nullve

Suppose someone's Garbage Multi in 1st seat NV is defined as 0-7 hcp and either 6M3-OM, 5M4+m3-OM or 5M(332), which is what many Norwegians actually play when they say the play Garbage Multi, since they hardly ever use it with 7+ M or 5+M4+OM. Am I wrong to say, for the sake the of discussion, that the opening is frequently made with 5M4+m? (I'm making a statement about the opening as opposed to defining it.)

To those who play X of Multi as (13-15?) balanced or strong: Suppose the bidding went (2♦)*-X-(P)** * Multi, frequently 5M4+m ** to play opposite 4+ diamonds . Would Advancer's position be interestingly different from the one over (2♦)*-X**-(P) * Weak Two * (13-15?) balanced or strong (I know, noone actually plays the double this way against Weak Twos) ? It seems to me that he would have to worry about violating Burn's law on partscore deals in both cases.

What did North's pass over 2♦-(X) mean?

I think the biggest problem with the structure is that Opener has no way of showing a sixth club naturally below 3N. But it's not that easy in standard, either. For example, even if 3♣ shows 6+ C over 1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠, if it's F1 (NF), then Opener cannot bid this way with a minimum (maximum) reverse. So here's a more artificial structure: 1♣-1♥; 2♥-?: P: allowed (remember, Responder could have nothing) 2♠ = 5+ S, NF ...P = MIN, 2 S ...2N = MAX, 4 H, F1 ......3♣ = sign off .........P = 2-S4H .........(...) .........3♠ = 3 S .........(...) ......3♦ = GF relay .........3♥ = 6+C4H .........3♠ = 3 S .........3N = 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL) ......(...) ...3♣ = MIN, 4 H, no tolerance for S ......P = < GF, C tolerance ......3♦ = GF relay .........3♥ = 6+C4H .........3♠: does not exist .........3N = 5C4H (so 1435/0445) ......(...) ...3♦ = 6+C5H, F3♥ ...(...) ...3♠ = MIN, 3 S ...(...) 2N = INV+ relay ...3♣ = MIN, 4 H ......P = was INV only, C tolerance ......3♦ = GF relay .........3♥ = 6+C4H (and 2- S?) .........3♠ = 3 S .........3N = 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL) ......(...) ...3♦ = 6+C5H, F3♥ ...3♥ = MAX, 6+C4H (and 2- S?) ...3♠ = MAX, 3 S ...3N = MAX, 5C4H2-S (or 1435/0445 if 2425 is always treated as BAL) 3♣ = 4 S, to play (...) Responder will be able to learn about Opener's range and approximate shape without bypassing 3N. All 5-3 and 6-2 spade fits can be found easily, if not always below 3N. For example, the bidding could go 1♣-1♥ 2♥-2N(1) 3♣(2)-3♦(3) 3♥(4)-3♠(5) 4♦(6) (1) INV+ relay (2) MIN reverse (3) GF relay (4) 6+C4H (and 2- S?) (5) 6+ S (6) cue agreeing S .

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the structure, either. They wasted an enormous amount of useful bidding space with their style of accepting transfer responses to 1♣. Just imagine what they could have done by accepting also on inverted NT hands with 2-3 M, as in the Swedish style of T-Walsh! That would free up the 1N rebid, for starters, and you could even play 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: (...) 1N = "clubs" 2♣ = Odwrotka-like ...2♦ = 0-7, any ...2♥+: as over Odwrotka 2♦ in your system (...) . In the 2002 version the ladder was probably something like this: 11-15: 1♣-1x; 2♣ 16-18: 1♣-1x; 2♦-2♥; 3♣ 19-21: 1♣-1x; 3♣ 22+: 1♣-1x; 2♦-2♥; 3♦(ace ask) I don't think they took any risk on the 16-21 hands that modern standard bidders don't already take, and they seem to have been better placed on the 19-21 opposite a misfitting nothing hands. Do you really need 1♣-1M; 3♦ as ~16-20, 5+C4D3M? I think I saw a top player (Zia?) on Vugraph using this sequence for the GF one-suiter recently. Seems like a much better use of the bid than Mini-Splinter! I don't think the number of rebids (P(!),2♠,3♣(+?)) used on weak hands have necessarily changed compared to standard (P(?),2♠,2N). Well, there are many posters on BBF who think a reverse should be forcing in standard even if all Responder wanted was to escape from 1♣ (say, with xxxxx-xxx-Qxxx-x), but I'm certainly not one of them. I'm not sure I understand. I believe hands the GF hands that would rebid 2♦ are precisely the hands that would open a GF 2♦ in more recent versions of their system and that the reverses are limited by this and probably have a range very similar to reverses in standard systems. Standard methods over reverses pretty much assume that Responder has positive values for his response. For example, if Responder could go through a lebensohl-like 2N to signal weakness with nothing (as opposed to ~5-6 hcp), Opener would not know when to bid on with a maximum. The INV+ relay is meant to solve this problem, although some might still find the ranges ~17-19 and ~20-22 uncomfortably wide.

