nullve

Idea: 1♣-1♠; ?: (with Opener's ranges left out) 1N: now also with 1444 or 4H5+m 2♦: now also with 5+S4+H, but no longer with 1444 or 4H5+m ...2♥ ......2♠: now also with 5+S4+H (5-2 or better S fit practically guaranteed) ......2N/3m = ? ......other: as before (say) ...2♠ ......2N = 5S4H (5-2 or better S fit not guaranteed, 4-4 H fit possible) ......3m = ? ......other: as before (say) ...2N ......3♣ = 6+ H ......3♦ = 5s4H (with similar continuations as after 1♣-1♠; 2♥-2N; 3♦ above) ......3♥+ = 6+ S ...(...) 2♥: as above 2♠: no longer with 4+ H other: as in IMprecision / no opinion Ideally, Opener's unBAL range here is smaller than the "16-19" in the 2009 compendium, since invites to 3N are generally no longer available.

There's a somewhat analogous situation in my system after 1♥-1N ("10-21, 5+ H, unBAL"; "5-12, NF") 2♣-2♦ ("Gazzilli": either "13-15, 5H4+O" or "16-18, any"; "8+, relay") 2♥ (12-14, 5H5m or 13.15, 5H4O). I consider Opener's "3-point" range ({rule of 22, rule of 23, rule of 24}) narrow enough that invites to 3N or 4♥ are unnecessary, and I want to be able to get out in 2♠ instead of 2N with 13-15, 4S5H opposite 8-9/10, 3S1-H, just like if 2♥ were Flannery. So the GF relay has to be 2N rather than 2♠. Then, for example: 1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-?: P = 8-9/10, 2 H 2♠ = 8-9/10, 3S1-H 2N = GF relay ...3♣ = 12-14, 5H5C or 13-15, 5H4C ......3♦ = relay .........3♥ = 12-14, 5H5C or 13-15, 2524 ............3♠ = relay ...............3N = 2524 ...............4♣+ = 5H5C ............(...) .........3♠ = 13-15, 1534 (0544) .........3N = 13-15, 3514 (4504) ......(...) ...3♦ = 13-15, 4S5H, no void ......3♥ = anti-SPL C OR relay .........3♠ = 4513 .........3N = 4522 .........4♣ = 4531 ......3♠ = anti-SPL D .........3N = 4522 or 4531 .........4♣ = 4513 ......(...) ...3♥ = 12-14, 5H5D or 13-15, 2542 ......3♠ = relay .........3N = 2542 .........4♣+ = 5H5D ......(...) ...3♠ = 13-15, 1543 (0544) ...3N = 13-15, 3541 (4540) 3m = 8-9/10, usually 2-S1-H6+m Using 2N as a GF relay and and 3m as 2-S1-H6+m actually creates a problem for me when Responder has 8-9/10 and 2155, so I've also tried a couple of other things. But there's no analogous problem in IMprecision, since Responder can't be weak with 2-S1-H4-D6+C.

Ok, np.

I know who my parner, LHO and RHO were, and I think it was played after midnight in May or June about 5 or 6 years ago.

If one starts with 1♦ = modern Precision 1♦ or 2♦ 2♣ = modern Precision 2♣ (so 6+ C) 2♦ = Ekren and then decides that Ekren 2♣ would be more effective, it's tempting to try 1♦ = modern Precision 1♦ or 2♦, but with minor suits reversed, so often 5+ C if unBAL (and less often 5+ D) 2♣ = Ekren 2♦ = moden Precision 2♣, but with minor suits reversed (so 6+ D). Is that what you did? The new 2♦ opening is ok (and identical to IMprecision's), but because 2♦ over 1♦-1M is now a kind of reverse (with respect to Opener's likely long suit, clubs), Opener will usually have one fewer rebid below 2 of his long minor than in modern Precision, so decribing minimum hands without support ought to be even harder. Is that part of the reason your 2♦ opening also includes 11-15 hands with 5D4+C? I'm not sure that solves more problems than it creates, since you could also use the "reverse" into 2♦ over 1♦-1M to show 11-15, 2-M5+D4+C and not be higher. But at least by opening 2♦ instead of 1♦ with this hand type you share your problem with opps (who now face an intermediate strength preempt), which is often a good thing. You also include 11-15, 4M6+D in 1♦ opening, making it even more nebuloous. I don't mind that at all, but standard responses and rebids become unplayable at some point. So in the "Nebulous 1D (SOLVED)" thread my solution (post #26) was a structure with more focus on Responder than Opener on partscore deals. The basic idea was 1♦-?: 1♥ = "S" ...1♠ = 3-S3-H OR MAX w/ SUPP [corrected] ......1N = "4S4-H or 53(32), NF" [corrected] ......2♣ = "weak, either 5S4+C or 5233" OR INV w/ 5 S (Gazzzilli!) [corrected] ......2♦ = "weak, 5S4+D" ......2♥ = "weak, 5S4+H" [corrected] ......2♠ = "weak, 6 S" ......(...) ...1N = MIN, 3-S4H ...(...) 1♠ = "weak Flannery" OR "no major" OR "IJS in a M" OR "any GF" ...1N = MIN, most hands ......P = < GF, no major ......2♣ = GF relay ......2♦ = weak, Flannery ......2M = "IJS" in M ......(...) ...2♣+ = (usually) MAX and such that it's possible to get out in 2M opposite "weak Flannery" 1N = "3-S4H or 35(32), NF" [corrected] 2♣ = "weak, either 5H4+C or 2533" OR INV w/ 5 H (Gazzilli!) [corrected] 2♦ = "weak, 5H4+D" 2♥ = "weak, 6 H" (...) I remember bidding lots of hands with this structure, and it seemed promising, but I know many posters here would like (a lot) more space for relays.

