[hirowla]

Hi,

I was wondering how I should find a slam on these hands. The system being used is 2/1.

---

2♣ shows either 5+ ♣ or a hand that denies 5+♥ and 5+♦ (usually balanced).

3♣ shows at least 4+♣ in support and no singleton or doubleton (also denies 6♠).

As a alternative bidding sequence, what would happen if the bid was 3♦ (4+♣ and a shortage in diamonds)?

I'm not sure of the best way to proceed to get to one the available slams. We have Italian Cue Bidding available to us, but feel free to suggest any other similar way to get to the contract (and if you use an alternative way of showing controls let me know why it is better!).

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ian

[kenrexford]

Well, the 3C bid is impossible. There is no hand for Opener to support clubs with 5S+4C but no singleton or doubleton. 5334 are too rare to dedicate a bid for. If 3C denies a stiff, and hence is precisely 5224, then it seems odd to have that specific meaning but then violate arbitrarily. 3D seems less optional and more mandatory.

The problem with that approach is the artificial nature of the 2C call. If you are mandated to splinter opposite an artificial bid, Opener's range is too large. Better, IMO, to have the splinter show extras, where 3C is either no shape or no extras. That give Responder 3D as a probe. A simple probe follow up might be 3D as 5314-ish, 3S as 5134-ish, 3NT as 5224 minimal, 4C as 5224 extras.

[fromageGB]

I don't know if you give up on looking for a NT game once a minor is supported, but assuming you do, can't you just cue after a start of 3♦? North has an excellent hand if he could originally be just a flat 13 count.

1♠ - 2♣
3♦ (splinter with 4 card support for clubs, and additional strength) - 3♥ (1st or second round control)
3♠ (1st or 2nd round control) - 4♦ (ace ask)
4♥ (0+Q, or 1, or 3-Q) - 4NT (interested in 3 aces)
6♣ (yes, 3 aces, and no kings)

You are gambling on the ability to set up spades for a red discard or two, but if 3♦ announces additional strength as well as the shape, then I think it is justified.

[kenberg]

If 3♦ over 2♣ is consistent with this holding I can't see why I would not do it. If we had an agreement that 3♦ cannot be made on a hand that is this strong then I can't do what I am not allowed to do, but otherwise 3♦ seems right. You have an agreement that 2♥ and 2♦ over 1♠ shows five, which means partner can be quite short in clubs and still bid 2♣. If so, he rebids 3NT over my 3♦. Or maybe he rebids 3♠. Depends on his hand. But we are not stuck with playing in clubs after my 3♦ call if partner does not actually have clubs. And when he has the hand that is shown, I imagine we get to 6♣.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-July-25, 13:08, said:

If 3♦ over 2♣ is consistent with this holding I can't see why I would not do it.

The problem with splintering is not having a defined range for it. A splinter is usually towards the bottom of the range for the bidding, which in this case would make Opener's hand much too good for it unless they were going to splinter and follow with a drive. If the splinter also shows extras then no problem; the important thing is for the range to be relatively limited to enable partner to make informed decisions afterwards. The other potential issue with splintering is how things proceed when partner does not have real clubs but instead the balanced hand type. If you need to devote many continuations to unravelling this then the benefits get further diluted. Having an open-ended splinter strength opposite a nebulous 2♣ response is essentially unplayable imho.

And now we get to the crux of things. The OP has given us a system in which 2♣ serves double duty. To implement such a system you must surely have discussed how you unravel the different hand types in common auction types. A single raise would strike me as a common type so we are missing the important piece of information as to how it all works. If there is no agreement on this then we basically need to go back to basics and create a bidding system around it, probably using 2♦ as some relay that includes club raises after clarifying Opener's hand type. For example:-

1♠ - 2♣; 2♦
==========
2♥ = 5+♣, 4♥
2♠ = 5+♣, 3+♠
2NT = balanced
3♣ = 6+♣
3♦ = 5+♣, 4+♦
3♥ = 1444
3♠ = any other hand type not covered elsewhere

The point here is that you should know your system better than us. This must surely have been the first question you asked when expanding the range of the 2♣ response - so tell us what the answers were! The way I (or Ken) construct a bidding system is surely different from how you would do it and this seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question of philosophy rather than merely a judgement call.

[hirowla]

As the "OP", I'll clarify the rest of the system.

After a 2♣ response:

• 2♦ shows either diamonds or a balanced hand without stoppers in all suits.
  
• 2♥ would show hearts
  
• 2♠ would show 3-card support for spades. This is usually the preferred response if you have it!
  
• 2NT shows a balanced hand with no ♠ support and stoppers in all suits.
  
• 3♣ shows ♣ support with no shortage
  
• Other 3 level bids show a splinter with ♣ support.

To be honest we are learning the system (it's not mine, it's based on an article by Andrew Gumperz). But until you try it and find difficult hands with it, you don't know whether it works! And this is one of those hands I think. It's also brought up another possible problem - what does responder do when he has the balanced hand and more than a minimum NT hand (as bidding 3NT would kill any slam search).

