[hrothgar]

MP White versus Red

You hold

♠ QTxxx
♥ KJxx
♦ Axxx
♣ Void

You pass as dealer and the auction starts

P - (P) - 1♥ - (4♦)
???

What's your call?

Also, is the following auction possible in any sane world

P - (P) - 1♥ - (4♦)
P - (P) - X - (P)
5♠

[han]

1. 4H, might miss a slam but what can you do...

2. No I don't think so. I can't find any hand where I think that this is the best way to bid it.

[rogerclee]

4♥, impossible.

[OleBerg]

1) 4♥, not that I'm happy.

2) An attempt

Red vs white, playing 4-card majors.

Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".)

♠ 65432
♥2
♦ AQ
♣ K10987

[han]

Not sane at all.

[mtvesuvius]

4♥. And no! 5♠ is not a possible call.

[OleBerg]

Another attempt

Red vs white, playing 4-card majors.

Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".)

♠ Q5432
♥ 2
♦ 5432
♣ AK10

Edit: ♣9 removed

[han]

14 cards.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Dec 13 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

Another attempt

Red vs white, playing 4-card majors.

Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".)

♠ Q5432
♥ 2
♦ 5432
♣ AK10

Promises 4+ spades for a 1♥ opening? Or for the reopening double (how is that possible, and what does it have to do with 4 card majors anyway?) I'm confused.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Dec 13 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

Another attempt

Red vs white, playing 4-card majors.

Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".)

♠ Q5432
♥ 2
♦ 5432
♣ AK10

Promises 4+ spades for a 1♥ opening? Or for the reopening double (how is that possible, and what does it have to do with 4 card majors anyway?) I'm confused.

The reopening double of course. I might be stupid, but please make a small effort.
As to how that could be possible: I have known reasonable players to have that agreement.

The "4-card major opening" thing, is just a little ekstra drop in the ocean, making it (very) slightly less likely that heart-values are wasted. ( I am trying to squeeze every last drop out of anything, to come up with a sane hand for the 5♠ bid.)

[whereagles]

5♦. This smells like a slam on cross-voids. Will respect 5♥ signoff by pard, though.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Dec 13 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Dec 13 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

Another attempt

Red vs white, playing 4-card majors.

Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".)

♠ Q5432
♥ 2
♦ 5432
♣ AK10

Promises 4+ spades for a 1♥ opening? Or for the reopening double (how is that possible, and what does it have to do with 4 card majors anyway?) I'm confused.

The reopening double of course. I might be stupid, but please make a small effort.
As to how that could be possible: I have known reasonable players to have that agreement.

The "4-card major opening" thing, is just a little ekstra drop in the ocean, making it (very) slightly less likely that heart-values are wasted. ( I am trying to squeeze every last drop out of anything, to come up with a sane hand for the 5♠ bid.)

Two points. The first is I was not trying to be dense, I really didn't understand what you meant (and looking back I still don't see how it was clear.) A 'small effort' is not enough to figure it out, your little comment notwithstanding. Second, I have never heard of such an agreement as a reopening double promising four in the unbid major, and I find it ridiculous. So partner is sitting there with a 3514 21 count and has to pass?? Come on.

(If your reply to that is you only said "virtually" guarantees, well then it was a meaningless comment to begin with.)

[cherdano]

4♥ seems normal. Bad breaks and all that stuff.

[han]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Second, I have never heard of such an agreement as a reopening double promising four in the unbid major, and I find it ridiculous.

Please Josh, you find it incorrect!

[jdonn]

han, on Dec 13 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Second, I have never heard of such an agreement as a reopening double promising four in the unbid major, and I find it ridiculous.

Please Josh, you find it incorrect!

Sorry, I forgot the recent lessons. Maybe I just don't consider 'ridiculous' that insulting?

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 05:24 AM, said:

han, on Dec 13 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Second, I have never heard of such an agreement as a reopening double promising four in the unbid major, and I find it ridiculous.

Please Josh, you find it incorrect!

Sorry, I forgot the recent lessons. Maybe I just don't consider 'ridiculous' that insulting?

You can insult me all you like. What I object to, is that you obscure the thread, disguising your insults as relevent comments. (If you did it in an elegant or funny way, it would be okay. But what you do is useless.)

First off, it might not be grammatically clear that it was the reopening double I meant, but it was obvious from the context.

Secondly, if partner has 3-5-1-4 and a 21-count, we might definetely need to go beyond four on my example hand.

The concept that a take-out-double promises four in the other major, or excess strength, should not be foreign to you. That is what I meant. Trying to make us believe you didn't know that is quite childish.
And no, it is still not my method. And yes, I have seen reasonable players have that agreement.

[OleBerg]

Incidently, I would have opened Hrothgars original hand with 1♠.

[jdonn]

Words fail me...

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Words fail me...

Well done.

An insult that is easily identified as such. A few more of these, and you are ready for step II: Sarcastic comments. (See the next post for an example.)

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Words fail me...

Yes, I've noticed.