On this page11
The skeleton is sound: a strong club with a complete balanced-hand ladder (14–16 → 1NT, 17–18 → 1♣︎–1♦︎–1♥︎–1♠︎–1NT, 19–20 → 2NT, 21–22 → 1♣︎–1♦︎–2NT, 23–24 → 1♣︎–1♦︎–1♥︎–1♠︎–2NT), a catch-all diamond with Modified XYZ, and relay schemes over the majors. The problems are structural rather than local, and the same few root causes explain most of the findings below.
- Three foundational agreements are never written down. Whether a positive response to 1♣︎ is game-forcing (the 1♣︎ pages pull both ways); which opening takes a balanced 15–16 (1♣︎ says 15+, 1NT says 14–16, the 1NT page sends a 15-count with 4-4 majors to a 1♦︎ whose own balanced range stops at 13); and what 1♣︎ even is in 3rd/4th seat, where General Principle #17 says “all openings are natural”.
- The opening ranges disagree with every opening page. Overview: 1♦︎ 9–15, 1♥︎/1♠︎ 8–15, 1NT 14–16 (13 with a 5-card suit), preempts 5+ cards. Opening pages: 1♦︎ 10–13 BAL, 1♥︎/1♠︎ 10–14, 1NT 15–17 in 3rd/4th seat, preempts 6+ cards. A 15-count with 5♥︎ opens 1♥︎ by one page and 1♣︎ by the other.
- Two relay schemes are used everywhere and defined nowhere. The Kori relay (General Principle #22 says when, never what) and the “5-4 Body” scheme on the 1♥︎/1♠︎ relay pages. Both 1♣︎ – 1M – 1NT relay pages claim to be “similar to 1♠︎ – 2♣︎” but diverge from 2NT upward.
- Three different RKCB step schemes coexist. General Principle #11 (0 / 1 without Q / 1 with Q …) for limited hands, 1430 on the 2♣︎ page, 0314-style on the 1NT – 4NT page — and several RKCB bids carry no step table at all. Two players will answer the same 4NT differently.
- The most common competitive auctions have no agreement. Nothing after 1♣︎ – (1♥︎/1♠︎/2♣︎/2♥︎/2♠︎/2NT); an 8–12 hand has no call over (X) or (1NT); transfer Lebensohl is announced in principle #12 but its table is not on the site; the non-vul Multi 2♦︎ has no 2♥︎/2♠︎ response.
- The 1♦︎ chapter is two systems written on top of each other. The responses page describes a natural-ish rebid scheme with no 1♠︎ rebid and no plain raise of responder's major; the Modified XYZ page is built entirely on 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ and on a 2M raise the first page doesn't have, and its 2NT/3♣︎ transfers mean other things there. Its shape tables also contain hands the overview opens 2♣︎ (5♣︎ + a 4-card major) and hands the 1♦︎ page's own “10–13 BAL” forbids.
- Mirror pages were written at different times. 1♥︎ vs 1♠︎ (the 1♥︎ page has five continuation schemes with no spade counterpart; the 1♠︎ page has the newer raise structure the 1♥︎ page lacks; opener's rebids after 1♠︎ – 1NT are two lines and a puppet copied from hearts), non-vul vs vul weak twos, the two 1NT-minor transfers, the 1♠︎-side XYZ tables (3NT = 1444 after showing three spades, 3♦︎ “asks” over 3♦︎, self-splinters in responder's own suit).
- Opener's rebids are described only by what follows them. On the major pages the continuations after 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♦︎/2♥︎/2♠︎/2NT are written out, but the rebids themselves are never defined — and on the 1♥︎ page opener's and responder's calls in those sections are interleaved without labels, so 2NT/3♣︎/3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ each carry two meanings.
- Shortage answers use three conventions and one of them is mislabelled. “In rank order” on the 1♣︎ pages is actually a rotation (3♣︎ = ♥︎, 3♦︎ = ♠︎, 3♥︎ = ♣︎, 3♠︎ = ♦︎); elsewhere it is low/high singleton then low/high void, or l/m/h. Someone will answer 3♣︎ with a club singleton.
- The defensive section is a stub. It covers advances of partner's overcall and a defence to Multi; our own overcall structure, the defence to 1NT, and any 10–12 raise are missing.
In this order — each item unblocks the ones after it.
- Decide whether a positive response to 1♣︎ is game-forcing, and propagate it (the “offer-to-play” bids in 1♣︎ – 2♣︎, the MIN steps of both 1NT relays, principle #14's forcing pass, the 8-HCP boundaries on the competitive page).
- Reconcile the opening ranges once — 1♦︎, 1♥︎/1♠︎, 1NT by seat, preempt length — and write the priority rule for a balanced 15–16 (and for 5M332 within the 1NT range).
- Write the Kori relay and the 5-4 Body scheme down, with one worked example each.
- Pick one RKCB step scheme for limited hands and print the steps beside every RKCB bid (2♣︎ – 4♦︎, 1NT – 4NT, preempts, Namyats, 2NT – 3♣︎ – 3♦︎ – 4♣︎).
- 1NT transfers: remove the duplicate 2nd/5th super-accept step and write the concrete shortage / re-transfer bids for every step; decide one route for the balanced invitation with four hearts.
- Add the plain overcall defence after 1♣︎ (Pass = 0–7, X, transfers, cue) and the 0–7 / 8–12 zones over (X) and (1NT).
- Non-vul 2♦︎: add 2♥︎/2♠︎ (pass-or-correct) and give a minimum 5-4 opener a reply to 2NT; vul 2♦︎: mark 3♥︎/3♠︎ pass-or-correct.
- Namyats: responses assume the major is known — make 4M pass-or-correct, define 4♦︎, route RKCB through 4♣︎.
- Fix the impossible lines in the shape tables (1NT – 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ – 3♠︎ = 0544; Modified XYZ 2♠︎ (three spades) – 3NT = 1444; “3♦︎ asks” over 3♦︎) and complete the tables that are not exhaustive (6-4 minimum after 2♣︎; 5-4-4-0 after 2♣︎; 3442 after 2♠︎).
- Relabel the “rank order” shortage answers as the rotation they are, and use the same convention everywhere.
- 1♦︎merge the responses page and the XYZ page into one rebid scheme (add the 1♠︎ rebid and the 2M raise; settle 2♦︎ and 2NT), and define 1♦︎ itself so the shape tables stop contradicting it.
- 1♥︎1♠︎define opener's rebids after 1M – 1♠︎ / 1M – 1NT, label who bids what in the interleaved sections, and say what happens when 2♣︎ is doubled.
- Ambiguity · General Principles › #4 — “We make an exception after a preempt, when the direct double is penalty” — but after 1♣︎ – (3♥︎) the double is “4-5♠︎” and #20 makes 1♣︎ – (4♥︎+) – X show 0–7 or 10-; direct doubles of their preempts after 1♣︎ are never penalty. → Say #4 covers doubles after our own preempt, or list the 1♣︎ auctions as exceptions.
- Ambiguity · General Principles › #5 — The passed-hand double “showing a fit… better than a direct raise… over Precision without a top honour” names no auction: which opening, which overcall, whose 1♣︎? → Rewrite as two or three explicit auctions (e.g. Pass – 1♠︎ – (2♦︎) – X = 3-card raise better than 2♠︎).
- Contradiction · General Principles › #11 vs RKCB tables — #11 says limited hands answer 0 / 1 without Q / 1 with Q / 2 without Q / 2 with Q; the preempt page follows it, but the equally limited 2♣︎ opener answers 1430 (4♥︎ = 1 or 4, 4♠︎ = 0 or 3…) and 1NT – 4NT uses 5♣︎ = 1 or 4, 5♦︎ = 0 or 3. Several RKCB bids (4♣︎ after 2♣︎ – 2♦︎ – 2NT, 4♣︎ on the Stayman page, 4NT after Namyats) have no steps at all. → One scheme for limited openings; print the steps next to every RKCB bid.
