[Kaitlyn S]

msjennifer, on 2017-January-18, 23:39, said:

Will anyone who chose to bid a splinter bid of 4C kindly give
an HONEST explanation and enlighten all who are in responders seat ?

.

Sure. I play it as a game forcing raise with a singleton or void in clubs. Says nothing else.

[helene_t]

msjennifer, on 2017-January-18, 23:39, said:

I have one question.What does a splinter bid describe EXACTLY?

it would be great if it showed exactly this hand.

But what is the alternative? 3S eats almost the same bidding space and is even less specific.

[helene_t]

msjennifer, on 2017-January-18, 23:39, said:

I have one question.What does a splinter bid describe EXACTLY?

it would be great if it showed exactly this hand.

But what is the alternative? 3S eats almost the same bidding space and is even less specific.

[NickRW]

msjennifer, on 2017-January-18, 23:39, said:

I have one question.What does a splinter bid describe EXACTLY?

4+ card support, single or void in the suit bid and the values (high cards/shape) to reckon that game at least is a decent bet. Some might be more flowery about their agreements than that, but that is the basics

[Cyberyeti]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-19, 01:55, said:

Sure. I play it as a game forcing raise with a singleton or void in clubs. Says nothing else.

This is pretty standard, people have more complicated agreements (for me it's specifically a void, singletons go via a GF unbalanced 2N), but this is normal if you don't.

[Winstonm]

In my experience, mostly losing to really high-level players, I have noticed their bidding tends to adopt the philosophy of choosing the slight underbid rather than the overbid in doubtful cases. I think this hand is no better than 3S, though I certainly empathize with the correct feeling that this somewhat undervalues the hand - but I doubt we miss many games with this bid. I agree that we could miss some magic slams by the making the underbid.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-19, 09:46, said:

In my experience, mostly losing to really high-level players, I have noticed their bidding tends to adopt the philosophy of choosing the slight underbid rather than the overbid in doubtful cases.

This is because it is easier to show unexpected extras if the auction so develops than to persuade partner that our hand is worth less than previously shown. Against that, my observation is that high-level players upgrade based on shape much more aggressively than club players and given the choice between overbidding and getting shape across, increasing the chances of finding the right strain, and underbidding, reducing the chance of getting too high, the vast majority will overbid. A classic example is a 3m opening and holding an intermediate hand with both majors. 30 years ago the majority would probably have made a simple overcall, whereas nowadays you see the bottom end of the cue (or equivalent) has gone down enormously.

In other words, while I agree with you in principle I think it depends a great deal on the type of auction. As I wrote before, my feeling is that this is a pure value case and do not think upgrading or downgrading is specifically indicated. My personal valuation for the hand is around 18, maximum for a 3♠ rebid but close enough to 4♣ that it is clearly not incorrect. If, as for CY, 4♣ also specifically shows a void, there is even more incentive to take that course.

[mycroft]

Like many, I play splinters (without qualifier) in general as "4+support, singleton or void in bid suit, enough for game opposite partner's minimum", perhaps being a little optimistic about partner's minimum. However, in cases unlike the one being discussed here, where there isn't an inherent maximum on the call, I also play that there is a maximum on the call, in that I am not interested in slam opposite a good minimum (usually). Explicitly the splinter is putting further slam decisions in partner's hand. This applies especially if it's the max splinter - 1♥-4♦, for example, where there's no room for a countertry below game.

With more than that, I find a different way to take control.

On this hand, I too want to make a "game on shape not strength" call. I'm going to hate if 3♠ is passed out; I'm going to hate if partner drives 4♣ to slam, or even when we stop in 5. When we're wrong, no matter how we're wrong, it will be because I gave a bad description of my hand. Since I have only a choice of bad descriptions, guess and hope. Are we in luck today?

[steve2005]

msjennifer, on 2017-January-18, 23:39, said:

I have one question.What does a splinter bid describe EXACTLY?Does it describe a four card support( undefined) AND a STRONG 6 card first bid suit plus a club singleton or void( again undefined) plus at least a second round control in the fourth suit(again undefined) ? As a responder,what hand impression will you gather from such a sequence ? Will anyone who chose to bid a splinter bid of 4C kindly give
an HONEST explanation and enlighten all who are in responders seat ?

splinter here promises 4 good trump and 0-1 cards in splinter suit. shouldn't be singleton A/K
It does not promise a original 6-card suit, though could be. Promises a strong hand so 1st suit likely to be strong but could even be a 4-card suit with 4441.

