nullve

I prefer a system where I'm rewarded for plays like this, although it was a lowly 1N contract: [hv=pc=n&sn=nullve&s=sK42hKdKJ853cAT93&n=sJT3hQT65d942cJ64&e=sA75hJ9742dQTcKQ5&w=sQ986hA83dA76c872&d=s&v=ew&b=1&a=1n(14-16)ppp&p=H3H5H9HKDKDAD2DTH8HTHJSKCKCAC7C4D5D7D9DQH2S4HAH6C8CJCQC3SAS2S6S3C5CTC2]400|300[/hv]

Why?

It may not be sufficient to get you to slam, but East should definitely open 1N (15-17) using any decent hand evaluator (i.e. not Milton Work) that has been normalised to yield a total of 10 points for an ace, a king, a queen and a jack.

Someone called me "sissy spineless coward" on chess.com today.

I knew I was on thin ice with that statement, but don't you get the impression there's a trend away from MP?

I think OP's point is that you're not obviously worse off after a 1N rebid showing 12-17 hcp than after a 2m rebid having the same range. Besides, I don't see why you'd ever want to play in 2N after something like 1♥-1♠; 1N(12-17 bal.)-?: P = 0-8, 4S2-H 2♣ = (8)9+, relay ...2♦ = 12-14, 2533 [allows P with 4S1-H4+D, 2♥ with 4S2H, 2♠ with 5+ S and 3♣ with 4S1-H5+C] ...2♥ = 12-14, 3S5H(32) [allows P with 4S2H, 2♠ with 4S1-H5-D5-C and 3m with 4S6+m] ...(...) 2♦/♥/♠ = to play

I started a MP table today, just to see if it's still possible to play a random MP game on BBO. When the table still wasn't full after 22 minutes, I gave up.

Maybe bridge will survive by metamorphosis, but BAM is already dead (here on BBO it is, anyway) and MP is certainly dying (just try to start a random MP table, or have a look around the Main Bridge Club, for evidence).

I'd rather collect Olympic pins than play ACBL stratified games for masterpoints. And that's saying something, because I never even watch the Olympics.

Natural continuations after 1M-2N(nat GF); 3m(4+ m) work even less than after 1N-[2M-1](5+ M); 2M-3m(4+ m, GF), since Responder has yet to limit his hand. So how do you continue after 1M-2N?

Is this http://www.bridgetoday.com/The70%25Solution.pdf really the same GUS? Here, the 1♦ opening contains a 12-14 NT, while Granovetter-Stansby's 1N opening is 12+-16 according to the above CC.

GUS, as played by Pamela Granovetter - Jo Anna Stansby: http://bridgewinners.com/convention-card/print/pgranovetter-jstansby

Looks like two-level ace-asking ferts (e.g. 2♦ = 0-6 hcp, asking for aces) might be allowed, too: Edit: Singleton-asking ferts might be more effective, though.

Even more trivial: A and B are the same system except that 2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up) 2♦ in B = Weak Two

Let S = system with openings a la Greco-Hampson's Meckwell Lite system S' = system with openings a la Hurd-Wooldridge's aggressive 2/1 system Then * S and S' agree on what constitutes an opening hand * openings above 2♦ are the same in S and S' * of the remaining non-weak openings, S uses 1♣,...,2♦ for hands with opening strength, so if S is our candidate system A, m=7 * of the remaining non-weak openings, S' uses 1♣,...,2♣ for hands with opening strength, so if S' is our candidate system B, n=6 In order for S and S' to be our systems A and B, respectively, they must also perform equally well after non-weak openings, something you seem to think could never happen. But we haven't said anything about the design beyond the openings yet. So suppose S and S' really were the systems played by Greco-Hampson and Hurd-Wooldridge, respectively, and suppose we found that Greco-Hampson' system performed better after non-weak openings. Then we could gradually either weaken the design of S or strengthen the design of S' until they both performed equally well. Agree?

3 systems: A) 1♣ = nat. ...1♥ = 5+ hcp, 4+ H ......2♠ = 4+S5+C, GF .........P = not allowed! B) 1♣ = nat. ...1♥ = 0-4 hcp, 4+H2-C (just wants to get out of 1♣) / 5+ hcp, 4+ H ......2♠ = 4+S5+C, GF opposite 5+ hcp .........P = just wanted to get out of 1♣ C) 1♣ = nat. ...1♥ = 0-4 hcp, 4+H2-C (just wants to get out of 1♣) / 5+ hcp, 4+ H ......2♠ = 4+S5+C, GF! .........P = not allowed! I know which one I would pick.

That's an intriguing observation.

This is basically glen's 'Wicked' 2C: http://www.bridgematters.com/weakstng.htm

Maybe, just maybe, 1♣ = nat. or 14-16 bal. 1N = 11-13 or 17-19 (i.e. a slightly sounder version of Woodson's two-way notrump)

I'm certainly open to the possibility that if e.g. S = 2/1 with Flannery (e.g. Levin/Weinstein) S' = 2/1 with Weak 2♦ (e.g. Chagas/Villas-Bôas), then S might well be the superior system partly because of the decision to play Flannery (strong preempt) instead of Weak 2♦. In my defence, the (somewhat artificial) assumption was that A and B perform equally well after non-weak openings, which with A = S and B = S' could then only mean that A suffered from poorer design after other non-weak openings. (Hence the artificiality of the assumption.) Agree with everything, but see my reply to PhilKing, who I basically also agree with.

Agree, at least if 'properly designed'/'good' means 'optimally designed' in this context. I never said anything about A and B being optimally designed. Clearly, A cannot be.

I don't know, although from the quote you might get the impression that I think it's the sheer number, not the quality, of weak preempts that matters. But the conditions in the OP are such that whenever A and B use the same opening bid as a weak preempt, the meaning of that opening bid will also be the same. In fact, A's weak preempts are just a subset of B's. Yes, provided the conditions in the OP are met. There's nothing sacred about standard.

Agree. (We're not comparing A and B's user-friendliness here.) It's obvious to me as well, so it always baffles me a bit when someone posts a new opening structure without trying to justify the scarcity of weak preempts in it. After all, it's hardly evident from the opening structure alone that there will be (more than) enough compensation.

Maybe I wasn't clear. By 'first' I meant 'lowest', assuming the usual ordering of opening bids, so the meaning of 7N will be the same in A and B unless m=35.