Partner splinters..

[han]

Playing with a fairly unknown partner, you hold Qxx A 109xxx AKxx.

 

You open 1D and the bidding proceeds (opponents passing):

 

1D-1S

2S-4C

 

Do you agree with 2S?

 

Would you make a move with 4H or sign off in 4S?

[inquiry]

I totally agree with 2♠, what else?

 

Without agreement, i would take it that 4♣ is a splinter. What have you got? The ♣King might be wasted, the ♣Ace possibly wasted.

 

The two options are 4♥ (last train or cue-bid depending upon your agreement) and 4♠

 

I think, given the auction to date, 4♠ seems right. If there is a slam, partner might call again. The problem is, if partner has great hand and no ♥ stopper he might not have another call over 4♠, on the other hand, if you bid 4♥ partner might think you have better values outside of clubs. I will go with 4♠.

[mike777]

1) Yes

2) 4H

 

In for a penny in for a pound.

[pbleighton]

Do you agree with 2S?

 

Yes.

 

Would you make a move with 4H or sign off in 4S?

 

4S. I hate not cooperating, but: minimum, misfit on clubs, and only 3 spades.

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with 2S. Would bid 4H.

[Winstonm]

Although I don't hold cards I do hold length in diamonds...partner's hoped for Ax, KQ should still be of value due to that....my controls are good and my club King is a trick no matter what and could provide a needed heart/diamond discard so I vote for 4H also.

 

Agree with 2S unless it must show 4.

 

Winston

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1) No, but this is a style issue

2) 4S, I have a minimum opener to begin with,

I have only 3 card support, I have wasted

values in clubs, ... what justifies a forward

going move?

 

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Hi,

 

1) No, but this is a style issue

2) 4S, I have a minimum opener to begin with,

I have only 3 card support, I have wasted

values in clubs, ... what justifies a forward

going move?

 

Marlowe

Agree

 

Alain

[Fluffy]

Agree with Marlowe and Alain

[Guest Jlall]

... what justifies a forward

going move?

Our singleton, and our prime values (AK A plus the trump Q).

 

I do not think of the CK as a wasted card. Partner will likely be 6331 (with 5431 or 5341 he would have bid a red suit) or similar, so our CK will provide a diamond pitch. Given our diamond holding, the club king seems very likely to cover a loser.

[luke warm]

1. no

2. 4H

[han]

Since partner is currently boycotting the forum (but did suggest himself that I would post the hand here, sounds like a confused individual :) ) I will have to post his hand too:

 

AKxxxxx Qxx KQ x.

 

As you can see 6S is basically cold, but partner passed after I signed off in 4S. Partner didn't like either of my bids, I think I agree with him about 4S. My sign off came almost automatic (more than half of my cards in clubs, only 3-card support, etc ) but I am loaded with controls. 4H would deny a diamond control so it should leave partner well placed.

[junyi_zhu]

Playing with a fairly unknown partner, you hold Qxx A 109xxx AKxx.

 

You open 1D and the bidding proceeds (opponents passing):

 

1D-1S

2S-4C

 

Do you agree with 2S?

 

Would you make a move with 4H or sign off in 4S?

2S is fine. I bid 4H now. 2C is rather bad, even worse than 1NT rebid in my opinion.

With 5-4-3-1 shape, and minimum, it's usually right to raise partner, because if you bid your 4 card side suit and raise your partner later, he may think you have a better hand. Also, 2S limits your strength and shape so it's the best choice.

[mikeh]

Agree with 2S. Would bid 4H.

Ah, the joy of youth: great expectations as yet unsullied by bitter reality.

 

A 3 card raise, a side suit utterly unsuited for slam ( poor partner thinks his AJx ♦ is a super holding after 4♥), and wasted ♣ values.

