nullve

Agree. And it's not difficult to see when the bullfight began in this thread.

The GCC allows you to play a T-Walsh substitute involving 1♣-?: 1♦ = 4+ S [allowing in your case e.g. 1♥ = 3 S or 11+-14 bal. w/ 2-3 S; 1♠ = 2-S4+H, unbal.; 1N = Gazzilli] 1♥ = 4+ H, denies 4+ S unless GF [allowing in your case e.g. 1♠ = 3 H or 11+-14 bal. w/ 2-3 H; 1N = Gazzilli] 1♠ = ART GF 1N = NAT NF, as awm pointed out in this thread, http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/transfer-responses-to-1c-gcc/. For such a T-Walsh substitute to work when 1♣ is F1, it seems necessary to play the (NAT) 1N response either as "0-10(11), less than INV" or as "0-11, would have passed an 11+-14 NT rather than bashed 3N"1, but I think it's playable, especially when 1♣ doesn't include any strong balanced hands. 1 this counterfactual pass-or-bash style is not so attractive unless the "11+-14" is to be understood as a 3-point (12-14) rather than a 4-point (11-14) range

I know jinksy-phoenix214 do that in their Fantunes-like system. I used to do that in a Swedish Club-inspired system, but I ended up removing all mini-club hands with 4 H from 1♣ to make it work.

So the following system, 1st and 2nd seat: P = normal or 0-17 bal. 1♣ = 5+ C, unbal. or 4S4C(41) 1♦ = 5+ D, unbal. or 4H4D(41) 1M = 5+ M, unbal. 1N = 18-20 bal. 2♣+ = normal stuff 3rd and 4th seat P = 0-7, unsuitable for 2♣+ 1♣ = 8-9, any / Precision 1♣ 1♦ = 10-15, no 5c major 1M, 1N = Precision 2m = 0-7, Asptro with at least 4-4 2M = 0-7, 5+M3-OM 2N = 0-7, 5+m4+Om 3♣+ = 0-7, PRE, is not HUM? Thx for the cognitive dissonance!

So everyone else thinks it's legal to pass with 12-13* hcp and 1444 while opening, say, 1♣ with 11 hcp and 4414? (I'm not talking about A-QJ32-QJ32-QJ32 vs. AT98-AT98-x-KT98.) * why not 12-20? Or 12-34?

Systems like Fantunes, Nightmare and Millennium Club, don't they use a forcing club in your sense?

Variant I (not GCC legal): 1♣: as in Swedish Club1, but denying 4 H if weak 1♦: as in Precision, but promising 4 H if bal. ...1♥ = 4+ S ...1♠ = 4+ H Variant II (GCC legal): 1♣: as in Swedish Club1, but denying 4 S if weak 1♦: as in Precision, but promising 4 S if bal. ...1♥ = 4+ H ...1♠ = 4+ S Notice that after 1♦-1♠ in either variant, Opener can no longer have a balanced hand without 4c support for Responder's major. Some reasons for Precision players to adopt this: * the weak NT in 1♣ might deter opps from interfering on junk [a well-known reason for playing Swedish 1♣] * transpositions to strong 1♣ auctions might be possible most of the time when Opener is strong [easier to achieve than after a std Swedish 1♣ opening, anyway] * easier to bid after 1♦-1M, especially on partscore deals 1 except that "strong unbal." starts at 16, not 17

Why?

Wayne_LV, I suggest you create a bidding or teaching table on BBO and use the following simple script, predeal north S, HQ85, DAKQ842, CKQJ2 , to check if it's really a good idea to open 2♣ and rebid 4♦ with that hand. (I've already done it.)

But the following application is new to me: [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|jec,barmar,sillafu,jjones|st||md|3S8H5689DJAC236JQA%2CS3JKAH7TJD479TC48%2CS467TH2QKAD36QC59%2C|rh||ah|Board%205|sv|n|mb|p|mb|p|mb|1C|mb|p|mb|2C|an|druri|mb|p|mb|2H|mb|p|mb|4H|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|SA|pc|S4|pc|S2|pc|S8|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|S5|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|HQ|pc|H3|pc|C5|pc|C7|pc|CQ|pc|C4|pc|H8|pc|HT|pc|HK|pc|H4|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|CJ|pc|C8|pc|CA|pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|CK|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D7|pc|D6|pc|D5|mc|12|]400|300[/hv]

An 'nxn' Lewis signalling game, to use terminology consistent with the linked paper, is a Lewis signalling game where there are n world states and n signals. So whether they cheated or not, it might look as if * B-Z were playing a 3x3 Lewis signalling game with hand strengths in context as world states and bidding gaps as signals * F-N were playing a 2x2 Lewis signalling game with led suit holdings as world states and led card orientations as signals * F-S were playing a 4x4 Lewis signalling game with lead preferences as world states and board placements as signals * W-E were playing a 4x4 Lewis signalling game with lead preferences as world states and numbers of coughs as signals. From the paper's abstract: "In this paper we use experimental approach to show how linguistic conventions can emerge in society without explicit agreement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_signaling_game http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12038/1/LewisLabSynth.pdf

