nullve

In case it hasn't occured to you: limited 1M openings are not an essential part of strong club (or diamond) systems: So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

What are your other openings?

The 1M range may matter a lot. The point I was trying to make in A) in my previous post is that if the range is very wide (like "10-21") and a shape first relay structure is used, then Responder might keep relaying just in case Opener has, say, "19-21" rather than "10-12". (The alternative seems to be to admit that the relay structure doesn't handle "19-21" hands very well.) This leads to potentially harmful information leakage on bread and butter hands, often with Opener declaring 4M, that can easily avoided by using e.g. an Ambra-style structure instead. Not sure if this was partly a comment to my previous post, but... We can always blast games rather than relay. Still true if the range is "10-21" instead of "10-15"? We also have ways to show a game force raise that has slam interest only opposite a real max Via early relay breaks, right? How would the analogous bidding typically go with Opener: 12 hcp, 5143 Responder: 14 hcp, 3424, assuming the 1♠ range is "10-21"? So the relays only get a lot of use when we are slam interested or have serious doubts about the strain for game.. But with enough to force to game opposite "10-21", Responder can really never rule out slam until he learns more about Opener's strength.

nullve-nullve play 1♣ = "10+, NAT*, unBAL" OR "11-13/17-19/26+ BAL" 1♦ = "10+, NAT*, unBAL" OR "20-22 BAL" 1M = "10-21, 5+ M, unBAL" 1N = "14-16 BAL". * I open 1♣ with 10-15, 3154/4054/4153 and 1♦ with 10-15, 0445/1345/1435, partly in order to be able to use 2♣ as a second, stronger, Gazzilli over 1♦-1M. That in turn makes it easier to handle the huge "10+" range.

Instead of having to agree/define the obvious suit, maybe it's better to play 4♣ as a puppet to 4♦ followed by 4x+2 as a parity key-card ask in x with continuations 4x+3 = even number of key cards in x ...4x+4 = xQ ask ......5x = no xQ ......[5x+1]+ = xQ 4x+4 = odd number of key cards in x, no xQ 5x = odd number of key cards in x, xQ ?

To those who have experience with a shape first symmetric relay structure (such as awm's) over 1M-2♣ when 1M has a standard wide range: A) How do you feel about the information leakage when both hands are fairly minimal but Responder continues to relay for shape just in case Opener is at the top of his range? Ex.: Opener: 12 hcp, 5143 Responder: 13 hcp, 3424 Bidding: 1♠1-2♣2 2♥3-2♠4 3♥5-?, 1 "10-21", 5+ S 2 GF relay 3 4+ D 4 relay 5 5143 using awm's structure. B) Does the loss of a step compared with standard symmetric become a big problem? (I know awm doesn't think so when 1M has a Precision-like range.)

Ditto.

You're talking about the French auction on board 23 in this match. My interpretation: X = takeout 4N = "two places to play", always with both minors unless slam interest 5♣ = preference opposite both minors, NF 5♠ = slam try with spades and a minor, NF 5N = "pick a slam", usually with some doubt about the best strain 6♦ = diamond suit, prefers spades to clubs 6♠ = to play? inviting 7♠ because of the "slow" 5N route to 6♠? (not clear to me which).

Maybe true if all of Opener's rebids are natural, but I doubt you can get a decent version of e.g. Gazzilli or transfer rebids if Opener has to find a rebid on every hand with 12-14, 5M(332).

The SF 1N response typically includes a 3c limit raise and Opener is expected to bid again except with awkward shapes like 5M(332) and 4522/45(31) and no extras. If 'NF 1N' is the 1M-1N structure most Norwegians use when they say they play 2/1, then the 1N response doesn't include a 3c limit raise, so Opener has less incentive to bid again with mildly unbalanced shape like 5M4m22/5M4m(31) and no extras.

The GCC allows 1♣-?: 1♦ = 4+ S. May have longer H unless GF* ...E.g.: ...1♥ = 3(+) S OR 11-13 BAL, 2-3(4) S ......E.g.: ......1♠ = 4+ H ......1N = NAT NF ......2♣+ = XYZ ...1♠ = 4+ H, unBAL ...1N+ = similar to 1N+ over 1♣-1♥ in "Swedish" T-Walsh (where the 1N rebid is 17-19 BAL, 2-3 S) 1♥ = 4+ H. 3- S unless GF. ...E.g.: ...1♠ = 3(+) H OR 11-13 BAL, 2-3(4) H** ......E.g.: ......1N = NAT ......2♣+ = XYZ ...1N+ = similar 1N+ over 1♣-1♦ in "Swedish" T-Walsh (where the 1N rebid is 17-19 BAL, 2-3 H) 1♠ = GF relay 1N = NAT NF, which is similar to the kind of T-Walsh that Welland-Auken play. * Or you can play Flannery by Responder (instead of Reverse Flannery by Responder, which makes more sense in a standard or T-Walsh context) ** This is why the 1♥ response denies 4+ S unless GF.

My NF 1N response includes a garbage 3c raise, so I risk playing 1N instead of 2M on a combined 14-18 count. Is that so bad?

2♦ as 4+ D is part of a competing "standard" scheme where Opener rebids 2M over 1M-2♣ to reject the invitiation with 3c M support. Maybe that's better. I play 1M = "10-21, 5+ M, unBAL" 1M-2♣; ?: 2♦ = "10-12" ...In one partnership: ...2M = the 3c limit raise ...2OM = GF relay ......2♠(M=♠): idle! ......2N+ = relay structure ...4M = to play ...other = GF, 5+ C, unBAL ...nullve-nullve: ...2♥(M=♥) = the 3c limit raise ...2♥(M=♠) = Multiinvite (incl. the 3c limit raise) ...2♠ = GF relay, not very unBAL unless M SUPP ......2N+ = relay structure ...4M = to play ...other = GF, 5+ C, (very) unBAL 2♥+ = "13-21", i.e. GF.

