nullve

nullve - olegru 5.0 - 5.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:21b2aa9f.2cf3.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493480841&u=nullve

nullve - smerriman 5.0 - 5.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ab911e9d.2c99.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493442417&u=nullve

nullve - wackojack 7.0 - 3.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ad156cec.2b9d.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493334187&u=nullve

Mkgnao - nullve 3.5 - 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a36723c1.29cf.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493135743&u=nullve

1) Yes, another option I show with 2N+ over 2♦-2♥/♠. 2) It's the Pass opening in 1st seat NV. :) (Mentioned in post #3 ) 3) Yes. :( But unlike when responding to Ekren's 2♦, Responder will never choose the wrong major with 2S2H opposite 5M4OM.

This is almost what I (or, rather, nullve-nullve) play, although in 1st seat NV, 2♦ = < Rule of 19, either a) 4S4C(41)* b) 4S5+O, but not 4405 c) 5+S6+H, H always longer / "GF, 5+ S, unBAL" 2♥ = < Rule of 19, either d) 4H4D(41)* e) 4H5+O, but not 4450 f) 5+S5+H, H never longer . ** The (4441) hands are included so that Pass can promise 2+ cards in each suit, but constructive bidding becomes even harder (but not impossible) as a result. Notice that these two openings together almost completely solve the "Ekren problem" when Responder has < INV with either 22 or 33 in the majors, because the bidding will either go 2♦-2♥* P**, * P/C ** 5+ H or 4S4H4+D or 2♥-2♠* P**. * P/C **5+ S or 4S4H4+C My 2♦ opening in 1st seat NV has a frequency of up to 1 in 22 hands, but I like Pass to be an option with 4S5m22. I'm sure you don't mean to say that * 1/3 of the time [(responder has exactly 3 cards in spades) AND (you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit only to find out later that you had better played in a different suit)], because when you end up in 2♠ on a 4-3 fit, which usually happens after 2♦-2♠ P, when Responder couldn't safely respond 2♥ (P/C) with 3S1-H (or 3S2-H, if you allow 2♦ on 4S4H), or after 2♦-2♥ 2♠-P, when Responder couldn't safely rebid 3♣ (P/C) with 3S2-m, there will seldom be 2+ more tricks in 3m than in 2♠, so 2♠ will tend to score equally well.

hijunny132 - nulve 3.5 - 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:60c800d2.2a28.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493173856&u=nullve

phoenix214 - nullve 2 - 8 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:9c3873b2.28db.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493030934&u=nullve

How would you bid with e.g. Opener: 13 hcp, 4333 Responder: 8 hcp, 3433 ?

Filth from a Survivor tourney a couple of months ago: http://tinyurl.com/hqjtwos

nullve - eagles123 6 - 4 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1e4f247d.28de.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493032011&u=nullve

I think the notion of captaincy (and all other intentional language used to describe bidding, for that matter) is ultimately dispensable. E.g.: 1♣-1♠; 2♦-2♠; 3♦-4♦; ?: For example, with Responder as Asker/captain: (...) 4N = extras, 1 or 4 key cards ...5♣ = asking about the trump Q ...5♦ = to play ...5♥ = confirming all key cards, asks about the ♣K, interested in grand slam ...5♠ = confirming all key cards, asks about the ♥K, interested in grand slam ...5N = confirming all key cards, asking about the ♠K, interested in grand slam ...6♣ = confirming all key cards, asking about the ♣Q, interested in grand slam ...6♦ = to play ...(...) (...) Equivalently, with Responder as Teller/non-captain: (...) 4N = extras, 1 or 4 key cards, asking about key-cards ...5♣ = 0-1 or 3-5 key cards, no trump Q ...5♦ = 2 key cards ...5♥ = 1 or 4 key cards, trump Q (or trump Q irrelevant), no ♣K, grand slam "possible"* ...5♠ = 1 or 4 key cards, trump Q (or trump Q irrelevant), ♣K (or ♣K irrelevant), no ♥K, grand slam "possible" ...5N = 1 or 4 key cards, trump Q (or trump Q irrelevant), ♣K (or ♣K irrelevant), ♥K (or ♥K irrelevant), no ♠K, grand slam "possible" ...6♣ = 1 or 4 key cards, trump Q (or trump Q irrelevant), ♣K (or ♣K irrelevant), ♥K (or ♥K irrelevant), ♠K (or ♠K irrelevant), no ♣Q, grand slam "possible" ...6♦ = 1 or 4 key cards, grand slam not "possible" ...(...) (...) * "possible" = possibly good and safely reachable

How preemptive a call is also depends on what it enables partner to do. As an extreme example, I play (sadly only 4-handedly so far) a pass opening in 1st seat NV that promises 2+ cards in every suit. Then partner can treat it like a 0-10 NT (or 0NT opening?!?) and go berzerk in 3rd seat.