I assumed that the 1♦ opening was standard unbalanced, but made tacit use of a trick on minimum (say, rules of 19-24) hands with either (31)(54), (40)(54), (41)44 or (41)(53) shape that's not really available if the 1♣ opening is of Polish or Swedish type. Assuming T-Walsh and switched 1M responses to 1♦, so that 1♣-1♦ = 4+ H 1♣-1♥ = 4+ S 1♦-1♥ = 4+ S 1♦-1♠ = 4+ H, the trick is to open 1♣ with a majority of black cards, 1♦ with a majority of red cards and let 1♣-1♦; 1♠ = 4+ S or 10-15, 31(54) 1♦-1♥; 1♠ = 4+ H or 10-15, 13(54). This largely frees up the 2♣ rebid over 1♦-1M(=4+ OM), which can now quite comfortably be played as F1 and maybe primarily serve as a sort of OM raise. (This partly explains why I don't need gnasher's 1N gadget.) A GCC legal version of the above is to to play 1♣-1♦ = 4+ S 1♣-1♥ = 4+ H 1♦-1♥ = 4+ H 1♦-1♠ = 4+ S, open 1♣ with a majority of rounded cards, 1♦ with a majority of pointed cards and let 1♣-1♦; 1♠ = 4+ H or 10-15, 13(54) 1♦-1♥; 1♠ = 4+ S or 10-15, 31(54).

A good practical line (because I trust opps not to continue diamonds when they get in) might be to play a small diamond from dummy at trick 3. This will e.g. give RHO a genuine problem if he has Qxxx, and partly rectify the count for a (real or imagined) suicide squeeze against RHO if LHO is kind enough to cooperate.

I've had a further look at your Chapi 8 system (found via a link in this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73509-feedback-wanted-on-new-structure-over-unbalanced-1d/ ), and noticed that Opener's ranges after 1♦-1♥ are usually either "12-14", "15-17" or "18+". If taken literally, they seem to imply that you don't open 1♦ with, say, 5D4x or 6D(322) unless you have at least 12 hcp. But then your opening style is about 1 hcp sounder than standard 2/1's and about 2 hcp sounder than mine or modern Precision's. Am i missing something? If not, do you think your structure would still work if these ranges were shifted downwards 2 hcp?

No. My auction: 1♥1-1N2 2♣3-2♦4 2♥5-2♠6 P7 1 "10-21", 5+ H, unbal. 2 5-12, NF 3 "13-15", either 5H4+m or 4+S5+H / "16-18", any 4 8+, relay 5 "13-15", either 5H4+m or 4S5H 6 3S1-H, P/C 7 13-15 hcp, 4S5H

On a very liberal reading of the GCC, can't 2♣ even be an ace-asking fert?

My response to this thread was to start a related one: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/74086-undefined-bids-idle-bids-and-psychic-auto-controls/

Are you allowed to play 2♣ as nat., bal. or Drury where you live? (I know this isn't GCC legal.) Although most experts in Norway play something they wouldn't hesitate to call "2/1", almost noone keeps the inv 3c raise in 1N, and therefore they tend to play 1N as not even semi-forcing. I believe a growing number of pairs here are playing 2♣ as nat. or Drury, and it wouldn't surprise me if it became expert standard in a few years.

A literal translation of 'takeout double' into Norwegian is either 'ta-ut-dobling' (never used) or 'uttaksdobling' (sometimes used). The common translation, however, is 'opplysende dobling', the literal translation of which into English is 'enlightening double'. So maybe takeout doubles are supposed to enlighten, not to be taken out.

Pass (LoTT)

One good reason for taking the inv 3c raise out of 1N is that Opener won't have a strong incentive to bid with 5S3-H4-D4-C or 4-S5H4-D4-C unless he has extras, and this can be useful in various ways. E.g., * the bidding will go 1M-1N; P instead of 1M-1N; 2m(nat.)-2N; P * the bidding will go 1M-1N; P instead of 1M-1N; 2♣(std Gazzilli)-2♦; 2M-2N; P * Opener's 2M rebid over 1M-1N; 2♣-2♦ in std Gazzilli will be much easer to handle

I agree with this. Idle bids can acquire meaning with use, in which case they're no longer idle and may even be illegal. But suppose certain idle bids have never been made by the partnership before. When is it legal to pass any of these, effectively turning them into psychic controls available only to the potential psycher? I mean, if the bidding goes 1N-3N 4♣, just to give another (bad) example, then it's obvious to all non-beginners that something ridiculous is going on, but only Opener can know with certainty if 1N was a psyche. In fact, I remember having had this exact sequence as a beginner. It turned out 1N was systemic (16-18) and that partner intended 4♣ as Gerber.