Or, since I've just read the "ACBL Legal Moscito" thread again, an olien-style, not-so-major-oriented "MOSCITO" system. So e.g. if P = normal or "10-14, 5S4+other, then instead of maybe 1♦ = "10-14", either 4-S4-H6+ D, 5D4M, 4+D5+C or 4D(441) 1♥ = "10-14", either 3-S6+H, 3-S5H4+m or 3-S4H5+m 1♠ = "10-14", either 6+ S, 4S5+rounded or 4414 2♣ = "10-14", 3-S4-H3-D6+C other: as above, except that 2♠ is now freed up

A related question: Some years ago (5? 6?) I played a truly remarkable hand on BBO, but I was too lazy to save it on my computer because I thought could always search for it in the Hand Records if needed. And I seem to recall BBO announcing a few weeks or months later that it would no longer store hands indefinitely. So I have long assumed that those details about the hand that I'm now unable to reconstruct, are lost forever. Or is the hand stored on some BBO server after all?

1) P(!!) (even if 3♣ is GF) 2) P (clear at MPs, not so clear if opps are vul at IMPs) 3) X (takeout) But: On 1), did 2♥ promise 4(+) H? Would a raise of 2♥ to 3♥ have been PRE or INV? If PRE, how would South invite with heart support? If via 3♣, would 3♦ by North then promise extras, or would it still be possible to stop in 3♥ via 1♦-(2♣)-X; 2♥-3♣; 3♦-3♥; P? On 2), South's P denied 3 S, right? Then it must be better to bid 2♠(= 2 S) instead of 2N now, whatever 2N shows. On both 2) and 3), Responder's initial pass means he's limited to 10 hcp, so game (particularly, 3N) is already a rather small target opposite a limited opener. So I guess it makes sense to play 2N in competetion after P-1♦ as Scrambling rather than Good/bad. And if 2N over P-1♦; 1♥-(1♠)-P-(2♠); X is Scrambling, then South can double 2♠ and correct 2N/3♣ to 3♦, suggesting 5H4D. If Good/bad, South can also double first and then bid 3♦ (Equal Level Conversion) over 2N, but 3♠ (stopper ask) over 3♣.

The way I deal with the "10+" 1m openings in my system is outlined in post #12 in this thread. So my 1♦ opening doesn't almost guarantee 5+ D, but can also be made with "1445 minus 1 card" (specifically, with 10-15 and either 0445, 1345 or 1435, and with 11-16 and 1444). Superficially, this means that the opening can't be raised as aggressively. But note that if Opener doesn't have either 5+ D or 4441, he will always have 5+ C. So although he can no longer raise 1♦ to 3 with 4-card support only, it's possible to play 1♦-(P/X/1M)-?: (...) 2N = bad PRE D "raise" with either 5+ D or 4D3+C 3♣ = good PRE D "raise" with 4D3+C 3♦ = good PRE D raise with 5+ D (...), where 2N and 3♣ allow the partnership to play in a 5-3 C fit instead of a 4-3 D fit.

Sorry, I should have quoted the NZB manual instead:

So Multi with Jxxxxxx [7 spades] Kx Kx xx is a Brown Sticker, unlike Multi with Jxxxxxx [7 spades] Kxxxxx [6 hearts] --- --- ?

