nullve

Overcaller: 13 hcp, 2434 Advancer: 13 hcp, 4234 Auction: (2♦)-? Does your argument still apply?

3N

I played the following as a junior: 1♣ = 11-13 BAL, no major OR 16+ unBAL OR 17+ BAL 1♦ = 11-15, 5 M (exactly) ...1♥ = F1 relay ......1♠ = 5 S ......1N = 5H(332) ......2m = 5H4+m ......2♥ = Flannery ...(...) 1♥ = 11-13 BAL, 4 H OR 11-15, either 6+ H, 4H5+m, 4H(441) or 13(54)* 1♠ = 11-13 BAL, 4S3-H OR 11-15, either 6+ S, 4S5+m, 4144 or 31(54)* 1N = 14-16 BAL 2m = 11-15, 6+ m, no major 2M = weak 2N = 11-15, 5+D5+C Not exactly a strong club system, but if you want to pretend you're playing one, then it helps that the 11-13 NT in 1♣ cannot contain a major (unlike in standard Swedish Club). * Since the 1M opening only promises 3-4c "support" for M, the 2M "raise" should promise 4+ M unless you get a thrill out of possibly violating Burn's law. (I know I did. :))

What if 1♠ is 10-13 with hearts? E.g. 1♣ = as above, but possbily denying 4+ H (or maybe just 3-S4+H?) if 11-13 BAL 1♠ = "10-13, either 4H5+m, 5+H4+m or 1-suited w/ 6+ H" / 11-13 BAL, 4-5 H? 2♣ = "10-13, either 4S5+m, 5+S4+m or 1-suited w/ 6+ S" 2♥ = "10-13, either both minors or 1-suited w/ 6+ D" (=> 2♠ = GF relay; 2N = "bid your longest minor") 2♠ = "10-13, 1-suited w/ 6+ C" other: as above I don't know how to handle the 1♣ opening yet, but without 11-13 BAL, 4-5 H in 1♣ it becomes easier to play the 1♦ response to 1♣ as "hearts or negative"*, as in 1♣-?: 1♦ = "4+ H or negative" ...1♥ = Fantunes 1♦ opening (maybe not w/ 4+ S) or 17-19 BAL or good H "raise" (or ...) ...1♠ = NAT (unBAL?) ...1N = 11-13 BAL, 2-3 H, possibly denying 4+ S ...2♣/2♦/2♠(?)/3♣(?): "as over 1♣-1♥ in standard, but with ranges shifted upwards" ...2♥ = "as over 1♣-1♥ in standard, but always unBAL and with the range shifted upwards"** ...other = ? 1♥ = "4+ S, positive" ...1♠ = Fantunes 1♦ opening ...1N = 11-13 BAL, 2-3 S ...2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠/3♣+: "as over 1♣-1♠ in standard, but with ranges shifted upwards" ...2N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 S (...) * also played by jinksy and phoenix214 in their Fantunes-like system ** Responder needs a way to scramble out of 2♥ on negative hands without hearts.

So, basically, * 1♣ is like a Martian standard 1♣ opening or a Fantunes 1♦ opening in one; * 1♦ is like a Martian standard 1♥ opening; * 1♥ is like a Martian standard 1♠ opening; * 1♠ is like a Martian standard 2♣ opening; * 2♣ is like a Fantunes 2♦ opening; * other openings are like in Martian standard ? Or do you plan to treat Flannery-/Reverse Flannery-type hands differently?

At an invisible teaching table with nullve in all seats (= Secret Bridge Olympics?), yes.

I think balanced invites are a waste of space opposite a nominal 3-point range that is narrower than usual because of not-so-sloppy hand valuation, but I guess that's a tiny minority view. (Which of course makes me wonder, has anyone ever switched to a "pass or bash" paradigm and later switched back?) I think it's best to sign off in a minor via 1N-2♣(Stayman); 2x-3m-1(something); 3m(relay, but forced)-P. The Stayman route puts less pressure on opps, of course, but it also has the bonus that Responder can pass Opener's response with suitable shape. Having a way to invite with a long, good minor looks good on paper, and seems to have been a priority for almost every system designer since Belladonna(?), but is it really that useful in practice? I'm honestly not sure I've reached/avoided a (resp.) good/bad 3N contract the last 10 years (say) because of some gadget that allowed me to show this hand type. Am I alone in this?

Don't forget the 4!

The first hand is more suitable for a negative double than the second one.

