foobar

Here's a Byzantine method with the following rules: 1) K-parity first (with K=2 QPs always) 2) Singletons and doubleton suits are scanned first, with ties broken in rank order. Skip with nothing or stop with A/K 3) 4+ cards suits are scanned in length order with ties broken in rank order. Stop with even and continue with odd 4C...4D (relay; even K-parity) 4H...4N (relay; nothing in ♥, even ♠) -> this can't be AK since another K > 6QPs; if it's AQ, we can't satisfy even-K parity, if it's xx, it's impossible to satisfy 6 QPs, ergo KQxx) 5C...5♠ (relay; odd [diamond, club] Can I perform all these computations at the table though :D?

With IMP (long to short, skip with odd-parity unless singleton, K-parity in suit with a single honour, K=2 always): 4C...4H (relay; odd ♠, even ♦, S(A) perforce) 4S...4N (relay; even clubs) 5C...5H (relay; no stiff H(K)) Basically we are down to S(A)+D(KQ) || S(A)+C(KQ).

With IMP (long to short, skip with odd-parity unless singleton, K-parity in suit with a single honour, K=2 always): 3♠: 7 QPs 4C...4H (relay; odd ♥, even ♣, so H(K|Q) with few others at this point) 4S...4N (relay; even ♦, ergo no D(Q)) 5C...5D (relay; exception for K(S)) At this point, we are down to 5 QPs outside ♠, that must be distributed across (♥+♣). Since H(K) = 2 implies C(A) = 3 and violates even clubs, the only possible holding is the above. K-parity is perfunctory since we already know that responder can't hold H(K).

With IMP (long to short, skip with odd-parity unless singleton, K-parity in suit with a single honour): 4C...4H (relay; odd spade, even diamond); S(K) is obvious at this point, D(AK) or D(AQ) + H(Q) 4S...4N (relay; even heart, so perforce D(AK)) K-parity is perfunctory at this point, so we can pretty much place the final contract (which is probably pass?). FWIW, RKC-H might be a better method on this hand because the only slam worth exploring is 6H.

Your original post just mentioned counting Qs as 0...stiff-Qs as 0 is probably the norm?

Your original post just mentioned counting Qs as 0...stiff-Qs as 0 is probably the norm?

Couple of comments: For K-parity, my recollection is that Imprecision defines it as the K in the first suit with odd parity. This method appears to use the actual number of Ks as parity. Edit: "After showing all parities, we next shows the number of RP in the rst suit with only one honor, if such suit exist, and stop if odd (A or Q) or skip a step if even (K). We may zoom into answering this, but we never zoom beyond this ask." Isn't treating Q=0 equivalent to the classic DCB that only scans A/K on the first round?

Think that with 20+ combined QPs, most methods will place cards easily. It's the 18-19 QP (slam with a 9+ card trump fit and fitting honors) that probably merit most exploration. I would guess to limit opener to 12 QPs (but ensure a shapely 9-card trump fit) to make things worthwhile. Unfortunately, I can't think of an easy way to simulate card placement with PCB/DCB off the top of my head -- hrothgar -- any dealer script suggestions?

Off the top of my head, think that discounting stiff A is a mistake. It would certainly be interesting to evaluate awm's method of according full value to stiff-Ks vs. the more common stiff-K=1. Regarding long vs. short, the approach is probably driven by the simple statistical probability, and my guess would be that you will likely draw several initial blanks in the PCB (evens), but it would be an interesting experiment none-the-less.

This is a little bit of an aside, but it's good to see a spirited discussion on the forum after a series of "thou shalt follow my system without question" posts :D. For those following from the sidelines, is the summary of methods that were discussed the following? 1) 1♠ - 1N (semi-forcing, but shows 8-11ish with possibly doubleton ♠). Opener may pass with 5M332 hands (not relevant to zel's system) ........awm: 1♠ - 1N - 2x...2♠ (doubleton spade with 8-11) ........straube: 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ / 2♦...2♥* (*:puppet to 2♠) 2) 1♠ - 2♣ .........awm: 12+ including 5+ ♥; relay sequence .........straube: 12+, excluding 12-13 5♥ (?); relay sequence 3) 1♠ - 2♦ .........awm: 12-13ish with 0-4 ♥ .........straube: weak 6+ ♥ OR invite 5+♥ 4) 1♠ - 2♥ (LR+)

Can we have a link to your preferred methods please?

