Jacoby vs Splinter

[keylime]

I had a similar hand with my student recently, and she splintered. We missed an easy slam. Afterwards I said this:

 

"Wouldn't you like to tell pard more about your hand, instead of less?" She nodded. Then I explained that bidding her five card suit first (since we are playing 2/1) and then raising cheaply describes better her hand. I'm from the old school; splinters should deny nearly all hands with a five card side suit.

[Lovera]

I had a similar hand with my student recently, and she splintered. We missed an easy slam. Afterwards I said this:

 

"Wouldn't you like to tell pard more about your hand, instead of less?" She nodded. Then I explained that bidding her five card suit first (since we are playing 2/1) and then raising cheaply describes better her hand. I'm from the old school; splinters should deny nearly all hands with a five card side suit.

I think at splinter as an "adjective" for the hand and to use when you have not a better descriptive (generically speaking) bidding. (En passant : i have used google translated for your post and finally the translation was interesting.)

[aguahombre]

I think at splinter as an "adjective" for the hand and to use when you have not a better descriptive (generically speaking) bidding. (En passant : i have used google translated for your post and finally the translation was interesting.)

What can we use to translate your posts?

[billw55]

I would think that often, perhaps even usually, when we might splinter, we will also have a good side suit.

[mikestar13]

I believe that OP means or should mean anti-(partnership-style)=not our partnership style, not (anti-partnership) style=disruptive to most partnerships. Given a choice of splinter vs Jacoby, I choose splinter. But I would prefer to be playing a style where I can bid 2♥.

[wank]

ignore this. i misread the hand.

[aguahombre]

I would think that often, perhaps even usually, when we might splinter, we will also have a good side suit.

Yes, but the focus here is on a good side suit of 5+ cards. When that occurs, we believe the suit should be shown instead of the splinter. Some of these times we will be able to actually show the splinter later -- best of both worlds.

[phil_20686]

5cM, weak NT context. Both sides vul, matchpoints

 

[hv=pc=n&e=saj93hkq852djcq64&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Options are: 2NT = GF raise guaranteeing 4 card support, 4D = SPL, or some mastermind sequence via 2H (but that's anti-partnership-style).

 

This probably seems obvious to most of you - apologies if so. But it did generate a good amount of discussion after last night's game.

 

ahydra

 

I have never understood the arguments either side of the splinter vs not splinter debate.

 

Argument in favour of 2h:

You are showing partner you have a good side suit and a source of tricks.

 

Well I have several problems with this argument. Firstly, the hands they offer in support like the afore mentioned Kxxxxx Axx Axx x often look pretty good opposite a splinter, and secondly, they often rely on brining in the heart suit without a ruff in the long hand. E.g. KQxxx Axx xx Axx has a slow club loser whenever hearts are 4-1. Secondly, if I accept the validity of their arguments for bidding a "good suit", well AQx opposite Kxxxx is only marginally less likely than Axx opposite KQxxx, so surely they are also an argument for bidding virtually any five card suit with an honour in it? I mean, if the argument is really, its always good to bid our your pattern thats fine, but then why the emphasis on bidding "good" five card suits? Thirdly, what makes a good thin slam is usually the combination of shortage and honour concentration. Bidding your five card suit and then splintering later is obviously better than splintering at once, but lots of people don't have the option lots of the time. We would all love to bid 2h if partner is guaranteed to bid 2s, but what if he bangs down 3N with an 18-19 count and Axx diamond? How will we diagnose the position now? (Obviously that isnt great system but I betsome of the intermediate/advanced forum will bid that way, certainly it would be routine in english club bridge, though they don't play 2/1 as a rule). The splinter vs not splinter decision can only be made in the context of knowledge of the likely paths that the auction will take, which we almost never know in this kinda poll.

 

Argument in favour of splinter:

You can diagnose wasted values at once/most descriptive single bid.

 

This is a pretty sound argument. But of course, we don't usually get to make only one more bid necessarily. A splinter takes up a lot of room and so it should be fairly tightly defined. If you have 9 trumps, xxx opposite x, and 27 HCP, you usually have a small slam. Sure it might be on a finesse, but often its not. So its nice to diagnose this kind of situation. If you bid a good five card suit, but then partner bids a new suit, you can struggle potentially to diagnose this situation if you don't splinter. On the other hand, if you have s7 HCP and Axx opposite x, then you can struggle to get to 12 tricks unless you have a 5-3 side suit fit with honour concentration.

 

My opinion:

My decision on whether splinter is a good bid depends on how likely it is that you get to splinter later. I think that if you have a good chance of being able to splinter later, then you should bid 2h, if you think there is a good chance that in your system the singleton diamond will vanish into the ether, then you should splinter at once.

