nullve

1. True. Didn't think of that. 2. Oops! Forgot that not everyone is thinking inside a "pass or bash" paradigm where the equivalent of tradtional invites like 1N-2♣; 2x-2N, 1N-[2M-1]; 2M-2N and 1N-2N doesn't exist. 3. Assume Puppet Stayman (2N or 3♣) and Jacoby transfers on "3N or 4M" hands. I think the advantage depends on exactly how regular Stayman + Crawling Stayman is played. But Inside-out Stayman can obviously handle weak hands with both majors just as well as 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: 2♥ = Crawling Stayman, but not with 5+S4H 2♠ = 5+S4H, weak and better than 1N-2♣; 2♦-?: 2♥ = Crawling Stayman 2♠ = 5(+) S, INV It can also handle INV hands with 5+M4+M better than the former structure and INV hands with 4+S5+H/5+S4+H probably better/worse (resp.) than the latter.

You mean after 1N-2♣ 2♥*-P * now also with 2S2H when Opener has 2S2H and Responder 4S4H? If you play regular Stayman + Crawling Stayman and your 1N opening includes shapes with 2S2H, then this might happen after 1N-2♣ 2♦-2♥ as well, depending on what Opener is supposed to do with these shapes.

Has anyone tried something like 1N-2♣("Stayman"): ?: 2♦ = 4-5 M ...P = allowed ...2♥ = like Crawling Stayman ......P = 4-5 H (4S4H possible?) ......2♠ = 4-5 S (4S4H possible?) ...(...) 2♥ = 3-S3H (2S2H also possible?) ...P = 4+ H (but not 5+S4H), weak ...2♠ = 5+S4H, to play ...(...) 2♠ = 3S2H ...P = 4+ S, weak ...(...) ? Right now (after thinking about it for maybe an hour) this seems better than Garbage Stayman + Crawling Stayman when Responder has both majors and less than GF values. Agree?

I don't know your opening style, but assuming you play 2/1 with book-sound openings, i.e. a (14)15-17 NT and rule of 20-ish one-of-a-suit openings, I think Responder needs to force to game with 12 (non-downgradable) hcp, which might be what Max Hardy recommended, too. (It's probably normal to require around 13 hcp for a GF 2/1 response in a system with rule of 19-ish one-of-a-suit openings (and likely a 14-16 NT), though.) So if Opener is balanced, then in the worst case scenario you miss game with 11 opposite 14 (non-upgradable) hcp. This is probably not a lot worse than missing game with 8 opposite 17 after 1N-P, which is just normal (modern) bridge. (People used to invite more often with 8.) And unless your hand evaluation is very sloppy, these the missed games will usually be quite marginal anyway. (Switching to a 14-16 NT (or, if you prefer, (13)14-16 NT) would help here, of course. So would making the NT range independent of the 1M openings, as in some T-Walsh systems (e.g. the one played by Welland-Auken) where 5M(332) hands outside the 1N range are opened with a "NAT or BAL" 1♣ rather than 1M.) If Opener is 4522 or 45(31), I think he can pass with 11-13* and --- if you want to keep the bidding as natural as possible --- rebid 2m with 14-15 and 3 m. With 14-15 and 4522 I believe opening (a 15-17!) 1N works quite well in practice, and not just against GiB. It may also be less of a lie than rebidding 2♣ on a doubleton over 1♥-1N. I wouldn't particularly mind opening 1N (15-17) with 14-15 and 45(31), either, but then I have probably played too much against GiB. :) Short answer (for now!) to your question: I actually don't think it's that important to play a form of Jacoby/Stenberg 2N! But: 1) I already think 1M-1N SF is very playable, especially if 1N doesn't include the 3c limit raise. 2) I believe 1M-1N SF is consistent with 1♠-1N; 2m = 4+ m and 1♥-1N; 2m = 4+ m or 14-15, 4S5H3m, although I know many (Meckwell included?) prefer that Opener rebid 2m even with 5M3m(32) if he would accept an invite after that. Anyway, I think it's a mistake to keep the 2♣ rebid as natural (and not Gazzilli) in order to solve problems that (IMO) barely exist. 3) Again, I think Responder should force to game with 12 opposite a rule of 20 1M opening. * which of course is a lot more attractive if the semi-forcing 1N response doesn't include INV hands with 3c support

Are you mainly thinking about the fact that Opener in standard 2/1 (with 1M-1N F1) has to bid * 2♣ over 1M-1N with a) 12-14, 5M3C(32) * 2♦ over 1M-1N with b) 12-14, 5M2C33 * 2♣ over 1♥-1N with c) 11-15, 4522/4513, or do you also dislike all forms of Gazzilli over 1M-1N, whether 1N is F1, SF or even NF? (I think the former, based on some of your earlier posts.) Are the good 10-12 balanced hands an issue mainly because you want * 2m over 1M-1N to promise 4+ m * 2♥ over 1♥-1N to promise 6+ H and you're afraid of missing good games if Opener has to pass 1M-1N SF (or NF) with any of a), b) and c)?

