nullve

Only 12 cards.

Another idea: 1M-[1M+1](= INV+ relay); ?: 1M+2 = "10-13", 5+M3-OM4+m OR "14-17", 1-suited ...1M+3 = GF relay ...other: don't know, but the fact that Opener has something resembling a Muiderberg-type hand if "10-13" might be useful 2M = "10-13", 1-suited ...P = allowed with 1- M! ...2M+1 = GF relay ...other = ? other: same as before

I've never quite understood how you survive when Responder has < INV values, but here are two ideas: I) 1♠-?: 1N = your INV+ relay 2♣/♦ = same as in the Welland-Auken system, but with all INV hands removed 2♥ = freed up The point is that if the 2m responses work for Welland-Auken, then these more limited 2m responses to your more limited 1M openings should work at least as well and probably better. 2) Using the 1N/2♣ responses to 1♥ the same way as the 2♣/2♦ responses to 1♠, respectively. So over 1♥, something like P = normal 1♠ = INV+ relay 1N = "5-8, 2- H" or "9-10, 1- H" or "bad 3c raise" ...2♣ = "3+ S" (similar to 2♦ = "3+ H" (1-under transfer) over 1♠-2♣) ......(...) ......2♥ = "5-8*, 3-S2H" or "bad 3c raise" ......(...) ...2♦ = "3-S6+H" (1-under transfer) ...2♥ = "2-S5H4+m" (Muiderberg) ......P = "5-8*, 2 H" or "bad 3c raise" ......(...) ...(...) 2♣ = "9-10, 2 H" (must have a way to explore a S fit after this) 2♦: freed up 2♥ = "constructive 3c raise" (...) * the "point" of the 2♣ response?

What if ...2N(6+ M, 1-suited)-?: 3♣ = strong relay (+ 2 symmetric) ...3♦ = high singleton/void or 6M2(32) ......3♥ = relay .........3♠ = 6M2(32) ............3N = relay(!) .........3N+ = high singleton/void ...3♥ = middle singleton/void ...3♠ = 6M322 or 7M222 ......3N = relay(!) ...3N+ = low singleton/void 3♦ = weak relay (uncertain about best game) ...Something like: ...3♥ = 6M133 or 6M(322) ......3♠ = wants to avoid 3N opposite 6M133 .........3N = 6M(322) .........4♣ = 6M133 ......3N = to play opposite 6M133 ...3♠ = 6M313 (=> 3N = to play opposite 6M313) ...3N = 6M331 ...4M = 7+ M (...) ?

If we're talking about ranges with the same lower limit, then I agree with all of this. But it seems to me that "9-15" (Moss-Grue Precision?) is more like "11-17" (Polish Club) than "11-15" (classic Precision) in terms of the ability to bid 1M-4M, the need for an artficial rebid structure over 1M-1♠/N, etc.

If you mean that ranges such as "11-15", "11-17", "11-19" and "11-21" all have different character, then I agree. But I think that has more to do with other aspects of the 1M range than just its upper limit. If the range is continuous (e.g. "11-21", but unlike benlessard's "11-14 or 18-22"), then the width is probably what matters the most. For example, my 1M opening/overcall ranges are "10-21"/"8-19", respectively, which means I can use essentially the same continuations in both cases. (For example, 2♣ over (1♦)-1♠-1N is Gazzili, but with the strong option starting at "14" instead of "16".)

I think you meant to write

Not what you'd expect from a regular poster in this forum, was it? :) The "standard" framework was supposed to be broad enough to include systems with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N, too. Sorry if that wasn't clear. :( But anyway, I agree with you to the extent that if the standard framework is split into e1) standard with only natural rebids over 1x-1y/N e2) standard with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N, then my ranking becomes e1) < a) < b) < c) < d) < e2).

I'm sure there are good reasons for preferring either a standard system or a strong club system to a strong diamond system, but it would be interesting to hear how people would rank the following frameworks, a) strong club, limited 1M openings b) strong club, standard 1M openings c) strong diamond, limited 1M openings d) strong diamond, standard 1M openings e) standard (= wide-ranging quasi-natural 1m openings, wide-ranging natural 1M openings), by imagining picking the best possible system within each. My own ranking right now: a) < b) < c) < d) < e).