[mikeh]

deleted cheap shot post

[MrAce]

deleted cheap shot post

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

I think I know what it was. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[mikeh]

PhilG, I deleted a cheap shot response to your post because it seems to me that you made a valiant attempt at presenting your arguments on the relative merits of the splinter v 2♥ approach. I am therefore going to accept that you are genuinely trying to understand the issues.

 

I think the problem may be that you have only a limited understanding of the arguments in favour of the 2♥ response.

 

You say that, as you understand them, there is little reason why one should focus on suit quality...even Hxxxx should be enough since opener is almost as likely to hold AQx when responder has Kxxxx as he is to hold Axx when responder holds KQxxx. I disagree with you on that, just on frequency grounds, but that is not the main reason for arguing that the 2♥ response, when one has a legitimate choice between various options (here, splinter, 2H, and J2N) should be based on a good suit (which I would define for these purposes as a 2/3 top honours or better, 5 cards or longer...the OP suit is absolute minimum...see a more recent thread where I advocated a 2♦ response with a 5530 with Kxxxx in spades and KQJxx in diamonds).

 

While we would like to find partner with the Ace, on many layouts Jx or Jxx will suffice, and even xx is ok if he has good controls in the minors.

 

Another flaw in your understanding is your apparent belief that those who bid 2♥ do so because they intend to splinter later, and that an inconvenient rebid by opener (basically anything other than 2♠) renders that impossible.

 

I would cheerfully splinter over 2♠, and would consider that to be a near-perfect description of my hand, but I am not choosing 2♥ simply because I hope to be able to splinter. I hope, and expect, to be able to convey a lot of useful information over most of the more probable bids by partner.

 

Thus over 2N, surely a very frequent rebid, I can bid 3♠, indicating 5+ hearts, primary spades (could be 3 but could easily be 4, as here) and mild or better slam interest, all at the 3 level. Consider the information exchange compared to the immediate splinter.

 

You posit an awkward 3N rebid. Well, as a long time 2/1 player, in most partnerships we do NOT rebid 3N. There is little need. If we have the good 17 to 19 required for that call, and partner has made a gf opposite our possible 10-11 count, then we can be pretty confident we have safety beyond 3N, so we rebid 2N, as either too weak for 1N opening or too strong...with the latter hand, should partner sign off immediately, we bid one more. However, were partner to be one of those who likes 3N to be available, then presumably we have agreed upon a narrow range....I would expect precisely 17+-19 with exactly 5=2=3=3 shape. We can debate whether 4♠ by me should be forcing...I happen to think that it has to be, and that it will or should be safe to play it as such, given that we will have a good reason to pull 3N. But I recognize that there is room for discussion here,

 

Now, we can run into other awkward situations: say opener rebids 3♦. Now our 3♠ will appear to be a preference, not a slam try. We could bid 4♠, showing real support and 5+ hearts and a reason to bid 2♥ rather than either J2N or a splinter, but it is fair to say that we are now jamming our own auction.

 

So 2♥ is not always going to work well, but imo it stands more chance of leading to the optimal result, with relatively small risk of becoming unmanageable, than either of the plausible alternatives.

 

I hope you will read this as intended....to provide you with a deeper insight into the arguments for 2♥ than it seems you currently possess.

[billw55]

That is not PhilG.

[MrAce]

That is not PhilG.

 

Knock on wood!!

[mikeh]

That is not PhilG.

oops....my apologies to all concerned....I read the post way too quickly the first time :P

[rmnka447]

I would bid 2 ♥ on the hand.

 

If partner's rebid allows then a splinter rebid, that would describe the hand very well.

 

The problem with both J2N and a direct splinter is that they preclude identifying an important type of modest HCP slam going hands, the double fitted hand. Opener is allowed to have a ♥ fit on some hands after all. After,

 

1 ♠ - 2 ♥

3 ♥ - 3 ♠

 

Both partners become aware of the double fit. Either can explore to see if the side suit controls are there and total controls sufficient for slam. Additionally, opener will have a good sense of how to evaluate his ♥ holding.

 

Noting the weak NT context, give opener something like ♠ AQxxx ♥ J10x ♦ Axx ♣ AJx. After a 4 ♦ splinter, it may be difficult for opener to make a slam move. But after the double fit auction above, opener can visualize responder's ♥ holding being 5+ to 2 top honors, realize his ♥s are working cards, and find a ♣ cue.

