Multi Squared, MuSHroom and Preempt-Preparatory Pass (meme-sized descriptions only)

[gwnn]

Come to think of it, say I have AKJxxx x Qxx xxx and I decide (either a priori or in the spur of the moment) as 2nd seat "ok I will pass with this for one round and see what happens", and then it comes back to me as:

 

2C-p-2D-p

2S-?

 

And you actually have hearts and I have spades? Of course I will pass now, knowing that you are in a stupid contract and will likely stay there. Partner had the option to double 2D with any 12-14 balanced or 16+ (simple enough and many people play these methods) so we are likely not missing game. It seems like actually passing with a long major suit is a pretty good deal, particularly so with spades. I haven't thought this through exactly but you can see how a lot of people can stumble into this situation without even trying to come up with some genius, deep defence, and you're already in trouble.

[nullve]

you can see how a lot of people can stumble into this situation without even trying to come up with some genius, deep defence, and you're already in trouble.

I absolutely agree with you here. But AKJxxx-x-Qxx-xxx is a quite marginal overcall, anyway, and I thought the idea was to pass also with stronger hands.

[gwnn]

Well yes probably also pass with some stronger hands but definitely not forcing (which I know you did not suggest as a defence, just as an extreme example). I don't know honestly. I think winging it would already do quite well against this method. This might sound insulting but I think it's just the simple truth of the matter.

 

All I am saying is that "I have 3 hearts and 1 spade so partially based on my opps' passes, I will assume my partner has 6 spades and not 5 hearts and pass 2♠" will be a very tenuous proposition. Which I think you know and agree with, so we're back in "going around in circles" mode. I basically am confused on why you are still thinking of playing this method since you seem to be saying "yes all of the criticisms are valid but some of them apply to a lesser degree to other methods too." Yes I guess it's just a matter of taste and I guess it will be a matter of whether your minor-oriented/canape/three-suited 2M openers can make up for the dozens of imps your 2♣ openings will bleed. I am guessing not but I am guessing you disagree with the "dozens of imps" and/or my guess.

[nullve]

Actually this might be a good moment to think of full disclosure since I might want to know that your follow-ups have this 2H multi structure (something that a lot of people will not tell their opps, not pointing my finger at you), which may influence opps' decisions, for example passing more often than normal.

The subject of full disclosure is an interesing one, and although I haven't thought very deeply about it, here's what I think:

 

Basically, I view bidding theory as a kind of two-player game, often played by one bidding theorist against himself for lack of opponents, but also by partnerships against other partnerships in real life encounters, and to a lesser degree by forumers against other forumers in threads like this. This game (actually only half of it - see below) respects a move order where Player I starts by assigning a meaning to at least some of the following calls: P, 1C, ..., 7N. Player II then assigns a meaning to some of the sequences (P)-P, (P)-1C, ..., (P)-7N, (1C)-P, (1C)-X, (1C)-1D, ..., (1C)-7N, and so on. Then it's Player I' turn again, and he may assign meanings to some sequences such as P-(P)-P, ..., P-(P)-7N or 2D-(X)-P, 2D-(X)-XX, 2D-(X)-2H, ..., 2D-(X)-7N. And so on and so on. There is also a dual game (the other half of the whole game) where Player II starts first.

 

I think this is the only reasonable way the "game" of bidding theory can be played, so if e.g. an opponent wants to know my 1N defence before he decides upon his 1N range, I think he's got it exactly backwards. Still, I'd be happy to tell my opponent about my structure after 2C-(P)-2D; 2M, for each of his choices of P.

[gwnn]

I mean, won't you always have

 

2♣-p-2♦-p

2M as 6+M or 5oM4m? Assuming pass by 4th seat includes all hands from 0-10 balanced (say), does it really matter that they occasionally pass with 6 or 7 spades as well? At what point will you say "aha OK in that case 2H shows hearts and 2S shows spades"?

[nullve]

I mean, won't you always have

 

2♣-p-2♦-p

2M as 6+M or 5oM4m?

Yes, unless either pass is something really out of the ordinary, like F1.

Assuming pass by 4th seat includes all hands from 0-10 balanced (say), does it really matter that they occasionally pass with 6 or 7 spades as well?

No, not to me.

At what point will you say "aha OK in that case 2H shows hearts and 2S shows spades"?

Only when the meaning of Pass by Advancer allows me to pass with some hands as Opener, e.g. when

 

2C-(P)-2D-(P)=F1.

 

So I think you've got everything right.

[helene_t]

By not utilising more than two rebids we use the bidding space inefficiently. When opener is max with five cards M his third bid is 3nt and his minor suit is still unknown.

[nullve]

By not utilising more than two rebids we use the bidding space inefficiently.

That's especially true in a weak-only version where of Multi Squared where 2N+ are also available rebids.

When opener is max with five cards M his third bid is 3nt and his minor suit is still unknown.

Yes. So it looks bad compared to e.g. Muiderberg, but ok (or even good!) compared to some versions of Multi 2D. It has worked ok in practice, but in the "lab" I've toyed with a "muiderbergified" scheme:

 

2C-2D; 2M-2N; ?:

 

3C = non-max, 6 M or 5OM4+m (i.e. a third Multi!)

3C

¹

= allowed!

3D = reality check

3M = 6 M

3OM = 5OM4+m

3M = P/C

3OM = P/C

3D = non-max, 5OM4+D

3H = max, 5OM4+C

3S = max, 5OM4+D

3N = max, 6 M

 

EDIT: Structure corrected. I was mixing up two versions, but this is the simplest one.

 

¹ [11 Aug 2016:] Meant to write 'P', not '3C'.

 

Added, starting 21 January 2017:

 

 

 

Experiments:

 

 

21 Jan 17 [with some changes in notation 9 Aug 2017]:

 

 

 

This is what my 2♣ structure in 1st seat NV currently looks like.

 

2♣: as in the comment from 20 Jan 17 below the OP

 

(Legend: non-MAX = rules of 9-15; MAX = rules of 16-18; WK = rules of 9-18; STR = rule of 31+; R1 = < GF opposite "7" (rule of 16); R2 = GF only opposite "7+" (rule of 16+); R3 = unconditional GF (Responder always assumes "4+" (rule of 13+))

 

2♣-?:

 

P: allowed!

2♦ = R1, either 1- M, 3S3+H or 6+M2-OM / R2+, doesn't worry about 3♣ over 2♣-2♦; 2M-2N

...2♥ = non-MAX, 3-S7H / WK, either 5S3-H4+m or 3-S6H

......P = R1, either 1- H or 15(43) or 2-S6+H

......2♠ = R1, 3S3+H (P/C)

......2N = R2+

........."muiderbergified" scheme:

.........3♣ = non-MAX, 5S3-H4+C / 3-S6H

............P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 4+ C)

............3♦ = reality check

...............3♥ = non-MAX, 3-S6H

...............3♠ = 5S3-H4+C

...............3N = MAX, 3-S6H

.........3♦ = non-MAX, 5S3-H4+D

.........3♥ = MAX, 5S3-H4+C

............3♠ = relay

...............3N = 2- H

...............4♣+ = 3 H

.........3♠ = MAX, 5S2-H4+D

.........3N = MAX, 5S3H4+D

......3♣ = R1, 1-S4-H4+C

.........P = WK, 5S4+C

.........3♦ = WK, 5S4+D

.........3♥ = WK, 6 H

.........3♠+ = STR, nat.

......(...)

