[mr1303]

---

Partner has splintered at game all.

What would you call here? Options are:

4D - cue (1st and 2nd round controls - Qx not normally what you'd expect)
4H - cue
4S - not interested in anything further
4NT - RKCB
5C - cue - would deny a control in diamonds or hearts
5D/5H - EKCB
5S - asking for good trumps.
5NT - GSF

[TylerE]

4S

[smerriman]

Has to be 4♠ surely. Even if partner has something like KQxx Axxx AKxx x, it's asking a bit much to hope the club suit sets up.

[LBengtsson]

Partner wants to be in game even if you have a minimum response. You are more than minimum. He could have ♠KQxx ♥Ax ♦AKxxxx ♣x. You could even be missing a grand slam (assuming 3-2 breaks) if you held ♠A10xx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Axxxxx

The problem is are you safe at the 5 level if he holds ♠QJxx ♥KQ ♦AKJxxx ♣x instead?

I think partnerships need to discuss splinters carefully, by both responder and as a opener's rebid, defining their meaning. First, never splinter with an ace or a king, only a worthless stiff low card. Always splinter with good trumps. Always splinter with a minimum of controls, etc?

A opener's rebid splinter should say (to me) good trumps, good controls, good side suit (♦). We fit well if his hand is ♠KQxx ♥Ax ♦AKxxxx ♣x. But would we arrive in a poor 6♠ contract if he has ♠Kxxx ♥AK ♦AKxxxx ♣x instead? No because he can ask for trump Q with RKCB.

On this basis 4♠ is an underbid, and I want to tell partner the good news and show my stiff ♥ so I am bidding 4♥ in response to his 4♣ bid.

[LBengtsson]

smerriman, on 2022-May-24, 19:29, said:

Has to be 4♠ surely. Even if partner has something like KQxx Axxx AKxx x, it's asking a bit much to hope the club suit sets up.

I thought of this 4441 shape also but I do not like splintering with hands of this shape myself. Though the alternative is faking a 2♥ rebid and see what partner bids next. Not that I like to do this

[mw64ahw]

In practice I tend to take a,slower approach to establishing fits for slams, but if using the splinter I would only make it with a hand of adequate playing strength, including 2 of the top 3 trump honours. Hence I will cue bid ♥ and wait for partner to show keycards. In practice I would expect something like KQxx Ax(x) AKxxx(x) x as a minimum

[smerriman]

LBengtsson, on 2022-May-24, 20:08, said:

He could have ♠KQxx ♥Ax ♦AKxxxx ♣x.

Hmm, to me this hand (and others you mentioned) should be rebidding 4♦ to show 4 spades and 6 good diamonds. The splinter tells me to change my valuation of my hand by downgrading club honors (likely useless), and upgrading heart and diamond honors equally which are now likely to mesh with partner's holding and take extra tricks.

[Tramticket]

Does the title: "Surely a Mistake" refer to responding 1S rather than 2C?

And don't call me Shirley.

[Cyberyeti]

Easy 4♥ for us, but we have other lower ways to bid some of the problematic hands. I wouldn't be surprised to see KQJx, Axx, AKJxxx, void opposite if we bid like this and he doesn't need to be this good to make 6.

[sfi]

I really need diamonds to be a source of tricks to think slam is a realistic chance, and I would expect partner to bid 4D if that's the case. If partner is just asking what I think of my hand in light of a singleton club, my answer is "not much". So 4S here.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2022-May-25, 00:46, said:

I really need diamonds to be a source of tricks to think slam is a realistic chance, and I would expect partner to bid 4D if that's the case. If partner is just asking what I think of my hand in light of a singleton club, my answer is "not much". So 4S here.

4♦ is 4252 and huge to quite a few people (4171/5161 to us).

We have a lot more definition here as 4♣ is specifically a void for us (most other hands go through a GF unbal 2N, except 4441s with support where we rebid 3N).

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-May-25, 01:03, said:

4♦ is 4252 and huge to quite a few people.

I have heard that there is a trend towards this treatment. If you play that it still seems like you need a way to show the "diamonds as a source of tricks" hand, and not just by showing the splinter. The fifth and sixth diamonds are big cards. A system that means you have to treat:

KQxx Axxx AKxx x

and

KQxx Ax AKxxxx x

as equivalent is fundamentally broken, at least when talking about slam exploration.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2022-May-25, 02:33, said:

I have heard that there is a trend towards this treatment. If you play that it still seems like you need a way to show the "diamonds as a source of tricks" hand, and not just by showing the splinter. The fifth and sixth diamonds are big cards. A system that means you have to treat:

KQxx Axxx AKxx x

and

KQxx Ax AKxxxx x

as equivalent is fundamentally broken, at least when talking about slam exploration.

Yup I agree, I'm not sure I actually want to force to game with the first one, partner can have a reasonable hand where game isn't great (AJxx, Jx, xx, QJxxx and they play trumps) although he will raise if you invite, if he's worse than this, you might play 3♠= although of course he could have Axxx, x, Qxx, xxxxx where it's great and he may not take the invite. I think 4♣ should be the bid on the second but don't like it on the first.

[bluenikki]

sfi, on 2022-May-25, 02:33, said:

I have heard that there is a trend towards this treatment. If you play that it still seems like you need a way to show the "diamonds as a source of tricks" hand, and not just by showing the splinter. The fifth and sixth diamonds are big cards. A system that means you have to treat:

KQxx Axxx AKxx x

and

KQxx Ax AKxxxx x

as equivalent is fundamentally broken, at least when talking about slam exploration.

