[JanisW]

---

What is your bid now? Do you feel like splintering on a singleton A? What else?

Regards
JW

[FelicityR]

The hand looks too strong for a splinter. I'd rather try 3♣ as a force with my regular partner, not necessarily showing a second suit but a strong hand generally. That said, it could go horribly wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

If you have alternative bids av., e.g. a forcing raise, 3NT can be used for this purpose, go for it,
otherwise use the splinter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

I wouldn't splinter an Ace when there are other viable alternatives.

If I was forced to tell lies about my clubs, then with both opponents passing I think I would prefer 2♣ to 3♣: it shows up to 17 points which is enough for now, and gives partner a real opportunity to describe his hand and strength at the right level. But again there are viable alternatives.

3♠ understates my hand, but it describes my shape and puts us into cue-bids at the lowest possible level: I would go for this I think.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2018-February-20, 07:47, said:

I wouldn't splinter an Ace when there are other viable alternatives.

If I was forced to tell lies about my clubs, then with both opponents passing I think I would prefer 2♣ to 3♣: it shows up to 17 points which is enough for now, and gives partner a real opportunity to describe his hand and strength at the right level. But again there are viable alternatives.

3♠ understates my hand, but it describes my shape and puts us into cue-bids at the lowest possible level: I would go for this I think.

Many people pass 2♣ with Kxxx, 10, xxxx, QJxx and you miss a 68% game, they also pass 3♠.

I'm prepared to commit to game, it might not make, but will opposite some very poor hands (KQxxx and out for example and you may not need the Q).

I have a gadget for this and can show 4513/4612 and big, but if not playing this sort of thing I'd splinter, and I don't think you can be sniffy about being too good for a splinter. Some of the objections to splintering an ace don't apply to this particular hand, as ♦KQJ is still bad as you're likely to just be pitching winners on them.

[Winstonm]

FelicityR, on 2018-February-20, 06:01, said:

The hand looks too strong for a splinter. I'd rather try 3♣ as a force with my regular partner, not necessarily showing a second suit but a strong hand generally. That said, it could go horribly wrong.

A hand can be too strong for a splinter?

Without a gimmick, my only choices are splinter with stiff ace or 4S, but there is an argument for 3S. I would bid 4S.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-20, 08:54, said:

Many people pass 2♣ with Kxxx, 10, xxxx, QJxx and you miss a 68% game, they also pass 3♠.

I'm prepared to commit to game, it might not make, but will opposite some very poor hands (KQxxx and out for example and you may not need the Q).

The risk of partner passing 2♣ and you missing a viable game prospect exists, and that's the main reason I discarded the bid. Not a huge risk though - in the example you gave, the opps with 17 points will be as unhappy about letting 2♣ stand as you are.

I don't see 3♠ missing a good chance of game very easily here. We play 4S as fast arrival and so a jump 3S is highly invitational, partner thinks hard before passing. In any case I'm prepared to commit to the small risk of a pass in return for an excellent chance to explore controls from such a low level.

[helene_t]

Splinter is fine. P can still use last train with mild slam interest.

[lycier]

I'd bid 4♠ directly.

[JanisW]

Thank you for your insights

full deal was:

---

you can probably guess what happened... Bad luck or is there anything to be done about it?

[Cyberyeti]

6♠-1 on a heart ruff with 6♥ making ?

I'd expect 5♣-5♦-5♠-6♠ from there

[nige1]

JanisW, on 2018-February-20, 03:24, said:

What is your bid now? Do you feel like splintering on a singleton A? What else?

---

I rank

• 3♣ = NAT?
• 4♦ = SPL Reluctantly wiith a singleton A.
• 4♥ = FIT In the old days this would show a a good suit and promise ♠ support. Nowadays of course it just shows ♥.
• 2♣ = NAT. Too risky.
• 3♠ = NAT. Also risky.

Although 6♠ goes down and 6♥ makes, IMO that is just bad luck.

Suppose, however, that partner had a similar hand with weaker ♠s e.g ♠KJxx or worse. Then you would definitely prefer 6♥.

