[haben12]

Maute´s proposition for another Slam-biding-system (= Askiss-q.)
or
How would you find the following slam-bid-sequences?

Introduction:
For a Grand Slam you need, if you have a normal distribution (therefore without a Chicane or a Single in your hand), for a start 4 Aces and 4 Kings (in sum: 8); while for a small Slam it suffices either 4 Aces and 3 Kings or 3 Aces and 4 Kings (in sum: 7).
If you notice that, you may have another idea as only asking first for Aces and after for Kings:
I asked me, why not combining both to a summary system, therefore inventing a special question for the number of Aces and Kings, an Aces-Kings-sum-question (Askiss-q., look below nr. 2), instead of the usual isolated Ace-questions like Gerber, Blackwood or announcing the Aces (or Chicane) by cue-bids.
After such a question you may continue by other questions for example by a Queens-question and/or a Trump(s)-question.

But nevertheless there are also cases, in which you are not really interested in the number of Aces or Kings, because you only will know, if partner has one certain Ace. - F.e.: Are you in one suit void and you have in another suit a Single (or a good colour with K, D, J, x), you are only interested in the Ace of this colour. Therefore you must also have an additional system, in which you are able to enquire that, similar like the thought of the cue-bids (look nr.1).

Realization of these 2 ideas:
..........................................................................................
Abbr.: Enq.= Enquirer ¦¦ Res. = Responder ¦¦ AsKs = sum of Aces and Kings
..........................................................................................

1. If the Enq. will know only a certain Ace (applicable mere in trump contracts)
Enq. bids (asks) 4 NT,
Answers:
if Res. has no Aces, he announces the fit-suit (next level).
if Res. has one Ace, he announces that colour in which he has an Ace, - when it is Trump Ace with jump in trump-suit.
if Res. has two Aces, he announces the Ace of the lower suit with jump.


2. If the Enq. will know the AsKs of the P., (s)he has 2 possibilities to do that:

4 C or 4 D.
This depends on his own AsKs:
When Enq. has 3 or 4 AsKs, the question is 4 C,
when (s)he has 5 (or even more), the question is 4 D.
The advantage of this question choice is:
The Res. knows rather exactly too, how many controls the Enq. has (the minimum exactly).

The Res.´s
answers
meaning after 4 C: meaning after 4 D: together:

4 D: 0 - 2 AsKs (no slam possible) ---- ---- ---- min.3

4 H: 3 AsKs and
neither a Single nor a void / min. 6
0 or 1 AsKs and nei.
a Single nor a void minim. 5

4 S: 3 od. 4 AsKs and
either a Single or a void
1 or 2 AsKs and
ei. a Single or a void min. 6

4 NT: 4 AsKs and
neither a Single nor a void min. 7
2 AsKs and
nei. a Single nor a void min. 7

5 C: 5 AsKs 3 AsKs 8


The rebids of the Enq.:
after the answer
4 D, as a rule: the Fit-suit as the end of slam-bidding
(There are in the 2 hands max. 4+2 AsKs, normally 6 doesn´t
reach for a small Slam.)
4 H: if Enq. only has 3 AsKs or if Enq. had asked with 4 D, the same rebid
like after 4 D (= fit-bid),
but if Enq. has 4 (after the q. 4 C), then Enq.
continues (normally) with 5 C (Queen-question).

4 S: a) 4 NT as a new question, if Enq. is more interesting to know,
in which suit Res. has a Single or a Void.
Answ. of Res.: The suit, in which the Single or the Void is.
or

b.) 5 C, if Enq. prefer to know the number of queens.

4 NT: normally the Queen-question with 5 C, except you prefer
the trump-question (see below) or you bid at once 6 or 7 NT.

