nullve

My auction, with opps silent(!!!): 1♦(1)-1♥(2) 2N(3)-3♣(4) 4♣(5)-4♠(6) 5♥(7)-5♠(8) 6♣(9)-6♥(10) P (1) «10+, NATish unBAL or 20–22 BAL» (2) «0+, (3)4+ S» (3) «GF, either 5+D4+H or one-suited with 6+ D” (4) relay (5) 21+, 0463 (6) key card ask with hearts as trumps (7) odd # of key cards, trump Q, ♦K (8) ♣K ask (9) ♣K, no ♦Q (10) contract

Do you think of ODR as an honest ratio? If so, is it always defined? / What ODR, if any, does e.g. [hv=pc=n&s=s65432h432d432c32]133|100[/hv] have?

Form of scoring?

Me: ChatGPT:

2♠ (P/C)

In a system with just a NAT or BAL 1♣ opening, it could be something as simple as 2M = normal non-jump reverse (~ 16-21 in your system?) 3♣ = normal single jump rebid of Opener's suit (~ 16-18 in your system?) 2N = like 3♣, only stronger (~ 19-21 in your system?), although reversing or jump rebidding with as little as 16-17 doesn't seem optimal now that Responder has either 0-6 or (12)13+ hcp. What I do in my T-Walsh system, where 1♣ unlimited but always NAT(ish) or BAL, is to rebid 1N over 1♣-1♠ also on unbalanced ~ 16-18 hands, i.e. hands with roughly (or hopefully) the same playing strength in NT as a 17-19 NT. This turns the 1N rebid into a kind of limited Gazzilli although it's still NF. Reverses and the single jump rebid of Opener's suit can then be about a king stronger than normal, as in 2M = ~ 19+, M reverse 2N = ~ 19+, D reverse 3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited, which is actually not what I play but very similar to scheme used in the Nightmare system, where, in addition, 2♦ = any GF. In a system like yours the obvious tweak would be: 2♦ = any 22+ 2M = ~ 19-21, M reverse 2N = ~ 19-21, D reverse 3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited

With 12 hcp you could use a similar philosophy as when responding to 1M in a 2/1 system with 14-16 NT and 1M-1N SF or NF. For example, if you have a normally sound (rule of 20-ish) opening style on unbalanced hands, then probably the only thing that would stop you from forcing to game is fear that Opener has 11 BAL. So you might decide to require 12 hcp for a 1M opening on BAL hands. Similarly, you could, like you already do, require 12 hcp for a 1♣ opening on BAL hands and force to game with 12 hcp as Responder. 1♣-1N would then be INV opposite the split BAL range 12-13 OR 17-19, and would itself have a range from (6)7 to 11. Or, if you have a quite light (rule of 19-ish) opening style like I have, you will generally not want to force to game with 12 but could be a more aggressive if VUL at IMPs, when it's ok to be in a 35 % game. So 1M-1N now risks missing game with 13 BAL opposite 12. A popular (but IMO dubious) solution is to "upgrade" the 13 hcp in a 5M(332) hand to 14 and open 1N instead. My solution is to try to make the 3-point ranges in my system (like 11-13, 14-16 and 17-19) narrower and less overlapping by using good hand valuation. The basic idea is as follows: Suppose we have two hcp valuation methods A and B, A being more accurate than B, that both have the property that the value of an ace, a king, a queen and a jack are worth a total of 10 hcp, as in Milton Work. Then by using A on the hands lying in the 3-point ranges of B, new ranges appear that are wider and overlapping. In particular, 11-13/14-16/17-19 using B could become (say) 10-14/13-17/16-20 using A. Hence the ranges using A (which we have assumed is the more accurate method) are narrower and less overlapping, so pass-or-blast opposite a 3-point range becomes a more comfortable strategy. Do you mean the unbalanced range in 1♣-1N?

Ok, but why is he wrong? My interpretation of this applied to the sequence (1♦)-X-(P): 1♥ = a) 0-6, 3+ H* b) 7-8, 4+ H** * "[the Herbert Negative] is usable on if the suit to bid has at least three cards" and "[if] the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, [then the step is] not biddable" ** "the suit to bid may be the four card in a 7-8 point hand" If my interpretation above is correct, then 1♥ was the systemic bid on all three boards and Siniscalco could comfortably pass with ♠Q72 ♥KQJ2 ♦92 ♣AQ52 on board 129, knowing they had at least a 7c fit. So Siniscalco had ♠A6543 ♥KJ63 ♦9 ♣AKT on board 115 and didn't raise. He bid 1♠ didn't, he? (And why not?) Forquet's raise with ♠987 ♥AKJ ♦53 ♣AKJ87 on board 32 still looks weird (2♥ could be on a 3-3 fit), but maybe he was worried about missing game if he passed and felt that 2♥ was the lesser lie. And they did reach 4♥, a dubious contract that was also reached at the other table after P-(1♦)-X-(P) 1♥-(P)-2♣*-(P) 2N-(P)-3♥-(P) 4♥-(P)-P-(P) * another "lesser lie" sugggesting that also Silodor was worried about missing game? .