When there is a 6-card side suit (or a 5-card side suit in a hand with 5 trumps), a singleton is just another 2nd round control.

[LBengtsson]

smerriman, on 2022-May-24, 23:21, said:

Hmm, to me this hand (and others you mentioned) should be rebidding 4♦ to show 4 spades and 6 good diamonds. The splinter tells me to change my valuation of my hand by downgrading club honors (likely useless), and upgrading heart and diamond honors equally which are now likely to mesh with partner's holding and take extra tricks.

Yes, I agree. You are right. I just did not think of this obvious bid which is also available. However, I still do not think it is quite right splintering with 4441 shape as you do not have a long side suit to set up extra tricks, and you need partner to adequately fill the gaps in the red suits, which is difficult finding 2nd and 3rd round controls having lost a lot of bidding space with the splinter. A discussion with partner what all these bids at the four level when supporting partner's suit indirectly mean.

[blackshoe]

"Forced by system" doesn't really tell us much. Does responder have spades? What strength does it show?

I presume "splinter" means "splinter in support of spades". What's the strength range? Four spades? Can he have three?

[smerriman]

LBengtsson, on 2022-May-25, 09:52, said:

However, I still do not think it is quite right splintering with 4441 shape as you do not have a long side suit to set up extra tricks, and you need partner to adequately fill the gaps in the red suits, which is difficult finding 2nd and 3rd round controls having lost a lot of bidding space with the splinter.

But what would you bid instead? There are artificial solutions, but with a standard system there aren't any other game forcing spade raises (you could jump shift to 3♣ or reverse into hearts, but both of those will put you in a lot of trouble trying to show 4 card support later).

Partner bases their choice on how well they can fill in the red suits, so that tends to make up for the lost space.

[akwoo]

I bid 4♥. As far as I'm concerned, you need a much worse hand to not give a control bid below game.

The KQ of clubs is about as good as a fifth trump, and I would even cue bid if they were both replaced by small clubs. You have two useful cards. Partner could have ♠KQJx ♥AKx ♦AKxxx ♣x

The kind of hand that doesn't give a control bid is something like ♠Jxxx ♥Q ♦xx ♣QJxxxx - true dreck.

There is a reasonable argument for agreeing that 4♦ here shows A, K, or Q of diamonds (and never shortage).

[pescetom]

For us it would be automatic to control-bid 4♥ here.
If we are only worth game or game+1, it will come out in the wash.

[mikeh]

I’ve delayed answering here…my first draft some days ago was even longer than my norm😀

When considering whether to make a move, be it towards game or slam, it makes sense to mentally conjure up some non-freakish holdings for partner, compatible with the auction so far.

When the situation isn’t clear, the odds are that you’ll be able to come up with hands where making the move is clear, where it’s debatable and some where it’s too dangerous. Then you have to rely on judgement as to how much weight to give to the extremes….btw, if you currently lack judgement, this is a good way to acquire it….do the mental exercise, follow your best guess and see how it turns out. No one hand nor any small sample will be conclusive but if you consistently miss good contracts or consistently turn pluses into minuses, try to figure out why you’re often wrong. Plus, of course, seek the opinion of players who’ve proved they have fairly good judgement.

Here, my sense is that there are not many hands on which, if we make a move, partner will get us too high. Yes, we may reach the 5-level on some hands where, if the cards lie badly, we may go down, but there are, imo, a lot more hands where slam is somewhere between reasonable and virtually cold, and on which partner should be passing 4S should we make that bid.

Before going further…as is often the case style matters. In my expert partnerships we use the philosophy of invite heavy, accept light. Now most hands are in the middle and this philosophy has no impact. But here partner could have invited via 3S, knowing that I’d stretch to accept the game invitation. But he didn’t invite…he forced to game while showing at least some slam interest. Also, as is increasingly common, we respond quite light, especially if we have 5+ in our major and shortness in opener’s minor. You can’t play a style in which a response could be on 4 or even 3 hcp and have opener rebid as if your response promises 5 or 6.

So he has a good hand.

KQJx Axx AKJxx x is not the best he could have. But if we bid 4S he has to allow for a hand such as xxxxx Qxx xx KJx where we really do not want to be in 5S….and this isn’t the worst hand we could have.

QJxx AKx AJxxx x is not, for us, a gf splinter….that’s 3S bid, absolutely not a gf holding.

Btw, 4=4=4=1 hands should be bid with a slight nod to being conservative. This shape is notorious for playing poorly relative to its hcp total, so I wouldn’t splinter with, say, KJxx AKxx AJxx x

All of this means that for me this is a hand on which we have to make a move.

Again, style matters. I know of some real experts who might bid 4D here, since on many hands partner would love to hear of a diamond card. I don’t play that style, for better or worse. 4D here would be either the ace or king…..almost never shortness unless I have a lot of extras but desperately need to hear a heart cuebid. Thus I bid 4H.

If partner signs off in 4S, I think I’m done. 4H shows some slam interest…if he has my KQJx Axx AKJxx x hand, he’s driving to slam and on most (but probably not all) hands on which 6S is ‘good’ he should make another move, assuming that we have 5 level safety once I show some interest.