nullve

What are your other 2-openings?

I understand your frustration, but you just proved that rudeness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think 2N is a lie in any way, but 3♠ is.

Hardly standard anywhere in the world (yet!), but I play 1N-2♣; 2♥-2♠ = 4S2-H5+m, weak Invitational hands with 4 S don't exist in my pass-or-bash style. Invitational hands with 5 S only exist if they contain another 5+ suit, but then they can be shown by a special mechanism after 1N-2♥; 2♠.

(Bridge) arguments of the form If you do A, B might happen. You don't want B to happen. Therefore, you shouldn't do A.

Maybe he's playing SEF or Benji Acol.

But which game are we talking about? If it's the game that begins only after systems have been designed and agreed upon, then the game tree is finite, just like in chess. If it's the game that starts with system design, then the game tree is infinite, because e.g. for each p in the real interval [0,1] a pair could choose a system where hands of type T were opened 1C and 1D with probability p and 1-p, respectively.

Yes. That depends on what we mean by 'hcp'. When Goren was popularising Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 method, he also taught players to make adjustments based on honour location and possession or lack of intermediates. So your first example hand would only be worth 10 hcp (at most!) after subtracting 1 hcp for each QJ doubleton, while your second example hand would be upgraded to 13 hcp (at least!) because of well-placed honours and the abundance of intermediates. So if hcp's are counted the way Goren intended, neither of these hands are Rule of 21 hands, and only the latter satisfies the Rule of 20. But if it's ok at the novice/beginner level to count hcp's without making the sort of adjustments Goren recommended, then it's presumably also ok to use the Rule of 20 without making those same adjustments.

The number of high card points (hcp) you need to open should depend on the shape of your hand. So instead of just counting hcp, I suggest you use the popular rule described here https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/481 when considering whether to open in first or second seat. (Opening in 3rd or 4th seat is a slightly different matter, though.)

Give partner as little as x-xxx-Qxxx-xxxxx.

4♠ might be the best bid, but they still pay a bonus for slam, don't they? (Underbidding 4♠ is risky, too, and getting a plus score is not an end in itself at any form of scoring.)

This is true whether 3♣ shows 6+ H or 5+H4+C.

Found this summary of the Ultimate Club: http://bridgefiles.net/pdf/Ultimate%20Club.htm

Assuming 1♠-1N; 2♣ = "11-15", 4+ C / "16+", any, I've always thought standard rebids by Responder are something like 2♦ = "8+", any [GF opposite the strong option] 2♥+ = "5-7", nat. Specifically: 2♥ = "5-7", 5+ H 2♠ = "5-7", 2S4-H [also with "4-6", 3 S if you play 1♠-2♠ as constructive] 2N = "5-7", 5+D4+C or 4H5+D, usually 1- S [=> 3♣ = to play opposite 4+ C (=> P = 4+ C; 3♦ = 4H3-C)] 3♣ = "5-7", 4-H4-D5+C, usually 1- S 3♦ = "5-7", 3-H6+D4-C, usually 1- S Notice that hands with 5-7, 1444 are unbiddable on this interpretation.

Yes, for the first time on BBF. Didn't mean to spark the Third World War, though.

Unless they play stupid games like chess.

It's the other way around, isn't it? I mean, if 1♥-1N = 6-10 hcp, 3-S2-H, then Opener can just pass with 11-15 hcp and either 4522 or 45(31).

Fair point, because even in a seemingly simple case like S = 2/1 T = Weak 2D T¨= Flannery 2D, how we choose to update S will clearly depend on our current bidding philosophy. And not just regarding standards for a 1D or 3D opening, because it might not be obvious for all eternity (and all system regulations) that we have to stuff all our T openers into P, 1D or 3D after replacing T with T'.

Yes, sorry. Edited now.

Or we can let S be any (hypothetical) system where 2♦ = 432-432-432-5432 exactly 4♠ = AKQJT98765-2-2-2 exactly and let T = the 4♠ opening inn S T' = mandatory 4♠ opening with 432-432-432-5432 exactly Then after the update, when 2♦ has turned into a reasonably frequent and useful opening, * S' is better than S (really) * S is better than S' on T hands (really) * S is better than S' on T' hands (really)

Maybe. But the following might come very to close to being an example of an "aztec" sacrifice that is also a utilitarian sacrifice: S = Blue Club T = Blue Club's 7N opening (undefined, I guess, but presumably only used with 13 likely tricks in NT) T' = 7N opening defined the same way as Blue Club's 2♦ opening, i.e. as 17-24, (4441) Replacing T with T' frees up the 2♦ opening, so by updating S "the obvious way", we get something like Aztec Blue Club (our S'): 2♦ = weak preempt not overapping with 2♥+ 7N = 17-24, (4441) other: same as S, which to me now seems better than regular Blue Club for any reasonable choice of weak 2♦ preempt due to the extremely low frequency of Blue Club's 2♦ opening. So IMO, * S' is better than S * S is better than S' on T' hands * S is at least as good as S' on T hands (but not better, so it's not a perfect example)

You're probably right.

@gwnn: When I asked I didn't know what the answer was, i.e. I couldn't think of a single convincing example. But since I had only given the terse definition of 'utilitarian sacrifice', I felt the need to give an example anyway, while distancing myself from it by writing e.g. that it's "debatable" whether 2/1+WJS is better than 2/1+RFR on RFR hands. We seem to agree that it's odd to believe that 2/1+WJS is better than 2/1+RFR on both WJS and RFR hands and still believe that 2/1+RFR is the better system overall. More generally, and given my definition above, I think it's odd (but not necessarily wrong) to believe that S is better than S' on T and T' hands while believing that S' is the better system overall. But such beliefs seem often to be implied when players attempt to justify why they're playing seemingly inferior structures.

I think most RFR proponents would agree that 2/1+WJS has the edge over 2/1+RFR on WJS hands. That the majority also believe it has the edge on RFR hands seems more far-fetched, but even Bobby Levin (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/reverse-flannery-some-characteristics/) admits that I wish I had chosen a different/better example, though.

I didn't give the example because it's convincing to me personally (it's not), but rather because it might be convincing to someone already convinced that 2/1+RFR is better than 2/1+WJS. After all, a player might believe that 2/1+WJS works better on WJS and RFR hands and still believe that 2/1+RFR is the better system overall because "when Levin-Weinstein play it, it must be for good reasons".