[microcap]

OK, a general question. Playing 2/1 or sayc, you open one of a minor [5542 not that it matters.] Partner responds one of a major.

What are your requirements for a 4 level splinter? What is the worst hand you could have a still splinter?

thanks in advance! I will give the hands later...

[nigel_k]

I'd splinter on any hand worth a raise to game. Minimum is probably something like: KQxx Axx AKxxx x

[kenrexford]

Definitely shortness.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 9 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Definitely shortness.

I bet you have splintered on KQ doubleton.

[microcap]

OK OK

you open 1♦, partner bids 1♠.

Do you splinter 4♣ with

Scoring: IMP

---

?

If not, what do you rebid?

[Fluffy]

I would rather rebid 4♠ wich shows a 6-4 hand with minimum values. I want some values for a splinter, 18 HCP when 4441, 16 HCP when 5431 aprox.

[Echognome]

Fluffy, on Dec 9 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

I would rather rebid 4♠ wich shows a 6-4 hand with minimum values. <snip>

I'm guessing this is because with the balanced 19 count with 4♠'s, you are bidding 2NT forcing, which isn't standard.

[pooltuna]

microcap, on Dec 9 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

OK OK

you open 1♦, partner bids 1♠.

Do you splinter 4♣ with

Scoring: IMP

---

?

If not, what do you rebid?

4♦

[Hanoi5]

I'm with 4♠, if partner doesn't move we should be fine at that level.

[Fluffy]

Echognome, on Dec 9 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Dec 9 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

I would rather rebid 4♠ wich shows a 6-4 hand with minimum values. <snip>

I'm guessing this is because with the balanced 19 count with 4♠'s, you are bidding 2NT forcing, which isn't standard.

I think bidding 2NT wich isnt forcing with 19 balanced and support is also standard for many people.

[WrecksVee]

This is Rex of the Rex and Jay Misadventures.

I held this hand. While everyone has forced to game no one suggested the 4♣ splinter. I selected that bid as we play the direct raise to 4♠ as denying shortness with 18+ to 20 HCP.

We do play a 2NT jump rebid as "forcing". Using that bid to show the strong balanaced raise was considered. But for us it is no longer feasible as we have changed the meaning of 2NT to 19-20 HCP "intended as forcing": responder may pass with a subminimum response.

So in our methods my choice for a direct raise was between the splinter 4♣ or the strong side suit raise using 4♦. I feel both of these are flawed. But I think the bid of 4♦ is worse then 4♣. As the long suit raise always has control of one side suit with a singleton or void, I think such a bid should deny high card control in the fragment.

OTOH I dislike splintering with a void as partner might over value Axx of that suit. Also the hand is weaker than expected in highcards which is made up in playing tricks due to the side suit.

Does anyone have any suggestions for methods to handle voids and singletons separately? Any other ideas for raising partner's one over one response?

I do like the idea that the direct raise to 4♠ is distributional. However Jay and I have had good results being able to pass our 2NT rebid. So we are not willing to give up the strong natural jump to 4♠. But other ideas are welcome.

FYI 4♠ was not a success. Jay hand's was something like xxxx xx xx AQxxx which fit poorly. To add some bad luck the ♦KJ was offside.

Evaluation question: everyone seems to feel this hand is worth a shot at 10 tricks. I agree since I estimated it as 8 playing tricks: (♥A, two ♣ ruffs, and 5 ♦ tricks. But strict Losing Trick Count is six losers which should only bid 3♠. Does anyone feel this hand was not worth forcing to game?

Thanks, Rex aka WrecksVee

[Jlall]

microcap, on Dec 9 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

OK OK

you open 1♦, partner bids 1♠.

Do you splinter 4♣ with

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ J987 ♥ AJ7 ♦ AQ10765 ♣

?

If not, what do you rebid?

I would choose 3S, the value bid. If you splinter with this how do you resolve that when you actually have 20 points and a stiff club? It is really important not to needlessly overload the splinter. 3S can take up some of the slack, especially since there is ZERO point ZERO percent that it is every getting passed out (if partner really has a yarb with some spades, the opps have at least 1 big fit and well over half the deck, they would have bid something).

[mcphee]

3S for me. I do not force to game with this hand and the splinter for me is just a better hand than this one. I need good trumps, partner could have 4 small. 4D is not suitable as this is not a running suit.

So mark me down for 3S which I think is quite enough with this mitt.

[pooltuna]

WrecksVee, on Dec 12 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

This is Rex of the Rex and Jay Misadventures.

I held this hand. While everyone has forced to game no one suggested the 4♣ splinter. I selected that bid as we play the direct raise to 4♠ as denying shortness with 18+ to 20 HCP.

We do play a 2NT jump rebid as "forcing". Using that bid to show the strong balanaced raise was considered. But for us it is no longer feasible as we have changed the meaning of 2NT to 19-20 HCP "intended as forcing": responder may pass with a subminimum response.

So in our methods my choice for a direct raise was between the splinter 4♣ or the strong side suit raise using 4♦. I feel both of these are flawed. But I think the bid of 4♦ is worse then 4♣. As the long suit raise always has control of one side suit with a singleton or void, I think such a bid should deny high card control in the fragment.

OTOH I dislike splintering with a void as partner might over value Axx of that suit. Also the hand is weaker than expected in highcards which is made up in playing tricks due to the side suit.

Does anyone have any suggestions for methods to handle voids and singletons separately? Any other ideas for raising partner's one over one response?

I do like the idea that the direct raise to 4♠ is distributional. However Jay and I have had good results being able to pass our 2NT rebid. So we are not willing to give up the strong natural jump to 4♠. But other ideas are welcome.

FYI 4♠ was not a success. Jay hand's was something like xxxx xx xx AQxxx which fit poorly. To add some bad luck the ♦KJ was offside.

Evaluation question: everyone seems to feel this hand is worth a shot at 10 tricks. I agree since I estimated it as 8 playing tricks: (♥A, two ♣ ruffs, and 5 ♦ tricks. But strict Losing Trick Count is six losers which should only bid 3♠. Does anyone feel this hand was not worth forcing to game?

Thanks, Rex aka WrecksVee

my suggestion which will raise instant howls of protest is make a partnership agreement not to respond 1♠ with this crappy a suit. Generally you only need to do that when you are 44 in the majors.

[Jlall]

With 4-4 in the majors you would bid 1H first, not 1S.

I agree with those who raise howls at your suggestion, bridge is pretty easy, sometimes you have a 4-4 spade fit and want to play in it, regardless of your suit quality. For the same reason you open 1M regardless of suit quality if you have 5. Nothing special, bid your 4 card spade suit, see what happens, if partner raises thats cool, you get to play 2S instead of 1N, or 4S instead of 3N. I understand that sometimes partner will be strong enough to bid 2S over 1N, but sometimes he will just want to blast 3N and make them lead, especially when he doesn't see there being much chance of a fit. If he does try to cater to you having a 4 card major, that opens up a whole new can of worms, like very frequent information leakage. There is no need to be doing something special in such a fundamental auction.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Dec 12 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

With 4-4 in the majors you would bid 1H first, not 1S.

[snip]

clearly this is the case so in reality only 1♥ could be a really crappy suit

[gnasher]

WrecksVee, on Dec 12 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Does anyone have any suggestions for methods to handle voids and singletons separately?  Any other ideas for raising partner's one over one response?

Use 3♥ as an artificial multi-way raise, with responder usually relaying with 3♠. That more than doubles the number of sequences you have. The loss of a mini-splinter is no big deal.