nullve

1), 2), 3)

Same here. But this style works a lot better if the 1N response to the double does not promise, nor even suggest, a stopper in Opener's suit, because then Advancer can usually bid 1N instead of 2m on a 4-card suit. (The exception is when he is too weak for 1N.)

What would Opener do with MIN, 5S1-H? (I would have thought of that before responding 2♥.)

Playing a standard system where 1-of-a-suit openings meet the rule of 20: 1),3): 3♥ 2): 1♥(!)

X

3N

The problem is that 1♦ response is 0+, not 7+ like the 1♥ response in Polish Club.

You will sometimes get to unmakeable 2N and 3♥ contracts after common invitational sequences such as 1♠-1N; 2♥-2N; P and 1♠-1N; 2♥-3♥; P when you could have stopped in 2♥ or 2♠ using different methods, e.g. after 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-P or 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; P playing awm-style Gazzilli. There's also more than a one trick difference between (10)11 and 15, so you'd expect some of those 2N and 3♥ contracts to fail for that reason alone. The situation is (even) worse in standard 2/1, of course, since 3♥ over 1♠-1N; 2♥ is hardly more than a courtesy raise, at least when vulnerable at IMPs.

I don't play any wide-ranging rebids in my 2/1-like system, at least not in the usual sense. E.g. this is what I play over 1♠("10-21, 5+ S, unBAL")-1N("5-12, NF"); ?: P = "10-12", 5S3-H 2♣ = "10-15", 4+ H OR "16-18", any [similar to awm's Gazzilli] 2♦ = "13-15", 5S3-H4+m 2♥ = "13-15", 6+S3-H 2♠ = "10-12", 6+S3-H 2N+ = "19-21" The 2♣ rebid is wide-ranging in some sense, but over 1♠-1N; 2♣, 2♦ = "8+", but not 1-S3H if "8-10" ...2♥ = "10-12" ...2♠ = "13-15" [the reason why Responder shouldn't have "8-10", 1-S3H] ...2N+ = "16-18" 2♥ = 5-7, PREF opposite 5S4H / "8-10, 1-S3H" ...P = "10-15" ...2♠+ = "16-18" 2♠ = "5-7", PREF opposite 5S4H OR "4-6", 3 S 2N+ = "5-7", usually 1-S2-H, which avoids problems with the standard or Precision 2♥ rebid that stem from the wide range. The structure is somewhat incomparable with the standard 2/1 rebid structure, though, since 1N doesn't include a 3c limit raise and thus doesn't even have to be semi-forcing. It also certainly isn't perfect. E.g. I hate passing 1N with 5S5m (when "10-12" is supposed to be 9-11 hcp), but I can't think of a similar structure where bidding is that much better. The Muiderberg-like 2♦ rebid will occasionally lead to unLAWful or even stupid 3m contracts, as with 13 hcp, 5341 opposite 7 hcp, 1435 after 1♠-1N; 2♦-3♣(P/C); 3♦-P. Yuck! The point is just that there seems (to me) to be playable rebid structures (over fairly standard as well as Zel's non-standard respones) using no wide-ranging NF rebids (and no wide-ranging rebids in the usual sense), although these structures may come with problems of their own.

3♣ if PRE, else pass.

Maybe Bannon is? After all, "Darkness is good" and "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power". Btw, what would Vadercare look like?

In a couple of partnerships I've played something close to 1♣-[1M-1] = "0+, 4+ M" 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: 1M = a) 11-13 BAL, either 2-3 M or 4M3331 b) "10-18" (rules of 19-27), 3 M, unBAL c) "13-18" (rules of 22-27), 4+ M d) 17-19 BAL, 4-5 M ...P = "0-4" ...1♠ = "5-12, 4+ S" ......P = 11-13, either 4333 or (optional with) 3S2H ......1N = a) with 3-S3-H or b) w/ "10-12", 3- S ......2♣ = "13-15", 3-S3H5+C ......2♦ = "16-18", 3H4D5+C ......2♥ = 11-13, 3433 ......2♠ = a) w/ 4(432) or 5(332) b) w/ "10-12", 4 S ......2N = 17-19, 3433 ......3♣ = "16-18", 3H6+C, 1-suited ......3♦/3♥/4♣/4♦/♥: "same as over 1♣-1♥ in standard 2/1" ......3♠ = "13-15", 4S3H5+C (I think) ......3N = ? ......4♠ = "16-18", 4S3H5+C (I think) ...1N = "5-12, 4 M, NF" ......P = a) w/ 2-3 M or b) w/ "10-12" ......2♣ = "13-15", 3M5+C ......2♦ = "16-18", 3M4D5+C ......2M = 11-13, 4M333 ......2OM = "16-18", 3M4OM5+C ......2N = 17-19, 4M333 ......3♣ = "16-18", 3M6+C, 1-suited ......3♦/♥/♠/4♣+ = "same as over 1♣-1M in standard 2/1" ......3N = ? ...2♣+ = XYZ stuff (...) 1N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 M (...) 2M = a) "10-12" (rules of 19-21), 4+ M b) 11-13 BAL, not 4M3331 (...), which is really just Swedish T-Walsh (i.e. handtypes a) and b) in 1M, except 4M333) with some obvious twists. (E.g. why play 3M/4M instead of 1M with 17-19 BAL, 4-5 M opposite subpositive values ("0-4")?) 1 The idea was (is) that hands with 11-13, 4M333 will sometimes be a huge disappointment if in 2M over 1♣-[1M-1].

