mw64ahw

I would say no in practice, but this is a bot. More importantly bidding 3NT depends on the strength of the X; if this is sub 15hcp then you will struggle in 3NT too

Taking a Major's first approach which will miss any ♣ fit in this case. ♣ length can be inferred from the ♦void/failing to support ♠ 1♠-2♥ GI 5+♥ 4♣ 3+♥ SI w. ♥ honour and ♠ & ♣ controls - 4♦ void (otherwise go straight to showing keycards w. a ♦ control) 4♠ 2KCs (ignoring ♦) - 5♣ K♣ SF 6♦ All KCs/1st round control+Q♥+A♦ - 6/7♥ In practice I think we stop in 6♥ Without the ♠ control the bid would be 3♦ weaker SI showing a balanced/semi-balanced hand with 6♠. 3♥ then asks?

I would be happy opening 1♣ or 1♦ depending on partner, but with either auction I still think you have the issue of what to do over 3♥. With the former we pass as we know we have the balance of points, but don't establish the ♦ suit, with the latter it's a close call, but may well end up in 4♦ too.

Yep - 2♦ is Ekren; 2♥ is 'Ekren' style and supposedly harder to play against

I initially thought that, but decided I would have bid ♠ rather than ♦ so that leaves me North having both minors with probably longer ♣ and some decent distribution/hcp count.

1♠ in a Kaplan Inversion context which is either a Forcing NT equivalent or 5+♠ GI. It's the system I play so I choose it. With 4♥ instead of 3 I have a choice of bids.

You have the strength for 4♠, but I would treat that as pre-emptive so possibly missing out on a slam. Possibly a X followed by ♠s or an IJO

Not quite an Ekren opening (2♦), but 'Ekren' style.

Subtle

I guess the 8hcp'ers Pass although in practice the hand has enough for a mixed raise in ♠ especially White vs Red The ♥ suit is a plus sitting in that seat and also increases the likelihood of North having 4♠

A 1♥ Kaplan Inversion approach for comparison with raises based on a Modified Loosing Trick Count. Comments welcome Initial responses 1♠ a) not GI/GF b) 5+♠ GI/GF, c) 3+♥ 10MLT (6-7tp), d) 3♥ 8.5MLT (10-11tp) 1NT 5+♠ not GI/GF 2♣ 3+ GI/GF or 3♥ GF 2♦ 5+GI/GF or 3+♦3♥ GF 2♥ 3+♥ 9MLT (8-10tp) 2♠ a) 4+♥ <=8.5 MLT, b) 3♥ 7.5MLT 2NT a) 4+♥ Mixed raise <=7.5MLT , b) SI 4+♥ w. void, c) 3♥ 8 MLT (11-12tp). 3♣ asks. 3♣ 4+♥ Mixed raise 8MLT, 3♦ 4+♥ Mixed raise 8.5MLT 3♥ NV 4♥/VN 5+♥ pre-emptive 3♠ 4+♥ SI ♠ ctrl 3NT 3♥(433) COG 4♣ 4+♥ SI ♣ ctrl w. ♥ honour 4♦ 4+♥ SI ♦ ctrl w. ♥ honour 4♥ NV 5+♥/VN 6+♥ pre-emptive After 1♥-1♠ 1NT Balanced or ♦; 2♣ asks 2♣ 4+♣ 2♦ a) 4♠ Weak+, b) 2533 Str, c) 6+♥ Str 2♥ 6+♥ 2♠ a) 4+♣ Str, b) 5332 Str 3♣ asks 2NT a) 4+♦ Str, b) 5323 Str 3♣ asks 3♣ 5+♣ <=5.5MLT usually Pass/Correct 3♦ 5+♦ <=5.5MLT usually Pass/Correct 3♥ 6+♥ <=5.5MLT

I prefer this to the 1♠ structure but would free up the 2♠ response by putting it in the forcing 1♠. This gives opener the opportunity to show their 2nd suit. Overall though I still prefer Kaplan Inversion as this prioritises the weak 5-3/4-4 ♠ fits P.S. Another thought; why bother with 3m 5+GF when the 1NT & 2♣ are transfers? Perhaps on par with the ♠ structure

Something to do with The Law?

Weak with support The 3/4♠ bids looks too wide ranging. With a 7 loser hand slam could be on if partner is strong, but they won't know whether it is pre-emptive of not. Better to use 3/4♠ as pre-emptive only based on The Law NV/VN and use 3♣-3♥ as the mixed raises, which then means you need to show your limit raise another way. The game try 1♠-2♠-2NT The original Goren style has 2♠ as the 9 loser hand with the 10 loser hand going via 1NT. This provides the basis for a sounder game try 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦/2♥ GF/GI perhaps a better use is some sort of Bart/Lisa etc. to find the weak 5-3/6-2 ♥ fits and stick with a modern standard 1♠-2♦/2♥ as 5+ GF/GI i.e. 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♥ 6+♥ Weak 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ 3♥s-Pass/Correct 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♠ 2♠s 9+hcp GI

White vs Red I'd risk the X.

Not ugly, but efficient and you can score better than those in 5♦

I would play fit jumps showing 1st/2nd round control in a standardish approach so 3♥ signals the intention to at least force to game in ♦. My systemic unbalanced ♦ approach ends up signalling the SI at 3♦ from where control bidding etc. becomes standard.

South should be looking for the slam from the outset with 17+ hcp and MLTC of ~5.5 (19-7.5-5.5=6-level) and getting there via 2NT or 2♦ shouldn't make much difference. To me it is odd that South cues and then backs down when the void is shown; presumambly concerned about lost values In ♦. For me North also has distribution to take it further. In the auction above 4NT can be the bid after 4♦ confirming the ♥ control and showing 2 KCs outside ♦ knowing that partner is void. Alternatively, 4NT asks for keycards with 5♣ showing 1 KC ignoring the already shown void. 5♦ then asks for the Q♠ with 5♥ being a positive with K♥ My preferred auction is 1♠ - 2♦ 3/5+♦ 2♠ 4♥ Min+ - 3♠ SI 4♦ ♦ ctrl no ♣ ctrl & 2+♠ honours 4NT 2KCs w. ♥ & ♣ ctrl - 5♦ void (AK), 6♠

If 4♣ is unavailable, then 4♦ as Kickback

There is a potential slam on with KQ ♣ and the shape, but the lack of Aces may be an issue. 3NT suggests a decent ♥ suit and 15+hcp so some of the hcp accounted for. Only way you are going to find out is to bid 4♣

but you have 6 card support, not 4-5, so why not 4♠.

Not quite how I play it. The NT Takeout may not be a splinter in the opening suit and can be as low as 6hcp on say 6331 favourable up to 15. No need for a negative; 1NT should be doubled if opponents have the balance of points and your run out finds the best suit. The Power X may be short openers suit with 17+ rather than 15+

Why not 4♠ if you are going to play the law? 3♠ as a limit raise opposite a potential 9 count looks too aggressive?

How to avoid? Try reversing the Takeout X and 1NT overcall so playing Power Doubles and a NT Takeout. If your NT takeout gets doubled then runout sequences can be better defined. If you end up in 1NT after a Power Double and this gets doubled then your downside is on average less 1♦ - 1NT - P - P X - XX (4♠) - P? - 2♠

Gained from those as qualified as you!