nullve

Consider the (wildly hypothetical) auction W N E S (...) c P P P, where the call c and the first two passes are "forcing". Apparently someone's got the idea of forcing wrong. But who? And why?

Semifinal against smerriman: http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:199792ca.4a16.11e6.a318.0cc47a39aeb4-1468536946 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:82f6feb0.4abd.11e6.a318.0cc47a39aeb4-1468608848 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:04b82a63.4aea.11e6.a318.0cc47a39aeb4-1468627964 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:11a921e2.4b4c.11e6.a318.0cc47a39aeb4-1468670076 Final against thymepuns: http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1fb285fb.5121.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1469311338 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:20987626.51ec.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1469398528 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:36841cdd.52ac.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1469481028 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:82f6869e.5446.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1469657250

thymepuns and I played 4 x 16 MP boards, half of them with the best hand option. My scores were 62.50 % (1st match) 56.25 % (2nd match, best hand) 46.88 % (3rd match) 43.75 % (4th match, best hand), which means that I won.

I've enjoyed a style where leading from two small cards is considered (a breakable) taboo except when partner has shown 6+ cards, or requested a lead, in the suit. So whenever the taboo applies, partner will never confuse e.g. high from three small with lead (e.g. high) from doubleton.

1N

Since 2C as "natural or Drury" is not GCC legal, I've been thinking about alternative ways to get out in 2S when Responder has an invitational hand with 3c support and Opener would not be able to accept an invitation. One possibility: 1S-?: (...) 1N = NAT NF. If 3+ S, then insufficient values for a constructive or mixed raise 2x(x<S) = NAT and either INV with 3 S or GF 2S = 3 S, constructive (< INV) 2N = INV+, 4+ S 3x(x<S) = IJS 3S = mixed (...) Then e.g. 1S-2x; 2S = to play opposite INV

I play 1S-2D("5+ H"); 2H-?: P = "7-9", 2-S6+H* 2S = "10-12", 2 S**, NF 2N+ = GF, unbal.*** * the response to 1S with "4-6", 2-S6+H is 1N (NF) ** the response to 1S with "10-12", 1-S5H is 1N (NF) *** the response to 1S on GF hands with (5431) or less shape is 2C ("4-way"), intending to relay

smerriman and I played 4 x 16 MP boards without the best hand option. I'm afraid I won. Will post the urls later if I can. EDIT: Can't find the urls using my Android phone.

X ("takeout"). Even if partner's double shows support, I'm not going to bid 5♣ on my own with only 18-19 total trumps. (Whether 5♣ makes is largely irrelevant.)

Win with the ace and play the ♦3, which will hopefully look like a singleton. (If partner has ♣Qx, then declarer has to guess both minor suits for this line to be wrong. Even if partner has the stiff ♣Q or ♣K you'll get the trick back if declarer misguesses diamonds.)

Only if LoTT is worthless.

Pass (LoTT)

Board 3, match 1: Had already decided to duck the opening lead in both hands and didn't really pay attention to East's 8. (Would Gib have played the 8 from any tripleton? I suspect not.) Board 1, match 2: When East led the ace of trumps and switched to diamonds I assumed trumps were 4-1; but after ruffing the last diamond I should have realised that East started with 2542 and just played the last two rounds of trumps to West's queen, which would then take the last trick for the defence. Trivial, perhaps, but I've missed trump plays like that before. (Maybe Rodwell has a name for them? :)) Board 16, match 2: Interesting decisions to make, both in bidding and play. Bidding: Trying to find the best contract while figuring out what phoenix214 might do at the other table. Play: At first, a squeeze in the pointed suits against West seemed very likely (just give him 5440), but when he followed suit on the ♥A, suggesting 5530, I had to choose between the double finesse in diamonds and a miracle. (I chose the latter, having seen a few below beginner-level defensive plays by Gib recently.)

Possible improvement on awm's structure: 1♣-?: 1♦ = 0-7, any / 8-11 bal., 3-S3-H / 8-12, 3-S3-H4D5+C (...) 1N = 8+, either 3-S3-H5+D4C or 1-suited with 6+ D / 12+ bal., 3-S3-H / ? ...2♣ = GF relay [the whole point] ...2♦ = 11-13 bal. (...) 2♦ = 8+, either 5+D5+C or 1-suited with 6+ C (...) 2N+ = 13+, 3-S3-H4D5+C

I know some top Italian pairs jump reverse to show 5-6 shape on hands not strong enough for a normal reverse.

