another scientific vs natural decision

[whereagles]

on the original post, it is in hidden text if you chose to bid 2♠.

Let me sum it up

 

QJxx

x

Axxxx

AKx

 

1♠ 2♦

2♥ 2♠

3♦ 4♥

4♠

 

If pard took 4♥ as splinter, then he probably has something like

 

AKxxx

KJxx

Qxx

x

 

So pass now.

[ggwhiz]

Whenever possible, I like to have the first hand into the auction be crew and the responder captain.

 

On this hand I'm bidding 2nt and dreaming of a 3♦ bid from pard that should make the rest of the auction relatively easy for me to take charge of.

 

Rather than show a stiff heart I think I get a lot more clues this way with or without a ♥ cue-bid from pard (we don't generally cue second round controls) and have room to find an occassional perfect fit grand.

 

Also, given that I'm REALLY cheering for a 3♦ bid over 2nt, I REALLY dislike

2♦ the first time.

[whereagles]

Whenever possible, I like to have the first hand into the auction be crew and the responder captain.

Well, you should play precision then. Capitaincy in natural bidding sometimes falls upon opener, especially when it comes to level.

[ggwhiz]

Hey, I just said whenever possible and know the difference but this case seems clear cut for a jacoby 2nt IMHO.

 

I'll hear about a 5-4-2-2 dog right away and investigate slam comfortably opposite a shapely dog that may or may not have a slam in it.

[dcvetkov]

I think 3♠ should really show this hand, good spade support, and hand unable to splinter first time, slam interest

 

If partner bids 4♦, then 4NT

If partner bids only 4♠, then he may have lousy opener, with some hearts wastage, and 4 level may be enough, but this hand mey be worth another try

[Cascade]

I find some other methods where I can show my support on the previous round rather than bidding an ace-empty suit.

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response.

I don't play in a 2/1 context but with this hand we bid 3♥ to show a singleton splinter.

 

Opener then either:

 

1. Bids 3♠ to play in case I do not have GF values;

 

2. Relays for range and controls with 3NT (with no shortage). I will bid 4NT to show five-controls and GF values;

 

3. Shows a shortage in clubs or diamonds;

 

4. Bids 4♠ to show some minimum opening with limited controls but accepting the splinter.

[TimG]

I find some other methods where I can show my support on the previous round rather than bidding an ace-empty suit.

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response.

♠QJ72

♥9

♦A7632

♣AK4

 

is a few points short of a Jacoby 2NT response? Or, did I miss a switch of hands under discussion?

[vuroth]

Maybe partner opens REALLY light? B)

[qwery_hi]

I find some other methods where I can show my support on the previous round rather than bidding an ace-empty suit.

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response.

♠QJ72

♥9

♦A7632

♣AK4

 

is a few points short of a Jacoby 2NT response? Or, did I miss a switch of hands under discussion?

Strictly by HCP, I've read that J2NT needs 16+. I may be wrong. However, this hand with A's, K is a J2NT I guess.

[RichMor]

I find some other methods where I can show my support on the previous round rather than bidding an ace-empty suit.

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response.

♠QJ72

♥9

♦A7632

♣AK4

 

is a few points short of a Jacoby 2NT response? Or, did I miss a switch of hands under discussion?

Mainstream treatment of 2NT as a forcing raise usually excludes hands with a singleton or void, although not all play that way.

 

As to an immediate 4♥ 'splinter' raise, this hand is a little too good for a minimum splinter and not good enough to splinter and continue over a sign off.

 

With the example hand, I think it's best to 'bid around' the shortness:

1♠ - 2♦

2♥ - 3♣

any - 4♠

 

That's old fashioned but usually works.

[whereagles]

Hey, I just said whenever possible and know the difference but this case seems clear cut for a jacoby 2nt IMHO.

Jacoby 2NT doesn't put responder as captain. If you're playing it that way, you're probably playing it wrong, because opener can have anything from a bad 12 to a shapely 20.

[Codo]

Gonzalo, I agree with you that 2 Diamond followed by 4 Heart shows this hand better then putting it into the 2 NT camp.

 

2 NT mostly asks declarer, so this tool should be used when no better describtion is avaiable or when responder has a balanced hand.

 

When the bidding after 1 ♠ 2 ♦ reaches 4 Heart, you had shown a side suit, a shortness and a hand too good for a direct splinter. Exactly what you will put down in dummy.

Hardly possible with an overloaded 2 NT bid.

 

If partner cannot move over 4 HEart, I will stay silent, I have no extras.

[TimG]

♠QJ72

♥9

♦A7632

♣AK4

 

As to an immediate 4♥ 'splinter' raise, this hand is a little too good for a minimum splinter and not good enough to splinter and continue over a sign off.

 

With the example hand, I think it's best to 'bid around' the shortness:

1♠ - 2♦

2♥ - 3♣

any - 4♠

 

That's old fashioned but usually works.

You'd bid the same way with:

 

♠QJ72

♥9

♦A762

♣AK43

 

or does the 4th x in diamonds really make that much of a difference?

[Cascade]

Gonzalo, I agree with you that 2 Diamond followed by 4 Heart shows this hand better then putting it into the 2 NT camp.

Why raise hearts?

 

Or are we discussing a different auction now?

[Fluffy]

Roland follows the path 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠-3♦-4♥.

 

the problem with this path is what arised at the table, it is way different that partner has ♦Qxx than ♦Kxx because our ♣K is working.

 

Kevin Fay suggested 2♦- 2♥-2♠-3♦-4♣. He would find out that partner doesn't have ♦K, and the rest of the useful cards, he can find with 4NT.

 

Splinter's advantage was that it allowed us to stay at the 4 level. Partner had ♥AKQx.

