Splinter or Jacoby 2NT?

[masse24]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt8hat52d6cj92&w=shdc&n=shdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjthat52d6cj92]133|100[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

 

Partner opens 1♥?

I'm bidding J2nt as I need more information from partner.

[Flameous]

I call TD.

[mikestar13]

Assuming the 13th card is a club, I splinter. This is a minimum though solid game raise, I want to show rather than ask.

[peachy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjthat52d6cj92]133|100[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

 

There are only 12 cards, what the 13th card is, might change the plans. I assume the diamond is still singleton.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1S, 2NT and 4D are all reasonable choices, and whatever you choose will be ok.

 

I would go with 2NT, since I feel the hand is too strong for a splinter, a

s splinter shoes usually a hand in the 13-15points range, and you are close to

supermax.

The 4D splinter is also the one, who takes up the most rooem, there no is bid

between 4D and 4H, so you should be a wary of making such a bid.

 

Nevertheless the splinter describes your hand fairly well.

 

1S is also ok, afterall 66% of your HCP are concentrated in this suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The comment assumed a 4441 shape, with 5 spades, 1S gets a lot more attractive,

and I guess, I would go with it most of the time.

[peachy]

Here is an article on Steve Robinson's web page, where several experts discuss this very topic

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202006-06.aspx

[Siegmund]

I like 1S followed by 3 forcing hearts on the next round, but not everybody has that available in their system. If I have no delayed forcing raise available other than FSF, I will settle for the splinter now.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious splinter. What is the point of playing them if you don't splinter on this hand?

[Zelandakh]

In my methods I response 2S here showing a mini-splinter or in-between splinter in any suit. Usually the bidding will go 1H - 2S - 2N - 4D showing a singleton diamond and ~16-19 sp. I do not like making a simple splinter with with this range so playing more general methods I would prefer to start with something else, whether 1S or 2NT might depend to some extent on partner and system design. Essentially I am agreeing with P Marlowe here while throwing out a conventional alternative.

[Lurpoa]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt8hat52d6cj92&w=shdc&n=shdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

 

 

what is the question ?

[kenrexford]

With hands like these, tactics should govern how to bid, IMO.

 

First, take a splinter. There are a few problems with the splinter. First, as a one-under splinter (4♦ leaving no room to bid between the splinter and a signoff), you want to be pure, whereas with a lower splinter (e.g., a 4♣ splinter supporting spades) you have room to do a little fine-tuning. The impurity is the lack of a club conntrol and the one-suited nature of the side holdings (it is all about spades on the side). So, I dislike a splinter with this hand. Not that I dislike it enough to reject it, as I may dislike other options more. But, I dislike the splinter. Thus, I would strongly disagree with any sentiment that this seems somehow to be an ideal splinter. Far from it.

 

Second, take a Jacoby 2NT auction. I like the fact that I have basically primes external, although the same spade problem exists. I am expecting, however, a fairly high chance of a 3♠ call (short spades), which would not leave me well-placed. If I have a better structure to show shortness, I probably end up just delaying the inevitable. Jacoby doesn't really help me describe this hand, and I am not holding a hand where partner's description will likely enable me to assert captaincy. Unbalanced and lopsided makes for bad Jacoby sequences.

 

Third, what about a 2/1 GF sequence? The serious downside is in the inability to focus spades quickly and the overstatement of bidding clubs with nothing resembling a stopper. Against that, however, is a fairly strong likelihood that I see a 2♦ rebid, which saves a lot of space. And, I like having the problem/lie being in the lowest ranking suit, as the space might be maximized to unwind the hand better.

 

My general default, however, if toward a 2/1 sequence when all options are flawed, as this maintains space and expresses possible impurity. If I start 2♣ (real clubs or just a fit in my methods) and hear and expected 2♦ (real diamonds or balanced in my methods), I can bid 2♥ (real fit in my methods) and maximize space for cues to unwind the situation. (Calls other than 2♦ seem to lead to even better sequences.) Partner might then, for instance, bid 2♠ to show a stiff (because he cannot have an honor control), and we are essentially at a similar point to the Jacoby sequence but a level lower. If parter does not bid 2♠, and hence denies a stiff (or Ace or King), then he often later will be able to cue 3♠ to show third-round control (the HUGE Queen), which seems impossible in any other auction. That analysis already convinces me that the best sequence to learn what need about spades seems to be with the 2♣ start.

 

All of this, of course, is because of the methods I use and the structural expectations of various alternative options. Others might not have this same analysis because the nuances of style and of available options will not tend toward my option making the most sense. But, this would be how I personally would approach this hand, FWIW.