Here's a related system I began to think about when working on my latest reply in the Balminnoch thread. Opening structure: (...) 1♣ = "10-15"*, either 5S6+C, 4S5+C, 4414 or "4154 minus 1 card" / "16+ unBAL / "17+ BAL" 1♦ = "11-13 BAL" / "10-15"*, either 6+ D, 5D5C, 4H5D, 4441 or "1445 minus 1 card" 1M = "10-15, 5+ M" 1N = "14-16 BAL" 2♣ = "10-15, 3-S6+C" (...) * maybe 11-16 instead of 10-15 if (4441) The idea is to get a "Precision" 1♦ opening that is easier to handle without messing up the 1♣ opening too much. 1♣-?: 1♦ = 0-7, most (all?) hands / "8+, 4+ H" 1♥ = "8+, 4+ S" Not sure what to do with all the remaining space yet, so for now: 1♠ = "8+, no major" 1N = "0-3", wants to stop in 1N opposite 20-22 BAL* * not possible after 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1N(F) 1♣-1♦; ?: 1♥ = "16+, relay" 1♠ = "10-15, either 4+S2-H or 31(54)" 1N = "17-19 BAL" 2♣ = "10-15, 4315 (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) 2♦ = "13-15", 4 H (rest "415 minus 1 card") 2♥ = "10-12", 4 H (rest "415 minus 1 card") (...) 1♣-1♥; ?: 1♠ = "16+, relay" 1N = "10-15, either 4+S2-H or 31(54)" ...2♣ = GF relay 2♣ = "10-15, 3415 (=> 2♦ = INV+ relay) 2♦ = "13-15", 4 S, rest "415 minus 1 card" 2♥ = "10-12", 4 S, rest "415 minus 1 card" (...) (Notice that Opener rebids much the same way over 1♦ ("hearts or negative") as over 1♥ ("spades")!) 1♣-1♠; ?: 1N = 16+, relay 2♣ = "10-12, 4415 minus 1 card" 2♦ = "10-12, 41(54) minus 1 card" 2♥ = "13-15", 4415 minus 1 card 2♠ = "13-15, 41(54) minus 1 card" (...) Relay structure, with TOSR-style continuations wherever that makes sense: 1♣-1♦; 1♥-?: 1♠ = 0-7 ...1N = "19+, unBAL" / "20+ BAL". F1. ...2♣+ = "16-18, NT defence" (e.g. Astpro) Else: 1N = H+C 2-suiter or H+C+D 3-suiter or 45(40) or 44(41)* ...2♣ = relay ......2♦ = 3-suiter. Continuations as under 3-suiters below. ......2♥+ = H+C 2-suiter 2♣ = H+D 2-suiter 2♦ = BAL: 3433 or 4H(432) 2♥ = S+H reverser 2♠+ = H 1-suiter 1♣-1♥; 1♠-?: 1N = S+C 2-suiter or S+C+D 3-suiter or 54(40) or 44(50)*. ...2♣ = relay ......2♦ = 3-suiter. Continuations as under 3-suiters below. ......2♥+ = S+C 2-suiter 2♣ = S+D 2-suiter 2♦ = S+H non-reverser 2♥ = BAL: 4333 or 4S4m(32) 2♠+ = S 1-suiter * So 44(41)/(50) shapes are split evenly between 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦ and 1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦. 1♣-1♠; 1N-?: 2♣ = D+C 2-suiter 2♦ = C 1-suiter 2♥ = BAL: 4m333 or (32)44 2♠+ = D 1-suiter 3-suiters I haven't put much thought into this, but maybe something like 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-?: 2♠ = SPL S ...2N ......3♣ = 0445 ......3♦ = 0454 ......3♥+ = 0544, zoom 2N = SPL D ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 4414 ......3♥+ = 4504, zoom 3♣ = 1444 3♦+ = SPL C Specifically: 3♦ = 4441 3♥+ = 4540, zoom and, similarly, 1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-?: 2♠ = SPL H ...2N ......3♣ = 4045 ......3♦ = 4054 ......3♥+ = 5044, zoom 2N = SPL D ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 4405 ......3♥+ = 4504, zoom 3♣ = 4144 3♦+ = SPL C Specifically: 3♦ = 4450 3♥+ = 4540, zoom ? Balanced structure, further details 1♣-1♦; 1♥-2♦; 2♥(relay)-?: I'm unable to steal everything from TOSR here, so maybe 2♠ = 4 S ...2N = relay ......3♣ = 4423 ......3♦+ = 4432, zoom 2N = 4 C ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 2434 ......3♥+ = 3424, zoom 3♣ = 3433 3♦+ = 4 D Specifically: 3♦ = 2443 3♥+ = 3442, zoom and, similarly, 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♥; 2♠(relay)-?: 2N = 4 C ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 4234 ......3♥+ = 4324, zoom 3♣ = 4333 3♦+ = 4 D Specifically: 3♦ = 4243 3♥+ = 4342, zoom ?

