[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Sep 13 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here.

Ben has touched on what I consider to be a very interesting question:

Assume that partner opens 1♣ playing a "standard" system and the auction develops something like 1♣ - 1M - 2M. Does it make sense to treat partner's Clubs as a "real" suit?

Earlier, a number of people were suggesting a splinter rebid in Clubs:
1♣ - 1H - 2H - 4♣ or some such.

Currently, Ben is suggesting cue bidding shortage opposite partner's "suit".

A number of people have criticized these bids, suggesting that its critical to be able to show support for partner's suit...

In all these cases a shortage cue does not seem a good approach, whereas everytime opener has xxx(x), it is.
Here's the rub: Given that the 1♣ opening could easily be based on a holding like Qxx or xxxx, does it make sense to consider this as a suit or not?

I think the anwer should come from a simulation.
How often does the 1C opener have values (even with only 3 cards) in the suit ?
In these cases a shortage cue does not feel right, whereas in the cases where opener has xxx(x), it sounds effective.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 13 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here.

Ben has touched on what I consider to be a very interesting question:

Assume that partner opens 1♣ playing a "standard" system and the auction develops something like 1♣ - 1M - 2M. Does it make sense to treat partner's Clubs as a "real" suit?

Earlier, a number of people were suggesting a splinter rebid in Clubs:
1♣ - 1H - 2H - 4♣ or some such.

Currently, Ben is suggesting cue bidding shortage opposite partner's "suit".

A number of people have criticized these bids, suggesting that its critical to be able to show support for partner's suit...

Here's the rub: Given that the 1♣ opening could easily be based on a holding like Qxx or xxxx, does it make sense to consider this as a suit or not?

Well, 4♣ on the auction I propose is clearly slam try. I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

1♣ - 1♥
2♥

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?
What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 13 2005, 11:03 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

1♣ - 1♥
2♥

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?
What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

When I make a slam try, I cue=bid controls "up the line" and I count queen in partners suit as a control. Thus, with Hx or Hxx and slam intererst, I would have bid forcing 3♣ and then 4♦ to show my slam intent and a high club cover. Revesing the order shows distributional club control and slam interest.

So to answer your questions,

1) would I rebid 3♣ on Hxx? With slam interest, yes
2) What about Kx? With slam interest yes
3) Couild 3♣ be bid on doubleton honor? (yes, see #2)
4) "I" (richard) don't think you can conclude 4♣ is distributional control. Well, you are wrong.

Now to be fair, I can not bid 3♣ in "my system" with any of those hands and slam interest, as it would not be focing. But I would not be in this pickle. My partner would have jump rebid 3♦ mini-splinter with 29=32 ZAR points and four card support. And even if he wimped out and bid only 2♥, I would bid 2NT a convential inquiry we use and he would show maximum four card raise with a singleton ♦ by a jump to 4♦ (this is super max as he can't really be this strong). You realize I didn't include the 2NT inquiry and the 3♦ mini-splinter in the early decription as no one plays this way (well few). But the write up has been on the web for some time. ( After 1m-1M in inquiry 2over1 )

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Sep 13 2005, 10:03 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

1♣ - 1♥
2♥

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?
What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

Keep in mind you can make a long suit/short suit game try in clubs if need be., no need to splinter.

I argue that after 3spades..how weak can partner be? Please note they could bid 4h over 3d...not 3s! if weak.

I still go back to my argument that if both LTC and FLT say try for slam with responder hand and if partner can cooperate, go for it, so:

1c=1h
2h=3d
3s=4s etc...

3d=long suit game try
3s=accept long suit game try and cooperate with slam try with 3s...
4s=ace ask for hearts.


How much less can 3s be here?

[whereagles]

If you play

1m 1M
2M

as possibly being 3 cards, then next step is usually a distributional relay. That might pick up the diamond singleton on this occasion.

Another advantage of this approach is to be able to use

1m 1M
2M 4m

as splinter. This is because if you want to know about pard's shortnesses, or to show a double fit, you can bid the relay. If you prefer to show shortness instead, you can bid the splinter.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 13 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

1) would I rebid 3♣ on Hxx? With slam interest, yes
2) What about Kx? With slam interest yes
3) Couild 3♣ be bid on doubleton honor? (yes, see #2)
4) "I" (richard) don't think you can conclude 4♣ is distributional control. Well, you are wrong.

Sorry: I should have been more precise

Is it common for decent players to rebid 3♣ on Kx...