- Gap · General Principles › #12 Lebensohl — “After a 1NT opening we always play transfer Lebensohl” — the scheme itself appears nowhere, and the 1NT competitive page has no section for (2♦︎/2♥︎/2♠︎/3x). “Whenever we have passed we play simple Lebensohl” — passed hand, or passed earlier in this auction? The listed positions also exclude 1♣︎, so nothing is defined after 1♣︎ – (2x). → Write the transfer-Lebensohl table on the 1NT competitive page; define “passed”; state whether any Lebensohl applies after 1♣︎.
- Ambiguity · General Principles › #14 — “After a 1♣︎ opening… the double shows shortage in the opponents' suit” contradicts the competitive page where 1♣︎ – (Pass) – 1♦︎ – (1M) – X is takeout or a strong balanced hand; “pass then raise” also needs a forcing pass. → Restrict #14 to auctions after a positive (GF) response and say the pass is forcing there.
- Ambiguity · General Principles › #17 — “In 3rd/4th seat all openings are natural (0–13 points)” read literally makes 1♣︎ natural in 3rd/4th seat; the 1NT page gives a 15–17 3rd-seat range but nothing says what an 18+ hand opens there, or what non-vul 2♦︎/2♥︎/2♠︎/3NT are by seat. → State for 3rd/4th seat: is 1♣︎ still strong, what is 1♦︎, what are the ranges; add a seat line to the 2♦︎/2M/Namyats pages.
- Gap · General Principles › #19 — “After a 5–7(8) double, a NT bid and a jump are the only forcing calls” — no page defines a double that shows 5–7(8) HCP. → Name the auction(s) this belongs to, or delete the item.
- Ambiguity · General Principles › #20 — 1♣︎ – (4♥︎+) – X = “0–7 or 10-”: if “10-” means up to 10, an 8–10 hand without heart values has no call; if it means 10+, the double is two-way with opposite actions for opener. → Fix the range and say what opener does over the double.
- Gap · General Principles › #22 Kori relay — The bullets are the only definition on the site: “4♣︎ = bid 4♦︎ and I'll say which game”, “4♦︎/♥︎/♠︎/5♣︎ = optional Blackwood for ♥︎/♠︎/♣︎/♦︎, 1st step = MIN, then as normal Blackwood”. Missing: 3NT over a 3♠︎ stop, which Blackwood, what the relayer bids after 4♣︎ – 4♦︎, whether 6-4-with-shortage answers count as “three suits shown”. → Write a Kori relay section with the full table and one worked example.
- Contradiction · General Principles › #23 — “All transfers by a passed hand after 1♣︎/♦︎/♥︎/♠︎” — but the 1♠︎ responses page gives natural passed-hand meanings (2♣︎ = 3+♠︎ from a passed hand, 2♦︎ = 5+♦︎), and no 1♣︎ page has a passed-hand structure (a passed hand cannot hold 13+ for 1♥︎). → Decide which is current; if #23, write the passed-hand tables, starting with 1♣︎.
- Contradiction · Opening Bids Overview › Openings — 1♦︎ “0+♦︎, 9–15” vs the 1♦︎ page “10–13 BAL”, while the 1NT page adds “with 15 HCP and 44MM open 1♦︎” — a hand that fits neither. 1♥︎/1♠︎ “8–15” vs “10–14 (5 cards), 9–14 (6 cards)”: a 15-count with 5♥︎ is 1♥︎ by one and 1♣︎ by the other. 1NT “14–16, or 13 with a 5-card suit” vs “14–16 1st/2nd, 15–17 3rd/4th”; with 1♣︎ = 15+ a balanced 15–16 qualifies for both. Preempts “5+ cards” vs “6+ cards”. → One authoritative ladder per seat; the priority rule for balanced 15–16 and for 5M332; copy the 3rd/4th-seat ranges into the overview.
- Ambiguity · Opening Bids Overview › 1♣︎ – 15+ or 7 tricks with 13+ — After 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ the only jump is “3♣︎/3♦︎ – (6)7+ cards, just short of GF (more shape than points)” — a 13-count with seven tricks is not “just short of GF”, and a 7-card major can only go 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♥︎ “(5)6+♥︎ NF” or 1♠︎ (NF). → Say what “depending on the suit” means and give the 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ rebid for this hand in majors and minors.
- Contradiction · Leads & Signals › Leads — “After the opening lead we are back to 2nd/4th or ‘straight’, depending on the contract” vs “During the play: 2nd/4th regardless of the contract”. → One sentence for later leads; define “straight” (4th best? honest count?).
- Ambiguity · Leads & Signals › Partner's suit — “3rd/5th in partner's suit (5+ cards / a lead-directing double), but only when we have not raised it” sits under the suit-contract rule: does it apply against NT, and what is led from a raised suit? → A two-line table: raised / not raised × suit / NT.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › Responses to 1♣︎ — Nowhere says whether a positive (8–12) response is game-forcing. 1♣︎ – (1NT) “Pass 0–7 … X – GF” implies 8+ = GF, but 1♣︎ – 2♣︎ has “offer-to-play” bids, 1♣︎ – 1NT says invitational hands “become minimums”, and the relays say “2♣︎ – MIN … natural from here on” — all non-forcing readings. Principle #14's “pass then raise” needs a forcing pass. → Decide GF or not and propagate everywhere.
- Contradiction · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › 2♠︎ = 4441, 2NT relay “in rank order” — The mapping 3♣︎ = ♥︎ / 3♦︎ = ♠︎ / 3♥︎ = ♣︎ / 3♠︎ = ♦︎ is a rotation, not rank order; the same rotation is used after 1♣︎ – 1♥︎ – 2NT – 3♣︎ (3♦︎ = 4144 … 3NT = 4414), while the two-suiter relay answers low/high singleton, low/high void and 1♣︎ – 2♣︎ – 2NT answers l/m/h — three shortage conventions. → Relabel (“the shortage is always the suit above the answer”) and say which bid agrees which suit afterwards.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › 1NT vs 1♠︎/2♥︎ — “1NT – 8–12 balanced; the only exceptions are a 5-card ♥︎ suit / a weak 5-card suit” vs “2♥︎ – 5+♥︎” and “1♠︎ – 5+♠︎”: when does 5M332 bid 1NT and when the suit? → e.g. “5M332 with a suit not worth showing → 1NT; otherwise 1♠︎/2♥︎”.
- Gap · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › 2NT = 55MM 5–7 — Opener's 3♥︎/3♠︎/4♥︎/4♠︎ are undefined; “3NT – choice of games” and “3♣︎ … 3♦︎ = relay (3NT to play)” give two 3NTs; “4♣︎ – natural” opposite a 5-5 major hand means a 7+ card minor. → Complete the table: 3♥︎/3♠︎/4♥︎/4♠︎ to play, 3♣︎/3♦︎ = ♥︎/♠︎ slam try, one meaning for 3NT.
- Suspect · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › 3♣︎/♦︎/♥︎/♠︎ transfers, 5–8 with a good suit — Target suits are not stated (3♠︎ → ♣︎?), and the 3♠︎ transfer forces 4♣︎, bypassing 3NT — the likely game opposite 15+. → Spell out the four transfers and whether opener may bid 3NT instead of completing.
- Gap · 1♣︎: Responses & Notrump Ranges › Notrump ranges — 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 1NT (16)17–18 has no continuation scheme although the NB about “invitation or pass” presupposes one; whether 2NT (23–24) is forcing is not stated. → “Responder continues as after a 1NT opening” or give the table; mark 2NT F/NF.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ rebids — The rebid list has no 2NT although page 05 assigns 21–22 to it, and the 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ table omits 1NT (17–18) and 2NT (23–24). “2♦︎ – natural 5+♦︎ up to 22” and “2♥︎ – 5+♥︎ 4♠︎ up to 18–19” have no continuations (forcing? 2♦︎ – 2♥︎ relay or natural?). → Add the balanced rebids to their tables; write the 2♦︎ and 2♥︎ sections.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 2♠︎ three-suiter, 2NT relay, 3x p/c — After 2NT – 3x, which of opener's three suits does “bidding the shortage suit” agree; does Kori apply after a 3♠︎ stop; what does responder's “3♠︎ p/c” ask opener to correct to? → Write the follow-ups for all four shortage answers.
