Another mastermind?

[cherdano]

Since I am inviting people to beat me up, here is another chance:

Playing matchpoints in the club, you are playing against an unknown pair, but you guess they may be adv+ or so. (Edit: which makes it probably the only pair above intermediate in this field.)

Noone vulnerable, partner opens 1♠, and you hold ♠A98xx ♥JTx ♦QJ9xx. This would be strong enough for a 4♣ splinter (of course you may debate this, but let's assume partner wouldn't expect more), but I chose to bid 4♠ since the overtrick may well depend on the lead.

 

Sick? Mastermind? Reasonable?

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

Sick...system :D

 

4S is ok in the context of your system (you cannot splinter...) but I hate it.

[Walddk]

Since I am inviting people to beat me up, here is another chance:

Playing matchpoints in the club, you are playing against an unknown pair, but you guess they may be adv+ or so.

Noone vulnerable, partner opens 1♠, and you hold ♠A98xx ♥JTx ♦QJ9xx. This would be strong enough for a 4♣ splinter (of course you may debate this, but let's assume partner wouldn't expect more), but I chose to bid 4♠ since the overtrick may well depend on the lead.

 

Sick? Mastermind? Reasonable?

 

Arend

Sick. You could have a grand slam on. Partner wouldn't move with

 

Kxxxx

AKx

A

xxxx

 

Excellent chanes for a 13th trick in one of the red suits. Give him a small diamond instead of the ace, and you want to be in 6. He would not open then, you may argue. OK, give him ♠J too.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

Sick...system :D

 

4S is ok in the context of your system (you cannot splinter...) but I hate it.

I must have been unclear. I could have splintered, but I chose not to.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

Sick...system :D

 

4S is ok in the context of your system (you cannot splinter...) but I hate it.

I think you got this wrong, Justin. Arend could have splintered but decided against. So the system isn't sick, maybe 4♠ is.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

yep you're right Roland and Arend. In that case I'll vote for sick again. I read "partner would expect more" instead of wouldn't heh. Edited February 16, 2006 by Jlall

[Walddk]

As I see it, the problem with your 4♠ here and 4♥ in your previous thread is that you don't trust your partners to make intelligent decisions. In both instances you chose to decide what is right. That is definitely not good for partnership morale.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

On these hands, anything could be right. My own thinking is that this hand is wrong for a splinter: I really do not think that you should splinter on a void, and I also strongly believe that you should possess at least one side control.

 

Many players (at least in my part of the world) use 3N (or some use 4♣) as a hand that is 'too good to bid 4♠, not good enough to splinter', and I would use that gadget here: note that opposite the usual 4♠ signoff, we have not given anything away in terms of lead: if you use 4♣ in this method, the ♣ shortness is coincidental: how do we splinter, you ask? We use 3 of the other major as a splinter in an unspecified suit: opener can ask by bidding 3♠, if our suit is ♥ or 3N if our suit is ♠.

 

Absent the gadget, I would be torn between the pragmatic 4♠, risking missing a slam, or 2♦, which overstates the hcp but allows partner to give proper weight to a high ♦ card or 2N (Jacoby).

 

All three of these bids are mastermind bids, but when you hold a freak and have no conventional method, you are compelled to do something that will lead partner astray.

 

4♠ is the most unilateral and thus, imho, the least attractive: I would prefer 2♦, especially since my void is in ♣ rather than in ♥.

[Walddk]

On these hands, anything could be right. My own thinking is that this hand is wrong for a splinter: I really do not think that you should splinter on a void, and I also strongly believe that you should possess at least one side control.

 

Many players (at least in my part of the world) use 3N (or some use 4♣) as a hand that is 'too good to bid 4♠, not good enough to splinter', and I would use that gadget here: note that opposite the usual 4♠ signoff, we have not given anything away in terms of lead: if you use 4♣ in this method, the ♣ shortness is coincidental: how do we splinter, you ask? We use 3 of the other major as a splinter in an unspecified suit: opener can ask by bidding 3♠, if our suit is ♥ or 3N if our suit is ♠.

