Too strong to splinter

[sceptic]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=shkqt972d974c9762&w=sajt654haj6dkq8ct&e=skq872h3dt63cakq5&s=s93h854daj52cj843]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     1♠    Pass

 2♣    Pass  3♣    Pass

 4NT   Pass  5♠    Pass

 6♠    Pass  Pass  Pass

 

[matmat]

toos trong to splinter, yet you choose a natural 2/1 call in clubs?

I see nothing wrong with a splinter, but if you don't want to do that, then a GF raise in spades, like jacoby 2NT, stands out.

[Cascade]

Jacoby 2NT I suppose.

 

1♠ 2NT

3♥* 4NT

5♠ 6♠

 

* shortage

 

Actually I am a fan of three-level splinters. After a splinter at the three-level there is plenty of room to show range (including invitational hands).

 

We would bid as follows:

 

1♠ 3♣*

 

3♥** ...

 

we can then continue as above or maybe have a round of cue-bidding.

 

* singleton invitational or better

 

** singleton heart

[whereagles]

I see nothing wrong with a splinter

Everything's wrong with a splinter. Splinters eat up so much space they need to have a max bound of, say, 14 hcp, so that the unlimited opener knows what to do. I would have bid 2NT, or 2♦ intending to follow-up with 4NT or 3♠.

 

Now, cascade's solution for splinters is something sensible because there's a whole extra level of bidding to sort out who's got extras. In fact, 3-level splinters can start out with as little as

 

Kxxx

Kxxx

x

xxxx

[sceptic]

toos trong to splinter, yet you choose a natural 2/1 call in clubs?

 

 

I never bid jacoby 2NT with a singleton (something I may have to review after this effort)

[babalu1997]

did they change the jacoby 2nt convention? i always thought that jacoby 2nt denies splinters in responder's handsm and is actually a cheap way for opener to show his splinters (at 3 level) facilitating the bidding of slam with the aid of distributional points.

[whereagles]

Well.. I think it's clear the standard raise scheme, with bergen, jacoby and splinters is pretty much a complete screw-up. Better methods are needed.

[zasanya]

Well.. I think it's clear the standard raise scheme, with bergen, jacoby and splinters is pretty much a complete screw-up. Better methods are needed.

Why beat round the bush?Whats wrong with RKCB? but then I am old fashioned. If P comes up with 0 kc AND if ♠K is dbltn I can always apologize.

[ArtK78]

Very simple problem. If you are the one who can determine where the contract should be by asking questions (you have the stronger hand) use Jacoby 2NT. If partner is the one who should be asking the questions (if there is a slam, partner must have a stronger hand) then give partner the information he needs by splintering.

 

With this hand, you need the information, not partner. Take control of the bidding by bidding 2NT. When partner shows you a singleton heart, you will be able to RKCB and bid 6 or 7 as appropriate.

[jillybean]

What is the rationale behind 'no J2nt with a stiff' ?

[whereagles]

What is the rationale behind 'no J2nt with a stiff' ?

None, really. Standard raises are not well thought-out at all, which is why sometimes you don't know what to do with a given hand.

[whereagles]

Why beat round the bush? Whats wrong with RKCB?

Nothing. Just that you'll have no clue whether to bid 6 or 7 if you got all the keys.

[awm]

What is the rationale behind 'no J2nt with a stiff' ?

There are a lot of hands where someone has a singleton and slam prospects revolve around having the "right" holding opposite the singleton. Typically these are slams bid on relatively light values, with the idea being that a lot of the high cards in the singleton suit "don't really count" since you will just ruff them away. Generally you can make slam on about 27 hcp if you have a nine-card (or more) suit fit and a singleton in one hand with xxx or Axx opposite.

 

With this in mind, it often makes sense for the person with the singleton to say "hey here is my singleton" and let partner look at his hand and make a slam move with xxx/Axx opposite or sign off with something like Kxx or QJx (unless holding a lot of extras of course).

 

So if you have a fairly minimum game force, it makes sense to splinter if you have a splinter (let partner decide if there might be a 27 hcp slam based on a "perfect" holding opposite) or to bid jacoby if you don't have a splinter (let partner show the singleton if any, so you can decide if there are prospects for a light slam).

 

But I think Jacoby is fine if you have extras. This type of hand, you could easily make a slam opposite a fairly minimum partner with the "wrong" holding opposite the singleton, so partner is not really making the right decision when you splinter. For example, on the hand given here, give opener:

 

♠Kxxxx

♥Kxx

♦Ax

♣Kxx

 

♠Kxxxx

♥xx

♦AJxx

♣Kx

 

♠KQxxx

♥xx

♦Ax

♣Kxxx

 

These are balanced hands, pretty minimum, lousy club holding opposite the singleton. Yet slam is essentially cold. Obviously these have fairly good controls despite having no shortage and a poor club holding. So you rather want to start a cuebidding auction or even just bid keycard, and bidding jacoby makes sense.