...2♠ = non-MAX, 7S3-H / WK, either 3-S5H4+m or 6S3-H

......P = R1, either 1- S or 51(43) or 6+S2-H

......2N = R2+

........."muiderbergified" scheme:

.........3♣ = non-MAX, 3-S5H4+C / 6S3-H

............P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 4+ C)

............3♦ = reality check

...............3♥ = 3-S5H4+C

...............3♠ = non-MAX, 6S3-H

...............3N = MAX, 6S3-H

.........3♦ = non-MAX, 3-S5H4+D

.........3♥ = MAX, 3-S5H4+C

............3♠ = relay

...............3N = 2- S

...............4♣+ = 3 S

.........3♠ = MAX, 3-S5H4+D

.........3N = MAX, 3-S5H4+D

......3♣ = R1, 1-H3+C

.........P = WK, 5H4+C

.........3♦ = WK, 5H4+D

.........3♥/3N+ = STR, nat.

.........3♠ = WK, 6 S

......(...)

......3♥ = R1, 3S3+H

.........P = WK, 5 H

.........3♠ = WK, 6 S

.........3N+ = STR, nat.

...2N+ = STR, relay structure

2♥ = R1, 2+S2H (P/C)

...P = WK, 5+ H

...2♠ = WK, 5+ S

...2N+ = STR, relay structure

2♠ = R1, 2S3+H (P/C)

...P = WK, 5+ S

...2N+ = STR, relay structure, except that

...3♦ = rule of 9-18, 5+ H / STR, part of relay structure

......3♥ = relay

..........P = rule of 9-18

..........3♠+ = part of relay structure

2N = R2, 2S4+H3+C, would have had trouble "guessing" over 2♣-2♦; 2♠-2N; 3♣

...3♣ = non-MAX, 5S4+C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5S4+D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 5 H

...3♠ = non-MAX, 6 S

...3N = MAX, 5 S

...(...)

...4♥ = 6 H

...[26 April 2018: 4♠ = MAX, 6 S?]

3♣ = R2, 3+S2H, would have had trouble "guessing" over 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2N; 3♣

...P = non-MAX, 5H4+C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5H4+D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 6 H

...3♠ = non-MAX, 5 S

...3N = non-MAX, 5 H

...(...)

...[26 April 2018: 4♥ = MAX, 6 H?]

...4♠ = 6 S

3♦ = ?

3♥ = R1, 4+S4H (P/C)

3♠ = R1, 4S5+H (P/C)

4♣ = asks Opener to transfer if weak

4♦ = asks Opener to bid his major if weak

4M = to play if Opener is weak

 

I also play "muiderbergified" schemes over 2♦-2N and 2♥-2N. 23.01.17: The full structures:

 

2♦-?:

 

P: allowed

2♥ = P/C, includes the "old" P/C 3♣ response

...P = 4+ H

...2♠ = 4S5+m

...2N+ = STR, 5+ S, unbal., relay structure, except that

...2N = 0-10, 4144 / STR, part of relay structure

......3♣ = C pref. opposite 4144

.........P = 0-10

.........3♦+ = STR, part of relay structure

......3♦ = D pref. opposite 4144

.........P = 0-10

.........3♥+ = STR, nat.

2♠ = to play opposite WK

...P = WK

...2N+ = STR, 5+ S, unbal., relay structure

2N = R2+, doesn't worry about 3♣ over 2♦-2N / R3+

...[ignoring the possibility that Opener can have 4H(441):]

...3♣ = non-MAX, 5+ C / 5+ H

......P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 5+ C)

......3♦ = reality check

.........3♥ = non-MAX, 5+ H

.........3♠ = non-MAX, 3-H5+C

.........3N = MAX, 4S5H

.........4♣ = MAX, 4+S6+H

.........4♦ = 5S5H

...3♦ = non-MAX, either 5+ D or 4144

...3♥ = MAX, 5+ C

...3♠ = MAX, 2-H5+D

...3N = MAX, 3H5+D

3♣ = R2, usually 3+H3+C, would have had trouble "guessing" over 2♥--2N; 3♣

...P = non-MAX, either 5+ C or 4414

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...3♥ = non-MAX, either 5+ H or 4414

...3♠ = MAX, 4S2-H

...3N = MAX, 4S3H

...4♣+ = MAX, 5+ H

3♦ = ?

3♥ = ?

3♠ = preemptive

(...)

 

2♥-?:

 

(...)

2♠ = P/C, includes the "old" P/C 3♣ response

...P = 4+ S

...2N = either 1444, 5D3+C or 3S6+D

......3♣ = C pref. opposite 1444

.........P = 1444 or 1453

.........3♦ = 3451

......3♦ = D pref. or no m pref. opposite 1444

...3♣ = 5+ C

...3♦ = 2-S5+D

2N = R2+, doesn't worry about 3♣ over 2♥-2N / R3+

...[ignoring the possibility that Opener can have 4H(441):]

...3♣ = non-MAX, 5+ C / 5+ S

......P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 5+ C)

......3♦ = reality check

.........3♥ = non-MAX, 5+ C

.........3♠ = non-MAX, 5 S

.........3N = MAX, 5S4H

.........4♣ = non-MAX, 5S5+H

.........4♦ = non-MAX, 6+S4H

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...3♥ = MAX, 3-S5+C

...3♠ = MAX, 2-S5+D

...3N = MAX, 3S5+D

3♣ = R2, usually 3+S3+C, would have had trouble "guessing" over 2♥--2N; 3♣

...P = non-MAX, either 5+ C or 1444

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...3♥ = non-MAX, either 5+ S or 4441

...3♠ = MAX, 2-S5+D

...3N = MAX, 3S4H

...4♣+ = MAX, 5+ S

3♦ = ?

3♥ = preemptive

(...)

 

[Probably errors here and there.]

 

 

 

8 Feb 2017:

 

 

 

If non-MAX (say, of 9-15) hands with 4M3-OM5+C are treated as bad C preempts (and opened either 2♠, 2N or 3♣, depending on the remaining Mushroom structure), then it's possible to play

 

2♦-2N; ?:

 

3♣ = 4+ H

...3♦ = GF relay

......3♥ = MIN

.........3♠ = relay

............3N = 4S4H4+D

............4♣+ = 5+ H

......3♠ = MAX, 4S4H4+D

......3N = MAX, 4S5H

......4♣ = MAX, 4S6+H

......4♦ = MAX, 5S5H

...(...)

3♦ = non-MAX, either 4S3-H5+D or 4144

3♥ = MAX, either 4S3-H5+C or 4144

...3♠ = relay

......3N = 2- H

......4♣+ = 3 H

3♠ = MAX, 4S2-H5+D

3N = MAX, 4S3H5+D

 

2♥-2N; ?:

 

3♣ = 4+ S

...3♦ = GF relay

......3♥ = MIN

.........3♠ = relay

............3N = 4S4H4+C

............4♣+ = 5+ S

......3♠ = MAX, 4S4H4+C

......3N = MAX, 5S4H

......4♣ = MAX, 5+S5+H

......4♦ = MAX, 6+S4H

...(...)

3♦ = MIN, either 3-S4H5+D or 1444

3♥ = MAX, either 3-S4H5+C or 1444

...3♠ = relay

......3N = 2- S

......4♣+ = 3 S

3♠ = MAX, 2-S4H5+D

3N = MAX, 3S4H5+D

 

 

 

18 April 2017:

 

 

 

One idea I like more and more is to keep non-MAX hands with 5+ C in 2♦/♥ and use both 2N and 3♦ as relays, just like I've suggested over 2♠. (The idea could also be used over 2♣-2♦; 2M.) For example:

 

2♦-?:

 

(...)

