nullve

I'd open 2N without agreements.

Many of the opening structures posted on BBF make heavy use of two-bids for hands with opening strength, as if the cost of not having those two-bids available as weak preempts is either negligible or more than made up for by the structure as a whole, whatever that means. Of course, that raises the question how to measure things like that, but here I want to ask a different question: Suppose A and B are systems that perform equally well after opening bids promising "opening strength", where 'opening strength' is defined the same way in A and B. Also suppose that * A and B use the m and n first opening bids, respectively, for hands with "opening strength" * in B, the m-n next opening bids are available as weak preempts (yes, assume m>n) * the remaining opening bids are the same in A and B My (not necessarily rhetorical) question, then, is: Wouldn't you rather play system B than system A?

There's always a herd willing to play whatever the top pairs of their country are playing. In Norway, for example, some pairs still play 5443, apparently for no other reason than that Norway's (now actually Monaco's) top pair are playing it. I've even heard the argument: "If it's good enough for H-H, then it's good enough for me." And I can't think of a good bridge reason why so many American Precision pairs use precisly a 19-20 range for their 2N opening.* Of course, it's nice to have 1♣-1♦; 1N = 17-18 bal, but it's also nice to be able to bid like that with 19 bal., and 17-19 is still a very manageable range. So I guess some pairs (Greco-Hampson?) have thought: "If it's good enough for Meckwell, it must be good enough for us." That said, it seems that the Meckwell/Meckwell Lite crowd agree with the said Italian and Swedish pairs that some strong balanced hands need to be taken out of the 1♣ opening, whether it's strong or nat./bal. My point is merely that this may be cultural thing and not necessarily an indication that the Italian, Swedish or American top players are onto something. * That doesn't mean there can't be any or that Rodwell can't possibly have thought this through.

Unil recently I was sure I had witnessed a couple of Turbo-related accidents by Fantoni-Nunes on Vugraph, but I can't find evidence they ever had any when I search the internet. So, do any of you recall that they've had accidents with Turbo?

No, it didn't occur to me that just because he doesn't know which suit I have, he won't know what to do over 3/4♠. What I think he'll do is to try to make the right LoTT decision, either by passing, bidding a new suit as P/C, 3N to play or 4N as takeout over 4♠, or by making a (passable) takeout double if he thinks he needs to leave the decision to me. And what he thinks is the right LoTT decision will largely depend on what he has in spades.

Because...?

Apparently, Levin-Weinstein play it: http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2013worldteamchampionships-bali/bermudabowl/usa%20i/levin-weinstein.pdf Maybe it's a cultural thing, like playing Flannery (which they also play, btw).

Are you saying that a negative IMP average is inconsistent with a high (e.g. ELO-type) rating? Or are you hinting that the OP should make himself immune from ad hominem attacks by never playing on BBO under his BBF nick?

For me, 1♣-1♦; 1♠-1N; 2♥ = rules of 25-27*, 4S3H5+C, so I don't have to reverse into 2♠ over 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1N. Apparently the latter isn't an option for you, though, since 1♥ is limited to 15 hcp. * i.e. 16-18 hcp if 4315, 15-17 hcp if 4036

Not the same convention?

Yes: the ♦K is with Responder this time. But parity responses are sometimes harder to read than standard RKC responses, I'll admit that. The same goes for Turbo bids, of course. I'm afraid not. Agree, and I have to shamefully admit that committing the partnership to 6♥ opposite the trump Q + the ♠K, is less clear than I thought.

I blame South for splintering with so much extras. Then I agree with Ken that Responder should start with 2♣ on most GF hands with 3-card support, as it solves so many problems. E.g. you can then play that 1M-2R; 3x(x<R)-3M = doubleton support 1♠-2♥; 3♥-3♠ = cuebid, non-serious 3M+1 or whatever, as long as hearts are agreed Using my own methods: [hv=pc=n&s=sKQ986hAKQJdT83c9&n=sAT4hT9753dKcAQJ4&d=s&v=0&a=1s(19-30 Bergen points a la Zar Petkov, 5+ S, unbal.)p2c(4-way)p2h(22-24 Bergen points)p2s(relay)p2n(4+ H, not 5S5H / 6+ S, 1-suited)p3c(relay)p3n(5431/5440, hence 13-15 hcp)p4d(major suit slam try)p4h(5431)p4n(KC ask agreeing H)p5c(even number of KC)p5d(trump Q ask)p5n(trump Q + SK, no DK)p6hppp]266|200[/hv]

I haven't worked on the details, and I'm not sure how good it is, but I play (1M)-(2M)-?: (...) X = takeout 2♠/3m = lead-directing, usually weak 2N = serious overcall in some suit (=> 3♣ = P/C (=> 3M/3N = ??)) 3M = stopper ask (...) 3N = gambling 4m = Leaping Michaels (...)

The main reason some don't play South-African Texas is that they play Gerber instead. But with 2263 opposite a notrump shape you're guaranteed at least an 8-card diamond fit, so RKC should be an option.

Think of it this way: if you have a fit, you can use RKC to find out about key cards, which is better than just finding out about aces, anyway. If you don't have a fit, you need high card points (in the old days 33 or more), but then you will hardly ever reach slam with two aces missing unless someone's made a mistake.

