Splintermania

[jdeegan]

:P I had an odd hand today in a BBO pairs game with a pick up partner. You hold:

♠KQJ98

♥AK43

♦void

♣KJ87

 

Nice hand. So I opened one simple ♠. It went Pass - 3♠(limit) - Pass.

To me an obvious 4♥ cue bid.

Partner bid 4♠. All Pass. Way too much danger of wasted ♦ cards to press on, imo. Possibly you disagree. It's you turn, and you gotta bid.

 

Partner had:

♠A103

♥QJ876

♦KJ7

♣106

 

The ace of ♣ was led.

 

My problem is not with partner's bidding or with missing a (very probably) makeable slam. It is with my pick up partner's comment after the hand. Remember, this guy was totally unknown to me, but he proved on other hands he could play bridge. After the hand, he said " I didn't know if your 4♥ bid was a splinter or a cue bid".

 

WTF is going on? In my world, splinters are Al Roth picture bids. They use otherwise (nearly) idle bids to show specific hands. The remainder of bidding structure remains intact. This guy seemed to be a decent player, but his comment suggests to me that his mentors are no good. Am I right, or wrong?

[the hog]

To me 4H would also be an obvious cue bid.

[dake50]

Yup, a Q-bid.

But the problem still remains, as you say "too much wasted in diamonds"

I would have Exclusion keyed this one anyway -- wouldn't 5D have been ExK?

Should ExK be tried??? On this with a void and primes?

[Finch]

Of course on this actual hand 6S was a dreadful spot but 6H is pretty good.

 

There is a method which a few people play, including me, where opener's new suit after partner's limit raise is a shortage, and 3NT shows a long suit trial bid. But definitely not something without prior discussion, and definitely not something to play if your limit raise might be a balanced hand with 3 trumps, because then 3NT is a live possibility to be the right contract.

[Fluffy]

on this sequence its obviously best to play 3NT as general slam try (demanding a cuebid) and 4x as specific slam try. With my partner I use short suit (splinters) but many forum members think long suits are better.

 

You can also use 3NT as asking for shortness if 3♠ is normally unbalanced.

[whereagles]

With pickup partners I don't try and get fancy. Pass.

[kenrexford]

Not being sure makes complete sense. A well known treatment is as described, with 4 bids as shortness tries and 3NT otherwise. The merits can be debated in theory, but this is pickup, where you have to guess what school partner will assume to be the default school. In a pickup game, an u discussed sequence might easily be bid in a manner that neither partner would prefer but that each would assume to be the default. The comment should be taken in that light, imo.

[helene_t]

I don't know how I would have taken 4♥ undiscussed. 4♣ or 4♦ could show a control in that suit and a lack of control in some other suit (4♦ denying a club control), but 4♥ denying 2nd round control in both minor suits is unlikely. Maybe KQJxx-AKxx-Qx-QJ is possible and then partner needs to sign off lacking a club control.

[steve2005]

Isn't this an obvious 2♥ bid not 3♠? Can show 3-card ♠ support later when a double fit will be revealed.

[blackshoe]

If you're playing SA, I suppose 2♥ is okay. If you're playing 2/1, do you really want to force to game with that hand? Replace opener's ♠Q and ♥K with spot cards. He'll still open, but you certainly don't want to be looking for slam.

[steve2005]

I don't think he's playing 2/1 or would bid forcing NT followed by 3♠ except over a 2♥ bid to show 3-card limit raise as opposed to a 4-card limit raise which would be a direct 3♠

[helene_t]

In SAYC I'm afraid 3♠ is the correct bid, even if 2♥ isn't in itself a GF I don't think you can show the 3-card support without forcing to game if you start with 2♥, since

1♠-2♥

2♠-3♠

is probably forcing. But not everybody agrees with that.

 

Playing 2/1, you respond 1NT and playing any flavour of Acol (English, Dutch, whatever) you obviously respond 2♥.

