[nekthen]

 mikeh, on 2019-August-07, 08:02, said:

What an incredible waste of bidding space. Rule 1 in constructive bidding: conserve bidding space. Which is why, for example, very few (if any) top players use strong jump shifts, which use less space than your sequence.

Respond 1D then bid 1S over 1H or 2S over 1N or 2C. Then, if necessary, bid 2S in the first sequence or 3S in the second, and you have described 5-6 gf, with partner having made an additional informative call. Compare that to your gadget.

Yes its a lot of space, but it defines the hand very precisely in one bid, takes away 4th hands ability to interfere safely and prevents the sort of murky sequence suffered by Tramticket and partner. In most auctions you have to bid to 3♠ to get your hand over. It also means that other sequences are either not as extremely distributed or are not GF.

Look how easy it is now to bid to 7♦
1♣ 3♠
4♦ 4♥
4N 5♠
5N 7♦

[mikeh]

 nekthen, on 2019-August-08, 02:46, said:

Yes its a lot of space, but it defines the hand very precisely in one bid, takes away 4th hands ability to interfere safely and prevents the sort of murky sequence suffered by Tramticket and partner. In most auctions you have to bid to 3♠ to get your hand over. It also means that other sequences are either not as extremely distributed or are not GF.

Look how easy it is now to bid to 7♦
1♣ 3♠
4♦ 4♥
4N 5♠
5N 7♦

That is a silly bidding sequence. Why can’t responder hold AQJxx void AQxxx xxx or AQxxx x AQJxx xx?

You have .done what a lot of posters do: you have allowed your knowledge of the two hands to influence your bidding.


On the given hand, it is plausible to have responder take control over 4D, but on other hands that wouldn’t work. Make responder 5=2=6=0, same high cards, and opener has x QJxx KJx AKxxx and responder won’t be able to ask for keycards because he can’t tell which Ace is missing. Exclusion won’t work either.

Always be careful, when concocting auctions that happen to work on the known hands. See if they work when you change one of those hands into something worse, but still consistent with your gadget.

As for the rest of your explanation, it reads as someone unwilling to admit that their pet toy is inferior to normal bidding. Again, a common reaction. It’s called cognitive dissonance. You are arguing that bidding diamonds and then bidding spades twice are either not 5=6 or not gf. Both arguments seem illogical

I’ve played a lot of gadgets, since I love ‘scientific’ bidding. I’ve invented stuff that seemed like a good idea at the time, only to later realize that it wasn’t, so I empathize even while being critical

[msjennifer]

 HardVector, on 2019-August-07, 10:15, said:

Why are you jumping all the way to 3s? The only reason to bid diamonds before spades is to show a hand that has values along with the shape of the hand. When you rebid spades with a 2s bid, you show 5 spades, therefore 6 diamonds. So it's forcing to 3d, so what? When partner bids 3d and YOU keep bidding, now partner is clued into what you are trying to do. Bidding 3s put a lot of pressure on partner to make the right guess, should we play 3n, or go for a diamond slam?

Sir .3S bid after openers 1NT rebid, as we play it, simply asks partner to choose between S and D and shows interest in bidding 6/7 D/S and not 3NT unless he desires to play in 3NT. IF he has a fit he shows it and then cue or KCB(in this hand) may be used.If we wish (on some other hand) to go slowly after 1NT we just bid 2S and over partners 3D we can always bid 3NT if it is MP.There is no confusion whatsoever. I hope it answers your query.THANKS.

[nekthen]

 mikeh, on 2019-August-08, 03:40, said:

That is a silly bidding sequence. Why can’t responder hold AQJxx void AQxxx xxx or AQxxx x AQJxx xx?

You have .done what a lot of posters do: you have allowed your knowledge of the two hands to influence your bidding.


On the given hand, it is plausible to have responder take control over 4D, but on other hands that wouldn’t work. Make responder 5=2=6=0, same high cards, and opener has x QJxx KJx AKxxx and responder won’t be able to ask for keycards because he can’t tell which Ace is missing. Exclusion won’t work either.

Always be careful, when concocting auctions that happen to work on the known hands. See if they work when you change one of those hands into something worse, but still consistent with your gadget.

As for the rest of your explanation, it reads as someone unwilling to admit that their pet toy is inferior to normal bidding. Again, a common reaction. It’s called cognitive dissonance. You are arguing that bidding diamonds and then bidding spades twice are either not 5=6 or not gf. Both arguments seem illogical

I’ve played a lot of gadgets, since I love ‘scientific’ bidding. I’ve invented stuff that seemed like a good idea at the time, only to later realize that it wasn’t, so I empathize even while being critical

The hands you quote are much too weak for my treatment responder can leap to 7♦ precisely because he has two singletons opposite the known Aces in partners hand.

Maybe I should have said GF with slam interest. As you say, when using a lot of space you must be very specific. I assume you do not regard splinter bids as a waste of space?

[PhilG007]

 Tramticket, on 2019-August-06, 05:47, said:

---

IMPs

System: Your basic system is Acol (four-card majors and weak no trump). You respond up-the-line with four-card suits but respond the higher of two five-card suits. You play strong jump shifts, but not with two-suited hands.

You have a strong hand with slam potential if you can find a suitable fit. Do you respond your longer suit (diamonds) or your five-card major (spades). What is your plan?

With a major/minor two suiter,I always show the major suit first then rebid the minor. In the hand given I would respond 1♠ then rebid the diamonds,
twice if necessary thus telling partner clearly "The hand must be played in one of my suits,choose between them"