Regards,

Ian

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-26, 08:49, said:

The problem with splintering is not having a defined range for it. A splinter is usually towards the bottom of the range for the bidding, which in this case would make Opener's hand much too good for it unless they were going to splinter and follow with a drive. If the splinter also shows extras then no problem; the important thing is for the range to be relatively limited to enable partner to make informed decisions afterwards. The other potential issue with splintering is how things proceed when partner does not have real clubs but instead the balanced hand type. If you need to devote many continuations to unravelling this then the benefits get further diluted. Having an open-ended splinter strength opposite a nebulous 2♣ response is essentially unplayable imho.

And now we get to the crux of things. The OP has given us a system in which 2♣ serves double duty. To implement such a system you must surely have discussed how you unravel the different hand types in common auction types. A single raise would strike me as a common type so we are missing the important piece of information as to how it all works. If there is no agreement on this then we basically need to go back to basics and create a bidding system around it, probably using 2♦ as some relay that includes club raises after clarifying Opener's hand type. For example:-

1♠ - 2♣; 2♦
==========
2♥ = 5+♣, 4♥
2♠ = 5+♣, 3+♠
2NT = balanced
3♣ = 6+♣
3♦ = 5+♣, 4+♦
3♥ = 1444
3♠ = any other hand type not covered elsewhere

The point here is that you should know your system better than us. This must surely have been the first question you asked when expanding the range of the 2♣ response - so tell us what the answers were! The way I (or Ken) construct a bidding system is surely different from how you would do it and this seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question of philosophy rather than merely a judgement call.

[Zelandakh]

hirowla, on 2016-July-26, 19:10, said:

As the "OP", I'll clarify the rest of the system.

After a 2♣ response:

Since we are talking about Opener's rebid here, this cannot possibly be right. It might also be that the system designer regards 4 card ♣ support as balanced enough for the 2♦ relay, so giving the continuations for that might also be helpful.

[gordontd]

hirowla, on 2016-July-24, 22:38, said:

2♣ shows either 5+ ♣ or a hand that denies 5+♥ and 5+♦ (usually balanced).

Is this different from "natural or balanced"?

[hirowla]

gordontd, on 2016-July-27, 02:53, said:

Is this different from "natural or balanced"?

A little - if it's ♣ it promises at least 5.

[hirowla]

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-27, 02:47, said:

Since we are talking about Opener's rebid here, this cannot possibly be right. It might also be that the system designer regards 4 card ♣ support as balanced enough for the 2♦ relay, so giving the continuations for that might also be helpful.

To save typing here is a link to the system I'm using for this above.

Regards,

Ian

[Zelandakh]

hirowla, on 2016-July-27, 02:58, said:

A little - if it's ♣ it promises at least 5.

Well not really, as 1444 is included in the "mostly balanced" description but comes under "natural" rather than "balanced". is there another hand that comes under natural that is unbalanced and has only 4 clubs?

hirowla, on 2016-July-27, 03:01, said:

To save typing here is a link to the system I'm using for this above.

Unfortunately I do not see this link - it suggests that the URL might have been changed or removed but it might potentially just be that I am not registered with BW.

[jogs]

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-26, 08:49, said:

The problem with splintering is not having a defined range for it. A splinter is usually towards the bottom of the range for the bidding, which in this case would make Opener's hand much too good for it unless they were going to splinter and follow with a drive. If the splinter also shows extras then no problem; the important thing is for the range to be relatively limited to enable partner to make informed decisions afterwards. The other potential issue with splintering is how things proceed when partner does not have real clubs but instead the balanced hand type. If you need to devote many continuations to unravelling this then the benefits get further diluted. Having an open-ended splinter strength opposite a nebulous 2♣ response is essentially unplayable imho.

The lower bound is a hand Roth-Stone would open.
-----------------------------
I wish to change my answer. Game bidding is about HCPs. Slam bidding is about controls.

Therefore the lower bound for a splinter should be 4 controls.

♠ AKxxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx

Bid 3♦.

♠ KQxxx ♥ QJx ♦ x ♣ KQxx

Bid 3♣. 3♣ does not deny a singleton. It does deny a hand suitable for slam. If opener can make slam opposite this hand, he is welcome to take control. Also why didn't he start with 3♣?

[Winstonm]

I think this hand can be bid to slam given the system being played.

1S-2C
3C-3D
3H-3N
4C*-4H
4S-6C

4C is the key bid as the 3C bid did not show extra values, the hand is rich enough in control cards to give and indication of slam interest over 3NT. Once that happens, the rest is pretty easy.

This type of bidding takes a lot of partnership discussion and understanding, IMO.

[mike777]

I think a splinter in this example has quite a range:
1s=2c
3d

I suppose the upper range would be less than a strong 2c or less than a jump to voidwood the lower range would be more than a minimum/subminimum opener.

so 3d here by south seems fine. North has plenty of extras after the splinter.