Rebidding Problem 2

[flytoox]

Playing 2/1 game forcing except suit rebid, you hold:

S: AK875

H: AQ2

D: 2

C: AJ85

 

You open 1S, pd responded with 2H, what is your plan?

1. 3C

2. 4D

3. 3H

 

would you choose a different bid if your holdings are weakened to

 

S: AK875

H: AQ2

D: 2

C: 6543

 

OR

S: AJ875

H: AQ2

D: 2

C: A543

[Codo]

I do not know the general approach ion this, but I would nearly never use a first round splinter without 4 trumps. I strongly believe that such a space consuming bid should have a very clear definition.

So 4 diamond is out.

 

I would bid 3 Heart on the example hand, which is gf and strong for me.

I would use this on all three example hands and later show the strength after learning a little from partners hand by his failure/use of serious (or nonserious)3 NT.

In my opinion even the second hand is not weak. The hounor distribution and the singleton is really great.

[gwnn]

agree with everything Codo said. no splinter without 4 trumps, etc etc

 

with your first hand I do not momentarily see an auction where I could be persuaded to stay out of slam though. well if I keycard and partner comes up with 0. (???? QJ JTxxxx KQJx Kx)

[andy_h]

3♥ on all three. By bidding 3♣ (then following up with some number of heart bid) will either confuse partner with him not believing you have AQx support or if this is your style then you would sometimes make the auction unnecessarily high. I wouldn't splinter as well as you should have a clear definition of the strength for this kind of splinters and this one especially (1S-2H-4D) because it leaves zero space for responder to even make a last train bid. Oh, not to mention that 4 trumps is a must when I splinter.

[Fluffy]

yep, just 3♥ on the 3 of them.

[Free]

For me:

3♥

2♠

3♥

 

I prefer 3♥ to show extra's. But I don't know if that's standard...

[andy_h]

For me:

3♥

2♠

3♥

 

I prefer 3♥ to show extra's. But I don't know if that's standard...

How does AK AQ and a stiff not qualify as extras? Compare that to an ordinary AKxxx Qxx QJx xx is miles different. If you bid 2♠ then a further 3♥ which could essentially be based on a doubleton and then a further 4♥ which could either be a bal 12-14 w/3 hearts or maybe you're missing a stopper for 3NT and judge 4♥ to be the best strain.

[jjbrr]

easy 3♥ in all three.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3H, should be your strongest move toward slam.

#2 4D, min for the call

#3 4D, max for the call, maybe you are too strong

 

The only reason not to make the splinter with #2

would be, that you req. 4 card support.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

3H on all. Splintering on both the 2nd and the 3rd looks too tough for partner, not raising with support and shortness seems weird but:

 

Last weekend Bertens-Bakkeren had the auction 1S - 2H - 2S - 3NT - 4H - p, all by them. I asked what this showed, 6 spades and 3 hearts? Huub said they never discussed this auction. Bakkeren tabled AQ432 KJx J10xx x.

[Jlall]

3H on all also.

[aguahombre]

3H presumably cannot be passed even under the OP's conditions (2/1 exc rebid).

So, with this foundation, 3H is necessary on the first hand to prevent the complications of 3C described by AndyH.

 

If 2H were truly game forcing, though, I would choose 3C and not worry about awkward levels later. The other two hands are 3H easily, IMO.

[Phil]

Wow I thought there would be some debate here but 3♥ seems completely obvious on all three.

 

If you have some MisIry style agreement that a splinter denies a control in the off suit, it could be useful to stretch a splinter to include three card support, since you have another message with the call.

[skjaeran]

3♥, showing extras on all three.

I'd need another trump to splinter (and normally play splinter=void).

[kenrexford]

3♥ on all three in my style. A splinter here, for me, could easily be made on three trumps, but it shows two of the top three hearts (check), three of the top four spades (trick source -- not good enough here), a stiff (not a void) not higher than the Q (check), and no control (1st/2nd) in the fourth suit (one check only).

