[jh51]

IMPs

---

I was dealt this hand in a recent team game. I clearly misbid this, as we failed to get to 6H, and took all 13 tricks. At the other table they bid the slam. Since we lost the match by 2 IMPs, this was a big contributer to our loss. Our post-mortem on this one revolved around my first couple of bids.

[mike777]

1c=1h=then rkc. then Q ask. then we can see what room is left to look for grand.

I wont stop short of 6h.

[kenrexford]

There are lots of neat tools to help, but that is an aside. Starting 1♣ makes practical sense. When partner bids 1♥, a 2♦ reverse makes a lot of sense to me. What to do next depends on what partner does.

[PhilKing]

Zia introduced me to a useful gadget here - 4♣ over 1♥ says you have a cold slam opposite a minimum non-terrible response.

It comes up quite a lot, and this hand is a perfect advert for it. If partner signs off, you pass, since it's a cry for mercy. Partner would drive slam with ♥Qxxx and ♣Qxx and nothing else, for instance.

[kenrexford]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-10, 14:37, said:

Zia introduced me to a useful gadget here - 4♣ over 1♥ says you have a cold slam opposite a minimum non-terrible response.

It comes up quite a lot, and this hand is a perfect advert for it. If partner signs off, you pass, since it's a cry for mercy.

Ah, but what if partner bids 4♦, Last Train, showing a terrible response to be ashamed of, but not something of the near psychic variety? LOL

[PhilKing]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-10, 14:38, said:

Ah, but what if partner bids 4♦, Last Train, showing a terrible response to be ashamed of, but not something of the near psychic variety? LOL

Yep, train with Qxxx or Jxxxx and a random king. Qxxxx plus something drives.

[mikeh]

I don't like 2♦ as a reverse because I think the path forward is murky, at least in part because partner's next call will be uninformed...he won't for a moment evaluate accurately for hearts, and I may never convince him that I hold this hand.

I thought of 3♠, the dreaded splinter with an Ace. But even if playing 3N as some artificial call, I still think that we are making life difficult for ourselves. One major problem is that he'll downgrade the spade K, when in fact it may be the resting spot for a diamond loser.


So I chose the fake splinter, 3♦.

I have, perhaps, an edge on most. I like this splinter to be invitational or better.

Thus if partner signs off in 3♥, I can show that I have more than a gf by bidding 3♠...with just a gf opposite a rejection of an invite, I'd just bid 4♥. So I show a monster with strong slam interest.

And if partner accepts the game invite, then we are obviously driving to slam, while if he has any extras, he will make a noise other than 3 or 4♥, and we may be able to find a good grand.

I think this may be the first time I have ever advocated, in print, a fake splinter....

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2012-October-10, 15:36, said:

So I chose the fake splinter, 3♦.

I have, perhaps, an edge on most. I like this splinter to be invitational or better.

Thus if partner signs off in 3♥, I can show that I have more than a gf by bidding 3♠...with just a gf opposite a rejection of an invite, I'd just bid 4♥. So I show a monster with strong slam interest.

And if partner accepts the game invite, then we are obviously driving to slam, while if he has any extras, he will make a noise other than 3 or 4♥, and we may be able to find a good grand.

I think this may be the first time I have ever advocated, in print, a fake splinter....

So partner signs off in 3♥ and you bid 3♠. Does he cooperate with xxxx Qxxxx Kx xx? With an apparent two-count, surely he signs off again, yet grand has a lot of play.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-10, 15:53, said:

So partner signs off in 3♥ and you bid 3♠. Does he cooperate with xxxx Qxxxx Kx xx? With an apparent two-count, surely he signs off again, yet grand has a lot of play.

We can all generate hands that don't work for whatever method you use, and this is true for the vast majority of bidding problems where we are given a hand, and an initial action.

It's just like bidding in general. Give me any system yet invented and, with enough work and enough understanding of the system, I will come up with hands that cannot be bid to the optimum spot if one follows the method.

We can strive to come close to perfection but I very much doubt that it is even theoretically possible to create a method that handles all hands even with non-contested bidding stipulated.

This sort of criticism of a proposal doesn't, imo, advance the discussion. I would suggest that you not only identify weaknesses in the proposal you wish to criticize but also offer alternatives that have fewer flaws.

Thus, while Zia's gadget would possibly work better on your example hand, don't you think that maybe reserving 4♣ for freaks like this is a little much? I mean, compare the frequency with which one can expect to hold a good 4=6 hand to the frequency of holding a hand on which slam is cold opposite a minimum response in a 4 card major.

Indeed, if one were to criticize any auction for failing to reach slam, then I suspect that the responsibility (not the same as the 'blame') would rest in large part on the player who chose 1♣. And, in saying that, I am NOT saying that 1♣ was a bad bid. It is the type of bid I make myself, altho in recent years I am beginning to think that this type of hand is just too strong....I mean, we have 10 controls!!!!!

[mike777]

give pard:

xxxx...xxxxx..xx..xx

possible given we are nv and opened 1c.

and we have a play for 7....

I think we just cannot stop short of 6.

[lalldonn]

I may be in a minority of experts but I would never open a hand this strong anything but 2♣. It becomes impossible to show a hand as strong as you have without complete guesswork. This hand is a perfect example. I would prefer finding a rebid after 2♣ and at least feeling like I have shown my hand.

If I have opened 1♣ and he bids 1♥, I guess I will just end up forcing to 5 no matter what I do. So 3♠ now, and over 4♥ I would go with 4♠. I won't force to slam on my own but who knows maybe it is right. I would just never be in this position.