5 C: after this answer, the question-answer-situation rotate:
The answer 5 C is now for the other (Enq.) the question for
the number of queens. [= This question should be answered by those,
who was first the enquirer. (Answers see next)]

Optionally followed with
Queens-question 5 C:
Answers: 5 D 0 or 3 queens
5 H 1 or 4 queens
5 S 2 queens

Optionally followed with
Trump-question 5 NT:
A: 6 C 0 or 1 Trump High Cards, A-J (THC)
6 D 2 or 3 THC
very rarely: 6 H 4 THC
if necessary: 6 S Ace and King
6 NT Ace, king and queen

Remark: the jump in AsKiss-question announces a fit in the last announced suit. (F.e. 1 C, p, 1 S, p, 4 C = fit in S, not in C)

Advantages:
how said already above:
The Res. knows rather exactly too, how many controls the Enq. has (the min. exactly), in the other systems the Res. is mere an inquiry object.

More often you are able to begin a slam-bidding, because after the (Res.-) answer of 4 D, you may stop bidding on the forth level! (not possible with Blackwood-questions and if you need a king question with 5 C [or drumming] even not with Gerber) or in minors at the fifth level (mostly not possible with Blackwood-questions and after kings-question even not with Gerber)

Because the answer of 4 S signalizes a Single or a void, this bid warns P. for NT-contract.

disadvantages:
Swiss convention is incompatible to this system.
If partners have a fit in C, either they cannot use this system for this
one case or they arrive at an agreement that 4 C is always the AsKiss-
question. Then, in this case, there isn´t allowed to announce or to (re-)
confirm with 4 C the C-suit.

I hope, you will find this sequences otherwise I beg you to say me what is rotten in it. Thanks.

[mikeh]

I want to commend you for taking the time to devise a new method: we should always encourage innovation.

But I think your method has two main problems.

The first is that you are trying to 'solve' a problem that is not really a problem... or, more accurately, is a problem for which there are already a number of well-tried and effective solutions. Thus, when we want to know about a specific A, we can use either cue-bidding or exclusion... the only reason we don't want to know about an Ace that we don't hold is that we are void. There are other, sophisticated methods as well: I personally have never played turbo, but some world champions like it, so I suspect it is pretty good .

The second is that your method requires giving up a lot of natural bidding (or cue-bidding): while I have not tried to analyze your method in its entirety, I see that you suggest using 4♣ and 4♦ as asking for Aces... one reason 4♣, as Gerber, is hardly used by good players (other than in specific, infrequent auctions) is that 4♣ is far more valuable as a cue or as natural. Now you want to remove 4♦ from natural/cue bidding as well: it isn't going to happen.

My suspicion is that you are not very experienced in slam bidding with a good partner, using some of the more sophisticated methods that are readily available... if you were, I doubt that you'd see a need for your method.

Please don't get too down over this criticism... enthusiasm for the game is very important and it seems that you have that

[manudude03]

One thing a lot of people forget is that there is (almost) always one person in control of the auction when it comes to slam bidding. One of your assumptions is that the hand has no void or singleton. I'm sure someone will give me the right amount, but I think something like 50% of all hands have at least 1 s/v. That already limits the amount of hands which it can be used on.

I think it would be better to leave the responder out of the decision making, and group the responses. So something like 4C= AsK ask. 4D= 0/4/8 4H=1/5 4S= 2/6 and 4NT= 3/7. If you can't differentiate between them then you haven't got enough info to even start investigating.

[haben12]

[I hope that the editor doesn´t destroy the size again.]

reply @Mikeh

Although you don´t agree with me, I thank you for your commend, specially for encouraging innovation, and for advising me not being too down over your criticism.

Your grave and main argument is: I would try to solve problems which don´t exist or are already solved and tested. If you are right, my proposition would only serve for the garbage.
But let us survey and first of all make a short walk in history of aeroplanes. Remember in past times aeroplanes have had a propeller as engine, a very technically mature system, but nevertheless nowadays most of aircrafts has a jet propulsion. So (also in this sense not only in that of feeling) you are right: "The world is turning faster than it did when I was young."
Conclusion: An successful and tested system might also have been replaced by another. How does happen this? I think: There must exist some people, having the courage testing a new theory. After these tests they´ll assess the new theory on bringing more profit than the already tested (one). If the result should be positive they adopt, otherwise they abandon it.

Some annotations to the other systems, recommended by you.
Exclusion Blackwood is a fine system. But it premise a void in one of the partner´s hand.
Do you know, how high is the probability for such a hand? Could you imagine, that the percentage is only a little bit more than circa 5% (5.19...). That means, on one hundred (slam suitable) hands you are able to use Exc.Blackw. only in 5-6 hands!

