Spinter or not?

[Walddk]

Playing Gazzilli this hand becomes a bid easier to bid because you know responder's range and shape on the 2nd turn.

I'm lost. Gazzilli is an artificial bid of 2♣ by opener after opening bids of 1♥/1♠ and responses of 1♠ or 1NT. It doesn't apply after 1mi.

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣

 

Natural, non-forcing in any natural system I know.

 

Roland

[gnasher]

I don't understand how the "invitiational plus" splinter can possibly work without some pretty serious artificiality to sort out opener's range.

 

For example, what is responder supposed to do if he wants to play game opposite an invitational hand?

One easy solution is to agree that in auctions where someone makes a game try that might be a slam try, the other hand accepts by bidding 3NT rather than 4M, thereby leaving room for cue bidding if partner was, in fact, making a slam try. This has more use in auctions like 1S-2S; 3D and 1D-1S; 2S-3C, but would also be useful here.

 

Having said that, I think that these invitational splinters are quite a bad idea. I played them for years but I can't remember them ever helping me to reach a good game or avoid a bad game, whereas I can certainly remember hands where they induced a successful trump lead, or a lead through dummy's 3-card fragment.

 

The only real gain to invitational splinters is when responder has a good hand and the splinter helps him with evaluation for slam purposes. However, it's fairly painless to play 1♣-1♠; 3♠-3NT as a shortage ask. Alternatively, you can use 1C-1♠; 3♦ as a raise to 3♠, so as to provide a bit more space for the shortage ask, and 1C-1♠; 3♠ as something else (eg a forcing balanced raise).

[Flame]

To me it looks obvious that 3D is invitational splinter, even if we have no agreements on the continuations its still seems like the potential from winning in game decision overweight the potential losing in a slam decision.

[keylime]

Roland,

 

Gazzilli does help, because of the rebid of opener: when opener fails to rebid the one over reverse, and does not jump rebid, it should infer a long club suit that is on the high loser count variety / poor suit quality variety.

[stjk]

Thanks for all the replys!

 

Partner's hand was:

 

Qxxx AJx Qxxx xx

 

vs.

 

Kxxx KQx A AKxxx

 

the bdding was :

 

1C - 1S

4D - 4H

4N - 5C

5D - 6S

 

6S -1 = -50 = -11 IMP

 

So teammats are not happy with my 4D and pard's 4H bid.

 

Thanks,

[Walddk]

Thanks for all the replys!

 

Partner's hand was:

 

Qxxx AJx Qxxx xx

 

vs.

 

Kxxx KQx A AKxxx

 

the bdding was :

 

1C - 1S

4D - 4H

4N - 5C

5D - 6S

 

6S -1 = -50 = -11 IMP

 

So teammats are not happy with my 4D and pard's 4H bid.

 

Thanks,

So 3♦ (mini-splinter) would have worked beautifully. Responder will sign off in 3♠ (wasted ♦Q, poor trumps, only four of them, and not a lot of help in clubs), and opener raises to game.

 

Roland

[kenrexford]

So 3♦ (mini-splinter) would have worked beautifully. Responder will sign off in 3♠ (wasted ♦Q, poor trumps, only four of them, and not a lot of help in clubs), and opener raises to game.

 

Roland

This is actually a rather ignorant comment, IMO.

 

If you assume, arguendo, that Responder does not have enough to accept game with this hand, then he must equally and for the same reasons not have enough to make a 4♥ Last Train bid over a 4♦ slammish splinter.

 

If you assume that Opener has insufficient values to continue the slam try after a signoff of the Min-Splinter, then you should also conclude that Opener lacks sufficient values to kick into straight RKCB when Responder can only make a 4♥ Last Train bid after a slammish splinter of 4♦.

 

Even if somehow you conclude that the slight nuances of the auction are slightly off, then you must concede, I would hope, that Opener should at most initiate a further cuebidding sequence at the five-level of some variety (maybe a simple how-good-are-your-trumps 5♥?), which results apparently in a safe stop at the five-level.

 

Therefore, your obsession with the merits of the great Mini+ Splinter is inducing you to make a non-helpful observation, as the Mini+ Splinter would not actually gain anything in this situation. Proper evaluation and use of the slammish 4♦ splinter would suffice quite nicely.

 

The problem was not remotely, therefore, systemic. The problem was in hand analysis. If I were to defend this result to the teammates, I would defend it this way:

 

You object to the 4♦ Splinter. This is clearly the right call for the reasons I articulated earlier.

