Splinter after 2C opening

[dcvetkov]

Recently, my occasional partner and I have the following auction

 

2C ( strong) - 2H( bust), Ok, this is not my choice;)

3H - 4S ( splinter?)

 

 

Now, I would like to get some votes, how many of you agree with the splinter. ( First of all, do you take 4s as splinter, or natural to play????)

My thinking is as following

 

1) 5 level should be fairly safe opposite strong hand

2( I really like hearts, and my hand tremendously improved, and I have good developavable suit ( is this a word?)

3) 6 can be a good proposition opposite a lot of good fitting minimum 2C openers. Partner will now know how to proceed considering I don't have an ace or king in my hand

 

Ok, disaster struck as 4s was passed ( undiscussed) but partner really disagreed with 4s bid. He thinks my bid should be 4h.

 

 

Can I go beyond 4h game? Any ideas?

 

This was my hand. Scoring is MP

 

[hv=s=sxh10xxxdxxcqj109xx]133|100|[/hv]

[JLOL]

I think it's pretty reasonable. If you don't have strict rules about 2C p 2D showing a control or something I would have bid that, but 2H can't be argued with (especially if it's forced systemically).

 

I think you have a lot of 5 level safety and a lot of slam potential after 3H and 4H does not adequately describe your hand so I like the bid, and give you marks for being creative.

[TimG]

If you're driving to the five-level, it seems to me that it would be more useful to show which develop-able suit you have. 4♣ then 5♥ seems more useful, except perhaps when opener is lacking a spade control.

[ArtK78]

I would not splinter on these cards, but I can see why some would. One cannot guarantee safety at the 5 level on this hand opposite a solid 2♣ opener (and, seeing what people open 2♣ on around here, I don't think you can guarantee GAME! LOL).

 

For example, this is a 2♣ opener in anyone's book:

 

AKQJ

AKQJxx

K

xx

 

Or any other variation on this theme.

 

If the major suits were reversed (heart splinter in support of spades), I would splinter. The problem with this auction is that you are forced to the 5 level.

[peachy]

4S can never be to play in the given auction, the responder is not in charge of the auction, IMO. I don't think the fact that your response structure included 2H "bust" has anything to do with the problem. Also, in a pickup or new partnership, even established ones, I like the guide that "all strange bids are forcing".

 

2C-3S works ok to show a hand that only has spades but not values for a positive spade response. Even when you did not have this agreed, one could get creative and bid it anyway because by logic (well, mine at least) that is what it has to be, ie. a reason to jump instead of bidding 2S.

 

All in all, the splinter was fine even if undiscussed. But I would have shown the club queen instead of splinter. If your initial 2H response denied all kings and aces, partner then knows it must be the Q. The safest response of course woul be 4H but as we are now in game, partner might not go on and with your hand, I think slam should be sniffed.

[mcphee]

i would not have considered this hand a 2H bust and prefer 2D. Having bid 2H and heard a raise for a fictional suit, I like the splinter actually. I did note though it was pairs, so in this case the splinter is far too risky.

[dcvetkov]

i would not have considered this hand a 2H bust and prefer 2D. Having bid 2H and heard a raise for a fictional suit, I like the splinter actually. I did note though it was pairs, so in this case the splinter is far too risky.

Yes, agree with this. 2D is better. Then 3♠ splinter would be a lot better and not beyond game

 

This was pd hand

 

 

 

[hv=s=sakqxhkqjxxdxcakx]133|100|[/hv]

[snillrik13]

2 diamond reply positive and 2 hearts a bust I think is a very good convention, as the 2 club opener gets a space to bid 2 hearts to find out abour game/slam options.

To me a 4 club bid over 3 hearts is obvious?

 

Anders

[vang]

I used to have a rule with my former partner that 4 hearts/spades is never splinter (unless it's absolutely obvious you cannot hold that suit) but to play. Not the best technical agreement, but the best simple agreement ;-)