 

 

But there was no need for staying low, partner had little extras:

 

♠A10xxx

♥AKQx

♦Q9x

♣x

 

Funny that some paths lead to slam, others to stay in 5, and all of them are right becuase its a slam on a finese B).

[Fluffy]

One small extra point, I passed 4♠ after splinter because it was a pickup partnership and I didn't know about ♦K and I had no tool avaible that would help me.

 

With my regular partner after 3♦ I play 6 card blackwood and would use it even when the 5 level is not fully safe.

[kenrexford]

The choice as to how to proceed should, IMO, be a process of a quick evaluation of the likely sequences.

 

What I mean is this. For me, I would first assess what would happen with a straight 2/1 sequence. I'd expect a fair likelihood that starting 2♦ will very often yield the 2♥ rebid and a 2♠ trump set. If I do that, partner might cue 2NT, which for me would deny two top spades. If so, I will cue 3♣. A 3♦ from partner would be nice, but I would not know if he held the King or Queen, which is bad. I would then have no good cue available. The permutations look bad, as well.

 

(In practice, I usually recognize certain "bad holdings" for cuebidding from experience.)

 

So, I then consider the obvious option #2 -- the splinter. The defaults reached with partner are that splinters usually show primes externally, primes or secondaries internally. I meet that definition beautifully. The range is about right, as well. The obvious downside is that, if the splinter is 4♥, partner has no Last Train option. However, knowing that he knows that I know this also, he will know that I will typically be "pure" when the splinter is one-under. I have that.

 

The major downside to the splinter, however, is that it understates the need for diamond cards specifically. However, he cannot have that much in clubs to worry about anyway.

 

So, I opt splinter.

 

Others, with other tools, might opt differently.

[cherdano]

The choice as to how to proceed should, IMO, be a process of a quick evaluation of the likely sequences.

Well, the choice of bid might also have to do with what these bids show.

This hand is waaaaaaaay to strong to splinter by any agreements even close to standard. If its not too good by your agreements then you can't splinter very often. (And no please don't start telling me your range is 12-14, even then it is too strong.)

[Winstonm]

The choice as to how to proceed should, IMO, be a process of a quick evaluation of the likely sequences.

Well, the choice of bid might also have to do with what these bids show.

This hand is waaaaaaaay to strong to splinter by any agreements even close to standard. If its not too good by your agreements then you can't splinter very often. (And no please don't start telling me your range is 12-14, even then it is too strong.)

You will please explain to me how a game-forcing hand can be too strong to make a game-forcing bid?

 

I can sort of grasp a hand too weak to force to game shouldn't make a game-force bid.

 

Is there a Goldilocks splinter, neither too strong nor too weak but just right?

[TimG]

You will please explain to me how a game-forcing hand can be too strong to make a game-forcing bid?

 

I can sort of grasp a hand too weak to force to game shouldn't make a game-force bid.

 

Is there a Goldilocks splinter, neither too strong nor too weak but just right?

I'll take a stab. Many play that splinters are used to uncover slams based upon a perfect fit. If your splinters are too wide range, neither opener nor responder will know when it is right to make a slam move.

 

There is a range of splinter that is too good to need a perfect fit for slam, too weak to unilaterally move past 4M.

[cherdano]

The choice as to how to proceed should, IMO, be a process of a quick evaluation of the likely sequences.

Well, the choice of bid might also have to do with what these bids show.

This hand is waaaaaaaay to strong to splinter by any agreements even close to standard. If its not too good by your agreements then you can't splinter very often. (And no please don't start telling me your range is 12-14, even then it is too strong.)

You will please explain to me how a game-forcing hand can be too strong to make a game-forcing bid?

This is really a very basic topic that should be part of any introduction to splinters for intermediates. A splinter should be a well-defined bid that transfers captaincy to partner. Most experts seem to play a range of about 10-12 hcp (plus shortness of course) or 10-13.

 

Actually Fred has made several posts explaining this concept, you can find them here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ghlite=splinter

(In case this link stops working, just search for posts by fred containing the word splinter, and don't forget to click "show results as posts".)

[Codo]

Gonzalo, I agree with you that 2 Diamond followed by 4 Heart shows this hand better then putting it into the 2 NT camp.

Why raise hearts?

 

Or are we discussing a different auction now?

2 ♦ 2 ♠ 4 ♥ sorry for the abr. thought this was clear, but U R right, it was not.

[RichMor]

The choice as to how to proceed should, IMO, be a process of a quick evaluation of the likely sequences.

Well, the choice of bid might also have to do with what these bids show.

This hand is waaaaaaaay to strong to splinter by any agreements even close to standard. If its not too good by your agreements then you can't splinter very often. (And no please don't start telling me your range is 12-14, even then it is too strong.)

You will please explain to me how a game-forcing hand can be too strong to make a game-forcing bid?

 

I can sort of grasp a hand too weak to force to game shouldn't make a game-force bid.

 

Is there a Goldilocks splinter, neither too strong nor too weak but just right?

With a 'Baby Bear' splinter - 12 to 14 support points - respond 4♥.

 

With a 'Poppa Bear' splinter - 18 + support points - respond 4♥ and bid again over opener's sign off.

 

With a 'Momma Bear' splinter - 15 to 17 support points - do something else.

IMO, the example hand is a Momma Bear.

 

What else ?

 

1. Include Momma Bear splinters in an immediate 2NT forcing raise.

2. Make a 2/1 response in your best suit, rebid your other non-trump suit, support opener's first suit.

 

Live happily ever after.

[kenrexford]

I suppose that splintering is equally only an option if it meets system parameters.

 

For me, the availability of two-tier splintering, and the requirement that splinters be pure, makes this perfect for a splinter. But, that's per my agreements.