mtvesuvius Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I have little to no imagination here, but I'd play partner to have a splinter in support of hearts, and bid 4♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 {yes, of course there's a ruling associated with this. But you might struggle to guess what the ruling actually involved.}[hv=pc=n&s=s74hk9862dt4caq97&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dd1h2c3sp]133|200[/hv] You are playing in a not very regular partnership with a good player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayin801 Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Well maybe RHO is taking a wait-and-see approach with something like AKQJxxx, x, x, Axxx, but if he isn't and just has a "normal" takeout X, then all the signs point toward partner being 4450 with a good hand, and something like Axxx, QJxx, AKxxx, - could give us slam. That having been said, anything worse or with more points but worse controls could hurt us, and our club values look wasted, AND trumps could be 4-0, so I'm just bidding 4♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I get to look at my hand. And when I do, the idea of a spade splinter seems remote. If asked, I would have a problem answering during the auction. I guess the best answer who be "undiscussed in this competitive situation". That would not be telling anyone what I have in my hand. Answered the poll, based on what I see. Cue for hearts, not splinter --and would just bid 4H per what Kayin said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dburn Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values. Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWO4BRIDGE Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 If you have 2 cards Sp and partner has one, why aren't the opps bidding them ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 A 4450 hand would bid 4♣, which is unambiguously a splinter for hearts.Partner either has a splinter for hearts, or a good hand with spades and diamonds (maybe he isn't sure 2S is forcing, or maybe he is afraid he can't show his extra values later). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 conditions state he is a good player. 2S would have been forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 conditions state he is a good player.Uh thanks. That clarifies that it is not a cuebid for hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 No idea. I'm going to play him for a hand with running diamonds and a spade stop looking for a club stop for 3N. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 ok...it seems no one wants to anticipate the ruling situation...might as well let us have it. Something obviously went wrong at the table, but I still contend that pard can't have a splinter in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 No idea. I'm going to play him for a hand with running diamonds and a spade stop looking for a club stop for 3N.I suspect that is indeed what he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Any jump in a new suit that you have to look at your hand to decipher it's meaning is clearly wrong. I don't see why this wouldn't be a splinter, regardless of what we have. If we had xxxxx KQxxxx xx - does that make it a splinter now? I know I don't want to make a two-way call that is either a single-suited hand without support or a great hand with support, and leave partner to figure it out based on his hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Any jump in a new suit that you have to look at your hand to decipher it's meaning is clearly wrong. I don't see why this wouldn't be a splinter, regardless of what we have. If we had xxxxx KQxxxx xx - does that make it a splinter now? I know I don't want to make a two-way call that is either a single-suited hand without support or a great hand with support, and leave partner to figure it out based on his hand.Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values. Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex. Yes. Don't understand all these later posts about a jump in a new suit being a cuebid (!) or stopper-showing (!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning...Isn't that all the more reason for it to be the assumed standard meaning though? And not some convoluted two-way stopper ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning...Isn't that all the more reason for it to be the assumed standard meaning though? And not some convoluted two-way stopper ask?Yes, I would certainly expect it to be a splinter. I think the question is "in a new partnership, do you look at your short spades and wonder if maybe you're having a miscommunication?" Once we're done beating this, I expect OP will come back and tell us that there was a long hesitation before the 3♠ bid, and we (not necessarily you and I, but those who have posted replies) have now said that there are logical alternatives that are completely opposite each other, so this pair is screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Yes. Don't understand all these later posts about a jump in a new suit being a cuebid (!) or stopper-showing (!).I admit that jump cue bid = stopper showing is insane. It just seems less insane than believing 3S=shortness after what I think I've heard and seen so far at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 If you have 2 cards Sp and partner has one, why aren't the opps bidding them ?Maybe because partner has bid them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcLight Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 If 3♠ is asking for a Spade stopper for 3NT, then that implies pard has a ♣ Stopper. Since we hold the AQ, then pard holds what? Kx in Clubs? Jxxx in Clubs? What is LHO holding in clubs for his overcall? 987654? But it does bother me that Spades have not been bid. If 3♠ is a splinter, then spades are 5-5 with the opps, implying LHO has more Clubs, call it 6. With 5-1-1-6 Might not 2NT have been a better bid than 2C? So pard can't have a Spade splinter. I guess he has a good hand for hearts, since 2S would have been a Reverse and forcing. I'm confused, I guess I'll bid 3NT. Maybe part will put me back in hearts.I hope to get a plus, instead of going down in a misunderstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 ok...it seems no one wants to anticipate the ruling situation...might as well let us have it. Something obviously went wrong at the table, but I still contend that pard can't have a splinter in spades. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44370-should-i-have-sanctioned-an-appeal/ dburn has guessed it (possibly because he's more familiar with the idea of playing 1H as spades in this auction) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I hate pards who pull out undiscussed bids like these. I'll take that as a splinter and bid 4♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.