Consider an auction where we have agreed on a trump strain, Opener has shown another suit, Responder has shown another suit, and the fourth suit is not shown. E.g., 1♥-2♣, 2♦-2♥.
Imagine that you could structure a cuebidding approach where you resolve all issues about specific suits first before you even mention anything about other suits. The idea would be to delay disclosure of holdings in some suits until after you have decided that holdings in other suits are sufficient to warrant discussion of the disclosure-dangerous suits. In other words, you want to delay revealing info that helps the defense until later, as much as possible.
What suits would you want to resolve first, and what suits last, to minimize useful info to the defense being exposed too early? (For example, maybe you think trump quality is not that useful to the defense. If your cuebidding structure reveals first that the trump quality is insufficient, you would sign off at game before mentioning anything about any side suits.)
Assume, for the sake of answering, that the four suits in the normal auction are:
A = agreed trump suit
O = Opener's second suit
R = Responder's other suit
T = The opponent's best suit, the one neither of us bid
Thus, if you think that discussion of the agreed suit is the least useful for the opponents on defense, that discussion of the fourth suit is most useful, that Dummy's suit (Responder's opther suit) is fairly important to the defense, but that opener's second suit (one they rarely lead into) is less important to the defense, your structure would be:
AORT
If, however, you want to keep info about Dummy's suit secret the most (as that is the most likely alternative lead), their suit least important (they lead that usually anyway), Opener's suit somewhat important (the hidden side suit), and the agreed suit barely important, the structure would be:
TAOR
Page 1 of 1
What Order of Priorities for Non-Disclosure?
#1
Posted 2011-November-15, 20:23
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#2
Posted 2011-November-15, 22:44
Digressing, before the answers even start:
Several years ago our partners in the first session of the Natl Swiss were a Precision pair with a priority style like you mentioned ---first was trumps, then controls in secondary fit, etc. They bid up to 6 Diamonds down four, with all the filler cards wrong.
When they sheepishly came back to compare, we explained it was o.k. We won 2IMPs because the Precision pair at our table were in 7!
Several years ago our partners in the first session of the Natl Swiss were a Precision pair with a priority style like you mentioned ---first was trumps, then controls in secondary fit, etc. They bid up to 6 Diamonds down four, with all the filler cards wrong.
When they sheepishly came back to compare, we explained it was o.k. We won 2IMPs because the Precision pair at our table were in 7!
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#3
Posted 2011-November-16, 07:11
My first take on this would be ULTA, where U is the side suit of the unlimited hand and L is the side suit of the limited hand. Maybe I should take some time to think about it though. I would not design the priority order purely based on information leakage but more on where I think the information is most useful. Otherwise I will often have to go through the less useful information just to find out if I wanted to hear it or not.
(-: Zel :-)
#4
Posted 2011-November-16, 08:03
Zelandakh, on 2011-November-16, 07:11, said:
My first take on this would be ULTA, where U is the side suit of the unlimited hand and L is the side suit of the limited hand. Maybe I should take some time to think about it though. I would not design the priority order purely based on information leakage but more on where I think the information is most useful. Otherwise I will often have to go through the less useful information just to find out if I wanted to hear it or not.
My own set of priorities would also probably be along those lines. But, often slam sequence discussions break down between those who focus on useful info at all costs and those who hold their cards to their chests to avoid disclosure. I could figure out the best for knowledge; I am seeking the thoughts of those on the other end of the spectrum.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#5
Posted 2011-November-16, 10:37
kenrexford, on 2011-November-16, 08:03, said:
My own set of priorities would also probably be along those lines. But, often slam sequence discussions break down between those who focus on useful info at all costs and those who hold their cards to their chests to avoid disclosure. I could figure out the best for knowledge; I am seeking the thoughts of those on the other end of the spectrum.
I regularly play set matches against a precision pair both noted for fine-tuning their system and who have achieved a great amount of success holding their cards to their chest. They have trump suit asks as the first priority, then opener can usually ask about any side suit they are interested in. I'm not sure about what order they've placed on the outside suits - my guess is that they are in suit order, possibly rearranged somewhat to put any other suit shown in the bidding in the lowest ordinance spot.
Chris Gibson
Page 1 of 1