 

You also object to the 4♥ Last Train cuebid. [i can substitute 4♥ as a simple heart cuebid nicely if that is the agreement here.] Whereas this might be an aggressive move, it is not the cause of the problem.

 

If you want to criticize your teammates, I would suggest knowing the game well enough to know how to criticize properly. Criticizing the right calls is not the effective way to encourage your teammates to improve their game.

 

The errant call, which you miss, is the 4NT RKCB bid. Opener is reasonably encouraged by the admittedly aggressive, but not insane, 4♥ call by Responder, but he should not be overwhelmingly intrigued. As a result, a good idea would be a cuebid of 5♣. Had Opener done this, Responder would surely go with five good trumps and the doubleton. But, having stretched to bid 4♥, Responder will quickly depart this auction and bid a making 5♠.

 

Now, this problem cannot be as simple as your anger suggests, or you would have realized that the solution to the problem is an easy 5♣ cuebid. That cuebid, the right move, is apparently not easy for you two, either.

[MFA]

You have a point about the actual sequences, Ken, but you must concede that given reasonable agreements about the continuations after the mini-splinter, it must be superior to start the process as low as 3♦ instead of 4♦.

Getting to exactly 5♠ is hardly a triumph on these cards.

[whereagles]

Bidding was fine. You guys are just results-merchandizing.

 

The key to the hand is to find out about the bad trumps, i.e. lack of the spade JACK. That's very, very hard to do without specialized gadgets.

 

Precision with gamma bids will detect the lack of the jack, but that's just about the only system that can do it (and relays, ofc).

[kenrexford]

You have a point about the actual sequences, Ken, but you must concede that given reasonable agreements about the continuations after the mini-splinter, it must be superior to start the process as low as 3♦ instead of 4♦.

Getting to exactly 5♠ is hardly a triumph on these cards.

That's true.

 

A reasonable Mini+ Splinter auction, one that parallels the actual auction, and a fair commentary, would go something like this:

 

Opener bids 3♦ as a Mini+ Splinter.

Responder bids 3♥ as a GT/ST last train bid.

Opener now gets to confirm the slam-try ambitions by bidding 4♣, not entering the five-level unnecessarily.

Responder, if wildly aggressive, could reciprocate, except that he has nothing to cue. Accordingly, Responder signs off at 4♠.

 

That was not the commentary, however. The commentary boiled down to a claim that Mini+ Splinters would work because, in essence, if you use them you will amazingly bid hands "better," meaning more conservatively when the slam fails. This, despite actually having lots of space to actually be unduly aggressive and then back off.

[kenrexford]

Bidding was fine. You guys are just results-merchandizing.

 

The key to the hand is to find out about the bad trumps, i.e. lack of the spade JACK. That's very, very hard to do without specialized gadgets.

 

Precision with gamma bids will detect the lack of the jack, but that's just about the only system that can do it (and relays, ofc).

Why do people who love conventions with Greek letters involved always want to point out how well some other method would work (often without providing the sequence that magically resolves these problems) while simultaneously discounting natural bidding as somehow not working, despite lacking an understanding of why the natural bidding does really work?

 

Let's go through the sequence.

 

After Opener bids 4♦, Responder looks at his hand. The dangling diamond Queen has very little usefulness, only remotely serving as a possible threat card. The club position sucks, but doubletons sometimes have merit, opposite a long suit, if trumps behave. The trump honor is nice, but it is tertiary and not supported by even the 10. However, the heart Ace looks interesting, especially with the Jack attached. This should probably be a resignation hand, but maybe Responder feels aggressive. A punt 4♥ cue (whether legitimately showing a heart card or just LTTC) might be a stretch, but OK.

 

Opener also has an imperfect hand. He wants, as I mentioned earlier, three of the four missing cards, those cards being the club Queen, the heart Ace, and good trumps. However, if Responder only has any three of these cards, and nothing more, there may be a problem.

 

1. If Responder lacks the club Queen, the club suit may need more work than is apparent.

2. If Responder lacks the heart Ace, we may need the Jack or two entries and the heart Ace well-placed.

3. If Responder lacks the spade Queen, a 4-1 split may be a problem.

4. If Responder lacks the spade Ace, spades are really in jeopardy, because Opener also lacks even the 10.

 

So, Opener realizes that Responder would have simply gone forward with all four and would have surely gone forward with three of these and a few of the useful Jacks. So, the risk is that Responder has two useful cards but a lot of useful Jacks OR three without any help as far as body. So, Opener cannot find out what he needs to know by bidding 4NT, nor would this be necessary, as all of the key cards needed would be clearly key cards from Responder's perspective. A 5♣ bid, however, shows continuing interest with doubt.

