Mini-splinters

[han]

A friend of mine likes to play jump shifts over a major as mini-splinters: 4-card support, a stiff, 6+ HCP. This doesn't make any sense to me! For instance, if the auction starts 1S-3H, Opener has no idea of responders strength and can't decide whether to sign off or not. Can anybody explain how this works?

 

I see that some play mini-splinters with other hands (even 3-card support in a recent thread). I assume that they play a better defined range (for instance, either invitational or huge should work well). Still, you are using up three useful bids that can be used for other hands. I'd like to hear about peoples experiences with this gadget.

[hotShot]

Imagine you hold a hand with a 5 card Major and only 5 loosers. This should happen about 4% of your openings. You need very little from your partner to make game. By showing a short side suit (with no HCP in it) your partner can decide if you cover two of his loosers. If you do, playing 4Major with 19-24 HCP is often very succesfull.

 

The "Law of total tricks" says that you are usually save, playing 3Major if you hold 9 trumps. A lot of people play 1M -3M as a preempt below invitational strength but with 4 trumps to have a 9 card fit. If you do, you need other ways to show an invitation with fit. You can use minisplinter or Bergen-raises or ....(a lot more).

[mike777]

mini splinter=invite(nice with 4 card majors)

full splinter=game force only mild slam try(nice in that it limits your hand).

jacoby or your version 2nt=strong slam try(nice when it comes up but many complain too rare).

[luke warm]

hi hannie... here's how i played 2/1 with another partner long ago (major suit structure with 4 card support):

 

1S : 3C=bergen limit, balanced (8/9-11)

1S : 3D=bergen constructive, balanced (7-9)

1S : 3H=under j/s (8/9-11 with a stiff... this was a game force and worked well)

1S : 3NT=over j/s (4C asks, 4S shows heart stiff), 12-15

1S : 4C=12-15 balanced with 2 of 3 top spade honors if 4 trumps, A or K if 5

1S : 4D=same but without the honor promises

 

1H : 3C = bergen limit OR bergen constructive... 3D by opener says "i'll go to game if you have the limit, otherwise sign off"... responder would bid a feature with limit, sign off with constructive

1H : 3D = under j/s... same as 1S/3H

1H : 3S=over j/s, same as 1S/3NT

1H : 4C/D=same swiss bids

 

1M : 2NT = 16+, 4 card support, any shape

 

the over jumpshifts often led to slams, depending on whether or not opener's points were outside responder's short suit

[Fluffy]

Mini splinters are a good describing convention, just that all of us have decided to reserve the 3 level for another things that have no other way to be bid when they come.

 

What I Don't unnderstand is the 6+ HCP you said, mini splinters are invitational, not barrage, ,these means, if partner has nothing at all on the splintered suit he shoiuld bi game even with 12 HCPor so, mini splinter is for 9-10 range.

[whereagles]

Bergen raises suck. Dump them into 2NT and you'll be fine. Even 1M-3m as limit raise with singleton m is better than Bergen (a sort of mini-minisplinter). At least you'll get to use it every now and then!

[cherdano]

I have never played them, but I have always assumed they would be at least invitational. Sort of direct short suit game trials. If you play (non-)serious 3NT afterwards, I would also see no problem with playing them unlimited.

[luke warm]

Bergen raises suck.

this is the kind of statement that i just can't understand... do you say this based on your own experience in both play and theory, or are you quoting whoever it is you hold to be an authority?

[sceptic]

I like bergen raises, I play reverse bergen , can some one clarify for me that 1Spade 3 Heart is indeed a mini splinter (I actually thought it was just a splinter bid)

wht does the term mini splinter mean as opposed to a normal spilinter as 1 Heart 3 Spades could then be deemed a mini splinter on Hannies understanding

[Chamaco]

wht does the term mini splinter mean as opposed to a normal spilinter as 1 Heart 3 Spades could then be deemed a mini splinter on Hannies understanding

Basically a splinter is GF and a slam try if the hands fit well (no wastage opposite responder's shortness).

 

A minisplinter has the same shape but it is a game try (not slam try) with invitational values.

 

 

The use of minisplinter or fitshowing jumps is considered by many to be moe helpful than plain (or reversed) Bergen raises: this is because in Bergen Raises, 3♣/♦ are used for invitational or mixed raise, but does not tell to pard WHERE is your strength or weakness.

