nullve

In many situations it's possible to play 4N = ♣ void or no void ...5♣ = ♣A ......5♦ = even # of KC .........5♥ = ♠Q ask ............5♠ = no ♠Q ............5N+ = ♠Q ......5♥ = odd # of KC & no ♠Q ......5♠ = odd # of KC & ♠Q ......5N+ = * ...5♦ = no ♣A & even # of KC ......5♥ = ♠Q ask .........5♠ = no ♠Q .........5N+ = ♠Q ...5♥ = no ♣A & odd # of KC & no ♠Q ...5♠ = no ♣A & odd # of KC & ♠Q ...5N+ = * 5♣ = ♦ void ...5♦ = even # of KC outside ♦ ......5♥ = ♠Q ask .........5♠ = no ♠Q .........5N+ = ♠Q ...5♥ = odd # of KC outside ♦ & no ♠Q ...5♠ = odd # of KC outside ♦ & ♠Q ...5N+ = * 5♦ = ♥ void & even # of KC ...5♥ = ♠Q ask ......5♠ = no ♠Q ......5N+ = ♠Q 5♥ = ♥ void & odd # of KC & no ♠Q 5♠ = ♥ void & odd # of KC & ♠Q 5N+ = * * like 5♠, but thinks 2+ KC aren't missing and worried that p would misread 5♠ (The above is a special case of what I suggested here.)

Fab Roman uses a canapé version of that, except that the range is 11-17 rather than 11-15. Interestingly, the 1986 version of Roman Club uses a kind of (proto?-)Gazzilli.

It's very dangerous to pass a wide-ranging canapé opening without a fit, and I think that's the main reason why Roman Club used Herbert negatives. Two ways to avoid the need for Herbert negatives: 1) Play "14+" 1-level suit openings, as in Fantunes/Mosca 2) Use canapé only on "minimum" (e.g. "11-15") hands.

I assume you play 2♦-2N; ?: 3♣ = MIN w/ H 3♦ = MIN w/ S and either 1) 3♥ = MAX w/ H 3♠ = MAX w/ S [will bury any 5-3 H fit] or 2) 3♥ = MAX w/ S 3♠ = MAX w/ H [will bury any 5-3 S fit]. Change those to 1') 3♥ = MAX w/ H ...3♠ = GF, 5+ S 3♠ = MAX w/ S and 2- H 3N = MAX w/ S and 3 H and 2') 3♥ = MAX w/ S ...3♠ = GF, 5+ H 3♠ = MAX w/ H and 2- S 3N = MAX w/ H and 3 S. Then it makes perfect sense to play 2♦-2N; 3♦-3♥ = GF, 5+ H.

Please explain why it's stupid to play 3♦ over 1♦-1♥; 2♥ as NF.

Ok, I wasn't reading between the lines. Still, it's not obvious to me that if the goal is to be able to play 2♣ as often as possible when it's right, then 2♣ should promise (4+? 5+? 6+?) clubs. Even 2♣ as a scramble with 3+ C (allowing partner to pass with 4+ C) might be better.

Via the same sequence, (1N)-X-(P)-2♣; (P)-P, e.g. if 2♣ is something artificial and Overcaller has long clubs.

It doesn't follow that 2♣ has to show clubs.

Why doesn't it make sense to play ...3N-4♠ = C+D+H control, no extras, NF ...3N-4N = C+D+H control, extras, RKC if it makes sense to play ...4♣-4♦-4♥ = no H control, extras (F to RKC opposite H control) ...4♣-4♦-4♠ = no H control, no extras, NF ?

Since when did system curmudgeons have a problem with 1♦ as 11-21?