Trying to come up with something nice over 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠(0-7, any); 1N(20+, any): 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1N-?: [AFTER MUCH EDITING:] 2♣ = DN, 4- S / SP, either 4441 or bal. w/ red card majority / SP, "unbal. w/ 5+ C or 4(41)4" ...2♦ = catchall ......2♥ = DN, 4- S .........2♠ = GF relay ............2N = 4- H ............3♣+ = 5+ H1 .........2N = "23-25 bal."? .........(...) ......2♠ = SP, either 4441 or bal. w/ red card majority .........2N = relay ............3♣+ = Bal(red) [see Bal(c) below] .........(...) ......2N+ = SP, "unbal. w/ 5+ C or 4(41)4", Unbal(♣) [see Unbal(x) below] ...2♥ = "Acol 2♥ or 20-22 bal." ......P = 5+ H, game unlikely2 ......2♠ = catchall .........2N = "20-22 bal." .........3♣+ = 5+ H, nat., NF [was "Acol 2♥"] ......2N+ = 1-under transfers opposite 20-22 bal.? ...2♠ = "Acol 2♠" ...(...) 2♦ = DN, 5+ S / SP, "5+ D or 1444", unbal. ...2♥ = "Acol 2♥ or GF" ......2♠ = DN, 5+ S .........2N = GF relay1 .........3♣+ = 5+ H, nat., NF [was "Acol 2♥"] ......2N+ = SP, "unbal. w/ 5+ D or 1444", Unbal(♦) [see Unbal(x) below] ...2♠ = "20-22 bal." ...(...) 2♥ = SP, "5+ H, unbal." ...2♠ = relay ......2N+ = Unbal(♥) [see Unbal(x) below] ...(...) 2♠ = SP, bal. w/ black card majority ...2N = relay ......3♣+ = Bal(black) [see Bal(c) below] ...(...) 2N+ = SP, "5+ S, unbal.", Unbal(♠) [see Unbal(x) below] Bal(c): 3♣ = 4M(c)3m(c) or 5M(c)(332) ...3♦ = relay ......3♥ = 4M(c)333 or 5M(c)(332) .........3♠ = relay ............3N = 4M(c)333 ............4♣+ = 5M(c)(332) [good news, so can bypass 3N] .........(...) ......3♠ = 4M(c)3m(c)24 ......3N = 4M(c)3m(c)42 ...(...) 3♦ = 4M(c)4m(c)(32) or, if c=red, 4441 ...3♥ = relay ......3♠ = 4M(c)4m(c)23 ......3N = 4M(c)4m(c)32 ......4♣(c=red) = 4441 ...(...) 3♥ = 4m(c)333 or 5m(c)(332) ...3♠ = relay ......3N = 4m(c)333 ......4♣+ = 5m(c)(332) [good news, so can bypass 3N] ...)...) 3♠ = 3M(c)4m(c)24 3N = 3M(c)4m(c)42 where 'm(black)', 'm(red)', 'M(red)' and 'M(black)' would stand for 'C', 'D', 'H' and 'S', respectively. Unbal(x): Based on relay structure I play elsewhere: 2N = 4+ lo, not 5x5lo / 6+ x, 1-suited ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 6+ x, 1-suited ......3♥+ = U(x,lo) [see U(x,y) below] ...(...) 3♣ = 4+ mi, not 5x5mi ...3♦ = relay ......3♥+ = U(x,mi) [see U(x,y) below] ...(...) 3♦ = "5x5lower or (4441)", but not 4441 ...3♥ = relay .....3♠(x=♣) = 4414 .....3♠(x=/=♣) = 5x5C .....3N(x=♣) = 4144 .....3N(x=♦) = 1444 .....3N(x=M) = 5M5D .....4♣+(x=♠) = 5S5H ...(...) 3♥+ = 4+ hi, not 5x5hi, U(x,hi) [see U(x,y) below] U(x,y): Very simple version: 3♥ = 5x4y22 or 6+x4y ...3♠ = relay, usually 2+ x ......3N = 5x4y22 ......4♣+ = 6+x4+y ...(...) 3♠ = 5x4y13 (5x4y04) 3N = 5x4y31 (5x4y40) (...) 1 Then 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥(DN, 4-S S); 2♠(GF relay)-3♣+ can be very similar to 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1N-2♦; 2♥-2♠(DN, 5+ S); 2N(GF relay)-3♣+. 2 Gambling that partner has 20-22 bal.. I've seen Welland-Auken do this over 2♣(20-21 bal. or GF)-2♦(5+ H or waiting); 2♥(20-21 bal. or 5+ H) and I think it works!