E.g. how many times opener, with a fair hand, does not know whether signoff in 3 opposite pard's mixed raise ?

This is becase opener only knows the range of strength (say 6-9 hcp, or 9 losers), but knows nothing else about the hand features.

 

Instead, having a bid that communicates 4+fit and a side singleton (minisplinter) or good sidesuit (fitshowing jump), helps much more to evaluate how well the combined hands fit.

[whereagles]

Bergen raises suck.

this is the kind of statement that i just can't understand... do you say this based on your own experience in both play and theory, or are you quoting whoever it is you hold to be an authority?

Let me explain it then..

 

1) Bergen raises are too rare. No use wasting two useful bids for something you see once every 100 hands at best.

 

2) You can dump the bergen hand 7-11 4-card support into the 1M-2NT raise with minimal overload effect.

 

3) Playing bergen, you lose some bidding space to make long/short suit trials. When bidding a close game, it's not a matter of "how much hcp we have", but rather of "where our hcp lie". And bergen makes probing for hcp location more difficult than a 1M-2NT. The 2NT raise leaves some extra steps for trial bids of various kinds.

 

Finally, I hardly ever quote anyone. I make my own arguments. As I make my own systems ;)

[MickyB]

"Bergen raises suck." That is quoting my authority, Whereagles ;) 3 ways of raising to 3M is just overkill - play 1M:3M as values for a single raise and put the limit raise into a properly designed Jacoby structure or one of the jump-shifts, that is enough.

 

Fluffy - I don't think 6 HCP is that far out. A lot of 7 counts with 4 card support and a singleton are worth a limit raise IMO.

 

The problem with playing a mini-splinter as including both invites and minimum GFs is when openers rebid is a slow sign-off, unless your tempo is brilliant you will miss some games that you want to be in. Putting this aside, I would suggest -

 

1♠:3♥

3♠ = min, sign-off opposite invite

3NT = GF opposite invite but not got much more

4X = Slam-try opposite a min GF

 

I'm not sure how best to use the extra space after say 1♠:3♣.

[Chamaco]

What I Don't unnderstand is the 6+ HCP you said, mini splinters are invitational, not barrage, ,these means, if partner has nothing at all on the splintered suit he shoiuld bi game even with 12 HCPor so, mini splinter is for 9-10 range.

In my opinion, the best way to define the range of these "feature-showing" jumps(minisplinter for shortness, fitshowing jumps for good sidesuits) is in terms of LOSERS, not hcp.

 

I personally like minisplinters or FJS (whatever pard prefers) to show about 8-8.5 losers, but I guess anther pair might prefer another range, which is ok as long as pard knows what to expect (and as long as the frequency of coccurrence of the selected hand type is high enough to get to use the bid).

 

For example, this LTC criterion, while not explicitly mentioned, actually matches the system of raises proposed by Robson Segal, which uses a system of support based on giving shape-first, then (maybe) later hcp.

 

If you chck the example he gives to show how he bids the same way with very weak and very strong hand with similar shapes, we may see that often the LTC of the weak and strong hand is the same.

[Chamaco]

Fluffy - I don't think 6 HCP is that far out. A lot of 7 counts with 4 card support and a singleton are worth a limit raise IMO.

Micky, I agree with the concept (see my post on using LTC rather than hcp for this).

 

This phylosophy is aggressive and I like it ;) , however, it needs to handle the overloading of the 2NT limit+ raise:

 

1.

at the origin it should be a POWER raise, worth at least 12/13 hcp.

This was needed also to differentiate it from more distributional signoffs, in case of opps sacrifices, to set up forcing passes and such.

 

2. then came the school of 2NT = inv+: dump your 10+ high card raises there and use higher bids to find the features.

This "polluted" a little the message of great strength ("There is no doubt whatsoever, the hand belogs to our side!") intially given to J2NT.

 

3. if now, we start using 2NT ALSO for 7+ hands, the 2NT bid becomes extremely nebuslous and prone to preemption: now, whenever opps compete, we never know who the hand belongs to.

[whereagles]

Mauro, on the other hand think of what you gain..

 

By dumping 7-11 hands into 2NT you can play 1M-3x as mini-splinter, thus each and every 2NT bid will show a balanced hand. It becomes much less liable to preemption because when it happens, it is enough for one of the players to bid under 3M or double in order to show extras, and pard will act accordingly.

