m(422): 12 May 2019: 100 more hands (with some auctions) randomly dealt with the above constraint:

A variation: 1N-2♣; ?: 2♦ = 4-5 M or 33(52) ...P = allowed ...2♥ = 4+ H, weak ......P = 4-5H or 33(52) ......2♠ = 4-5S2-3H ...2♠ = 4S3-H5m, weak ......P = 4-5 S or 3S2m (or else 2N or P/C must be better) ......2N = 2533 ......3♣ = P/C (but not 2533) ...(...) 2♥ = 2S3H or 33(43) ...P = 4+ H (but not 5+S4H), weak ...2♠ = 5+S4H, to play ...and e.g. ...3m-1 = PUP 3m ...(...) 2♠ = 3S2H ...P = 4+ S, weak ...and e.g. ...3m-1 = PUP 3m ...(...), (conveniently ignoring the possibility that Opener is 22(54) or 22(63)) The idea is that if Responder is 34(51) or 4S3-H5m (yes, not just (43)51) and the bidding goes 1N-2♣ 2♥-3m-1* 3m-P, * PUP 3m then a 5-3 or better m fit is guaranteed unless Opener is 23(62) with the wrong minor. The main downside compared with the OP structure seems to be that if the bidding goes 1N-2♣ 2♦-2♥ P, Opener is 33(52) and Responder is weak with 5M4OM, then the wrong major has been reached half of the time. It also gets more complicated over 1N-2♣; 2♦ when Responder has something (54)(31) and enough to force to game opposite 4-5 M but wants to stay out of game opposite 33(52). But here's a half-baked idea for a mechanism that allows him to do both things: 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: P/2♥/2♠: as above 2N = PUP 3♣ 3M-2 = PUP 3M-1 unless Opener is 33(52) ...3M-1 = GF, not 33(52) ......(...) ......4♦ = 5+M4+OM, asks Opener to bid his major ......(...) ...3M = 33(52) ......P = 5+M4+OM, lost interest in game ......(...) (...)

Even uglier, perhaps, but better: 2N = GF, neither 4 C, 5+ D, 5+ OM nor 5M(332) ...3♣ = 2- M (then mandatory!) ......3♦ = 4 D ......3M = GF, 6+ M, 1-suited ......3OM = 4 OM ......3N = 5M5C ......4♣ = 6+M5+C ...3M = the 3c limit raise ...4M = the bad 3c raise ...other: does not exist(!) 3♣ = GF, 4 C 3♦ = GF, 5+ D 3M = standard (so only INV) 3OM = GF, 5+ OM 3N = 19, 5M(332).

I haven't read the book, but my guess is that he played (and still plays) something like 1♥-1N(NF); ?: (...) 2N = GF, no 5c or longer side suit ...3♣ = "5+ C" ...3♦ = "5+ D" ...3♥ = 3244 ...3♠ or 3N (or both!) = "5+D5+C" ...(...) 3♣ = GF, 5+ C 3♦ = GF, 5+ D 3♥ = standard (...) 1♠-1N(NF); ?: (...) 2N = GF, no 5c or longer side suit ...3♣ = "5+ m" ......3♦ = asks m .........3♥ = "5+ C" .........3♠ = "5+ D" .........(...) ......(...) ...3♦ = 5+ H* ...3♥ = "4 H"* ...3♠ = 2344 ...3N = "5+D5+C" (NF, I guess) ...(...) 3♣ = GF, 5+ C 3♦ = GF, 5+ D 3♥ = GF, 5+ H 3♠ = standard (...), which seems to be a common expert agreement in Norway. I've never heard anyone call this structure 'Meckstroth Adjunct', though. My main problem with the above 1M-1N; 2N structures is that although Responder gets to show his shape in some detail, his range is still 6-11 or wider, so Opener may not know whether it's safe to support (or not to support!) with support for Responder's minor. This is obviously much less of a problem after 1M-1N; 2N-3♣ in (standard) Meckstroth Adjunct, where Opener (the player about to describe his shape further) is already known to have a much narrower range. * Brogeland-Lindqvist play 1♠-1N; 2N-3♦ = "4+ H" (or, to be precise, either 5+ H, 24(43) or 1444) 1♠-1N; 2N-3♦; 3♥(3+ H)-?: 3♠ = 2 S 3N = 1444 4♣+ = cuebidding w/ 5+ H. which frees up 3♥ over 1♠-1N; 2N.

