Rimmington Wriggle: XX is business! Now both can double if opps escape, not just responder. (That's when we get our best scores after WNT). To run: 2X is natural, weak. Pass is forcing, opener bids 2♣ with 5♣ or 4♦-4M (then XX ♦-♥ and 2♦ ♦-♠ if doubled) 2♦ with 5♦ or 4♥-4♠ (then 2♥ if doubled), XX with 4♣-4other (then 2♣ with 4♣ or 4♦-4M, 2♦ 4-3-3-3, not 4♣ and 2♥ 4♥-4♠). With 4-3-3-3 opener passes and hopes for the best.

I love all of you. The best thing about WNT is that so many people don't want to be outbid. In this case however, N has a “normal” double over either SNT or WNT and S should bid 2♣. Personally I don't double 1N on high cards only. We double with a good suit to lead.

Sorry, I missed Dave Kresh' question. It is in 1♣. I'll change it.
It seems I cannot edit the original artcle anymore???
c) should read 15-20 balanced.
After 1♦ we rebid 1N with 15-17 and 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 1N with 19-20, 2N with 23-24 and 2N via 1♥ with 25+. After a positive 1M we rebid 1N with 15-18 and 2♦ with 19+ (or 3♦ with 4crd in M).

I hope to sort out the “internal inconsistensies” as well as “to complex structures”. We had a bidding sequence starting with 1♣-1♥?; 2♦ (19+, 0-3 ♥) and then 3 relays. Pard gave the wrong explanation on one of my responses which I corrected before the lead. His comment: “to many relays, to complicated” (to complex structure). I simplified the bidding structure, but then found that there was not room enough to show hands with exactly 4-4 in the majors (internal inconsistency).

Of course every system started as a homegrown. They can evolve if they are played often. If the inventor is well-known and/or successfull (s)he would write a book. Many others play the system, some give feedback. Today we have webforums and can hope to get feedback even if we are not well-known.

“None of the likely meanings … are alertable in the ACBL” Until 12/2015 it was forbidden to alert pass, double and redouble in Germany. If it is not forbidden in ACBL an alert must be made if the call has an unusulal meaning. Some meaning MUST be considered as ususual.

“IMO penalty doubles … among strong players in NA” That is totally irrelevant. A weak two is certainly not standard anymore, but must be alerted (in Germany). Alerts were not invented to protect strong players.

I don't understand your “challenge”. You can bid 3N if this is the most logical alternative to pass. If you state that after BIT you can make any bid which is in some way a logical alternitive, you are wrong.

Tom, for 3N to be LEGAL the bid must stand out over other LAs, not the other way around. Ken, whatever you are thinking about, it shows that you don't have a clear bid. Your partner as W has a clear bid: pass if penalty is agreed, 4♥ if t/o is agreed. In both cases you may have your reasons for bidding 3N, but it is definetly not the most logical bid. After the BIT you must bend obver backwards to avoid the impression that your call is in any way influenced by pards hesitation. That's the law (and a good one) period. I vote for 3♠ X made because negative doubles were not marked on the convention card. In Germany penalty doubles after opening 1N are standard an d need not be alerted, t/o must be alerted. This may be different in other jurisdictions.

My observation is that a lot of people reduce the requirements for an overcall because of the weak nature of 1N. Do your statistics consider “human nature”. If you preempt you cannot be sure to reach your best contract, neither can your opps. WNT or KNT can be considered as very descriptive preempts.

Thinking is part of the game, making use of what it implies is a crime. Obviously opps haven't discussed this. The BIT suggests that E is unsure if X is penalty or t/o. W knows that E is unsure about the meaning of X. If t/o W should bid 4H, which could be a catastrophy if X is penalty. The reverse is also true: if X is penalty W should pass, which could be bad if X is t/o. Of course W could have this line of thought with or without BIT. After the BIT 3N is out of the question.

If X is penalty, there is no reason to bid period. If X is t/o 4♥ is the LA. 3N is a clear case of making use of UI. As TD I would adjust the score to 3♠ X made. Lead of K ♦ seems clear to me.

Yes, you missed my point, probably I wasn't clear enough. I do NOT worry about finding the right contract. My objection is to the FREQUENCY of the 1N-opening. The part about playing on the 3-level refers to the 2♦/♥/♠-openings with 4-5. If you play Canapé you would open these with 5-4 increasing the probability of playing on the 2-level. I also like the Raptor idea presented by NMMS in this thread.

That's nice. Combine the Raptor idea with George's opening bids. 1N Raptor, 2♦ 3-suiter both Ms. Increases the frequency of 1N and keeps 2M for WT.

Thank you George for an interesting concept. You lose the Weak Two of course, but possibly the total “agressiveness” of your sytem is equal to standard precision. I'm a bit worried about 1N though. If by 3-suiter you mean 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 the frequency of 1N is to low IMO. Did you consider Canapé? That way 2M can be passed more often. It seems dangerous to force 3-level without a high probability of a fit.

I've also red some of your older posts dealing with 1N. I agree that a “natural” NT is not absolutely necessary. It helps to limit your rebids after a 1m opening however. Especially playing a WNT in a 5crd major sytem: 1m-1M; 2M always shows extras, either in high cards or in distribution. In a 4crd M system there is even less need for a normal 1N. In the 70th players in the Dutch Junior Team, notably Paul Felten and Jos Jacobs made “Nieuw Amstelveens” popular. This was basically ACOL with a 10-12 NT.

It's the ambigous nature of many continuations that AUC and QUC are avoiding. In QUC you bid 3♦ with 4crd support. Responder splinters with a minumum or bids 3M with extras. Since trumps are set, you are still low enough to explore slam. If you cannot be sure about a fit (with 0-3) you establish a gameforce one level lower and have enough space to explore fit AND strength. All non-♦ bids deny the strong variant and are comparable with continuations in a natural system.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In QUC we are also at 3♦ if we show the strong variant (but we have more information about responders hand). With ♠ we are also at the 3-level (but 1♠ is limited to 15-18).

My wife, who is from Poland, would pronounce it just like in English. Short “o” and “w” as “w”.

With the same lead 6N would be the winner:-))

Why bid 4N if you don't know what to do next? You probably wanted to bid 7♠ over 5♣, now you bid 6♠. Easy isn't it?

Alerting has complicated everything, even psyching. The first book on bridge I ever read was “How to play winning bridge” by EK and AS. Psyching was part of the system, you use a SJS to find out if pard has a psyche, 1♥-1♠; 4♠ is forbidden. It was on our convention card and that was enough. Nowadays we have alerts and people are to lazy to read convention cards. As it is impractical to alert each and every opening and saying “could be a psyche with aprobability of 3%” we forbid agreements that uncover a psyche. Sorry, I'm getting carried away. Probably should open a separate thread on the down-side of alerting.

Upps, my memory is not as good as I thought it was:-( Maybe ♠ K and ♣ Q.