2N = NF relay

...P = non-MAX, either 5+ C or 4144

...3♣ = 5+ H or 4S4H4+D

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...(...)

(...)

3♦ = relay, F4♥ opposite MAX

...3♥ = 5+ H or 4S4H4+D

......3♠ = NF

...3♠ = non-MAX, 3- H

...3N+ = MAX, 3- H

(...)

 

2♥-?:

 

(...)

2N = NF relay

...P = non-MAX, either 5+ C or 1444

...3♣ = 5+ S or 4S4H4+C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...(...)

(...)

3♦ = relay, F4♥ opposite MAX

...3♥ = non-MAX

......3♠ = relay

.........3N = 3- S

.........4♣+ = 5+ S

...3♠ = MAX, 5+ S or 4S4H4+C

...3N+ = MAX, 3- S

(...)

 

 

 

 

 

Replaced by:

 

 

9 Aug 2017: Idea: Play 2♣-2♦; 2M-2N; 3♣ and 2R-2N; 3♣ as ART and still be able to able to get out in 3♣ when Opener has non-MAX with C.

 

Main tool:

 

2♣-2N = "like P/C 3♣ over 2♣-2♦; 2♠, but INV"

2♣-3♣ = "like P/C 3♣ over 2♣-2♦; 2♥, but INV"

2R-3♣ = "INV P/C"

 

helped by

 

2♣-2M = "P/C OR INV, 5+M2-OM"

2♦-2♥ = "P/C OR INV, 3-S5+H2"

2♥-2♠ = "P/C OR INV, 5+S3-H"

 

so that no 5-3 major fits are missed.

 

For example:

 

2♣-?:

 

[26 April 2108: Legend (copied from 21 Jan 2017 entry): non-MAX = rules of 9-15; MAX = rules of 16-18; WK = rules of 9-18; STR = rule of 31+; R1 = < GF opposite "7" (rule of 16); R2 = GF only opposite "7+" (rule of 16+); R3 = unconditional GF (Responder always assumes "4+" (rule of 13+)]

 

2♦ = R1, either "potential misfit" or 3S(3)4+H OR R2, neither 5+M2-OM nor 3-4M2OM(3)4+C OR R3?

...2M = as above

......2N = INV+ relay

.........3♣+ = muiderbergified, but Responder will never pass 3♣

...So

...2♥ = non-MAX, 3-S7+H / WK, either 3-S6H or 5S3-H4+m

......P = R1, either 1- H, 2-S6+H or (probably the best thing to do with) 15(43)

......2♠ = R1, 3S(3)4+H (P/C)

......2N =INV+ relay

.........3♣ = non-MAX, 5S3-H4+C / 3-S6H

............P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 4+ C)

............3♦ = reality check

...............3♥ = non-MAX, 3-S6H

...............3♠ = 5S3-H4+C

...............3N = MAX, 3-S6H

.........3♦ = non-MAX, 5S3-H4+D

.........3♥ = MAX, 5S3-H4+C

............3♠ = relay

...............3N = 2- H

...............4♣+ = 3 H

.........3♠ = MAX, 5S2-H4+D

.........3N = MAX, 5S3H4+D

......3♣ = R1, P/C (probably better to pass with 15(43))

......(...)

...2♠ = non-MAX, 7+S3-H / WK, either 6S3-H or 3-S5H4+m

......P = R1, either 1- S, 6+S2-H or (probably the best thing to do with 51(43)

......2N = INV+ relay

.........3♣ = non-MAX, 3-S5SH4+C / 6S3-H

............P = allowed (Responder is assuming Opener has 4+ C)

............3♦ = reality check

...............3♥ = 3-S5H4+C

...............3♠ = non-MAX, 6S3-H

...............3N = MAX, 6S3-H

.........3♦ = non-MAX, 3-S5H4+D

.........3♥ = MAX, 3-S5H4+C

............3♠ = relay

...............3N = 2- S

...............4♣+ = 3 S

.........3♠ = MAX, 2-S5H4+D

.........3N = MAX, 3S5H4+D

......3♣ = R1, P/C (probably better to pass with 51(43))

......(...)]

...2N+ = as above

2♥ = as above OR INV, 2-S5+H

...If WK (Opener may use the same way on STR hands):

...P = 5+ H / ?

...2♠ = 5+ S

2♠ = as above OR INV, 5+S2-H

...If WK (Opener may use the same bids on STR hands):

...P = 5+ S / ?

...2N = non-MAX, 5+ H (=> 3♣ = P/C)

...3♣ = MAX, 5H4+C

...3♦ = MAX, 5H4+D

...3♥ = MAX, 6 H

2N = INV PC w/ 2S3-4H(3)4+C?

...Maybe

...3♣ = non-MAX, 5S4+C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5S4+D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 5+ H

...3♠ = non-MAX, 6+ S

...3N = MAX, 5 S

...4m = ?

...4♥ = MAX, 5+ H (or maybe use 4♣ for that?)

...4♠ = MAX, 6 S (or maybe use 4♦ for that?)

...?

...[not finished]]

3♣ = INV P/C w/ 3-4S2H(3)4+C?

...Maybe

...P = non-MAX, 5H4+C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5H4+D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 6+ H

...3♠ = non-MAX, 5+ S

...3N = MAX, 5 H

...4m =

...4♥ = MAX, 6 H (or maybe use 4♣ for that?)

...4♠ = MAX, 5+ S (or maybe use 4♦ for that?)

...?

...[not finished]]

other = as above

 

2♦-?:

 

2♥ = as above OR INV, 3-S5+H*

...If WK:

...P = 4+ H / ?

...2♠ = 3- H

2N = GF relay

...3♣ = 5+ D

......3♦ = relay

.........3♥+ = A(♠,♦). See A(M,m) below.

...3♦ = 4+ H

......3♥ = GF relay, either with 3+ H or slam interest

.........3♠+ = B(♠). See B(M) below.

......(...)

...3♥+ = A(♠,♣). See A(M,m) below.

3♣ = INV P/C w/ 3-S4-H2+C

...P/3♣ = much as in the OP, but with P replacing 3♣ and 3♠/3N switched. In detail:

...P = non-MAX, 5+ C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 4+ H

...3♠ = MAX, either 5+ m or 4 H

......3N = to play opposite 3- H

.........P = 3- H

.........4♣ = 4441(!) (=> 4N = to play/looking stupid)

.........4♦ = 4450

......(...)

...3N = MAX, 4S5H

...4♣ = 4S6+H

...4♦ = 5S6+H

3♦ = INV, 3-S4-H1-C

...Maybe

...P = non-MAX, 4-H3+D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 5+ H

...3♠ = non-MAX, 4S3-H1-D

...(...)

3♥ = INV, 4+ S

other = as above

 

2♥-?:

 

2♠ = as above OR INV, 5+S3-H

...P = 4+ S / ?

...2N = non-MAX, 3- S (=> 3♣ = P/C)

...3♣ = MAX, 5+ C or 1444

...3♦ = MAX, 5+ D

...(...)

2N = INV, unsuitable for 2♠/3♣ / any GF

...3♣ = 5+ D or 1444

......3♦ = relay

.........3♥+ = A(♥,♦). See A(M,m) below.