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2012-October-10, 16:41, said:

Thus, while Zia's gadget would possibly work better on your example hand, don't you think that maybe reserving 4♣ for freaks like this is a little much? I mean, compare the frequency with which one can expect to hold a good 4=6 hand to the frequency of holding a hand on which slam is cold opposite a minimum response in a 4 card major.

Frequency schmequency - it's utility that's important. The trouble with splinters is that the range is too wide - you could have enough for game with anything from 15-22 points. Basically, the Zia gadget picks up the slack for hands on which you would splinter with about an ace less.

The good 46 hand sometimes qualifies (Ax AQxx x AKJxxx where partner drives slam on Kxxxx), and you can always splinter if it does not (I recommend bidding your actual shortage so that partner can evaluate his hand. )

I played 4♣ as a good 46 for over 20 years, and whilst it never worked too badly, it did not score too many goals. Playing 4♣ as a rock-crusher HAS scored quite a few in a much shorther time frame - sometimes from getting to a great slam but also by staying out of Five.

And I know that if I opened 2♣ on this hand, it would all go pear-shaped: 2♦-3♣-3♠-3NT and I would go down with 6♥ icy. I just can't bring myself to open 2♣ and rebid 2NT. All the potential continuations makes me shudder.

[mike777]

prefer 2c if vul
1c if nv

in any case I dont find the reverse, splinter, fake splinter, zia 4c compelling....

just a tough hand and one takes a position.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing standard I have no strong view what I open, just glad I can show a roughly 1435 GF via the GF unbalanced 2N I play over 1♣-1♥.

Playing standard, if I open 1♣, I just keycard next.

Opening 2♣ would depend on my methods over this, for example, how would you bid over 2♣-2♦/♥(neg or double neg)-3♣-3♠, not fun.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2012-October-10, 15:36, said:

I don't like 2♦ as a reverse because I think the path forward is murky, at least in part because partner's next call will be uninformed...he won't for a moment evaluate accurately for hearts, and I may never convince him that I hold this hand.

While I agree that for you the path forward may be murky, in my style of bidding, this auction type is expected. If 1♣-1M, 2♦ is a systemic auction that is pre-agreed to possibly show clubs with a fit and extreme extras (like Zia's 4♣ call), then partner will not have a difficult time reading the auction.

I suppose I should have explained that earlier, though.

But, an auction I can forsee might be something like:

1♣-1♥
2♦-3♣/♦
4♥

That auction would show, for me, a hand with short spades, heart fit, too strong for a splinter, not right for a Walsh Fragment.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jh51, on 2012-October-10, 14:20, said:

IMPs

---

There are a couple of other GF options not discussed yet after:

1C - 1H
??

1).. 3S! splinter...
Who knows, partner may just might make a 4D cuebid... Most likely partner will think he has "wasted values" in ♠ and rebid 4H .
Regardless, now 4S will become a convenient kickback-RKC and I'm not stopping until at least 6H is reached.

EDIT : When ♥ are trump, Meckwell plays 4S as kickback and 4NT as exclusion w/ ♠void .

2) the CWNN ( Convention With No Name ) :
.. 4C ostensibly showing 4♥ and 6♣ with GF values concentrated in those 2 suits.
This time 4S will be 6Ace-kickback including the ♥Q but the ♣Q is included in the K-ask.

3) Then there is the GGG ( gnasher's gameforce gadget ) over a 1H Response .
.. 2S, then Responder's 2NT! will ask for distribution and if 2S was a real suit; but I use this one to show a GF 3 card ♥ raise. Perhaps a 4-level reply over 2NT! could show a GF 4 card ♥ raise( such as 4C ) much like Zia's in post # 4 . That way it would not interfere with the "CWNN" .

[ahydra]

TEN controls? Surely you have to open it 2C. Probably best to rebid 2NT as well so 2C-2D-2NT-3C-3H and hopefully partner will do something intelligent here.

ahydra

[jh51]

mike777, on 2012-October-10, 14:22, said:

1c=1h=then rkc. then Q ask. then we can see what room is left to look for grand.I wont stop short of 6h.

You know with 100% certainty that partner is going to show 0. Playing 1430 without kickback, is 5♠ now the Q ask? Since I know partner's first response is showing 0, I afterwards thought about the affect of a fake exclusion RKC. 0 is 4NT, and then 5♣ is the Q ask which may also tell me about the ♦K.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-11, 06:16, said:

Playing standard I have no strong view what I open, just glad I can show a roughly 1435 GF via the GF unbalanced 2N I play over 1♣-1♥.Playing standard, if I open 1♣, I just keycard next.Opening 2♣ would depend on my methods over this, for example, how would you bid over 2♣-2♦/♥(neg or double neg)-3♣-3♠, not fun.

That latter response was what concerned me about opening 2♣.

ahydra, on 2012-October-11, 09:29, said:

TEN controls? Surely you have to open it 2C. Probably best to rebid 2NT as well so 2C-2D-2NT-3C-3H and hopefully partner will do something intelligent here.ahydra

If I knew what partner had, this would be safe, but I can forsee an auction that goes:
2♣-2♥(negative)-2NT- and then
Pass or
3♥ (transfer)-3♠
I can see taking only 6 or 7 tricks in either of these auctions.

[mike777]

ya playing kickback helps a lot on this one.

[PhilKing]

One of the trouble with bidding 4♠ kickback is that you may miss slam.

If over zero you ask for the queen, you may go down when he has it and make whe he does not. Once you drive the five level you may as well go to six rather than guess to stop on a pinhead (once one decides not to bother consulting partner).