 

If I was going to make up a non-existent suit for a 2/1 bid, I would try 2♦. At least you have three cards there, and if partner downgrades for a stiff diamond or upgrades for a diamond honor it might be a good evaluation.

[neilkaz]

Very simple problem. If you are the one who can determine where the contract should be by asking questions (you have the stronger hand) use Jacoby 2NT. If partner is the one who should be asking the questions (if there is a slam, partner must have a stronger hand) then give partner the information he needs by splintering.

 

With this hand, you need the information, not partner. Take control of the bidding by bidding 2NT. When partner shows you a singleton heart, you will be able to RKCB and bid 6 or 7 as appropriate.

Nice analysis and clear to me as well.

[kenrexford]

Jacoby 2NT might work.

 

For me, I'm not sure if I like my start, but I'd sort of be forced to respond 2♦. I'd hope for a 2♥ rebid, a call that would be tremendous.

 

In practice, I'd likely hear a 2♠ response with some partners, or 3♣ with others.

 

Either way, my next call would be 3♠, setting trumps. Partner wilol likely bid 4♣ as a cue no matter what his start, and I can then bid 4♦ if I so desire, showing two top diamonds, a decision that may be better than 4NT myself. I would be prepared to bid 4NT, but I might start with 4♦.

 

Opener would now bid 4♥. This is not LTTC, as I play, because only the serious partner can use LTTC. Partner's 4♣ denied serious. So, 4♥ would simply be a cue.

 

This avenue would allow me to bid 4NT, 5♣ (RKCB, but show the club King/Queen instead of the spade KQ), or 5♥ (same RKCB but). I might opt that approach, except that I'm not comfortable with a grand slam decision without checking on spades, even if stiff K and Queen might be present.

 

After 4NT yields what it yields, I sign off.

 

Had partner held the diamond Ace, he would presumably be serious. Even if passive here, I can still assess what to do well.

 

One key on this hand was the heart cue. That helps if partner has a minimal Kxxxx-x-Axx-A(Q/x)xx or so . This does not help if partner has Kxxxx-xx-Ax-A(Q/x)xx or so and rebid 2♠. In that event, partner will bid 4♠ after 4♦. In that event, I know that partner cannot have the heart King. I might want to ask about the clubs (5♣), in case partner has Kxxxx-xx(x)-Ax(x)-AKQ(x), but that's too much. My concern, after 2♠, would be the scenario of only four (or fewer) red cards. [Damn that we are not using Roman 2♠ openings!]

 

In that event, I would have to bid 4NT. If I hear that partner has three keys, I have to rely on a little bit of logic. Partner cannot have 3-2 in the reds with the club A-K, as that gives him 14 prime, a five-card major, and hence a 1NT opening (as I play), even with no Jacks. So, if I make grand slam noise, he cannot move unless he has something else. Well, he has a brain. If I have shown KQ in diamonds (4♦) and have inferred the heart Ace (I'm making a grand move), and if partner has only four red cards with the diamond Ace, he knows that we can cover all of the red cards. So, after something like 5NT from me, he should assess to blast 7♠ with that holding. If he has nothing in clubs, like Axxx, he might temporize by showing the impossible diamond King, as a LTTC bid, which I will accept. If he bids 6♣ with AQxx (another impossible King, because he did not open 1NT and was not serious), I'll go also.

 

One additional inference -- even if partner could open 1NT with a primed 14, I am OK. After 3♠, partner would have bid 3NT. Why? I play that a 3NT call by Opener, in this situation, is either "truly" serious (will go on) or shows a perfect minimum. Thus, he knows that I cannot play him for AK-A outside and K inside for the 4♣ call.

 

Difficult hand, though. There are a number of other auctions possible after a 2♦ start that would be equally complicated and situation-specific as to "what next?" I do not like bidding diamonds as a manufactured bid, but I will do it. This hand seems to call for it, but only because this action is systemically allowed and because the systemic allowance has covers built into the resulting sequences.

[fromageGB]

I do not like bidding diamonds as a manufactured bid, but I will do it. This hand seems to call for it

I can't for the life of me see why you would want a manufactured bid if you are playing any sensible 2NT inquiry that can define a singleton heart in reply. Then ace ask, and with one missing just go for 6. I can't see the problem.