[whereagles]

I firmly believe

 

1M 2x

2M 3M

 

should be forcing. Otherwise you're out of forcing bids. Ok, you can "invent" a suit...

 

1M 2x

2M 3y

3z 4M

 

But how is opener supposed to guess 4M is a slam invite? Especially if 3z asks for a stop, which makes 4M a mere "I don't have that stop, and I'm proposing a 5-2 fit."

[steve2005]

In SAYC I'm afraid 3♠ is the correct bid, even if 2♥ isn't in itself a GF I don't think you can show the 3-card support without forcing to game if you start with 2♥, since

1♠-2♥

2♠-3♠

is probably forcing. But not everybody agrees with that.

 

Playing 2/1, you respond 1NT and playing any flavour of Acol (English, Dutch, whatever) you obviously respond 2♥.

Im in the group that disagrees and plays 3♠ as INV.

Dont see why 3♠ forcing can bid 4♠ with no slam interest opposite a min opening.

 

With slam interest jump shift or do a Jacoby raise even on 3 card support. Or make forcing bid over 2♠ and eventually raise to 4♠

[gszes]

"I didn't know if your 4h was a splinter or a cue bid" Hardly the

world's worst statement and was probably meant as another way of

saying SP did not know how to proceed here. There are MANY different

ways of bidding and lots of different systems. We are pressed for

space after 1s 3s so a decision must be made what the rest of the

bids mean. For many a simple 4h bid would be a splinter for others

a cue bid for others it is a 2nd suit since splinter bids lose a

lot of their efficiency when 2 5+ card suits are present.

 

These are some of the questions serious partnerships get into

so it might be a good idea to try to calmly decide what exactly

your partner meant by their comment since you seem to appreciate

their style of play maybe just maybe you have found a bridge

"friend" which can turn into something special if you take the time

and energy to discuss any problems:) and remember that it is way

more important to enjoy this game of ours than to haphazardly manage

to score some good boards where neither partner knew what the other

was dong and "land" in the the right place.

[wank]

Im in the group that disagrees and plays 3♠ as INV.

Dont see why 3♠ forcing can bid 4♠ with no slam interest opposite a min opening.

 

 

 

opener hasn't limited his hand by rebidding 2s - it's forcing.

[johnu]

For many a simple 4h bid would be a splinter for others

a cue bid for others it is a 2nd suit since splinter bids lose a

lot of their efficiency when 2 5+ card suits are present.

 

I confess I don't know anybody who plays 4♥ as anything but a cue bid so I'll take your word that many play splinters or 2nd suits. That being said, I think I'm on firm ground in saying that standard in most or all parts of the world would be a cue bid and even those who play 4♥ as a splinter or 2nd suit should recognize that the cue bid interpretation is standard in the rest of the world. So in a casual/first time partnership, you need to assume partner is using the the "standard" meaning of a bid and proceed from there. If you're wrong, apologize and say you thought that was the standard meaning. It's better than being wrong and having to apologize and say you thought he might be a palooka who didn't know what standard was. That philosophy doesn't apply just to this cue bidding example.

[jogs]

Isn't this an obvious 2♥ bid not 3♠? Can show 3-card ♠ support later when a double fit will be revealed.

 

I'm in the 2♥ camp. My limit raises promises 4-card support.

[whereagles]

Im in the group that disagrees and plays 3♠ as INV.

Dont see why 3♠ forcing can bid 4♠ with no slam interest opposite a min opening.

 

With slam interest jump shift or do a Jacoby raise even on 3 card support. Or make forcing bid over 2♠ and eventually raise to 4♠

 

Sorry, but that seems a bit too agricultural to me. Can't responder try and find out something about opener's strength/shape before blasting?

