Is this close?

[Fluffy]

♠AJxx

♥x

♦AKJ9

♣Q8xx

 

1NT-2♣

2♠-4♥

4♠-??

[kenrexford]

Here's the problem.

 

Consider this problem. With this hand, if partner opens 1NT, you bid stayman, and he shows spades, are you at that point immediately prepared to enter the five-level? If this is obvious, you might want to do so in a way that does not yield the sequence shown. Why?

 

If you splinter 4♥, hear partner sign off at 4♠, and then bid, the suspicion will be that the 4♠ call was slow or with some sort of inference. Even if bidding on works, you may either have the call reversed or may face some other problem.

 

I would, therefore, strongly suggest that a 4♥ call, for these reasons, be reserved for showing a one-call slam try.

 

If you have a two-call slam try, then perhaps you make some other forcing call first. Maybe three of the other major? If that is too much, and if you do not use Exclusion BW, then perhaps a 5-level splinter off the rip.

 

Of course, I might be too conspiracy theorist here.

[Fluffy]

I really though of bidding 3♥ before Ken, but then I decided that if partner has the perfect hand 4324, only 4 hearts will get us to 7.

 

In fact 3♥ would give you a simple 4♣-4♦-4♥ sequence and now make a guess of what kind of cuebid partner has in hearts.

[gnasher]

Pass, and it's not close. Partner says he has heart wastage, so slam is likely to be poor.

[Codo]

Pd needs KQxx,KQx,xx,AKxx to make slam really good. This is nearly the worst possible heart holding opposite a splinter and is a hand where I would sign off in 4 Spade.

 

So to me pass is close, but it is still a pass. I wrote +680 before....

[mikestar]

Agree 100%. As my first bridge teacher said back in the stone age: "4 spades making 6 always outscores 6 spades making 4."

[Fluffy]

PArtner had

 

♠Q10xx

♥KQ10

♦10x

♣AKJx

 

 

A 50% slam in appearence, but 50% slams are never 50%.

 

in 5♠ we found a 5-0 spade split offside and got -100. -12 IMPs.

 

Partner told me he had the feeling that he should bid 5NT instead of 5♠ over 5♦, at MPs he might have done so!, and 460 would truly be unbeateable :D.

[ewj]

I wouldn't bid on.

 

I would have started with 3♥ though and play 4♥ as pretty mild slam try....I mean you might sign off with slam still making, which is kind of the problem I guess.

[dicklont]

It can never be close.

With a splinter you hand over captaincy to your partner.

When he signs off it's over.

[P_Marlowe]

I really though of bidding 3♥ before Ken, but then I decided that if partner has the perfect hand 4324, only 4 hearts will get us to 7.

 

In fact 3♥ would give you a simple 4♣-4♦-4♥ sequence and now make a guess of what kind of cuebid partner has in hearts.

Hi,

 

I think, before you make a plan, how to reach 7,

you should make a plan, how to reach 6.

 

I would go with 3H, starting a cue seq., if partner

cues hearts, I will know he has wastage in hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

It can never be close.

With a splinter you hand over captaincy to your partner.

When he signs off it's over.

Well, that depends on circumstances...

Sometimes you splinter to decide between a small and a grand slam, thus plan to be captain yourself.

 

That's not the case here, so passing 4♠ is obvious, IMO.

[awm]

Dunno about this. I mean, slam is good opposite:

 

KQxx

xxx

xx

AKxx

 

Sure, that hand has "no wasted values" but it's also a twelve-count. Add the heart king to partner's hand and slam just got slightly better. Even something like:

 

KQxx

xxx

xxx

AKx

 

offers fairly decent play, again a twelve-count. Or how about:

 

QTxx

Axx

Qx

AJxx

 

If slam is good opposite the right 12-13, it's also going to be good opposite 15-16 with some extra wasted card(s) in hearts. So splintering and signing off seems very conservative to me. Note that even Fluffy's actual hand, slam is not horrible and he was extremely unlucky to go down at the five-level. Partner could've had the ♠K instead of ♥Q (making slam virtually cold) and still would not bid on over 4♥ with the wasted heart king in his hand.

[mikeh]

I agree with those who criticize the splinter. I appreciate the idea that maybe the splinter will allow one to reach a good grand opposite some magic hand, but surely our main concern is not whether to bid grand... it is whether to bid slam at all, and the splinter is a poor device for that.

 

Now, if it were any other splinter, I would happily do it.. imagine AJxx AKJx Qxxx x... now over 4♣ we hear 4♦, and we are off to the races (well, often).