 

Besides, you can take even more pressure off 2NT by using stuff like swiss raises, e.g.

 

1S 3x = splinter inv+, unlimited. 3S signs-off opposite a min, next step asks strenght

1S 4x = swiss raise, balanced 12+ points and no wastage in suit x (e.g. Axx or xxx).

 

If you don't need 1S-4x for a splinter, the swiss raise is a possibility, which makes the 1S-2NT bid much more precise:

 

1S 2NT = balanced 7-11 OR 12+ with honors very scattered.

 

Opener can safely assume the 7-11 variant, as with 12+ responder will have an easy penalty double available if they butt-in.

 

As for 1H, it can go

1H 2S = jordan raise

1H 2NT = spade splinter

1H 3S = swiss raise in spades

[MickyB]

Fluffy - I don't think 6 HCP is that far out. A lot of 7 counts with 4 card support and a singleton are worth a limit raise IMO.

Micky, I agree with the concept (see my post on using LTC rather than hcp for this).

Problem is, LTC is fundamentally flawed, as it rarely takes into account jacks and tens having value, and it overrates distributional hands in comparison to those based on high cards. When looking for a number to represent the strength of my hand for a suit contract, I'll usually start with BUM-RAP for honours (4.5 - 3.0 - 1.5 - 0.75 - 0.25) and add shortage points (5 - 3 - 1).

[luke warm]

Bergen raises suck.

this is the kind of statement that i just can't understand... do you say this based on your own experience in both play and theory, or are you quoting whoever it is you hold to be an authority?

Finally, I hardly ever quote anyone. I make my own arguments. As I make my own systems ;)

so your statement is based on your own theoretical and practical experience... can i ask the nature and depth of both types of experience, and how they might compare to those of, say, bergen?

[Chamaco]

Problem is, LTC is fundamentally flawed, as it rarely takes into account jacks and tens having value,

 

It seems to me that in virtually ANY hand evaluation system, tens are rarely accounted for, and even jacks are left to subjective hand evaluations (unless we apply faithfully Milton Work Point count, which seems to be not so highly regarded).

 

So I would say that basically, almost any hand evaluation system largely depends on "adjustments" and "common sense" to account for Jack an Tens, and that LTC - if aplied with common sense adjustments as any other method - cannot be indicated as much worse than most other methods in this regard.

 

and it overrates distributional hands in comparison to those based on high cards.

 

Is that true ?

In my experience, LTC, when used in its non-basic form (e.g. Qxx is NOT 2 losers but rather 2.5/2.75 or so, account for likely working or not working finesses based on bidding etc), tends to work rather well, ESPECIALLY for weak distributional hands.

 

Of course, the loser count of a side suit can be dramatically off if the hand is distributional but the side suit is in misfit, but the misfit disasters are common also using hcp evaluations or LOTT.

 

On balance, using LTC leads you to bid more wild/light game slam making as well as going more often down; but even in the latter case, many times either it is a good sac or opps save you from a phantom sac.

 

 

Obviously, the blind application of LTC will lead to disasters much the same way as using blindly ANY method, such as LOTT , or hcp hand evaluation + shortage 531 count, or whatever you like.

[inquiry]

Bergen raises suck.

this is the kind of statement that i just can't understand... do you say this based on your own experience in both play and theory, or are you quoting whoever it is you hold to be an authority?

Finally, I hardly ever quote anyone. I make my own arguments. As I make my own systems ;)

so your statement is based on your own theoretical and practical experience... can i ask the nature and depth of both types of experience, and how they might compare to those of, say, bergen?

Well, maybe not as eloquantly as whereagles, I will agree with him that Bergen might not be the best way to play.

 

What do I like about bergen? It free's up jump raise to be weak, and gives you another way to issue a limit raise.

 

What do I dislike about Bergen raise? It give easy lead directing double (or lack there of), it uses two bids to make limit raise (well the range is good versus bad raise), it loses the natural or other artificial meanings of 3♣ and 3♦. It tells nothing about shape/location of values.

 

I think the tradeoff is too much, especially if you play constuctive raises to the two level within the context of a 2/1 system.