P

The notes doesn't say anything about the sequence 1♣-1♦; 1♠, but if the 1♠ rebid were some kind of Gazzilli there would probably have been a note about it. Yes, there seems to be a (big) hole in the system if the notes are accurate. However, I had a look at their 2002 Bermuda Bowl system CC notes to CC where, according to a new Note 16, Then I went back to Note 16 to the 2001 card and saw this: It's hard to believe that they intentionally left 2♠ undefined, so maybe a more accurate note would have read or something like that. To answer your question: Assuming the way they bid hands in the ~17-22 range was something like 1♣-1x; 2♦-2♥; 2♠: with 5+C4+D 1♣-[1M-1]; 2OM: with 5+C4+OM 1♣-1♠; 2M: with 5+C4+M 1♣-1x; 2N: with a C 1-suiter in the ~20-22 range OR (x=M only) some kind of strong raise 1♣-1x; 3♣: with a C 1-suiter in the ~17-19 range I think they would have done well to use 2N by both players as an INV+ relay (instead of, say, lebensohl) over the reverses. E.g.: 1♣-1♥; 2♥-?: P: allowed (remember, Responder could have nothing) 2♠ = 5+ S, NF ...P: ~17-19, 2 S ...2N = usually ~20-22, F1 ......3♣ = sign off .........P = ~20-22, 2-S4H .........(...) .........3♥ = 5 H, stronger than if bid directly over 2♠ .........3♠ = ~20-22, 3 S .........(...) ......3♦+ = NAT (and mostly) GF ...3♣ = ~ 17-19, no tolerance for S ...(...) ...3♥ = 5+ H, NF ...3♠ = ~17-19, 3 S ...(...) 2N = INV+ relay ...3♣ = ~17-19 ......P = was INV only, C tolerance ......3♦ = GF relay ......(...) ...3♦+ = ~20-22, NAT 3♣ = 4 S, to play (...) * or anyone playing a simple T-Walsh system where 1♣ contains all strong balanced hands in a certain range, so that Responder has to respond on virtually anything

From Note 16 it looks like 1♣-1R; 2♣ is 11-16. Using 2♣ as Mexican was my suggestion, since I knew you don't like a strong balanced option in 1♦ like they had. They were able to stop in 1N after 1♦*-1M**; 1N***-P. * NAT unBAL or 18-19 BAL ** (3?)4+ OM *** 18-19 BAL (and 2-3 OM?) and also use 2♣ as an Ekren-like opening. Are you talking about the sequence 1♣-1x; 2♦?

A double here has always included balanced hands too strong for a 1N overcall. It's just that GiB erroneously alert it as "Takeout double -- 3-5 ♣; 3-5 ♦; 3-4 ♥; 2- ♠; 12+ total points", which makes it seem offshape with this hand.

The system Bocchi-Duboin played in the 2001 Bermuda Bowl: convention card notes to convention card Obvious tweak to make it resemble your system more: 1♣: either 12-13 or 23+ if BAL 1♦: always unBAL 1N = 14-16 BAL 2♣ = 17-19 BAL (the easiest way to make 1♦ unBAL) 2♦/♥/♠ = ? 2N = 20-22 BAL (since you don't like Multi)

In helene_t's version, 1N is always (12-14 or 18-19) balanced, iirc. I suppose you could play 2m as NF (to play?) opposite 11-13 but GF opposite 17-19 over that. In my version, 1N is more Gazzilli-like and either balanced with 11-13 or 17-19 OR unbalanced with either "10-12" or "16-18". Over 1♣-1♠; 1N, Responder will currently pass 1N with all 0-6 hands and bid 2♣ on all unbalanced GF hands with primary diamonds, but I suppose 2♣ could be made to also include 0-6 hands with 6+ D that intend to pass Opener's otherwise GF relay (2♦).