 

So, the closest is the "B" hand, off by only the spade Jack. I would bid 4♦ with AKJxx-AQx-x-xxxx, because of system agreements.

[Jlall]

3♥ on all three in my style.  A splinter here, for me, could easily be made on three trumps, but it shows two of the top three hearts (check), three of the top four spades (trick source -- not good enough here), a stiff (not a void) not higher than the Q (check), and no control (1st/2nd) in the fourth suit (one check only).

 

So, the closest is the "B" hand, off by only the spade Jack.  I would bid 4♦ with AKJxx-AQx-x-xxxx, because of system agreements.

Don't you feel the fourth trump is often important for the 2H bidder to know about in evaluating how the play will go (how many ruffs he can take, stuff like that?) Or does this never cost in your style?

[kenrexford]

3♥ on all three in my style.  A splinter here, for me, could easily be made on three trumps, but it shows two of the top three hearts (check), three of the top four spades (trick source -- not good enough here), a stiff (not a void) not higher than the Q (check), and no control (1st/2nd) in the fourth suit (one check only).

 

So, the closest is the "B" hand, off by only the spade Jack.  I would bid 4♦ with AKJxx-AQx-x-xxxx, because of system agreements.

Don't you feel the fourth trump is often important for the 2H bidder to know about in evaluating how the play will go (how many ruffs he can take, stuff like that?) Or does this never cost in your style?

Sure, that would be nice, and that ambiguity could cost.

 

But, the idea in this specific auction is not so much to describe a hand with trick-taking ability by way of ruffs but rather trick-taking ability by way of a trick source, with the stiff offered as a control of a specific type. Thus, the "splinter" is really better viewed as a "trick-source fit bid indicating a shortness control without a side fourth-suit control."

 

It is focused at finding a fitting holding where we take our ten tricks in the majors, the first-round control in one of the minors, and some 12th trick partner has in mind while looking at his hand.

 

If partner has some other hand, where the length of the heart suit in my hand is critical to the line because his spade contribution sucks and he needs to take 12 tricks by way of five hearts, two diamond ruffs, my two top spades, and three minor winners, then he can hopefully establish spades slowly for the 12th trick anyway (or finesse/squeeze the 12th).

[peachy]

I would bid 3 Heart on the example hand, which is gf and strong for me.

Gameforce was on already.

3H.

[gwnn]

Gameforce was on already.

No.

[Codo]

3H on all. Splintering on both the 2nd and the 3rd looks too tough for partner, not raising with support and shortness seems weird but:

 

Last weekend Bertens-Bakkeren had the auction 1S - 2H - 2S - 3NT - 4H - p, all by them. I asked what this showed, 6 spades and 3 hearts? Huub said they never discussed this auction. Bakkeren tabled AQ432 KJx J10xx x.

I cannot believe that such a well oiled partnership had not discussed such an ordinary sequence.

 

My guess had been that they play this part of their system as in SEF, so 2 spade show a normal weak opening and direct raises had shown stronger hands or different shapes.

[aguahombre]

3H on all. Splintering on both the 2nd and the 3rd looks too tough for partner, not raising with support and shortness seems weird but:

 

Last weekend Bertens-Bakkeren had the auction 1S - 2H - 2S - 3NT - 4H - p, all by them. I asked what this showed, 6 spades and 3 hearts? Huub said they never discussed this auction. Bakkeren tabled AQ432 KJx J10xx x.

I cannot believe that such a well oiled partnership had not discussed such an ordinary sequence.

 

My guess had been that they play this part of their system as in SEF, so 2 spade show a normal weak opening and direct raises had shown stronger hands or different shapes.

getting off track, and not knowing if those two have the same "NF rebid suit" agreement. But, it looks as if they do, and might not be entirely forthcoming with disclosure if your guess is correct. Maybe the inclusion of 3NT and then removing to 4H -- as opposed to a minor suit call with 6-3 in majors and decent values had not been discussed, but the 2S rebid certainly must have been.