- Suspect · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 3♥︎ (INV 55MM) / 3♠︎ (GF 55MM) — The 3♠︎ GF line repeats the 3♥︎ INV text verbatim (“accept with the corresponding major”) — after a GF bid there is nothing to accept; over 3♥︎ the way to decline and what “choice of games” means when both suits are known are not given. → Over 3♥︎: Pass/3♠︎ decline, 4♥︎/4♠︎ accept, 4♣︎/4♦︎ = slam try; over 3♠︎: 4♥︎/4♠︎ to play, 4♣︎/4♦︎ slam try; define 3NT.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1♥︎, 2NT relay — Answers are low singleton / high singleton / low void / high void “regardless of 6-5” — a 6-5-1-1 hand has two singletons and no void, so no step; “suits agreed in rank order” does not say which bid agrees which suit. → Specify the 6-5-1-1 answer and the agreeing bids.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ — Opener's rebids are listed but responder's third-round bids are not: is a new suit forcing, is 2NT natural or a relay, are the “better hand” rebids forcing? → Mark F/NF on each rebid; add responder's continuations.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1♠︎ (NF) — A 6–8 hand with 4-card support and no shortage has no bid (3♠︎ = 3–5, 2NT = 3–5 with shortage, 4x = 6–8 with shortage); after 2♣︎ – 2♦︎ the answers use 2♠︎ — partner's suit — to deny support. → Add the 6–8 balanced 4-card raise; add responder's bids after 2♣︎ – 2♥︎/2NT/3x.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 1NT (any GF) — Only responder's first answer exists; nothing follows 2♣︎ (5–7 balanced), the transfers or 2♠︎ (0–4(5)); 5 HCP sits in both ranges; the weakest hand answers highest (2♠︎), taking room from the hand that needs it. → Write opener's continuations; fix the 5-point boundary; consider 2♣︎ = 0–4 with the transfers above it.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♦︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♦︎ – 2♣︎ — “2♦︎ – 5–8, asks for a 4-card major or with a 5-card suit of our own (3♣︎ = minimum)… development as after 2♣︎ – 2♦︎” — on the 2♣︎ page MIN/MAX describe a 10–14 hand; here opener is 15–22 and MIN/MAX are undefined. “2♥︎/♠︎ – 0–5 with a (5)6-card suit” overlaps 2♦︎ at 5 HCP. → Define MIN/MAX for the 1♣︎ opener here (15–17 / 18–22?) and the 5-point boundary.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♥︎ — Opener's 2♣︎, 2♦︎ and 2♥︎ rebids are not defined in the one auction (13+ opposite 15+) where a relay structure matters most; “1NT – we play the 1NT scheme” gives no range for opener's 1NT, and the scheme's INV/weak bids have no meaning opposite 13+. → Define 2♣︎/2♦︎/2♥︎, the 1NT range, and how INV/weak bids are re-read here.
- Gap · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♥︎ – 2♠︎ (any 5-5) / 2NT (three-suiter) — The 5-5 relay answers have no step for 5♠︎5♥︎ and say nothing about 5-5 hands with 18+; the three-suiter answers cover 4441 only although page 06 allows 5m(044), and spade agreement after 4144 is unsaid; 3♣︎/3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ appear twice on the page (relay answers vs direct jumps). → Add 3NT = 55MM (or exclude it), the 18+ route, the 5-4-4-0 answers; re-head the 3x block “direct jump over 1♥︎”.
- Contradiction · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 1NT — “2♣︎ – MIN, up to 18” vs “2♦︎ – 18+” (18 in both); “2NT – 21+ 5332 (a downgraded 19-count goes through 2♣︎)” leaves an un-downgraded 19–20 5332 with no bid; “3NT – (16)17+ 6♠︎+5♣︎+” overlaps the MIN step. → e.g. 2♣︎ = 15–17, others 18+, 2NT = 18+ 5332.
- Contradiction · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › Both 1NT relays “similar to 1♠︎ – 2♣︎” — Only 2♦︎/2♥︎/2♠︎/3♣︎ match the 1♠︎ – 2♣︎ page; from 2NT up they differ (2NT = 5332 / splinters / 6♠︎4♣︎ here vs 6♠︎4♣︎ / 5332 / 5♠︎5♣︎ shortages there). What follows 2♦︎/2♥︎ (is 2♥︎ the 2M-fit relay?) is not said, and those relays' MIN/MAX steps are meaningless once 2♣︎/2♦︎ already said MIN/18+. After “2♣︎ – MIN → 2♦︎ = relay for shape, natural from here on!!” the answers to 2♦︎ are not given. → Make the tables identical and say “shift one step”, or write this page's own follow-ups; give the table after 2♣︎ – 2♦︎.
- Contradiction · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › 1♣︎ – 1♠︎ – 1NT — “2♣︎ – MIN up to 9(10)” vs “3♠︎ – 10–12” (10 in both) and “4♠︎ – 8–12” overlapping the MIN step; opener's non-relay rebids over 1♠︎ are absent; the 2♦︎ (5+♦︎) and 2♥︎ (5+♥︎) positives have no continuations anywhere. → Fix 10; add opener's other rebids over 1♠︎; at minimum “1♣︎ – 2♦︎/2♥︎: next step = relay, answers as after 1♣︎ – 1♠︎ – 1NT with suits renamed”.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: After 1♣︎–1♥︎ / 1♠︎ / 1NT / 2♣︎ › 1♣︎ – 1NT / 1♣︎ – 2♣︎ — “Invitational hands become minimums, bidding is natural” — may responder (8–12) pass an “INV” sequence? The phrase “the 1NT scheme” has the roles reversed on the two pages. In 1♣︎ – 2♣︎, “2♦︎ – relay (stronger hands with a running suit go through here)” — whose suit? “2M / 3♣︎ / 3♦︎ – offer-to-play, weaker” — weaker than what, passable? → Two explicit lines per auction; the answer follows from the GF decision.
- Gap · 1♣︎: Competitive Auctions › page as a whole — No sections for 1♣︎ – (1♥︎), (1♠︎), (2♣︎), (2♥︎), (2♠︎), (2NT), a natural double or a natural 1NT; 1♣︎ – (1/2/3♦︎) defines only two transfers; over (X = majors) every listed call is GF and Pass/XX/2♣︎ are undefined, so an 8–12 hand has no call; same over (1NT) unless positives are GF. → A default defence to a simple overcall with 0–7 / 8–12 / 13+ zones; add Pass/XX/2♣︎ over the double.
- Suspect · 1♣︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♣︎ – (Pass) – 1♦︎ – (1M) — “Pass – 17–18, I don't want to bid NT” ends the auction with 17–18 opposite a 0–7 responder who will also pass, while “X – T/O or strong balanced” is available; natural rebids, 23–24 balanced and 1♠︎ over (1♥︎) are missing. → Delete the Pass line (or make it “no stopper → X”) and complete the table.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♣︎ – (3♣︎+) / 1♣︎ – (3x) – P – (P) – 3NT — One table (4♣︎ = ♥︎ or minors, 4♦︎ = ♠︎ or minors, 4♥︎ = ♣︎ or both majors, 4♠︎ = ♦︎ or the other minor) serves two auctions and four preempt suits; over (3♦︎) “4♥︎ – ♣︎ or both majors” is genuinely two-way, and over (3♣︎)/(3♦︎) the 4-level bids duplicate the 3-level transfers. → Per-suit tables; state the difference between a 3-level and a 4-level major.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♣︎ – (3♥︎) and 1♣︎ – (3♠︎) — The (3♥︎) table mixes responder's direct calls (X – 4-5♠︎, 3♠︎ = stopper ask) with opener's rebids after responder's double; over (3♠︎) the heading includes X but never defines it, there is no stopper ask, and the cues 4♠︎ = ♦︎ / 4♥︎ = ♣︎ contradict principle #1. → Two tables per preempt (responder directly; opener after the double); define X over (3♠︎); note the cue-bid exception to #1.
