[dicklont]

---

Partner opens 1♠. Agreements are 2/1, bergen raises, Jacoby 2NT, splinters.

What is your call?

[matmat]

I need to learn to read... you're playing bergen raises 3♣, 7-10, 4 card support. isn't that what i have?

[awm]

Obviously the first choice is to make a mini-splinter in clubs. Second choice is a fit-showing invite in hearts.

Of course, neither of these is available. I wouldn't evaluate this hand as a game force, but it seems worth about a limit raise with the side singleton and the two quick tricks. So I'd make the stronger of the two bergen raises given the methods in place.

[jdonn]

3♦, I would like to believe this answer is impossible to disagree with in these methods?

[neilkaz]

This looks like a minimum limit raise to me so 3♦ but won't accept a game invite of 3♥ which says nothing about ♥ (as I play) and is purely quantative.

.. neilkaz ..

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The hand looks like an inv. raise, given your methods,
bid 3C or 3D, which ever fits better.
I dont know Bergen very well, and maybe you play
Reverse Bergen .-), and call it Bergen.

If you think the hand is strong enough to force to
game, I dont, bid 4C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[inquiry]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 28 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

If you think the hand is strong enough to force to
game, I dont, bid 4C.

Zar fit points say force to game...

This hand has 8 hcp, 3 control points, 11 distributional points, plus 2 fit points for the spade JT, and 2 more for the singleton club. By zar count, that is 26. Just enough to force to game. So if you were inclined to count the hand this way, bid 4♣. That is what the splinter is there for. IF you subtract some value here or there, limit raise is enough. I tend to push on these things when all the count looks good (AK great, JT in trumps great, ruffing value great), so I have to admit I would bid 4♣.

[Codo]

I agree that this hand is between a strong invitation and a game force.

But if I would treat this hand as a GF, I would never ever splinter, because a splinter is quite narrowly defined: 4 trumps, shortness, 11-15 HCPs (or something like 7 loosers). This hand is too weak for a splinter bid. So in a GF I would choose 2 NT followed by the weakest rebid.

But for me this hand is just a little to weak for a Game forcing anyway, even with all the nice features. I will go with the raise you use for 10-11, normaly 3 ♦.

[whereagles]

Codo, on Nov 28 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

I agree that this hand is between a strong invitation and a game force.

I don't. This is a clear game force. J2NT thus.

[MomoTheDog]

It's a clear bergen raise IMO, this will help partner the most as this is the most descriptive and "point-limited" bid.

[brianshark]

Codo, on Nov 28 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

This hand is too weak for a splinter bid. So in a GF I would choose 2 NT followed by the weakest rebid.

That doesn't make sense. It's either a GF or it isn't. If it's a GF, you splinter and not jacoby 2NT because J2N is a descriptive bid which denies the ability to GF with a splinter.

(You might choose Jacoby with a singleton K or something but that's because showing it as a small x hampers your partner's ability to evaluate his honour holdings.)

The corollary to this is that if you don't think your hand is worth a high-card forcing raise to game them you make a pre-emptive or semi-pre-emptive raise to game. It's probably too good for a direct 4♠ but maybe if you play forcing 1NT followed by 4♠ as a semi-pre-emptive raise with some values or some equivalent treatment.

Oh and if anything, Jacoby 2NT is more of a brute force high card points raise than a splinter will ever be. So bidding J2N when you're scared you have too few high card values is much more of a mis-description.

[dicklont]

Thanks for the reactions, it really helps my thinking about this hand.

Yesterday I decided to splinter with 4♣ because I did not want to miss game, but I felt it was an overbid. Someone suggested to start with a forcing 1NT and rebid 4♠, but then my partner will never believe I have 4 spades.

At this moment I think 3♦ (Bergen 10-12) is the best description. When partners signs off I can raise to game, when he bids game I can pass confidently and when he makes a slam try I think I have a pretty nice hand for him.

[P_Marlowe]

dicklont, on Nov 28 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

<snip>
At this moment I think 3♦ (Bergen 10-12) is the best description. When partners signs off I can raise to game, when he bids game I can pass confidently and when he makes a slam try I think I have a pretty nice hand for him.

Either you ask partner, or you dont, but if you
ask him and then overrule his decision, than
you simply say, partner is an idiot.

Sry, but bidding game after you have invited
and partner declined is simply stupid.
By the way, if it is right they will find a penalty
double. Or they will find a lead directing double.

Make up your mind and see it through.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

brianshark, on Nov 28 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 28 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

This hand is too weak for a splinter bid. So in a GF I would choose 2 NT followed by the weakest rebid.