 

Absent the gadget, I would be torn between the pragmatic 4♠, risking missing a slam, or 2♦, which overstates the hcp but allows partner to give proper weight to a high ♦ card or 2N (Jacoby).

 

All three of these bids are mastermind bids, but when you hold a freak and have no conventional method, you are compelled to do something that will lead partner astray.

 

4♠ is the most unilateral and thus, imho, the least attractive: I would prefer 2♦, especially since my void is in ♣ rather than in ♥.

Finally a chance to disagree with Mike. I would never bid 2♦ with 5-card support for spades. I would splinter which would describe my hand perfectly in my methods:

 

4♣ = void, around 9-11 hcp.

 

3NT would be an unspecified singleton within the same range (4♣ asks). Partner is always interested in a void; he may not be interested in learning about a singleton (4♠ over 3NT). Then the opponents don't know where the singleton is either.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

As I see it, the problem with your 4♠ here and 4♥ in your previous thread is that you don't trust your partners to make intelligent decisions. In both instances you chose to decide what is right. That is definitely not good for partnership morale.

Now that is non-sense. I would be pretty sure to get to slam on this hand when it is right, since splinter followed by 4♠ pretty much shows the values of my hand, and I would always splinter at IMPs. (Btw, getting to grand would be a waste anyway in this field, as you could expect 80-100% for a small slam.)

 

In this case, I guessed that a loss of an overtrick is more likely than having slam on. I don't see what this has to do with partnership trust.

 

On vuegraph, I have often see successful players punt game/slam/whatever instead of consulting partner, when they probably judge an informative auction is too likely to help the lead and/or defense. However, I don't think it is easy to judge when it is right to do so, and that's why I am asking these kind of questions.

 

Arend

[mikeh]

On these hands, anything could be right. My own thinking is that this hand is wrong for a splinter: I really do not think that you should splinter on a void, and I also strongly believe that you should possess at least one side control.

 

Many players (at least in my part of the world) use 3N (or some use 4♣) as a hand that is 'too good to bid 4♠, not good enough to splinter', and I would use that gadget here: note that opposite the usual 4♠ signoff, we have not given anything away in terms of lead: if you use 4♣ in this method, the ♣ shortness is coincidental: how do we splinter, you ask? We use 3 of the other major as a splinter in an unspecified suit: opener can ask by bidding 3♠, if our suit is ♥ or 3N if our suit is ♠.

 

Absent the gadget, I would be torn between the pragmatic 4♠, risking missing a slam, or 2♦, which overstates the hcp but allows partner to give proper weight to a high ♦ card or 2N (Jacoby).

 

All three of these bids are mastermind bids, but when you hold a freak and have no conventional method, you are compelled to do something that will lead partner astray.

 

4♠ is the most unilateral and thus, imho, the least attractive: I would prefer 2♦, especially since my void is in ♣ rather than in ♥.

Finally a chance to disagree with Mike. I would never bid 2♦ with 5-card support for spades. I would splinter which would describe my hand perfectly in my methods:

 

4♣ = void, around 9-11 hcp.

 

3NT would be an unspecified singleton within the same range (4♣ asks). Partner is always interested in a void; he may not be interested in learning about a singleton (4♠ over 3NT). Then the opponents don't know where the singleton is either.

 

Roland

hehe: you're not really disagreeing, Roland: you are applying different specific methods: the question really is what do you bid if you do not have a specialized gadget (such as your 4♣ limited void response (no doubt far more frequent in Denmark than in Canada :P ). Do you prefer a 'standard' splinter, 4♠, Jacoby, 2♦ or?

[Blofeld]

At matchpoints and if the field is weak I think 4♠ is justified.

 

Wouldn't dream of it at IMPs.

[Walddk]

Finally a chance to disagree with Mike. I would never bid 2♦ with 5-card support for spades. I would splinter which would describe my hand perfectly in my methods:

 

4♣ = void, around 9-11 hcp.

 

3NT would be an unspecified singleton within the same range (4♣ asks). Partner is always interested in a void; he may not be interested in learning about a singleton (4♠ over 3NT). Then the opponents don't know where the singleton is either.