 

But the problem with 4♥ is that it is immediately below what may be the final contract. Partner has close to a binary decision... cue (usually committing to slam) or sign off (usually committing to game), and this is imposing too much strain on partner, even leaving aside the hesitations that sometimes come when we place partner in this position.

 

Look at what happened... opener signed off and we did not know what to do next.

 

We should have thought about this before we bid 4♥... is our hand so strong that we will drive this hand to at least the 5 level when partner says he dislikes (and may hate) his hand?

 

3♥ is a slam try agreeing spades, and gives us an entire extra round of bidding. It is not a panacea, since, as Fluffy points out, we may engender an ambiguous 4♥ cue from opener.. but if we do, it will be because he likes his hand.. he will have made 2 cue bids...we will know, for example, that we are not going to face the opps cashing the club AK and scoring a ruff when partner is KQxx AKx Qx J10xx, as he might be when he signs off over a splinter. With this hand, he may stretch with 4♥ over 3♥, and we will bid 4♠ comfortably.

 

As a general rule, when we are going to make a space-consuming call, we should anticipate partner making a possible but inconvenient bid, and ask ourselves how comfortable we will be about our auction. If the answer is: not very, then at least consider alternatives.

[JLOL]

Are people really suggesting that it's never right to splinter and bid again? You get to the 5 level, but you describe the key features of your hand well (like ~15/16, short hearts, no club controls). I could easily see this being better than a more vague cuebidding sequence where you don't describe your hand as well but get to the 4 level. In particular showing the stiff heart seems quite important to me for slam purposes.

 

As Adam mentioned, hands like KQTx Kxx xx AKxx are really good slams and that is an obvious sign off over a splinter (15 with the HK). It will also clearly move when we bid again (prime hand, good trumps, and a ruffing value in context of already having shown a min).

 

Furthermore, if you don't splinter and just bid 3H if you end up later cuebidding hearts partner is going to play you for the ace or king since that is almost always what you have, and if he cuebids hearts later you won't know if he has the ace or king(king queen) which is quite important.

 

On this particular hand I'm not sure what is right, but if you added the ST and CT to my hand for instance I would definitely like splintering and then cuebidding, and I think it is definitely a possible sequence.

 

Overall this hand is not strong enough for me to splinter and bid though, I think opposite partners range of signoffs we go minus by bidding a little more often than we get to good slams. Again, I'm fixated on the ST since going down on bad breaks seems much more likely without it. I like splintering and passing the signoff.

[hotShot]

I hate to state the obvious but ....

 

The problem with this hand is, that of the 25 points you don't hold 10 are in ♥.

Opener holds 15-17 of this 25, so he's likely to have his share of ♥ honors.

 

So if the splinter is asking about ♥ wastage, you know in advance that the answer will usually be yes.

Giving up the a lot of bidding space needs some compensation and if you don't have a clear agreement what no wastage is in this sequence means, the splinter is not helping you.

[Winstonm]

I am not going to join the chorus of badmouthing the splinter because I don't know what your splinter agreement was - but if you had no agreement, then there is the problem.

 

I am of the opinion that a lot of expert, near-expert, and advanced players do not have a great overall consensus on the splinter group of bids. I would rather have a so-so agreement that a dead-on right misunderstanding.

 

Personally, I think a splinter should be only 1 type hand - a hand that knows already what it will do after a signoff, either bid on or pass. If you don't know what to do if partner signs off, then the splinter was not the right call.

 

That may only be a so-so agreement, but it sure beats guessing.

[Phil]

Do you have another way to show a strong spade raise without going through a splinter? If this is true, then 4♥ should either be:

 

1. A "one call" slam try. IMO, Opener should proceed with useful minimums and imperfect maximums.

 

2. A slam try that was bidding shortness 'along the way' to RKC. Showing the shortness may be very important if partner is consulted later on for a decision to bid 7.

[kenrexford]

I was not intending to bad-mouth the idea of a splinter and then a cuebid if partner signs off. In many situations, this would make sense.

 

However, if the decision to do that cannot be made prior to making the splinter as an unambiguous conclusion as to how to bid the hand, there is a great risk of a problem. The mere fact that this actual situation yielded a debated question as to "what next" proves that there are alternatives. The fact that partner has a clear decision to make and may be tweener, without a tweener-resolving LTTC bid, makes the risk of a tank high. A tank, and then a decision that is debatable, yields a lose-lose situation. You end up forced into the wrong decision, because the qorst plausible decision is enforced.

 

Whereas, therefore, in theory a splinter and then another call might be a reasonable position to take, the likely hesitation by partner will cause problems if "splinter...bid anyway" is not the clear way to handle the hand.