J2N or a 2/1?

[pooltuna]

If partner is obligated to show ♣ shortage over 2NT (or some shortage) I would prefer that call as it allows me to better evaluate the usefulness of my ♣ suit an acceptable alternative would be a call that shows my ♣ so partner is able to better evaluate his hand

[kenrexford]

If partner is obligated to show ♣ shortage over 2NT (or some shortage) I would prefer that call as it allows me to better evaluate the usefulness of my ♣ suit an acceptable alternative would be a call that shows my ♣ so partner is able to better evaluate his hand

 

FWIW, Opener might be able to show a stiff club even if you bid 2♣.

 

Give partner something like 5431 or 5341 pattern. After your 2♣ call, he will bid his 4-card red suit. You then agree spades with 2♠.

 

Opener has two main ways to now show shortness in clubs.

 

First, regadless of your methods, Opener presumably could jump to 4♣:

 

1♠-2♣

2(redsuit)-2♠

4♣!

 

The second means to show a stiff clubs depends on methods. If Opener completes pattern:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♠

3♥ or

 

1♠-2♣

2♥-2♠

3♦

 

If, instead, Opener cuebids after 2♠, then shortness also could be shown. One possible example sequence (using my cuebidding methods):

 

1♠-2♣

2♥-2♠

3♦(good trumps, none of the top three clubs, diamond control)-3♠(no heart control, the missing third spade honor)

4♣(non-serious interest contextually, control in hearts, control in clubs*)

 

*With none of the top three honors in clubs, the "control" must be shortness.

[the hog]

For balanced GF hands over 2♠ specifically, we use 2NT as 13-15 HCP balanced (or 19+ - as in the hand you post) and 3♦ as 16-18 balanced, both with relay continuations. Over 2♥ we use 2♠ and 3♣ respectively. Some might call this wasteful and no doubt the 2♣ bid covering all balanced hands is better, but this has worked very well for us, and as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, do you bother with reading the whole thread before your post. Everything you've written has been said already (almost verbatim).

 

No, I only read those posters i deem worthy of being read. I made an exception in this case.

[the hog]

Re splinters:

 

It seems that there are several competing concerns here. Firstly, if they are unlimited, they are poorly defined, and its hard for partner to judge intelligently what to do. If they are too narrowly defined they become uncommon. Even if narrowly defined, one should ask what range will most commonly lead to good slams. I would imagine most slams occur with points roughly evenly balanced, so for a narrow range 12-14 is probably the most helpful. Further, if you are shortening the splinter range, you must put a bunch of those hands into jacoby.

 

I would guess that the 9-12 range arises out of a desire to keep jacoby as 12+. However, in this part of the world, many have moved to playing jacoby as invitational+, this treatment has many advantages, as the opponents find it more difficult to interfere over 2N when it is an invitation, as they need to keep constructive over calls. Moreover it fits naturally into the style of having 3c=minimum. It raises some difficulties when partner shows extras, as you have a wider range to differentiate, but since his most common bids show shortage and those shortages might generate wastage, you have to deal with these strength of hands anyway.

 

Thus, I think that the splinter is best used to remove the weaker hands with shortage from jacoby completely, and play it as 10-14 ish, so hands which always want to be in game, but not so strong that they can largely take control of the auction.

 

Re 2C vs 2N/splinter

 

I am not a huge fan of the positions put out onthis thread about a "trick source" and bidding 2C when you have a really good suit. It seems to me that AKxxx plays well opposite just about any holding except xxx, and partner will not be ecstatic about xxx in any suit where I have not shown shortage. It seems much more logical to go the suit then support route when you have a broken suit like KJxxxx where you really want partner to devalue x and xx, and upgrade Qx Ax AQx in your suit. I think a hand like Axxx x Ax KJxxxx is perfect for a 2C bid then support.

 

Bidding two clubs will only help partner make a good decision if it gets him to correctly value his holding. There are no bad holdings opposite AKxxx(x) except xxx which he will always devalue, so what am I achieving? If he signs of because he has a stiff in my suit will I be happy? Qx is a great holding in a side suit opposite a splinter. so is QJx, you are happy if partner splinters has he has turned soft values into cards that are always working. Same with KJx heart. If partner holds Axxxx AKJ xxxx x why will will he realise he has a great hand after 1S-2c-2d-2S? Surely he has a clear downgrade as both people have shortage in their partners suits, Axxxx trumps opposite three card support doesnt seem great. This auction could easily go 1S-2c-2d-2s-4s from opener to show a minimum (if that is allowed in your system). Is that unlucky?

 

It just seems to me that bidding 2C with a suit that plays well opposite almost any holding will not improve partners decision making.

 

What are you missing? The fact that Qx opposite AKxxx amy give you 5 tricks and should give you 4. Now Qx opposite Kxx(x) will give you how many?

[32519]

Here is another hand that someone else posted where a ♣ slam was lost due to the fixation of bidding Jacoby 2NT. In post 3 to this thread (bottom of the post) Ken Rexford gave his opinion on Jacoby 2NT.

What I like about comments such as this is:

1. It gets us to re-evaluate mainstream accepted bridge conventions, and

2. It forces us to reassess whether our bidding agreements are optimal or not.

 

Go Ken!