The exact ranges may depend on how you like 2N as a contract. For example, it makes sense for 1♣-1N to have a lower limit of 6 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 6 BAL opposite 19 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 17-18 BAL, say after 1♣-1N; 2N(INV (typically with 17-18 BAL?))-P. Similarly, it makes for sense for 1♣-1N to have an upper limit of 11 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 12 BAL opposite 13 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 11-13 hcp, say after 1♣-1♠; 1N-2N(NAT INV opposite 11-13); P. Personally I like to design my system so that I can quite comfortably "pass or blast" instead of having to play 2N after a declined invite. Then the only BAL 1♣-1N range that makes sense is 7-12, I think. (I "pass" (respond 1♠, then pass 1N) with 6 and "blast" (respond 1♠, then force to game) with 13.) Yes, the wrong-siding is annyoing.

Are you sure Sinisicalco's 1♥ advance on board 32 (or D'Alelio's on board 40 (see of the match)), was not a Chiaradia-style Herbert negative, described in this article by P. E. Garrisi?

But bidding systems evolve, and in one version of Roman Club it seems like 1♣ (followed by 2♣ and 2♥) was the correct opening with this type of hand. (You can check these notes on Dan Neill's webpage.) So if that was the version they were supposed to play, then they would gain absolutely nothing by opening 2♥ on that deal. But exclusion advances to doubles (see e.g. deal 50 in ) were also part of Roman Club at some point, which partly explains how they could get away with doubling on hands like this. (It's the exclusion advance, not the double, that shows tolerance for unbid suits.) Why don't you mention exclusion advances in your article? Or do you?

Are you sure about that?

(Hand diagram reconstructed by me.) So here we are to believe that Belladonna and partner bid 2♥-P and not e.g. 1♣(1)-1♦(2) 2♣(3)-2♦(4) 2♥(5)-P (1) a) 12-16 BAL b) 17-20, 4+C5+other, not 3-suited c) 21+, any (2) ART negative (3) b) (4) relay (5) 5+ H [so like a Roman 2♥ opener, only stronger] ?

Convention cards for some pairs playing 1♥-2♠ as a WJS in the 2022 Bermuda Bowl: Hans-Hung (Australia) Lee-Wai (China Hong Kong) Sze-Chiu (China Hong Kong) Levin-Roll (Israel) Bakke-Brogeland (Norway) Hult-Bertheau (Sweden) Wrang-Nyström (Sweden) Gawrys-Kluklowski (Switzerland) Piedra-Zimmermann (Switzerland) Levin-Weinstein (USA1)

Would many deals like that be of great interest? If so, how do you think the auction really went?

Not every good player thinks it's a good idea to start cuebidding at the five-level. For example:

One possibility: 1♥-1♠ 3♦-3♠(1) 4♠(2)-4N(3) 5♦(4)-6♥(5) 7♠(6)-7N(7) P (1) 6+ S (2) raise, often flawed (3) RKC (4) 1 or 4 key cards (5) ♥Q ask* (6) ♥Q (7) contract * it's a common agreement between Norwegian players that 6♣/♦/♥ over 4N(RKC(♠))-5♦ asks for a 3. round control in the bid suit.

From the Blue Club thread: You left the thread at this point. Before I buy your book I need to know if you really believe that they chose to not have the normal Blue Club auction 1♣-1♦ 1♥-1♠ 2♦-2♠ P on this deal. I'm sure you know that bidding is not always recorded accurately on Vugraph here on BBO. But maybe vugraph operators were much better back then?

I don't know, but I also don't know why you think this has to be a problem sequence if you play constructive raises.

Maybe you were lucky West didn't pass 1N: [hv=pc=n&s=sa5hkj75dt743ck53&w=skt872ht3daj865c7&n=sqj93haq62dcajt62&e=s64h984dkq92cq984&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1sp1npp?]399|300[/hv] How should the auction have proceeded in that case?

Medlem av BBO (Bridge Base Online) eller BBF (Bridge Base Forums)? Jeg googlet meg fram til denne brukerveiledningen for BBO, på norsk: https://www.bridge.no/var/fckeditor/bridgeno/file/PDF/diverse/2020/Manual%20BBO.pdf Brukerveiledning for BBF, på engelsk: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=help Håper det hjelper!

In the Kokish-Kraft system, a 5c M system with 12-14 NT, 1♥-1♠; 1N-2♥ = "Non-constructive (spades worth mentioning, perhaps to avoid finishing in 1NT)" .

In Acol it would make sense to bid 2♥ even with 53(32), allowing Opener to pass with 5H(332), especially 2533, and correct to 2♠ otherwise.

FSF is GF in Acol nowadays?

Acol or 5cM?