[Lobowolf]

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

[han]

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

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]

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

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]

dburn, on Sep 29 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

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."

[ArtK78]

Spell checkers are wonderful tools.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Sep 29 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Spell checkers are wonderful tools.

Personally, I have found that my unaided spelling has become ever worse with the passage of time, and I hate to attribute it to aging, so I blame my spell chucker.

[gnasher]

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

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

It's a shame that this orthographic delight occurred in the same thread as Frances's omission of an apostrophe.

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

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

It's a shame that this orthographic delight occurred in the same thread as Frances's omission of an apostrophe.

But its a sin to "forget" an apostrophe and a hy-phen. Just ask David Bird. He is ready to flame anyone who doesnt understand the importance of a grammatically correct sentence ... sry sen-tence so that no-one misses the point. He also hates abbreviations and colloquialisms, such as "sry", "u", "wld", "shld" and "me2".

Me too.

Roland

[han]

w/e

[OleBerg]

Hi all, I had planned on a longer, and more thouroughly considered response. Unfortunately I have been without internetacces for 36 hours, and I'm off on vacation. So a short and fast reply is all I can offer.

My ideé was indeed the response of bidding 3♥ to set trumphs. (I wouldn't consider any other meaning for that bid.)

In my opinion, this is a borderline hand for the bid, but unless I am very certain of my continuations after a 2♥ rebid, I would choose 3♥.

To find the right contract on this/these hands, I need a lot of information from partner.

For instance, if partner makes a bid that shows 5 spades I would be very reluctant to support them. If partner has five spades to the queen, and a singleton heart, the hand still belongs in hearts.

Likewise with diamonds, if I bid them, and partner support them, it is by no means certain, that diamonds is our best spot.

If I bid 3♥, I immidiately tells partner that a doubleton and a ruffing-value is great. Furthermore, partner will know I am looking for tricks and controls, not for a fit. If I bid 2♥, and then diamonds, partner might worry about the quality of the thrumph-suit, even with three small hearts.

Of course things might go wrong with a 3♥ bid, where 2♥ would have saved the day. I just consider it more likely, that it is the other way around. (Unless I have very good, very specific agreemnets about third and fourth round of bidding.)

[skjaeran]

han, on Sep 29 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

If partner shows 4 controls I bid 7NT.

You couldn't help yourself, could you?

[Walddk]

♠ AK9
♥ AKQJ43
♦ AQ42
♣ -

OK, since Ole seems to have vanished from planet Earth, let me give it a twist. Say you play control responses (as they did in the other room); now the auction is the following ...

2♣ - 2♠*
3♥ - 3N **
4♦ - 4♥
??

* 3 controls.
** 5 spades.

Rest is natural. How do you proceed?

Roland

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 1 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

♠ AK9
♥ AKQJ43
♦ AQ42
♣ -

OK, since Ole seems to have vanished from planet Earth, let me give it a twist. Say you play control responses (as they did in the other room); now the auction is the following ...

2♣ - 2♠*
3♥ - 3N **
4♦ - 4♥
??

* 3 controls.
** 5 spades.

Rest is natural. How do you proceed?

Roland

Control showing responses can be problematic, but they can be helped with a couple of add-ons.

1. Play a jump to 4N as either 'queens up the line' or a TAB.

2. Play any jump shift as a control asking bid. Sometimes you can jump shift in shortness and find out if pard's controls are in a bad spot. In the actual auction, a jump shift to 4C might get the job done since with ♣AK, you'll probably settle for 6. ♣A / ♦K gives you a chance at 7.

[mikeh]

This is not a good hand for the system...

I am not at all sure that 4♦ makes any sense, because we should be able to see the problems that will ensue.. partner's 4♥ preference was the most likely bid... were we hoping he could rebid his spades, to allow keycard?

Was 4N available over 3N, as keycard in spades? We could afford this despite the void because we know his response will include the club A, and we can then find out if he has the spade Q... which is enough to make grand reasonable... virtually cold opposite Qxxxx spades and AK of clubs or A clubs K of diamonds, if trump are 3-2, and, of course, that would be the worst possibility.

Of course, if he denied the spade Queen, we'd be guessing how high to bid in hearts...

But the actual sequence leaves us no further ahead in terms of finding out what we need, and perhaps a step behind.

We could cue spades (either 4♠ or, if playing kickback, 4N) but that gets us a 5♣ call, and we have no clear path forward thereafter.

We could try 5♦, and partner should show his King, but that leaves us guessing at the 6 level.

We can't, it seems to me, find out about the spade Queen after this start.

Going back to 3N, if we chose not to keycard, surely 4♠ has to be played as forcing when bid by the strong hand after a 3 control response?

Now maybe responder can keycard... I would not show the void, and if responder could re-key, I'd bid 7♥.

If responder cannot keycard, then we may end up in a guessing game, but that's where we are now.

So, I think that the 4♦ call was in error... either keycard in spades or a forcing raise to 4♠ would have been better.

[Walddk]

Your points make sense, Mike, but to be "fair", I haven't told the whole truth. Whereas it's correct that 3NT showed 5+ spades, it should also show additional values. With no more than 3 controls, responder was supposed to bid 3♠ (second negative).

So, in theory, responder has more than ♣AK or ♣A and ♦K, usually one or more queens. Does that make it easier? For a moment, let's pretend that you don't know if 3NT shows extra values or not, could the auction then proceed ...

4♠ - 5♣
5♦ - 6♣/♦

6♣ is the worst case scenario. Perhaps dummy is dead (no ♠Q) if they lead a trump, and then you can't even make 6♥. If you get 6♦, however, you must be close to bidding the grand slam, because partner must have a doubleton heart for his preference.

Roland

[gnasher]

I don't much like control-showing responses to 2♣, but I don't think it's fair to complain about them on this deal. We already know that we have 12 top tricks with a play for 13 (spade-diamond squeeze) and we're only at the 4♥ level. To me, that seems a pretty good advertisement for the methods.

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Oct 1 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

I don't much like control-showing responses to 2♣, but I don't think it's fair to complain about them on this deal.  We already know that we have 12 top tricks with a play for 13 (spade-diamond squeeze) and we're only at the 4♥ level.  To me, that seems a pretty good advertisement for the methods.

12 top tricks? Yes, if partner's king is in diamonds. What if he has ♣K? Then there is a long journey to 12 tricks.

I agree that we are pretty well placed over 4♥. Can you take advantage?

Roland

[kenrexford]

At this point, agreements are unknown, so assessing what happens next is wild conjecture.

It seems to me, however, that 4♦ declined spades and that 4♥ sets trumps. So, any further calls should be in pursuit of a heart slam.

It would be nice if 4♠ is now a cuebid. Responder could then bypass 4NT to deny whatever 4NT would show (presumably either a spade control or a trump card, depending on their meanings) to cue his known club control (5♣). A 5♦ LTTC call would then seem to ask for the diamond King, IMO. If Responder has it, he can accept by (1) cuebidding 5♠ if bypassing 4NT denied ability to cue spades or (2) cuebidding 5NT to deny ability to show a spade 1st/second control, if bypassing 4NT reflected on the trump contribution.

If 5♠ shows the spade Queen, this is easy.

If 5NT is the call and denies the spade Ace or King, then Opener is not as well-placed but might simply hope for the spade Queen OR for diamonds to somehow come in (with the club Ace used to ditch the spade loser).

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Oct 1 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

12 top tricks? Yes, if partner's king is in diamonds. What if he has ♣K?

Ah yes. For some reason that possibility hadn't occurred to me.