[CSGibson]

Seems funny to me that no one has mentioned this typical form of (unopposed) 2/1 major-suit auction:

 

1S-2C/2D or 2H-3S, 1S-2D/2H-3S, 1H-2C/2D-3H

 

usually defined as 5+C, 4+ good M, therefore either 2-2 or 3-1 or 4-0.

 

 

See reply #12

[phil_20686]

What are you missing? The fact that Qx opposite AKxxx amy give you 5 tricks and should give you 4. Now Qx opposite Kxx(x) will give you how many?

 

 

I am not "missing it" I just think its not as important as all the times that partner will devalue his hand based on having a stiff in your suit. How will you differentiate this hand later from

 

Kxx Axxx x KJxxx

 

AQxxx Kxx Axxx x

 

 

Compared to

Kxxx Axx x AKxxx

 

 

AQxxx Kxx Axxx x

 

On the first one we want south to devalue his hand for a singleton in partners suit, on the second one south has the same hand and the same sequence, but is now meant to ignore it. If you start with 1s-2c-2d-2s on these hands, how can you expect south to make good decisions in both cases? Now will north's bidding differ now so as to make clear that souths club singleton is valuable in one and rubbish in the other? How will north reveal his ninth trump to south, who can then upgrade his diamond holding, as an extra trump is surely an extra trick opposite this diamond holding.

 

I'd like to see some constructions where bidding 2C actually matters with a club holding of AKxxx and a 4315 shape? Cause I honestly can't think of any where partner doesnt make good decisions after a splinter.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd like to see some constructions where bidding 2C actually matters with a club holding of AKxxx and a 4315 shape? Cause I honestly can't think of any where partner doesnt make good decisions after a splinter.

There can be hands with a stiff ♦ where you need to distinguish between ♥Qxx ♣AKxxx and ♥Qxxxx ♣AKx particularly opposite say ♥A ♣Q ♦AKQ where in the former case all the losers disappear, but not in the latter.

[phil_20686]

There can be hands with a stiff ♦ where you need to distinguish between ♥Qxx ♣AKxxx and ♥Qxxxx ♣AKx particularly opposite say ♥A ♣Q ♦AKQ where in the former case all the losers disappear, but not in the latter.

 

Obviously, but the important question is, can you distinguish it. I want to see a believable construction with a 4315 shape and AKxxx clubs.

 

Besides which, the question we are trying to answer is whether bidding 2c works better than splinter when you hold specifically AKxxx. I think bidding a suit works much better when the suit is poor, like Qxxxx♥ in your example. Then you really do need partner to provide some cards there to give you any tricks at all. If you ahve that agreement, then a splinter may contain a long good suit, but never a long poor suit, so these are distinguished by implication.

[Cyberyeti]

Obviously, but the important question is, can you distinguish it. I want to see a believable construction with a 4315 shape and AKxxx clubs.

 

Besides which, the question we are trying to answer is whether bidding 2c works better than splinter when you hold specifically AKxxx. I think bidding a suit works much better when the suit is poor, like Qxxxx♥ in your example. Then you really do need partner to provide some cards there to give you any tricks at all. If you ahve that agreement, then a splinter may contain a long good suit, but never a long poor suit, so these are distinguished by implication.

Sorry, my edit to my post crossed with yours.

 

Where it works better than splinter would be:

 

AQxxx, Axx, Ax, QJx where you need to know about the 5th club to dispose of the third heart

[Fluffy]

The dream scenario for 2♣ is partner rebidding 2♦ like this one:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♠

xx-4♦

 

xx is a pattern out bid that allows s to jump to 4♦ to show shortage. This would happen when partner is 5143 (3♣) or 5242 (2NT), and we will ask partner to avaluate his diamond holding opposite singleton.

 

if instead of 2NT/3♣ he bids 3♦ we know he is 5-5 and that our 4th trump is golden. We pinpoint a heart problem bidding 4♣ now, we are on the right track again.

 

if he bids 3♥ (5341) o 3♠ (6-4) we are not specially and might need to end up guessing.

[broze]

No, I only read those posters i deem worthy of being read.

 

No problem. I just wanted to know whether any future posts of yours would be considered and worth reading or just echoes of what had been said already. I guess now I know.

[Flem72]

See reply #12

 

Hah!! Very intelligent comment, dontcha think?

[Zelandakh]

Playing OP/Standard methods I would prefer to involve partner while showing a potential trick source by starting with 2♣. Yes it can be a serious disadvantage sometimes later in the auction that partner does not know about the 4th spade but it is probably an even bigger disadvantage never to describe anything about our shape on these types of hands.

 

As Don alluded to I have an alternative way of involving partner on hands of this type by using a 2NT response to a 1♠ opening as a multi-way bid which includes splinters too strong for a direct splinter, roughly 16-19 support points. So with my methods I would respond 2NT. Assuming partner relayed (not essential but most common) the rebid would be 4♦ showing exactly one diamond, 4+ spades and the aforementioned strength (ie ~13-16 hcp).

 

Naturally this approach means giving up on 2NT as Jacoby for which I use 3♣ instead. Ideally a system could have all 3 methods available for fine-tuning between these common hand types.