nullve

Leading low from AQxx in dummy puts pressure on RHO if he has Kx.

I thought I invented the Roman Spade (based on Roman Club) a few years ago. Roman Spade: 1♣ = 11-13 BAL OR "10-21", 4+ D, unBAL, real canapé (=> 1♦ = 4+ H; 1♥ = 4+ S, 1♠ = GF relay) 1♦ = "10-21", 4+ S, unBAL, real canapé (=> 1♥ = Herbert; 1N = GF relay) 1♥ = "10-21", 4+ H, unBAL, real canapé (=> 1♠ = Herbert; 1N = GF relay) 1♠ = 17-19 BAL OR "16-21", 4+ C, unBAL real canapé OR very strong ...1N = to play opposite 17-19 BAL ......P = 17-19 BAL ......2♣ = "16-21", 4+ C, unBAL, real canapé (=> 2♦ = F1 relay) ......2♦+ = very strong ...2♣+: didn't get this far 1N = 14-16 BAL 2♣ = "10-15", 4+ C, real canapé (=> 2♦ = F1 relay) 2♦+ = whatever, just not Roman

ty, broze and organisers! :)

nullve - broze 9 - 7 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:23adf355.415d.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1495725394&u=nullve

I don't think the overcall structure in 1) is playable when x=♠ without a good rescue system over (1♠)-X-(XX*), * "10+" or similar so this is something I've been working on. Here's what I've come up with so far: (1♠)-X-(XX)-?: P = "C+D" or "(5332)" ...(P) ......1N = catchall .........(P) ............P = "C+D" ...............(X) ..................P = catchall .....................(P) ........................XX = "4D4C" or 5D5C ........................2♣ = "C+D", C longer ........................2♦ = "C+D", D longer ..................(...) ............2♣ = "5C(332)" ............2♦ = "5D(332)" ............2♥ = "5H(332)" ......2♣ = 5+ C, couldn't safely bid 1N ......2♦ = 5+ D, couldn't safely bid 1N ......2♥ = 6+ H ......(...) .........(X) ............P = "4D4C", 5D5C or "5C(332)" ...............(P) ..................XX = D PREF opposite 4D4C .....................(P) ........................2♣ = "5C(332)" ........................2♦ = "4D4C" or 5D5C ..................2♣ = C PREF opposite 4D4C ............XX = "C+D", D longer ............2♣ = "C+D", C longer ............2♦ = "5D(332)" ............2♥ = "5H(332)" 1N = "C+H" or "4H4D" ...(P) ......P = catchall .........(X) ............P = "4H4C" ............XX = "C+H", H longer ............2♣ = "C+H", C longer ............2♦ = "4H4D" ............2♥ = 5H5C ......2♣ = 3-H3-D5+C1 ......2♦+ = P/C ...(X) ......P = catchall .........(P) ............XX = "4H4C" or 5H5C ............2♣ = "C+H", C longer ............2♦ = "4H4D" ............2♥ = "C+H", H longer ......XX = 3-H3-D5+C ......2♣+ = P/C 2♣ = "D+H" (not 4H4D) OR 3-H3-D6+C ...(P) ......P = catchall .........(X) ............P = 3-H3-D6+C ............XX = "D+H", H longer ............2♦ = "D+H", D longer ............2♥ = 5H5D ......2♦+ = P/C ...(X) ......P = catchall .........(P) ............P = 3-H3-D6+C ............XX = "D+H", H longer ............2♦ = "D+H", D longer ............2♥ = 5H5D ......2♦+ = P/C 2♦ = 3-H3-D6+D 2♥ = 6+H3-D3-C (...) 1 Nice to be able to play 2♣ with 5C(332) opposite 4H4D(32), especially 2443. Scare quotes are used when a call may be a "least worst lie". For example, Advancer might want to treat 3343 as 4D4C initially.

I don't disagree with any of this when applied to 2) and 3). But at least in 1) I'm not talking about a simple P/X inversion, so although it's true that opps will gain space on hands where the bidding starts (1x)-X instead of (1x)-P(std), the hope is that they will still suffer a net loss of space on hands where the bidding goes (1x)-X/2♣+ instead of (1x)-P(std). I also think that Responder will pass over (1x)-P/X fairly often regardless of overcall structure, so with 2♣+ = PRE already (for the sake of experiment) I had to define P and X so that decent constructive bidding would still be possible afer (1x)-P/X-(P). That seemed intuitively easier if I let P/X be "strong"/"weak", respectively, instead of e.g. keeping P "normal" by overloading the double. (I must admit I haven't worked this out in much detail yet.)

broze - nullve 7 - 9 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:bd430433.3f10.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1495472678&u=nullve

broze posted the first 16 board challenge, and I accepted before realising it was a 'best hand' challenge. Is there a way to cancel it now? I haven't played any of the boards yet.