Will the Views count be updated if a reply is submitted and then deleted before another reply is submitted?

My partner and I used to play 2♦ = "0-7, 6(+)M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL" 2M = "8-11, 6(+) M", something we had copy-pasted from the Brogeland-Lindqvist system. Our impression, after playing this for a couple of years, was that the weak Multi option was so rare that there had to be a better use of the opening. So we tried Ekren and have enjoyed it since. I also found the "8-11" range awkward. Wide preemptive ranges become more of a problem constructively the stronger they are, because we own a greater proportion of the hands, and here the four-point range meant we had to invite too often for my comfort. And although it helped that Opener's 1M-1♠/N; 2M was now "12-15" instead of "10-15", I thought it would be better if 1M = normal, but usually not "10-12" if 6+ M ...1♠/N ......2M = "13-15, 6+ M" 2♦ = "0-9, 6M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL" 2M = "10-12, 6(+) M", assuming no invites (at least no unLAWful ones) would be needed after 1M-1♠/N; 2M and 2M. My current system, which looks very different, has actually evolved from this. One big change is that I now open 1M also on the "10-12" hands (with 6 M), but use an artificial rebid structure to separate the "10-12" hands from "13-15" hands. I believe I pay a very low price for that and that there is therefore probably a better use of the 2M openings as well. I think awm (a Non-Natural System Discussion forum regular) already knows my position on much of this.

No, it's not so hard if opps' silence convinces North that South has 0-1 clubs and not e.g. ♣Kx. But North might feel more confident about that after 1♦-1N (NAT unBAL or 20-22 BAL \\ 0-12, NAT) 2♦-2♠ ("16-18"*, any \\ GF relay) 2N-3♣ (4+ H or 1-suited \\ relay) 3♦-.... (1-suited \\ ---) in my system: Here are are 100 random deals consistent with South's bidding (modulo finer points of hand evaluation) and North having the above hand: Now take a look at the EW cards on the deals where South has 2-3 clubs. Don't you think opps would interfere over 1♦ or 1N on the vast majority of those deals? Btw, I believe my auction at IMPs would continue ....-3♥ (--- \\ relay) 4♦-4♥ (3361 \\ key card ask with diamonds agreed) 4♠-4N (even # of key cards \\ trump Q ask) 5N-6♦ (trump Q, ♥K, ♠K, no ♥Q \\ contract) P. It's harder at MPs, of course, since belly-landing in 5♦ after e.g. ....-4N (--- \\ trump Q ask) 5♣-.... (no trump Q \\ ---) is not really an option. * or more precisely: meets the rule of 25 (like the unbalanced part of a Precision 1♣ opening), but not the rule of 28

My bid: 3♥ = GF, 5H6+C

Suppose the auction starts 1♦-1N 3♦. Unless South would tend to rebid NT instead of 3♦ with both major suits stopped, I think North can almost expect partner to have a singleton club given opps' silence. But then 6♦ is probably good if partner (South) also has enough key cards. So at IMPs, maybe 1♦-1N 3♦-4♦ 4N-5♥ 6♦-P ?

So what would the continuations after 1♠-1N; 2♠ be if you were to play this in a 2/1 GF-like system?

One obviously does't need traditional invites if the range is narrow enough. A 15-17 range may not be narrow enough, although I think it is if sufficent adjustments are made to the raw Milton Work count. And from the perspective of the resulting improved hcp method it will appear that most pairs actually use a much wider range than 15-17, maybe closer to 14-18 (or worse!), so no wonder they need invites!

I'm primarily interested in what your reasoning would be if you were to step in as East at this point.

Matchpoints. [hv=pc=n&nn=GiB&n=s64h843daqtcq9854&en=GiB&e=sat73hqt65dk9854c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1n(15-17)p2c(non-promissory Stayman)p2d(no major)p2nppp]266|200[/hv] Trick 1: ♣6-♣4-♦9-♣K Trick 2: ♦6-♦3-♦T-♦K Trick 3: ♥5-♥9-♥K-♥3 Trick 4: ♥7-♥4-? Take over for East (GiB) from here. Your partner is also GiB. South is a human.