...3♦ = 4+ S

......3♥ = GF relay, either with 3+ S or slam interest

.........3♠+ = B(♥). See B(M) below.

......3♠ = was INV, 3-4 S, NF

......(...)

...3♥+ = A(♥,♣). See A(M,m) below.

3♣ = INV P/C w/ 4-S3-H2+C

...P/3♣ = much as in the OP, but with P replacing 3♣ and 3♠/3N switched. In detail:

...P = non-MAX, 5+ C

...3♦ = non-MAX, 5+ D

...3♥ = non-MAX, 4+ S

...3♠ = MAX, either 5+ m or 4 S

......3N = to play opposite 3- S

.........P = 3- S

.........4♣ = 4414(!) (=> 4N = to play/looking stupid)

.........4♦ = 4405

......(...)

...3N = MAX, 5S4H

...4♣ = MAX, 6+S4H

...4♦ = MAX, 6+S5+H

...4♥ = MAX, 5S5H

3♦ = INV, 4+ H

other = as above

 

A(M,m):

 

3♥ = non-MAX, either 5+ m or, if m=♦, 4M144

...P(M=♥,m=♣) = was INV, 3 H

...3♠ = 5+ OM

......3N = 2- OM

......4♣+ = 3 OM, cue

...(...)

3♠ = MAX, 2-OM5+m

3N = MAX, 3M5+m

4♣(m=♦) = MAX, 4M144

 

B(M):

 

Something like

 

3♠ = MAX, 4 OM

3N = non-MAX, 4 OM

4♣ = MAX, 4M5+OM

4♦ = MAX, 5M5+OM

4♥ = non-MAX, 5+ OM.

 

 

 

100 random deals (and some bidding, using my own 2♣ defence) consistent (modulo finer points of hand evaluation) with North opening a Multi^2 2♣ in 1st seat NV:

 

 

n 84.KQ9872.64.T32 e KQJ75.T653.9.954 s A963.A4.Q532.J76 w T2.J.AKJT87.AKQ8

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X*)

P-(2♠)-P-(3♦)

P-(?)

 

* takeout of H, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ H

 

n A82.AJT984.874.9 e J654.Q.K653.AT85 s 9.K2.AQJT92.KJ64 w KQT73.7653..Q732

 

2♣*-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-3♣-(P)

3♥-(P)-P-(P)

 

* pretending Opener has only 9 hcp

 

n 98752.98.KQJ75.4 e AKT6.KT52.AT64.2 s J.J.9832.AKQT763 w Q43.AQ7643..J985

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(3♦**)

?

 

* takeout of C, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** INV+ w/ H

 

n K7643.J65.3.QJ63 e 95.K82.T94.AK974 s AQJT8.943.KQ72.2 w 2.AQT7.AJ865.T85

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(P)-4♠-(?)

 

n .A6432.KT5.J9843 e 9842.KQJ5.73.AT7 s AKQ653.7.A9642.6 w JT7.T98.QJ8.KQ52

 

2♣-(P)-2♦*-(P)

2♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

* assuming South is not worth an invite

 

2♣-(P)-2♠**-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

3N-(P)-4♦-(P)

5♦-(P)-P-(P)

 

** assuming South is worth an invite

 

n AJT853.9.Q8.9852 e .KQT.AKT63.QJ763 s K764.J8765.J9.K4 w Q92.A432.7542.AT

 

2♣-(P)-3♠-(P)

4♠-(X)-P-(?)

 

n 4.JT732.852.J964 e Q73.K9654.J7.A85 s K98652.AQ.KQ963. w AJT.8.AT4.KQT732

 

2♣-(P)-2♠$-(3♣*)

P-(3♦**)-?

 

$ assuming the hand is strong enough for an invite

* good C overcall or bad D overcall

** to play opposite the bad D overcall

 

n 8.KQJT32.K52.863 e K73.A984.T6.AK74 s JT54..AQJ9873.T5 w AQ962.765.4.QJ92

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(2♠)

?

 

* takeout of C, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n KT6543.Q.T83.Q96 e AJ.AK4.A74.A7532 s 82.T9763.QJ.KT84 w Q97.J852.K9652.J

 

2♣-(X)-P-(2♥)

P-(?)

 

or

 

2♣-(X)-P-(2♦)

P-(?)

 

n 5.87542.JT.AT642 e AKQ87.T6.A9765.3 s T42.KQJ93.Q42.J9 w J963.A.K83.KQ875

 

2♣-(3♦*)-P-(4♣**)

P-(4♦***)-P-(?)

 

* very good H overcall or pointeds at least 5-5

** GF relay

*** pointeds at least 5-5

 

n 2.J8732.K965.JT6 e QJ.AQT.QJ42.AK85 s AK86.K54.83.7432 w T97543.96.AT7.Q9

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n Q.QJT876.6.J8654 e AJ42.95.AQJ52.T9 s 8753.432.T98.K73 w KT96.AK.K743.AQ2

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2N*)

P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

 

or

 

2♣-(2♦*)-P-(2N**)

P-(?)

 

* normal D overcall or bad H overcall

** F1 relay

 

n .JT753.765.KQJ94 e AKQJ4.Q9.A.T7632 s T962.K42.QT8.A85 w 8753.A86.KJ9432.

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

P-(3♦*)-p-(3♥**)

P-(?)

 

* nominally a good D overcall or blacks at least 5-5

** relay

 

n 8.QJT73.62.Q9643 e KT.A8542.KT93.J7 s Q97542..AQ54.AT2 w AJ63.K96.J87.K85

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(X*)-P-(?)

 

* takeout of S

 

n K9.QJT96.T642.53 e J854.A4.KJ985.72 s QT73.853.3.QT984 w A62.K72.AQ7.AKJ6

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X)

P-(2♠)-P-(?)

 

n QJT862.9.843.AT7 e 9.742.QJ76.KQJ52 s A54.KJ86.AT9.986 w K73.AQT53.K52.43

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-3♥-(P)

3♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

n KJT85.65.J532.76 e 942.KQJT9843.6.J s 63.72.AQT9.AT532 w AQ7.A.K874.KQ984

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X)

2♠-(?)

 

n AJ765.6.T5.K9843 e T.AQT874.973.J72 s 832.KJ53.J84.AQ6 w KQ94.92.AKQ62.T5

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X)

2♥-(P)-2♠-(P)

P-(?)

 

n .87642.Q753.AQ97 e AQJ86.KJT.J6.KT4 s KT932.5.K942.532 w 754.AQ93.AT8.J86

 

2♣-(X*)-P-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n 94.KQJ863.96.K82 e J3.T54.J7543.943 s 8762.97.AKQ8.AJ7 w AKQT5.A2.T2.QT65

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2♠*)

X$-(P)-2N-(P)

3♥-(P)-?

 

* normal S overcall or minors at least 5-5

$ takeout ("action" with MAX if weak)

 

n 9.J8753.5.KJT987 e Q42.64.AQJ632.AQ s J86.AKQT2.K9.542 w AKT753.9.T874.63

 

2♣-(2♦*)-X-(?)

 

* normal D overcall or bad H overcall

 

n 86.KQ9862.8.JT96 e J73.JT5.A963.854 s AKQT2.4.KQT54.AK w 954.A73.J72.Q732

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-?

 

n AK964.87.96.Q762 e J53.T43.A432.K54 s T872.AK6.Q5.AJT9 w Q.QJ952.KJT87.83

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(P)-?