That the standard Jacoby 2♦ transfer, with super-accepts promising 4+ H, can also be thought of as a Stayman for hearts, is the basis for glen's Jacoby Stayman and what I called Jacoman in this thread.

You're not missing anything and it seems to me that what you're suggesting is becoming more and more common. (In Norway, 3rd highest from 4 is part of "norske (utspill)" ("Norwegian (leads)"), while I've heard 2nd highest, or the highest affordable, from 4 (for greater legibility) being referred to as "overnorske" (""über-Norwegian").) Suits containing 32 are interesting in a style where leads are supposed to be as legible as possible, because apart from the meaning that a lead of either the 2 or 3 (i.e. a low card) has such as odd length, meanings can in principle also be assigned to the different orders in which the 2 and 3 can be played. This (new?) type of secondary signal can also be given at a later stage, e.g. by the opening leader's partner on the lead of a high honour, from a suit containing a different combination of low cards (e.g. 53) if the remaining low cards (in this case, the 4 and 2) are in dummy.

These are brown stickers unless the opening is conventional. But kiwinacol is from New Zealand, so...

Balminnoch with "swapped" 1M responses and my usual idea (in red and blue): 1♣ = "NAT unBAL (5+ C or 4S4C(41)), 17-19 BAL or 10-15, 3154/4153/4054"1 ...1♦ = "4+ H" ......1♥ (or 1♠) = "4+ S or 10-15, 31(54)" ...1♥ = "4+ S" ...(...) 1♦ = "NAT unBAL (5+ D or 4H4D(41)), 10-13 BAL or 10-15, 0445/1345/1435"1 ...1♥ = "4+ S. may have longer H unless GF" ......1♠ = "4+ H or 10-15, 13(54)" ......1N = 10-13 BAL, 2-3 S / bad MIN, 3 S, unBAL ......2♣ = your modified Gazzilli (but also with MIN, 6+D4C) ......2♦ = MIN, 5+D5+C2 ......2♥ = good MIN, 3 S, unBAL / ?2 ......2♠ = bad MIN (incl. 10-13 BAL), 4+ S ...1♠ = "4+ H. 3- S unless GF." ......1N = 10-13 BAL, 2-3 H / bad MIN, 3 H, unBAL ......2♣ = your modified Gazzilli (but also with MIN, 6+D4C) ......2♦ = good MIN, 3 H, unBAL / ? ......2♥ = bad MIN (incl. 10-13 BAL), 4+ H ......2♠ = MIN, 5+D5+C" ...(...) 1 I suppose the 1♣ and 1♦ openings can alternatively be described as "NAT unBAL, 17-19 BAL or MIN with 4154 minus 1 card" and "NAT unBAL, 11-13 BAL or MIN with 1445 minus 1 card", respectively. 2 Swapping 2♦ and 2♥ might be better, because then a superior H fit can be found after 1♦-1♥; 2♦(good MIN, 3 S)-2♥(NAT); P.

After, or instead of, minibridge, how about teaching the small children a game just like bridge, but with simplified scoring and a two-staged auction phase, e.g. North: "clubs" East: "diamonds" South: "spades" West: "diamonds" [ends EW's discussion about which denomination to play in] North: "hearts" South: "spades" North: "notrump" South: "notrump" [ends NS's discussion about which denomination to play in] followed by North: "five" [North is willing to contract for five tricks in notrump] East: "six" South: "eight" West: "nine" North: "pass" East: "pass" South: "double" West: "pass" North: "pass" East: "pass" ?

Let me try again: Suppose Advancer has a) 2 hcp, 1633 b) 6 hcp, 1633. He knows that partner can have e.g. c) 19 hcp, 4243 d) 19 hcp, 5143, so if the style is to respond 3♥ to the double on both a) and b), partner will not now what to do over that with c) or d), and also the partership may be too high already. So even with the (standard expert) agreement that 3♥ is PRE, why not bid * (1♣)-X-1♥; 1N-2♥; P with a) opposite c); * (1♣)-X-1♥; 1♠-2♥1; P with a) opposite d) and e.g. * (1♣)-X-3♥; 4♥-P with b) opposite c); * (1♣)-X-3♥; 3♠-3N; P with b) opposite d) ? 1 It's pointless to rebid 2♥ over (1♣)-X-1♥; 1♠ on a 5-card suit, because there's no way a 5-3 H fit can be missed after (1♣)-X-1♥; 1♠-1N/2♣.