Well, here's a MIN/MAX-showing Ambra-like structure that resolves more or less like +2 symmetric: 1♥ = "5+ H", MAX w/ 5S5H possible 1♠ = "5+ S", MAX w/ 5S5H impossible 1M-2♣ = GF relay 1M-2♣; ?: 2♦ = MIN, 3- OM ...2♥ ......2♠+ = A(M) 2♥ = 4+ OM ...2♠ ......2N = MAX*, not 5S5H .........3♣ ............3♦+ = B(M,OM) ......3♣ = 5S5H (so MAX/MIN if M=♥/♠, respectively) .........3♦ ............3♥+ = C(M,OM) ......3♦+ = MIN*, B(M,OM) 2♠+ = MAX, A(M) * Maybe better to switch MAX and MIN here? A(M): 2♠ = 4+ D ...2N ......3♣ = 5M5D / ? .........3♦ ............3♥+ = C(M,♦) ......3♦+ = B(M,♦) 2N = 1-suited 3♣ = 5M5C / ? ...3♦ ......3♥+ = C(M,♣) 3♦+ = B(M,♣) B(M,y): 3♦ = 5+M4+y, high shortage, not 5M5y 3♥ = 5+M4+y, even shortage ...3♠ ......3N = 5M4y22 ......4♣ = 6M5y11 ......4♦ = 7M4y11 ......etc. 3♠+ = 5+M4+y, low shortage, not 5M5y I.e. something like 3♠ = 5M4y31 3N = 6M4y21 4♣ = 6M4y30 4♦ = 6M5y20 4♥ = 7M4y20 etc. C(M,y): 3♥ = 5M5y, high shortage 3♠ = ? [available for 5M4y04 or 5M4y40, if necessary, although there might be a better way to bid these shapes] 3N+ = 5M5y, low shortage. So maybe the answer to your question is "no, not necessarily"?

Maybe 1♦*-?: * strong 1♥ = "5-7", any / "8+", 4+S3-H, not 4333 ...1♠ = "8+" relay [edit, 13 May 2018: This makes no sense, should be "19+", unBAL / "20+ BAL".] ......1N = "5-7" (yuck) ......2♣ = "8+", S+D 2-suiter ......2♦ = "8+", S 1-suiter ......2♥+ = "8+", S+C 2-suiter ...1N = "17-19 BAL" ...2♣+ = "16-18", unBAL ("NT defence"?) 1♠ = "0-4", any / "8+", 3-S4+H, not 3433 ...1N = "17-21 (quasi)BAL" ......P = "0-4", at least no 5+c major ......2♣+: symmetric with 2♣+ over 1♦-1♥; 1♠ on positive hands, but with some bids doubling as weak transfers. ......In more detail: ......2♣ = "0-4", either 5+ D / "8+", H+D 2-suiter ......2♦ = "0-4", 5+ H / "8+", H 1-suiter ......2♥ = "0-4", 5+ S / "8+", H+C reverser ......2♠ = "8+", 5+H5+C ......2N = "0-4", 6+ C / "8+", 5+H4C, S shortage ......3♣ = "0-4", 6+ D / "8+", either 2522 or 2434 (see 2-suited scheme below) ......3♦+ = "8+", 5+H4C, D shortage ...2♣+ = not sure yet, but maybe based on a NT defence? 1N = "8+", either S+H 2-suiter or 3-suited ...2♣ ......2♦ = 3-suited (not sure how to continue) ......2♥+ = S+H 2-suiter 2♣ = "8+", D+C 2-suiter 2♦ = "8+", D 1-suiter 2♥ = "8+", (4333) 2♠+ = "8+", C 1-suiter, where the 2-suited scheme is just like in TOSR except that it also takes care of any 4x4y(32), y<x, as follows: 2♥ = 4x5+y (as in TOSR) or 4x4y23 ...2♠ ......(...) ......3♣ = 4x5y22 (as in TOSR) or 4x4y23 .........3♦ ............E.g. ............3♥ = 4x5y22 ............3♠+ = 4x4y23 .........(...) ......(...) (...) 3♣ = 5x4y22 (as in TOSR) or 4x4y32 ...3♦ ......E.g. ......3♥ = 5x4y22 ......3♠+ = 4x4y32 ...(...) (...), and 1♣*-(1♠)-?: * strong P = same as 1♥ over 1♦-(P) above ...X = same as 1♠ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above ...1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above X = same as 1♠ over 1♦-(P) above ...1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) above 1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♦-(P) above ?