 

n Q97643.QT7.KJ7.8 e 5.AK6.8653.KQ742 s A.8542.A42.AJT65 w KJT82.J93.QT9.93

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(X)-P-(P)

P

 

n KT.QJ643.6543.J4 e AQJ83.T98.AJ8.K5 s 972.52..AQT98762 w 654.AK7.KQT972.3

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(3♣**)

 

takeout of C, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** INV+ w/ D

 

n QJ865..AT9852.62 e AKT72.J8.K7.AJT7 s .A7643.3.KQ98543 w 943.KQT952.QJ64.

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(3♦**)

?

 

* takeout of C, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** INV+ w/ H

 

n 3.AK752.764.T964 e J92.4.Q9832.AJ83 s QT8764.T9.KT5.Q5 w AK5.QJ863.AJ.K72

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

or

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n J9873.6.QT654.J3 e KQ62.A742.832.52 s AT5.QJT5.AK9.KQ9 w 4.K983.J7.AT8764

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♦-(P)-4♠-(P)

P

 

n KQ965.T85.K.9865 e J8.A632.82.AKJ42 s AT4.K94.J976.Q73 w 732.QJ7.AQT543.T

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2♠-(P)

P-(?)

 

or

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(X)-P-(?)

 

n KQ9873.J5.J8.JT2 e T42.94.KQT654.A6 s 5.AT863.A9.Q9853 w AJ6.KQ72.732.K74

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(?)

 

n AJ865.T.QJ65.J74 e Q32.AK83.A832.32 s 9.QJ752.K974.KT6 w KT74.964.T.AQ985

 

2♣-(X*)-P-(P)

2♦-(P)-p-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n A98754.JT.Q764.T e J.43.AJ982.K9752 s Q62.KQ875.T.AQJ6 w KT3.A962.K53.843

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

3N-(P)-4♠-(P)

P-(P)

 

n A8763.K5.53.J762 e KJT2.Q972.AKQ.K3 s 9.JT864.J764.QT5 w Q54.A3.T982.A984

 

2♣-(X*)-P-(2♦)

P-(2♥**)-P-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** frequently 15-17 BAL w/ 4-5 H

 

n AT65432.64.T.963 e QJ9.Q53.Q62.QT84 s K.AJ98.A753.AJ52 w 87.KT72.KJ984.K7

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(X)

?

 

n 7.Q9865.QT63.QT6 e J642.7.AKJ9874.9 s A85.AKJ42..AJ852 w KQT93.T3.52.K743

 

2♣-(2♦*)-X$-(2♥**)

P-(2♠)-?

 

* normal D overcall or bad H overcall

** to play opposite the bad H overcall

$ takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ if BAL w/3+ D

 

n 92.Q9763.9.KT762 e Q763.2.AJT542.Q3 s JT4.AKT54.83.A95 w AK85.J8.KQ76.J84

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-3♠-(P)

4♣-(P)-4♥-(?)

 

n 6.QJT987.8632.72 e Q52.K65.J.J98543 s AKJT843.32.AQ9.6 w 97.A4.KT754.AKQT

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(X*)

2N-(?)

 

* takeout of S, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ S

 

n A9763.43.Q765.76 e KQJ852.Q5.AT4.J2 s T.K97.J83.AKT853 w 4.AJT862.K92.Q94

 

2♣-(2♥*)-2N$-(P)

3♣$$-(?)

 

* good H overcall or bad S overcall

$ 18-20 BAL or bad C "overcall" (ignoring the opening)

$$ to play opposite the bad C "ovvercall"

 

n 9.KJT84.A87.T954 e J87643.972.2.J83 s KT5.653.KJ963.AQ w AQ2.AQ.QT54.K762

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X*)

P-(2♠)-P-(2N**)

P-(3♠)-P-(P)

P

 

* takeout of H, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ H

** 15-17 BAL, 2-3 S

 

or

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X*)

2♠-(P)-3♥-(?)

 

* takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ D

 

n KQ732.6.J53.J954 e AJ8.72.AK.AQT632 s T64.AKJT43.Q97.7 w 95.Q985.T8642.K8

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(3♣)

P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n Q7652.QT3.JT543. e K4.J98764.A8.K54 s AJ.A52.Q972.AQ62 w T983.K.K6.JT9873

 

2♣-(2♦*)-X$-(2♥**)

?

 

* normal D overcall or bad H overcall

** t0 play opposite a bad H overcall

$ takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ if BAL w/ 3+ D [i used to play the double as "system on", so this is very different]

 

n 83.KQJ986.Q92.T8 e KQT72.3.K763.AQ5 s 95.4.AJ84.KJ9432 w AJ64.AT752.T5.76

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(2♠)-P-(?)

 

n 5.AT985.JT765.54 e AQ3.764.AQ.AQJ96 s 98642.KQ3.983.73 w KJT7.J2.K42.KT82

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n KJT753.62.72.QJ6 e 842.J8.AK64.K874 s Q.K9753.J83.AT52 w A96.AQT4.QT95.93

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

n A.AKQJ95.KQ3.AT7 e QJT5.6.AT9875.98 s K96.T842.J2.KJ65 w 87432.73.64.Q432

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-P

2N etc.

 

* strong (meets the rule of 31): either 5+H4+C (not 5H5C) or 1-suited w/ 6+ H

 

n 74.T9865.KJ.QJ43 e KT8.QJ73.AT95.T7 s AJ632.K2.3.A9865 w Q95.A4.Q87642.K2

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(3♣*)

P-(3♦**)-?

 

* good C overcall or bad D overcall

** to play opposite the bad D overcall

 

n AQJ76.8.T5432.J6 e 2.AQT64.KJ7.Q953 s T954.KJ9532.Q98. w K83.7.A6.AKT8742

 

2♣-(P)-4♦-(?)

 

n JT9752.KT.KT7.76 e Q43.752.A86.QJT3 s 86.Q43.Q932.A842 w AK.AJ986.J54.K95

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(X*)

P-(?)

 

* takeout of S, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ S

 

n AQ5.T9642.K972.6 e KT863.A53.43.J32 s J974.7.AQT.AKQ85 w 2.KQJ8.J865.T974

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-2N-(P)

3N-(P)-P-(P)

 

n J.T987643.854.T9 e A96.Q52.AT9.KJ65 s T7432.AK.K7.Q872 w KQ85.J.QJ632.A43

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X*)

?

 

* takeout of H, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ H

 

n JT8532.J.J52.Q98 e 7.AK976.A974.AT5 s AKQ.3.KT863.K763 w 964.QT8542.Q.J42

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(X*)-3♣-(?)

 

* takeout of S

 

n 94.A9763.64.KT54 e A7653.J82.53.Q63 s J2.5.AQJ982.9872 w KQT8.KQT4.KT7.AJ

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n K8.AJT87.T9.T975 e 743.K43.A754.J63 s JT95.Q95.KQ3.K82 w AQ62.62.J862.AQ4

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X*)

P-(2N**)-P-(3♣***)

P-(3♦****)-P-(P)

P

 

* takeout of H, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ H

** lebensoholish, but Advancer may pass with 15-17 BAL and no good bid

*** as in standard lebensohl

**** to play

 

n KT843.Q73.J954.3 e 5.AJT9.A32.A9865 s .K86542.T8.KQJ74 w AQJ9762..KQ76.T2

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2♠*)

P-(?)

