Do not blame me please

[Fluffy]

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=skqj72hdq754ckj42&e=s9863h8642dakcaq7]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1♠-2NT (2NT is limit or more)

3♥-4♥ (3♥ is GF with singleton/void)

4♠-pass

[jdonn]

I blame Fluffy no matter where he sat. :P

 

Ok ok, I hope you were opener since I blame responder. 4♥ made no sense, why not 4♣ if you are cuebidding?

[helene_t]

I emphasize with E for not being able to resist using Bulmer (wasnt that the name of the no-vastage bid?) now he finally got the perfect hand for it :P

[jillybean]

What is 4♥?

[Fluffy]

by definition raise of a splinter shows the pressence of 3 or 4 low cards on that suit (denies the ace in our agreements as well)

 

 

It just shows that the hand fits perfectly, and that we have full values outside that suit.

[mtvesuvius]

by definition raise of a splinter shows the pressence of 3 or 4 low cards on that suit (denies the ace in our agreements as well)

 

 

It just shows that the hand fits perfectly, and that we have full values outside that suit.

and it should imply both minor suit cuebids?

 

Now West should get really excited!

 

Partner has no wasted values which means it's a 30 point deck. You have 25 of those 30... South should bid RKC (Which should be exclusion) and the slam is reached easily... In addition, give partner the A♠ also, and now you have enough info to bid the grand.

[the hog]

I blame Fluffy no matter where he sat. :P

 

Ok ok, I hope you were opener since I blame responder. 4♥ made no sense, why not 4♣ if you are cuebidding?

Raising a splinter usually shows no wasted values in this suit. On this basis I think West should move. Exclusion KC? East should also move; her hand looks excellent opposite a stiff H.

I assign 50% to both players.

[matmat]

What is 4♥?

offer to play over the 54 that p just showed.

[JanM]

At first I thought Opener was more to blame, but I think I've managed to convince myself it's responder, unless the 4♥ bid promised a hand that was always a game force.

If responder didn't show more than a very well-fitting limit raise, presumably responder could have something like:

Axxx

xxxx

KJx

Qx

 

Of course, that's enough for 5♠ to be pretty safe, but it's not that hard to come up with a hand with 2 Aces that won't have much play for slam.

 

Axxx

xxxx

Axx

Qx

 

OTOH, responder knows s/he has a great hand - no wastage in hearts, first round control of both minors, a game forcing hand where s/he only showed a limit raise. Look at some minimum hands for opener:

 

KQxxx

x

QJxx

Kxx

 

That looks like a DEAD minimum to me (would you force to game opposite a limit raise?) but 5♠ still looks pretty cold. I actually couldn't come up with a hand that would force to game opposite a limit raise where we'd be seriously at risk in 5 if we're off 2 keycards. It would have to start with Qxxxx or Jxxxx of spades I think, and then is there really room for a game force? Qxxxx

A

QJxxx

KJ

 

Maybe you'd force to game with that, but would you splinter?

 

 

If opener has enough keycards:

 

AKxxx

x

QJxxx

Kxx

 

Slam needs 2-2 trumps.

 

KQxxx

A

Qxxx

Kxx

 

We need trumps to behave, and I don't think that's a hand opener would want to splinter with over 2NT (unless it's mandatory with any hand that wants to bid game over a limit raise).

 

If opener has AKQ or KQJ of spades and enough keycards, can we really be going down in slam? Even

AKQxx

x

Qxxx

xxx

 

on which SURELY opener wouldn't make a game forcing splinter over a limit raise, only needs 3-1 spades and the club finesse for slam.

[jdonn]

by definition raise of a splinter shows the pressence of 3 or 4 low cards on that suit (denies the ace in our agreements as well)

 

It just shows that the hand fits perfectly, and that we have full values outside that suit.

Well if that's your agreement it's opener's fault. Either way this is very simple. :P

 

Personally I just though east was cuebidding and could have had something like Axxxx AKQx xx xx.

[cherdanno]

Look at some minimum hands for opener:

 

KQxxx

x

QJxx

Kxx

 

That looks like a DEAD minimum to me (would you force to game opposite a limit raise?) but 5♠ still looks pretty cold.

We could easily have 2 trump losers? I don't think I am nitpicking, the horrible trumps are responders biggest problem. (Make the ♠K into the ace, and 5♠ still still goes down 15% of the time or so.)

Still I agree that responder can force to the 5-level, since he hasn't shown his values yet. (4 small is better than 3 small in hearts, and AK AQ in the side suits is better than A AQ, which would surely be enough for a limit raise.) Raising 4♠ to 5 would describe the hand perfectly I think.

 

Josh did you notice responder only promised limit raise values?

[jdonn]

Josh did you notice responder only promised limit raise values?

Not after he bids 4♥.

 

(I assume?? I guess I didn't know about the agreement once already.)

[Codo]

Opener said:

 

1 ♠ I have 5+ spades and a opening bid

3 ♥short hearts and

4 ♠ a minimum hand.

 

Now, this looks like a close to perfect describtion of his hand.

 

Responder said:

2 NT I have 4+ spades and 11+ HCPS

4 ♥ I have nothing wasted in hearts.

 

I think, both had bid reasonable so far. Unluckily, opener had a void and not a singelton and responder had a little bid extra. I won't blame anybody. The methods did not work this time.

[Fluffy]

At the table, I forgot that partner could had bid 3♣ (negative) instead of 3♥, and passed. If I had though a bit more, it is easy to see that even if partner has 1 heart (IMO he MUST have 1 heart for bidding 4 spades only), we have 13+13 = 26/30. You normally need 28/30 to be on a good grand when you have a void and a good fit, but since I have zero jacks, I could have dropped the limit to 27/30.

 

There is no way that we had no 5 levle safety with my hand and should at least made another move (not sure wich one!).

 

Some of the problem IMO, was the lack of strenght definition for the 4♥ bid, given that I only have a minimum of 10 and no maximum, it should be very definited. Also worth defining is the 3♠ bid (3NT we use it for for playing at MPs).