I don't have anything in particular against Bergen points, although they're hardly the last word on hand evaluation. (It's not even a hand evaluation method based on "science".) In fact, I already count length points of sorts when deciding when, and what, to open. And in a few regular partnerships where I've played a simple, aggressive form of 2/1 with 14-16 NT, we've agreed that * 1-level suit openers in 1st and 2nd seat must meet the rule of 19 if unbalanced; * (strong) 2♣ openers must meet the rule of 31 if unbalanced. So for a given unbalanced shape, the 1-level suit openings have a 12 hcp range (e.g. 10-21 hcp if (5431) but 8-19 if (6511)), which can be conveniently divided into four equal, narrow subranges. But by using the Rule of 19 and Rule of 31 this way, I'm definitely not trying to argue that true value of a (5431) 10 count is exactly the same as a (6511) 8 count, or that true value of a (5431) 22 count is exactly the same as a (6511) 20 count. I use them because * in practice, if partner forces to game or slam early based on the expectation that I may have a (5431) 10 (22) count, he will rarely be disappointed if it later turns out that I have a (6511) 8 (20) count; * when partner learns about the shape of my hand and which 3-point subrange it belongs to, he will automatically know my hcp range. (E.g. a hand with 5125 shape in the second lowest 3-point range must contain 12-14 hcp.)

Does Bergen or anyone else you know about advocate opening 2♣ with only 22 total (Bergen) points? If not, how are Bergen points relevant?

The most frequent EW distribution seems to be 2362 with West and 2524 with East. So with little else to go on that I can think of, it seems that the ♣K is (much) more likely to be onside and that the correct play therefore is a trump to the ace and another trump. (Bonus: West might have the stiff trump king.)

nullve - jexa_ 6 - 4 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1abebcdd.273a.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492851616&u=nullve

Same here. Does this mean that the 1♠ opening is always unBAL and possibly canapé?

pio_magic - nullve 6 - 4 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b716da7d.2679.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492768986&u=nullve

A bidding system can be either like a natural language (e.g. English), where the meaning of a call/sequence is determined by its use, or like an artficial language (e.g. Esperanto), where the meaning follows from definitions that are entirely up to the inventor of the system. Even a "natural" system like Max Hardy's 2/1 GF should be thought of as an artificial language where the meaning of a 2♣ opening is whatever its inventor says it is. (We can disagree with Hardy about design choices, but not about what 2♣ shows in his system.) In Norway, most good tournament players say the play 2/1, although I suspect only a few of them has ever read relevant books by e.g. Bergen, Hardy or Lawrence. The vast majority are just trying to play what their peers are playing, which happens to be a system that is far removed from American 2/1 dialects. I think the 2♣ opening illustrates this well, because it seems to have evolved from the very old "Halle's 2♣"1, which has a lot in common with the Benji/SEF 2♣ opening. While we forumers can pretend we all speak Natural, what we really speak are different dialects. So the same call made by a American or Norwegian can be false friends, just like the 'rar' (Eng.: 'weird') in Norwegian and 'rar' (Eng.: 'friendly') in Danish. 1 2♣ openers from Halle's 1942 book: a) ♠AKxx ♥AKxxxx ♦K ♣Qx b) ♠KJTxxx ♥Qx ♦AKQx ♣x c) ♠Kx ♥Axx ♦AKQJxx ♣Kx d) ♠AQx ♥Jxx ♦AKx ♣KQJx e) ♠AKT75 ♥AK762 ♦5 ♣Ax [he mentions that Culbertson recommends 1♠ on this hand]

I didn't think of that. :)

Which system would Trump play if he played bridge?

3.3 what?

Can "strength showing" ever mean "range showing"? In Norwegian, "strength" is "styrke", "showing" is "visende" and "styrkevisende" is what a bid would be if it just showed a hcp range, like some fert openings (e.g. 1♦ showing 0-7 hcp and not saying anything about shape) do. So for a Norwegian like me it's tempting to read 4. as implying that two-level ace-asking ferts are allowed.

Easy. 4N (NAT).