[wank]

4 clubs is a slam try, albeit a particular subset of slamtry. there's no denying that. it shows considerably more than 4S which is a punt at game on distribution. presumably those who think 4C doesn't show any extra think 4S shows like 19 with exactly 4522 (no splinter then). i would think it pretty obvious that that's daft.

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2017-January-20, 05:58, said:

4 clubs is a slam try, albeit a particular subset of slamtry. there's no denying that. it shows considerably more than 4S which is a punt at game on distribution. presumably those who think 4C doesn't show any extra think 4S shows like 19 with exactly 4522 (no splinter then). i would think it pretty obvious that that's daft.

A hand that thinks it might make game opposite a 5 count is almost by definition a slam try of sorts as partner can be a lot better than that.

4♠ can be a lot worse than 4♣ because it's not always bid to make, 4♣ shows the playing strength for a 4♠ bid to make.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-20, 06:18, said:

4♠ can be a lot worse than 4♣ because it's not always bid to make, 4♣ shows the playing strength for a 4♠ bid to make.

This confuses me. For me 4♠ is very definitely "bid to make". Both opponents have passed, so why would I want to jump to a speculative contract? I have always played that the jump to 4♠ shows an absolute monster (19+ points / fewer than 5 losers etc.). The splinter bid may be on bid on shape with considerably fewer points (but still "bid to make"). I thought that this was pretty standard - have I been mistaken?

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-20, 06:18, said:

4♠ can be a lot worse than 4♣ because it's not always bid to make, 4♣ shows the playing strength for a 4♠ bid to make.

This is not standard. If you have a preemptive raise to 4♠ you shouldn't have opened 1♣.

Are you thinking of something like
KQxxx
xx
-
Axxxxx
?

Who knows what is more practical with that hand but in any case, the typical hand for a 4♠ rebid is a 4225 19-count.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2017-January-20, 07:27, said:

This is not standard. If you have a preemptive raise to 4♠ you shouldn't have opened 1♣.

Are you thinking of something like
KQxxx
xx
-
Axxxxx
?

Who knows what is more practical with that hand but in any case, the typical hand for a 4♠ rebid is a 4225 19-count.

What do you open with a minimum opener 4-7 ? what do you rebid when partner hits your 4M.

I'm aware what I play is not standard because I don't need 4♠ for any good hand, but what do you play 1♣-1♠-4♣ as ? this can be used for the big 4225

[Tramticket]

Currently I use 1♣, 1♠; 4♠ for the big 4225 hands. Since we are skipping three rounds of bidding opposite an unlimited hand we want to keep the bid pretty tightly defined and I'm not worried that it doesn't come up very often. I can see that 1♣, 1♠; 4♣ is a spare bid and could be used for this hand type.

But I still don't understand the logic of leaping on a shapely minimum hand - partner may have values and not know whether they are wasted. And since opponents have kept quite we should try to be as constructive as possible.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-19, 09:46, said:

In my experience, mostly losing to really high-level players, I have noticed their bidding tends to adopt the philosophy of choosing the slight underbid rather than the overbid in doubtful cases.

I have never ever seen one writeup of a hand played by Meckwell where they underbid, and I've seen a lot of hands they have played.

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-20, 09:31, said:

What do you open with a minimum opener 4-7 ? what do you rebid when partner hits your 4M.

I'm aware what I play is not standard because I don't need 4♠ for any good hand, but what do you play 1♣-1♠-4♣ as ? this can be used for the big 4225

Standard is that the 4♣ rebid is 4117 or maybe something similar. Not a minimum hand, though: with less than the values for game you would just bid at the appropriate level, say 3♠.

If 4♣ is specifically 4117 then it is probably better to reverse them and define 4♠ as 4117 and 4♣ as 4225 as the latter needs more bidding space for further clarification. OTOH most people don't like to splinter with 4(12)6, especially with a singleton honour and/or a small doubleton and/or very strong clubs so in any case either 4♣ or 4♠ would have to accomodate more hands.

But however you define the 4♣ and 4♠ rebids, they should show playing strength justifying a force to game. There is no need to preempt here.

[Liversidge]

I bid 4♠. Partner looked at my hand, smiled and asked if I wasn't in a talkative mood. We made 11 tricks, which was a relief. He's not into splinters yet, so I should have bid 3♠ with fingers crossed that he would not pass.