Suppose we call a card a 'quasi-keycard (QKC)' if it is either a keycard (KC) or the trump Q (TQ). Then between A: not having a clue how many KCs partner has and whether he has the TQ B: knowing how many KCs partner has and whether he has the TQ and there are at least C: knowing whether partner has many QKCs in the context of the bidding so far D: knowing partner's QKC parity E: knowing partner's KC parity and whether he has the TQ and I think that from Asker's perspective, A < C < D < E < B. So over 4N, if that's the initial key card ask, maybe T=♣: 5♣ = few QKCs in context ...P = thinks too many QKCs are missing ...5♦ = KC ask ......5♥ = even # of KCs .........5♠ = TQ ask ............5N = no TQ ............6♣+ = TQ ......5♠ = odd # of KCs, no TQ ......5N+ = odd # of KCs, TQ ...(...) 5♦ = many QKCs in context and in fact an even # of KCs ...5♥ = TQ ask ......5♠ = no TQ ......5N+ = TQ ...(...) 5♥ = many QKCs in context and in fact an odd # of KCs but no TQ 5♠(+) = many QKCs in context and in fact and odd # of KCs and the TQ T=♦: 5♣ = few QKCs in context but an even # ...5♦ = thinks too many QKCs are missing ...5♥ = TQ ask ......5♠ = no TQ, hence an even # of KCs ......5N+ = TQ, hence an odd # of KCs ...(...) 5♦ = few QKCs in context but an odd # ...P = thinks too many QKCs are missing ...5♥ = TQ ask ......5♠ = no TQ, hence an odd # of KCs ......5N+ = TQ, hence an even # of KCs ...(...) 5♥ = many QKCs in context and in fact an even # of KCs ...5♠ = TQ ask ......5N = no TQ ......6♣+ = TQ ...(...) 5♠ = many QKCs in context and in fact an odd # of KCs but no TQ 5N(+) = many QKCs in context and in fact and odd # of KCs and the TQ T=♥: 5♣ = even # of KCs ...5♦ = TQ ask ......5♥ = no TQ ......5♠+ = TQ ...(...) 5♦ = odd # of KCs, no TQ 5♥ = odd # of KCs, TQ T=♠: 5♣ = 0 or 3 KCs ...5♦ = TQ ask ......5♥ = no TQ ......5♠+ = TQ ...(...) 5♦ = 1 or 4 KCs ...5♥ = TQ ask ......5♠ = no TQ ......5N+ = TQ ...(...) 5♥ = 2 or 5 KCs, no TQ 5♠ = 2 or 5 KCS, TQ ?

In my version the bidding would go 1♣-1♠* 1N**-P*** * helene_t's trick: does not include an invite opposite the split range 11-13(min)-or-17-19(max) * includes both 11-13 BAL and 17-19 BAL! *** 0-6 on the hands you mention, and Responder would have little incentive to pass 1♣ even if the opening didn't include 23+ BAL or GF hands.

From that other thread: This is strikingly similar to stuff you sometimes see over 1♣-1♦ in T-Walsh!