That doesn't make sense. It's either a GF or it isn't. If it's a GF, you splinter and not jacoby 2NT because J2N is a descriptive bid which denies the ability to GF with a splinter.

(You might choose Jacoby with a singleton K or something but that's because showing it as a small x hampers your partner's ability to evaluate his honour holdings.)

The corollary to this is that if you don't think your hand is worth a high-card forcing raise to game them you make a pre-emptive or semi-pre-emptive raise to game. It's probably too good for a direct 4♠ but maybe if you play forcing 1NT followed by 4♠ as a semi-pre-emptive raise with some values or some equivalent treatment.

Oh and if anything, Jacoby 2NT is more of a brute force high card points raise than a splinter will ever be. So bidding J2N when you're scared you have too few high card values is much more of a mis-description.

1. You don´t bid splinter just to bid game. If you just want to compete to 4 Spade, you better find a way to go there without exchanging too much information. So a splinter bid is a tool to evaluate your hand for slam purposes. And cause of it space consuming nature it needs to be well defined in terms of loosers hcps or whichever method your partnership plays. If you play it with 8-15 hcps your partner will have to guess if you are in slam teritory or not more often then he should.

2. Jac2NT isn´t just brute force. With a balanced 13 f.e. you use exactly this bid (or you define 3 NT as a four card raise, but this is another story). It can have a variety of hands from simple gameforce to really strong hands and from balanced to very unbalanced hands.


But besides that, I don´t like the jac2NT idea anymore. I will stick to 3♦ and if there is a hand which contains a singelton and is clear GF but not much more, it should be splintered.

[Codo]

dicklont, on Nov 28 2007, 09:33 PM, said:

At this moment I think 3♦ (Bergen 10-12) is the best description. When partners signs off I can raise to game, when he bids game I can pass confidently and when he makes a slam try I think I have a pretty nice hand for him.

Sorry, but this is really stupid.

Pd with f.e AKQxx,xxx,xx, Axx will bid 4 Spade on his own.
But if he has KQxxx,x,Qjxx,QJx you better pass his 3 Spade bid.

To rate this hand as a 10-12 HCP raise with four trumps is what you have.

[helene_t]

With 7 1/2 LTC this hand is not a GF unless playing sound openings. So an invitatitional raise (3♦ I suppose) it is. It would be nice to play mini-splinters.

[brianshark]

I agree that a splinter should be tightly defined. The lower bound of a splinter should be whatever a minimum game force is, so if this a minimum game force hand, then it qualifies for a splinter. If anything the upper range of a splinter should be restricted, or play some form of split splinter ranges. I quite like concealed mini-splinters for barely game force hands and strong explicit splinters for stronger hands.

Regarding the 3♦ and then raise to game suggestion, you guys are missing the point. I assume the poster's idea was that IF you treat this hand as a game force hand, a potential agreement might be to bid game via a forcing 3♦ "initially-assumed-to-be-limit-raise" bid to show a certain hand type. In this case, a bare minimum game force based on distributional values with some but not much high card points.

In much the same way some people play the treatment that if you jump to game after a forcing 1NT, you show a hand that was contemplating a 4♠ pre-emptive jump but has a few scattered values outside - telling partner in case he has a monster and slam is on or in case opps bid over and p can judge to dbl knowing p has a spare king or queen floating around.

[brianshark]

Regarding whether this is worth game or only an invite... I'll invite if partner is known to open quite light. Otherwise, I think this hand is worth game. None of the honours are likely to be wasted and we have a 9 card fit.

[whereagles]

I think inviting here with 3♦ doesn't make sense. It's a question of how well the hands fit. If pard has a rock-bottom

AQxxx
xx
xxx
KQx

you're going down. However, if he has

AQxxx
xx
KQx
xxx

there's a good chance it makes.

In short: unless you have a minisplinter available to show exactly this sort of hand there's no way you're going to bid this scientifically. A 3♦ invite will leave pard completely in the dark as whether he should bid game or not. Therefore, you might as well bid it yourself since it rates to be the percentage bid.

[jtfanclub]

I've never seen anybody refuse a max-invite Bergen raise....guess I haven't watched the right people.

I'm scared to Splinter with this hand, because partner will expect 11+ hcp and a singleton, and I don't think this hand is close if I don't double-count the singleton. 4♠ doesn't scare me, but 5♠ does.

I also find JTxx is a lot less valuable across a 5 card suit than a 4 card suit, but I'm sure that's just me.