[matmat]

I see nothing wrong with a splinter

Everything's wrong with a splinter. Splinters eat up so much space they need to have a max bound of, say, 14 hcp, so that the unlimited opener knows what to do. I would have bid 2NT, or 2♦ intending to follow-up with 4NT or 3♠.

i'd argue that a splinter is more descriptive of this hand than a 2♣ call. Also, noone is telling you to stop bidding after p signs off in 4♠. I am not saying i would choose a splinter, but for those that insist on a 2/1 showing a 4+ card suit, jacoby 2nt being balanced, splinter seems like a "normal" choice.

[skjaeran]

This is an obvious Jacoby 2NT to me. I can't have a void when doing that, but a singleton is pretty common. Btw, a splinter in my methods show a void and a limited hand. I don't use the commone (in ACBL at least) responce structure to Jacoby - I'm used to a couple of other schemes.

[kenrexford]

I do not like bidding diamonds as a manufactured bid, but I will do it.  This hand seems to call for it

I can't for the life of me see why you would want a manufactured bid if you are playing any sensible 2NT inquiry that can define a singleton heart in reply. Then ace ask, and with one missing just go for 6. I can't see the problem.

The reason for "manufacturing" a 2♦ bid is tactical.

 

First, note that a bid is not truly "manufactured" but rather systemic if it shows either diamonds OR a three-card diamond fragment, an inability to show a club fragment for some reason, and support, and you have the later option. It is a treatment.

 

That said, the reason why I would bid 2♦ is that I want to focus the auction in the best way that I can. After 2NT the way I play it, I will on this hand find out that partner has a minimum with a stiff heart. (1♠-2NT-3♣-3♦-3NT) Bidding 2♦ will yield the same answer, but I will be able to show the K-Q of diamonds on route and will allow partner to define more about his hand on route. When I predict likely auctions following 2♦ and likely auctions following 2NT, the 2♦ start works better in the end position.

 

A simpler explanation is possible, however. I hate Jacoby 2NT sequences with difficult hands like this, as a general rule. Accordingly, the parameters for a Jacoby 2NT bid are set out by predispositions and predicted auction expectations such that Aces-and-Spaces are more likely than slow clumped values (KQx) and shortness values (club stiff). The possession of two of these factors suggests a default to cuebid rather than to bid 2NT. The fruits, not always predicted, include the ability to show that KQx in diamonds.

 

Had my diamonds been Kxx, I'd probably default 2NT, despite my personal distastes for that route. The benefit of showing two diamond cards early on would not be present.

[whereagles]

1. i'd argue that a splinter is more descriptive of this hand than a 2♣ call.

 

2. Also, noone is telling you to stop bidding after p signs off in 4♠.

1. That is very, very true B) But this hand doesn't need to descibe itself. It only needs to know whether pard is min or max. Splinter would work if you define it as "asking" rather than descibing, i.e. 4x = "pard, how many hcps outside clubs?", instead of 4x = "pard, I got supp and 11-14 hcps outside suit x, which is a sing/void". However, an asking splinter isn't mainstream.

 

2. Right. But the problem is you don't know whether pard signed off because of club wastage or because he's min or med with club wastage. Sure, you can go on if you got a slam force in your hands, but you'll probably never be able to bid a grand confidently.

 

Finally, I'm ok with Jacoby 2NT. Just wanted to point out that the whole standard support scheme DOES NOT WORK WELL.

[hotShot]

What is the rationale behind 'no J2nt with a stiff' ?

It was that you can spliner with a stiff.

 

A bid was needed that allowed a very strong raise (at least slam interest) when you can't splinter. So Jacoby 2NT was used for that.

[zasanya]

What is the rationale behind 'no J2nt with a stiff' ?

None, really. Standard raises are not well thought-out at all, which is why sometimes you don't know what to do with a given hand.

Okay here is a better method.

System Viking Precision Club

1♠=11-15 5card♠--1NT GF relay

2♣=13-15--2♦ relay

3♣=5♠+4♣--3♦ relay

3♠=singleton ♥-4♣asking aces

4♥=1Ace—4NT= asking kings

5♥=2 Kings of same color—6♠=final contract

I think contract can be claimed before the dummy goes down with the proviso RHO doesn’t ruff something. :unsure:

[ArtK78]

Those who are stating that SAYC or 2/1 is a poor system because of a hand like this are just victims of muddled thinking.

 

Rather than advocating your own favorite systems (such as the preceding post) perhaps you just have to learn how to deal with how to evaluate and describe your hands better.

 

As I stated previously, a good general principal is that the stronger hand asks for information and the weaker hand provides information. So, good judgment would dictate that the hand presented in this thread should use Jacoby 2NT, a standard bidding tool in both SAYC and 2/1, to get information from partner, rather than provide information to partner by using a splinter bid (another standard bidding tool in SAYC and 2/1). This solves the problem on this hand easily, as it would in most similar hands.

 

As with most problems, it is more a matter of how you use your bidding tools than what bidding tools you have.