As awm pointed out, it's not safe to respond 2♣(Inside-out Stayman) on weak hands with this shape. True, over 1N-2♣; 2♠(3S2H) Responder can either just pass (and then 2♠ will probably be an OK Moysian) or get out in 3♦*, which will be on a 5-3 or better fit unless Opener is precisely 3226. But over 1N-2♣; 2♥(3-S3H) Responder has no choice but to get out in 3♦*, which could easily be on a 5-2 fit. But passing isn't safe either, so suppose he chooses to respond 2♣ anyway. Then over 1N-2♣; 2♦ he can either pass, possibly missing a 4-4 S fit, or rebid 2♥(P/C**), reaching the same contracts as if playing Garbage Stayman, although 2♥ will now be played by Responder (after 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; P). * say, via 3♣ as a puppet to 3♦ ** but described as 'Crawling Stayman-like' in the OP

There's a description of it, ostensibly by Jeff Meckstroth himself, in Max Hardy's Advanced Bidding for the 2st Century. It is extremely wordy, but can be condensed into 1M-1N(F1); ?: 2♣: now also with 17-18, 5M3m(32), in order to free up the 2N rebid 2♦: now also with 17-18, 5M332, in order to free up the 2N rebid 2N+ = Meckstroth Adjunct proper, i.e. 2N = GF, neither 5+ side suit nor 5M(332) ...3♣ = 2- M (then mandatory!) ......3♦ = 4 D ......3M = GF, 6+ M, 1-suited ......3OM = 4 OM ......3N = 5(6)M4C. If 6 M, then M not good enough to play 4M opposite singleton support ......4♣ = 6+M4C, M good enough to play 4M opposite singleton support ...3M = the 3c limit raise ...4M = the bad 3c raise ...other: does not exist(!) 3♣ = GF, 5+ C 3♦ = GF, 5+ D 3M = standard (so only INV) 3OM = GF, 5+ OM 3N = 19, 5M(332) If the bidding goes 1♠-1N; 2N-3♣; 3♠/3N/4♣ or 1♠-1N; 3♠/N, then Responder is obviously unable to introduce his long hearts below the 4-level, so any 5-3 or 6-2 heart fit will likely be missed. And if the bidding goes 1♠-1N; 2N-3♣; 3♦ or 1♠-1N; 3m, then although Responder is able to show long hearts at the 3-level, it's still impossible to consistently explore a heart fit in sufficient detail. (To see this, we need only look at the case where Opener and Responder have a) 19 hcp, 5143 b) 19 hcp, 5242 c) 19 hcp, 5341 and d) 7 hcp, 1534 e) 7 hcp, 1633, respectively.) One could obviously try to fix some of these problems by defining Responder's 3♦, 3♥ and 3N rebids over 1♠-1N; 2N. Other fixes include opening 1♣ with (17)18-19 BAL and playing something like Swedish T-Walsh. This not only frees up Opener's 3N rebid over 1M-1N, but helps on the 5M(332) 17-18 counts as well. For example with 18 hcp, 5332 opposite 7 hcp, 1543 the auction, instead of going 1♠-1N 2♦-P, would end in 4♥ after 1♣-1♦ ("NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL"; "4+ H") 1N-2♦ (17-19 BAL, 2-3 H; "5+ H") 2♥, which is probably an identical start (except for the meanings) as in RM Precision (Meckstroth's system with regular partner Eric Rodwell), btw. :) I believe you can play versions of both at once, since that is sort of what I do, inspired by what Bocchi-Duboin once did. Then * you get a more limited Gazzilli, which is good; * the 3M rebid over 1M-1N can be freed up for some GF type hand if you want; * you can play the same 2N+ structure over 1M-1N and 1M-1N; 2♣-2♦, except for the range.

I've corrected some of the gibberish in my previous post. I could also have mentioned there that if Responder is weak with both majors, then 1N-2♣(Stayman); 2♦(no major)-?: 2♥ = Crawling Stayman, but not with 5+S4H 2♠ = 5+S4H, weak is a lot like playing (Multi)Landy 2♣ in response to 1N, while 1N-2♣(Stayman); 2♦(no major)-?: 2♥ = Crawling Stayman (also with 5S4H) 2♠ = 5(+) S INV is more like playing DONT 2♥ (or Cappelletti 2♦) in response to 1N. Conversely, not playing (the equivalent of) Crawling Stayman might be a lot like having no way to show both majors when opps open 1N.

The point is not to find 3c majors when Responder is strong. I use different gadgets for that. The point is to improve partscore and game bidding when Responder has less than GF values.