- Ambiguity · 1♣︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♣︎ – (1NT = minors) — “2♥︎/♠︎ – 5+ cards, 5–8” vs “2♣︎/♦︎ – 5+♥︎/♠︎, GF”: 8 HCP is in both; “X – GF balanced without a 5-card major” leaves 9–12 balanced with no call unless positives are GF. → Resolves once the GF question is settled; then fix the 8.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎ Opening › heading — The page's only line is “Opening 1♦︎ 10–13 BAL”, but the overview says “0+♦︎, 9–15” and the 1♦︎ pages give opener shapes such as 6♦︎4M, 55mm, 7♦︎, 4414, 4405 and (43)15. No rule for 1♦︎ vs 1NT vs 2♣︎ with 5♦︎+4M / 5♣︎+4M, no 3rd/4th-seat note, no “1♦︎ can be short” statement although pages 11–12 rely on it. → Define 1♦︎ properly (balanced 10–13 or any diamond hand that is not a 5-card major / 2♣︎ / 1NT opening) and write the priority rules here — every table below depends on it.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1M rebids vs Modified XYZ — The rebid list (1NT / 2♣︎ / 2♦︎ / 2NT / 3♣︎ / 3♦︎ / 3M / 3OM / 4M) has no 1♠︎ rebid, yet the whole XYZ page is built on 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ and this page's SOFF section says “we already know partner doesn't have four spades”. There is also no plain raise of responder's major (support is shown only as 2NT = max 6+♦︎ with 3-card support or 3M = 6♦︎4M), while XYZ principle 3 says “with a good three-card holding and weak diamonds we bid 2M”. → Add 1♠︎ = 4 spades and the 2M raise to the rebid list; state that 1NT denies four spades; re-file 3M = 6♦︎4M.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 2♦︎ and 2NT rebids — “2♦︎ – 5+ cards (5 only if unbalanced with 1- cards in the major)” contradicts XYZ principle 3, which sends 5431 hands with 5♦︎ and three cards in partner's major through 2♦︎. “2NT – maximum with 6+♦︎ and 3-card support” reappears later without “maximum”, and XYZ principle 5 says 2NT/3♣︎ rebids are “ALWAYS a transfer to the 5+ card minor”. → Settle which 5♦︎ hands rebid 2♦︎; one meaning for 2NT (or say the transfer rule is third-round only).
- Gap · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1M – 2♣︎ relay answers — After 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 2♣︎ – 2♠︎ the replies are 2NT (3-card support), 3♣︎ (shortage MAX), 3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ (55 / 6♦︎4♣︎ / 6♦︎5♣︎ MIN) and “3NT is always a shortage in the major, MIN” — a 4-4 minor hand with exactly two hearts and no shortage (3244, 2245) has no bid, and 2NT never shows MIN/MAX. The 1♠︎ mirror ends “3NT – 3163”, which is three-card support (given to 2NT), not a shortage. → Add a “two in the major, no extras” step (or define shortage as 2-); fix the 3163 line.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1M – 2♦︎ – 2OM, 3♣︎ relay — The two mirror auctions answer the same 3♣︎ relay differently: 3361 / 1363 / (1)37(2) / 2362 after 1♥︎, “low singleton, high singleton, BAL min, BAL max” after 1♠︎, while the general principle above lists a third version (“low shortage, high shortage, extra diamonds, balanced”). → Pick one four-step scheme and mirror it.
- Suspect · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♣︎ – 2♥︎ (shortage MAX) – 2NT — The relay answers include “(03)55, xx65 / exception, one extra step available /” — (03)55 allows three spades, which the shortage bid just denied, and xx65 is defined nowhere. → Should read (01)55; define or delete xx65.
- Gap · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 2♣︎ – 2♠︎, the ALERT lines — “3♥︎ relay = l/h, 3♠︎ = ALERT (unclear problem)” twice — left open by the authors, whereas the 1♠︎ mirror defines 3♠︎ as “6 spades, offering 4♠︎”. → Give 3♠︎ the analogous meaning (6 hearts, offering 4♥︎) or an explicit “not used”.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › 1♦︎ – 1M – 2♣︎ – 2NT (INV+) — Four of the five replies are “Maximum” (3♦︎ without three ♥︎, 3♥︎ with three, 3♠︎ no spade stopper, 3NT spade stopper), so every maximum without support fits two bids, and a minimum with three-card support has no bid (3♣︎ = “minimum, I don't accept → 3♦︎ to play”). → Redefine 3♦︎ and add a GF continuation, since 2NT is INV+.
- Ambiguity · 1♦︎: Responses & Opener's Rebids › Responses to 1♦︎: 2♠︎ / 2NT / 2♥︎ — “2♠︎ – balanced INV or the minors … first step = 55 up to 15–16” mixes an 11–12 invitation with a 15–16 two-suiter that could also bid GF 2♣︎/2♦︎, and overlaps “2NT – INV with one minor”; opener's “Pass – I don't accept … when we have a singleton in one minor and know partner has it” is impossible since 2NT never says which minor; “2♥︎ – 5♠︎4♥︎ or 55, to play → 2NT is an invitation in a major” never says which major and no 1♦︎ – 2♥︎ section exists. → State the strength/shape split between 2♠︎, 2NT and 2♣︎/2♦︎; fix the 2NT asymmetry (3♣︎ “may accept opposite ♦︎” vs 3♦︎ “I accept opposite ♣︎”); write the 1♦︎ – 2♥︎ continuations.
- Gap · 1♦︎: 2♣︎ / 2♦︎ / 2♠︎ Responses › 1♦︎ – 2♦︎ and 1♦︎ – 2♣︎ — After the GF 2♦︎ opener's rebids are only 2♥︎/2♠︎/2NT/3♣︎ — he can never show 6+♦︎ or diamond support, although after 2♣︎ the first rebid is “2♦︎ – 6+ diamonds”. 1♦︎ – 2♣︎ still carries the authors' own TODO (how to bid 5-5, what is 3♣︎, what after 2NT balanced); 3♣︎ is undefined and 2♥︎ / 2NT have no continuations. → Add a diamond-length/fit rebid after 2♦︎; complete the 2♣︎ scheme; say what “2M = values” means.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: 2♣︎ / 2♦︎ / 2♠︎ Responses › 2NT (R) answer tables — After 2♣︎ – 2♠︎ – 2NT: “3♣︎ – ♣︎ shortage” and “3NT – 4450” overlap (4450 is a club void) and 3♣︎/3♦︎ are bare shortages while 3♥︎/3♠︎ are exact shapes. After 2♦︎ – 2♠︎ – 2NT every answer (4414, (43)15, 4405) shows 0–1 diamonds, which “10–13 BAL” excludes; the two tables follow different logics. → Confirm 1♦︎ can be 0–1 diamonds; write all answers as shapes; unify the two schemes.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: 2♣︎ / 2♦︎ / 2♠︎ Responses › 1♦︎ – 2♠︎ — Here “3♠︎ – bid 3NT” fixes the NT puppet at 3♠︎ (so after 3♦︎ only the ♥︎ shortage can be shown), but page 10 says the third step “if there is room” is the NT puppet, which after 3♦︎ makes 3♠︎ the ♠︎ shortage. Opener's only calls are 2NT (minimum) and 3♣︎/3♦︎ (maximum with a minor preference) — a balanced maximum cannot offer 3NT, and responder's balanced-INV continuations are missing. → Reconcile the 3♠︎ meaning; add a “maximum, no preference / 3NT” call and the balanced continuations.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Modified XYZ › shape tables vs the 2♣︎ opening and principle 1 — Several answers give opener 5♣︎ plus a 4-card major (4225, 4315, 4135, 2335/2425, 1435) — hands the overview opens 2♣︎. Principle 1 says “we never bid NT with 4441 or 54mm”, yet “3NT – 1444” appears in two 1NT-rebid tables and 3235/2245, 3253/2254 put 54mm hands in the 1NT rebid after 1♥︎. → Delete or re-home the shapes the 2♣︎ opening takes; decide whether 4441/54mm may rebid 1NT (then add them to the 1♠︎ tables too).