 

Responder will know that, whatever Opener needs, having only two sure covers and weak trumps is insufficient.

 

Sure, you might object that the simple addition of the spade Jack makes this a good slam and that Responder will not go if all he has extra is the spade Jack. I'd counter that simple possession of the spade Jack, apparently discoverable with gamma radiation, does not make this a good slam. You also seem to need spades to split 3-2 and for clubs to cooperate. You will not always catch 3-2 trumps and clubs 3-3.

[whereagles]

Bull. You love greek-letter gadget-like bids.

[kenrexford]

Bull. You love greek-letter gadget-like bids.

LOLOLOL

 

True.

 

I was cranky last night. Sorry.

[InTime]

Bid 4♦. Because of the singleton ace, this is an imperfect splinter bid. Nevertheless, it is the most descriptive bid for the following reasons:

 

1. It describes to partner an unbalanced hand where 4♠ will indicate a balanced hand.

2. With duplication in diamonds, partner will probably not make another move. So, if partner signs off in 4♠, I will not proceed with RCKB.

3. In fact, with your 4♦ splinter with the ♦A, your hand is of "less" value. Your ♦A should be in one of your other suits. So, your RCKB is a self destructing move.

4. By bidding 4♠, responder can make another move without realising the duplication in diamonds.

 

Note: In "Better Rebidding with Bergen" by Marty Bergen, a similar type of hand is discussed on page 36 no. 13.

Regards

[shanbari]

Thanks for all the replys!

 

Partner's hand was:

 

Qxxx AJx Qxxx xx

 

vs.

 

Kxxx KQx A AKxxx

 

the bdding was :

 

1C - 1S

4D - 4H

4N - 5C

5D - 6S

 

6S -1 = -50 = -11 IMP

 

So teammats are not happy with my 4D and pard's 4H bid.

 

Thanks,

does anyone agree 4h bid from responder ?

 

Qxxx AJx Qxxx xx, this is close to 9 loser hand, wasted DQ.

[InTime]

Thanks for all the replys!

 

Partner's hand was:

 

Qxxx  AJx  Qxxx  xx

 

vs.

 

Kxxx  KQx  A  AKxxx

 

the bdding was :

 

1C - 1S

4D - 4H

4N - 5C

5D - 6S

 

6S -1 = -50 = -11 IMP

 

So teammats are not happy with my 4D and pard's 4H bid.

 

Thanks,

does anyone agree 4h bid from responder ?

 

Qxxx AJx Qxxx xx, this is close to 9 loser hand, wasted DQ.

No. I do not agree with this cue. Responder can just as well throw the Q♦ out of the window leaving him with 7 pts.

IMO the 4NT RKCB after the 4♥ cue is then defendable.

Regards

[gnasher]

does anyone agree 4h bid from responder ?

 

Qxxx  AJx  Qxxx  xx, this is close to 9 loser hand, wasted DQ.

It's marginal, but Qxxx AJx xxxx xx doesn't look bad opposite a game-forcing splinter, and it's possible to construct hands for opener where slam is good.

 

The real problem with the auction was opener's decision to bid 4NT. With his stiff ace, poor trumps and mediocre side suit he has nothing extra at all, and should just sign off.

[Jboling]

Playing Gazzilli this hand becomes a bid easier to bid because you know responder's range and shape on the 2nd turn.

I'm lost. Gazzilli is an artificial bid of 2♣ by opener after opening bids of 1♥/1♠ and responses of 1♠ or 1NT. It doesn't apply after 1mi.

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣

 

Natural, non-forcing in any natural system I know.

 

Roland

You can play Gazzilli after minor-openings as well, but it is slightly more complicated than after major-openings. 1♣-1M-2♦, 1♣-1♦-2♥, and 1 ♦-1M-2♣ are used as (possibly) artificial and forcing. Other bids are then more limited, for example 1♣-1♠-3♦=4441♦ and 17+hcp, and 1♣-1♠-4♦=6+♣, 4♠, short ♦, and 15-16hcp. After the forcing Gazzilli-bid, a rebid by responder in the fourth suit is the strongest bid (similar to 1M-1X-2♣-2♦), and the other rebids are again more limited. There are variations of this, but this is the version Garozzo used in his Ambra-system, version 1.0 of Ambra that is.