 

AJ9xx KJxx AJx x : just try staying out of slam now: of course, you might make it ;)

 

The only good news for me is that the splinter almost guarantees 5+ ♠, justifying my raise (with which I agree in principle: make it Qxx x A10xxx AKxx and I would bid 2♣, intending to upgrade for ♠ if given the opportunity)

 

As it is, a relieved 4♠. If he passes, we are high enough.

 

My rule (not really mine, but the one I like) is that voluntary cue bids below game show a non-minimum (or a very useful minimum) while cue-bids beyond game are mandatory. So if partner cues 5♣ (to show the void with interest in slam) I would have to cue bid 5♥ no matter what, but to cue bid over 4♣ I need a hand I like, rather than a hand I dislike.

[Guest Jlall]

Ah, the joy of youth: great expectations as yet unsullied by bitter reality.

The only reality on this hand was a 4S bid missing a slam.

[mikeh]

Since partner is currently boycotting the forum (but did suggest himself that I would post the hand here, sounds like a confused individual  ;) ) I will have to post his hand too:

 

AKxxxxx Qxx KQ x.

 

As you can see 6S is basically cold, but partner passed after I signed off in 4S. Partner didn't like either of my bids, I think I agree with him about 4S. My sign off came almost automatic (more than half of my cards in clubs, only 3-card support, etc ) but I am loaded with controls. 4H would deny a diamond control so it should leave partner well placed.

I already voted for 4♠ before reading your post. I stick with 4♠, even tho I can see that it did not work out (I can't change my vote without becoming a result merchant)

 

At the risk of being just that, is is possible that the 4♣ call was misguided? It looks 'obvious' and maybe I am doing too much rationalization of my bad result, without wanting to say that I was wr...wron.....(No, I just can't say it)

 

How about 3♦? Ostensibly a game try, it becomes a slam try should we bid again over a signoff. Now maybe opener is worth 3♥ because he doesn't think that the ♣ controls are wasted. Now responder can bid 4♣, revealing the ♣ control and slam interest (therefore confirming that 3♦ was a cue bid). Now opener is armed with the extra info (unavailable on the splinter auction) that partner has a ♦ control.

 

This is a subtle distinction, but one that I think is valid... whether it is sufficiently valid as to allow me to deflect some of the blame for ending up in 4♠ remains to be seen :)

 

This is in line with an earlier post in which some suggested that your first cue bid in a slam auction should be in a suit in which you hold values as well as a control.

[junyi_zhu]

Since partner is currently boycotting the forum (but did suggest himself that I would post the hand here, sounds like a confused individual  ;) ) I will have to post his hand too:

 

AKxxxxx Qxx KQ x.

 

As you can see 6S is basically cold, but partner passed after I signed off in 4S. Partner didn't like either of my bids, I think I agree with him about 4S. My sign off came almost automatic (more than half of my cards in clubs, only 3-card support, etc ) but I am loaded with controls. 4H would deny a diamond control so it should leave partner well placed.

I already voted for 4♠ before reading your post. I stick with 4♠, even tho I can see that it did not work out (I can't change my vote without becoming a result merchant)

 

At the risk of being just that, is is possible that the 4♣ call was misguided? It looks 'obvious' and maybe I am doing too much rationalization of my bad result, without wanting to say that I was wr...wron.....(No, I just can't say it)

 

How about 3♦? Ostensibly a game try, it becomes a slam try should we bid again over a signoff. Now maybe opener is worth 3♥ because he doesn't think that the ♣ controls are wasted. Now responder can bid 4♣, revealing the ♣ control and slam interest (therefore confirming that 3♦ was a cue bid). Now opener is armed with the extra info (unavailable on the splinter auction) that partner has a ♦ control.

 

This is a subtle distinction, but one that I think is valid... whether it is sufficiently valid as to allow me to deflect some of the blame for ending up in 4♠ remains to be seen :)

 

This is in line with an earlier post in which some suggested that your first cue bid in a slam auction should be in a suit in which you hold values as well as a control.