Why doesn't Opener's 1♥ rebid include more hand types?

But one I can't remember having seen before. Very nice!

I have the feeling that many who are more than willing to play wide-ranging NF rebids by Opener such as 1x-1y; 2z(z<y) = "10-15, 4+ z" (or even 1x-1y; 2z(z<y) = "11-18, 4+ z", as in standard 2/1), would consider a 1N opening with a similar range, e.g. 1N = 11-16 BAL, to be dubious at best. What good reasons could they have?

Standard bidders sometimes lose a 4-4 S fit after (1♦)-1♥-(P)-1N because Advancer thinks/fears that a 1♠ advance would promise 5+ S; or a 5-3 H fit after (1♦)-X-(P)-1N, because a 2♥ rebid would not show a Flannery-type hand, but be strong. I don't know what's best of X and 1♥ when playing with a pick-up partner, but in my regular partnerships I've always made sure that (1m)-1R-(P)-1M = 4+ M, F1, partly in order to solve problems like this. So with those partners: 1♥. X (takeout)

1., provided X of 4♣ is takeout.

He may have read Foundations of Geopolitics by this snuggle lump, since they both seem to admire Julius Evola.

Maybe the ABA allows T-Walsh? (I don't think they award ACBL masterpoints, but....) Helene has a nice trick, 1♣-1N = NAT, not enough to invite opposite 12-14 bal. but strong enough to force to game opposite 17-18* bal., which allows 1♣-1♠; 1N = (12-14 or 17-18*) bal. 1♣-1♠; 2N = 19-20 bal. * ranges adjusted to fit a system with 15-16 NT

Your 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ openings are common ways to solve problems associated with a natural rebid structure. I don't seem to have these problems (or new ones worth mentioning) in my artificial structure over 1M("standard")-1♠/1N. Yes, even though, paradoxically, * a 2♣ opening showing either a Weak 2♦ or a strong hand is not a brown sticker; * a 2♣ opening showing either a Weak 2♥, a Weak 2♠ or a strong hand is not a brown sticker. But a 2♣ opening showing either a Weak 2♦, at least a king above average strength (i.e. 13+ Milton Work) with 6+ S or a strong hand would not be a brown sticker. So how about 1♠ = standard, but not "13-15", 6+ S 2♣ = a) Weak 2♦ b) "13-15", 6+ S c) strong 2♠ = Weak Two ? Then 1♠-1N; 2♠ = "10-12", 6+ S 2♣-2♦; 2♥ = "13-15", 6+ S / Kokish. No 2-level or higher opening promising 10+ Milton Work points can be a brown sticker.

Maybe [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s4c4dp4sp5s(C ctrl ask)p6nppp]133|100[/hv].

Bidding: Could start either 1♥-1♠ 2♦-3♣ 3♥, because Opener was prepared to rebid 3♥ (GF) over 1♥-1♠; 2♦-2N, 1♥-1♠ 2♥-3♣ 3♦, with 3♦ showing a real suit, or 1♥-1♠ 2♥-3♣ 3♥/3N, because 3♦ would have been 4SF (used to be standard in Norway in positions like this). But then it's getting difficult. Play: On a heart lead, play 5 (but not 6) rounds of hearts first, then decide which squeeze to play for. (E.g. if an opponent fails to discard a spade, that would at least be a hint that he has 4+ spades, since discarding from any 3-card spade holding can't cost anything double dummy.)

I bid 2♠ on the (naive?) assumption that there were about 16 total trumps and hopefully almost as many total tricks. It wouldn't surprise me if LoTT was off by 1 or 2 tricks on this deal, though, as both sides seem to have a big proportion of their non-neutral honours in the wrong suits. But the results suggest that there were at most 13 total tricks, i.e. that LoTT was off by at least 3 given my estimate about total trumps. That's rare! Whatever 2♠ is, I think partner should be able to figure out that I also have spades, if not 7 of them. The reason is that if opps know what they're doing, then they wouldn't choose to play in 2♥ over 2♠ unless they have at most 7 spades or 8+ hearts. And assuming 1♠ was not a psyche, partner must be looking at most a doubleton spade, but most likely a singleton or void (although I don't quite undestand why he would double 2♥ for takeout with a spade singleton or void). If a singleton or void, then there is no way I can have less than 4 spades. If a doubleton, then opps need to have an 8-card spade fit for that too be possible. So it's pretty far-fetched that I don't have 4+ spades. So I think partner would suspect that 2♠ was intended as spades, especially since alternatives meanings such as cuebid raise or stopper ask seem equally out of place.

You're right. Stupid.

2♠