Assuming you still play Mexican 2♦, maybe 1♣-1♦; ?: 1♥ = "17-19", shapes consistent with (1N)-2♣+ (NT defence) / "20+", any ...1♠ = 0-7 (as before) ......1N = "20+", forcing2 ......2♣+ = "17-19"1, NT defence ...(...) 1♠ = 12-14, 4 H3 1N = 12-14, 2-3 H3 2♣+ = "17-19"1, unbal. shapes not covered by NT defence4 ? 1 The idea is that this range (which may translate to 'rules of 26-28') will be so narrow that there will be no need for invites based on hcp alone. 2 Like Midmac's 1N opening, only a tad stronger (rule of 29+?) if unbalanced. 3 Can play both 1♠ and 1N here as 12-14 bal. thanks to the Mexican 2♦ opening. 4 E.g. (31)(54) or 6m(331) if playing Asptro.

If it's ok to miss a 4-4 H fit in that case, then the structure I posted here, with the difference that bal. 11-13 hands with 4 H are not exluded from 1♣ and * 1♣-1♦; 1♠ = 11-13, 4 H * 1♣-1♦; 1N = 11-13, 3- H * 1♣-1♥; 1N = 11-13, 3-S4-H, might also work and besides be mostly +0 when Opener is strong and Responder has 8+.

I always show hearts with 6+S4+H and always "rebid" the major with 6+M4+m, but the latter "choice" has less to do with personal preference than the fact that my rebid structure is designed solve a completely different problem: how to get rid of NAT NF 2N/3M bids by Responder. In a limited opening (rules of 19-24 with min/max = rules of 19-21/rules of 22-24) context the scheme would be close to 1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = min, 4-S5H4-D4-C1 2♣ = 5H5m / max, 5H4O2 / ? ["Lucas"] 2♦ = max3, 4-S6H / ? 2♥ = min3, 4-S6H (...) 1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = min, 5S3-H4-D4-C1 2♣ = 4+ H4 / ? 2♦ = 5S5m5 / max, 5S4m2 ["Muiderberg"] 2♥ = max3, 6S3-H / ? 2♠ = min3, 6S3-H (...) A scheme with 2-under transfers for the majors, much like the one Ken posted but not relying on a special 2♦ opening, could also work. E.g. 1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = min, 4-S5H4-D4-C 2♣ = 6+ H (=> 2♦ = range ask) 2♦ = Flannery (max, 4S5H) 2♥ = Muiderberg (5H5m or max, 5H4m) (...) 1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = min, 5S3-H4-D4-C 2♣ = 4+ H (=> 2♦ = range ask) 2♦ = 6+S3-H (=> 2♥ = range ask) 2♥ = Muiderberg w/ H tolerance (5S2+H5m or max, 5S2+H4m) 2♠ = Muiderberg w/o H tolerance (5S1-H5m or max, 5S1-H4m) (...) 1 In my experience, passing 1N with min, 5S5m is seldom right even opposite a NF 1N, so these hands have to go somwhere else. 2 Some such hands are suitable for 1N ("14-16"), of course. 3 I actually kind of swap min/max here, but for reasons I won't go into now. 4 Then Responder can ask about min/max with 2♦ instead of inviting with 2N/3♥. 5 I like to exclude min hands with 5S5C from 2♦ in order to have a better structure over 1♠-1N; 2♦-2N(inv+ relay), but then those hands have to go somewhere else and it isn't obvious where.

I've learned the hard way (although mostly in a 2/1 context) that I'd need to discuss which natural 3m bids, if any, are raisable with minimum. (Presumably a natural 3m bid is raisable with minimum iff it promises sufficient extras, i.e enough to warrant bypassing 3N opposite support.)

I don't recall ever seeing intermediate-strength versions of brown sticker 2-openings such as Major Flash and Wilkosz. That's a bit odd because * some of these openings have a reputation of being very effective and would no doubt be quite popular if people were allowed to play them on a regular basis; * by promising at least 10 hcp (i.e. at least an "average hand" as defined in the WBF Systems Policy) they would no longer qualify as BSCs; * many players seem otherwise willing to play intermediate 2-openings. For example, instead of "Intermediate 2M" (2M = 10-13 hcp, 6 M), which seems to be quite popular in Sweden and elsewhere (and described here: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38245-2m-10-13-6m/), one could play "Intermediate Major Flash" (2♥ = 10-13, 6 M), freeing up the 2♠ opening. I can also imagine that a BSC-inspired scheme could replace the current scheme of 2-openings in Fantunes. Thoughts? Ideas?

If points are nothing but tricks times a constant (3 or whatever), then the number of points needed make a contract (at a certain level) can't possibly depend on the degree of fit (5-3, 5-4, 6-3, ...) unless the degree of fit is everything. (And it's not.)

http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/Fantoni_Nunes.txt

Did we misunderstand something?