Three kinds of "strong pass"-based overcall structure I've been contemplating at some point, but not all at once until now: 1) Very informal testing (with nullve in all seats at a teaching table) suggests that something like (1x)-?: P = opening strength, unsuitable for 1y/1N X = < opening strength, unsuitable for 1y(/1N)/2♣+ (so like a "fert") 1y = normal overcall 1N = "14-16 BAL". Could also include a weak option (and still not be a BS) if 1x is ART 2♣+ = < opening strength, PRE, possibly ART might be playable (and even effective as well as fun), but obvously more so if x=♣ NV vs. V than if x=♠ V vs. NV. 2) If 1♣ is strong, then (1♣)-?: X = like a WOS 1♣ openng P/1♦+ = like WOS P/1♦+ openings is a non-BS defence and therefore a way to (semi-jokingly) play a WOS (like Regres) legally in most jurisdictions. 3) Against some 2-level artificial preempts like Multi I've often wondered if it would be better to base the overcall structure on (2x)-?: P = opening strength, unsuitable for [2x+1]+ X = < opening strength, unsuitable for [2x+1]+ [2x+1]+ = something, in the hope that we'd be * not obviously much worse off if Overcaller has less than opening strength, i.e. not even after opps (2x)-X; * much better off when Overcaller has opening strength. ------ Thoughts?

Thanks. :)

mullve - sieong 8 - 8 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a670a83f.3d17.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1495255744&u=nullve

sieong - nullve 6.5 - 9.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:9f7f9fa8.3c4e.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1495169403&u=nullve

Check out North's bidding at sieong's table on board 4! :)

nullve - nige1 9 - 7 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:71ca3c9e.3a24.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1494931386&u=nullve board 12: Understandably, my robot partner didn't keep a club to give declarer a losing option in the 2-card ending.

nige1 - nullve 8.5 - 7.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:0f5157b9.39f7.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1494911893&u=nullve board 10: I should have played the ♣J like nige1 did instead of the 2, but how did he get it right after that? :( board 13: Why didn't GiB finesse diamonds? I thought it might have had something to do with my childish diamond switch until I saw what happened at nige1's table.

nige1 - nullve 7 - 9 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4520876e.3918.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1494816205&u=nullve

Instead of 4♦(ORKC, hence S/I+)-?: 4♥ = would reject a S/I ...4♠ = RKC ......Now either ......4N-5♦ = (reduced scale of) RKC responses (ending in 5♦) ......or ......4N-5♥ = (full scale of) RKC responses (ending above 5♦) ...5♦ = to play 4♠-5♦ = would accept a S/I, (full scale of) RKC responses (ending in 5♦) perhaps it's better to play 4♦(ORKC, hence S/I+)-?: 4♥ = would accept a S/I, RKC ...4♠-5♦ = (full scale of) RKC responses (ending in 5♦) 4♠-5♦ = would reject the S/I, (full scale of) RKC responses (ending in 5♦) ?

nullve - nige1 9.5 - 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2eefd0ea.38b6.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1494774078&u=nullve

I would have doubled 1♦. (Ideal shape, out of range for 1N.) I already hate 2♣ on a 5-card suit for much the same reason that I hate standard Precision's 2♣ opener, but 2♣ on 5C(332) makes things even worse, as those 5 clubs will then behave more like 4 trumps wrt. LoTT.

1N (11-16). The lack of spade stopper is irrelevant.

I hope to make 3♠+4♦+2♣ or 3♠+3♦+3♣, and by winning the lead in hand, as nige1 suggests, I make sure I can play 3 rounds of diamonds to establish the suit if necessary.

I'm toying with (1♦*)-?: * nebulous, 1st seat P = a) 10+, like a Precision 1♦/2♣/2♦ opening in terms of shape (11-13 or 17+ if BAL) b) very strong hand ...X/1♥+ = "T-Walsh"? X = weak hand unsuitable for 2♣+. Maybe 0-10 BAL if NV vs. V? :) 1M = normal 1N = 14-16 BAL 2♣+ = weak preempts? Yes, the double is probably suicidal when V vs. NV (at least!!).

X. 2N from partner is then "two places to play".

Opener: 12 hcp, 5314 Responder: 8 hcp, 1453 1♠-2♦ 2♥*-P * scrambling ?

Opener: 12 hcp, 5314 Responder: 8 hcp, 1453 1♠-2♣ 2♦-P ?