 

Just for the record, had the original hand OP asked about been ♠ KJxx ♥ Qxxxx ♦ x ♣ KQx, I would have opted for a splinter. The ♥s just aren't good enough to worry about showing them.

[phil_20686]

 

You say that, as you understand them, there is little reason why one should focus on suit quality...even Hxxxx should be enough since opener is almost as likely to hold AQx when responder has Kxxxx as he is to hold Axx when responder holds KQxxx. I disagree with you on that, just on frequency grounds, but that is not the main reason for arguing that the 2♥ response, when one has a legitimate choice between various options (here, splinter, 2H, and J2N) should be based on a good suit (which I would define for these purposes as a 2/3 top honours or better, 5 cards or longer...the OP suit is absolute minimum...see a more recent thread where I advocated a 2♦ response with a 5530 with Kxxxx in spades and KQJxx in diamonds).

 

While we would like to find partner with the Ace, on many layouts Jx or Jxx will suffice, and even xx is ok if he has good controls in the minors.

 

Another flaw in your understanding is your apparent belief that those who bid 2♥ do so because they intend to splinter later, and that an inconvenient rebid by opener (basically anything other than 2♠) renders that impossible.

 

I would cheerfully splinter over 2♠, and would consider that to be a near-perfect description of my hand, but I am not choosing 2♥ simply because I hope to be able to splinter. I hope, and expect, to be able to convey a lot of useful information over most of the more probable bids by partner.

 

 

Sure. This is kinda my point, that if you have a lot of system and fairly careful agreements it will be right to bid 2H a lot of the time. In fact, the way that I play I am almost guaranteed to be able to show both 5 hearts and the diamond singleton, so I would do that. My point is that this is a fairly marginal decision that depends a lot on your other system. I have played system in the past that made it necessary to splinter on this hand, because 1S-2H in 2/1 is quite a difficult and overloaded auction and I looked to gain definition on some of those other hands. I didn't find it a problem.

 

As others have pointed out I am not PhilG. I used to be quite active here a few years ago but then I got busy. the TLDR of my bridge is that I play open team bridge for Scotland, which is pretty bad at bridge really as nations go. So its good that I get lots of top tier exposure, but gets a bit tiring losing all the time. I am also not that good at expressing myself in post, and often come across as more critical and confrontational than I intend. We used to argue a lot on these boards a few years ago. I am sure that we will again. ;)

[mikeh]

I am also not that good at expressing myself in post, and often come across as more critical and confrontational than I intend.

Been there, done that, and still do :D

[Winstonm]

While I don't like J2N on this hand, I do think it better than the splinter for the reasons I explained in my earlier post.

 

I don't like the description of J2N as masterminding.

 

My point is that if one cannot bid 2♥, then either choice of forcing raise is poor. We are too strong, especially in playing strength should partner hold the Heart A, to splinter, and we are going to be stuck over partner's most common forward-going action should we splinter. We may have similar, but different, problems with choices after his response to J2N, but that doesn't make the J2N course 'masterminding'.

 

There are auctions on which one can validly describe someone's choice as 'masterminding', but that unfortunate term should be used to actions that distort the auction in a manner that misleads partner or deprives him of any meaningful ability to participate intelligently. While both J2N and splinter can create problems, neither is a huge distortion, and both permit partner to participate if their hands warrant.

 

Totally concur with this post - imperative to show the heart source of tricks.

[Vampyr]

About splintering after partner's 2♠ rebid -- unless you are playing 2/1GF you will be more or less forced to do,this, or the auction will get very messy.

[aguahombre]

About splintering after partner's 2♠ rebid -- unless you are playing 2/1GF you will be more or less forced to do,this, or the auction will get very messy.

"unless?" If playing 2/1 G.F., a next-round splinter is even better if our hand is quite limited.... which it is in the OP. We get to show our side source, show our Spade Support, show our stiff Diamond, and also show we have a minimum game force.

[Vampyr]

"unless?" If playing 2/1 G.F., a next-round splinter is even better if our hand is quite limited.... which it is in the OP. We get to show our side source, show our Spade Support, show our stiff Diamond, and also show we have a minimum game force.

 

Well, whatever. Playing 2/1GF you can splinter or do something else if you prefer. The point is that playing ordinary 2/1, there is no spade bid that is forcing. Also by bidding 2♥ and then splintering, you might have and suitable for a first-round splinter which just happens to have five hearts; you have not established that you have a high-card raise to game.

[Jinksy]

As others have pointed out I am not PhilG.

 

I can corroborate this. I've known phil_20686 in person, and he's a genius sane a superb bridge player winsome and inspiring Irish probably not PhilG :P