nullve

Unnecessary, perhaps, but why poor?

A couple of questions motivated by recent threads: 1) Do you regard a 3♣ response to regular/Garbage Stayman as a) idle, but not undefined b) undefined, but not idle c) both idle and undefined d) neither idle nor undefined (really?) ? True story: I was thinking about starting this thread yesterday, but spent all day playing Challenge and team matches on BBO instead. Then, as if by black magic, the following hand came up: [hv=pc=n&s=sq976hj643dk963cq&d=s&v=ew&b=14&a=p1c1np2c(yuck?)p3cp?]266|200[/hv] North was not a regular partner of mine, but good. 2) Can idle bids legally be used as psychic auto-controls? If the bidding goes 1N-2♣; 3♣, where * 1N implies 'I have a legitimate 1N opening' * 3♣ implies 'I don't have a legitimate 1N opening, as I would then have responed either 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ to Stayman', then Opener is obviously contradicting himself. But from a contradiction everything follows, e.g. that Opener has a 3334 yarborough, 13 spades or, most importantly, a hand where 3♣ is the best available spot. So a rational (but possibly immoral or criminal) Responder might pass even on a good hand, turning the 3♣ bid into a kind of psychic auto-control if Opener for some reason wanted to play 3♣.

It's unfair if attending early is much less of a skill than attending often.

Or a variation of this, such as 2♣ = 20-21 bal. or GF ...2♦+: either transfers a la Welland-Auken or simply ...2♦ = waiting ......2♥ = Kokish: 5+ H or 25+ bal. ......2N = 20-21 bal. ......other = standard ...2M/3m = to play opposite 20-21 bal. 2N = 22-24 bal.

I've never understood what he did to deserve all the ridicule.

The problem in std is to * find 2H with 5 H opposite 4S3H (or even 4S2H) * avoid 2H with 5 H opposite 4S1H (or even 4S0H)

Looks great! I believe that if a 3-point or narrower 1N range is combined with good hand evaluation, then a pass-or-bash style is adequate and I'd get rid of: 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-2N = 4S3-H, INV 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♠; 2N-P = 4S4H, was INV 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♠; 3♣-3♦ = 4S4H, INV 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2N = 3-S4H, INV 1N-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 2N-P = 5 H, was INV 1N-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 3♣-3♦ = 5 H, INV 1N-2♠; 2N-P = 3-S3-H, was INV 1N-2♠; 3♣-3N = 3-S3-H, was INV Apart from that, and the fact that I'd miss Crawling Stayman badly, I think the structure looks very good.

A related but more fundamental reason for playing IJSs is to keep Reponder's rebid of own suit as GF, or else one can just play 2/1 GF except rebid. And this is true whether 1N is F1, SF or NF.

One of the things I thought I had invented, too. Then I read this: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/16847-modified-gazilli/

Three types of 1N rebid over 1♦-1M that I've played in a T-Walsh / unbal. 1♦ context: 1. 1N as "transfer to C" (i.e. like a standard 2♣ or 3♣ rebid) Major upside IMO: * part of a scheme that solves many of Opener's immediate rebid problems Major downsides IMO: * part of a scheme where 2N is still needed as NAT INV in many situations * awkward for Opener to show extras after 1♦-1M; 1N-2OM(FSF) if continuations are natural * RFR needed 2. 1N as any bad minimum (rules of 19-21) with neither 3c+ support nor 4+ S. Major upsides IMO: * 2N over 1♦-1M; 2♣/♦ no longer needed as NAT INV since Opener is promising Roth-Stonish opening values * INV RFR not needed * 2♥ over 1♦-1♠; 2♣/♦ can be played as NAT NF (in which case WK RFR is not needed either) Major downsides IMO: * doesn't solve any of Opener's immediate rebid problems (but doesn't create new ones, either) * 2N still needed as NAT INV over 1♦-1M; 2♣-2♦ 3. 1N as NF "Gazzilli" (rules of 19-21, neither 3c+ support nor 4+ S1, and either 6+ D or 5D5C / rules of 25-27 without 3c+ support) Major upsides IMO: * helps freeing up space so that virtually all of Opener's immediate rebid problems can be solved * helps getting rid of all NAT INV 2N bids after 1♦-1M * RFR not needed (if done right) Major downside IMO: * the complexity when everything is in place 1 Actually, it's 4+ H that's denied, since I play swapped 1M responses to 1♦ where 1♦-1♥(4+ S); 1♠ = 4+ H or 10-15, 13(54).

So * the P/1♦ openings are standard WOS base except that P is always unbal. * the 1M, 1N and 2m openings are as in Magic Diamond * the 2M openings are more or less standard weak twos * the 2N+ openngs are undefined So far so good. I don't think I've seen this exact 1♣ opening before, but it does look a lot like * a Boring 1♣ opening, but with 8-11 or 15+ instead of 12-18 * the balanced part of Polish, Roman or Swedish 1♣ opening, but with ranges shifted downwards a few points. Just to prove that the opening itself is playable (not to suggest a structure after it): 1♣-?: 1♦: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with 0-13 negative range and other ranges shifted upwards 4 points ...Instead of Roman Club-style rebids: ...1M = 8-11, 4 M or 3M3-OM [delayed Regres 1M opening, but always bal. and with 8-11 instead of 8-12; should be playable] ...1N = 15-17 [playable] ...2♣ = 18-19 [delayed Mexican, should be playable] ...2♦ = 20-21 [delayed Mexican, should be playable] ...2♥ = 22-24 [balanced-only Birthright, should be playable] ...2N = 25+ [playable] 1♥+: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with Responder's ranges shifted upwards 4 points ...1♠+: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with ranges being 8-11/15-17/21+ instead of 12-15/19-21/25+, respectively, and with Opener's cheapest C rebid (otherwise idle) showing 18-20 bal. [should be playable] I suppose transfer responses to 1♣ could work, too, but the wide 8-11 range might cause some problems that a 8-10 or 9-11 range wouldn't.

