[kenberg]

---

This is roughly my notion of a splinter, saying something like: "I have a stiff spade and enough values so that game is a reasonable proposition. If this excites you, I would be pleased to hear of it."

Partner is of the opinion it should be a stronger hand, just how much stronger we have not gotten around to yet.

i ask:

Let's suppose you have this hand, except I'll replace the ♣ Q by the A, or the K, or leave it as the Q, or replace it with a J. Which of these various hands, if any, do you regard as a splinter?

As in the subtitle, it is of course a matter of agreement. But what are your usual agreements?

I realize this is pretty elementary for the I/A forum, but I thought my approach was standard and i now see that it is not.

[billw55]

To me a splinter says: "Game is on. Slam is in the picture if you have a minimum without wasted values in my short suit."

The hand you give is close. Add the ♣K or change the Q to the A, then definitely.

[monikrazy]

I'd say 14+ HCP is my approximate guideline for a splinter. A little less can be ok but Partner is invariably going to play you for an A more than you have on the hand described.

Splinter is a small distortion here, because it suggests a balanced distribution outside of spades and you lack controls outside of diamonds. Queen of clubs has no helpful intermediates. I think we have a great hand for cooperating with a slam try but prefer reserving the splinter bid for more powerful hands.

Edit: A better guideline than the 14 HCP is just whether your hand is strong enough to open on its own. Personally, I would not open that hand 1H, and thus I wouldn't splinter. I do think it is a tough hand to describe without the right artificial bids. Seems ideal for an 'under jump shift,' if that bid is available.

Quote

Can it be worth a gf and still be too weak to splinter?

Yes. That is my position.

[SteveMoe]

I think there is value in playing 2-range splinters. Here's a useful link: http://bridgewinners...ce-4-splinters/
10-12 and 13-15 seem very workable. I would play as you do, but it's always good to ask.

[Bbradley62]

If partner doesn't think you have a splinter, what does (s)he think you should bid over 1♥?

[kenberg]

Bbradley62, on 2014-February-11, 15:03, said:

If partner doesn't think you have a splinter, what does (s)he think you should bid over 1♥?

Our system would require 2♣ (that's assuming that I think we are strong enough for a gf, which I do). A 2♦ call would show five. Partner has two small diamonds so the auction would begin 1♥-2♣-2♥ and then? I guess I bid 4♥.


I am assuming everyone agrees that my hand is too strong for 1♥-4♥, but maybe I am wrong about this. And 1♥-3♥ (=Lim Raise) doesn't appeal to me either.


If I can select the cards to put in partner's hand (yes, I know I don't get to cherry pick) I would say that 6♥ is apt to be a good bet if he has ♣ A, ♦ Q and ♥.AK. Of course he might not, but I think of this as being the purpose of the splinter: Partner, any spades you have other than the ace are worthless but if you have some good values elsewhere we may have 6.

Still, there is room for discussion about what I should have, and that leads to this post.

[Endymion77]

I would prefer x 10xxxx AKxx Kxx but your hand is fine. It's a nice minimum splinter in my book, the 5th trump is often quite useful. Slam is almost a laydown opposite the right balanced 13 count (xxx AKxxx Qxx Ax).

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2014-February-11, 15:19, said:

I think of this as being the purpose of the splinter: Partner, any spades you have other than the ace are worthless but if you have some good values elsewhere we may have 6.

That's pretty close to my thinking.

[Trinidad]

It's also a matter of taste. Today, I would say that

♠7
♥107542
♦AKJ6
♣A76

is too strong for a splinter.

Tomorrow, I might say something else.

Rik

[chasetb]

I play that a Splinter is normally 10- bad 13 HCP and 4+ trump support. I also play it that the splinter DENIES a good 5-card side suit, so this hand with any top ♣honor qualifies (the Jack is a secondary honor, and takes us under 10 HCP). Add another Diamond though, and I will GF with 2♦ and likely jump to 4♥ to show this kind of hand (I splinter on the 2nd round to show the good 13-16 raise). On this hand, we have so much space below 4♥ over this splinter than you can widen the HCP range, or even include a nice side suit if you wish.

Partner with 14+ useful HCP needs to make a move toward slam. I still count the Ace of the splintered suit as 2 HCP, but any other honors in that suit go to nil. The exception is when partner has the 19+ HCP rock-crusher hand, in which case (s)he can still make a move.