- Suspect · 1♦︎: Modified XYZ › 1♦︎ – 1♠︎ – 1NT – 2♦︎ – 2♠︎ (3 spades) – 2NT — The last answer “3NT – 1444 MAX” is impossible after showing three spades (copied from the 2♥︎ table); 3442, the genuine 3-spade shape, is missing. Likewise “3♦︎ – 4333” cannot follow a 1NT rebid that denies four spades (principle 8 says “some 4333”), and the heading calls 2♥︎ a “shortage in ♠︎” while the table defines it as “2- cards in ♠︎” (answers include 2434/2443). → Replace 3NT with 3442; write “some 4333”; fix the heading; mirror the wording in the 1♥︎ tables.
- Gap · 1♦︎: Modified XYZ › 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♦︎ – 2♠︎ – 2NT (R) — The five answers (4135, 4153/4063, 4234, 4243, 4144) leave 4162, 4171 and 4054 with no bid although 4063 is included; and “3♦︎ – 4153/4063, then 3♦︎ asks” — 3♦︎ cannot ask over 3♦︎. → Exclude 6+♦︎ hands from the 1♠︎ rebid explicitly or add steps; “then 3♥︎ asks”.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Modified XYZ › self-splinters after 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1♠︎/1NT – 2NT — Both heart tables end “4♣︎/4♦︎/4♥︎ – self-splinter with a void”, but hearts is responder's own trump suit; the 1♠︎ version correctly uses ♣︎/♦︎/♥︎. The 2NT puppet tables also give the ♦︎ shortage two bids (3♥︎ exactly INV, 3♠︎ mild ST) and the ♠︎ shortage only 3NT, so “exactly INV with a ♠︎ shortage” has no call; the ♠︎ table splits differently; page 10 calls the same bid “INV+ LMH” — a third variant. → Should read 4♣︎/4♦︎/4♠︎; choose one INV/ST convention and apply it to both majors.
- Ambiguity · 1♦︎: Modified XYZ › principle 10 / 1♦︎ – 1♥︎ – 1NT – 2♣︎ — The worked example says both “3♦︎ to hear MIN/MAX” and “we should have bid 3♣︎ – say MIN or MAX” (over 2NT the next step is 3♣︎). After the 2♣︎ puppet, “2♥︎ – INV with 5+♥︎” and “3♥︎ – INV with ♥︎” describe the same hand, and “2♠︎ – INV with 4♥︎ and a 5+ minor” has no way to locate the minor, while the 1♠︎ mirror dedicates 3♣︎/3♦︎ to exactly that. → Decide which bid asks MIN/MAX; define 3♥︎; add the minor-asking step after 2♠︎.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Competitive Auctions › all sections vs General Principles #1, #2, #12 — Almost every cue-bid is something other than a stopper ask (2♥︎ = 6+♠︎ 7–10 over (1♥︎); 2♠︎ = INV+ with ♣︎ over (1♠︎); 3♣︎ = 55MM INV+ over (2♣︎); 3♦︎ = hearts INV+ over (2♦︎)) — except 2♥︎ over (1♠︎), which is. Principle 12 makes transfer Lebensohl mandatory after a 1♦︎ opening, but the page never mentions it. → State that after 1♦︎ the cues are transfers/natural (with the one exception) and where Lebensohl applies.
- Contradiction · 1♦︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♦︎ – (1♥︎) — “1♠︎ – transfer to 1NT → balanced invitation without 4♠︎” and “1NT – natural, invitational” define the same hand twice; three bids show 6+ spades (2♦︎ weak or strong, 2♥︎ 7–10, 3♥︎ INV) with no boundary between strong and INV; “2♣︎ – 5+♦︎, new suit GF” and “3♣︎ – diamonds INV+” both show diamonds. → Give the direct 1NT a distinct meaning; assign ranges to the three spade bids; define the 2♣︎/3♣︎ split (same over (1♠︎)).
- Gap · 1♦︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♦︎ – (X) — “Pass – forcing to XX” has no follow-ups: what responder does after the forced XX, what the pass shows, what if they bid over it. → Write the continuations — the most common auction on the page.
- Gap · 1♦︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♦︎ – (1♠︎) – 2♥︎ – (Pass) and the transfer completions — The replies (2♠︎ balanced without a stopper, 2NT minimum with a stopper, 3♣︎/3♦︎ minimum, 3M shortage maximum) leave a balanced maximum with a stopper without a bid; “→ 2NT = 4+4+ minors” does not say who bids it. After the 1♠︎ and 2♦︎ transfers over (1♥︎), nothing states when opener completes or that 2♠︎ shows four spades opposite a hand that denied them. → Add the max-with-stopper reply; write the accept/super-accept rules for each transfer.
- Gap · 1♦︎: Competitive Auctions › page coverage — No sections for (1NT), (2♥︎)/(2♠︎), 3-level preempts, or interference after responder's first call; the (2♦︎) section never says what the overcall shows; the (2♣︎) section has no GF call. → Add the missing interventions and label the (2♦︎) overcall.
- Ambiguity · 1♥︎ Opening / 1♠︎ Opening › headings — Both pages are a single line and never say whether the 9–14 six-card version, or the 3rd/4th-seat 4-card version, changes anything downstream (relay shapes, 1NT-rebid ranges); every relay step presumes 5+ in the major. With 8–9 HCP and exactly five cards there is no legal call at all (opening pages require 10; the weak two is not stated to allow five). → One line per page: which structures are on/off for the sub-10 and 4-card variants; say what an 8–9 count with a bare 5-card major does.
- Contradiction · 1♥︎ / 1♠︎ › passed hand vs General Principles #23 — #23: “all transfers by a passed hand after 1♣︎/♦︎/♥︎/♠︎”; both responses pages define the passed hand explicitly and non-transfer (“1NT – RF, also from a passed hand”, “2♣︎ … from a passed hand 3+♥︎”, “2♦︎ – 5+♦︎ from a passed hand”). → Either #23 does not apply to 1♥︎/1♠︎ (say so) or rewrite the passed-hand responses as transfers.
- Gap · 1♥︎ / 1♠︎ › competitive cue-bids vs #1; no 1M – (X) section — No competitive scheme on either page uses the cue as a stopper ask (1♥︎ – (2♦︎) – 3♦︎ = 3-card support INV+; 1♠︎ – (2♦︎) – 3♦︎ = GF with ♣︎), and neither page has a 1M – (X) section although #3 says “the same applies after a 1M opening”. → Add the exception to #1 or fix the schemes; write 1♥︎ – (X) / 1♠︎ – (X) (redouble, new suits, raises, 2NT) — the most common intervention.
- Contradiction · 1♥︎: Responses & Rebids › Responses to 1♥︎ — “2M – constructive raise” sits above “2♠︎ – preemptive, weak” (M is ambiguous here); “1NT – RF (3-card support wanting 3NT goes through here)” and “3NT – 3-card support balanced 13–16, pick a game” both claim the balanced 3-card raise; there is no game-forcing raise with a singleton (2NT INV, 3♣︎/3♦︎/2♠︎ preemptive, splinters void-only), unlike 1♠︎'s “3♣︎ – GF with 4-card support”; 2NT bundles three hand types differing by 4+ HCP with no accept-all answer. → Write 2♥︎ – constructive raise; give 1NT and 3NT disjoint ranges; import the 1♠︎ raise structure; split the mixed raise out.
