nullve

Clearly, the method isn't working properly if I have to bid the same way with ♠x ♥AKJxx ♦Kxxx ♣xxx (no C wastage) as with ♠x ♥AKJxx ♦xxxx ♣Kxx (C wastage), but I agree that bidding 4♣ with the former hand might be too encouraging if partner doesn't have Last Train (4♦) available.

4♣. My hand isn't magically worse than x-AKJxx-Kxxx-xxx.

Why do you believe 2N as NAT INV is needed here but not in response to a 2/1 or Fantunes 1♠ opening? Is it because the balancing 1♠ overcall doesn't promise 5+ S? If it does, then it can be treated much like a standard 1♠ opening except for the obvious range adjustments that have to be made. For example, if you play 1♠ = "11-21, 5+ S" (=> 1N = 5-12, semi-forcing), then you can also play P-(1♥)-P-(P); 1♠ = "7-10, 5+ S" (=> 1N = 9-16, semi-forcing) and not be worse off after the balancing overcall than after the opening, at least in the otherwise uncontested bidding.

What's your 1N range? 14-18? 13-19?

I don't think a style where 11 hcp and 5 hearts is enough for a F1 2♥ advance to a "fairly aggressive" 1♠ overcall is playable. (After a 1♠ opening the analogous style would be to play the 2♥ response as 8+, 5+ H, F1, wouldn't it?) I don't understand the criticism of West's (takeout) double. He has extras (given the lightish overcall style), short clubs, doubleton hearts and a sixth spade. What else does he need? (I'm assuming that 2♥ didn't set up a force over 3♣, in which case X of 3♣ would be for penalties.)

How about 1m = "11-21, 4+ m". If bal. then either 12-14 or 18-19. 1N = 12-14, either 4M333 or 44(32) / 15-17 bal. ...2♣ = range ask, GF opposite 15-17 ......2♦ = 12-14, 4333 or 44(32), NF ......2♥ = 12-14, 3433, NF ......2♠+ = 15-17 ...2♦ = "0-7", 5+ M / ? ......2M = P/C ......(...) ...2M = "8-11", 5+ M, to play opposite 12-14, 2-3 M, GF opposite 15-17 ...(...) 2♣ = 18-19, either 4M333 or 44(32) / any GF other: as above ? (Hopefully the 1N opening is not as bad(?) as Blue Club's or Carrot Club's.)

Three questions: * Does 1♦ deny 4+ H? * What do you open with 11-14, 3-S3-H, unbal.? * You seem to live in the US, so are you allowed to play the 2♣, 2♦ and 2N openings?

Then we can play musical bridge.

Is that because you play rule of 18 1M openings in conjunction with a 14-16 NT? The reason I ask is that I almost1 play * rule of 19 1M openings (also when 1-suited) * 14-16 NT1 * 1M-1N NF, denying support unless very weak (Opener will pass with 11-13, 5M(332)1 and also with 10-12 and either 5M3-OM4m or 4S5H) * artificial schemes over 1M-1♠/N (the one over 1♠-1N having a lot in common with your "modified Gazzilli" scheme) precisely in an attempt (successful IMO) to solve the problems you describe, and one can obviously play something similar in a context with rule of 18 1M openings and 13-15 NT. 1 In reality, my 1M openings are always unbalanced so it's irrelevant which 1N range I use.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73452-whats-the-consensus-on-these-spots/

Don't know where I got that idea from. I'm really confused today.

Also true. I forgot to mention that I was also thinking about the Shanghai "Holo Bolo" incident. Anyway, the fact that no defence against a 2+ C 1♣ opening can be Brown Sticker opens up a new world for me. :)

Sorry, I was mixing up the WBF Systems Policy (where suit openings must promise 3+ cards in the suit in order to be natural) and the Revised GCC (where 1♣ may be opened on 4432 and still be natural).

The 1N overcall is a BSC. (Doesn't matter in Sweden, I know.)

How would you define 'penalty' here?

Because * my hand was already limited to 22-24 hcp with 5 S (and likely 5(332) shape) when partner invited grand; * he seems to be fishing for the ♦K. * he knows I can only have a marginally better hand than this;

With pretty standard agreements, maybe: 2♣-2♦ (22+ bal. or GF \\ waiting) 2N-3♣ (22-24 bal. \\ Puppet Stayman) 3♠-4♥ (5 S \\ 3+ S, SI) 4N-5♦ (RKC \\ 1 KC) 5♥-5N (trump Q ask \\ trump Q + interest in grand + reason not to bid 6♣/♦/♥) 6♣-6♥ (♣K \\ ♥K, no ♦K) 7♠-P ?

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/v2help/completion_rates.html

Why not allow members to do search queries like "Acol AND (NOT (Expert OR Private))" within the collection of member profiles?