Many of you seem confident that Responder will bid again over 1♠-1N; 2♥ on anything that is likely to produce game opposite a 5422 16 count, e.g. xx Kxxx AJxx xxx or x Kxx AJxxx Qxxx.

But you don't want to play 1N when Responder has 6+ H? Idea: If you know a good strong diamond system where 1♦*-(P)-?: 1♥ = A 1♠ = B 1N = C etc., * defined the same way as your strong 1♣ opening then you can play "system on" opposite an imaginary 1♦ opening in that system, i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-?: P = A X = B 1N = C etc.

I would open the remaining hands with a canape preempt* (2♥) in my 2/1-like system. * It's perhaps not worth noticing that my canapé preempts = cr-ee-eam my p-p-pants.

A Gazzilli-free limited 1M version of what I play in my 2/1-like system: 1♠-1N; ?: P = MIN, 5S3-H* 2♣ = 4+ H (as in your "modified" Gazzilli, but without the strong hands) ...2♦ = INV+ relay ......2♥ = MIN ......2♠+ = MAX 2♦ = MAX*, 5S3-H4+m ("Muiderberg") 2♥ = MAX, 6+S3-H 2♠ = MIN, 6+S3-H 2N+ = *, where MIN and MAX are supposed to feel like 3-point ranges, as in MIN = meets the rule of 19, but not the rule of 22 (so e.g. 9-11 hcp if 5152, but 11-13 hcp if 5233) MAX = meets the rule of 22, but not the rule of 25 (so e.g. 12-14 hcp if 5152) if more faith is put in 'rules of N' thinking as a hand evaluation tool than is probably justified. (Is a 5152 10 count really worth as much as a 5233 12 count at NT? I doubt it.) So instead of 1♠-1N; 2♥-2♠ = PREF, possibly with as much as 11 or even 12 hcp, which puts a lot of pressure on Opener if he has "14-15", the bidding might go either 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♠ = PREF, to play, 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠ = PREF, to play or 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♠+ ... game. * MIN hands with 5M5+m have to go somewhere. I currently pass 1M-1N with 9-11,5M5m (with mixed results!), but I've also considered including this hand type in the 2♦ rebid and play 1♠-1N; 2♦-?: P: allowed 2♥ = 5+ H, to play opposite 2-3 H ...P = 2-3 H ...2♠ = 1- H 2♠ = to play 2N = GF opposite MAX, relay ...3m = MIN, 5 m ...3♥ = MAX, 4+ C (=> 3♠ = 5+ H) ...3♠ = MAX, 2-H4+D ...3N = MAX, 3H4+D 3♣ = P/C

For me it's important that the lower limit for 1M openings matches the 1N range (as in rule of 19 openings + 14-16 NT IMO) so that Opener can pass 1M-1N on all balanced hands that are too weak for a 1N opening. So even though I'm very comfortable with playing a wide ("10-21") 1M range in my 2/1-like system, and the strong club opening allows me to use a narrower, potentially easier-to-handle, "9-15" range, I wouldn't be able to handle that range the same way without changing the 1N range first. So default for me is to play rule of 19 1M openings + 14-16 NT, the same as in my 2/1-like system. Btw, KQJxx KJxx xxx x contains only about 9 hcp the way I count (using tenths), and so doesn't meet the (or my) rule of 19.

Is the 'CP' part what my now destroyed brain thinks it is?