 

Roland

hehe: you're not really disagreeing, Roland: you are applying different specific methods: the question really is what do you bid if you do not have a specialized gadget (such as your 4♣ limited void response (no doubt far more frequent in Denmark than in Canada :P ). Do you prefer a 'standard' splinter, 4♠, Jacoby, 2♦ or?

Arend said that he could have splintered but did not. Consequently, I prefer 4♣ splinter. We do disagree, because 2♦ would never cross my mind.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think 4S is ok, but then I regular

miss slams...

 

Marlowe

[cherdano]

On these hands, anything could be right. My own thinking is that this hand is wrong for a splinter: I really do not think that you should splinter on a void, and I also strongly believe that you should possess at least one side control.

 

Many players (at least in my part of the world) use 3N (or some use 4♣) as a hand that is 'too good to bid 4♠, not good enough to splinter', and I would use that gadget here: note that opposite the usual 4♠ signoff, we have not given anything away in terms of lead: if you use 4♣ in this method, the ♣ shortness is coincidental: how do we splinter, you ask? We use 3 of the other major as a splinter in an unspecified suit: opener can ask by bidding 3♠, if our suit is ♥ or 3N if our suit is ♠.

 

Absent the gadget, I would be torn between the pragmatic 4♠, risking missing a slam, or 2♦, which overstates the hcp but allows partner to give proper weight to a high ♦ card or 2N (Jacoby).

Mike, I don't see how I can show this hand after 2NT -- this bid didn't occur to me. I think the normal bids (lacking special agreements) are 2♦ and 4♣, and I would usually choose the latter.

 

I also like 3N as mini-splinter, but don't play it in this partnership.

 

Arend

[luis]

I find a splinter with a void something terrible.

The 4♠ bid is at MPs in the posted conditions something reasonable this is why I think it is reasonable for the context:

Since the field is weak even if there is a slam I bet most of them will be in 4♠

Since this pair you are facing is the only good pair around if there is a good 5♣ save they will try to find it and the others probably won't bid at all

So you are in risk here of competition that the rest of the field may not face so blasting to 4♠ to simplify the situation is reasonable.

 

Luis

[pclayton]

If you want to bid 4♠ (instead of 4♣) to steer them off a heart lead, fine.

 

However, given this hand has 6 losers, I think a splinter is indicated. And I don't have a problem with the singleton (slash) void issue. I play void splinters, but am dropping them since they never come up.

 

The void can be discovered later on anyway; I might get to cue bid it or answer a voidwood response to RKC.

 

Arend, in a club game I'd feel more inclined to splinter, since getting to the cold slam is going to be worth a minimum of 80-85% of the MPs.

 

In a better field there's more rationale for the jump. You'll make it tougher for them to sac, and make it tougher to lead a heart when its right.

 

A direct jump to 4♠ is also more appealing playing limited openings.

[han]

When Rodwell decides not to explore slam because he thinks that the chances that an exploration gives away vital information to the defense are far larger then the chances that Meckwell will find a good slam, then we all say (correctly imo) that Rodwell must have been right (even when slam happened to be good).

 

Now we have a young bridge player who wants to improve and is thinking about these issues. The circumstances seem right to him (no good agreements for this hand, matchpoints, etc.) so he decides to try the same strategy. That seems a healthy attitude to me, but some of our starred posters say that this is "bad for his partnership morale" and that he is making "sick bids". How can you learn these things when you are not allowed to make mistakes? :P

[cherdano]

Well we have had discussions like this before. I will say again that I don't mind my bids being called sick etc., especially I was almost asking for it.

 

But if someone tells me I am doing this only because I don't trust partner, and will be destroying partnership morale, then I will ask him (in the appropriate level of politeness) to refrain from further replies. Especially since I wouldn't ask here if I had been sure these bids have been right.

 

Arend

[luis]

When Rodwell decides not to explore slam because he thinks that the chances that an exploration gives away vital information to the defense are far larger then the chances that Meckwell will find a good slam, then we all say (correctly imo) that Rodwell must have been right (even when slam happened to be good).

