[Walddk]

mikeh, on Aug 3 2005, 08:22 PM, said:

Finally, in light of my willingness to agree with Roland, would he, on behalf of Denmark, recall his country's navy and recognize Canadian Sovereignty over that tiny island?

Definitely not! Hans Ø is ours and will remain ours until the end of time. You can have all the Danish (pastries) you like, but our island? Never!

We are at war with Canada, and if I were you I would tremble in my boots!

Roland

[mike777]

Definitely not! Hans Ø is ours and will remain ours until the end of time. You can have all the Danish (pastries) you like, but our island? Never!

We are at war with Canada, and if I were you I would tremble in my boots!

Roland



Fortinbras: Where is this sight?
.................
This quarry cries on havoc.
Oh proud death - What feast is toward in thine eternal cell,
That thou so many princes at a shot so bloodily hast struck!


Let four Captains bear Hamlet, like a soldier, to the stage;
For he was likely, had he been put on,
To have proved most royally; and, for his passage,
The soldiers' music and rites or war
Speak loudly for him.
Take up the bodies, but here shows much amiss.
Go, bid the soldiers shoot.

[mikeh]

[quote name='Walddk' date='Aug 3 2005, 01:29 PM']
Definitely not! Hans Ø is ours and will remain ours until the end of time. You can have all the Danish (pastries) you like, but our island? Never!

We are at war with Canada, and if I were you I would tremble in my boots!

Roland[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Okay: no more mister nice guy!

We Canadians have had enough! It is our island!

Furthermore, a recent referundum disclosed that 87% of the gulls (the largest population demographic) surveyed preferred Canadian bread crumbs over stale danish pastries. The sea lions also preferred Canadian cod over Danish herrings... apparently they object to eating pickled fish.

Thus we have strong evidence that Denmark's claims are against the principle of self-determination!

[Double !]

Assuming that I am not playing 3H as a weak 5-6, I like 3H (and I liked it when Luis suggested it in response to a bidding poll question involving a similar hand), especially if P can Q something in the club suit. If P only rebids 3S, can I launch a Serious 3NT with this hand, again to find out about clubs without going past 4S?

[Walddk]

Double !, on Aug 3 2005, 08:54 PM, said:

If P only rebids 3S, can I launch a Serious 3NT with this hand, again to find out about clubs without going past 4S?

Sounds fair enough, but 4♦ would actually give the same message (no club control). It is as serious as 3NT in this context since I waste my time cue bidding opposite a partner who has already signed off opposite a limit hand with a singleton heart.

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

Altho this hand is almost too good to be true (ie why have a method for hands that can't exist.....) an agreement on 5C not being to play but combining fit showing jumps and control ask. Therefore, with no C control partner rebids 5S. With 1st round control 5D and with 2nd round control 5H. Over 5D you bid 5H and if he has fitting D and knows that you are the owner of the S AK he goes to the grand with the S Q.

[Double !]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2005, 02:00 PM, said:

Double !, on Aug 3 2005, 08:54 PM, said:

If P only rebids 3S, can I launch a Serious 3NT with this hand, again to find out about clubs without going past 4S?

Sounds fair enough, but 4♦ would actually give the same message (no club control). It is as serious as 3NT in this context since I waste my time cue bidding opposite a partner who has already signed off opposite a limit hand with a singleton heart.

Roland

OK, fair enough, I sit corrected.

My thinking was that it would much easier for the strong hand with the strong trumps to be able to take over captaincy of the hand once the club situation was clarified by P's response to 3NT.

[Walddk]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 3 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

Altho this hand is almost too good to be true (ie why have a method for hands that can't exist.....) an agreement on 5C not being to play but combining fit showing jumps and control ask. Therefore, with no C control partner rebids 5S. With 1st round control 5D and with 2nd round control 5H. Over 5D you bid 5H and if he has fitting D and knows that you are the owner of the S AK he goes to the grand with the S QJ.