- Contradiction · 1♥︎: Responses & Rebids › 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♦︎ / 2♥︎ / 2♠︎ / 2NT — In each section 2NT/3♣︎/3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ are defined twice with incompatible meanings (“2NT – 5422” in the bullets vs “2NT – balanced INV” below; “3♣︎ = 1543/0544” vs “3♣︎ = GF 4+♣︎ and exactly 4♠︎”) because opener's rebids after responder's GF 2♠︎ and responder's own rebids are interleaved without labels; opener's rebids themselves are never defined (2♥︎ = 6+♥︎ and 2NT = 6♥︎3♠︎ are only inferable). → Label the two blocks by seat and preceding auction; add opener's rebid table (shape, range, forcing) before the continuations.
- Suspect · 1♥︎: Responses & Rebids › 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♠︎ trial bids — With spades agreed the trial bids read “3♦︎ – values in hearts” and “3♥︎ – values in spades” — the trump suit offered as a trial bid and diamonds missing. → Almost certainly 3♣︎ = ♣︎, 3♦︎ = ♦︎, 3♥︎ = ♥︎, as in 1♠︎ – 2♠︎.
- Gap · 1♥︎: Responses & Rebids › 1♥︎ – 1NT — Opener's rebids: 2♣︎ = 1+♣︎ 11–14, 2♦︎ = 4+♦︎ 11–14, 2♥︎ = 6-card 9–14, 2NT; a 10-count with five hearts and no six-card suit has no rebid inside any range; 2♠︎ and jump rebids are undefined; 2♥︎ overlaps 2NT (“6332/6331 maximum with weak hearts, not good enough for 3♥︎”) and 3♥︎ is not listed. → Restate ranges as 9/10–14; define 2♠︎, the jumps and 3♥︎; give a quality test for 2♥︎ vs 2NT.
- Gap · 1♥︎: Responses & Rebids › 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2♣︎ / 1♥︎ – 1NT – 2♣︎ / 1♥︎ – 1♠︎ – 2NT – 3♣︎ / 1♥︎ – 2NT — “3♦︎ – splinter” with no agreed suit; “2♠︎ – artificial, better than 3m” has no continuation to locate the minor; the 2NT – 3♣︎ answers mix shortages and shapes with no minimum 36xx and no spade-shortage answer; 1♥︎ – 2NT has three answers, none accepting, no 3♠︎, no continuations. → Say which suit 3♦︎ agrees; add the follow-up after 2♠︎; recast 2NT – 3♣︎ as shortage steps then MIN/MAX; complete 1♥︎ – 2NT.
- Gap · 1♥︎ / 1♠︎: 2♣︎ Game-Forcing Relay › when 2♣︎ is doubled — “WE DO NOT PLAY THE RELAY!!!” says what is off but nothing about what is on: pass, XX and new suits are undefined, and overcalls of 2♣︎ are not mentioned — on both pages. → Define the fallback (natural? XX = ?) and reconcile with #15 (“double shows shortage”) and #3.
- Contradiction · 1♥︎ / 1♠︎: 2♣︎ Game-Forcing Relay › 2M-fit and 5-4 Body schemes — Steps 8–9 (6M5♣︎, 7M4♣︎) cannot exist after 2♦︎ (4+♠︎) or 2♥︎ (4+♦︎), and step 3 “54 MIN” re-shows a known 5-4; the shape steps never name the suits (“55 with low shortage”, “64”) nor define low/high; the void branch gives four answers with no MIN/MAX and no 7-card or 5-5 void hands; “3NT – 65, only with diamonds the 6-card suit is not clear, but we manage” concedes an unresolved GF ambiguity; “2♠︎ – 6+M → 2NT (scheme)” references a scheme that exists nowhere; 5440 fits both 2♦︎ and 2♥︎; on the 1♠︎ page “2♥︎ = fit / 2♠︎ = fit” name no suit. → Per-branch step lists (or say the generic ladder is used and dead steps are unused); name the suits and define l/h; extend the void branch; add a 4♣︎ step for 6♥︎5♦︎ vs 5♥︎6♦︎; write the 2♠︎ – 2NT scheme; state the 5440 priority; fix once and mirror.
- Gap · 1♥︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♥︎ – (1♠︎) / (2♣︎) / (2♦︎) / (2♥︎) / (2♠︎) — “2♣︎ – 5+♦︎, new suit = GF” yet “2♠︎ – INV+ with ♣︎” and “3♣︎ – ♦︎ INV+” overlap; over (2♣︎)/(2♦︎) the cue is 3-card support INV+ while the 1♠︎ page uses it for GF ♣︎; no constructive/weak raise split over (2♣︎); spades shown twice (2♦︎ strong or weak; 3♠︎ 6+ INV); over (2♥︎)/(2♠︎) only “3♥︎ – constructive”, no mixed or preemptive raise; X undefined at the 2-level; 3♣︎ undefined over (1NT). → Fix the club/diamond split; align the cue with the 1♠︎ page; add the raise ladder and the doubles; adopt one vulnerability rule for both majors.
- Contradiction · 1♠︎: Responses & Rebids › 2NT defined twice — Response list: “2NT – INV with a shortage; over it 3♣︎ – relay, TRF SHO”. Section 1♠︎ – 2NT: the 1♥︎ page's accept/decline scheme (3♣︎ accept opposite the normal invitation / 3♦︎ minimum unbalanced / 3♠︎ don't accept), which never asks for the shortage. An unbalanced INV with 3-card support and a shortage also fits both 2NT and “3♦︎ – INV with 3-card support, unbalanced”. → Pick one meaning; if 2NT = INV with shortage, replace the section with the 3♣︎ relay and its (undefined) transfer-shortage answers; restrict 2NT to 4-card support or 3♦︎ to no shortage.
- Suspect · 1♠︎: Responses & Rebids › 1♠︎ – 1NT and 1♠︎ – 1NT – 2♣︎ — Opener has only “2♣︎ – 2+♣︎ 11–14” and “2NT – 6♠︎3♥︎ MAX” — 2♦︎, 2♥︎, 2♠︎ are absent after the forcing notrump (1♥︎ page: 2♣︎ = 1+♣︎, 2♦︎ = 4+♦︎, 2♥︎ = 6-card, 2NT = 6332/6331 max). After 2♣︎, “2♦︎ – puppet to 2♥︎, I am going to stop somewhere” is lifted from the heart page (should land in 2♠︎) and collides with “2♥︎ – constructive invitation with ♥︎”; hearts are invitational twice (2♥︎ and 3♥︎). → Copy the rebid schedule across with agreed ranges; “puppet to 2♠︎”; delete one heart invitation or state the boundary.
- Gap · 1♠︎: Responses & Rebids › missing spade counterparts — None of the 1♥︎ page's opener-rebid schemes (1M – 2♦︎/2♥︎ shape structures, “2NT promises 2+ cards and asks for shortage” per #16, Kori reference) has a spade counterpart. → Mirror the 1♥︎ sections or add “read the 1♥︎ page substituting suits”.
- Gap · 1♠︎: Competitive Auctions › 1♠︎ – (2♥︎) / (2♠︎) / (2♦︎) / (1NT) — “3NT = 0–1 cards in ♠︎ .. X then 3NT = 2 cards” relies on a double the section never defines; the bid lists give the vulnerable assignment (3♥︎ = 3-card support INV+, 3♠︎ = mixed raise) while a note says non-vul the mixed raise is 3♥︎ and 3♠︎ preemptive — two meanings by vulnerability without the list saying so; “3♦︎ – GF with ♣︎” is the only club bid (no INV clubs); over (2♠︎) a 6–9 three-card raise has no call; 3♣︎/3♦︎ undefined over (1NT). → Define X over (2♥︎); print Vul / non-vul columns; add an INV club route and the simple raise; state 3♣︎/3♦︎ over (1NT).
