[haver]

Scoring: MP

Bidding goes
1CL - 2DI (weak) - 2SP - Pass - ?

---

What do u bid??

[whereagles]

Pass. Opps have probably already overbid with 2♠ and will overbid more, given 2♠ is forcing. Later on, I'll double them (unless pard is of the jack-high preempt type).

[Echognome]

Partner made a forcing 2♠ bid and I have a good hand. 3♣ and 3♠ are too much of an underbid. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would pass. I bid 3♦ to GF and then take it from there.

[haver]

whereagles misunderst. the problem - opps bid 2DI (weak) - partner bid 2 SP

[Double !]

does P promise 5 spades and some values to bid 2S?

can I make 6S opposite something like AQxxxx, xx, xxx, xx or at least have a decent play for 6?

Does 4D splinter promise 4-card support when P has promised 5+ is the suit or can the bid be made on 3 trumps with a high honor? (An interesting question would be the difference between 4C and 4D on this sequence.)

4D seems like an interesting bid to make with these cards.

DHL

[zasanya]

I presume P has 5 card ♠ and some values .Game is certain ,slam is possible unless P has wastage in ♦.So bid 4♦ splinter and let P decide whether to stop in game or push slamwards.

[mikeh]

3♦ for me

4♦ seems ok, but I usually deliver a 4th trump.... maybe the ♣ suit compensates, but 3♦ should help us find the right level...

[Codo]

Same thoughts as mike, but other result: 4♦

[bearmum]

haver, on Apr 24 2006, 08:16 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

Bidding goes
1CL - 2DI (weak) - 2SP - Pass - ?

---

What do u bid??

As P has made a forcing bid I will bid 3♦ (forcing I believe in sayc and 2/1 ) because:-
1. I think that the 4♦ splinter should show 4 ♠ support
2. I am not sure that 4♣ is forcing ( I play Precision normally )
3. I do not have enough ♥s to bid 4♥ (as P may play me for 5/4 in ♣/♥)


SO IMO 3♦ is the best bid to describe my hand

[whereagles]

haver, on Apr 23 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

whereagles misunderst. the problem - opps bid 2DI (weak) - partner bid 2 SP

Oh.. well, it wasn't very clear to me. Anyway, I'll bid 4♦ then.

[inquiry]

What is the outstanding feature of this hand? Is it the singleton ♦ that will stop them from cashing two quick diamonds, or is it the nice six card ♣ suit? I think, at least for me, it is the nice six card club suit (besides, the way I play my splinters, a jump to 4♦ here would oddly deny a ♥ stopper.

So I will bid 4♣, and yes, I am a spade short for this bid, partner will take me for 6-4 in the blacks

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Apr 24 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

What is the outstanding feature of this hand? Is it the singleton ♦ that will stop them from cashing two quick diamonds, or is it the nice six card ♣ suit? I think, at least for me, it is the nice six card club suit (besides, the way I play my splinters, a jump to 4♦ here would oddly deny a ♥ stopper.

This reasoning is solid, but I think bidding 4♦ is more descriptive because it implies good clubs anyway.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Apr 24 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 24 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

What is the outstanding feature of this hand? Is it the singleton ♦ that will stop them from cashing two quick diamonds, or is it the nice six card ♣ suit? I think, at least for me, it is the nice six card club suit (besides, the way I play my splinters, a jump to 4♦ here would oddly deny a ♥ stopper.

This reasoning is solid, but I think bidding 4♦ is more descriptive because it implies good clubs anyway.

You never are 4-4-1-4? How about 4-3-1-5?

[mcphee]

3D shows a good raise of S or looks for a D stop to play a NT game. I intend to bid again even if partner should bid a S game suggesting minimum values.

The splinter in D should show a 4th trump and while I have compensation in other areas I do not want partner to be sure of 4 trumps in my hand. He may have the values to look for 7 with something like AJxxxx in S and be very unhappy with I produce only 3 trumps.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Apr 24 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 24 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

This reasoning is solid, but I think bidding 4♦ is more descriptive because it implies good clubs anyway.

You never are 4-4-1-4? How about 4-3-1-5?

4414 is much rarer than 4315. Hopefully pard will figure that out himself as well

The 4315 should imply good clubs because you have

1. extras, and
2. no diamond values.

so club strength is expected.

Actually, this hand borders on being strong enough for a direct RKCB 4NT. I would certainly bid that opposite the right partner (a practical bidder who doesn't like complicated auctions but can play cards well).

[Blofeld]

whereagles, on Apr 24 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

4414 is much rarer than 4315.

Is it? I don't have any figures to hand, but I would think that:

- a general 5431 shape is quite a lot more common than a 4441 shape (about 6 times as common as a first approximation).

- there are 24 possible (5431) hand patterns and only 4 (4441)s. (this is where my factor of 6 above comes from)

- any particular 4441, say 4=4=1=4, is slightly more common than any 5431, say 4=3=1=5.

[whereagles]

Blofeld, on Apr 24 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

any particular 4441, say 4=4=1=4, is slightly more common than any 5431, say 4=3=1=5.

True, but a splinter can be made on a bunch of shapes, of which only the 4414 shows 4 clubs. All others have 5+ clubs: 3415, 4315, 4405, 3406, 4306, etc...

[jdeegan]

Jlall, on Apr 24 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

3D, anything else is too committal and premature. I'm not sure what level or strain we will play in yet. Splintering with only 3 trumps is not a long run winning action imo, especially when clubs are in play as a trump suit.

Perfect analysis. 4♦ or 4♠ commits to spades too soon given my monster club suit. 6♣ or even 3NT may turn out to be the right spot. I can always fall back on 4♠ (this may be the spot even with a 4-3 fit, though pard will nearly always have a five bagger + on this bidding) if the ensuing auction turns unpromising.

[whereagles]

jdeegan, on Apr 24 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

4♦ or 4♠ commits to spades too soon given my monster club suit. 6♣ or even 3NT may turn out to be the right spot.

And exactly how are you going to find that out?