[gszes]

Allow me to just BEG for no one to consider 2c PLEASE. You might get lucky but it should set off HUGE ALARM BELLS warning against this action when it is minutely possible for responder to have something like Kxxxxx A xxx xxx and PASS EWW BONGGGGG (the relentless claxon of huge alarm bells) while missing a lead/position friendly 6s. 3c 3s 4s splinter all have flaws but compared to 2c they are downright tame tiny little friendly flaws. I am a personal fan of 3c since searching for 3n is a higher priority than playing in a minor and responder will stain to bid 3n with stuff in diamonds (bad for slam) which I will happily convert to 4s. 3c also leaves a LOT of room for exploration if slam is possible and I can convert any huge club jump to spades.

[JanisW]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-21, 05:38, said:

6♠-1 on a heart ruff with 6♥ making ?

I'd expect 5♣-5♦-5♠-6♠ from there

Oviously

I've had some thought whether 3NT is truly needed natural after 1♥-1♠?
You would have to agree with P that 3♣ is either a jump shift or 19-21 (semi)balanced with 3♦ as an inquiry.
Now 3NT is freed up to show 6+♥ 4+♠?
Is there any downside to that?

regards
JW

[Cyberyeti]

JanisW, on 2018-February-21, 10:08, said:

Oviously

I've had some thought whether 3NT is truly needed natural after 1♥-1♠?
You would have to agree with P that 3♣ is either a jump shift or 19-21 (semi)balanced with 3♦ as an inquiry.
Now 3NT is freed up to show 6+♥ 4+♠?
Is there any downside to that?

regards
JW

You need pretty good system to find out partner has ♥10, otherwise you might have 2 heart losers with 6♠ cold. I wouldn't beat yourself up over this. I can visualise the similar post when you played 6♥, spades were 3-1, hearts 3-2 and it went off on a spade ruff.

Playing 5M there is not much of a downside.

Playing weak NT with a wide range 1N rebid and no gap between 1x-1y-1N and a 2N opener, we can use the 2N rebid here, so 1♥-1♠-2N-3♣(semi forced)-4♦ is 4513/4612 and huge. Playing 4 card majors we use 1♥-1♠-3N as a 44(32) 19.

We'd have no chance of avoiding spades although we'd start with 2♣ rather than 1♠.

[rmnka447]

gszes, on 2018-February-21, 07:40, said:

Allow me to just BEG for no one to consider 2c PLEASE. You might get lucky but it should set off HUGE ALARM BELLS warning against this action when it is minutely possible for responder to have something like Kxxxxx A xxx xxx and PASS EWW BONGGGGG (the relentless claxon of huge alarm bells) while missing a lead/position friendly 6s. 3c 3s 4s splinter all have flaws but compared to 2c they are downright tame tiny little friendly flaws. I am a personal fan of 3c since searching for 3n is a higher priority than playing in a minor and responder will stain to bid 3n with stuff in diamonds (bad for slam) which I will happily convert to 4s. 3c also leaves a LOT of room for exploration if slam is possible and I can convert any huge club jump to spades.

I agree completely with starting with 2 ♣.

Even some top notch players get hung up on "if you don't bid 1 ♠ over 1 ♥ then you don't have at least 4 ♠." Over any rebid, responder has a perfect reverse into ♠. I'll take that route with this big black suit player with ♥ tolerance. I've seen plenty of hands the "must bid ♠" crew have big problems in bidding because after bidding ♠ they can never show a good longer minor suit in a good hand to describe their hand after bidding ♠.

I don't have a problem with bidding 1 ♠ with a minimum responding hand, but when you've got tickets there's no reason to convolute the bidding to show ♠.

I'm torn between 3 ♣ and 4 ♠ in the actual auction. With partners' who can handle "hasty" ♣ jump shifts/reverses, I'd bid 3 ♣ and convert back to ♠. With less astute partner, I'd probably just bid 4 ♠.

The result was unfortunate, you bid a 68% slam that went down. 6 ♥ might make on this particular lie of the cards, but is less likely to make because the chance of a 3-1 ♠ break is greater than a 4-1 ♥ break.