I, for one, think this is an interesting idea. But then I happen to think the kind of encoding that forces a player to look at his own hand for successful decoding, is much underused in bridge, despite being at the heart of conventions such as * Blackwood * Turbo * two-way doubles * Major Flash * 3rd/5th leads

We can think of this as a LoTT problem, eiher by using 1) Larry Cohen's special LoTT rule which says that the total number of tricks when (exactly) one side is playing notrump is 7 + the number of trumps held by the other side; or 2) "regular" LoTT and the fact that suit contracts on 8-card or better fits tend to produce at least 1 trick more than notrump Using 1): We have 9 hearts at most, since partner didn't superaccept, so there are at most 16 total tricks. Then if 3NX makes, we are going at least 3 down in 4♥X, again a terrible result, so passing 3NX is our only hope. Using 2): We have no reason to think opps have more than an 8-card fit, hence (by LoTT) no reason to think there would be more than 17 total tricks had opps chosen to play in that suit, hence (by the mentioned fact about 8-card fits) neither any reason to think there are more than 16 total tricks now that opps have chosen to play in notrump. So passing 3NX is again clear.

Their 2♦ rebid showed 11-15, 4+ D or 2533. At least in "Il sistema Bocchi-Duboin".

Bocchi-Duboin used to combine 1♥-1N = 5+ S with Gazzilli.

Yes, Magnus Carlsen: Luckily, he doesn't play bridge:

While it's true that '(4333), (4432) or (5332)', means the same as '(4333) or (4432) or (5332)', e.g. when listing all traditional balanced hand patterns, the expression '10-15, 6+ C or 5C4M', which is commonly used to describe a Precision 2C opening, is supposed to mean the same as '10-15 and either 6+ C or 5C4M', i.e. '10-15 and (6+ C or 5CM)'. As another example, compare 'blue, red or green', with 'apples, red or green'.

If the 1M opening includes balanced hands: Yes, probably. Try e.g. 13 hcp, 42(43)/4333/43(42)/5(332) opposite 8 hcp, 2(443). I don't think you can scramble to a playable 7-card or better fit reliably, and not one that plays better than 1N, anyway. That said, I knew a (strong) pair that did play a forcing 1N response (actually an inv+ relay) to their potentially balanced canape 1M openings, and their solution was to let Responder pass all balanced hand without support and less than inv strength and accept the occasional (anti-field) 1M contract on a 4-2 fit philosophically. If the 1M opening is always unbalanced: No. See e.g. Roman Club or Valentines.

Where I live, everyone plays (reverse) attitude discards, even though it really doesn't make sense vs. NT. (You don't want to encourage by discarding a potential long suit winner; that's a beginner's mistake.)

My one-suited structure (based on the above) is effectively +5(!!), sometimes +4(!), Symmetric Relay, but it works reasonably well partly because Responder has had plenty opportunity to revert to natural on unbalanced hands without tolerance for Opener's major. The structure is close to: ...3♦(6+ M, 1-suited)-3♥(relay, usually 2+ M); ?: 3♠ = SPL C or 6M(32)2 [the potentially misfitting "low shortage" oppposite a hand with real clubs is included in the first step, unlike in Symmetric Relay] ...3N = relay ......4♣ = 6M(32)2 .........4♦ = relay ............4♥ = 6M232 (=> 4M+1 = RKC(M)) ............4♠ = 6M322 (=> 4N(M=♥) = PKC(♥); 4N(M=♠) = RKC(♠)) ......4♦+ = same as 4♦+ directly, but with SPL C instead of SPL OM 3N = SPL D ...4♣ = relay ......4♦+ = same as 4♦+ directly, but with SPL D instead of SPL OM 4♣ = 6M223 or 7M222 ...4♦ = relay ......4♥ = 6M223 (=> 4M+1 = RKC(M)) ......4♠ = 7M222 (=> 4N(M=♥) = PKC(♥); 4N(M=♠) = RKC(♠)) 4♦+ = SPL OM [i.e. "high shortage" instead of +4 Symmetric Relay's "low shortage"] Specifically: 4♦ = 6M1OM33 (=> 4M+1 = RKC(M)) 4♥ = 7M1OM23 (=> 4M+1 = RKC(M)) 4♠ = 7M1OM32 (=> 4N(M=♥) = PKC(♥); 4N(M=♠) = RKC(♠)) 4N = 7M0OM33 (=> 5♣(M=♥) = TPKC(♥); 5♣(M=♠) = PKC(♠)) (...)

One possibility, based on my structure above: ...3♦(5S5O)-3♥(relay); ?: (...) 4♣ = 5512 or 5503 ...4♦ = relay ......4♥ = 5512 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) ......4♠ = 5503 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) 4♦ = 5521 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) 4♥ = 5530 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) Similarly with 6M4OM: ...2N(6+M4+OM, not 5S5H / 6+ M, 1-suited)-3♣(relay); 3♥(5M4OM22 or 6M4OM)-3♠(relay); ?: (...) 4♣ = 6M4OM12 or 6M4OM03 ...4♦ = relay ......4♥ = 6M4OM12 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) ......4♠ = 6M4OM03 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) 4♦ = 6M4OM21 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) 4♥ = 6M4OM30 (=> 4N = PKC(♥); 5♣ = PKC(♠)) Edited to include example based on hands from http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73037-another-risky-grand/page__pid__870494, but with South as dealer instead of North: [hv=pc=n&s=sakq92hkq987dqt2c&n=s3hat65dak85cq753&d=s&v=e&b=9&a=1sp2c(4-way)p3d(15-17, 5S5O)p3h(relay)p4h(5530)p4n(PKC agreeing H)p5c(even number of KC)p5d(trump Q ask)p5n(trump Q + SK, no DK)p6c(SQ ask)p6s(SQ + DQ, no SJ)p7hppp]266|200[/hv] (Of course, North could have jumped to 7♥ over 5N.)