[pooltuna]

You need to be able to differentiate between a holding like ♠ AQxx ♥ ATxx ♦ x ♣ Jxxx and the actual hand. Tactically I think the splinter with the hand in the previous sentence is better because partner will not have to make a questionable slam decision with so little space and it is potentially more costly for the opps to try to guess at the 4 level than the 3 level whether to venture a sac.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt8hat52d6cj92&w=shdc&n=shdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

 

 

With 5=4=1=3 I will bid 2nt...since I can find a double fit in spades now. with 4-4-1-4 I would have splintered. 4=4=1=4 hands play a bit less well.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

In my methods I response 2S here showing a mini-splinter or in-between splinter in any suit. Usually the bidding will go 1H - 2S - 2N - 4D showing a singleton diamond and ~16-19 sp. I do not like making a simple splinter with with this range so playing more general methods I would prefer to start with something else, whether 1S or 2NT might depend to some extent on partner and system design. Essentially I am agreeing with P Marlowe here while throwing out a conventional alternative.

I like the idea of the 2S!-jump to show three things with one bid:

1) GF

2) 4 cd Ht raise ( like Jacoby ) and

3) Sp side suit

 

I'm hung up on follow-ups, though.... it seems it could get complicated.

( I've been trying to figure out something myself for a useful 2S! ( over a 1H open) and I'm pulling my hair out!

Opener may have 4 cards Sp ( a double-fit ) or not... does he show this as a 1st priority ?

One or both hands may have shortness ... or not.

Does Opener have "extras" or not ?

 

Also for the 2S! response:

Can Responder's Sp suit be only

4 cards

?

Can Responder have

no

shortness? .. such as 5 4 2 2 or 4 4 ( 3 2 or 2 3 )?

[campboy]

I play 2♠ as GF, either single-suited or fit with a side suit, so that would be ideal in this case. If that isn't allowed, I think this is within range for a splinter. If I were to go via 2NT then showing a shortage later would imply a hand too good to splinter, so I would have problems later.

 

Change the ♠J to the ♠Q and now I think it is too strong. I now also prefer 2NT to 2♠ since partner's spade holding is less important.

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt8hat52d6cj92&w=shdc&n=shdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

:blink:

 

Just curious if we get close to a consensus here...

It would help if we knew what the opening bid was.Edit: I looked closer at the poll, and it was obviously 1♥, but that doesn't stop me suggesting that the bid should be specified in the problem :P

 

If it was hearts then, in my view, any call other than 1♠ is silly.

 

I can't imagine any competent pair having any difficulty bidding effectively after 1♠, and we really, really want to show a good hand on which spade help will be useful.

 

Imagine Qx KQxxx Kxx Axx...after a splinter, should he get excited, and, if so, how? 4♦ takes a lot of room and couldn't we hold KJxx AJxx x Qxxx? That's a splinter to me and we don't even have 5 level safety.

 

If it was 1♠, then I would tend to use Jacoby because this hand is too good for a 4-level splinter....while in some sense the spade J10 are wasted, the reality is that partner is looking at a spade suit no better (tho maybe longer) than Q9xxx, which won't make him slam positive opposite my typical splinter trump suit of Axxx or Kxxx.

 

I think splinters should be narowly defined in terms of playing strength, and this one is just a tad too much.

 

Now, if my J2N structure were poor, I'd reconsider.

[kenrexford]

What?!?! Mike, are you serious?

 

So, you will start with 1♠ and get the likely 2♦ rebid from partner. Now, to establiush a GF, you presumably will bid 3♣? Then, when partner bids 3NT, what's your plan?

 

I mean, I personally would actually bid 1♠ in one set of agreements, but in that partnership a response of 1♠ followed by a jump to 3♥ shows five spades, 4+ hearts support, GF, and unbalanced (not 5422). That works extremely well in this situation and would CLEARLY win the "best auction" award. Something like 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-3♥(5♠/4+♥ unbal.)-P-asking bid-P-diamonds short-P-tada!

 

Barring that sort of agreement, though, 1♠ seems sick.

[CSGibson]

I would like to focus partner on the fact that I have a strong side suit which is a potential source of tricks, since that and the trump support are the salient features of the hand. I might even consider a Soloway-style strong jump shift into 2♠, or a 1♠ - 4♥ bidding plan. I will not bid a jacoby 2N, as that generally makes me captain of the auction, and I have a hand where it is more important to make an accurate description and let partner decide, rather than trying to elicit descriptive responses from partner.

 

A splinter is also a strong possibility, it does at least get some points across, but it doesn't really tell partner that Qxx KQxxx Kx Axx, for example, is a great slam, while my spade picture bids might.

[WrecksVee]

I vote to splinter assuming I am playing that it shows 13-15 HCP. This is my standard agreement and is taken from Washington Standard. A jump to

3♠ would show what most are assuming is the range of a splinter, 9-12 HCP, with four card support and some singleton.

