A local bidding problem

[luis]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sjtxxhkqxdcaktxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You open 1♣ and pd bids 1♠, you bid 2♠. Over 2♠ pd jumps to 4♥,what now?

 

Question 1: Do you agree with 2♠ yes / somehow /no ? What would you have bid instead (2/1 not strange gadgets)

Question 2: Assuming you bid 2♠ or somebody did for you, what now?

 

Luis

[awm]

I don't like 2♠ with this hand; game should have play opposite most hands with five spades and some hands with four spades. I prefer 3♦ if this will be understood as an invitational or better splinter (fairly standard among 2/1 players I believe). Otherwise I will try 3♠.

 

After 2♠ and partner's 4♥ bid, I feel somewhat stuck. Slam could be on opposite a hand like AKxxxx x xxx Qxx (pretty minimum) so I owe partner a try, but at the same time the heart wastage is ugly. I'd bid 5♣ (cuebid) and see where things head from there.

[luis]

I don't like 2♠ with this hand; game should have play opposite most hands with five spades and some hands with four spades. I prefer 3♦ if this will be understood as an invitational or better splinter (fairly standard among 2/1 players I believe). Otherwise I will try 3♠.

 

After 2♠ and partner's 4♥ bid, I feel somewhat stuck. Slam could be on opposite a hand like AKxxxx x xxx Qxx (pretty minimum) so I owe partner a try, but at the same time the heart wastage is ugly. I'd bid 5♣ (cuebid) and see where things head from there.

Don't you think a 3♠ raise should always be balanced? That's another discussion that emerged after this hand. What do you think?

 

The problem of 3♦ is that it is usually a singleton and not a void. Some players don't care about that and others do, I wonder what is the better approach... mmmmm

[cherdano]

Dear Sir,

 

you are asking me about my opinion about the 2♠ bid. You may be familiar with point count. A 2♠ bid in this situation shows about 13-16 such points. The hand you have written me about has 13 hcp, 2 length points, and additionally 3 dummy points for the ♦ void. Voids give you additional tricks when you have found a trump fit, that is why we add dummy points when we are raising partner. Hence this hand has 18 points, and is too strong for a 2♠ rebid. Instead, a 3♠ rebid shows 16-18 dummy points, and that is what you should bid with this hand.

 

(In fact, some advanced players would bid 3♦ with this hand. "Why 3♦?", you may ask. Well, 2♦ is showing a good hand with diamonds, and is forcing. Hence, we don't need 3♦ to do the same! Hence, these advanced players have agreed with their partners that 3♦ shows 4 spades, 0 or 1 diamonds, and about 16-18 dummy points. This is a great bid, if you have that agreement with your partners! (Some even more advanced players might in fact tell you that they want to force to game with this hand, telling you something about 5 losers and a lot of controls. I won't criticize their choice, but I recommend you to stick to points, there are very reliable once you figure out how to use shortness points to calculate your dummy points.))

 

Sincerely,

Arend

[jdonn]

I don't like 2♠ with this hand; game should have play opposite most hands with five spades and some hands with four spades. I prefer 3♦ if this will be understood as an invitational or better splinter (fairly standard among 2/1 players I believe). Otherwise I will try 3♠.

Its VERY dangerous to assume any meaning for 3♦ is standard among 2/1 players. You think so because you live in SoCal and it seems to be standard here, but I think you would be surprised to see how much it varies in other areas. I have come across many meanings for that bid

 

- Nonforcing 5-6

- Splinter, always game invite

- Splinter, either game invite or "better than" game force

- Splinter, game force with singleton (4♦ would be a void)

- 2.5 spade bid

- Game forcing single suited club hand

 

I'm sure there are others too. That is one of those bids you just shouldn't make at all with an unfamiliar partner.

[mike777]

prefer 3D

 

Game before slam. I do not like JTxx of spades so lets slow things down a bit and let p think I may have a stiff D.

 

Do most top players really play splinters on this auction as invite+ and not game force?

[1eyedjack]

The problem of 3♦ is that it is usually a singleton and not a void. Some players don't care about that and others do, I wonder what is the better approach... mmmmm

If the choice is between concealing the distinction between a singleton and void on the one hand or concealing the presence of a shortage altogether on the other, I would rather show the shortage and leave its extent in doubt.

 

Personally I go with the 3D splinter but with reservations. Don't like it, but the alternatives just seem worse.

 

[Edit - final para deleted - my bad - got the auction wrong]

[awm]

Well there needs to be some bid that you make when you have a good distributional hand with a fit for partner's major. If you bid 2♠ on both:

 

JTxx

KQx

-

AKxxxx

 

JTxx

KQx

xxx

AKx

 

I suspect you will either miss a lot of games, or go down a lot at the three-level. The playing strength of those two hands for a spade contract is radically different.

 

Playing jump-reverse as a splinter, it makes sense that in this particular auction 3♠ would deny shortness (else 3♦ or 3♥). However, in other similar auctions (say switch the diamonds and clubs and 1♦-1♠-3♠) I don't think three spades can deny shortage since you have to bid something with short clubs.