[dustinst22]

chasetb, on 2014-February-11, 16:06, said:

I play that a Splinter is normally 10- bad 13 HCP and 4+ trump support. I also play it that the splinter DENIES a good 5-card side suit, so this hand with any top ♣honor qualifies (the Jack is a secondary honor, and takes us under 10 HCP). Add another Diamond though, and I will GF with 2♦ and likely jump to 4♥ to show this kind of hand (I splinter on the 2nd round to show the good 13-16 raise). On this hand, we have so much space below 4♥ over this splinter than you can widen the HCP range, or even include a nice side suit if you wish.

Partner with 14+ useful HCP needs to make a move toward slam. I still count the Ace of the splintered suit as 2 HCP, but any other honors in that suit go to nil. The exception is when partner has the 19+ HCP rock-crusher hand, in which case (s)he can still make a move.

I play it this way too, prefer a very tight range for splinter -- basically a min GF hand (counting value for shortness) up to approx a max of 12-13 HCP seems right. With the stronger variety, we move those hands into jacoby. Also dont like splintering 2 suited hands.

[Bbradley62]

kenberg, on 2014-February-11, 15:19, said:

Our system would require 2♣ (that's assuming that I think we are strong enough for a gf, which I do)...

This is why I was asking. It seems to be the clear concensus that a hand that is strong enough for 2/1 gf is also strong enough to splinter.

[kenberg]

Bbradley62, on 2014-February-11, 18:16, said:

This is why I was asking. It seems to be the clear concensus that a hand that is strong enough for 2/1 gf is also strong enough to splinter.

Which perhaps is exactly how I should phrase the question: Given the shape I have, with a stiff spade spot, is it possible that the hand is worth a gf but too weak to splinter. My understanding is that the answer is no. There might be other reasons not to splinter, as some have mentioned I might have red 5-5 hand. But suppose that it is the right general shape. Can it be worth a gf and still be too weak to splinter?

I am not trying to straightjacket anyone. If you think the hand is too weak for either a splinter or a gf, i am not trying to stop you from saying so.Bbradley speaks of "the general consensus". That's what I meant at the beginning when I said i thought splintering with this is standard practice.

[mike777]

old fashion perhaps but I play limited splinters. roughly a 7 loser hand.

Your hand is perfect ..for me roughly an adjusted 6.5 loser hand.

[Siegmund]

I think the 'general consensus' that a typical splinter is a minimum GF, 3-suited, is very strong. Lots of shapely 11/12/13 HCP hands, most 15s with a singleton will look too strong to me.

I played two ranges of splinters for a long time... then pondered whether I needed 3 or 4

[Bbradley62]

kenberg, on 2014-February-11, 19:24, said:

... Can it be worth a gf and still be too weak to splinter?

... Bbradley speaks of "the general consensus". That's what I meant at the beginning when I said i thought splintering with this is standard practice.

I actually meant "the general consensus of those who have posted replies here", although I think it can be extrapolated to a much broader group. It appears that only monikrazy answers your question "yes" and the rest of us say "no".

[Mbodell]

kenberg, on 2014-February-11, 19:24, said:

Which perhaps is exactly how I should phrase the question: Given the shape I have, with a stiff spade spot, is it possible that the hand is worth a gf but too weak to splinter?

No. Any hand that is strong enough to game force is strong enough to splinter. As you and others have noted that doesn't mean the splinter is the right bid, but the reason it is wrong isn't because the hand is too weak to splinter.

[1eyedjack]

If your only splinters available commit to game, then the borderline cutoff is one where game is (just) odds on to fail opposite a normal minimum stuffed with wasted values. You would not take a totally pessimistic view. There are too many hands to try to cater for that extreme.

Personally I like mini-splinters where a simple jump shift shows a game try splinter (including some stronger options). If combined with double jump splinters there is scope for fine tuning the ranges

[Cyberyeti]

Another approach is the one we take, which is to bung all the singletons into 2N (or the inverted raise over a minor) and have the splinters be definitively a void. When we did play standard splinters, we didn't limit them, your hand would be an acceptable minimum.

Usually the old style splinter denied HHxxx (H=AKQ) in a side suit and Hxxx trumps as we had fit jumps also available with those restrictions.

[lowerline]

I prefer that a Splinter shows around 10-13hcp. This assumes you have a way to bid the 14+ Splinters though.
It also makes sense that 1♥-4♦ is a stronger Splinter than 1♥-3♠.

Steven