[OleBerg]

Hi again,

well, having reread my posts, I see that I might have played the "frequency-card", but it wasn't intentional.

MFA, on Nov 6 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

Hi Ole

OleBerg, on Nov 5 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

How? It's a big problem to investigate the spade control, as I see it.

Indeed it is, but it isn't the only problem.

A 5♥-bid is in effect forcing to slam, if partner has a spade-stopper. So you have to be extremely good at guessing, facing an opening of 11-18 points. (You dont have to cater to 19+ hands, partner will probably act again over 4♥.) If you reserve 5♥ for "safe" hands, you will either have to put some raises without a stopper in with the 4♠, or you will have to miss a lot of good slams.

The point I am trying to make is, that there are nine sequnces that shows heart-support (excluding a direct 4♥ bid) from the opponents 3♠, before we are in 5♥. Eight of them goes via a 4♠-call, while one of them is the direct 5♥-bid.

My suggestion is, that one sequence, the direct 5♥-bid, is reserved for weak hands, while the other eight sequences are reserved for strong hands.

As I see it, there are three problems we should strive to solve here:

1) Do we have a spade stopper?
2) Do we have enogh aces?
3) Do we have enough playing strenght to make slam worthwhile?

I include possesion of the thrumph queen, as a subset of 3).

Using a four step, skip-scan-like device, I would organize it this way:

1. Step: An ace more than average. (In most cases, inclding this, 3 aces.)
2. Step: Stopper in opponents suit.
3. Step: Neither but two aces, and interested in slam.
Return to the Thrumph suit: We miss something crucial for slam.

(Í will make another post describing this treatment in depth.)

The steps are the same for both players, and if enough aces are present, we have a stopper and sufficient playing strenght, we can bid slam.

On a final note:

Obviously grand slam bidding has to take a back-seat to small-slam bidding and competing correctly, but it should still be considered. The "Textbook-approach" to these problems makes grand-slam bidding quite murky.

[pclayton]

I read Ole's side thread to this. There are some good thoughts; but if we are exploring new ideas, maybe we should re-introduce transfers in this auction. I remember seeing something like this here around 2-3 years ago, but I think (or it should) it went (go) something like this:

Double: General Values, but negative of course. I recall someone called this a 'thrump' double and it might have modified what 3N is itself. I could see 3N becoming clubs too.

3N: To play
4♣ - diamonds
4♦ - good heart raise
4♥ - to play
4♠ - clubs

Clearly the red suits become much easier to bid, while clubs becomes a little tougher, although the flexibility seems worth it.

[gwnn]

pclayton, on Nov 6 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I read Ole's side thread to this. There are some good thoughts; but if we are exploring new ideas, maybe we should re-introduce transfers in this auction. I remember seeing something like this here around 2-3 years ago, but I think (or it should) it went (go) something like this:

Double: General Values, but negative of course. I recall someone called this a 'thrump' double and it might have modified what 3N is itself. I could see 3N becoming clubs too.

3N: To play
4♣ - diamonds
4♦ - good heart raise
4♥ - to play
4♠ - clubs

Clearly the red suits become much easier to bid, while clubs becomes a little tougher, although the flexibility seems worth it.

That doesn't sound bad, but I would still play 5H as asking for a spade control. It was still CHO who opened and RHO who preempted.

[han]

I know a Dutch pair that plays 1H-3S-4C = hearts and 1H-3S-4H = clubs. This is the only sequence in which they play this.