Echognome Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Give what you think are the minimum and maximum hands for these two sequences: 1♣ - 1♥; 3♦ 1♣ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠*; 4♦** *Asking bid (some may use 2NT)**4♥, max for 2♥, ♦ shortness Contrast this with your min/max when the mini is not available, such as: 1♦ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠*; 4♣** *, ** As above except ♣ shortness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 A minimum mini splinter would be something like Axx KJxx x AQ10xx. My mini splinters don't have an upper limit, because I may have a game force and be planning to bid again. 2♥ then 4♦: from Axx KJxx x KJ10xx to Axx KJxx x AJ10xx. The availability of a mini splinter has no effect on the range of the 2♥ raise. A hand which was worth the three level is still worth the three level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The minimum for a mini-splinter is about a good 6 loser hand. It's a hand good enough for a 3♥ call. A typical minimum looks like: ♠Axx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣AJxxx. If you want to ratchet this back to 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 2N - 4♦, I would subtract the ♥Q (or maybe substitute the ♥J for the Q). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The jump to 4♦ doesn't promise any extras, it will be used whenever you have 4 trumps and shortness (unless maybe when you have a control-poor minimum). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The jump to 4♦ doesn't promise any extras, it will be used whenever you have 4 trumps and shortness (unless maybe when you have a control-poor minimum). This isn't the way I was taught. 3♥ shows 4 trump, a minimum and might have a stiff. I'm not saying its a bad idea, although I don't know which method is more prevalent. Playing my method I wouldn't 4♦ on a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AJxx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Playing my method I wouldn't 4♦ on a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AJxx. Would you actually have opened this hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The jump to 4♦ doesn't promise any extras, it will be used whenever you have 4 trumps and shortness (unless maybe when you have a control-poor minimum). This isn't the way I was taught. 3♥ shows 4 trump, a minimum and might have a stiff. I'm not saying its a bad idea, although I don't know which method is more prevalent. Playing my method I wouldn't 4♦ on a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AJxx. What about T852 AK65 --- KJT87? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Playing my method I wouldn't 4♦ on a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AJxx. Would you actually have opened this hand? ?? I hope you are joking Andy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Playing my method I wouldn't 4♦ on a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AJxx. Would you actually have opened this hand? ?? I hope you are joking Andy. No, I was serious. 4441s are usually horrid, and this one is no exception. It has no spots, an excess of jacks, and only 11 points to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.