 

* good S overcall or pointeds at least 5-5

 

n QJT52.AT5.9.7432 e 9863.843.KQJ74.A s A4.Q972.AT5.KJ85 w K7.KJ6.8632.QT96

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(P)

P-(P)

 

n 7.AT832.854.JT92 e J5.974.962.Q8743 s AT842.65.AKQT.A5 w KQ963.KQJ.J73.K6

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(P)

2N-(P)-3♦-(P)

P-(P)

 

n 5.QJT865.9764.T3 e QJT972.42.AT.K54 s K43.AK9.QJ5.AJ92 w A86.73.K832.Q876

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(?)

 

n 7.KQJ54.982.KT97 e KJT8.973.AQJT5.J s AQ932.82.K73.863 w 654.AT6.64.AQ542

 

2♣-(X*)-2♥-(P)

P-(P)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n 98765.K3.K864.T5 e Q2.JT984.AJ973.2 s K43.Q75.T.AQJ743 w AJT.A62.Q52.K986

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2♠-(P)

P-(P)

 

or

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

n T3.Q6432.A8.T954 e 87542.AK7.QJ96.8 s AKJ6.J95.T72.J32 w Q9.T8.K543.AKQ76

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(X*)

P-(3[di**)-P-(?)

 

* takeout of H, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ H (here treating 2245 as worth an extra point (rightly or wrongly))

** INV+, 5+ S

 

n AJ864.742.Q.Q632 e 97.KT95.T32.KJ95 s KQ32.J3.K875.AT8 w T5.AQ86.AJ964.74

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(P)-3♠-(P)

P

 

n Q.K9864.QT64.Q32 e 9862.JT32.3.AK64 s JT53.5.KJ972.987 w AK74.AQ7.A85.JT5

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2N*)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

 

n J65.T8763..KQ872 e AQ3.KQ5.AJ8.AJ54 s 742.J2.7632.T963 w KT98.A94.KQT954.

 

2♣-(X*)-P-(3♣**)

?

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** INV+ w/ D

 

n KQ942.32.T832.T2 e 753.JT8.KJ96.Q85 s JT8.K965.A5.AJ74 w A6.AQ74.Q74.K963

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X*)

P$-(P)-XX$$-(P)

2♥$$$-(P)-2♠$$$$-(?)

 

* takeout of D, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL

$ weak, 4+ D

$$ re-ask

$$$ 6(+) H or 5 S

$$$$ P/C

 

n JT964.AT3..T9654 e AQ85.Q7.AK9875.K s 73.KJ8654.T43.87 w K2.92.QJ62.AQJ32

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(P)

2♦-(P)-2♥-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n KJ8763.Q8.432.T7 e AQT4.52.J.AKQ943 s 952.764.AQ87.862 w .AKJT93.KT965.J5

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

?

 

n 952.T98542.Q72.5 e AKT74.AQ7.T.J743 s QJ8.K63.A8543.KT w 63.J.KJ96.AQ9862

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2N*)

P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

 

n .QT642.J54.A5432 e KQT72.K98.AT76.T s A9543.5.K98.Q876 w J86.AJ73.Q32.KJ9

 

2♣-(X*)-P-(2N**)

P-(3♣)-P-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

** puppet to 3♣

 

n 97653.7.JT865.T8 e AQ4.Q82.K3.KQ965 s KJT.JT653.Q2.J32 w 82.AK94.A974.A74

 

2♣-(X*)-2♦-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n KT942.953.J875.Q e AJ65.K42.9.J6542 s .T7.AKQT643.AT93 w Q873.AQJ86.2.K87

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X*)

P$-(2♠)-?

 

* takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ D

$ weak, 4+ D

 

n A9752.J4.T863.83 e 6.KQ932.AQJ5.KJ6 s JT843..K74.Q7542 w KQ.AT8765.92.AT9

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2♥*)

P-(?)

 

* normal H overcall or bad S overcall

 

n AJ764.Q8.97.J643 e QT2.A2.K83.AKQ87 s 85.K6543.6542.92 w K93.JT97.AQJT.T5

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n K97.AJ8642.765.J e A85.QT95.KT.T952 s QT643..AJ98.K874 w J2.K73.Q432.AQ63

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-P-(P)

 

n QT8765.42.KQ8.52 e 94.J9863.J6.AJ86 s AK32.KQ7.9732.43 w J.AT5.AT54.KQT97

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

?

 

n T54.J9542.JT63.7 e A963.876.A2.JT42 s Q87.K3.K754.AK93 w KJ2.AQT.Q98.Q865

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

P-(P)

 

n Q9865.A5.T8.Q872 e AKJ7.KJ2.652.AJT s 3.QT9843.AKJ.963 w T42.76.Q9743.K54

 

2♣-(X*)-XX-(2♦)

P-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n 97.A9652.96542.5 e AK3.K43.AKJ.Q983 s QJ8652.T.87.J762 w T4.QJ87.QT3.AKT4

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n 875432.T3.AK64.T e QT6.K8542.J8.KQ9 s .J976.QT532.8754 w AKJ9.AQ.97.AJ632

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n K9632.Q9.J.T9743 e QT.8632.Q73.AK65 s J5.AT.AKT654.QJ8 w A874.KJ754.982.2

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

2♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

n 76543.T73.4.KT87 e AJ2.6542.965.Q65 s Q8.KJ.AQ732.J943 w KT9.AQ98.KJT8.A2

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n 3.QT972.J9854.K4 e J942.J86.3.AQT65 s KQ6.4.AKQT.J9872 w AT875.AK53.762.3

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-3♣-(?)

 

n .AJ9842.Q763.732 e T872.T7653.AK82. s AQJ653.KQ..AJ865 w K94..JT954.KQT94

 

2♣-(P)-2♦*-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-?

 

* assuming the hand is worth more than an invite

 

n 9.87652.A762.A52 e AQ63.9.KJ53.QJ76 s K7542.J43.QT.T43 w JT8.AKQT.984.K98

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

P-(X)-P-(?)

 

n 86.A5432.Q6.KT86 e KJ3.JT8.J52.AQ42 s AQ975.76.T43.J75 w T42.KQ9.AK987.93

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

P-(P)

 

n 6.JT876.T8532.95 e KT85.AK9.Q76.A82 s Q7432.Q52.KJ9.JT w AJ9.43.A4.KQ7643

 

2♣-(X*)-2♥-(?)

 

* takeout of C, but with 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ C

 

n JT986.A75.QJ98.9 e 74.KQ643.642.Q62 s Q5.T9.KT73.KT873 w AK32.J82.A5.AJ54

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(?)

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n QJT9753.J76.T.T8 e 6.KQT8.AKJ432.54 s A82.A954.5.KQJ97 w K4.32.Q9876.A632

 

2♣-(2♦*)-X-(2♥**)

?

 

* normal D overcall or bad D overcall

** to play opposite the bad H overcall

 

n 963.Q98652.T4.Q4 e J82.KJ3.A92.T853 s Q5.AT74.Q763.KJ7 w AKT74..KJ85.A962

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(P)

2N-(P)-3♥-(?)

 

n A42.T65432.5.KT3 e 9876.J9.KQT762.J s KQJT3.AQ8.A9.A94 w 5.K7.J843.Q87652

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

3N-(P)-?

 

n 4.T986532.7.Q984 e T9762.J7.A652.72 s QJ85.AQ.KQ94.AJT w AK3.K4.JT83.K653

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

?

 

n QJ754.T73.K.QJT4 e T86.962.T8732.95 s 9.KQ5.Q654.A8732 w AK32.AJ84.AJ9.K6

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X*)

2♥-(P)-2♠-(?)