Quibble: Both your "show" approach and your "deny" approach are hybrid show/deny approaches:

The problem is that if 2♠ has a very wide range then the 2N response is useful both as "bid your longer minor" and as an INV+ relay (or "range ask"). But here's another idea (1st seat NV only): 2♠ = 0-8 (rules of 10-18), 5D5C / 0-9 (rules of 9-18), 3-S3-H5m4Om / "6-8" (rules of 16-18), 6+m4+Om 3m = modern aggressive preempts that include "0-5" (rules of 10-15), 6+m4+Om 2♠-?: (...) 2N = "NF relay" ("bid your longer minor if max (:= rules of 16-18), else pass") ...P(!) = non-max1 ...3♣ = max, longer C or 5D5C (=> 3♦ = GF relay (=> 3♥ = 5D5C?)?) ...3♦ = max, longer D (=> 3♥ = GF relay?) 3m = pref.2, no interest in game 3♥ = "Kokish": GF, 5+ H / "bal." slam try ...Then something like: ...3♠ = 3 H ......3N = "bal" slam try .........P = non-max .........4m = max, nat. ......4♣ = 5+ H .........4♦ = max, ? .........4♥ = non-max .........4♠+ = ? ......(...) ...3N = non-max, 2- H1 ...4m = max, 2- H, nat. 3♠ = GF, 5+ S ...Then something like: ...3N = non-max, 2- S1 ...4m = max, 2- S, nat. ...4♥ = max, 3 S, ? ...4♠ = non-max, 3 S ...4N+ = ? (...). Maybe the NF relay is rubbish (as well as an oxymoron), but since Opener isn't required to bid over it, Advancer is under extra pressure and will have to double more often. Then e.g. 2♠-(P)-2N-(X); ?: P = non-max, longer C or 5D5C XX = non-max, longer D 3m = same as over 2♠-(P)-2N-(P). 1 Here it helps that Opener can't have 6+m4+Om. 1 Usually genuine, since 2N was available with 2D2C or 3D3C.

* 2♥: normal, but 3♥ was definitely an alternative in 1st seat at this vulnerability * 2♠: not my choice (I'd pass), but normal * P(W): obvious * P(N): obvious * 3♥: inconsistent with a standard Weak Two style. Maybe East had lots of extra shape and suit quality the way they play, but why didn't he double or bid 2N (suggesting 6-4?) or 3♣ instead? * X(S): There are three playable styles here: takeout, penalty and either-or. But maybe South had reason to believe North would be on the same page. * XX: SOS, West's best try * 4♦: looks like North either thought West's redouble was for business or that partner's double was for takeout * P(E): obvious * P(S): just believing partner * X(W): not too greedy IMO * P(N): consistent with 4♦ * P(E): obvious * XX(S): at MPs, why not? At IMPs, maybe damage control (Pass) is called for, but I've seen opps get cold feet under comparable circumstances. :) * P(W): obvious * P(N): consistent with previous pass * P(E): obvious It's hard to say what the worst call was without knowing more about NS's doubling agreements or what they should expect to be standard within their group. 3♥ by East is dubious at best, though.

It's tempting to assume that Responder will woodenly bid something no matter what your intervening pass means. (And what does it mean, exactly?) But if you systemically pass with many strong hands, including 13-19 bal., then you might encounter Responders who will often convert the Multi into a fert. Then what would you play over (2♦)-P-(P)?

One option is to play e.g. 4OM over 1N-(3♣ 3♦)-3OM = "GF, 4 M" as a counter-transfer to M.

Why?

Suppose A (= A(W)): P = unsuitable for 2♣, otherwise standard 1♣ = nat. or 12-14/18-20 bal. (=> T-Walsh where 1♣-1R; 1N = 18-20 bal.) 2♣ = weak preempt W not overlapping with other openings others: as in B below B ("Big Bang"): P = standard 1♣ = nat. unbal. or 12-14 bal. 2♣ = 18-20 bal. others: as in A above Then I strongly suspect (but can't prove) that for some choices of W, A will cause more damage to B (after a W opening) than B to A (after 1♣ interference). And I doubt that B can weigh up for this on deals with uncontested auctions at both tables in a "A vs. B" match. (I actually think B will do worse, largely because of the inability to stop in 1N after a Mexican 2♣.) Also: If the 2M openings in A are Weak Twos (as in Big Bang) and A' (= A'(U,V)): P = unsuitable for 2♣/2M, otherwise standard 1♣ = as in A 2♣ = weak preempt U not overlapping with other openings 2M = weak preempts V not overlapping with other openings (e.g. V = Muiderberg if U = Wagner) others: as in A and B above, then A' will obviously be at least as good as A (but possibly better) for some choices of U and V.