 

What I will insist on keeping is 1M-3M as weak.. .if this means I have to play Bergen raises, then I play Bergen. But once partner allows 1M-2NT to be limit raise or better, then Bergen is out the window. And if I can convince my partner to accept 1M-2C as EITHER clubs and GF or Drury even after a first seat bid, say bye-bye forever to Bergen. The advantage of the 2♣ as first seat response drury is you can stop safely in 2M rather than getting to 3M when your partner is a wildman and opens as light as some of these people do these days.. (me included). And what happens if you really have clubs and bid 2♣? Not much, you are game force, so you will bid again.. and you learn immediately if your partner is dead minimum or not (you will not know if he has six card suit, but he will rebid 2M only on a dog.

 

Ben

[luke warm]

i'm (obviously) not a theoritician, but i don't have to be... we all read what they have to say and make determinations based on that and on our own experiences... but to say "bergen raises suck" while knowing that some of the most recognized theorists in the world have a different opinion does make the questioning of a person's bonafides legitimate

 

as far as your 1M/2C drury type response, i know many people like to play it... i also know that, from a theoretical point of view, there are those who say it's inferior... same for lumping a lot of bids into 2NT... but whether i liked any of that or not, one thing i wouldn't do is say it sucks...

 

i know of very few people who have actually earned the right to say something like that, and i've played bridge with even fewer... most people who are dogmatic on an issue are parroting someone who has, in their view, authority on the subject... whereagles says he isn't parroting anyone, therefore he is his own authority... that makes it fair game, imo, to ask how he gained this authority

 

remember, he didn't state it as an opinion... he stated it as a matter of fact

[MickyB]

remember, he didn't state it as an opinion... he stated it as a matter of fact

As far as I am aware, it isn't possible to prove whether Bergen raises suck or not, so what can "Bergen Raises suck" be other than an opinion?

[MickyB]

Problem is, LTC is fundamentally flawed, as it rarely takes into account jacks and tens having value,

 

It seems to me that in virtually ANY hand evaluation system, tens are rarely accounted for, and even jacks are left to subjective hand evaluations (unless we apply faithfully Milton Work Point count, which seems to be not so highly regarded).

 

So I would say that basically, almost any hand evaluation system largely depends on "adjustments" and "common sense" to account for Jack an Tens, and that LTC - if aplied with common sense adjustments as any other method - cannot be indicated as much worse than most other methods in this regard.

 

and it overrates distributional hands in comparison to those based on high cards.

 

Is that true ?

In my experience, LTC, when used in its non-basic form (e.g. Qxx is NOT 2 losers but rather 2.5/2.75 or so, account for likely working or not working finesses based on bidding etc), tends to work rather well, ESPECIALLY for weak distributional hands.

If you know what the mean value of a jack or ten in a suit contract is, and assign each card that value initially before adjusting based on everything else you know, you will land up closer to the true value of the hand than if you initially give them no value and go from there.

 

Counting with a 40 HCP deck, 3 HCP is worth approximately one trick, so LTC is working on something like a 9-6-3 shortage count and a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honour count. Giving shortage that high a valuation assumes that:

 

Partner will have no wasted honours opposite your shortage

Any suit with 4+cards will be able to win the 4th round onwards with its small cards

[luke warm]

remember, he didn't state it as an opinion... he stated it as a matter of fact

As far as I am aware, it isn't possible to prove whether Bergen raises suck or not, so what can "Bergen Raises suck" be other than an opinion?

it can be a statement of fact... bergen raises belong in a whole category of conventions that are neither right nor wrong, per se, but are played or not based on a person's philosophy, or the authority one gives another

 

bergen obviously doesn't think they suck... the question then comes down to, by what criteria does one grant another the authority to judge? this is not the same thing as two experts (expert status being based on objective standards - actual results) having a difference of opinion... as a general rule, a real expert will always acknowledge the value of another's opinion, even while disagreeing with it

 

i don't see anything wrong with my asking, because of my own ignorance of the matter, for the nature and depth of a person's theoretical knowledge and/or experience as his way of explaining a statement of fact...

[Fluffy]

What I Don't unnderstand is the 6+ HCP you said, mini splinters are invitational, not barrage, ,these means, if partner has nothing at all on the splintered suit he shoiuld bi game even with 12 HCPor so, mini splinter is for 9-10 range.

In my opinion, the best way to define the range of these "feature-showing" jumps(minisplinter for shortness, fitshowing jumps for good sidesuits) is in terms of LOSERS, not hcp.

well, maybe the term 2.5 useful cards is better than 9-10 range, anyway it is the same concept.