Yes. I thought 3N and 4m only promised 5+ m (I'm looking at the July 2009 notes), but I guess they would * use Stayman with 4M5m22/4M315/4405 * respond 3♦ with 4M351/4450 * respond 3M with 4M0(54)/4M1(53)?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. GAR only applies in GF situations where a hand has shown 5+x4+y. Then, as part of their version of GAR, at least as long as 5x5y is consistent with the bidding so far, 3♦ includes 5x5y, 6x4y and 6x5y (but not 4x6y, of course) ...3♥ = relay ......3♠ includes 5x5y ......3N includes MIN, 6x4y/6x5y ......4♣ includes MAX, 6x4y/6x5y, low singleton/void ......4♦ includes MAX, 6x4y/6x5y, low singleton/void ...3♠+: presumably NAT.

In the version of GAR described in 'Il Sistema Bocchi-Duboin', 3♦ covers not only 6-4 and 5-5, but also 6-5 and probably, although it's not explicitly stated, 7-4 and nore extreme shapes as well. It appears that over the 3♥ relay, 3♠ includes 5-5 3N includes MIN, 6-4/6-5 4♣ includes MAX, 6-4/6-5, low singleton/void 4♦ includes MAX, 6-4/6-5, high singleton/void, where I've used 'includes' instead of '=' because I have no idea what one is supposed to do even with 7-4.

I know Norwegian internationals Brogeland-Lindqvist superaccept, or at least used to superaccept, on some MAX hands without 4c support: http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/opatija_systems/Norway/brogeland-lindqvist.pdf (Look under 'How to break transfers (same principles as after 2NT)'.) And if they do that, then there's a good chance it either already is or will soon be part of Norwegian expert standard 2/1, like almost everything else on their CC. Personally, I don't even superaccept with 4M(333).

What can be more artificial than standard Jacoby 2NT where,for example, Opener's 3♣ rebid shows 0-1 clubs? In the structure I described, both Opener and Responder actually tend to have length (i.e. 3+ cards) in the suit bid. I think you're confusing 'natural' with 'the suit bid is also the one talked about'.

In Scandinavia, the forcing 2N raise usually goes under the name of 'Stenberg' (after its inventior, the Swedish player Alvar Stenberg). Most Scandinavian players seem to prefer a version where 2N is only INV+, though, and that version is also called 'Invitt-Stenberg' (Eng.: 'Invitational Stenberg). Natural continuations after (Invitt-)Stenberg are probably still dominant, but the following structure seems to have become quite popular recently: 1M-2N; ?: 3♣ = lower half of 1M range ...3♦ = GF relay ......3♥ = singleton/void in clubs ......3♠ = singleton/void in diamonds ......3N = singleton/void in the other major ......4♣+ = cuebidding w/ no singleton/void ...3M = INV ...4M = to play 3♦ = upper half of 1M range, no singleton/void ...3♥ = singleton/void in clubs ...3♠ = singleton/void in diamonds ...3N = singelton/void in the other major ...4♣+ = cuebidding w/ no singelton/void 3♥ = upper half of 1M range, singleton/void in clubs 3♠ = upper half of 1M range, singelton/void in diamonds 3N = upper half of 1M range, singelton/void in the other major Some also play 4m = 5+ m, values concentrated in M and m 4♥(M=♠) = 5+ hearts, values concentrated in the majors The above responses to 2N are sometimes called 'Swedish responses' to Jacoby/Stenberg, I believe.

Because?

I believe it's better to pretend RHO has opened 3♦ in 2nd seat, so that 2♦-(3♦)-?: P = a) weak hand b) good hand, wrong shape for X/3M/4♣+, not strong enough for 3N ...X = takeout (with MAX and suitable shape) ......P = penalties ..(...) X = takeout 3♥ = NAT "overcall" (...).

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=nullve&s=SHAKQJTDA432CA432&wn=Robot&w=SAT87H976DT987C98&nn=nullve&n=S5432H432DKQJCKQJ&en=Robot&e=SKQJ96H85D65CT765&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1NP3NPPP&p=H6H2H8HKD3D7DJD5S3SJHAS8S9HQS7S2S6HJSTS4H9&c=10]400|300[/hv] The NS cards are predealt with the sole idea of causing the robots to misdefend because they can no longer (after South discards a heart on the ♠3) generate a single deal consistent with the bidding and play so far.

An idea I got a couple of days ago while responding to the 'Multi 2d' thread: (...) 2♦ = weak-only Multi with either 6(+)M3-OM or 5S3-H4+m (will explain the absence of 3-S5H4+m hands below) 2♥ = weak, 3-S5H4+m (Muiderberg) 2♠ = ? (but not Muiderberg) (...) 2♦-?: (...) 2♥ = P/C, likely 1- M or (3)4+S2H ...P = 6(+) H ...2♠ = 6(+) S ...2N = non-MAX (or if you want: MIN), 5S4+m ......3♣ = P/C ......(...) ......3♠ = to play ......(...) ...3m = MAX, 5S4+m 2♠ = P/C, likely 2S2+H or 3S(2)3+H (...) Some explaination is in order. It occured to me that if 2♦ = weak-only Multi with either 6(+)M3-OM or 5M3-OM4+m, then I could think of a good way to diagnose and avoid a 5-1 or 5-0 fit in spades, but not in hearts, so it made sense to remove the 3-S5H4+m hands from Multi 2♦ and play Muiderberg 2♥. But a Multi between the two above in inclusiveness, 2♦ = weak-only Multi with either 6(+)3-OM, 5S3-H4+m or 5H5+m, where 2♦-2♥; 2♠ = 6(+) S or 5H5+m (!) and everything else is as above, looked (and looks) quite playable, too. Thoughts? :unsure:

This is very similar to what I play in response to my Multi 2♣ opening (showing either a weak hand ("0-9" in 1st seat) with either 6(+)M3-OM or 5M3-OM4+m OR "22+" with primarily hearts and an unbalanced hand (GF)): 2♣-?: If MAX = "7-9" non-MAX = "0-6" (which Responder treats as "4-6"). then P: allowed 2♦ = catchall (but usually "potential misfit, 3S(3)4+H or GF) 2♥ = P/C w/ either 2+S2H or 3+S3H OR INV, 2-S5+H ...P = weak w/ 5-6 H (very unlikely that Responder has the INV hand with 2-S5+H) ...2♠ = weak w/ 5-6 S 2♠ = P/C w/ 2S3+H OR INV, 5+S2-H ...P = weak w/ 5-6 S (very unlikely that Responder has the INV hand with 5+S2-H) ...2N+ = 5+ H, either weak or GF. With INV values Responder will assume that Opener is weak, though. ...And if GF options are ignored: ...2N = non-MAX, 5-6 H ......3♣ = INV, P/C .........P = 2-S4+C .........3♦ = 2-S4+ D .........3♥ = 2-S6H .........3♠ = 3 S ......(...) ...3♣ = MAX, 5H4+C ...3♦ = MAX, 5H4+D ...3♥ = MAX, 6 H 2N = INV, 2S2-4H ...3♣ = non-MAX, 5S4+C ...3♦ = non-MAX, 5S4+D ...3♥ = non-MAX, 5-6 H, insufficient playing strength for 4♥ if 6 H ...3♠ = non-MAX, 6 S ...3N = MAX, 5 S ...4M-2 = MAX, 6 M ...4♥ = non-MAX, 6 H, extra playing strength 3♣ = INV, 3-4S2H(3)4+C ...P = non-MAX, 5H4+C ...3♦ = non-MAX, 5H4+D ...3♥ = non-MAX, 6 H ...3♠ = non-MAX, 5-6 S, insufficient playing strength for 4♠ if 6 S ...3N = MAX, 5 H ...4M-2 = MAX, 6 M ...4♠ = non-MAX, 6 S, extra playing strength (...) I suppose one could play something very similar over an identically defined Multi 2♦ opening. For example: 2♦-?: P: allowed 2♥ = P/C OR INV+, 2-S5+H OR (maybe) INV, 1-S4-H ...P = weak w/ 5-6 H (very unlikely that Responder has the INV hand with 2-S5+H) ...2♠ = weak w/ 5-6 S 2♠ = P/C OR INV+, 5+S2-H OR (maybe) INV, 4-S1-H ...P = weak w/ 5-6 S (very unlikely that Responder has the INV hand with 5+S2-H) ...2N+ = 5+ H, either weak or GF. With INV values Responder will assume that Opener is weak, though. ...And if GF options are ignored: ...2N = non-MAX, 5-6 H ......3♣ = INV, P/C .........P = 2-S4+C .........3♦ = 2-S4+ D .........3♥ = 2-S6H .........3♠ = 3 S ......(...) ...3♣ = MAX, 5H4+C ...3♦ = MAX, 5H4+D ...3♥ = MAX, 6 H 2N = INV+, either 2S2-4H or 3+S3+H OR GF, 3-4S2H ...3♣ = non-MAX, 5S4+C ...3♦ = non-MAX, 5S4+D ...3♥ = non-MAX, 5-6 H, insufficient playing strength for 4♥ if 6 H ...3♠ = non-MAX, 6 S ...3N = MAX, 5 S ...4M-2 = MAX, 6 M ...4♥ = non-MAX, 6 H, extra playing strength 3♣ = INV, 3-4S2H(3)4+C ...P = non-MAX, 5H4+C ...3♦ = non-MAX, 5H4+D ...3♥ = non-MAX, 6 H ...3♠ = non-MAX, 5-6 S, insufficient playing strength for 4♠ if 6 S ...3N = MAX, 5 H ...4M-2 = MAX, 6 M ...4♠ = non-MAX, 6 S, extra playing strength 3♦ = GF, 4-M1-OM ...E.g. the simple ...3M = 5+ OM (...)