kenrexford Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 ♠A ♥AKQxxxx ♦Kx ♣Qxx You open 1♥ (first or second seat) and partner bids 1NT (forcing). Opponents passing throughout. Is this right for an auto-splinter (3♠)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 No, assuming I have some way of showing a game force in hearts (e.g. 3H forcing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 No, assuming I have some way of showing a game force in hearts (e.g. 3H forcing). Yeah, this would have been nice. I often play that 2NT is a GF relay for that purpose. However, assuming that you do not have this tool available, as I did not, then what? Even if you have this tool, then 3♠ would still be an auto-splinter, right? Obviously, in one situation, it is needed, whereas in the other is is not as much. Hence, an auto-splinter can be more "pure" with the tools. However, not splintering leaves you incapable of showing a stiff effectively, even with the tools to force game and show hearts, right? If, say, 3♥ is GF, it also does not set trumps yet, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 No, assuming I have some way of showing a game force in hearts (e.g. 3H forcing). Yeah, this would have been nice. I often play that 2NT is a GF relay for that purpose. However, assuming that you do not have this tool available, as I did not, then what? Even if you have this tool, then 3♠ would still be an auto-splinter, right? Obviously, in one situation, it is needed, whereas in the other is is not as much. Hence, an auto-splinter can be more "pure" with the tools. However, not splintering leaves you incapable of showing a stiff effectively, even with the tools to force game and show hearts, right? If, say, 3♥ is GF, it also does not set trumps yet, right? There were a lot of 'rights' there? Yes, 3S would still be an autosplinter.If 3H is GF (as I play, with another route to show an invite) then the only possible denominations are hearts or NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 ♠A ♥AKQxxxx ♦Kx ♣Qxx You open 1♥ (first or second seat) and partner bids 1NT (forcing). Opponents passing throughout. Is this right for an auto-splinter (3♠)? It's not "wrong" for one, but I don't think that would be the best bid. Why not 3NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I don't particularly like the auto-splinter because partner won't picture this hand... yes, we have the shape and the overcall strength for the bid but our side A is in the wrong suit. Having a gadget may well work, whether it is 2N forcing (the downside to which is narrow.. essentially we have to overbid or underbid 17 counts with 5♥... opening 1N, jumping 1N to 3N, or bidding 2minor over 1N and hoping not to get passed) or, my personal favourite, using a jump to 3♣ as an artificial gf, based either on clubs or on a monster one-suiter... responder ordinarily bids 3♦ to enquire... this has some downsides, of course, but seems to work reasonably well. Lacking gadgetry, the choices are 4♥, 3N or the auto-splinter, each being somewhat misdescriptive. Personally, I bid 3N since I think, but cannot prove, that 3N will be slightly less risky than 4♥... both contracts can fail on specific lies of the cards. I would rank 4♥ as the 3rd choice.. but I don't see a huge amount of difference in their relative weights. 3♠, while more slammish than 3N, rates to have partner misevaluate... while we may reach more slams than via 3N, some of those slams will be bad contracts.... btw, if we auto-splinter and then engage in cue-bidding, I would suspect that partner might be 'correct' to view a spade cue by us as void showing, which would really throw his valuation off-kilter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Lacking gadgetry, the choices are 4♥, 3N or the auto-splinter, each being somewhat misdescriptive. Isn't 3NT completely descriptive, what is the misdescription? 7 solid hearts, an honor in every other suit, a game forcing hand. They don't make examples this good any more. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I like the autosplinter. It makes sure we get to slam opposite any combination of AKQ in the minors.Its biggest downside comes when we belong in 3N, but for slam purposes I think it works better than 3N. (True this hand fits the description of 3N exactly, but it is on the maximum side of 3N, and it doesn't tell partner where we need his cards, so it seems to me we would often miss a good slam.) Mike, do you think would force to the 5-level over 3♠ with some A and K in the minors? If so, 3♠ would work badly quite often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Lacking gadgetry, the choices are 4♥, 3N or the auto-splinter, each being somewhat misdescriptive. Isn't 3NT completely descriptive, what is the misdescription? 