[jdeegan]

"I didn't know if your 4h was a splinter or a cue bid" Hardly the

world's worst statement and was probably meant as another way of

saying SP did not know how to proceed here. There are MANY different

ways of bidding and lots of different systems. We are pressed for

space after 1s 3s so a decision must be made what the rest of the

bids mean. For many a simple 4h bid would be a splinter for others

a cue bid for others it is a 2nd suit since splinter bids lose a

lot of their efficiency when 2 5+ card suits are present.

 

These are some of the questions serious partnerships get into

so it might be a good idea to try to calmly decide what exactly

your partner meant by their comment since you seem to appreciate

their style of play maybe just maybe you have found a bridge

"friend" which can turn into something special if you take the time

and energy to discuss any problems:) and remember that it is way

more important to enjoy this game of ours than to haphazardly manage

to score some good boards where neither partner knew what the other

was dong and "land" in the the right place.

:P The comment may well have been a face saving way of trying to salve my feelings for missing a near laydown slam. After all, partner had no more idea of who I was than I had of who he/she was. Still, I wondered. A non-jump in a new suit has always been a cue bid not a splinter. Is something new going around?

 

Bottom line, if someone can play even a little, I am willing to try to adapt. Bridge is a game with multiple aspects, and there are many ways to skin a cat. Ever had a partner where you had the agreement that all 4♣ bids were Gerber? My all time favorite: "bother, I never pay any attention to the spots." I just try to drag 'em home as best I can.

[Cyberyeti]

Am I the only person who would have cued 4♣ rather than 4♥ ?

[gszes]

I confess I don't know anybody who plays 4♥ as anything but a cue bid so I'll take your word that many play splinters or 2nd suits. That being said, I think I'm on firm ground in saying that standard in most or all parts of the world would be a cue bid and even those who play 4♥ as a splinter or 2nd suit should recognize that the cue bid interpretation is

standard in the rest of the world. So in a casual/first time partnership, you need to assume partner is using the the "standard" meaning of a bid and proceed from there. If you're wrong, apologize and say you thought that was the standard meaning. It's better than being wrong and having to apologize and say you thought he might be a palooka who didn't know what standard was. That philosophy doesn't apply just to this cue bidding example.

 

 

The use of 3N as SERIOUS adds a dimension to this sequence that is not readily available to those

that wish to use 3n to play (for whatever reason). While this bid was probably not available to this

partnership (no mention of it was made) the use of serious 3n (slam interest with no short suit as one

interpretation) would allow a partnership to use the 4 level for splinters for ex:) and a cue bidding

sequence could follow the 3n serious call if that was how the partnership wished to proceed. My

explanation was meant to further their possible partnership harmony as well as add future bidding ideas

or concepts that can be learned if not already known. (like mentioning serious 3n):)

 

Playing 2/1 what is the sequence 1s p 4h?? to me it is splinter but not all would agree saying it is

to play (using the theory that if a bid can be natural it should be treated as such -I wonder how those

same players would play 1s 3s 4h natural or cue bid?). The more one knows the more margin for error there

is in a new partnership. Getting by the occasional mishap is important for any partnership and even more

so for a new partnership to have any chance to blossom.

[kenrexford]

The normal default among experts is a help suit slam try. In that interpretation, 4C is the best call.

 

There's a convention where 4 bids are shortness, in which case 4D would be the best call.

 

There's a minority who cuebid, in which case 4C is the best call.

 

4H is never the right call unless you are doing something only forum posters think makes sense.

[Zelandakh]

In the UK Andrew Robson helped to popularise the method where a new suit after a limit raise (inter alia) is a natural slam try so there are indeed alternatives to shortage or cue. I am not sure if Ken's observation of this being the normal default amongst experts is correct though. As others have pointed out, the usage of 3NT is fairly critical in defining the 4 level calls.

[mcphee]

Impossible for the N hand to bid anything over 4H other than 4S. My view is he did not have the 3S call to start with holding only 3 trumps. Even playing sayc should N make a 2/1 in H it is not so cler cut to make any move when partner splinters in your KJx. Fro example a C lead will be going through any values partner holds there and intheory you may still have a D loser.