Worst bid?

[Elianna]

[hv=d=e&v=n&w=skq93hj952d3ckt73&e=s5haqt76daj42cqj5]266|100|Scoring: MP

-- 1H

4D* 4NT

5D** 5NT

6C# 7H

P (x) all pass[/hv]

 

*=splinter

 

** = 3 or 0 keycards

 

# = K of clubs

[han]

4D was an overbid, 5NT wasn't careful enough (I think 5H is better, assuming partner would bid on with 3 keycards).

 

I don't know the partnership style so I don't know which bid is worse. If a splinter promises an opening hand then 5NT was probably safe. If it can be made on

 

KQJx

Jxxxx

x

K10x

 

then 5NT is too risky.

[han]

I decided to vote for 4D because I think it is just too much of an overbid. 4NT was completely normal and 5H might already be too high.

[kenrexford]

This is tough to analyze without knowing what your style is as far as Splinters. My own preferences caused me to almost throw up when I saw this post and the 4♦ call, as everything Opener did would make sense on my assumptions.

[jillybean]

Clearly after 4♦ the auction was doomed.

I think this should be a decision between 1♥:3♥ a slight overbid and 1♥:2♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

4NT.

 

You may or may not make the splinter, assuming you play

sound openings, you want to be in game, so ...

 

After the splinter, opener can ignore his diamonds values,

what is left? Less than a opening.

 

Add to this a disagreement about the min strength of a splinter,

and you get your disaster.

I am also wondering what opener gave responder.

If he assumed 3KC, responder has 11HCP for his, with another

king this would get us to 14HCP, together with the void, this would

mean, the hand would way too strong for a splinter.

 

So 5NT fights with 4NT for the honor, and the third contender is

a not existing partnership understanding about the min/max

strength of a splinter.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

void?

[Gerben42]

5NT should have been 5♥. If partner really has

 

♠Axxx

♥Kxxx

♦x

♣Axxx

 

he will bid on, as partner cannot bid RKC with 0 keycards. Second worst bid is 7♥. Partner cannot have everything.

[han]

It is also a style thing, can partner have Axxx Kxxx x AKxx?

 

Clearly the two players had different ideas about what a splinter shows.

[awm]

I think the west hand is actually difficult. Game is pretty good opposite a variety of lousy opening hands such as:

 

♠xx

♥AKQxx

♦xxx

♣Qxx

 

If hearts are 2-2 then you need one of two finesses in the blacks. If hearts don't break there are some handling issues, but you should still make pretty easily if the club jack is onside. Add the club jack and game is almost cold, but I still don't think I'd accept a limit raise.

 

♠Axx

♥AKxxx

♦xxx

♣xx

 

Basically either of hearts 2-2 or the club finesse.

 

♠Jx

♥AKxxx

♦Qxxx

♣Qx

 

You need hearts to behave, but if they do you are cold (pitching one diamond on a spade, ruffing two others).

 

I don't think any of these hands are likely to bid game over a limit raise, do you? While it's certainly possible to produce some hands with a lot of diamond wastage where game is bad, there are plenty of hands where a limit raise misses a good game. You do have seven losers after all.

 

So while I'd categorize 4♦ as a "slight overbid" I think if you add a black-suit jack it becomes fairly clear-cut. Bidding 4NT with a bit extra and not much wastage in diamonds seems normal (if potentially unfortunate) especially opposite a fairly wide-range splinter, but the 5NT bid really should be a 5♦ call, allowing responder to bid on if holding three controls.

[TylerE]

4♦ to me is dead minimum but ok.

4NT is off the deep end. You have values in the splinter suit and a minimalish opening. Just bid 4!

[kfay]

I don't hate 4♦. But generally I like to play a style where splinters show the limit of your hand in a sense. And I want to be in game on this hand.

 

Edit!!! Oops, didn't realize that this is MPs!!! In that case I do think that 4♦ was an overbid. But I'll leave the rest of the post.

 

Disagree that partner should bid 5♥ over 5♦ because this is a Q ask and obviously s/he's assuming that W has all the goods. I think partner is a big favorite to hold the ♥K so, by default, that would mean 3 KCs. But I can't argue with results I guess.

