My prerogative

[OleBerg]

Imps.

 

♠AK9

♥AKQJ43

♦AQ42

♣ -

 

You are first in hand. You play a natural system, with and against top-class players.

 

You play 2♣ as only gameforce, where partner will very often bid a 2♦-waiting-bid.

 

What is your plan?

[MarkDean]

Call me simple, but when I have a game forcing hand and one opening which shows a game forcing hand, I use that opening.

 

Over partner's expected 2♦, I will try bidding my long strong suit. I don't get it...am I supposed to do something else?

[OleBerg]

Call me simple, but when I have a game forcing hand and one opening which shows a game forcing hand, I use that opening.

 

Over partner's expected 2♦, I will try bidding my long strong suit.  I don't get it...am I supposed to do something else?

Not really, just be a little more specific.

[P_Marlowe]

2C, followed by 2H (or 3H), if I was

able to bid 2H, I plan to bid 3D in the

next round, if I had to bid 3H, ...

 

I can make a more precise plan if I know,

what partner bids after 2C, or if I know

that the opponents intervene in a specific

suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[OleBerg]

2C, followed by 2H (or 3H), if I was

able to bid 2H, I plan to bid 3D in the

next round, if I had to bid 3H, ...

 

I can make a more precise plan if I know,

what partner bids after 2C, or if I know

that the opponents intervene in a specific

suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Partner bids the expected 2♦. Opps are silent.

[P_Marlowe]

2C, followed by 2H (or 3H), if I was

able to bid 2H, I plan to bid 3D in the

next round, if I had to bid 3H, ...

 

I can make a more precise plan if I know,

what partner bids after 2C, or if I know

that the opponents intervene in a specific

suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Partner bids the expected 2♦. Opps are silent.

Ok, than as oulined, 2H followed by 3D.

 

I wont force to slam, if that is your question,

I will invite, if I happen to find a fit, and / or

if I discover, that partner has no wastage in

clubs.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I would like to have partner with more possibilities then just 2 Diamond, but anyway:

2 ♣ 2 ♦ 2♥ is obvious enough. What is partner doing?

 

IF he raises, I try 5 Club exclusion, followed by a King asking sequence.

If he bids Spades and this shows 5, I raise him.

If he bids Spades, showing 4+, I bid Diamonds and see what happens.

If he bidsNT or any kind of second negative, I show my secnd suit.

If he bids Clubs, I bid diamonds,

if he bids Diamonds, I bid 5 Clubs, which he should understand as excusion.

[gwnn]

Agree with MarkDean.

 

 

 

I'd say this hand doesn't belong here but then people would say "hey gwnn you do that all the time".

[OleBerg]

Agree with MarkDean.

 

 

 

I'd say this hand doesn't belong here but then people would say "hey gwnn you do that all the time".

Well, maybe it doesn't belong here, but I wanted qualified responses.

 

Edit: Further qualified responses are welcome.

[P_Marlowe]

Agree with MarkDean.

 

 

 

I'd say this hand doesn't belong here but then people would say "hey gwnn you do that all the time".

Well, maybe it doesn't belong here, but I wanted qualified responses.

 

Edit: Further qualified responses are welcome.

Maybe you get more and better answers, if you hint

at what you are after.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

Imps.

 

♠AK9

♥AKQJ43

♦AQ42

♣ -

 

You are first in hand. You play a natural system, with and against top-class players.

 

You play 2♣ as only gameforce, where partner will very often bid a 2♦-waiting-bid.

 

What is your plan?

2c over a game forcing 2d waiting bid now 2h rebid 3d if possible.

2c over a nongame forcing 2h waiting bid now 3nt.

[han]

Qualified response: open 2C rebid 2H rebid 3D.

[kenrexford]

OK, perhaps just to spark controversy...

 

Open 2♣ and then set trumps by bidding 3♥ after 2♦. If partner does not cue 3♠, because he does not have a stiff, and does not cue 3NT (whatever that means for y'all), then...

 

If he cues 4♣, I'll bid 4♦. If he has the missing diamond control, he can cue 4♠ to show third-round spade control, which would be a nice start to the auction. If he bypasses 4♣, which would be great, then he will have to cue 4♦, which is great also. In that event, I'll bid 4♠, which cannot be Exclusion (as partner has already excluded spades) and so will be RKCB with partner instructed to show the spade Queen rather than the heart Queen. When he bids 4NT (0-3), 5♣ asks for that spade Queen. Granted, xx is sufficient, but he should show the Queen with xx if he has unexpected heart length.

 

There are many other permutations, depending on what Responder bids.

 

When done asking the questions, I might bid 7♦ as choice, depending.

 

It seems that this sequence works better than the patterning out, largely because there will be serious ambiguities in the pattern-out sequence, and partner will be very unlikely to cooperate effectively.

[Finch]

OK, perhaps just to spark controversy...

 

Open 2♣ and then set trumps by bidding 3♥ after 2♦.  If partner does not cue 3♠, because he does not have a stiff, and does not cue 3NT (whatever that means for y'all), then...

Well, to start at the beginning...

 

Not everyone plays the old-fashioned approach of setting trumps by jumping in ones own suit, and demanding a cue bid, but I do so I'm not averse to the idea.

 

But I don't think it's playable for partner's cue over the trump-setting bid to show any type of control. Take this hand for example: after 2C - 2D - 3H - if partner cues 4D how is that any help if it could be a singleton given that we don't know how many trumps he has?