Here are 100 unrestricted deals, for fun: Of these, here are the ones where North may have a Precision P or 1♠ opening: The ones where North may have a Precision P or 1♠ opening and East may pass: The ones where North may have a Precision P or 1♠ opening, East may pass and South has 0-7 hcp: n Q872.A98.Q9754.7 e J54.K76.T862.KJ6 s K.QJT43.J3.T9853 w AT963.52.AK.AQ42 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♥...] n K853.98.A92.K982 e AT964.J64.84.QJ3 s 2.AQT2.JT53.7654 w QJ7.K753.KQ76.AT [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♣...] n J62.KT4.QJT63.J6 e QT94.J9863.9.A75 s 73.Q72.K742.T843 w AK85.A5.A85.KQ92 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♣...] n K76.8632.Q765.K9 e 9.J975.AJT43.A85 s Q43.T4.K8.QT7642 w AJT852.AKQ.92.J3 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♣...] n AQT86.Q7.T972.QT e J43.K532.5.A8642 s K752.JT864.843.J w 9.A9.AKQJ6.K9753 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♥...] The ones where North may have a Precision 1♠ opening (although the 4th one is far too strong IMO): n AJ864.AJ95.A.J43 e K32.KQ82.95.AT65 s T975..KQJT76.KQ8 w Q.T7643.8432.972 n QJ985.7.AT64.A74 e K76.K9865.Q9.Q62 s 2.AT32.J87532.KJ w AT43.QJ4.K.T9853 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-1♦...] n AJT754.Q72..Q732 e 3.A98.QJ87652.AK s KQ86.T43.AK3.965 w 92.KJ65.T94.JT84 n AQT74.KQT98.9.AT e KJ9.J632.KT.QJ65 s 82.A74.AQ86543.9 w 653.5.J72.K87432 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-1♦...] n QJ942.42.A.KQT83 e 875.QJ8.T9764.AJ s T63.K76.KQ2.9652 w AK.AT953.J853.74 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-1♦...] n AQT86.Q7.T972.QT e J43.K532.5.A8642 s K752.JT864.843.J w 9.A9.AKQJ6.K9753 [speechless Spade auction: P-(P)-2♥...]

Good point. But why can I choose total points but not non-best hand?

If East opens 1♦: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp2np3h(GF, 6+ H)p4d(cue)p4np5hp5np6dp7hppp]133|100[/hv] If East opens 1N, maybe: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1np2dp2hp5c(Exclusion RKCB)p5sp5np6dp7hppp]133|100[/hv]

I play 1m-2♥ as 0-4 hcp, 6+ M. (Yes, as Major Flash by Responder. :))

rbforster's Silent Club is something like P = a Precision Pass, 2♣ or 2♦ opening (more or less) ...P = all 0-7 hands unsuitable for 2♦+, I guess ...1♣ = Precision ...1♦ = 8-15, 2+ D ...1M = 8-15, 4+ M ...1N = same as in 1st seat ...2♣ = 8-15, 5+ C ...2x(x>♣) = 3-9, 6+ x ...(...) 1♣-1N/2♥+ = Precision, more or less 2m = freed up I wonder if "Speechless Spade"*, using P = a Precision Pass or 1♠ opening ...P: almost non-existent ...1♣/N = Precision ...1♦ = 8-15, nebulous ...1M = 8-15, 5+ M ...2♣ = 0-7, either 3-S4-H4-D4+C (3334 and 4C4R(32) possible!) or 1-S4C (tries to avoid a 2♠ contract opposite 5 S by not responding 2R) ...2♦ = 0-7, either 3-S4-H4+D3-C (3343 and 4H4D(32) possible!), 2-3S4-H5+D4C (can stand 2♠ on 5), 5+D5+C (can rebid 3♣ if necessary) or 1-S5+H4D (tries to avoid a 2♠ contract opposite 5 S by not responding 2♥) ...2♥ = 0-7, either 3-S4+H3-D3-C (3433 possible!), 2-3S5+H4m (can stand 2♠ on 5) or 5H5+m (can rebid 3m if necessary) ...2♠ = 0-7, 4+ S (4333, 4S4O(32) and 4S(441) possible!) ...(...) 1♠: not a Precision 1♠ opening, so maybe a Precision 2♣ or 2♦ opening?, could be at least an interesting alternative. But maybe the Lorenzo-like responses to Pass are more dangerous than I think. :( (Edit: They are less dangerous if the 1♣ opening includes 8-10 BAL, as in the OP system.) * 'Silent Spade' is already taken: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/39351-bidding-system-designed-by-computer (post #67)

Opener: a) AKx KQx AKxxxx x b) A KQxx AKxxx Kxx Responder: Qxxxx xxx x Jxxx. Good luck reaching a sensible contract in both cases! (IMO the 2♥ reverse is NF opposite a sub-positive Responder (who primarily wanted to get out of 1♦), but then it's impossible to reach 4♠ with a) while stopping in 2♥ (the last playable partial?) with b).)