Too good to be true as you rightly point out, but then it's beyond me to see why you want to force this to the unsafe 5-level and concede points if you are just a little unlucky. Let me repost the example I gave earlier.

xxxx
KQx
Qx
xxxx

I don't think any of us would want to be in 5♠ now.

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2005, 02:14 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 3 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

Altho this hand is almost too good to be true (ie why have a method for hands that can't exist.....) an agreement on 5C not being to play but combining fit showing jumps and control ask.  Therefore, with no C control partner rebids 5S.  With 1st round control 5D and with 2nd round control 5H.  Over 5D you bid 5H and if he has fitting D and knows that you are the owner of the S AK he goes to the grand with the S QJ.

Too good to be true as you rightly point out, but then it's beyond me to see why you want to force this to the unsafe 5-level and concede points if you are just a little unlucky. Let me repost the example I gave earlier.

xxxx
KQx
Qx
xxxx

I don't think any of us would want to be in 5♠ now.

Roland

Respectfully noted. The example hand is quite the "dog" and might even respond 1NT, as we have mentioned in several other posts. Sometimes science gets in the way of effectiveness. Even with that hand, 5S is 50% on the S hook and the chances of that hand are about 1% for the bid so there is a .5% chance of trouble in 5S and you told your story in 1 bid (or so) and didn't have to deal with some amount of the inevitable H interference etc..... trade-offs come in bridge or Island stealing or other endeavors of piracy....har har

[Walddk]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 3 2005, 10:11 PM, said:

Respectfully noted. The example hand is quite the "dog" and might even respond 1NT, as we have mentioned in several other posts. Sometimes science gets in the way of effectiveness. Even with that hand, 5S is 50% on the S hook and the chances of that hand are about 1% for the bid so there is a .5% chance of trouble in 5S and you told your story in 1 bid (or so) and didn't have to deal with some amount of the inevitable H interference etc..... trade-offs come in bridge or Island stealing or other endeavors of piracy....har har

The whole idea of cue bidding is not to bypass game when neither of us controls a side suit (1st or 2nd round control). It's very easy to achieve that goal with responder's hand.

Roland

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 3 2005, 03:11 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 3 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

Let me repost the example I gave earlier.

xxxx
KQx
Qx
xxxx

I don't think any of us would want to be in 5♠ now.

Roland

Even with that hand, 5S is 50% on the S hook and the chances of that hand are about 1% for the bid so there is a .5% chance of trouble in 5S and you told your story in 1 bid (or so)

[QUOTE]

May all your suits break well. Otherwise, you may find that a 4-1 break defeats you even if the Q is onside... after all, all but a deaf (or blind) opponent will lead ♣ on your auction. So you are not 50%: you are 34.25 %. And while Roland's example may represent a very small sample of problem hands, it is far from the worst we can construct: how about 10xxx KQJ xx Jxxxx? Thus any method that entails what is essentially a force to the 5-level opposite an unco-operative partner is going to fail a lot more often than 1 time out of 200!

[Al_U_Card]

I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact q-bid all of the other suits with the 5C bid, or was that not implicit in the nature of the bid?

[Fluffy]

I can't think of anything better than 4♦+5♦/♥, I play 2NT forcing here, but I don't think finding partner's 5th ♠ will be of much help.

[hrothgar]

3♥ looks like the most reasonable response
Diamonds aren't good enough for 4♦ and no other bid stands out.
I did toy with a 4♣ splinter raise, however, it doesn't look like the right hand...

[Winstonm]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2005, 11:30 AM, said:

3♥. Not ideal to splinter with a singleton ace, but this hand is too good for 4♠. In my method (mini-splinters) it is at least invitational with a singleton heart. Now you can distinguish between a singleton and a void (4♥).

If my partner rebids 3♠ over 3♥ (sign off opposite an invite), I will follow up with 4♦. Now I think I got my message across.