And what about hands having a singleton? Such hands have anyhow a probability of circa 31% (30.5...). I think, you don´t use Exc. Blackw. for these hands or do I err? Or perhaps do you have a modified Exc. Blackw., applicable for hands with a singleton, a system, that I don´t know?

Provided if both P. would agree to renounce (for avoiding misunderstandings) on Gerber and Blackwood systems [both in all of their variations], Cue-bids are a good system. But these manner of bids causes not seldom a too high level, specially, when one of the P. has 2 neighbouring Aces with the result that then informations about the kings also fail.
An example: (you permit that I use your icon hand a little bit changed)
Nord: ♠ A, K, 4 ♥ Q, J, T ♦ Q, J, T, 3 ♣ A, K, 4

Cue bid auction (without bids from the ops):
You: 2 NT P: 3 NT
4 C 4 D
4 S 5H
and now?
You haven´t any information, where the 2 kings will be located. Speculating you may think, P. will have one of the missing kings, then little slam is possible. Otherwise should he have none, it is possible, that each opp will have (only) one. Then this one of the two kings will be finessed. Thinking that, you may end auction with 6 NT, otherwise you must stop at 5 NT.

Auction using my proposition (without bids from the ops):
You: 2 NT P: 3 NT
4 ♣ (3 or 4 AsKs) 4 ♥ (2 AsKs, no s/v)
and now?
You have the sure information on a low level (4 ♥) that P. has 2 AsKs. But normally 6 AsKs (in sum) don´t reach for a reasonable little slam.
But let us think a bit further. Admittedly you don´t know exactely, which cards are in P´s hand: Has P. either 2 Aces and no Kings or 2 Kings and no Aces or 1 Ace and 1 King. But for a sure bidding this knowledge is important.
Therefore you has to investigate the exact meaning of the bid either by rolling bid or with an additional convention of 4 NT. The answers: 1 step: 2 kings, 2 steps: 1 Ace and one King, 3 steps: 2 Aces.
In the example above the answer is one step (if you don´t use rolling, 5 ♣). Now you have the absolutely sure knowledge, that 2 Kings are in the opp´s hands.
But now, based on this sure knowledge, you may also speculate and think: P. has not one of the 2 missing kings, but should each opp. have one king, one of the two will be finessed. (for it the probability is 50%). Otherwise both kings could be finessed, if East should have both kings (for this is the probability 25%). In the remaining case the little slam go down (for that is the probability 25 %). Now you may decide yourself, what you are doing: - a little bit lion-hearted - 6 NT or sure 5 NT (if used rolling: 4 NT).
(The hand of South: ♠ Q, x, x ♥ A, x, x ♦ A, x, x, ♣ D, x, x, x)

I admit not knowing turbo. This system isn´t described in any of my books and not yet in
http://www.bridgehands.com/Indexes/Index_G...BridgeHands.htm.
May I ask you, how useful is a secret or encrypted system? My answer: it may be good for those profis, knowing that system, but not for the uninformed majority of all the leisure or hobby players having enthusiasm for this game like me.

Analysing my proposition entirely, you´ll find:
My part 1, valid for circa 5%, is a modified cue-bid system, avoiding misunderstandings, that I´ve seen by many opps using other systems.
My part 2 is a modified Gerber system, combining and contracting the original Gerber 4C (Aces question) and 5 C (Kings question) in only one question, informing P. at the same time of the minimum in Aces and Kings of the own (Enq.) hand. The Res. on his part is able to inform the Enq. about having either a singleton or a void. The more information the merrier.

