[pclayton]

Played in the club today and a couple of hands came up for discussion.

1st is: ♠AJTx, ♥J, ♦xx, ♣KQJ9xx

You open 1♣, pard bids 1♥, RHO bids 2♦. You pass, and pard backs in with 2♠. You play support x's, so you've denied 3♥'s.

Would you have the guts to try a 4♥ call here as a splinter? Or am I all wet?

2nd case. XYZ auction that we were discussing. Maybe this has been covered here, but: 1♣ - 1♥ - 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ is an impossible bid, right? How about an autosplinter?

[mike777]

object to pass

Good/bad 2nt..here forcing partner to bid 3 clubs which i can pass.
If partner makes any other bid than 3clubs=game force.

Yes I know this is 20-30 year old bidding..sorry.

[whereagles]

Good hand for negative doubles (instead of supp double )

Anyway, the correct bid is a mere 4♠. The chance slam is there is WAY too remote to justify bids that will, undoubtedly, lead to confusion.

[Gerben42]

Also a "bad" good/bad 2NT for me here.
Anyway, you have already passed so that limits your hand. Partner won't get overenthousiastic after 4♥. Yes, it should be a splinter. If partner doesn't understand, he will next time.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Sep 23 2005, 05:36 AM, said:

Played in the club today and a couple of hands came up for discussion.

1st is: ♠AJTx, ♥J, ♦xx, ♣KQJ9xx

You open 1♣, pard bids 1♥, RHO bids 2♦. You pass, and pard backs in with 2♠. You play support x's, so you've denied 3♥'s.

Would you have the guts to try a 4♥ call here as a splinter? Or am I all wet?

I would not use a splinter in pard's suit, especially if he has a 5+ suit, as is likely here.

Is it plausible to agree here a jumprebid 4C to show a good 6+ club suit and good fit in spades (having denied hearts before) ?
In this instance it seems to me a much better description of the hand, showing the concentration values in 2 suits, wheras splinters usually tend to show more a 3-suited pattern.

[whereagles]

I think it's logical (even obvious) that

1C (p) 1H (2D)
(p) (p) 2S (p)
4C

must be spades + clubs. A hand that passed 2D cannot possibly have the playing strenght to bid 4C now unless it has spades as well.

In any case, I firmly believe a cautious 4S is in order. The hints are all there that 4S is the limit: likelyhood of heart wastage, dangerous doubleton diamond, side suit not headed by the ace. A 4C should show something like

AJTx
Jx
x
AQJxxx

Now all the good signs are there: supported heart jack is more likely to be of use, diamonds are under control, clubs may setup on a finesse only. Big difference to the actual hand.

[Fluffy]

I wouldn't risk 4♥ althou I believe it should be splinter.

[pclayton]

In my partnerships that I play g/b 2N, we don't play it over 2♦, only 2♥ and 2♠. Doesn't seem to be a lot of utility to swap a natural call to be able to differentiate between only the good and bad hands with clubs. I don't play g/b with this partner.

Although I suppose you can differentiate between good jump raises and 'minimum' jump raises. Will consider this.

[pclayton]

Yikes, you really want to reverse with this? Even though its in traffic, I would expect a reverse would still show at least another King. Somehow 3♣ doesn't seem as strong.

Not playing any form of good/bad, I think the free bid idea is still alive and well. I would also expect a 3♣ call to have more strength as well.

On the actual hand it doesn't matter much. Pard has Qxxx, AKQx, x, Txxx and you reach the obvious 4♠.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 23 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

I agree a freebid shows extras, I also think I have extras. 6-4 with such great suits to me is extremely powerful. Out of curiosity why didn't partner balance with a X? I would have thought he was 4-5 for his auction. Anwyays, if partner had balanced with a X, I would certainly feel the need to jump, maybe even to 4...but I guess that is consistent with my desire to bid 2S immediately

Brian didn't want to double because he feared a leave in with a 4 card stack, when 4♠ or 3N would be excellent.

Not sure I agree with this, but I kind of see his point.

[inquiry]

Throw support doubles out the window and use doubles for what they originally indeeded..... AS TAKEOUT (hehehehe).

Justin is right this hand has extras... It has the old king extra imho. I think 2♠ is a slight stretch, but then I play double to show this hand, so 2♠ would be even better than this hand (too good for mear double).

Too much concern about three card support versus four card support for my liking in competition. Get in there and directly raise with support...after all, don't we all know trust the law of total tricks anyway.

[han]

About the original question: Phil you are indeed all wet. Partner may very well play you for some 4333 hand unsuitable for a support double. It may be a very good idea to PLAY this as a splinter, but that is a very different question.

About bidding 2NT/3C instead of passing 2D: <schrudder>. Any particular reason that we are ignoring this nice spade suit? I would double (if available) else pass. 2S is too much for me.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Sep 23 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

Yikes, you really want to reverse with this?

I do not consider 2♠ to be a reverse. Sure, it suggests extra values, but then so does 3♣. Pass (if holding no ♥ fit) is the way to show a bad hand

There is no point in reserving 2♠ for truly big hands and using 3♣ on other black 2-suiters. Why not try to describe your shaoe at a low level? Why not let partner off the hook? If he holds some moderate 4=5 or 4=4 in the majors, can he really be expected to bid 3♠ over 3♣? Surely THAT is a reverse

A bid is a reverse if it is beyond the cheapest rebid of your first suit. You cannot bid ♣ cheaper than the 3 level, so any 2 level suit bid is not necessarily bigger than 3♣.

If you are going to bid, and I think one should but that it is close, then 2♠ is the only choice for me.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Sep 23 2005, 12:51 PM, said:

If you are going to bid, and I think one should but that it is close, then 2♠ is the only choice for me.

Is this because you play support doubles so that double is not avaliable for takeout? Playing support doubles on a dare, I would be forced to bid 2♠ with this hand.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Sep 23 2005, 11:58 AM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 23 2005, 12:51 PM, said:

If you are going to bid, and I think one should but that it is close, then 2♠ is the only choice for me.

Is this because you play support doubles so that double is not avaliable for takeout? Playing support doubles on a dare, I would be forced to bid 2♠ with this hand.

yes I am a big believer in support doubles, even tho I recognize that 'negative' by opener has its uses. It's all a trade-off: one of those arguments that can not be answered. I suspect chaos theory has something to do with these issues, since tiny variations in initial conditions (ie style as well as method) result in wide variations in simulated outcomes.

[Fluffy]

This reminds me of a splinter sequence mypartner invented once, playing non forcing NT:

1♠-1NT
2♣-3♠

and I was almost sure he was splintering on my suit, because whenever I had bid a 3 card minor with 15-17 balanced I had hit my partner with 6 cards, this was no exception , we were crazy boys