I voted SF, but I prefer NF if I'm allowed to play the 2♣ response as "NAT or Drury" or similar. Well, maybe I prefer NF even with the 3c limit raise in 1N. I often pass GiB's forcing 1N for fear that I will end up in 2N or 3M otherwise. :)

Welland-Auken usually open 1♣ instead of 1M with 5M(332) and 11-13/17-19 hcp. So here we have an undeniably WC pair that can open 1M systemically with 11-13, 5M(332) if they want to, but still choose to open 1♣ most of the time. This suggests that opening 1♣ instead of 1M works quite well for them, although I suspect they have systemic reasons for doing so that don't exist in a "standard" T-Walsh system. (E.g. over 1♠-2♣ = like a standard F1 1N response, but with 1- S if < 10 hcp they play 2♦ = "3+ H" 2♥ = "6+ S" 2♠ = "4+ m" according to their CC, which not only makes the 5233 shape unbiddable but also suggests there will be some violations of Burn's law when Opener has 53(32) and Responder something like 6-9, 13(54).) Outside the ACBL, why risk 1M-1N* 2x**-3M*** P * F1N ** x<M *** 3c limit raise when you're allowed to bid e.g. 1M-2♣* 2♦**-2M *** P. * "NAT, BAL or Drury". Forcing to 2M or game (or, alternatively, to 2M, 3♣ or game) ** ART MIN *** 3c limit raise ? It's true that you can miss a 5-3 M fit if you open 1♣ with 11-13, 5M(332), e.g. after 1♣-[1M-1]; 1M-1N; P, but that's not a big problem in my experience. And maybe it works for similar reasons that * opening 1N instead of 1M with 5M(332); * rebidding 1N instead of 1♠ over 1m-1♥ in standard with 4S4m(32) work (IMO)? It should also be mentioned that the same 5-3 H fit can be found after 1♣*-1♦ 1♥-2♥ P * NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL, incl. 5M(332) ** 4+ H but missed after e.g. 1♠-1N* P. * semi-forcing (or non-forcing) If 18-19 BAL is in 1♣, it's possible to use the 1N rebid as a kind of non-forcing lebensohl, as in 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: (...) 1N = a) "11-13", 2-M6+C and, if M=♥, 3- S b) 18-19 BAL, 2-3 M ...P = 4 M, wants to play 1N opposite b) (and therefore, by bridge logic, opposite a) as well) ...2♣ = to play opposite a) ......P = a) ......2♦-2M = b) ...2♦+: similar to 2♦+ over 1♣-[1M-1]; 2♣, but with a way for Opener to show 18-19 BAL 2♣ = "14-16", 2-M6+C and, if M=♥, 3- S (...).

Idea: A (moderated?) thread where each post is a CC for the poster.

Are you sure the diagram is correct?

Instead of standard Multi 2♣, i.e. 2♣ = Weak 2♦ or strong*, or glen's Wicked 2♣, i.e. 2♣ = Weak 2♦ or Weak 2♠ or strong**, has any of you tried 2♣ = Weak 2♠ or strong*? * not a BSC ** a BSC

In one partnership I played Meckstroth Adjunct not only over 1M-1N but also over 1R-1M/N. (We opened 1♣, "NAT or BAL", with 18-19, 5H(332), btw.) So over 1♥-1♠, (...) 2N = GF, no 5c or longer minor (=> 3♣ = relay (=> e.g. 3♦+ = NAT)) 3m = GF, 5+ m (...) Certainly better than standard, and simpler than Gazzilli.

Then with e.g. Opener: 23 hcp, 5341 Responder: 12 hcp, 2344 the bidding would go 2♣-2N 3♠-large # of NT, instead of e.g. 2♣-2♦* 2♠-2N* 3♦-4♦ * waiting bids ?

Your opponents cant interfere that easily True. Also true if 2♣ (also? instead?) included some weak hand type that you now have to pass with. you can still play 2M from the right hand if you dont have enough to go higher When Responder has 4 M but not enough to force to game, he will usually have to either transfer to 2M and pass (risking a 4-2 M fit) or transfer to 2N (possibly missing a 4-4 M fit) and pass. So will you usually get to 2M when it's right? Getting to/right-siding 2M and avoiding 3M is easy if you open 1♣ with 18-19 BAL and play the right kind of T-Walsh. The second thing is that you can use 2NT rebid after opening 1m for some strong single suited hands or anything you want. Many (most?) T-Walsh players already do that.

Is that because 2NT is either very limited or already forcing to at least 4NT, so that I will never need to bypass 3NT without a fit?

I think the Bird/Anthias book on NT leads suggests that with HHxx vs. (1N)-(3N) it's best to * lead an honour instead of a low card if the honours are connected1; * not lead the suit if the honours are disconnected. So it may make sense to play an opening lead system against (1N)-(3N) where small cards can "never" be from HHxx. Leading from HHx or HHxxx(x...) is a different matter, of course. 1 [Edit:] At least if the led suit is a major. I found an example in the book where low from ♦KQxx was marginally better than the K.

No, 1♣ = NAT or BAL (incl. 5D(332), excl. 5M(332)), 2♦ = 23+ BAL or GF.

Mexican 2♣ is part of Big Bang and its precursor, the Bocchi-Duboin system.