Just plain nasty...

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Words fail me...

Yes, I've noticed.

[maggieb]

Oleberg! :o I do not see what Josh did to deserve such a tirade. He didn't understand what you said, what's the big deal? That is no reason to become a vicious pottie mouth, trust me that it only makes you look bad not him. :(

 

I think the forums would be a much happier place if you would start behaving the way my signature suggests instead of the way this thread title suggests. :)

[OleBerg]

Ok, I'll try to be serious.

 

Oleberg!  :)  I do not see what Josh did to deserve such a tirade. He didn't understand what you said, what's the big deal?

 

He suggested that I should have meant that 1♥ promised 4 spades. I cannot see that as anything but an attempt to ridicule me. (Suggesting that I could believe such a thing.) All he would have to do, to understand my post, was to give it just a tiny effort, which was what I asked him to do.

 

That is no reason to become a vicious pottie mouth, trust me that it only makes you look bad not him.  :(

 

I don't care.

 

I think the forums would be a much happier place if you would start behaving the way my signature suggests instead of the way this thread title suggests.  :)

 

I find this a little rich, coming from you. Ever since you wrote: "OleBerg, your curiosities have nothing to do with bridge." (In this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28495 ), all your comments to my posts has been with a "smarter than thou" attitude, and often quite useless.

 

However they have not obscured the threads, so I don't mind

[rogerclee]

OleBerg, your curiosities have nothing to do with bridge.

[foo]

MP  White versus Red

 

1) You hold

♠QTxxx ♥KJxx ♦Axxx ♣-

 

You pass as dealer and the auction starts

P - (P) - 1♥ - (4♦);??

What's your call?

 

2) Also, is the following auction possible in any sane world

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

1= Assuming We play 5cM, We have at least a 9 card fit in ♥'s. Also, given the 4♦ preempt, We rate to have a double fit in S+H.

 

Your shapely 10 HCP has become worth at least 15 Dummy points, and may well be worth far more, like ~20+, if We have the double Major fit.

Signing off in 4♥ is too weak IMHO.

 

Since you know We rate to have 5 level safety and you know that We may very well have a slam, the question is how best to explore for it.

I may get hung for it, but 5♦ seems IMHO to clarify the situation most concisely.

 

 

2= Obviously, this auction, like any legal auction, exists. The question is what meaning to put to it. IMHO this sequence says "Opener, bid slam with good ♠'s"

 

 

Side note: Those advocating that ♠QTxxx♥KJxx♦Axxx♣- is an opening bid 1st chair at MPs are not crazy. It might not be my or your cup of tea, but it is not completely bonkers.

With 1 3/4 QT, 6 losers, and an easy opening and rebid, there are certainly some who play a style where this hand would be considered a systemic minimum opening.

 

After all, in this case it certainly would have made the ensuing auction easier if the example hand had been opened :)

[han]

Obviously, this auction, like any legal auction, exists.

Disagree. True, the auction 1NT-3NT-6NT exists theoretically but there is no bridge hand consistent with both the 1NT and 6NT calls. Clearly it was this what Richard was asking about and in my opinion, there is no hand that first passes, then passes over 4D and then jumps to 4S.