@manudude03

Ty for your opinion to my proposition for a new slam bidding system. I´ll give you a little bit long reply.
One man´s opinion depends on his location, should it be allowed to transfer the cognition of Einstein in physical laws to the mental activity: From another position there are other aspects or approaches. From my point of view I could answer uncouth: I´ve thought Bridge is a partner game, not a pure detective game. -
But seriously, I agree with your first sentence for my part 1 and nearly for the part 2. As there is a difference between the two words "always" and "most" as there is the same difference between us. Mostly (myself), but not always (yourself), one of the P. should have the control of the Slam auction.
Thus you are thinking there are no exeptions. But is that so sure? F.e. imagine P (=Res.) has a good non trump suit in being K, Q, J, x or even a (non fit) suit containing A, K, Q, J, x (may be announced before or rare not). I ask you: Has - even in this (admittedly no frequent) cases - the Res. to remain always inactively? -
I do admit, that I don´t know all slam bidding systems. But do you know anyone, by which Enq. gets the knowledge of one of the described sequences? (as well not in my proposition). Even though Enq. is aware of A-Q from the Res. (f.e. possible by Gerber, not by Blackwood) it fails the knowledge of the J in a constant sequence. A Jack in such a sequence (like described) promises at least one trick more. When the Res. has the knowledge of 8 AsKs or somtimes of 7 Asks, shall the Res. not be allowed to bid in doubt one level more (from 5 to 6 or from little slam to a grand slam)? --

You affirm the thesis one of my assumptions would be that the hand has no void or singleton. This thesis is correct for my part 2, but not for part 1. In part 1 there is the possibility to give notice of a void, having by the enquirer, while in part 2 the Res. is able to announce a singleton or a void being in his hand.
You like to hear the right amount of 1s/v. My answer is: I am not an expert in probabilities. But please click the link: http://playbridge.co...fle_project.asp.
There you´ll find the probabilities of all possible hands. When you should add the values of all hands with a void therein, you´ll get nearly 5.2%; the same with s-hands constitiute 30.56%, both together 35.8%. I think you´ll agree that this number is a little bit far from your assumed approximate 50%, isn´t it?
To your proposition:
If I would not set a high value on having the possibility to inform the P. (Enq.) of a singleton or a void in Res.´s hand, I would reconsider to adopt your modifying proposition. But this possibility fails in your alternate proposal.

[manudude03]

Even if my probability was off (I was lazy and just did 1-P(4333)-P(4432)-P(5332) and got 47% for off balance forgetting 5422, 6322 and 7222), that is a rather alarming number of hands that you can't deal with.

You mentioned yourself that the entire system breaks down if responder has a s/v. The 35.7% (just checked on Excel) of hands with that s/v will end in a very uncomfortable auction (the example auctions you mentioned in your reply to Mike seems dubious, never seen an auction where a limited hand makes a slam try after a signoff after a start like that). The difference between singleton and void can be huge:

Take a 2NT opener like ♠KQJx ♥AKJx ♦QTxx ♣Ax

Opposite ♠ATxxx ♥Qxx ♦KJxx ♣ x

At the hands given, you want to be in 6S (which is cold barring ♦A and ruff, not to mention they have to find it first). However if responder has a club void (move it to hearts say), then you want to be in 7S if the Ace missing is the club Ace. That's where exclusion blackwood comes in:

2NT-3H
3S-5C
5NT-6S


I think the other issue with s/v's you need to sort out is how to find out where the responder's singleton is and find a way of not confusing it with some signoff.

Take the 2NT opener again:
♠KQJx ♥AKJx ♦QTxx ♣Ax

Which of these hands would you rather play 6H with?:
a] ♠Axxx ♥QTxxx ♦Kxx ♣x or;
b] ♠Axxx ♥QTxxx ♦x ♣Kxx

Better yet, take away the ♦T and make it a low one.

Notice that both these hands have the same AsK's. The response would be the same and you're no better off.

On balanced hands, you still have some decision issues when you have 6 or 7 out of 8.

♠Ax ♥AKQx ♦KTx ♣ATx
♠xxx ♥Jx ♦ AQJxx ♣Kx

♠AKJ ♥AKQx ♦KTx ♣Jxx
♠xxx ♥Jx ♦ AQJxx ♣ Kx

On the first pair, 6NT is cold, while 6NT may be off first 2 tricks on the second (especially if 4C ask by responder gets doubled). Both hands contain 7 AsK's in total and bidding won't differentiate between them.



I don't want to discourage you too much. Innovation is a great thing and the world needs people to come up with new ideas. I'm not going to say don't play it because with a little tweaking, I think it could work .