Idea that I think is new?

[Fluffy]

I'll add that maybe telling the opponents what your doubleton is might not be a bright idea when you have a 4-6 with a good 6 card suit.

 

On the ideal squence 1♣-1♠-4♣ you have no real need to know wich singleton declarer has, you cue the red suit you stop, and someone keycards and if you don't miss 2 keycards you are good playing 6♠ I guess. You might fail if you miss ♠A and they lead your doubleton, but they need to guess your doubleton first.

 

Of course with void you are better placed splintering IMO

[fred]

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

 

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

 

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

 

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

 

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

 

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pooltuna]

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

 

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

 

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

 

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

 

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

 

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

so I guess 1m-1M-4M hands are reserved for something like ♠y ♥AQ92 ♦AQ9753 ♣z where y & z are either {0,3} or {1,2}?

[fred]

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

 

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

 

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

 

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

 

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

 

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

so I guess 1m-1M-4M hands are reserved for something like ♠y ♥AQ92 ♦AQ9753 ♣z where y & z are either {0,3} or {1,2}?

What 1m-1M-4M means is a completely separate issue - the weird 4C convention has no impact on this.

 

Can the 6-4 hand you are trying to describe contain, say, a side Ace in addition to AQxx AQxxxx? If no, I suggest you bid 3H with these hands and use 4M for something else. If yes, you need to do a better job of defining the range of the 4M bid.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Fred, I think Pooltuna is getting at the question of what to do with the concentrated 6/4s. Perhaps you're comfortable bidding only 3M with the hand he gave, but increase its strength a little (e.g. x AQxx xx AKxxxx) and what then is your systemic bid? Splinter with 3S?

 

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game. What do you think? Do you use them as mini-splinters?

 

Thanks

[fred]

Fred,  I think Pooltuna is getting at the question of what to do with the concentrated 6/4s.  Perhaps you're comfortable bidding only 3M with the hand he gave, but increase its strength a little (e.g. x AQxx xx AKxxxx) and what then is your systemic bid?  Splinter with 3S?

Right.

 

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game.  What do you think?  Do you use them as mini-splinters?

 

For me these bids are game-forcing with 6+ of the minor and 3 spades. I think this use of the jump reverse is highly-obscure (ie you might not be able to find very many people at all who bid this way).

 

Lots of people think mini-Splinters are a good or a great convention. I haven't played mini-Splinters enough to have a qualified opinion, but my instincts tell me they are no great shakes. However, it is not as if I have any great shakes of my own to recommend for jump reverses. Unless you are going to be super-serious, mini-Splinters is probably a reasonable choice (and they might be a good choice even if you are super-serious).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game.  What do you think?  Do you use them as mini-splinters?

 

For me these bids are game-forcing with 6+ of the minor and 3 spades. I think this use of the jump reverse is highly-obscure (ie you might not be able to find very many people at all who bid this way).

 

Lots of people think mini-Splinters are a good or a great convention. I haven't played mini-Splinters enough to have a qualified opinion, but my instincts tell me they are no great shakes. However, it is not as if I have any great shakes of my own to recommend for jump reverses. Unless you are going to be super-serious, mini-Splinters is probably a reasonable choice (and they might be a good choice even if you are super-serious).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I also used to have the agreement that a jump reverse was a game forcing hand with the minor. Eventually I switched to mini splinters for the simple reason that I think they are at least 5 times more common. I was simply getting no mileage out of the first meaning even though it seemed good to me in theory.

[kenrexford]

I still play that a jump reverse shows a frag support and length in the opened minor, values.

 

1♣-P-1♥-P-3♦

 

Values bid with 3♥/6+♣.

 

Could take it or leave it, frankly. In the last few years, it came up once, I think.

[Finch]

Having come back to this thread directly after reading the thread on transfer Walsh reminded me that one should never take sequences in isolation.

 

I agree that it feels "wrong" to raise a 1-level reponse to 3M on both a good distributional 14-count and 18-19 balanced. There are three ways to deal with this:

(i) live with it

(ii) Raise to game on the strong balanced hands.

(iii) Play more system

 

I don't like (ii) because you just get too high too often, particularly playing with a partner who responds very light. Getting too high with 14 opposite 4 usually isn't going to happen (the opponents usually either have or should have bid); getting too high when you have the strong balanced hand is usually bad.

 

There are various ways to do (iii). At various times I have played combinations of the following:

 

(i) Playing specifically 1C - 1M - 3D as 18-19 balanced with 4-card support. I think this is definitely more useful than the mini-splinter. One can play 1D - 1S - 3H similarly, but no simple answer to 1D - 1H - ?

 

(ii) Playing 1m - 1H - 2S as artificial (and 1m - 1H - 1S as forcing). The options are slightly different depending on whether you opened 1C or 1D, but include a 3=6 invite (the Bridge World "death hand") and 18-19 balanced with 4-card support.

 

(iii) Playing transfer responses to 1C, with a 1NT rebid showing 18-20 balanced, leaves us with the following (as an example)

 

1C - 1H (spades)

2S = min with 4-card support

3S = 4=2=2=5 (or similarly with a singleton honour) about 14-17

4S = 5=1=1=6 minimum

3D/3H = mini-splinter

4D/4H = splinter

4C = 4=(21)=6

 

2NT multiway, 3C (forced) asks, then

3D = game forcing with clubs

3S = 18-19 balanced with 4 spades

3NT = 4=2=2=5 18+

4C = 3 = (21) = 7

4D/4H = void

4S = 5=1=1=6 extras

 

You'll notice there's a bid missing, namely relay followed by 3H. We play this as a stronger splinter (i.e. interest in the 5-level). Perhaps not optimal, but it means we can play almost exactly the same sequences after 1C - 1D - 2NT when there's the spade mini-splinter to fit in as well.

[gnasher]

(iii) Playing transfer responses to 1C, with a 1NT rebid showing 18-20 balanced

Another way to do it is to open the 18-20 balanced hands at the two-level, play 1♣-1red-2NT similar to the way Frances suggests, and use 1♣-1red-1M and 1♣-1red-1NT to distinguish between 3-card support

[PrecisionL]

Interesting thread.

 

In my non Strong Club partnerships we have given up direct hcp raises and treat 1m - 1M - 3M/4M as a distributional raise.

 

HCP raises depend on the minor opened:

 

1♣ - 1M - 2NT = 3 or 4-card Major raise (or balanced hand with xx)

 

1♦ - 1M - 3♣ - either G.F. with ♣ or balanced 3 or 4-card Major raise.

 

I'm at a Sectional, so I can post more details Sunday night if there is interest.

 

Idea is from Pit Bulls bridge site:

 

http://www.pitbulls.shawbiz.ca/Coaches%20C...ump%20Shift.htm

[Free]

There are other ways to play "more system", even without transfer responses after 1♣.

 

For example, I play 1X-1M-2NT as 3-way:

- 18-19HCP, balanced

- GF with 4 card fit

- 16+HCP, 6+X, 3M (hand of death)

Haven't had any problems thus far.

 

Another way is to overload the following reverses (below 2 of responder's suit):

1♣-1♠-2♦/♥

1♣-1♥-2♦

1♦-1♠-2♥

You may combine them with some higher reverses or 2NT. I think this is the best way, but it requires more study.