The rule of 20 (or rule of 19 or...) is unfortunately only as good as the hcp valuation method that goes into it. So when I use the rule of 20, I make sure to first count hcp using my preferred valuation method; then I translate the result into Miltonese (integer values only, value of A+K+Q+J is 10 points), as it were, before adding the number of cards in the two longest suits. On this particular hand, I'd get 12 Miltonese hcp by rounding upwards, so the hand would meet the rule of 20.

When I played transfer rebids by Opener over 1♣-[1M-1](= 4+ M) and 1R-1M, 1♣-[1M-1]; [2M-1] = weak-or-inv 3 c raise 1R-1M; [2M-1] = weak-or-inv 3c raise so that 1♣-[1M-1]; 1♠(= trf ♣); 2♣; 2M = 3M(5)6+C, extras but < inv 1R-1M; [2R-1](= trf R)-2R; 2M = 3M(5)6+R, extras but < inv, 1♣-[1M-1]; [2M-1]-2M; 3♣ = 3M6+C, inv 1R-1M; [2M-1]-2M; 3R = 3M6+R, inv and 1♣-[1M-1]; 1♠(= trf ♣); 2♣; 3M = 3M6+C, FG 1R-1M; [2R-1](= trf R)-2R; 3M = 3M6+R, FG

Grøtheim writes in the book that he took the opening from Armstrong-Forrester, who used it on a now famous deal from the 1987 BB. It can be found on page 6 here: http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/00_2%20Antalya/pdf/bul_01.pdf

I agree with Zelandakh. Trick taking value is exactly what points are supposed to measure, and ideally the number of points is simply the trick taking value times a constant, where the constant is chosen just to make the counting easier. And nothing prevents you from converting hand texture to points. See e.g. http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/points.html

Then the French 2N opening is the same as in 1993 Viking Precision.

Agree.

So 1♥(5+ H)-1N(F1); ? 2♣: shows, but does not promise, 3+ C I think we could do without the show/promise distinction by describing bids more carefully, though.

Reduced Stayman: 1N-2♣; ?: 2♥: shows, but does not promise, 4+ H 2♠: shows, but does not promise, 4+ S other (incl. 2♦): not allowed / end of partnership Less ridiculous, perhaps: 1♥(5+ H)-1N(F1); ?: 2♣: shows, but does not promise, 4+ C 2♦: shows, but does not promise 4+ D

No, you didn't. I chose that meaning for 2N to be able to make a certain point. Mexican 2♦ + Qattro Stagioni vs. Wilkosz + 20-21 NT would have been a different comparison entirely.

If T = Wilkosz + 2N as 5+D5+C, weak T' = Mexican 2♦ + Quattro Stagioni S = Swedish Club (with 15-17 NT) containing T S' = S after replacing T with T' and "updating" (to fill the holes created and reap some structural benefits, say), then, arguably, S is better (on average) than S' on both T and T' hands, because, evidently(?), * Wilkosz is better (on average) than Quattro Stagioni on weak 5+M5+m hands * Wilkosz is better (on average) than Pass (in S') on many weak 5+S5+H hands (the 5+S5+H hands that Wilkosz is restricted to, say) * 2N in S is better (on average) than Pass in S' on many weak 5+D5+C hands (the hands that the 2N opening in S is restricted to, say) * Swedish 1♣ in S is better (on average) than Mexican 2♦ with 18-19 bal., despite occasional embarrassments1 after e.g. 1♣-(3x)-P. So if S' is the better system overall, then that will be an example of the kind of mild paradox that my 'Utiltitarian sacrifices' [sic!] thread was about. Mild, because in order to say with certainty which system is better, we clearly need to know the details of how S is updated after T has been replaced with T'2. (Consider possible updates when the 1N rebid after 1♣-1♦ can no longer contain 18-19 bal., for example.) 1 Today's big shock: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/embarrassment (6th sense of the word) 2 As mgoetze pointed out in that thread.

Using LoTT w/ standard adjustments: 1. 4♠ 2. 5♠

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage, especially: "Courage (also called bravery, bravado or valour) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss."

Idea: 2N-?: 3♣ = P/C 3♦ = Multi: either < GF w/ long major or strong ...3♥ = C preempt ["P/C"] ......P = wanted to play 3♥ opposite a C preempt ......3♠ = wanted to play 3♠ opposite a C preempt ......(...) ...3♠ = 5+H5+D [right-siding 4♥] ......P = wanted to play 3♠ opposite 5+H5+D ......(...) ...3N = 5S5H [right-siding 4M] ...4♣ = 5(+)S6+H ...4♦ = 6+S5(+)H ...(...) 3M = 5+ M, GF (...)

Agree. It's a kind of bridge player's fallacy, committed in almost every thread on BBF, to think that just because an action can have silly outcomes, it must be wrong.