[i hope that the editor doesn´t destroy the size again.] reply @Mikeh Although you don´t agree with me, I thank you for your commend, specially for encouraging innovation, and for advising me not being too down over your criticism. Your grave and main argument is: I would try to solve problems which don´t exist or are already solved and tested. If you are right, my proposition would only serve for the garbage. But let us survey and first of all make a short walk in history of aeroplanes. Remember in past times aeroplanes have had a propeller as engine, a very technically mature system, but nevertheless nowadays most of aircrafts has a jet propulsion. So (also in this sense not only in that of feeling) you are right: "The world is turning faster than it did when I was young." Conclusion: An successful and tested system might also have been replaced by another. How does happen this? I think: There must exist some people, having the courage testing a new theory. After these tests they´ll assess the new theory on bringing more profit than the already tested (one). If the result should be positive they adopt, otherwise they abandon it. Some annotations to the other systems, recommended by you. Exclusion Blackwood is a fine system. But it premise a void in one of the partner´s hand. Do you know, how high is the probability for such a hand? Could you imagine, that the percentage is only a little bit more than circa 5% (5.19...). That means, on one hundred (slam suitable) hands you are able to use Exc.Blackw. only in 5-6 hands! And what about hands having a singleton? Such hands have anyhow a probability of circa 31% (30.5...). I think, you don´t use Exc. Blackw. for these hands or do I err? Or perhaps do you have a modified Exc. Blackw., applicable for hands with a singleton, a system, that I don´t know? Provided if both P. would agree to renounce (for avoiding misunderstandings) on Gerber and Blackwood systems [both in all of their variations], Cue-bids are a good system. But these manner of bids causes not seldom a too high level, specially, when one of the P. has 2 neighbouring Aces with the result that then informations about the kings also fail. An example: (you permit that I use your icon hand a little bit changed) Nord: ♠ A, K, 4 ♥ Q, J, T ♦ Q, J, T, 3 ♣ A, K, 4 Cue bid auction (without bids from the ops): You: 2 NT P: 3 NT 4 C 4 D 4 S 5H and now? You haven´t any information, where the 2 kings will be located. Speculating you may think, P. will have one of the missing kings, then little slam is possible. Otherwise should he have none, it is possible, that each opp will have (only) one. Then this one of the two kings will be finessed. Thinking that, you may end auction with 6 NT, otherwise you must stop at 5 NT. Auction using my proposition (without bids from the ops): You: 2 NT P: 3 NT 4 ♣ (3 or 4 AsKs) 4 ♥ (2 AsKs, no s/v) and now? You have the sure information on a low level (4 ♥) that P. has 2 AsKs. But normally 6 AsKs (in sum) don´t reach for a reasonable little slam. But let us think a bit further. Admittedly you don´t know exactely, which cards are in P´s hand: Has P. either 2 Aces and no Kings or 2 Kings and no Aces or 1 Ace and 1 King. But for a sure bidding this knowledge is important. Therefore you has to investigate the exact meaning of the bid either by rolling bid or with an additional convention of 4 NT. The answers: 1 step: 2 kings, 2 steps: 1 Ace and one King, 3 steps: 2 Aces. In the example above the answer is one step (if you don´t use rolling, 5 ♣). Now you have the absolutely sure knowledge, that 2 Kings are in the opp´s hands. But now, based on this sure knowledge, you may also speculate and think: P. has not one of the 2 missing kings, but should each opp. have one king, one of the two will be finessed. (for it the probability is 50%). Otherwise both kings could be finessed, if East should have both kings (for this is the probability 25%). In the remaining case the little slam go down (for that is the probability 25 %). Now you may decide yourself, what you are doing: - a little bit lion-hearted - 6 NT or sure 5 NT (if used rolling: 4 NT). (The hand of South: ♠ Q, x, x ♥ A, x, x ♦ A, x, x, ♣ D, x, x, x) I admit not knowing turbo. This system isn´t described in any of my books and not yet in http://www.bridgehands.com/Indexes/Index_G...BridgeHands.htm. May I ask you, how useful is a secret or encrypted system? My answer: it may be good for those profis, knowing that system, but not for the uninformed majority of all the leisure or hobby players having enthusiasm for this game like me. Analysing my proposition entirely, you´ll find: My part 1, valid for circa 5%, is a modified cue-bid system, avoiding misunderstandings, that I´ve seen by many opps using other systems. My part 2 is a modified Gerber system, combining and contracting the original Gerber 4C (Aces question) and 5 C (Kings question) in only one question, informing P. at the same time of the minimum in Aces and Kings of the own (Enq.) hand. The Res. on his part is able to inform the Enq. about having either a singleton or a void. The more information the merrier. @manudude03 Ty for your opinion to my proposition for a new slam bidding system. I´ll give you a little bit long reply. One man´s opinion depends on his location, should it be allowed to transfer the cognition of Einstein in physical laws to the mental activity: From another position there are other aspects or approaches. From my point of view I could answer uncouth: I´ve thought Bridge is a partner game, not a pure detective game. - But seriously, I agree with your first sentence for my part 1 and nearly for the part 2. As there is a difference between the two words "always" and "most" as there is the same difference between us. Mostly (myself), but not always (yourself), one of the P. should have the control of the Slam auction. Thus you are thinking there are no exeptions. But is that so sure? F.e. imagine P (=Res.) has a good non trump suit in being K, Q, J, x or even a (non fit) suit containing A, K, Q, J, x (may be announced before or rare not). I ask you: Has - even in this (admittedly no frequent) cases - the Res. to remain always inactively? - I do admit, that I don´t know all slam bidding systems. But do you know anyone, by which Enq. gets the knowledge of one of the described sequences? (as well not in my proposition). Even though Enq. is aware of A-Q from the Res. (f.e. possible by Gerber, not by Blackwood) it fails the knowledge of the J in a constant sequence. A Jack in such a sequence (like described) promises at least one trick more. When the Res. has the knowledge of 8 AsKs or somtimes of 7 Asks, shall the Res. not be allowed to bid in doubt one level more (from 5 to 6 or from little slam to a grand slam)? -- You affirm the thesis one of my assumptions would be that the hand has no void or singleton. This thesis is correct for my part 2, but not for part 1. In part 1 there is the possibility to give notice of a void, having by the enquirer, while in part 2 the Res. is able to announce a singleton or a void being in his hand. You like to hear the right amount of 1s/v. My answer is: I am not an expert in probabilities. But please click the link: http://playbridge.com/pbgen_shuffle_project.asp. There you´ll find the probabilities of all possible hands. When you should add the values of all hands with a void therein, you´ll get nearly 5.2%; the same with s-hands constitiute 30.56%, both together 35.8%. I think you´ll agree that this number is a little bit far from your assumed approximate 50%, isn´t it? To your proposition: If I would not set a high value on having the possibility to inform the P. (Enq.) of a singleton or a void in Res.´s hand, I would reconsider to adopt your modifying proposition. But this possibility fails in your alternate proposal.