 

* takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ D

 

n 6.AJ843.942.KJ64 e KJT542.Q6.KJ63.Q s AQ83.T75.QT.T985 w 97.K92.A875.A732

 

2♣-(2♥*)-P-(?)

 

* good H overcall or bad S overcall

 

n AK9.Q97642.T76.T e JT543.85.QJ82.84 s 7.AKJT.A954.AKQ2 w Q862.3.K3.J97653

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♥-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

3N-(P)-?

 

n J.QT954.K973.Q94 e KQT85432.6.T6.T6 s 96.K3.QJ82.AKJ72 w A7.AJ872.A54.853

 

2♣-(P)-2♥-(P)

P-(?)

 

n AT2.KT7542.953.4 e KQ.9863.A87.QJT7 s J97653.Q.J4.K962 w 84.AJ.KQT62.A853

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(X*)

2♥-(?)

 

* takeout of D, but 15-17/21+ instead of (18)19+ if BAL w/ 3+ D

 

n T3.KJT982.K73.T8 e KQJ98.AQ.AJ86.62 s A764.6.QT542.KJ4 w 52.7543.9.AQ9753

 

2♣-(2N*)-P-(3♣)

P-(3♠)-P-(3N)

P-(P)-P

 

* 18-20 BAL

 

n 3.KQT963.A62.982 e QJT962.J7.T985.6 s 74.A542.K7.KQT73 w AK85.8.QJ43.AJ54

 

2♣-(P)-2♠-(P)

3♥-(P)-4♥-(?)

 

n K97654.4.643.QJ9 e J83.KQ9873.QJ92. s 2.A652.K875.AK87 w AQT.JT.AT.T65432

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(2N*)

P-(3♣**)-P-(P)

P

 

* 18-20 BAL or bad C overcall

** to play opposite the bad C overcall

 

n KQT643.T.QT7.T54 e A75.Q9642.J3.A73 s J98.AK5.AK65.Q96 w 2.J873.9842.KJ82

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-2N-(P)

3♣-(P)-3♦-(P)

3N-(P)-?

 

n KQT542.653.3.987 e A73.J984.842.AK5 s .AK7.AQT9765.J64 w J986.QT2.KJ.QT32

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

2♠-(P)-P-(P)

 

(Not good, but I haven't defined 2♣-3♦ and 2♣-2♦; 2M-3♦ yet. :))

 

Generated 1426 hands

Produced 100 hands

 

 

 

 

[nullve]

gwnn has repeatedly been talking about or alluding to the (very real, but possibly exaggerated) danger of ending up in non-fit after 2C-2D; 2M-P when Responder has 1M3OM (a case of small length disparity between Responder's majors). To keep things straight, let me just point out that 1M3OM is conceivably a serious problem only if Responder has about 8-15 hcp and either 1M3OM(54) or 1M3OM(63).

 

Reason: If Responder has

 

* 0-7 hcp, then 2M on a non-fit ought to be good, since opps will have 24+ hcp between them.

* 16+ hcp, he will be able to continue with 2N (inv+ relay) over 2C-2D; 2M

* 15- hcp, 1M3OM7+m, he'll be determined to play 3m, anyway, and may therefore not have responded 2D in the first place.

 

Even 8-15 hcp, 1M3OM36 may not be be a serious problem, since Responder always had the option to pass 2C. (Yes, I forgot to list Pass as a possible response to 2C.) A good reason for doing that (apart from avoiding non-fits, if that seems like a good reason) is that he may not be happy to play 3D on a likely 4-3 fit after 2C-2D; 2OM(6 OM or 5M4+m)-3C(P/C); 3D(5M4+D)-P. Similarly, with 8-15 hcp, 1M3OM63, Responder would rather avoid playing 3C on a likely 4-3 fit after 2C-2D; 2OM-3C; P(5S4+C), but what can he do? I can imagine creative attempts/systemic alternatives such as

 

2C-2H(P/C, usually with [edit:] 2+S2H or 3+S3H); 2S-3D(to play with 1363?)

2C-2S(P/C, usually 2S3+H); 2N(6H3-D3-C?)-3D(to play with 3163?),

 

which I believe is similar to what helene_t suggested early in this thread, but for now, let's just say that with 8-15 hcp, 1M3OM63 may be more of a problem than 1M3OM36.

[Free]

Must be fun to play multi vs mushroom: 2♦ = I also have a long Major. Bye bye continuations for opps B-)

[nullve]

Must be fun to play multi vs mushroom: 2♦ = I also have a long Major. Bye bye continuations for opps B-)

I think Multi 2D vs. Multi Squared/MuSHroom is a good idea (and I believe an adaptation of something like Multi vs Multi or Granovetter's Best Defence to Multi may be the way to go), but you seem to tnink that

 

* After 2C-(2D[=Multi]), I need to say bye bye to the kind of continuations I use after 2C-(P).

 

This is not true, because it's certainly possible to play "system on" with X replacing the 2D relay. You also seem to imply that

 

* After 2C-(2D[=Multi]), saying bye bye to the kind of continuations I use after 2C-(P) will somehow hurt.

 

This is also wrong, because the 2D overcall enables Responder to pass many potentially misfitting hands with < inv values, to the point that he no longer needs a mechanism to find out whether Opener has 6 M or 5M4+m on partscore deals. In other words, there's no reason, other than simplicity, to play "system on" here.

[Zelandakh]

I think you will find he is saying that after 2♣ - X, showing one major or a strong hand, you might find things awkward. Since you have not yet commented on how you change your responses after a double, that is difficult to comment on.

[gwnn]

Provided that he chucks the multi rebid by opener I can't see how it will not be better than opps passing throughout.

[nullve]

I think you will find he is saying that after 2♣ - X, showing one major or a strong hand, you might find things awkward. Since you have not yet commented on how you change your responses after a double, that is difficult to comment on.

Provided that he chucks the multi rebid by opener I can't see how it will not be better than opps passing throughout.

Instead of chucking the 2M rebid, I've so far played "system on" after 2C-(X), except that

 

2C-(X)-?:

 

P = intending to play 2CX opposite 4+ C

P = 4+ C

XX/2D+: never agreed on anything here, but in practice maybe:

XX: not sure (SOS with 5M3OM4D?)

2D = 4+ D

2M = 6 M

XX = long suit (particularly useful when Responder wants to get out in 2D)

any = P/C

Two posts ago I argued that 1M3OM is conceivably a problem of the type discussed only when Responder has about 8-15 hcp and either 1M3OM(54) or 1M3OM(63). But after 2C-(X), Responder may pass with 1M3OM(54) or 1M3OM36, intending to play 2CX opposite 4+ C, and redouble with 1M3OM63, intending to play 2D.

[glen]

... 13 hcp and 1M444 shape. Then he will happily play 2M opposite 6 M, but rather play 3m on a 4-4 fit than 2M on a 5-1 fit opposite 5M4+m. So instead of responding, say, 2S (still P/C, but now virtually never done without doubleton spades), he starts by relaying 2D. Then, if Opener rebids 2M, showing 6 M or 5OM4+m

Thus these two hands bid 2♣-2♦-2♠-Pass:

 

2♣ Opener:

♠ J7

♥ AQ942

♦ 10

♣ QT653

 

Responder:

♠ 3

♥ KJ53

♦ AQ65

♣ K984

 

Consider the size of the IMP swing if vulnerable

[nullve]

Thus these two hands bid 2♣-2♦-2♠-Pass:

That's correct.