 

I wouldn't spring the 3♦ bid on anyone undiscussed either -- in a pickup partnership I would bid 3♠. When the original post said "no strange gadgets" I wasn't sure whether to include this mini-splinter as a strange gadget or not (it's a gadget for sure, but a common one).

[pclayton]

I don't care for 2♠, and frankly I don't think there is another reasonable use for 3♦ for anything other than a mini-splinter. I don't care what the treatment is in Dubuque, or Topeka, or Billings for that matter.

 

Sure, 3♠ is balanced or semi-balanced since both red mini-splinters are available. 1x-1♥-3♥ doesn't have to be.

 

If I start with 2♠ then I will meekly sign off with my weak trump and wasted heart honors. 4♥ should be an autosplinter, but I think there are others that would take it as a 5-5 slam invite. If its a real suit, I love my hand and would make some loud noises.

 

And I'm not talking about burping or snorting. :P

[han]

I like Arend's lesson, but this hand should really be placed in the B/I forum.

[luis]

To spice the discussion

 

Two bermuda bowl champions agreed with 2♠ disregarding the 3♦ splinter

some reasons where:

 

"Splinters should show a very limited and clear picture of opener and the hand doesn't fit"

"Never splinter without an honor in the trump suit"

 

What do you think now?

 

Luis

[awm]

I guess those Bermuda Bowl champions know to make game tries after 1♣-1♠-2♠ holding hands like:

 

AKxx

xx

xxx

xxxx

 

AQxxx

xx

xxx

xxx

 

opposite JTxx KQx - AKxxxx

 

But to pass 2♠ when they hold either of the above opposite JTxx KQx xxx AKx.

 

Until I reach this level of judgement, I think I'll stick to making different bids with hands that are worth around 18 support points and hands that are worth 13.

[Kalvan14]

The first comment is correct, but I fail to see why it would be applicable here.

The second one is a first-in-life.

 

I don't like 2♠; 3♦ would be fine, if pre-agreed. Without the agreement, 3♠

[whereagles]

I would have bid 3♠ 1st round, though 2♠ would come to mind if pard is either an outrageous overbidder or can't play cards (many of those out there.. lol) :lol: Having bid 3♠, I could now be in peace with my soul after 4♥ and bid 4♠.

 

Now I'd have to try for something. Maybe 5♦, showing the void (hopefully pard will understand this because he probably has the ace).

[cherdano]

To spice the discussion

 

Two bermuda bowl champions agreed with 2♠ disregarding the 3♦ splinter

some reasons where:

 

"Splinters should show a very limited and clear picture of opener and the hand doesn't fit"

"Never splinter without an honor in the trump suit"

 

What do you think now?

 

Luis

Are you sure there was no misunderstanding? Maybe they thought they were agreeing with 3♠?

 

Arend

[hatchett]

I would bid 3♦ not perfect,but I think 2♠ is just two much of an underbid and 3♠ for me would be balanced

[Free]

2♠ is one of the worst bids I've ever seen. You can count HCP all you want, but this hand is worth much more than just a simple raise. I'd like to be in 4♠ opposite almost every hand partner has (except when he has lots of ♦ values)! Minisplinter seems good enough.

 

Now partner splinters in ♥, which means he should have some ♣ support, and 6♠ might actually make. I'll try 5♠ asking partner for trump quality.

[cherdano]

To spice the discussion

 

Two bermuda bowl champions agreed with 2♠ disregarding the 3♦ splinter

some reasons where:

 

"Splinters should show a very limited and clear picture of opener and the hand doesn't fit"

"Never splinter without an honor in the trump suit"

 

What do you think now?

 

Luis

Are you sure there was no misunderstanding? Maybe they thought they were agreeing with 3♠?

 

Arend

To add a more serious answer, if they would truly bid 2♠, they must have a very different bidding style than everyone which I have learned from so far, that it is probably most productive if I ignore their opinion. (Which is no contradiction to their style possibly working well for them.)

 

Arend

[1eyedjack]

Leaving aside for the moment the relative merits of opener's various 1st rebids, the followup auction following choice of 2S raise merits some thought. I tend to play a combination of long and short suit trial bids below 3S, which may be based on a game try or a slam try. With either hand type I am interested to know how well partner is encouraged or discouraged by my choice of trial bid. I am undecided what a slam try between 3S and 4S should show. It would have to be something pretty specific, but my continuation over 4H would depend on whatever that agreement was.

 

As to the type of hand shown by a splinter, I wonder whether how narrowly defined a splinter can be should depend on how much space is consumed in showing the splinter. In this example there are only two potential splinter suits and they are adjacent, so there is not much justification to vary the limits. More generally, however, say after a 1H opener there is a wealth of difference in the space consumed by a 3S response contrasted with (say) a 4D response, so perhaps a 4D response should be more narrowly defined. All adds strain to the memory, of course.

 

Quite a while ago I used to play

1H-3S = denies a minor suit shortage (then 3N asks for extent of S shortage if any, with distinction between no short, singleton S, and void S)

1H-3N = Diamond shortage (4C asks for extent of D shortage)

1H-4C = Club singleton

1H-4D = Club void

 

Trouble is, I don't see how you could have a general rule to determine the restrictions on a splinter based on space consumed, given the wealth of situations that might precede a splinter.