 

Hands like this are why I like to split my splinters into 2 tiers. If you can hold anywhere from 9 points to 14+ points, well, this is a huge difference when all your honors lie outside of the splinter suit.

 

I would have suggested that W, however, denied holding the club king. After E shows all the keycards W knows that the wheels have come off because with A, AKQ, A, A partner wouldn't have opened 1♥.

 

Overall, though, I'd call this an unfortunate accident facilitated by aggressive bidding.

 

Edit: Upon further thought I think that 4NT might be a little premature. Although I suppose that there isn't any room for a different choice.

 

Tough one.

[han]

I think the west hand is actually difficult.

I agree with everything you wrote but I don't think the hand is difficult. I know that I don't splinter with this hand and I wouldn't waste any energy on this hand if I had it at the table.

 

Yes, if partner has a minimum with nothing wasted at all then we might miss a nice game.

 

Again, I agree with everything you wrote.

[brianshark]

Agree with everything about the splinter style issue. But my opinion is that while you are too light for a 4♦ bid there, 4NT is much more of an over-bid. You have a normal minimum hand and partner splinters in your strongest side suit. Not only have you not got extras, but your hand loses value after the splinter so I'm assigning the worst bid tag to 4NT.

 

EDIT: After thinking about this some more, partner could have ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦x, ♣KTxx and slam is not so bad anymore. Maybe I am being harsh. This is tougher than I first thought.

[Winstonm]

I'm not a big fan of "Gambling 4 Diamonds" so I voted for that. :)

 

IMO, splinter should have its full values and be an, Oh-by-the-way-I'm-short-here-if-that-helps bid

[cherdano]

I don't know anyone who thinks splinters can be as weak as West thinks. (I think of splinters as 10-12 hcp, which means the West hand is quite a bit light, as it is more of a downgrade than an upgrade: no ace, bad trumps, and the worst possible splinter shape.)

I don't know anyone who plays splinters as strong as East thinks they can be. Trying for grand is really an overbid.

[neilkaz]

With all due respect, the decision to splinter 4♦ with this hand is a very poor one. There are many reasons but lets start with the fact that the hand has only 9 ACELESS HCP and ZERO keycards and really is just a good distributional limit raise.

 

When making the decision to splinter 4♦, responder needs to consider that opener has no room inbetween a s/off and a slam invite. He also needs to consider that his response to RKCB 1430 will be 5♦ and he lacks the Q of trumps which PD cannot now ask for. Hopefully, after RKCB opener will be 5♥ incase responder has no key cards, but that wasn't the case here.

 

Now if your pair plays some kind of two-tiered splinter scheme, you could, if you wish, show a minimum splinter and opener won't get excited and will s/off in 4♥. But lacking that, it seems much better to show a limit raise, or if you want to force to game, use J2NT and when you find out that opener is min, or has a stiff ♠, s/off in 4♥.

 

Again, the issues with 4♦ are the sub-min, and the fact that there's no room inbetween 4♦ and 4♥ for slam investigation, and that opener will be quite disappointed when he sees this dummy in a contract above 4♥.

[TylerE]

Upon reflection, I agree that 4♦ is bad, but I still think that 4NT is far, far, worse.

[peachy]

If the style for splinters is (my preference) _either_ just game _or_ a hand that always wants to go on after opener's presumed signoff, then opener's 4NT is bad when AJxx diamonds are not working in full. With a splinter style undiscussed, 4D was risky but the worst bid was 5NT.

[helene_t]

What would 4♠ by opener have shown? If it shows shortness it would solve part of the problem with this hand (responder's spade wastage).

[han]

A cuebid?

[jdonn]

Well I would say the worst bid is clearly 7♥ and second worst 5NT, since there can't be a good grand. But I would still want to vote for 4♦ since it caused the whole mess and a hopeless slam would still have been reached.

 

Edit: I should say could have been reached, since they had a chance to stop. But 5 might be too high anyway.