[cherdano]

I can't believe this thread.
Yes you don't want to splinter "because splintering with an A is bad". Did you actually look at the hand? Splintering with an ace can be bad because KQ from partner can provide useful discards, yet he will devalue them. NOT ON THIS HAND! ♦KQ will indeed be completely worthless, since we don't have any pitches to make when playing in any spade contract.
And somehow it's supposed to be better to show your diamond shortness by bidding 1H-3C-4S than to just show it with a splinter. And no, those who assume 1H-1S-3C denies 4 spades are not "less astute". There is a reason this style of delayed raises went out of fashion among top players about 30 years ago - jump shift auctions in standard are quite loaded already, and adding yet another hand type to them makes them even worse.

But the top mark goes to Nigel who ranks 2♣ and 3♠ but not 4♠, with a hand that wants to be in game opposite ♠Kxxxx and out.

[gszes]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-21, 10:55, said:

I agree completely with starting with 2 ♣.

Even some top notch players get hung up on "if you don't bid 1 ♠ over 1 ♥ then you don't have at least 4 ♠." Over any rebid, responder has a perfect reverse into ♠. I'll take that route with this big black suit player with ♥ tolerance. I've seen plenty of hands the "must bid ♠" crew have big problems in bidding because after bidding ♠ they can never show a good longer minor suit in a good hand to describe their hand after bidding ♠.

I don't have a problem with bidding 1 ♠ with a minimum responding hand, but when you've got tickets there's no reason to convolute the bidding to show ♠.

I'm torn between 3 ♣ and 4 ♠ in the actual auction. With partners' who can handle "hasty" ♣ jump shifts/reverses, I'd bid 3 ♣ and convert back to ♠. With less astute partner, I'd probably just bid 4 ♠.

The result was unfortunate, you bid a 68% slam that went down. 6 ♥ might make on this particular lie of the cards, but is less likely to make because the chance of a 3-1 ♠ break is greater than a 4-1 ♥ break.

I was talking about bidding 2c after 1h 1s which was the question by the author:)))))))))))))

[MrAce]

cherdano, on 2018-February-21, 18:38, said:

I can't believe this thread.
Yes you don't want to splinter "because splintering with an A is bad". Did you actually look at the hand? Splintering with an ace can be bad because KQ from partner can provide useful discards, yet he will devalue them. NOT ON THIS HAND! ♦KQ will indeed be completely worthless, since we don't have any pitches to make when playing in any spade contract.
And somehow it's supposed to be better to show your diamond shortness by bidding 1H-3C-4S than to just show it with a splinter. And no, those who assume 1H-1S-3C denies 4 spades are not "less astute". There is a reason this style of delayed raises went out of fashion among top players about 30 years ago - jump shift auctions in standard are quite loaded already, and adding yet another hand type to them makes them even worse.

But the top mark goes to Nigel who ranks 2♣ and 3♠ but not 4♠, with a hand that wants to be in game opposite ♠Kxxxx and out.

This!

[JanisW]

cherdano, on 2018-February-21, 18:38, said:

I can't believe this thread.
Yes you don't want to splinter "because splintering with an A is bad". Did you actually look at the hand? Splintering with an ace can be bad because KQ from partner can provide useful discards, yet he will devalue them. NOT ON THIS HAND! ♦KQ will indeed be completely worthless, since we don't have any pitches to make when playing in any spade contract.

And that is the reason for this thread. How sure can you be that you want to be in a ♠-contract. Agreed on the actual hand the hearts might be a little bit too weak, but let's make a small (but significant) change
♠Axxx♥KQJ1092♦A♣Kx
Now there is a selfsustaining ♥suit and 4♦ is "only" a spade raise. The problem I'm having is: how to simultaniously show a ♥-suit that is willing to play opposite xx or a singleton honour? And in a ♥-contract the ♦KQ are very nice cards...
After 4♦ the ♥ could be anywhere from AJxxx to what they actually are.

I agree that 3♠ and 2♣ are completly terrible and haven't even crossed my mind. Both are not forcing to game which is ridiculous with a 4 Looser Hand.

regards
JW