7 solid hearts, an honor in every other suit, a game forcing hand. They don't make examples this good any more. ;)well, the extent of the 'misdescription' is small... this hand may well be within the range, but more common holdings would be a 6322 hand with equivalent or better hearts, or a 5332 good 18 to average 19 (good 19's likely opened via 2N if style permits). This hand is a little too suit oriented for me to be completely comfortable with 3N (but it is my choice) As for how high I would 'force' over an autosplinter, it (obviously) depends on the auction. I don't think that a random A/K in the minors would get us in trouble, but I do think that partner's initial reaction would and should be premised on us most likely holding something akin to x AKQxxx KQx Axx... this looks, to me, like a prototypical 3♠ bid. Now give me, as responder, something like xxx x AJxxx KJxx and I'd certainly be thinking that 6♦ was a decent target for which to aim. One problem with the auto-splinter, that I haven't seen discussed so far, is that is the bid to be used to set trump? Clearly, it is entirely foreseeable that we belong in 6 minor opposite many 'normal' auto-splinters.. maybe, with the actual hand, we can co-operate and then override the minor.. opposite my posited responding hand, 6♥ is a pretty good spot. But what if partner were xxx void AJxxx KJxxx? So, how do we treat 4 minor by responder? A cue in support of hearts eliminates minor slams (at least, I don't see how we get to them... even if we use 5N as choice of slams in most auctions, the auctions may not time out in such a way as to make that either possible or readable). We'd like to be able to play adjective bridge :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Lacking gadgetry, the choices are 4♥, 3N or the auto-splinter, each being somewhat misdescriptive. Isn't 3NT completely descriptive, what is the misdescription? 7 solid hearts, an honor in every other suit, a game forcing hand. They don't make examples this good any more. :)well, the extent of the 'misdescription' is small... this hand may well be within the range, but more common holdings would be a 6322 hand with equivalent or better hearts, or a 5332 good 18 to average 19 (good 19's likely opened via 2N if style permits). 18-19 balanced? Sounds like you lost your 2NT card. ;) I agree 6322 hands are more common but I don't see the point, it doesn't mean a 7321 hand can't be within the definition of the bid. It's like calling a 1NT opening on 2335 a misdescription because 2344 hands are more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 If 3NT shows 6+ solid hearts and stoppers in all side suits then I would go with that. If it could be balanced then I think 3S is stand-out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I like the autosplinter. It makes sure we get to slam opposite any combination of AKQ in the minors.Its biggest downside comes when we belong in 3N, but for slam purposes I think it works better than 3N. (True this hand fits the description of 3N exactly, but it is on the maximum side of 3N, and it doesn't tell partner where we need his cards, so it seems to me we would often miss a good slam.) Mike, do you think would force to the 5-level over 3♠ with some A and K in the minors? If so, 3♠ would work badly quite often. When I looked at this hand my first thought was 3NT but you're right we'll probably miss a lot of slams this way. 3NT now. 3♠ in the post-mortem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 I often play that 2NT is a GF relay for that purpose. However, assuming that you do not have this tool available, as I did not, then what? Then either open 2♣ or rebid 4♥ and bury the slam. It's pretty nigh impossible to find the key cards in pard, so I'll just be pragmatic. I'm sure you can argue that 3♠ "can only be an auto splinter", but I would only do that with an explicit agreement. Same with 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted December 27, 2008 Report Share Posted December 27, 2008 Actually SKQx and CA is just as much to give heart slam a reasonable slam chance although you only need an ace and a king in the minors for an OK minor slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2008 FWIW, Responder (me) held something like ♠xxx ♥xx ♦AQJxx ♣Kxx. At the actual table, Opener's choice was a hopeless 3♥ rebid, and he agreed that this was hopeless. However, the discussion of what alternative would have been best was uncertain. Clearly, 3♠ would have "worked," but that does not make it best in any way. 3NT would have created a problem to some degree, namely as to what the Heck anything new means now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted December 27, 2008 Report Share Posted December 27, 2008 No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 27, 2008 Report Share Posted December 27, 2008 3NT would have created a problem to some degree, namely as to what the Heck anything new means now. It's certainly worth discussing, I don't believe I've ever spent more than about 3 minutes on the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted December 27, 2008 Report Share Posted December 27, 2008 3NT would have created a problem to some degree, namely as to what the Heck anything new means now. It's certainly worth discussing, I don't believe I've ever spent more than about 3 minutes on the topic. What else besides "cuebids for opener's suit" is there to discuss? Oh, 4M of responder's suit is to play? I am at 15.7 seconds right now... 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.