 

With out that agreement I lean toward Jacoby 2NT as then the splinter is needed for the weaker hand.

[NickToll]

This seems to me the perfect hand for 2♠ (solid spades, or game forcing with a fit in hearts and five good spades), followed by 4♦ (heart raise, good spades, singleton diamond). The immediate Splinter suggests something in clubs too, which I don't have, whereas the Soloway sequence is much more descriptive.

[ArtK78]

Here is an article on Steve Robinson's web page, where several experts discuss this very topic

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202006-06.aspx

 

I like the comment at the very end of the article, which stated my view on this question quite nicely. I assume that the comment was added by Steve Robinson:

 

When you use Jacoby 2NT, you want to become the captain. When you splinter you want opener to become the captain. In other words, you Jacoby 2NT when you want to learn about opener’s hand. You splinter when you want opener to learn about your hand.

 

How do you decide which one is appropriate? That is a matter of judgment and experience. However, there are some guidelines. If you can describe your hand nearly perfectly with a splinter bid, that is the route you should take. If your hand is very strong, it is likely that you should be the captain and use Jacoby 2NT to request information from partner. Also, you know that you need only to obtain some very specific information from partner to place the contract accurately, you should become the captain and use Jacoby 2NT.

 

The example hand is somewhat in-between the two extremes, and either route might work. For that matter, bidding 1♠ over 1♥ might work. I would probably bid 2NT since a diamond splinter over a 1♥ opening leaves no room for partner to explore for slam below game.

[Zelandakh]

I like the idea of the 2S!-jump to show three things with one bid:

1) GF

2) 4 cd Ht raise ( like Jacoby ) and

3) Sp side suit

 

I'm hung up on follow-ups, though.... it seems it could get complicated.

( I've been trying to figure out something myself for a useful 2S! ( over a 1H open) and I'm pulling my hair out!

Opener may have 4 cards Sp ( a double-fit ) or not... does he show this as a 1st priority ?

One or both hands may have shortness ... or not.

Does Opener have "extras" or not ?

 

Also for the 2S! response:

Can Responder's Sp suit be only

4 cards

?

Can Responder have

no

shortness? .. such as 5 4 2 2 or 4 4 ( 3 2 or 2 3 )?

The 1H - 2S bid I was mentioning has nothing whatsoever to do with spades. It shows 4+ card support, a side suit shortage, and either invitational (~10-12) or in-between (~16-19) strength. Your suggestion sounds like a game-forcing fit jump. An obvious scheme might be to use 2NT to show any minimum and higher bids to show extras. Showing a double fit via 3S would surely be the top priority there enabling 4 level minor cues and 6KCB as we have discussed in the 2NT auction. After a 2NT minimum I think I would use 3C as a relay with 3D shortage and 3H club shortage, but switching 3C and 3H is logical and also fine. Again Opener can show the spade double-fit easily.

 

Of course you could make things much more complicated and add some steps for voids, extra trump length, or whatever but this seems to be a reasonable starting point.

[matmat]

any love for a Soloway jump?

[mikeh]

What?!?! Mike, are you serious?

 

So, you will start with 1♠ and get the likely 2♦ rebid from partner. Now, to establiush a GF, you presumably will bid 3♣? Then, when partner bids 3NT, what's your plan?

 

Ken, you have surely got to be joking, if you think that the 'problem' auction you fear is any kind of problem at all. Do you ever listen to auctions?

 

Think about the sequence you gave....I bid 3♣ FSF over 2♦, and partner bids 3N...what's he got?

 

He has 5=4 in the reds and probably 1=3 in the blacks. He has no significant extras since he made a call that we will often pass. We now pull 3N to 4♥, announcing a hand with slam interest, otherwise we would have jumped to 4♥ over his (non-forcing and therefore limited) 2♦ rebid. So he knows we have primary spades, real heart support and some extras but not a lot, since we have also made a bid that is non-forcing.

 

Now...is this perfect? No, of course not. He is still in the dark about some important specifics, but bear in mind that with most of our hcp opposite shortness, this hand actually isn't as strong as it started out to be: x KQxxx KQxx A10x is a very strong hand for him in the circumstances, and slam is not very good on the (almost) marked club lead.

 

So, I will admit that IF he has a 1=5=4=3 hand with an ordinary opener, I may lose a little accuracy, altho it usually won't matter. But if he raises spades, rebids notrump, rebids 2♣, rebids hearts...all of which are collectively far more probable than your feared but not fearsome sequence, I will be at least as well positioned as any splinterers or 2N bidders. Maybe you wouldn't be? But, as is evident from many threads, you and I don't exactly bid alike, and I am comfortable that I would be ok.