The point is that when partner make 4C as a splinter, he doesn't really care whether you hold 3 spades or 4 spades, and he must hold long spades in this case, so your points are all working points and there is just no reason to deny the slam try. 4S would be a very chicken bid. If partner holds weak spades, he can just do some checkback work at low level.

 

4C is like "partner, do you have wastage in C? if not, I'd like to bid the slam"

4S: "I don't have C wastage, but I still don't want to bid the slam"

 

Give me a break.

[mikeh]

4C is like "partner, do you have wastage in C? if not, I'd like to bid the slam"

4S: "I don't have C wastage, but I still don't want to bid the slam"

 

Give me a break.

To me a splinter is not a simple yes or no question. It is part of a dialogue, in which both partners are constantly valuing and revaluing their hands, as they exchange information.

 

I have no difficulty with the concept that, on this hand, my 4♠ call may not be the best... that 4♥ is perhaps a better call. But give me a break, and allow for the fact that, for many players, bridge is not a series of simplistic yes/no questions and answers.

 

4♣, to me, says: I have some slam interest (may be mild or very strong), and I have a ♣ stiff (may be void, if your style permits this, to be shown by a recue) and I invite you to cooperate if you like your hand in the context of the auction to date.

 

My answer to this question (which is a little more complex than your simplistic version) is 'not unless you have strong interest'. Your answer to a more simple question is 'yes, I want to bid slam'

 

You disagree. Fair enough, but give me a break from your 'give me a break'

[mike777]

Agree with 2S. Would bid 4H.

Ah, the joy of youth: great expectations as yet unsullied by bitter reality.

 

A 3 card raise, a side suit utterly unsuited for slam ( poor partner thinks his AJx ♦ is a super holding after 4♥), and wasted ♣ values.

 

AJ9xx KJxx AJx x : just try staying out of slam now: of course, you might make it ;)

 

The only good news for me is that the splinter almost guarantees 5+ ♠, justifying my raise (with which I agree in principle: make it Qxx x A10xxx AKxx and I would bid 2♣, intending to upgrade for ♠ if given the opportunity)

 

As it is, a relieved 4♠. If he passes, we are high enough.

 

My rule (not really mine, but the one I like) is that voluntary cue bids below game show a non-minimum (or a very useful minimum) while cue-bids beyond game are mandatory. So if partner cues 5♣ (to show the void with interest in slam) I would have to cue bid 5♥ no matter what, but to cue bid over 4♣ I need a hand I like, rather than a hand I dislike.

MikeH does all of us a kind service by posting a hand for partner.

 

Are we all splintering on this auction with a 6.5 loser hand and a potential 5-3 fit?

 

I know many forum posters dislike using LTC but if we assume opener is limited to 6-7 loser hand, many of us would not splinter. 24-6-6.5=11.5 at best.

 

FTL=13-4+2=11 tricks.

13=total tricks, minus 4=estimated 2 short suits, plus 2=estimated 25-27 whcp.

 

BTW with the MikeH hand, anyone for making a long suit game try in D or short suit game try in clubs rather than splintering to gather slam information?

[inquiry]

MikeH is right. I see why hannie's partner avoids the forum... hehehe, 4♣ splinter is somewhat misguided. Splinters need to be picture perfect bids, this is not a picture perfect hand. PArtners diamond "support" is strong (KQ tight), he has exceptionally long ♠, and a singleton. In fact, he can count on no ♠ losers, at most 1♦ loser, at most 1♥ loser. Here he can all but bid the slam the slam a number or ways after the brilliant (well routine) 2♠ raise.

 

Over 4♠, he can bid 5♠ (go to slam with hearts controled). Ok, that is a little pushy, Partner could be ♠Qxxx ♥Kx ♦AJxxx ♣Kx perhaps and you are off two aces, or the heart lead though his king if he has the ♣Ace. But a normal 3♦ bid (assuming it is forcing), or a 2NT bid (if it is forcing), to discover extras is called for her. If I were to lay blame, I would have to agree with the concept that a lot goes towards responder. It is not bridge where 4♣ demainds a reply cue-bid. This is more of a partnership information exchange here. My rebid with north is 2NT, looking for more information, and openers response showing maxium hand with three card support with a heart splinter will warm my partners heart....