 

Anyway, I'm not sure the setting trumps approach works so well here. It's not that we aren't likely to play in hearts, it's more that we need to know more about partner's hand that simply whether he has particular controls or not. You suggest that a doubleton spade and (I assume) the king of diamonds is enough for a grand, but it isn't: there are two losers that need ruffing opposite that hand, which means we need three trumps in dummy if they lead a trump.

 

A 3H rebid demanding second round controls would look better on, say, AK AKQJxxx AQx A where there is one very specific card we are hunting.

 

So my plan is to open 2C and rebid 2H. If that's Kokish I'll find it hard to discover if partner has long spades, but at least I'll then rebid my diamond suit.

 

It seems that this sequence works better than the patterning out, largely because there will be serious ambiguities in the pattern-out sequence, and partner will be very unlikely to cooperate effectively.

 

I'm not sure you meant this the way it sounds, which is that a sequence in which you ask questions and partner answers them will work better than a sequence in which you describe your hand and ask partner to use his judgement. On this hand I have quite a few gaps, so I'd like to ask partner to use his judgement.

[Walddk]

I know the hand; it's from the Vinoble Cup (Danish Cup) final yesterday on vugraph. I am not going to pre-empt Ole's continuation, but IMO, at one table they did not take advantage of the gadget they use. The response was not 2♦ as they show controls over a strong 2♣.

 

Responder had more than 1 control, and now it's time to stop in order not to ruin Ole's point.

 

Roland

[han]

If partner shows 4 controls I bid 7NT.

[kenrexford]

As to the question of showing any control after a trump-setting jump. The main gist of the objection, if I understand it, is that I will not want a shortness cue if I do not know how many trumps partner has.

 

I think the objection misses the point of a "shortness control." Shortness might not be a control. For instance, if Responder has a stiff spade and a stiff heart, then the stiff spade is not a control. It is the possession of trump cards that makes shortness a control.

 

Thus, if partner bids 3♠, we will know that he has a stiff or void in spades AND sufficient trumps to qualify that shortness as a "control."

[mikeh]

I bid 2♣, then 2♥.

 

I hope to get a chance to bid diamonds naturally at my next call.

 

Jumping to 3♥ to set trump is simply wrong, imo. As Frances points out, there will be hands on which we can find out all the controls we want and still not know where to place the contract.

 

At the same time, why can't partner hold KJxx or Kxxxx in diamonds? In which case, grand is (almost) cold in that suit. Now, if he has Kxxxx of course grand rates to play well in hearts... it is reasonable opposite a void (altho we'd far rather be in diamonds) and very good opposite a stiff.

 

So I want to be able to find diamonds.

 

I may have trouble opposite a hand such as xxx xxx KJxx xxx, but the odds are against that nightmare.. where he raises hearts, and now it becomes difficult to get into diamonds.

 

That difficulty is not enough to cause me to show diamonds first... there are hands on which the strong hand should 'lie' about his longest suit, because it is solid, and he needs to be able to keycard, etc, in the shorter suit... so long as it is lower in rank than the real suit, he can later place the contract, and experienced partners will know what is going on. But I don't think AQxx is the suit that we need for that strategem.

[dburn]

Maybe I should rebid 2♠ over 2♦. Then, if partner does not support spades in the later auction but shows some enthusiasm for diamonds, I can bid 7♥ (or 7♦) with confidence. If he does support spades, maybe I will be well-placed to get a diamond cue out of him before asking for ♠Q.

 

If, as intimated above, partner does not respond 2♦ but instead makes some control-showing response, I might still pretend that spades or diamonds, not hearts, was my main suit. But I am not familiar with control-showing responses to a strong 2♣. They work very badly over a strong 1♣, and there is every reason to suppose that they will work worse a level higher.

[kenrexford]

Whereas 2♥ works better when partner has shortness in diamonds, and can therefore splinter, 3♥ works somewhat better when he does not have shortness in diamonds. If hearts will be agreed as trumps, and cuebidding then starts, you want the person who has the weaker hand making the first cuebid (or non-cuebid, meaning a bypass of a cue) because that maximizes info for the stronger hand, where the decisions will usually be made.

 

When partner has length in diamonds, I'm not sure that you are better off bidding 2♥. If partner cannot raise hearts (where diamonds remain in the picture), then we will bid 3♦, forcing partner to raise to 4♦ to set trumps. We have very little space with which to work, and Opener makes the first cuebid, again.

 

It is true that finding partner with diamond length will be a substitute for the spade Queen or doubleton or stiff. This is why I noted that this 3♥ idea is to spark controversy. I am not sure which is actually best. But, I see a lot going for 3♥.

[Lobowolf]

I'd just like to point out how surprising it is to see "prerogative" spelled correctly.

[han]

I'd just like to point out how surprising it is to see "prerogative" spelled correctly.

Please, all these Britney Spears songs have been bad enough, don't encourage him.

[dburn]

I'd just like to point out how surprising it is to see "prerogative" spelled correctly.

Used correctly, maybe, although the English are aware from contact with Roland and other Great Danes that the Norsemen speak our language far better than we do.

 

But how could you misspell it? I take it you already know of tough and bough and cough and dough, but even sew..

[Mosene]

Get over it - language is not static - and the English language needs some serious spelling overhaul. It has little logic to it. I vote for Esperanto.

 

OK - 2♣ then 2♥

[Lobowolf]

I'd just like to point out how surprising it is to see "prerogative" spelled correctly.

Used correctly, maybe, although the English are aware from contact with Roland and other Great Danes that the Norsemen speak our language far better than we do.

 

But how could you misspell it? I take it you already know of tough and bough and cough and dough, but even sew..

"perogative" is about as popular as "definately."