Two conclusions: 1) (Low Informaton) Puppet Stayman actually leaks more information than Regular Stayman. 2) Blasting 3N is often better than using Forcing Stayman (instead of Puppet Stayman) in search of a 5-3 M fit. It would be interesting to know if the ability to find 5-3 M fits via Puppet Stayman (instead of Forcing Stayman) weighs up for the informaton leakage in 1).

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/relay-over-1nt-2-5m-new-natural/

Without the 10-15, 6M4OM option your 2♦ opening would obviously no longer be a BS. So why don't you open 1M with that? (Sorry if you've already explained.)

Kungsgeten did. :)

Another idea, which should be possible to combine with Helene's switch idea: Exploit the similarity between the 1M response to a Swedish 1♣ opening and the 1M opening in the 4-card major system ("The Science"?) that the Hackett brothers used to play. Also, their 2♣ response looks a lot like your natural-or-Odwrotka 2♣. I don't know anything about their follow-ups after 1M-2♣, though.

I'm not convinced that, in 1st seat, P = either standard or suitable for a Weak 2♦ opening that doesn't overlap with 1♦/3♦ 2♦ = 17-23 hcp, (4441) [frequency in 1st seat: about 1 in 500 deals] 7N = idle beats P = standard 2♦ = Weak 2♦ that doesn't overlap with 1♦/3♦ 7N = 17-23 hcp, (4441) [frequency in 1st seat: about 1 in 500 deals], although it almost certainly does on this particular hand.

Two ideas with a view to freeing up 3♦ over 1N-2♣; 2♠-2N; 3♣. Idea #1: 1N-?: 2♣: as in OP, except can also be WK w/ 3-S3-H6+C1 (...) 2♠: range ask (with bal. INV w/o 4c M) or INV w/ long minor ...2N = MIN ...3♣ = MAX, rejects INV w/ 6+ C ...3♦ = MAX, accepts INV w/ 6+ C, rejects INV w/ 6+ D ...3♥+ = accepts all invites (...) 3♣ = WK, 3-S3-H6+D / GF, 1-suited w/ 6+ C2 ...3♦ = forced ......P = WK ......3♥+ = GF, 1-suited w/ 6+ C 3♦ = GF, 4H5+C3 (...) The point is that Responder is no longer forced to use Stayman on weak hands with 3-S3-H6+D. 1 Then Responder will follow up with 2♠(range ask) over 1N-2♣; 2R and with 2N(puppet to 3♣) over 1N-2♣; 2♠ 2 Or covering the same hands as 3M/4m over 1N-2♠; 2N/3♣ in OP. 3 Same as 3♦ over 1N-2♠; 2N/3♣ in OP. Idea #2: Suppose * Stayman is never used on weak hands with 3-S3-H6+D (the point of Idea #1) * 2♥ over 1N-2♦ denies 4+ H; * 3♣ over 1N-2♦; 2♥ is not only a transfer to diamonds but effectively a puppet to 3♦. Then an alternative on weak hands with 4H6+D is to transfer to hearts(!) and then rebid * 3♣(puppet to 3♦) over 1N-2♦; 2♥; * 3♦(retransfer to H) over 1N-2♦; 2♠+. One obvious downside is that the partnership can no longer stop in 2♥ (after 1N-2♣; 2♥-P) on these hands, but at least 3♥ after, say, 1N-2♦; 2♠-3♦(retransfer); 3♥-P will be Law-protected. (Opps will have 16+ black cards between them, hence either 8+ spades or 9+ clubs.)

How do you bid non-slammish GF hands with 4M5D(31)/(40)? In particular, if you respond 2♣ with 3451, how do you proceed over 1N-2♣; 2♠?