[nullve]

I did a 100 deal simulation on BBO today with the following constraints:

 

N: 0-9 hcp and either 6M3-OM or 5M3-OM4+m*

S: 8-15 hcp, 1444

 

Assumption: N is dealer and EW pass throughout.

 

Result: 11 accidents (i.e. S passed 2S when N had 5H4+m), which was actually a lot less than I expected. This is what they looked like:

 

30) N: K98-QJT65-2-QT43 E: QJT3-A3-Q943-A76 S: 4-K972-AT65-KJ82 W: A7652-84-KJ87-95 DD result: 2S-3 Par: 4H=(NS)/4SX-2(EW) [i.e. depending on vul]

31) N: A92-T9854-void-T9863 E: KQT863-3-J732-AQ S: 7-KQ62-AT96-KJ52 W: J54-AJ7-KQ854-74 DD result: 2S-5 Par: 5HX-1(NS)

44) N: K3-97643-A5-Q432 E: QJ98-K-86432-KT9 S: 6-AT82-QJT9-AJ65 W: AT7542-QJ5-K7-87 DD result: 2S-2 Par: 4H=(NS)/4SX-3(EW)

57) N: JT8-AK964-8-T972 E: K53-52-AQT94-A85 S: Q-Q873-K765-QJ43 W: A97642-JT-J32-K6 DD result: 2S-4 Par: 3S=(EW)

62) N: K76-T9432-T964-6 E: T43-Q5-J87-AT982 S: 5-KJ76-AQ32-KJ43 W: AQJ982-A8-K5-Q75 DD result: 2S-4 Par: 3S=(EW)

77) N: T62-K7642-J732-Q E: KQ5-A853-K98-KT5 S: 4-QJT9-AQT6-AJ93 W: AJ9873-void-54-87642 DD result: 2S-4 Par: 4SX-1(E)

90) N: T8-AT752-42-QT76 E: AKQ7532-K-AQ9-85 S: 4-Q983-KT73-A943 W: J96-J64-J865-KJ2 DD result: 2S-5 Par: 4S=(EW)/5HX-2(NS)

95) N: T72-97532-AKT5-9 E: AKJ43-void-J732-AQT2 S: 9-AQ84-9864-KJ53 W: Q865-KJT6-Q-8764 DD result: 2S-4 Par: 3S=(EW)

96) N: T-T8742-KJT-QJ74 E: AQJ7543-KJ5-Q75-void S: 8-AQ93-A942-965 W: K962-6-863-AKT82 DD result: 2S-6 Par: 4SX-1(EW)

99) N: 642-AT542-9872-J E: AK9873-97-Q3-A98 S: J-KJ63-JT54-KT54 W: QT5-Q8-AK6-Q7632 DD result: 2S-6 Par: 4S=(EW)/5HX-3(NS)

100) N: T8-Q8643-T9-AQ92 E: K93-K7-KQ532-T65 S: Q-A952-AJ74-8743 W: AJ76542-JT-86-KJ DD result: 2S-4 Par: 3S=(EW)/4HX-1(NS)

 

(Yes, the 29 first deals were accident-free!)

 

Note: The DD and par results were (quickly) calculated by me. Check them if you want.

 

*Although I've described 2C as showing 6 M or 5M4+m, I don't really open 2C with 6M4+OM or (54)(40). Also, I don't use 9 hcp as the upper limit regardless of shape, so the above constraints on North are somewhat simplified.

[gwnn]

11 is a lot less than what you expected? I mean if I toss a coin (not look at my hand at all) I can already get 50 of them right so I am not sure what you expected :P add in the fact that a lot of the time your partner doesn't bid 2D but pass/corrects and then of course it's much better than tossing a coin no? I thought the point was comparing opener's second multi bid to just a simple natural rebid. How many times did your responder reply 2D out of the 100? How many times did you successfully avert a bad fit (5-1, not 3-1!)? Yes I know that you freed up the 2M openers to something else so there are benefits but right now we're discussing the costs.

[gwnn]

Oh you put 1444 specifically for S so he always bids 2D. that's nice but why not just do 100 deals and have him be 12, 13, 14, or anything whatsoever? I don't quite know what you're trying to measure. Just do an honest long simulation and report it.

 

Ps: I've alluded to this a few times but never directly asked you: are you really gonna open this also when vulnerable?

[nullve]

Oh you put 1444 specifically for S so he always bids 2D. that's nice but why not just do 100 deals and have him be 12, 13, 14, or anything whatsoever? I don't quite know what you're trying to measure. Just do an honest long simulation and report it.

I was zooming in on one of the conditions under which the 2C-2D; 2M mechanism threatens to collapse, as in glen's example. (Doesn't happen easily when Responder is 0-7 or 16+, I think) I honestly don't know what an honest long simulation would look like, since people tend to want to be able to overcall but I don't want to force a set of agreements upon them. But I thought this 100 deal simulation could still serve as some sort of (qualitative) illustration of what to expect under the given conditions. Just keep in mind that:

 

The accidents in 30) and 57) wouldn't have happened if East had doubled, Dixon-style.

The accident in 31) wouldn't have happened if East had made a normal-looking 2S overcall

The accident in 44) wouldn't have happened if West had made a normal-looking, but marginal, 2S overcall

The accident in 62) wouldn't have happened if West had made the kind of double you were talking about in an earlier post.

The accident in 77) wouldn't have happened if East had doubled, Dixon-style, or overcalled 2N

The accident in 90) wouldn't have happened if East had acted with his very strong hand

The accident in 95) wouldn't have happened if East had made a normal-looking, but IMO misguided, 2S overcall

The accident in 96) wouldn't have happened if East had made a normal-looking S overcall (either 2S, 3S or 4S)

The accident in 99) wouldn't have happened if East had made a normal-looking 2S overcall or West had made a "gwnn-style" double

 

So if EW were playing normal bridge (instead of passing throughout), as many as 10 of the 11 accidents could have been avoided. The ones in 90) and 99) even benefitted NS.

Ps: I've alluded to this a few times but never directly asked you: are you really gonna open this also when vulnerable?

In the "lab" I currently require 6M (i.e. 6M3-OM) or 5M5+m when vulnerable. But that's (the current) me.

[gwnn]

How do you defend against a weak NT double? You didn't discuss this yet. So you are going to go back to normal bridge when your opponents bid but stick to bizzaro bridge when they pass? I will likely pass a lot in that case except to double with a weak NT or very strong hand (definitely not hand 62) and sit back and see if it's really 11% or something a lot higher (you should try it also with the 12's and 13's). Vulnerable it seems completely insane to me but ok if you have 5-5 I guess playing the 1-3 or 0-3 fit will go better. Sorry don't mean to be hostile but I still don't understand how you can think that this is a good idea (other than the fact that it's yours).

[nullve]

How do you defend against a weak NT double? You didn't discuss this yet.

Not specifically, but see post #64.

So you are going to go back to normal bridge when your opponents bid but stick to bizzaro bridge when they pass?

Sort of. Unless pass shows something crazy, but we've already discussed this.

I will likely pass a lot in that case except to double with a weak NT or very strong hand (definitely not hand 62) and sit back and see if it's really 11% or something a lot higher (you should try it also with the 12's and 13's).

I do expect to be less lucky next time. Regarding the hand in 62), I was just trying to use the following defence:

double 2D with any 12-14 balanced or 16+ (simple enough and many people play these methods)