- Contradiction · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 2♦︎ = 5+♥︎ transfer vs 2NT = INV with 4–5♥︎ — The transfers page allows a 4-card transfer for the balanced invitation with four hearts; the super-accept ladder then raises on 4-card support expecting five (4th step lands in a 4-3 fit at the 3-level), and after 2NT opener cannot tell four hearts from five. → Forbid the 4-card transfer and find another home for the balanced INV with 4♥︎, or define opener's rebids over 2NT with both lengths in mind.
- Gap · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 1NT – 2♣︎ – 2♠︎ — “In this position we have no invitation to 3NT!!”: 2NT is a club transfer and 3♥︎ an INV+ raise, so a balanced invitation with 4♥︎ has no call at all — the 4-card transfer above is the only patch. → Settle the home for this hand (direct 2♠︎ balanced INV?).
- Contradiction · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 1444 twice — “3♦︎ – 1444” directly and, via the club transfer, “3♥︎ – 1444, 0445” — two routes, no stated difference; the 2♥︎ mirror has only the transfer route. → Keep one route (or give the direct 3♦︎ a strength band) and mirror the 2♥︎ section.
- Ambiguity · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 3♦︎ / 3♥︎ INV+ raise “or ST without a splinter” — Opener's replies are never listed — which bid declines, what shows a maximum, how responder later separates INV from ST; opener's 3NT means “a nice minimum” here and “accepts without a fit” on the transfers page. → Write opener's reply table and align the meaning of 3NT on both pages.
- Suspect · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 1NT – 2♣︎ – 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ – 3♠︎ — “3♠︎ – I do not accept the invitation in ♠︎, and I also have a fifth heart” — a 3-level bid in responder's 4-card suit used to decline; responder's action (pass a 4-3? 3NT? 4♥︎?) is not stated. → State responder's actions over 3♠︎ (and over 2NT/3♣︎, the other declines).
- Suspect · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › …– 3♣︎ (declines) – 3NT/4NT “4225 invitation” — Responder's “3NT – 4225 mild invitation / 4NT – 4225 invitation” are slam invitations opposite a hand that has just declined game. → Either 3♣︎ is not a plain decline (define it) or make 3NT to play and 4NT quantitative only from a GF hand.
- Gap · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › Transfers to a minor after Stayman — For the ♦︎ transfers and the ♣︎ transfer after 2♠︎ only opener's completion is shown; the accept/decline ladder exists only after 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ and does not map after 2♠︎ – 2NT (“accept ♥︎” would be 3♠︎, opener's own suit). → Write opener's reply table for all four transfer-to-minor sequences.
- Gap · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › 1NT – 2♣︎ – 2NT (44MM) — Only GF continuations exist: no pass, no invitation, no rule for completing or super-accepting the 3-level transfers. → Add Pass / 3M-then-pass = weak, an INV route, and opener's replies to 3♦︎/3♥︎.
- Gap · 1NT: Responses & Stayman › Responses to 1NT — “3♦︎ – asks for a 5-card major”, “3♣︎ – 6+♦︎ transfer then shortage” and “4♠︎ – quantitative with 44mm” have no opener replies (no 5-card major? 4♠︎ cannot be passed). → Add the reply lines.
- Contradiction · 1NT: Transfers › 5-step super-accept scheme — “2nd step = 4-card support, maximum” and “5th step = 4-card support, maximum, I don't want to complete the transfer” describe the same hand. → Decide what the 5th step is (shortage? 5-card support?) or delete it.
- Gap · 1NT: Transfers › Shortage bids after steps 2/3 — “New suit = shortage, re-transfer + bid = ST”: over 2♦︎ the re-transfer is 3♦︎, so a ♦︎ shortage has no bid; over 2♥︎ the re-transfer 3♥︎ removes the ♥︎ shortage; after the 5th step it is unclear whether shortages are natural suits or step-order, and what the plain sign-off is. → Write the concrete bids for each step × transfer.
- Contradiction · 1NT: Transfers › 1NT – 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ – 3♠︎ = 0544 — After a spade transfer the shape is 5044, the stopper needed is ♥︎, and “4♥︎ = ♠︎ fit” is presumably 4♠︎ — copied from the heart version. → Rewrite the line.
- Ambiguity · 1NT: Transfers › 1NT – 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ – 2NT, 3♦︎ = 55MM — “3M = declines, 3NT = accepts and plays NT, 4M = fit”: 3♥︎ and 3♠︎ both decline without saying which major is preferred; 3NT opposite 5-5 majors is rarely right. → 3♥︎ = decline/prefers ♥︎, 3♠︎ = decline/prefers ♠︎; reconsider 3NT.
- Suspect · 1NT: 2♠︎, 2NT & Slam › 1NT – 2♠︎ – 2NT – 3NT — “3NT – mild slam try, 6♣︎322” after opener has declined the invitation. → Probably to play; a slam try belongs after 3♣︎ (accept).
- Gap · 1NT: 2♠︎, 2NT & Slam › 1NT – 2♠︎ – 3♣︎ / 1NT – 2NT — After “3♣︎ – accepts INV” there are no continuations; “3x – shortage, 6+♣︎” is not labelled forcing; opener's reply to 2NT (3♣︎ vs 3♦︎ preference? may a maximum bid 3NT?) is never defined; “3NT – 22(54) pick a game” asks opener to pick without knowing which minor is five. → Add the follow-ups and define opener's replies to 2NT.
- Contradiction · 1NT: 2♠︎, 2NT & Slam › 1NT – 4NT — “5♠︎ – 2+ key cards with 5♠︎; 5NT – 2+ key cards with 5♥︎” vs “5♣︎ – 1 or 4; 5♦︎ – 0 or 3”: with 3 key cards and a 5-card major two replies apply; “key cards” with no agreed suit — aces? Who bids 6m after 5♠︎ – 5NT, and does direct 4NT deny any 4+-card minor (2254 is “without 44mm” too)? → Make the 5M replies “exactly 2”, state aces vs key cards, spell out the 5♠︎ reply table.
- Gap · 1NT: Competitive Auctions › 1NT – (X – HCP) — “XX – a 5-card minor or both majors” and “2♦︎ – ♦︎ and a higher suit” have no continuations; “Pass – free” does not say whether it forces a XX. → Write the runout table and define Pass.
- Contradiction · 1NT: Competitive Auctions › 1NT – (2♣︎ = majors) — Every cue-bid is a transfer (3♦︎ = 6+♥︎, 3♥︎ = 6+♠︎), so there is no stopper bid/ask and no place for a GF hand without a major stopper, against principle #2; “2♥︎ – minors INV+” has no shape and opener's non-2NT replies are undefined. → Say this page overrides #2 over a 2♣︎ overcall, place the stopper-less GF hand, give 2♥︎ a shape and replies.
- Gap · 2♣︎ Opening › heading — No HCP range anywhere (the relay answers MIN/MAX, the raises “constructive” and “depending on vulnerability” carry no numbers); nothing says whether a 10–14 hand with 6♣︎ must open 2♣︎ rather than 1♦︎. → Add the range and the 1♦︎/2♣︎ boundary.
- Contradiction · 2♣︎ Opening › 2♣︎ – 2♦︎ — “2NT – 6+♣︎ maximum, then 3♣︎ = LMH shortage relay” competes with “3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ – 6+♣︎ with ♥︎/♠︎/♦︎ shortage” for the same hands (are the direct ones minimums?), and a maximum 6322 has no LMH answer. → 2NT = max any, 3x = min with shortage, 3♣︎ = min without; add 3NT = no shortage after the relay.
- Gap · 2♣︎ Opening › 2♣︎ – 2♦︎ – 2M – 2NT – 3♣︎ – 3♦︎ — Only (14)35 / (34)15 / (24)25 exist for a minimum, so a minimum 6-4 has no slot; 5-4-4-0 has no reply in either scheme. → Add slots for 6-4 min and 5440.