Yes, and the reason is that 3♥ is Law-protected opposite a "normal" takeout double. But don't you play 3♥ as GF opposite 19 BAL? Then you can't jump to 3♥ also on a 6H(322) 2 count. "So unless you are passing". But I am passing, for reasons having to do with LoTT and the fact that partner didn't double 2♥ (for takeout). IMO you've only given (valid) reasons why 2♠ is the second best call.1 1 18 Jul 2017, after reading Gnasher's post: I forgot that X is an option. IMO 2♠ < X < P.

So I won the competition, with 350 out of 400. :) Still: I would have bid 1N at the table on board 1. 2♥ ought to promise 6+ H. I didn't know what I was doing on board 2. I'm not sure the jury knew what they were doing on board 3.

1. 2♣ 2. 3♥ 3. Pass 4. 6♠

I heard the word 'baloney' on CNN yesterday, and my immediate association was a bid of 1y showing a balanced hand, as in the following ('Baloney'?) defence to strong a strong club: (1♣)-1y = BAL, i.e., (1♣)-?: 1♦ = BAL 1♥ = BAL 1♠ = BAL.

What's your rebid structure over 1♦-1M?

Transfer rebids (similar to what I've used over 1♣ = "NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL"): 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: 1♥(M=♥) = "4+ S, unBAL" 1♠ = "5+ C, unBAL" 1N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 M 2♣ = "D reverse" (=> e.g. 2♦ = ART NEG (=> 2M = 3 M, NF)) 2♦(M=♠) = "H reverse" (=> e.g. 2♥ = ART NEG (=> 2♠ = 3 S, NF)) 2M-1 = bad MIN, 3 M OR INV, 3M6+C, 1-suited (=> 2M = to play opposite MIN; 2N = GF relay) 2M+ = 4+ M raise structure Worth mentioning, perhaps: 1♣-[1M-1]; 1♠-?: 1N = usually 5-M2-C and, if M=♠, 3- H. NF. ...P/2♣+ = NAT, so maybe ...P = bad MIN ...2♣ = good MIN, 2-M6+C ...2♦ = good MIN, 2-M4D5C (well, maybe not 2245) ...2♥(M=♠) = good MIN, 1435 ...2M = good MIN, 3 M ...2♠(M=♥) = ? ...2N = INV, 2-M6C, 1-suited ...3♣ = INV, 2-M7+C, 1-suited ...3♦+ = GF, 6+ C, 1-suited (...)

Fisher-Schwartz played I remember wondering why a top pair would waste useful bidding space by having 1m openings with overlapping meanings, but that was before the cheating allegations against them. Then I realised that the choice of opening with this hand type could be used to send a (binary) signal for nefarious purposes. (I don't mean to suggest they actually did.)

I think this "TriBal" scheme, at least when modified so that 1♦ = NAT or 11-13 BAL, is better than standard, but I fail to see how it can be as good constructively as the more common 1♣ = NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL 1♦ = NAT unBAL 1N = 14-16 BAL, where some of Opener's rebid problems over 1♦-1M can be solved by using 1N as ART. But opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ with 11-13 BAL is more preemptive, so maybe that's the main attraction? (Before I googled 'Balminnoch' I thought it might a portmanteau, e.g. of 'BALanced', 'MINimum', 'Or', 'Club' and 'Hand'. But then I realised there was an 'n' too many, and the system just didn't fit.)

Why do pairs think they need a strong 2♣ opening in the first place? I can only think of two reasons: 1) fear of being passed out if they open something else, e.g. 1x; 2) lack of methods after 1x-1y/N. But for pairs using gadgets like Gazzilli or transfer rebids, only 1) remains. So for them, the problem is to determine when it becomes too dangerous to open 1x. And good players understand that that has much more to do with hcp than playing tricks, don't they? E.g. it's more dangerous to open 1♠ on ♠AKJxx ♥AKJT ♦AQx ♣x than on ♠AKQJxx ♥AKJTx ♦x ♣x, although the latter hand has much greater playing strength. FWIW, I don't open 2♣ (strong) on unbalanced hands unless they meet the rule of 31.