Roland

This is certainly reasonable and playable - but a question. Shouldn't the one who splinters with an Ace still have his entire bid minus the Ace. If we modified the hand only slightly and had:

AKJx, A, AKJxxx, Jx
then without the Ace we'd have

AKJx, x, AKJxxx, Jx

Is this still worth a splinter? Over a splinter with either of these hands, partner is entitled to get excited with Q109xxx, xx, Qx, Kxx is he not? A 4C cue could still propel the auction too high verses the singleton Ace hand.

Perhaps an easier solution is just assign the meaning to a jump rebid of 4 of opener's minor as a powerful major raise without the ability to splinter. That would allow direct jumps to game on slightly less hand with excellent distributional support. AKJx, x, AKJxxx, Jx could bid 4S; AKJx, A, AKJxxx, Jx could bid 4D.
This is more of a picture bid style and puts the weaker hand in charge of further slam moves - but at least it is playable, don't you think?

Winston

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Aug 4 2005, 08:26 AM, said:

Perhaps an easier solution is just assign the meaning to a jump rebid of 4 of opener's minor as a powerful major raise without the ability to splinter. That would allow direct jumps to game on slightly less hand with excellent distributional support. AKJx, x, AKJxxx, Jx could bid 4S; AKJx, A, AKJxxx, Jx could bid 4D.

This is more of a picture bid style and puts the weaker hand in charge of further slam moves - but at least it is playable, don't you think?

Well, since you asked...

This doesn't seem playable to me. You seem to be arguing that you can't unravel this hand out following a 3♥ splinter. How the <BLEEP> do you expect partner to make a reasonable decision after a 4♠ "picture jump"? I suspect that the pciture jump is either going to be too wide ranging to be of much use or so tightly defined as to never occur in practice...

For what its worth, I think that

♠AKJx
♥x
♦AKJxxx
♣Jx

is easily worth a splinter rebid...

Cue bidding or Blackwood will easily keep you out of slam...

[PMetsch]

If you are allowed to play a multi 2♦, there is a nice structure for strong hands wth a long minor and a 4card major:

2♣ =
* weak 2♦
* strong balanced
* strong with ♣ or ♥ or ♠ (but not ♦)

If the bidding goes 2♣ - 2♦ opener rebids:

3♣ = 6♣ + 4card major (3♦ asks)
3♦ = ♣ single suiter

2♦ =
* weak 2♥ or weak 2♠
* strong balanced
* strong with ♦

If the bidding goes 2♦ - 2♥ opener rebids:

3♣ = 6♦ + 4card major (3♦asks)
3♦ = ♦single suiter

If the opener shows a minor single suiter responder will bid only 5card majors.

Playing these methods the bidding would be:

2♦ - 2♥; 3♣ - 3♦; 3♠

And responder can sign off (3NT), set ♦ as trumps (4♦) or cuebid for ♠ (4♣ or 4♥).

[helene_t]

For those who like to put some strong hands in the multi, PMetch's method is one of the better ones, I think. Jansma-Verhees played this when they played Dutch Doubleton (they now play some WJ-like system and I'm not sure what their 2♦-opening means).

[PMetsch]

helene_t, on Aug 4 2005, 07:02 AM, said:

Dutch Doubleton

Right, this is Dutch Doubleton. It also has specific bids for major-minor two suiters.

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥ = 5♥ & 5♣ > 4♣ sets ♣ as trump
2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ = 5♠ & 5♣ > 4♦ sets major as trump

2♦ - 2♥ - 3♥ = 5♥ & 5♦ > 4♣ sets major as trump
2♦ - 2♥ - 3♠ = 5♠ & 5♦ > 4♦ sets ♦ as trump

Nowadays Jansma - Verhees play:

vulnerable:
2♦/♥/♠ = weak two

non vulnerable:
2♦ = mini-multi
2♥ = weak ♥ & ♠

non vulnerable vs. non vulnerable
2♠ = muiderberg

non vulnerable vs. vulnerable
2♠ = 0-8, 4+♠