I love splinters

[jillybean]

4441

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saqxxhkqxxdaxxxcj]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♥

?[/hv]

 

good enough for 4♣?

[Walddk]

Not quite good enough for me. Add ♦K for example and I would splinter. I don't think the actual hand justifies a bid that forces the partnership to game. 3♥ seems right. Often 4441 hands don't play particularly well.

 

Roland

[BillHiggin]

Would be plenty good enough for me.

[dicklont]

I would splinter this every day.

[han]

Not good enough for me. Close but no doubt in my mind about this.

[Fluffy]

noteven close, 4441 sucks, 14 HCP is far from enough. you hsould normally need 18 HCP when 4441, a bit less with 5431 (Depending on the quality of diamonds)

[fred]

I agree with Roland - not good enough to splinter.

 

The problem with splintering is not so much fear of going down in game if you do, but that you could have a much stronger hand still bid the same way. You are either forcing yourself to (not rarely) take a minus at the 5 or 6 level or forcing yourself to (not rarely) miss some laydown slams if you splinter with this.

 

For example, give yourself (say) both the Ace of hearts and the Queen of diamonds in addition to what you have now. You would still open 1D and you would still want to splinter right? OK maybe you would open 2NT with such a hand, but get rid of the Jack of clubs (a likely useless card for hearts) and 2NT becomes much less attractive. But even if you would still open 2NT, it is hard to be too critical of opening 1D.

 

If you are going to splinter with the hand in question as well as this (considerably stronger) hypothetical hand, I submit that when you do splinter your partner will often not be in a position to know what to do (because the range of your splinter is too wide and there is not enough space available to work things out).

 

To summarize: splinters should be narrow-range bids and, if this hand is a splinter, you won't have any way to bid considerably stronger hands with similar distribution.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pclayton]

This is an example of a hand I would mini-splinter, but I wouldn't splinter. Its just not quite good enough.

 

4441's are a little overrated anyway.

[Walddk]

To illustrate fred's point regarding the risk of getting too high if you splinter with that hand, let me give responder these cards:

 

♠ Kx

♥ AJxxx

♦ Qxx

♣ xxx

 

If my partner splintered 4♣ over 1♥, I would think I have a very suitable hand for slam. We are only off one keycard, we have ♥Q and yet 6♥ has (virtually) no play. However, if he has full value for his splinter, say ...

 

♠ AQxx

♥ KQxx

♦ AKxx

♣ J

 

slam is almost cold. So my conclusion is that you are at least ♦K short of a splinter.

 

Roland

[han]

I almost agree with Roland. I think you are a diamond queen short, I would probably splinter with AQxx KQxx AQxx x as a minimum.

[jillybean]

..think

[kenrexford]

3♥ for me.

 

This, BTW, is a reason for using an unbalanced diamond approach.

 

You could, for instance, simply raise to 2♥ if 1♦ promised 11+ and shortness somewhere. Now, your 11-15 plus a stiff and a fit becomes 13-17 when you can raise. This is a maximum for that, but within the range.

 

Alternatively, even if you do upgrade to a 3♥ call, partner knows that you have a stiff and, if interested, can ask. Usually the relay asks.

 

Just an aside...

[Guest Jlall]

This is the most common overbid in bridge (I know, I've said this a lot). These hands are really "down the middle" 3H bids, they are not even extra values. 3H shows a good hand, don't worry!

 

edit: I just remembered a hand that had 15 HCP and a stiff honor in the trials 4441 where a few people just raised to 2 (which was the winning bid).

[kenrexford]

This is the most common overbid in bridge (I know, I've said this a lot). These hands are really "down the middle" 3H bids, they are not even extra values. 3H shows a good hand, don't worry!

 

edit: I just remembered a hand that had 15 HCP and a stiff honor in the trials 4441 where a few people just raised to 2 (which was the winning bid).

See, that's another why I like unbalanced diamond openings. I get to impress Justin by simply bidding 2♥! :P

[dicklont]

Thanks guys, i'll raise my requirements for this splinter.

[Finch]

This is the most common overbid in bridge (I know, I've said this a lot). These hands are really "down the middle" 3H bids, they are not even extra values. 3H shows a good hand, don't worry!

 

edit: I just remembered a hand that had 15 HCP and a stiff honor in the trials 4441 where a few people just raised to 2 (which was the winning bid).

Yeah, I feel like I keep saying the same thing:

 

3H here shows a GOOD HAND.

 

You don't have to raise to game just because you have a non-minimum opener.

[ochinko]

When there is a 4:4 fit LTC tends to be very precise.

 

I play simple bridge, so my rebid shows:

 

2♥ - 7-8 losers

3♥ - 6

4♥ - 5

 

So I bid 4♥ with this hand, and splinter with

 

AQxx

KQxx

AQxx

x

 

which is only a point stronger, but actually one trick better.

 

I believe this style allows partner to easily assess our slam potential.

 

 

Edit: For sake of completeness, I'd bid 3♥ with

 

AQxx

KJxx

QJxx

K

[the hog]

If you have a mini splinter available, this is fine. This is not good enough for a full blown splinter. - cf posts above.

[1eyedjack]

It would be nice for responder to be able to ask for the shortage after 1D-1H-3H. Most of the time you are going to have one.

 

Actually I don't think that the risk of going down at the 5 level is quite as high as others have said. Going down in 4, maybe. But after 4C, responder can show suitability with a 4D cue bid (or last train), and then you can show a minimum splinter with 4H.

 

Sometimes I stretch my values a bit to show important features that might otherwise go wanting, but on this occasion I think that the solution should be to show the shortage somehow after the 3H raise, trusting partner to ask or give you the space to do so should it be relevant.

[Winstonm]

In the older days of bridge the bids which consumed a lot of bidding spade were apty called "picture bids", in that they narrowly defined the hand held, i.e., drew a picture for partner.

 

The same holds for the room-consuming splinter: it should paint a picture of the hand held within a narrow range.

[kenrexford]

It would be nice for responder to be able to ask for the shortage after 1D-1H-3H. Most of the time you are going to have one.

Mathe shortness ask. 3♠ asks; 3NT=♠, 4minor=here; 4♥=none. Could invert 3NT and 4♥. Might (should?) make 3NT a spade cue if 3♠ is a shortness ask, unless you want to be able to offer 3NT as a viable possible strain.

[Guest Jlall]

It would be nice for responder to be able to ask for the shortage after 1D-1H-3H.  Most of the time you are going to have one.

Mathe shortness ask. 3♠ asks; 3NT=♠, 4minor=here; 4♥=none. Could invert 3NT and 4♥. Might (should?) make 3NT a spade cue if 3♠ is a shortness ask, unless you want to be able to offer 3NT as a viable possible strain.

Interesting, you can open 1D and then later show a stiff diamond! Might wanna rethink those steps.

[Rossoneri]

I wouldn't splinter, and I must say that the above posts by Roland and Fred are very good.

[kenrexford]

It would be nice for responder to be able to ask for the shortage after 1D-1H-3H.  Most of the time you are going to have one.

Mathe shortness ask. 3♠ asks; 3NT=♠, 4minor=here; 4♥=none. Could invert 3NT and 4♥. Might (should?) make 3NT a spade cue if 3♠ is a shortness ask, unless you want to be able to offer 3NT as a viable possible strain.

Interesting, you can open 1D and then later show a stiff diamond! Might wanna rethink those steps.

Duh!

 

Mathe is on if normal 1♦. If unbalanced 1♦, you can show min/MAX after a simple raise (1♦-1♥-2♥-2♠-bid shortness min; flag shortness MAX) or show stiff/void after a jump raise.