There's strictly no need to free up the 2N rebid in order to solve this problem. I used to play something close to 1♣ = NAT or 12-14 BAL (w/ transfer responses) 1♦ = NAT, never 12-14 BAL with (1-under) transfer rebids by Opener over 1♣-1R(transfer), 1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠, e.g. 1♦-1♠; ?: 1N = (3)4+ C. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF ...2♣ = same as Pass over 1♦-1♠; 2♣ in standard except that it may contain a standard "courtesy raise" (now superfluous) ......P = MIN, 2- S ......(...) ......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S ......(...) ...(...) 2♣ = (5)6+ D. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF ...2♦ = same as Pass over 1♦-1♠; 2♦ in standard ......P = MIN, 2- S ......(...) ......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S ......(...) ...(...) 2♦ = H reverse, 2♥ = 3c S raise, either with bad-MIN or INV ...2♠ = to play opposite bad-MIN ......P = bad-MIN ......2N = 18-19 BAL, 3 S ......3♣+ = INV, 4+ C ......3♦ = INV, 6+ D ......(...) 2♠ = bad MIN, 4+ S 2N = 18-19 BAL, usually 2 S only (...) and, similarly, 1♣-1♥(=4+ S); ?: 1♠ = 5+ C. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF. ...1N/2♣ = replacing Pass over 1♣-1♠; 2♣ in standard ......P/2♣ = MIN, 2- S ......(...) ......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S ......(...) ...(...) 1N = 12-14 BAL, 2-3 S 2♣ = D reverse 2♦ = H reverse 2♥ = 3c S raise, either with bad-MIN or INV ...2♠ = to play opposite bad-MIN ......P = bad-MIN ......2N = 18-19 BAL, 3 S ......3♣ = INV, 6+ C ......(...) 2♠ = bad-MIN, 4+ S 2N = 18-19 BAL, usually 2 S only (...). So the auction could go either 1♦-1♠ 2♣-2♦ 2♠ (good-MIN, 3 S) or 1♦-1♠ 2♥-2♠ 3♦ (INV, 3S6+D), depending on how much Opener thinks his ♠KTx ♥KQx ♦AKT9xx ♣x is worth after 1♦-1♠. Super simple!

The f-word was accepted.

As a kibitzer at an invisible teaching table with only me present I first wrote the o-word to the Table and got a warning (in English, I believe) for abusive language. Then I said the o-word to the Kibitzers and was expelled from BBO for two minutes. When I logged in again, there was message to me from BBO System Account, saying "Du har blitt utvist for å ha brukt upassende språk.", which I guess best translates as "You have been expelled for using improper language." (The literal translation of 'upassende' is 'unfitting'.) Full disclosure: I only use abusive/improper language when participating in virgosrock's experiments!

Not opening 1N was a big mistake. Now it's either 2N or losing bridge. :)

I haven't, which may have something to do with the fact that HUMs are generally not allowed where I live. (We follow WBF's system policy, more or less.) But here's an idea for a similar non-HUM framework: P = 0-7, any(?) OR 13-16, shapes of type T ...P: rare/unexpected ...1-level: whatever, but never with 0-7 ...2-level: non-BSC bids that are supposed to cover all 0-7 hands that Responder can't comfortably either pass or open 3♣+ with ...(E.g. ...2x = 0-7, 4+ x, no higher-ranking suit ...2N = 20-21 BAL) ...(...) 1-level: whatever, but never with shapes of type T unless 17+* 2♣+: must take care of 8-12 hands with shapes of type T*, where the Opener has 13-16 hcp and shape of type T only if he can stand every 2-level response to Pass. So I guess few balanced shapes can be of type T. * Because of the WBF System Policy's 2.2. b), the Pass opening cannot contain hands with the same shape but more hcp than any 1-level opening. So if e.g. 13-16, 6214 is a Pass opening, then 8-12, 6214 cannot be a 1♠ opening.)

I've played (1♣)-1N as 14-16 BAL for a while and I still think the range is sound. I don't understand why people use a 15-18 range instead of a 15-17 range, either.

Why did you want Challenge a Stranger to be that much simpler than Challenge a Friend?

You can find very authoratitive proofs, not only that 4=5, but also that 3=4 2=3 1=2 0=1, on YouTube. So, by transitivity of =, it would also be correct to overcall 1♠ with [hv=pc=n&s=sha8632dkt73cakt7]133|100[/hv].