Not sure whether you really intended to rank strong club with limited openings at the very bottom, but my rankings would be almost a mirror image. Regarding wide ranging 1M openings, my opinion echoes awm's in that 8-21 (or even 8-19 or 11 -19) is way too wide. a > c > b > d > e

Oh BTW, having gone through an early draft copy, a shameless plug for Dan's book if you want to study Meckwell Lite :D -- highly recommended.

My main concern isn't about the semantics assigned to specific bids (for example swapping 2♦ and 2♠ may be more optimal as you suggested). However, my assertion is that mnemonic load is in an important factor of system design, ergo meta rules to deal with interference, while arguably sub-optimal vis-a-vis tailored methods, are preferable by a wide margin. For example, it's very tempting to design rules for 1♠ natural, 1♠ (Suction family; they never have ♠), 1♠ (Psycho-Suction and more esoteric bids). Now multiply that by the remaining bids through say 2♦ and it's easy to see how it adds more memory load for situations that may never happen for a prolonged period of time. Other forum regulars like awm and hrothgar have undoubtedly some thought into it, and it would be interesting if they chime in with their perspective.

My strong personal preference is to simply ignore the meaning of whatever they claim 1♣ - (1♠) to be. Too any times: 1) The opponents may not be on the same page regarding what they are playing. This is unlikely to happen in serious competition, but still a possibility 2) They may be psyching 3) They may be playing methods like Psycho-Suction, which may or may not show spades In other words, there are too many possibilities and IMO, a single method that focuses on showing the known suits immediately (i.e. responder's holding) is a better approach. AFAIK, awm had had it pretty right in IMP, which uses the metarule that "the cheapest NT is always natural and GF, and the rest are transfers, except that there's no transfer to a suit that couldn't have been bid naturally at the 2-level over their interference": X: TOX of the assumed ♠ suit 1N: Natural, GF 2♣: Constructive+ transfer 2♦: Constructive+ transfer 2♥: Showing 5+ ♠ regardless of what they claim, ostensibly exposing a psyche 2♠: Constructive+ transfer It does give up the occasional penalty, but such hands can presumably pass at the right vulnerability and hope for a reopening X.

The 1♥ - 1♠ sequences are probably similar to Kaplan inversion, but it's difficult to compare since 1♥ - 1N says nothing about spades. This thread may have some discussion about competitive situations over KI: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/kaplan-inversiongranville/

Can we have more details please :D? My guess it that 1H - 1N as a relay presumably uses some form of Kaplan inversion? Also, it would be interesting to know about the other 2-level responses over 1M.

Don't want to jinx it, but my reading of the Yellow chart seems to allow a certain strong club system with transfer openings (that shall not be named :D): Disallowed: "In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened, unless that bid is also Strong and Forcing."

This is similar to my position, with the addition of Jack denies + coded T/9s to disambiguate holdings to the extent possible. It has been argued that coded leads help declarer more than the defence, but it hasn't been the case IME. On a tangential note, Bird's book on NT leads suggested that leads from KJxx are more likely to cost a trick in DD...wonder if there are any other opinions on the matter.

For #1 (splinter), would recommend reading the relay breaks section in awm's excellent Imprecision document. It outlines a scheme that allows the relay captain to look for QPs outside the advertised short suit. Not completely sure of the problem in #2, but perhaps some combination of specific suit RKC asks might help?

LOL -- that's what phone touch screens and fat fingers beget you :P .

Can you please post the follow ups?

Can you please post the follow ups?

Can you please post the follow ups?

Can you please post the follow ups?