[rbforster]

Partner, who often opens light, opens 1♠ and you hold:

---

What's your plan for the bidding? Feel free to use any of your preferred conventions (Jacoby, splinters, etc). You don't have that much in terms of values, but it won't take that much for slam either.

[Cyberyeti]

rbforster, on 2011-October-16, 23:13, said:

Partner, who often opens light, opens 1♠ and you hold:

---

What's your plan for the bidding? Feel free to use any of your preferred conventions (Jacoby, splinters, etc). You don't have that much in terms of values, but it won't take that much for slam either.

3♣ Opening hand 5+ decent clubs, 4 spades to at least one honour, follow up with 4♥ whose precise meaning will vary depending on partner's rebid.

[mck4711]

I want to play at least play 4♠, and unless he has a super-light opening or all his HCP are in ♥ slam has good chances.

IMO you have 3 choices:
2NT or 3NT: showing 4card-support, GF, you are taking the lead, checking about strength and distribution (in some systems 2NT is 2NT-Jacoby, in other systems 3NT has this meaning)
4♥: splinter (your hand is strong enough for a splinter), you are describing your hand and p can judge if slam is possible

I dont like 3♣. Though it shows a strong hand with ♣, IMO 3♣ declines support for ♠. How do you want to tell p that you have perfect support for ♠ and that you are short in ♥.
Edit: Some systems require that this jump (1♠ - 3♣) shows not more than one looser in ♣, with KJ I have 1,5.

My personal choice on this hand: 4♥. Everything told in one bid.

[Zelandakh]

The problem with bidding 4H as a splinter is that this hand is probably too strong, although that of course depends on agreements. My solution to this is to play 1S - 2NT as either a mini-splinter (ie invitational) or an "in-between" splinter, that is ~16-19 support points. So, for example:-

1S - 2NT
3C = tell me more
... - 3NT = stronger type, side void
4C = which void?
... - 4H = heart void

This approach is pretty much enforced by my system since 1S - 2C would be weak. The possible alternatives would be 1S - 3C (GF raise) or 1S - 1NT (INV+ relay), neither of which feels like it will leave us better placed. Of course I would love to be playing fit jumps on this hand instead...

[the hog]

1S 2C. Then partner can evaluate his C holding after I have set up the gf.

[han]

2C, then raise spades.

[y66]

What Han said.

Yes, we have 4 card spade support, heart shortness and enough to force to game. For me, 4H does not also show a decent 7 card side suit.

[Hanoi5]

What the hog, han and y66 said. Why would I try to show support right away if I can show my suit and later support letting partner in on the decision making?

[whereagles]

Either a splinter or 2C + support later should do the trick.

The choice depends on whether you want to be in charge (with 2C) or let go the responsibility (splinter).

[kenrexford]

2♣ start.

I expect a probable red suit call, after which I will bid 2♠, absolutely establishing fit in my methods.

In my methods, partner will always next bid 2NT, denying two of the top three spade honors.

What I do next depends on partner's likely red suit:

If 2♥, I next bid 3♠ to deny two top clubs, deny a diamond control, deny a heart card as high as the Queen, but show two of the top three spades. If partner lacks a diamond control, he signs off at 4♠, and we are done. If he has a diamond control, he might be able to bid serious 3NT or might cue 4♣ to show the Ace or Queen of clubs, either of which is interesting and has further developments; I don't feel like developing everything plausible though.

If 2♦, I next bid 3♥, showing first or second control in hearts (not 4♥ because the delayed splinter is still not quite right). Partner may well cue 3♠ to show me the spade Queen, but again he might also zoom to 4♠ because of no diamond control. Other possibilities are out there, but again that gets too involved without knowing what he has.

[pooltuna]

J2NT if you want to find out if partner has ♣ shortage otherwise show your hand with 2♣ while the splinter has merit as some have noted this hand is too good for one. I would prefer 3♣ to be a jumpshift worthy suit which this is not.

[rbforster]

Thanks for the suggestions. In the end, I decided that despite having various options to raise spades (strong jump then support, Jacoby, various splinters), that none of these did a good job of focusing partner on his club holdings without overpromising mine (I play strong jumps must be good suits).

I opted for a GF 2♣, hoping to help partner upgrade club honors in his evaluation. I normally don't bid this with 4 card support, but nothing else appealed. In the end, we correctly stopped in game when partner lacked a diamond control, but at least I thought our auction had a chance of finding slam if partner's red card holdings had been reversed.

---

(spots corrected from OP)

[ArtK78]

Your auction was excellent. It found the best spot at little risk.

This auction is perfect at IMPs (or total points).

But, if giving away as little information as possible is your goal, you failed miserably. The opps (unless they are both blind and deaf) are going to lead a diamond and you will get +450. You might have avoided the diamond lead if you chose some less revealing path to 4♠ (or even 6♠).

Of course, the opps might have a natural diamond lead anyway, in which case you did as well as you possibly could.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, you might have gambled and blasted 6♠ after partner's 4♣ call if needing a swing. "You pick the right red suit lead!"

[rbforster]

Good points information disclosure and about reaching the best cold contract vs a slam or MP overtricks you might make. I'll have to put encrypted cuebids on my long list of conventions to work on - I'm sure it wouldn't be too far off from Ken's style when he's already showing 2/3 top trump honors.

[whereagles]

Encrypted cues? As in, only our side knows the key and opps don't? If so, I believe those methods are banned worldwide.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-17, 12:58, said:

Of course, the opps might have a natural diamond lead anyway, in which case you did as well as you possibly could.

And therein lies the answer. In the blind, the opening leader will have a sequence in diamonds or just guess right --combining to more than half the time, and the bashers lose a lot of IMPs. The rest of the time they will make the slam, gaining a lot of IMPs.

And, all of the time, potential teammates will know what they would be getting.

[rbforster]

whereagles, on 2011-October-17, 18:44, said:

Encrypted cues? As in, only our side knows the key and opps don't? If so, I believe those methods are banned worldwide.

If you establish the key during the bidding, such as having a check back that confirms the other top trump honor when partner just showed 2/3 top, you can encrypt your cues and still give the required full disclosure. Only encrypted carding is oppressed by the regulators, bidding is allowed in the same way any style of late round cue bidding is (anything goes starting with openers rebid in the US, and I imagine this is similar elsewhere).

[mike777]

rbforster, on 2011-October-18, 01:17, said:

If you establish the key during the bidding, such as having a check back that confirms the other top trump honor when partner just showed 2/3 top, you can encrypt your cues and still give the required full disclosure. Only encrypted carding is oppressed by the regulators, bidding is allowed in the same way any style of late round cue bidding is (anything goes starting with openers rebid in the US, and I imagine this is similar elsewhere).

I have no idea what this means......in fact I fall sleep.
----------------



congrats you win the rest of us ....


you win at bridge when 99% of paying bridge could care less.

[Antrax]

Downvote ^