[mikeh]

I think the west hand is actually difficult. Game is pretty good opposite a variety of lousy opening hands such as:

 

♠xx

♥AKQxx

♦xxx

♣Qxx

 

If hearts are 2-2 then you need one of two finesses in the blacks. If hearts don't break there are some handling issues, but you should still make pretty easily if the club jack is onside. Add the club jack and game is almost cold, but I still don't think I'd accept a limit raise.

 

♠Axx

♥AKxxx

♦xxx

♣xx

 

Basically either of hearts 2-2 or the club finesse.

 

♠Jx

♥AKxxx

♦Qxxx

♣Qx

 

You need hearts to behave, but if they do you are cold (pitching one diamond on a spade, ruffing two others).

 

I don't think any of these hands are likely to bid game over a limit raise, do you? While it's certainly possible to produce some hands with a lot of diamond wastage where game is bad, there are plenty of hands where a limit raise misses a good game. You do have seven losers after all.

 

So while I'd categorize 4♦ as a "slight overbid" I think if you add a black-suit jack it becomes fairly clear-cut. Bidding 4NT with a bit extra and not much wastage in diamonds seems normal (if potentially unfortunate) especially opposite a fairly wide-range splinter, but the 5NT bid really should be a 5♦ call, allowing responder to bid on if holding three controls.

I think the problem with this argument is not that it is invalid, but that it is based on the premise that we think that we should be able to reach all game contracts that have reasonable play. The simple answer is that we can't... or at least, mere mortals can't. For every hand on which we miss a game by making a limit raise, we can easily construct hands on which we bid too much by forcing to game as responder.. not to mention the horrific prospect of reaching a doubled grand off 3 Aces :)

 

We need, I think, to accept that our methods, whatever they will be, are imperfect, and avoid trying to force them to do something they can't. It's like me on the golf course... I have a tough shot over water onto a small green.. or I can lay up. I CAN make the tough shot... I remember making one like it 5 years ago... but the odds are I'll be fishing for my ball, or trying to recover from a horrible lie. My swing just isn't good enough and if I am smart (which I am very rarely) I'd accept it and not play for the low percentage shot.

 

So unless we agree that a splinter is acceptable, on this weak a hand, we can' t make the bid, and we live with missing the magic game/slam. And, if we do agree that a splinter is acceptable, then clearly opener was insane...with both 4N and 7♥. I suspect responder was at fault, but I don't know the partnership agreements.

[655321]

I like to play that a splinter promises around 8-11 HCP. As opener, playing that style, I sign off in 4♥ (sure, slam is still possible opposite something like xxxx Kxxx x AKxx).

 

But if your agreement is that a splinter shows a better hand, clearly this aceless 9 count is not good enough.

 

Doubtless the later auction could have been different, but I agree with the posters who put most of the blame on the lack of agreement on the strength needed for a splinter.

[ArtK78]

Let's take this one step at a time.

 

4♦ - I believe that most players would say that this hand is not good enough for a game forcing splinter. It is close, but just not enough. Standing on its own, the 4♦ bid was an overbid which led the partnership down a terrible path. The 4♦ bid was the impetus for:

 

4NT - Not the worst bid I have ever seen. Obviously, opener did not suspect that responder could have the hand that he held for a 4♦ bid. He was looking for something more like Axxx Kxxx x Kxxx or better, in which case 6♥ rated to be easy and, if resonder had exactly the right cards, a grand was possible.

 

Responder made the correct response to 4NT (yay!) and then:

 

5NT - absolutely horrifying. Responder showed 0 or 3. Anyone who plays multi-meaning responses to RKCB should know that if you get a 0 or 3/1 or 4 response, you MUST assume the lower number and sign off. If responder has the higher number, responder must continue by showing or denying the trump Q. Opener assumed that responder had 3 key cards for this response, and that set the stage for

 

7♥ - on the assumption that responder held Axxx Kxxx x AKxx, this bid is absolutely clear. But the assumption was flawed.

 

In my opinion, 5NT was clearly the worst call in the auction. 4♦ was an overbid, but it is not a terrible overbid. Had opener bid 5♥ and the result was down one, then 4♦ would have been the worst bid in the auction. But 5NT was just terrible, and put the partnership beyond hope of a normal result.