nullve

Even Fantoni and Nunes made major changes to their system, like moving all hands with 10-13, 5+M4+OM from 2M to 1M, even after they had won everything.

No, it's because hands with 5M3-OM are treated differently than hands with 6M3-OM. E.g. with 12 hcp, 1354 opposite 8 hcp, 5314, the aucion might start 1N-2♣; 2♥-2♠(=5S3-H(3?)4+m, weak), and then Opener would know it was right to play 3m instead of 2♠.

I've been thinking about how to improve Fantunes by moving some hand types between the 1M, 1N and 2-level openings. One problem is that if 1N frequently contains a small major suit singleton, and not just with (41)44, then a Stayman/Jacoby-based response structure may no longer work. So here's an idea: 1N = some manageable range, quasi-balanced (in glen's sense, described in http://www.bridgematters.com/savage.pdf) 1N-?: P: optional with 5M(332), I guess 2m = Double-Barreled Multi (http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52522-double-barreled-multi/) 2M = Velociraptor, weak 2N or 3♣ = Puppet Stayman? (...) Comments?

What do you do with more than one 3rd round control of the same type (queen, doubleton)?

Those playing 2♣ as "natural or Drury" could also --- if they really wanted to --- allow Opener to relay with less than GF values over 1♠-2♣(nat. or Drury); 2red-2♠(3 S, inv) and then let 3x by Responder cover exactly the same hands as 3♠ over 1♠-2x; 2♠ in Acol.

I think you misread my reply, which was intended as a question to you (and Frances), btw. (I don't really have an opinion on how much better RM Precision is than vanilla 2/1 GF, either) I thought "natural or Drury" was more of a Barry Crane invention, but I believe you (two). Thanks.

No, but maybe vanilla 2/1 GF (not Big Bang) would be unplayable if the field were playing RM Precision? I've never heard of a form of Drury that doesn't require support.

What's playable depends on what the field or opposing team is playing doesn't it? What if everybody else play 1♠-2♣ as "natural or Drury", enabling them to stop in 2♠ whenever you have the auction 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♠; P?

Why? What would you rebid with e.g. ♠x ♥AKJx ♦Kxxxx ♣AQx?

Why didn't I play ♦AK to find out more about RHO's shape before playing a trump? That would have solved the problem.

So the bidding started something like (1♥)-P-(2♥)-P; (3♥) where perhaps 1♥ showed 5+ hearts and 3♥ was a preemptive reraise? Then suppose you can see from your own hand and dummy that opps have either 8 or 9 hearts together. If 8, then you know RHO has only 5. But then he would not have enough shape to bid 3♥ with only a 4c suit (♣9xxx) on the side. So you should definitely not run the eight. If 9, then you can assume RHO has 6. But with ♣9xxx on the side he would probably either have blasted 4♥ or made a trial bid (by asking for help in clubs, say). So running the eight seems wrong for that reason alone.

How do 'bust', 'semipositive' and 'GF' translate to approximate point ranges here? Seems like (at least) one range is missing.

Woolsey's Grunt defence is a way of tapping into the force set up by the 1♣ opening, or rather, by describing 1♣ as forcing. By using a weaker notion (e.g. 1♣ is "not forcing if pass by LHO means so-and-so"), the opening side might1 be able to take advantage --- without MI --- of the fact that Overcaller can have a strong balanced hand by allowing Responder to pass certain hands, potentially giving Advancer a headache. 1 Ok, that's a big 'might'.

I don't think anyone can justify their lead by saying "I led x because condition C held" unless they're prepared to believe that the rule "If condition C holds, lead x." is a good one.

I briefly played the following as a junior: 1♣ = 11-13 bal., 3-S3-H / 16+, unbal. / 17+ bal. 1♦ = 11-15, 5 M 1♥ = 11-15, either 3H5+m4+Om, 4H5+m, 4H(441) or 6+ H / 11-13 bal., 4 H 1♠ = 11-15, either 3S5+m4+Om, 4S5+O, 4144 or 6+ S / 11-13 bal., 4S3-H 1N = 14-16 bal. 2m = 11-15, 3-S3-H6+m (...) 2N = 11-15, 5+D5+C (...), which is somewhat similar to what you described here: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/20638-a-3-card-major-system/.