 

Now we have a young bridge player who wants to improve and is thinking about these issues. The circumstances seem right to him (no good agreements for this hand, matchpoints, etc.) so he decides to try the same strategy. That seems a healthy attitude to me, but some of our starred posters say that this is "bad for his partnership morale" and that he is making "sick bids". How can you learn these things when you are not allowed to make mistakes? :P

At Imps playing in a team match where all the players are experts I think 4♠ is wrong I wouldn't call it sick and I wouldn't say it goes against his pd, but I don't like it. I also don't like the splinter and will start with a forcing raise of spades using 2NT or 2♣ or whatever you use for a forcing game hand with 4+ spades.

 

As I said previously at the posted conditions the bid is very reasonable.

[Guest Jlall]

When Rodwell decides not to explore slam because he thinks that the chances that an exploration gives away vital information to the defense are far larger then the chances that Meckwell will find a good slam, then we all say (correctly imo) that Rodwell must have been right (even when slam happened to be good).

 

Now we have a young bridge player who wants to improve and is thinking about these issues. The circumstances seem right to him (no good agreements for this hand, matchpoints, etc.) so he decides to try the same strategy. That seems a healthy attitude to me, but some of our starred posters say that this is "bad for his partnership morale" and that he is making "sick bids". How can you learn these things when you are not allowed to make mistakes? :P

Are we not supposed to say it's sick if that is what he ASKS and that is what we think?

 

By the way, the 2 situations you describe (rodwell and arend) are not analagous. In this case partner has a very high upper limit and a very wide range. We are misdescribing (given that with the same shape and 0 HCP 99 % of people would bid 4S) our hand opposite that and making a unilateral decision. Making unilateral decisions is fine opposite a limited partner (and in the instance you cite, rodwell's partner was limited).

 

We really have no idea what partner has. Arend said that this hand is in range for his partnership's splinters and partner would NOT expect more. He would not expect side controls or more high card points. We have not denied a void. Most of the hands where slam is good include little wastage in clubs with partner (or just a huge hand).

 

I'm glad Arend is thinking about things such as getting favorable leads and shutting the opponents out. Indeed Rodwell does too. I think that Arend is doing his learning in a great way, making his bid then discussing it with many other people. He is asking for us to be honest about what we think of his bid, and taking no offense if we think it is a bad bid. Indeed, some very good players think its reasonable and think 4C is not a good bid. Arend can read all of this and form his own views on bridge and this hand, so I think that that is a great way to learn.

 

I don't think that because I said his bid was "sick" when he asked if it was sick that means he is not allowed to make mistakes. And just because I think it is sick does not make it so.

 

I will always be honest with someone about what I think of their bid if they ask. I think that is the point of the forums, and that is why it's such a great utility. It is insulting to that person if you lie to them and sugarcoat your reply when they specifically ask you if you think their bid is bad. I will never do that.

[luke warm]

i'd use the under j/s here, showing a 8/9-11 splinter (the void doesn't bother me much with this strength)... i play it as game forcing anyway, but it does carry danger that a good pair will come to the correct inferences re: lead etc, but that's when opener asks where the shortness is located

 

btw, i think arend asked for people to give their opinions as to whether his bid was sick, mastermind, reasonable... i personally think it was reasonable (even if it was theoretically wrong, it could be warranted for practical reasons, which he gave)...

[han]

I do think that is good that people give their honest opinions, and I didn't mean to complain about this. But in some of the responses I thought the tone went from "this bid is a bad bid" to "these bids show that your attitude towards the game is bad", which I really disagree with.

[Kalvan14]

The risk of opponents finding a defence in clubs is not my foremost fear, at equal vul. IMO, 5 trumps (with the ace) and another 5-card suit plus a void are enough to splinter (which would allow partner to better evaluate the potential of his hand).

 

Btw, the ambience looks favourable for taking every opportunity to bid your hand, rather than mastermind the final contract: weakish club field (so even a bad hand would not compromise your chance to win - and even if you do not win a club event, is your pride so hurt?), and no particular pressure (I might accept 4♠ under the hammer in a major event, or if you have an headache).

[joshs]

Well if you are trying to get a friendly lead, how about bidding 2H first?

 

Josh's Evil Twin