A discussion last year: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/41428-rkc-question-new-suit-after-queen-denial My idea was essentially 1) that if spades are agreed so that ♠Q = c1,c2,c3,... is the spiral chain, then it makes sense to play ...4N(RKC(♠))-5♣(0/3 KC); ?: 5♦ = c1 ask (= trump Q ask) ...5♥ = no c1 ......5♠ = to play ......5N = c3 ask ......6♣ = c5 ask ......6♦ = c7 ask (not sure it will ever come up) ......(...) ...(...) 5♥ = c2 ask 5♠ = to play 5N = c4 ask 6♣ = c6 ask (not sure it will ever come up) (...) ...4N(RKC(♠))-5♦(1/4 KC); ?: 5♥ = c1 ask (= trump Q ask) ...5♠ = no c1 ......(...) ......5N = c3 ask ......6♣ = c5 ask ......6♦ = c7 ask (not sure it will ever come up) ......(...) ...(...) 5♠ = to play 5N = c2 ask 6♣ = c4 ask 6♦ = c6 ask (not sure it will ever come up) (...) 2) to make the obvious adjustments to 1) when other suits are agreed.

A combination of what straube suggested and the structure over 1♣(Swedish)-1♦; 1♥-1♠(0-7, any); 1N(20+, any) I posted here: 1♣-1♦; 1N-?: 2♣ = 0-4, 4- S / 5-7, bal. w/ red card majority / 5-7, "unbal. w/ 5+ D or 4441" / 8-10 bal., 3-S3-H ...2♦ = GF relay ......2♥ = 0-4, 4- S / 8-10 bal., 3-S3-H .........2♠ = relay ............2N = 0-4, 4- H / 8-10, 3-S3-H ............3♣+ = 0-4, 5+ H [in analogy with 3♣+ over 1♣-1♦; 1N-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 2N] ......2♠ = 5-7, bal. w/ red card majority (=> 2N = relay) ......2N+ = 5-7, R(♦) ...2♥ = 22-24 bal. (=> P = 5+ H, very weak) ...(...) 2♦ = 0-4, 5+ S / 5-7, "5+ H, unbal." ...2♥ = GF relay ......2♠ = 0-4, 5+ S (=> 2N = relay) ......2N+ = 5-7, R(♥) ...2♠ = 22-24 bal. (=> P = 5+ S, very weak) ...(...) 2♥ = 5-7, "5+ S, unbal." ...2♠ = relay ......2N+ = R(♠) ...(...) 2♠ = 5-7, bal. w/ black card majority (=> 2N = relay) 2N+ = 5-7, R(♣).

Using essentially the same relay structure that I've posted many times before, maybe 1♣-1♦; 1N-2♣(waiting); ?: 2♦ = "5+ D or 4441", unbal. / 22-24 bal. ...2♥ = GF relay ......2♠ = 22-24 "bal." ......2N+ = R(♦) 2♥ = 5+ H, unbal. ...2♠ = relay ......2N+ = R(♥) 2♠ = 25+ "bal." 2N+ = R(♣) R(x): 2N = 5x4lo, 6+x4+lo or 6+ x, 1-suited ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 6+ x, 1-suited ......3♥+ = S(x,lo) 3♣ = 5x4mi or 6+x4+mi ...3♦ = relay ......3♥+ = S(x,mi) 3♦ = "5x5m or (4441)" ...3♥ = relay ......3♠(x=♣) = "4144"? ......3♠(x!=♣) = 5x5C ......3N(x=♣) = "1444"? ......3N(x=♦) = "4441" ......3N(x=♥) = 5H5D ......4♣ = "4414"? 3♥+ = S(x,hi) S(x,y): 3♥ = 5x4y22 or 6x4y ...3♠ = relay, 2+ x ......3N = 5x4y22 ......4♣+ = 6x4y 3♠ = "5x4y13" 3N = "5x4y31" 4♣+ = very distributional hands ?

T-Walsh

30+ years ago there was a Norwegian bridge player and artist who notoriously played 4♣ = "Takk for kaffen, makker!" ["Thanks for the coffee, partner!"], usually with catastrophic result. I guess the opening would be considered "random" today (and therefore be disallowed by the WBF Systems Policy), as it probably lacks the kind of "definition" the policy makers had in mind. An alternative that looks both legal and not too unplayable is to use some currently natural invitional 2N bids as conversation starters instead. For example, after a 15-17 1NT with old-fashioned Stayman and Jacoby responses one could play 1N-2♣; 2♦-2N = start of topic A 1N-2♣; 2♥-2N = start of topic B 1N-2♣; 2♠-2N = start of topic C 1N-2♦; 2♥-2N = start of topic D 1N-2♥; 2♠-2N = start of topic E 1N-2N = start of topic F. (Not a new idea, btw.)

Aargh, yes. So maybe (1♣)-3♠-4♠; P as in [hv=pc=n&s=skqj5432hk92d32c2&w=s876hq3dqjt4c6543&n=sathjt654dak5cq87&e=s9ha87d9876cakjt9&d=e&v=0&b=1&a=1c3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] ?