What I do in my (T-Walsh) system (and I'm sure much of the same can be done in Dutch Doubleton or Polish Club): Relevant openings: 1♣ = "10+, NAT-ish or 11-13/17-19/23+ BAL" (so truly unlimited) 1♦ = "10+, NAT-ish or 20-22 BAL" (so truly unlimited) 1M = "10-21, 5+ M, unBAL" 1N = "14-16 BAL" (like in your system) 2♣: like (a version of) Multi 2♦ but with the only strong option being unBAL GF hands with primary hearts 2♦ = "canapé preempt anchored on spades OR unBAL GF with primary spades" Note that Opener is well placed with a strong hand after both 2♣-3M(P/C) or 2♦-3♠(PRE). Let me sketch how I'm able to play the 1m openings as truly unlimited. I've mentioned many times that I play kind of switched 1M responses to 1♦ that allows a certain (PREpareD* and preparATORy**)*** 1♠ rebid 1♣-1♦; 1♠ = "4+ S or 10-15, 31(54)" 1♦-1♥; 1♠ = "4+ H or 10-15, 13(54)", * It is prepared since I have to open 1♣ (not 1♦) with 10-15, 3154/4054/4153, and 1♦ (not 1♣) with 0445/1345/1435. ** It is preparatory since it's a way a longer suit can be shown later *** PREDATOR is such a nice acronym that I'm tempted to use it although I'm not sure what the 1♠ rebid preys on which in turn allows (among other things) the use of 2♣ over 1♦-1M as a second, stronger Gazzilli. The Gazzillis 1♣-[1M-1]; 1N (NF!): includes most unBAL "16-18" (rule of 25 or better, < rule of 28) hands with < 3 M as well as 17-19 BAL with 2-3 M. 1♣-[1M-1]; 2♦: includes most unBAL "19-21" (rule of 28 or better, < rule of 31) hands 1♦-1OM; 1N (NF!): includes most unBAL "16-18" (rule of 25 or better, < rule of 28) hands as well as 20-22 BAL with 2-4(!) M 1♦-1OM; 2♣: includes most unBAL "19-21" (rule of 28 or better, < rule of 31) hands, then makes it easy to reserve 1♣-1R; 2N+ and 1♦-1M; 2N+ for unBAL "22+" (rule of 31 or better) hands. I also use something analogous to two Gazzillis both over 1♣-1♠/N and 1♦-1N but I won't go into any detail here.

I play a mixture of Gazzilli and transfers over 1♠("10-21, 5+ S, unBAL")-1N("5-12, NF"): P = "10-12, 5S3-H" (would reject a game invite in notrump) 2♣ = "10-15, 4+ H (a 2-under transfer) OR 16-18, any" ...2♦ = "8+, most hands, GF opposite 16-18" ......2♥ = "10-12" (would reject a game invite in hearts) ......2♠ = "13-15" (would accept a game invite in hearts) ......2N+ = "16-18, RS" ...2♥ = "5-7, PREF opposite 5S4H" OR "8-10, 1-S3H" ......P = "10-15, 4+ H" ......2♠ = "16-18, 3- H, most hands" ......2N = "16-18, 4+ H" .........3m = 3H5+m1-S, NF .........(...) ......(...) ...2♠ = "5-7, PREF opposite 5S4H" OR 5-7 TP, 3(4) S ...2N+ = "5-7, usually 1-S2-H, NAT" 2♦ = "13-15, 5S4+m3-H" (Muiderberg 2♠-like) ...2♥ = 5+* H, NF ......P = 2-3 H ......2♠ = 1- H ...2♠ = to play ...2N = GF relay ...3♣ = P/C ...(...) 2♥ = "13-15, 6+S3-H" (a 1-under transfer) 2♠ = "10-12, 6+S2-H" 2N+ = "19-21, RS" where RS is my usual home-grown relay structure. One idea behind this is to avoid 2N and unLawful 3M contracts as much as possible and have auctions such as a) 1♠-1N; P b) 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-P or 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P c) 1♠-1N; 2♥-2♠; P instead of the standard auctions d) 1♠-1N; 2m-2N; P e) 1♠-1N; 2♥-2N/3♥; P f) 1♠-1N; 2♠-2N/3♠; P, respectively. * The one thing I like about original Bart is being able to separate weak 2-S6+H from weak 2S5H hands at the two-level after 1♠-1N; 2♣. To do something similar without Bart I use the Ambra-like 1♠-2♦ = "hearts" 1♠-2♥ = "diamonds or (in my case an extremely) weak raise" and include some weak hands with 6+ H (especially those with 1- S, which can be a nightmare after 1♠-1N; 2♦-2♥; 2♠(1- H)) and invitational hands with 5+H2S in the 2♦ response as well. Then over 1♠-2♦; 2♥(NF), P = weak w/ 6+ H 2♠ = INV w/ 2S5+H, NF (...) .

nullve-nullve: 1♠(1)-2♣(2) 2♥(3)-2♠(4) 3♦(5)-3♥(6) 3N(7)-4♠(8) P (1) "10-21-ish, 5+ S, unBAL" (2) "NAT (GF), not-too-unBAL (GF) or LR+" (3) "13-15-ish, says nothing about shape" (I used to laugh at this kind of system as a junior!) (4) GF relay (5) 12-14, 5S5m (6) relay (7) 5S5C2-D (8) to play Here, Responder is giving up over 3N knowing that 6♠ might be good opposite a perfecto like AQxxx x Qx AQTxx. One reason I play this system is that I can stop in 2♠ after 1♠-2♣ 2♦*-2♠** P * contains all "10-12" hands ** LR and not leak anything about Opener's shape. Those are two good things.