Yes. And this is one reason why we might do better than describing our calls as "forcing", which would amount to MI if we made use of pass over their unusual but non-forcing pass.

Yes. I should have included a GF option in Multi, although pass might still be a reasonable gamble on some hands. I think you're referring to the auction where the two first calls (passes) were just described as "13+, any ("strong pass")" and "13+, any ("strong pass vs. strong pass")", respectively. (I.e. no mention of forcing.) But if your point is that NS cannot both describe North's call as forcing and yet have the agreement that South is sometimes allowed to end the auction with a pass (as in the OP auction), then I agree. But I'm also trying to make the point that if a pair started thinking about the possible meanings that an intervening pass could have, they might revise or abandon some of their old ideas about forcing. Of course, "Forcing means [the player making the call] gets the opportunity to speak again." still applies, but the implementation might be different.

I don't disagree. Does 2♦1-(P2)-P 1 Weak 2M or 20-21 bal., F1 2 13+ qualify? The point is that when we describe certain calls as "forcing", whether at the table, on the CC or in our detailed system notes, we typically don't consider all outlandish meanings that a pass by LHO could have.

How about Def.: A call is * 'never forcing' if partner is allowed to pass over an intervening pass of any kind; * 'always forcing' if partner is not allowed to pass over an intervening pass of any kind; * 'sometimes forcing' if it is neither never forcing nor always forcing. ? Or maybe a call should be sometimes forcing if it's not never forcing (so that always forcing implies sometimes forcing, but not vice versa)?

Continuing my monologue: I'm starting to think that our usual notions of forcing really belong in a 2-handed bidding context, where e.g. the sequence 1♦-1♥ is supposed to mean the same thing as 1♦-(P)-1♥-(P) in the 4-handed context, except that the intervening passes are treated as emtpy words (that can be omitted) rather than calls on par with 1♦ and 1♥.

This is what makes the most sense from a LoTT perspective.

Less ridiculous: suppose NS play, or are just testing, a new defence against Multi where P = opening strength, unlimited, catchall. Advancer is not allowed to pass if Responder does. X = less than opening strength 2♥+ = standard.

The trump jack? Or maybe an abstract jack in an abstract hand with three AKQ suits and one AKQJ suit?

Not sure why you say it's nonsense. If 'forcing call' is defined along the lines of 'forcing bid' above, e.g. as a call that doesn't allow partner to pass, then whether West's call is forcing is completely irrelevant. But if West's call is forcing in the sense that East can be trusted to bid regardless of the meaning of North's pass, then I grant it will be superfluous (as well as highly unusual) to describe even an unlimited wait-and-see pass by North as forcing, as he will always be able to make another call. But suppose the bidding goes W_N_E_S 2♦ P, where 2♦ is standard Multi and North's pass is not only wait-and-see but (for some stupid reason so I can make my point) promising 20+ hcp. Do we really think that a systemic pass by East in this situation is inconsistent with 2♦ being forcing in the sense we want to use the word? If not, might it not be appropriate to describe North's pass as forcing, too, as South might not be allowed to pass if East does? A less contrived example, perhaps: W_N_E_S P1 P2 P3 1 13+, any ("strong pass") 2 13+, any ("strong pass vs. strong pass") 3 systemic gamble, knowing that pass by South will be a comparable gamble Is West's pass forcing? If so, what about North's?

We all know what the fundamental purpose of a force is: to make sure that the player making the forcing call will get the chance to make another call. This will happen automatically if LHO makes a call other than pass, and a proper definition of 'forcing call' should reflect that, unlike the following definition of 'forcing bid': "A bid that, by partnership understanding, requires the bidder's partner to make another bid." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms). And unlike "In the card game contract bridge, a forcing bid is any call that obliges the partner to bid over an intermediate opposing pass." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcing_bid), a proper definition might also take into account the nature of LHO's pass, since e.g. in the extreme case that P by LHO forces RHO to bid no matter what (as on a literal interpretation of the first definition of 'forcing bid' above) it might seem that partner (of the player making the initial forcing call) should again be exempted from bidding.