Have you considered structures (other than Ambra's) of the form 1M-2♣; ?: 2♦ = MIN, denies shape of type T ...2♥ = relay ......2♠+ = R(M) 2♥ = shapes of type T 2♠+ = MAX, denies shape of type T, R(M), where R(M) is a symmetric relay structure and MIN/MAX is defined in terms of hcp, QP, controls or similar? I don't play this myself, but I do like to limit Opener's hand before shape is resolved, since he's going to declare 4M a lot of the time and I want to avoid unnecessary information leakage. Also, transpositions to more standard symmetric should be possible in many cases. E.g. the bidding might go 1♠-2♣ 2♦*-2♥ 2♠**-2N 3♦***-3♥ 3♠**** * MIN ** C or 3-suited *** 2-suited, H shortage **** 5134 instead of (e.g.) 1♠-2♣ 2♦*-2♥ 2N**-3♣ 3♦***-3♥ 3♠****. * C or 3-suited ** 2-suited, H shortage *** 5134 **** MIN

1. Overcall methods tend to be very crude even at the top level, so even a 1♣ opening may have considerable disruptive value. Also, conventions like T-Walsh and Gazzilli make it easier to handle lighter openings and responses. (E.g. instead of 1♣-1♥ ("10-21", 3+ C \\ 5+, 4+ H) 2N (17-19 BAL, 2-3 H) and 1♥-1♠ ("10-21", 5+ H \\ 5+, 4+ S) 2♦ ("10-17", 3-S4+D), the bidding might go 1♣-1♦ ("10-21", 2+ C \\ 0+, 4+ H) 1N (17-19 BAL, 2-3 H) and 1♥-1♠ ("10-21", 5+ H \\ 5+, 4+ S) 2♦ ("10-15", 3-S4+D), respectively, using what might be a typical NAT-or-BAL 1♣/unBAL 1♦ system with rule of 19 openings, 14-16 NT, T-Walsh and Gazzilli.) So those could be a couple of reasons. 2. One possible reason is of course that it may not be entirely obvious that a light opening style is better, given that many of the world's best pairs, like Levin-Weinstein and Lauria-Versace, can be so successful with their book-sound, rule of 20-ish, opening style. Even recent BB winners Moss-Grue, who when not vulnerable (i.e. when they play a version of Precision) seem to open all unbalanced 9 counts and all balanced 10 counts, including beauties like 972 KQ42 Q62 K85 (1st seat, board 19, BB-RR8), QJ KJT84 QJ7 987 (1st seat, board 1, BB-F1) and the upgrade(?) 94 KJ4 AT982 JT3 (1st seat, board 30, SF4), actually have a very sound opening style when vulnerable (i.e. when they play a 2/1-like system). E.g. on board 26, BB-SF2, Grue passed in 2nd seat with --- AJ832 AJT942 72, which is pretty extreme.

2♥ = Major Flash w/ 10-13 2♠: freed up

I just don't understand why 3N has to show willingness to play 3N doubled (as well as undoubled) in order to be natural. And if it doesn't, why should the preempter say that he expects controls in the side suits?

Why is bidding 3N (= to play) when you really want to play 3N (undoubled, at least) a psyche?

Or maybe Precision is like the ship of Theseus.

I heard the exact same music in the background when CNN's Will Ripley was reporting from Pyongyang this morning.

So 2♣ over 1♦-1M/N is currently showing the intermediate 1-suiters w/ 6+ C? Then how about 1♦ = same as now but excluding "10-15, 1-suited w/ 6+ C" and including "11-15, 3-suited w/ short C" (makes 1♦ NAT) ...1M/N = same as now ......2♣ = "11-15, 3-suited w/ short C" ......other = same as now ...other = same as now 2♣ = "11-15, 3-suited w/ C" or "10-15, 1-suited w/ 6+ C" ...2♦ = relay (same as now?) ......2♥ = "11-15, 3-suited w/ H" (as in Roman Club, but guaranteeing C) ......2♠ = "11-15, 3-suited w/ short H" (as in Roman Club) ......2N/3♣ = 1-suiters w/ 6+ C (as in one Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with "10-15" instead of "16-19") ...(...) other = same as now (so 3♣ is PRE) ? Should be GCC legal.