AKT8 - 2 - T97532 - KT, 1S - (P) - ?

[AlexOgan]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakt8h2dt97532ckt]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Partner deals and opens 1S in a strong club context (5+S, ~11-15HCP). RHO passes.

[hrothgar]

4♠ for me...

 

I don't think that its a particularly tough decision

[mr1303]

In a strong club context I bid 4S. This is the advantage of playing a strong club. Opponents won't know if I have a good hand or a bad hand, and the chances of a slam here are reduced if partner has a max of 15.

 

Otherwise I'd bid 3C

[mike777]

4H no problem yet. Splinter and limited.

 

At this vul the opp can figure out what hand I got for a direct 4s bid. Rather describe my hand to partner in case the bidding is not over.

[SoTired]

4S- not 4H splinter since opener is limited to 15 HCP.

[pbleighton]

At this vul the opp can figure out what hand I got for a direct 4s bid.

 

How?

 

Peter

[jdonn]

I like splinter, we need very very little for slam. Qxxxxx Axx x Axx? (and it doesn't even need the spade queen.) I think if you bid 4♠ and it goes 5♥ p p back to you, you are compelled to double having not the slightest clue what is right.

 

The reason I choose 4♥ is to show two important aspects of my hand (4 card support and singleton heart) which should help partner decide what to do if the next hand bids, as well as still maintaining a lot of preemption.

[rbforster]

I voted for 4♠, but didn't like my choices :P. I like splinters to be a little more constructive in terms of values, but as people have said the right opening hand can still make slam here. I prefer to combine the invitational and minimum 4 card raises into 3♦ to free up 3♥ to show this hand type - min GF values but based shortness and a good fit. Partner can then ask for shortness with 3♠ or just sign off in game most of the time.

[whereagles]

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

[Free]

4♠, next

[hatchett]

4♥, No reason why partner can't have a hand that makes slam a lay down despite his limited opening.

[AlexOgan]

I did a quick double dummy simulation. South gets any 11-15HCP, 5+ spades, spades >= hearts. West gets a hand that looks like a pass (this was quick and dirty -- I'm sure I'm accepting some hands West would actually bid and rejecting some where West would actually pass). Anyway, here's a table of the number of tricks available, double dummy, in spades, with South declaring:

 

(100 trials)

 

7 tricks: 1

8 tricks: 1

9 tricks: 11

10 tricks: 29

11 tricks: 39

12 tricks: 17

13 tricks: 2

 

So slam is certainly in the picture...

 

Alex

[ochinko]

Partner has 7 losers or less, I have only 6, we have a great trump fit, slam is definitely a possibility. If we play mini splinters - 3♥, else - 4♥.

[Apollo81]

I don't know how the auction will work after your 3♣, but it seems like 4♥ describes my "mild slam try" perfectly. If my hand was a trick better then I'd have to bid 3♣ I guess. 4♠ is not the right bid with significant extras beyond a min GF.

[pclayton]

A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short diamonds? We are looking at the ♠AK, so its hard to see how pard will cooperate with a slam try holding the right minimum: ♠QJxxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣Axx.

 

I'll start with 2N and see if that gets me anything useful.

 

I don't see any merits of 4♠. We have a 6 loser hand - can't pard also hold a 6 loser hand?

[jtfanclub]

So as raises, agreeing on spades, you have...

 

2♠

2NT

3♣

3♦

3♥

3♠

4♣

4♦

4♥

4♠

 

Did I miss any?

 

Using a much less fit-oriented Precision system, my choices would come down to:

1NT- forcing, asks for shape, intending to bid diamonds later as a GFTI.

2NT- Game forcing, asks for specific controls.

3♥- Minisplinter

 

Any of those should work fine. With 10 freakin' raises, surely one of them will tell me what I need to know without going to the 4 level. For example, 2NT or 3♣ ought to be asking for specific controls.

[mikeh]

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

 

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

 

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

 

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

[jdonn]

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

 

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

 

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

 

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

You don't even need the queens for slam to be good!

 

 

To Phil: how could partner not bid blackwood after a 4♥ splinter with your example!

[Gerben42]

4♥. We may have a slam, it may be their hand after all. If the auction went

 

1♠ p 4♠ 4N

p 5♣

 

do we know what to do? NO! So let's help partner out here...