Me: Chatgpt:

In what sense?

Which is why I now play (a version of) Gazzilli.

Our basic system was 2/1 GF except rebid. I guess we rarely responded 1N with 12 we actually thought of as 12. But the only reason we had for requiring 14+ hcp if 5S4C3R was that Opener should then be willing to show the shape with 3♠ (GF) over the invite 1♠ -1N [2R-1] -3R, which didn't promise more than 4c support. I suppose he could do that with only 13. So replace '11-13', '14-17' and '14+' above with '11-12', '13-17' and '13+', respectively, if you like. The 13-17 range for Opener's 2♠ bids is still narrower than the corresponding 11-15 (or even 10-15 or 11-16) range you often see with Gazzilli. I can understand the a priori arguments against having the weak raise in 1N, but who can honestly say it doesn't work well in practice? Accidents are really super-rare IMO. The (2/1-like) Ambra system uses an ambiguous 2♥ response (GF except rebid with diamonds OR a weak raise) instead, so apparently Garrozzo was not a big fan. I prefer to have the limit raise in 2♣ so I can stop in 2M (after 1♥-2♣; 2♥-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P --- 1M-2♣; 2♦-2♥ and 1M-2♣; 2♥-2♠ are GF relays). I actually hate 3-level invitational jump shifts, at least the way they are played by GiB and sadly also by most human bridge players. I think their basic meaning should be 'we have game unless you have a misfitting minimum'. Only a small fraction of then hands that GiB jumps with would qualify.

Only with 14+*. With 11-13* and 5134 Opener must pass 1N. * assuming a rule of 20-ish opening style

In one partnership I played something like 1♠-1N; ?: P = 11-13, either BAL or 5S3-H3-D 2♣ = 5S4+D, not exactly INV if exactly 5-5 / 14+, 5134 ...2♦ = < INV, PREF opposite 5S4D ......P = < INV, 4+ D ......2♥ = INV, H fragment (so 5341 or 5350) ......2♠ = 14-17, 5134 (5035 possible?) .........P = < INV, S PREF opposite 5S4D .........2N = NAT INV .........3♣/♦ = < INV, C/D PREF resp. .........(...) ......2N = INV, 5S4D ......3♣ = GF (18-21?), 5143/5044 ......3♦ = GF, 5S5D ......3♥ = GF (18-21?), 5341 ......3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5134 (5035 possible?) ......3N = GF (18-21?), 5242 ...(...) 2♦ = 4+ H, not exactly INV if exactly 5-5, not 6+ S unless < INV / 14+, 5314 ...2♥ = < INV, PREF opposite 5S4H ......P = < INV, 4+ H ......2♠ = 14-17, 5314 (5305 possible?) .........P = < INV, S PREF .........2N = NAT INV .........3♣/♥ = < INV, C/H PREF resp. .........(...) ......2N = INV, 5S4H ......3♣ = GF (18-21?), 5413/5404 ......3♦ = GF (18-21?), 5431/5440 ......3♥ = GF, 5S5H ......3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5314 (5305 possible?) ......3N = GF (18-21?), 5422 2♥ = 6+ S, usually < 4 H if < INV ...2♠ = < INV ......P = < INV ......2N = NAT INV ......3m/♥ = NAT, F1 ......3♠ = GF, strong S ......3N = suggestion ......(...) ...(...) 2♠ = 14-17, 5224 ...P = < INV, S PREF ...2N = NAT INV ...3♣ = < INV, C PREF ...(...) 2N = NAT INV (usually 17-18 BAL, I think) 3m = INV, 5(+?)S5m 3♥ = INV, 5(+?)S5H 3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5224 3N = GF, 5S5C (maybe show fragment first with 5S5C(30)?) and something very similar over 1♥-1N.

In my case it's because I've been in this position a zillion times before. Haven't you?

Practical vanilla 2/1 auction: 2N(1)-3♥(2) 3♠(3)-4♣(4) 4♠(5)-4N(6) 5♦(7)-5♠(8) P 1) 20-21 BAL 2) 5+ S 3) usually 2-3 S 4) 4+ C, slam interest 5) usually 3 S 6) RKC 7) 1 or 4 key cards 8) sign off