nige1 Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 The Sharples brothers employed asking bids in a similar context: when partner opened a 4-level pre-empt, they bid the suit below the suit in which they needed help. They argued that if you want to advance over such a pre-empt, then you are unlikely to be worried about more than one suit. The version that we adopt: e.g. after 4♥ (_P) 4♠ (_P)??(4♠ is asking for ♣ control) - 4N = ♣ Kx - 5♣ = Singleton ♣ - 5♥ = Neither 1st nor 2nd round ♣ control - other = 1st round ♣ control (+named feature). That convention seems appropriate to the modern major game-raise, which is usually little more than a weak pre-empt. i.e. You can agree the same replies to Ken's 1♥ (_P) 4♥ (_P) 4♠ (_P) ?? This kind of agreement isn't standard but is fairly common. Such generic agreements are worth the time and trouble. The Sharples brothers went to extremes. They spent a year discussing what to do over a 2♦ conventional opening bid before risking its use at the table. But they were the best bidders in the world :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 "The Sharples brothers (the best bidders in the world, to date)" Wow that is drawing a long bow. Yes they were excellent bidders and one of the best natural bidders in the world, but the best? I think I can name at least 2 pairs I think bid better.Also bidding has improved so much in recent times that I doubt they would win many "Challenge the Champs" today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 "The Sharples brothers (the best bidders in the world, to date)" Wow that is drawing a long bow. Yes they were excellent bidders and one of the best natural bidders in the world, but the best? I think I can name at least 2 pairs I think bid better. Also bidding has improved so much in recent times that I doubt they would win many "Challenge the Champs" today. Sorry, Hog. I edited out "to date" because, although it remains my opinion, I agree that it's impossible to prove. In their day, however, the Sharples (sometimes with with Collings, Marx using Sharples Acol methods) successfully took on all comers in Bridge Magazine bidding competitions. They retired undefeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Yes but so did Rubin - Granovetter playing the Ultimate Club. Thats why I put in the rider about natural bidders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 FWIW, I just had the opportunity to inquire about this situation with my partner, Ken Eichenbaum. The question: "P-P-1♥-P-4♥-P-4♠. What is 4♠?" I had predicted that partner would be on my same wavelength, even though we had never discussed it. I was relieved to have this confirmed. His response was that 4♠ must ask Responder to describe the unknown feature in his hand that he must have -- the location of the stiff. He noted that a 4♥ call traditionally denies a side Ace or King, and, although you might have a King, the 4♠ call should not ask for that which you should not have rather than that which you should have. Humorously, he even provided an example. "I mean, what if Opener supposed to bid with something like ♠AKQ ♥AQxxxx ♦A ♣xxx, or so?" He then commented that partner bidding 5♣ because he happens to have the King of clubs makes no sense. At least y'all know that I'm honest now. We may both be insane, but at least I honestly applied what I have understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.