 

My shot at this hand...

 

1D-1S-2S-2NT-3H-4NT-5S-6S-Pass, where

 

2NT = is an inquiry ( :-) )

3H = short suit, maximum hand, three card support

4NT = RKCB

5S = two aces plus the spade queen

6S

 

Sadly, hannie, who plays my system wasn't bidding this one with me.... Just oto show I am not making this up, the structure of 1-minor can be found on my blog....opening one of a minor. As usual, I got the 2NT thingee from Misho....

[Guest Jlall]

is possible that the 4♣ call was misguided? It looks 'obvious'

Usually when a bid looks obvious, that's because it is ;)

 

If I can't splinter with this hand I'm not sure what I can splinter with.

[han]

Since Free is allowed to ban certain conventions from his threads, perhaps I should be allowed to ban certain formulas from my judgement questions? If so, I'd like to start with LTC and whcp ;). Notice that Mikeh's example hand gives you play for a grand opposite as little as Kxxx AQx xx Axxx (you need spades to split 2-2).

 

btw, I enjoy the fact that Mikeh has given himself the task of defending my (our?) bid from the populistic result merchants. Saves me some work.

[han]

Ben, of course it is much easier to do well in slam bidding when you have detailed agreements available. Comparing it with a pick-up partnership is not quite fair. As much as I enjoy playing with you, it is very interesting to play with someone who has a very different bidding ideas, and I don't feel sad about missing this slam. (I know, you were kidding)

 

I certainly think that the splinter is (at least) reasonable.

[mike777]

Since Free is allowed to ban certain conventions from his threads, perhaps I should be allowed to ban certain formulas from my judgement questions? If so, I'd like to start with LTC and whcp :P. Notice that Mikeh's example hand gives you play for a grand opposite as little as Kxxx AQx xx Axxx (you need spades to split 2-2).

 

btw, I enjoy the fact that Mikeh has given himself the task of defending my (our?) bid from the populistic result merchants. Saves me some work.

Opener cannot have this hand they opened 1D so this would be a funny hand across from MikeH responder hand.:).

 

With actual responder hand LTC would rkc at a minimum and force to slam no matter what if they splinter and p signs off or whatever. 24-7-4.5=more than enough.

[inquiry]

is possible that the 4♣ call was misguided? It looks 'obvious'

Usually when a bid looks obvious, that's because it is :P

 

If I can't splinter with this hand I'm not sure what I can splinter with.

The reason why you might want to splinter with this hand is your partner, with a balanced yuck and wasted stuff in ♣ mgiht not cue-bid, as roughly half the people in this thread choose to do. Even those of us choosing 4♠ were aware of the danger if partner had a hand just neading to hear a ♥ cue-bid from us.

 

But this is only because this was a random partner. Because herein is the problem: What you need? A ♥ cue-bid, and the splinter might not get that even when it exist. 4♣ to me is we might have slam if among your 12 to 14/15 points you don't have much wastage in clubs. If all I need for slam is specific cue-bid from you then I can blackwood, I would NOT SPLINTER... A splinter eats us an entire level of bidding, and tell the wrong story. So I go slow, clearly making a slam try and clearly asking for cue-bidding. The meaning is clear, distinct. I have to use a gadget to investigate slam. (for me the nice 3♦ bid suggested by mikeh is not possible as I play that as non-forcing, but encouraging), so I use Fluffy's favorite bid... 2NT forcing.... But the premise is exactly the same as Mike's, I am going to construct an auction to force partner to show me if he has a ♥ control or not. Mike's natural auction serves exactly the same function.

 

Ben