- Gap · 2♣︎ Opening › Responses / 2♣︎ – 2♦︎ – 2M — “2♥︎/♠︎ – 5–6 cards NF”, “3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ – 6+♥︎/♠︎/♦︎ INV+” and “3♦︎/3♥︎ (below the major) – fit, INV or ST” have no opener continuations; after 2♠︎ the meaning of 3♦︎ is not stated. → Add opener's rebids and the post-2♠︎ 3♦︎ line.
- Ambiguity · 2♣︎ Opening › 2♣︎ – 2NT – 3♣︎ — “4♣︎ – ST in ♣︎ without a shortage, optional RKCB”: a slam try opener may decline, or an ask with which steps? 2NT “5+M 5+♦︎ GF” leaves 5M-5♣︎ hands without a bid. → Clarify 4♣︎; say where 5M5♣︎ goes.
- Gap · 2♦︎ Opening (Multi) › Non-vulnerable (both majors) — Responses start at “2NT – natural INV”: there is no 2♥︎/2♠︎, and it is not said whether 2♥︎ is pass-or-correct with 3-3 majors; a minimum 5-4 or 4-4 opener must pass 2NT (“Pass – not accepting”) and never shows the 5-card major; no HCP range on either version. → Add 2♥︎/2♠︎ = to play (may opener correct?), give minimums 3♥︎/3♠︎ replies, add ranges.
- Ambiguity · 2♦︎ Opening (Multi) › Vulnerable — “3♥︎/♠︎ – preemptive” not marked pass-or-correct; “3♦︎ – INV in the major” has no opener replies; “3♣︎ – natural 5+” has no forcing status; after 2NT – 3♣︎ (max) “3♦︎ relay for the major, then transfer” — 3♥︎ = ♠︎ but ♥︎ cannot be transferred to (3♦︎ is the relay). → Define all four.
- Contradiction · 2♥︎ & 2♠︎ Openings › 2♠︎ – 3♣︎ – 3♦︎ (puppet) — “Pass – sign-off in ♦︎; 3♥︎ – sign-off in ♥︎; 3♠︎ – INV; 4♣︎ – own suit ST; 4♦︎ – own suit ST” — the club sign-off has no bid (after 2♥︎ – 2NT – 3♣︎ it is “Pass – sign-off in ♣︎”), and 4♦︎ duplicates the ♦︎ route. → Make 4♣︎ = sign-off in ♣︎; re-purpose 4♦︎.
- Contradiction · 2♥︎ & 2♠︎ Openings › 2♥︎ NV: 3♣︎ relay vs 2♥︎ – 3♣︎ section — “3♣︎ – GF relay, asks for a 4-card minor → 3♦︎/3♥︎/3♠︎ = 4♣︎/4♦︎/none” vs the section “3♠︎ – 5332 or 45xx with 4 small spades; 3NT – 6♥︎”; “4 small spades” implies a good 4-card suit is shown differently, but no bid exists; the 2♠︎ NV opening has no GF relay at all. → Align the lists, add the good-4♠︎ reply, decide whether 2♠︎ NV needs a GF ask.
- Gap · 2♥︎ & 2♠︎ Openings › 2♥︎ – 2♠︎ / 2♠︎ – 2NT (raise-with-slam-try) — After “2NT/3♣︎/3♦︎ – maximum with ♣︎/♦︎/♠︎ shortage” and “3♥︎ – balanced or minimum”, responder's continuations are absent although the raise explicitly includes a slam try; no HCP range for the vulnerable 5M5m openings; 4♥︎/4♠︎/4♦︎ are not listed. → Write the continuation table, name the RKCB, add ranges and game bids.
- Ambiguity · 2NT Opening › intro — “We complete the transfer with any two or three cards; 3NT = maximum with three; 3x/4x = first cue-bid”: a 4-card minimum has no stated action; “completing the re-transfer shows a cue-bid… forcing to at least 5M” makes opener's forced 4M completion a slam force. → Rewrite: 4-card minimum = ?, which side cue-bids, what the re-transfer promises.
- Gap · 2NT Opening › 2NT – 3♣︎ – 3♥︎ – 3♠︎ (puppet to 3NT) / 2NT – 3♣︎ – 3♦︎ – 4♣︎ — The puppet has no follow-ups, and since “3NT – 5♠︎4♥︎” is artificial every plain 3NT-to-play hand must use it; “4♣︎ – 44 majors ST → 4♦︎ = RKCB ♥︎, 4NT = RKCB ♠︎” does not say which major opener chooses, and the “negative response” after a slam try is never named. → Write the puppet continuations; define the negative replies and the step scheme.
- Gap · Preempts & Namyats › 3♦︎ opening: 3♥︎ puppet — The 3♦︎ – 3♥︎ – 3♠︎ table is missing, and because 3♥︎ is the puppet a weak responder with hearts can no longer stop in 3♥︎. → Add the table; state that hearts are played only at 4♥︎, or change the puppet.
- Ambiguity · Preempts & Namyats › 3♣︎ – 3♦︎ – 3♥︎ – 3NT (quality ask) — “If you have weak trumps bid 4♣︎” — opener's action with good trumps is unstated, and direct 3NT is “to play”. → Pass = good suit, 4♣︎ = weak; say whether a feature may be shown.
- Ambiguity · Preempts & Namyats › RKCB after a 3-level opening — Steps say “0 aces / 1 ace without the trump queen…” — aces or key cards? “5NT = bid the grand with 7 cards” appears only after the 2-ace steps. → Say key cards; define 5NT after every step.
- Contradiction · Preempts & Namyats › 3NT (Namyats) — Opener's major is unknown, yet “4♦︎ – slam try” (for which major?), “4♥︎/♠︎ – to play” (must be pass-or-correct) and “4NT – RKCB” (which suit, which steps?); the opening's own definition lives only on the overview. → 4♣︎ = transfer ask, 4M = p/c, RKCB via the 4♣︎ route; state the opening on the page.
- Gap · Defensive Bidding › (1♣︎) – 1♦︎ – (Pass) and the 1♥︎/1♠︎ sections — Raises are “2♦︎ – weak with fit” and “2♣︎ – 13–14 with fit or (16)17+ any hand”: no bid for 10–12 with a fit nor for 15(16); no jump raise anywhere. → Add a limit/mixed raise and close the 15–16 hole.
- Ambiguity · Defensive Bidding › 1NT forcing (all sections) — “1NT – forcing, 1NT + suit = 13–15 natural”: what 1NT then pass/raise/2NT shows, and where the natural 8–12 balanced hand goes (no non-forcing 1NT). → Define 1NT's full follow-up set.
- Ambiguity · Defensive Bidding › (1m) – 1M – (Pass) – 1NT – 2♣︎ — Is 2♦︎ the only continuation (may advancer pass 2♣︎ or bid 2M)? After a 1♣︎ opening 2♣︎ is the opponents' suit. → State that 2♦︎ is a puppet and what advancer's other bids mean; confirm the scheme over (1♣︎).
- Ambiguity · Defensive Bidding › (1♥︎) – X – (2♥︎) — “2♠︎ – takeout-double hand with both minors… or constructive with ♣︎ → 2NT = I prefer ♦︎”: the doubler's other replies are missing; “2NT – ♦︎… GF with four spades go through here” presumes the doubler bids 3♦︎. → Write the doubler's reply lines for 2♠︎ and 2NT.
- Ambiguity · Defensive Bidding › Defence against Multi 2♦︎ — “X – 13–15 or a two-suited double” (what is that; where do 19+ hands go when 2NT = 16–18?), “3♥︎ – ♠︎ + ♣︎/♦︎ GF → 3♠︎ = the best” (meaning?), nothing for the 4th seat after (2♦︎) – Pass – (2M), and no rule whether a later double of the p/c 2M is penalty (#4/#13) or takeout. → Define each.
Discussion
Comment in NotionNo comments yet. Select any text on the Notion page (or use a section’s Discuss link) to start a discussion; it will show up here.