[hrothgar]

A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short diamonds? We are looking at the ♠AK, so its hard to see how pard will cooperate with a slam try holding the right minimum: ♠QJxxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣Axx.

 

I'll start with 2N and see if that gets me anything useful.

 

I don't see any merits of 4♠. We have a 6 loser hand - can't pard also hold a 6 loser hand?

I see two big advantages to a direct 4♠ bid:

 

1. The more hand types that get forced into a direct 4♠ bid, the less well defined that bid becomes. While this means that we will (occasionally) miss some good slams or overbid slightly, it makes it much more difficult for the opponents to decide whether or not to sacrifice.

 

2. If we declare 4♠, I want the auction to be short an sweet. I don't want the opponents to have a clue whether this was bid to make or whether I am sacing over 4♥. I don't want them to know whether I am desperately trying to make the contact or whether we're fighting for overtricks. I don't want them to have an opportunity to sneak in a three level overcall or make any lead directing doubles.

[jdonn]

It seems to me like if you bid 4♠ it should only be on a hand that has a clue what to do when the opponents then come in on the 5 level.

[AlexOgan]

So as raises, agreeing on spades, you have...

 

2♠

2NT

3♣

3♦

3♥

3♠

4♣

4♦

4♥

4♠

 

Did I miss any?

 

Using a much less fit-oriented Precision system, my choices would come down to:

1NT- forcing, asks for shape, intending to bid diamonds later as a GFTI.

2NT- Game forcing, asks for specific controls.

3♥- Minisplinter

 

Any of those should work fine. With 10 freakin' raises, surely one of them will tell me what I need to know without going to the 4 level. For example, 2NT or 3♣ ought to be asking for specific controls.

2NT isn't a spade raise, even though several posters in this thread seem to have thought it was. It's natural/GF.

 

We started playing this way after reading Gitelman's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" article series. It looks to me like he still plays something like this with Moss (in response to 1S, all calls from 3C through 4S show some kind of spade raise -- although 4H might be natural).

[pclayton]

It seems to me like if you bid 4♠ it should only be on a hand that has a clue what to do when the opponents then come in on the 5 level.

Right.

 

So many Precision players are so enamored with their 'wide ranging' 4♠ call. The last time I made this call, I did it on a 7 loser 14 count. It was MPs, and the opps bid 5♦. I didn't have a clue what to do, not to mention that we weren't close to having a forcing pass available :blink:

[pclayton]

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

 

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

 

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

 

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

You don't even need the queens for slam to be good!

 

 

To Phil: how could partner not bid blackwood after a 4♥ splinter with your example!

Josh, I suppose it depends on the strength of your splinters. I usually don't make slam tries with perfecto minimums after a splinter. In this case, opener doesn;t have a clue what duplication exists across from his diamond shortage.

 

I realize the OP said that 4♥ was slammish, so this is OK.

[awm]

A lot of people seem to have strange ideas about what precision openers promise. I've seen a number of people claim that a precision opener "will not produce a game opposite a single raise with less than constructive values" but this is simply not true. In fact playing precision about 20% of opening 1M hands may be worth a game bid after 1M-2M (basically these are hands with 5 losers or less). This is obviously less than the about 40% of 1M openings after a fairly conservative standard opening bid that might be worth game, but it's still a fairly substantial percentage.

 

This thread is more about the same considerations in the slam zone. Opposite a nice control rich ten count with shape like the example hand, it is still quite possible to have slam opposite a precision opening bid.

 

The hands that do well by bidding 4♠ on a "good hand" are normally those with relatively flat shape and lots of kings/queens. With these types of hands, it's harder to produce a slam because there's no shortage in the short trump hand, and if the long trump hand has shortage it will often by opposite some wasted king or queen. Hands with shape and controls are better not to bid 4♠ directly, since they can produce slam opposite the right minimum and are also harder to figure out what to do with if opponents bid at the five-level.

 

Something like ♠Kxx ♥KQxx ♦KJxx ♣Qx is an ideal 1♠-4♠ hand. In order to make slam here you pretty much need partner to have three aces plus the trump queen, and even some hand like AQxxxx Axxx x Ax doesn't have great chances (okay reverse the minors and you need only hearts 3-2 and spades not 4-0, but even that is just about 50% and that's really close to a perfect max). Of course, 3NT may play better than 4♠ on this hand too, but at least by bidding 4♠ direct you make things hard on the opposition.