[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Jul 30 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 30 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

To be honest, with all four hands in front of me, it's easy to say "Well, of course I'd bid 4NT over 4♥".  ?

well
the thing is, that 3♥ should be a splinter, as Rob points out, and you have plenty of room to cue

Well, if you're playing 3♥ here as a splinter, then all your worries are over.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Jul 30 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

I am not sure what your point is JT.

No, you're right, I'm confusing myself. Sorry.

I'm used to 3♦ here, when not agreed upon as something else, as being GF setting spades as trump and with some diamonds, so it could be 4234 for example. But then somebody else chimed in that this was Splinter, so we got onto the reverse. But my answer was still thinking about the 3♦ call. I apologize.

I guess everybody's playing everything as Splinters these days. But that means that you get to bid 4♠ with, well, a lot of different hands. I don't know what 4♣ is, but I guess I wouldn't think it was 4126.

I dunno, this whole thing seems goofy to me. A jump is Splinter except when it isn't Splinter and it means what I want it to mean, until I decide that it should mean something different....

For those of you who use 3♦ as Splinter, what are you using 4♦ for? Even More Splintery? Splintific? Surely there's more to life than Splinters.

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Jul 30 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

I'm used to 3♦ here, when not agreed upon as something else, as being GF setting spades as trump and with some diamonds, so it could be 4234 for example.

let me get this straight... you object to 3♦, 3♥ being used as splinters, because it is "not part of sayc." And then you whip out a treatment where it shows a second suit and a 4 card fit? can you show me where in the description of SAYC that particular method is described?

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Jul 30 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 30 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

I'm used to 3♦ here, when not agreed upon as something else, as being GF setting spades as trump and with some diamonds, so it could be 4234 for example.

let me get this straight... you object to 3♦, 3♥ being used as splinters, because it is "not part of sayc." And then you whip out a treatment where it shows a second suit and a 4 card fit? can you show me where in the description of SAYC that particular method is described?

This is what it says:
------------------------------------------------------------
With a maximum hand (19-21 or 22 points) opener must make a very strong
rebid:
Jump in notrump;
Double jump raise in responder's suit or double jump rebid of opener's
suit;
Jump shift in a new suit.
------------------------------------------------------------

1♣-1♠-3♦ shows a very strong hand with clubs and diamonds. It doesn't say that it sets spades as trump, so let's suppose it doesn't.

So in SAYC, the proposed auction would go:

1♣-1♠-3♦-3♥/3NT-4♠.
or
1♣-1♠-3♦-3♠-4♥ if you think partner can figure that one out, or 4♠ if you don't.

At this point, it should be fairly clear what you have: a very strong hand that could not Splinter, but really likes spades. And has clubs, and diamonds, with clubs either longer or stronger than diamonds.

I apologize that I am not writing with my usual coherence. But strong jump shifts by opener were designed to handle this hole, for hands that are too strong to jump to game but aren't appropriate for Splinter. You can shove those into reverses, but then it's very difficult to show your support properly.

I guess the spade support to me was assumed. There's no hand I can think of where I'd open 1♣ and be too strong to reverse to 2♦ which doesn't have my partner's suit. If I could force us game at the 5 level when my P has shown no points and no fit, I would open it 2♣.

Damn, now I get thrown into the sun again.

[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, just wow. I am not even going to be mean, but you should reconsider what you understand about bridge bidding fundamentals.

[kenrexford]

Interesting problem for me.

P-P-1♣-P-
1♠-P-3♦/3♥?

In most partnerships, I would expect this to be a splinter, which solves a world of hurt for this hand. However, I like to play this as showing shortness with very good clubs and a three-card fragmentary spade "raise." Obviously a big hand, as well, as it forces to 4♣ in the worst case.

4♥ would be a splinter and might be OK if playing that alternative technique. With simple splinters, though, WTP?

If playing that method, of 3♥ as a fragmentary club rebid with a stiff, I would be forced, IMO, to start with a reverse of 2♦.

The bid of 4♠ is hopeless.

[pclayton]

Once upon a time, if you made a jump shift or a reverse, you didn't deny four card support for partner. I have an old Goren book (that is even older than I am) that gives numerous examples of this.

By bidding around your hand, you implied shortness in the 4th suit, a powerful hand, and great support. With the OP hand of: Axxx A Axxx AQJx you could open 1♦, and over 1♠, jump shift in clubs, and then bid 4♠ at your next turn.

I think some of the SAYC notes JT refers to seems to imply some of these caveman-like principles. Whoever wrote these notes has not cracked a book on bidding in probably 40 years.

Splinters have made these types of sequences obsolete.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Jul 31 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

I think some of the SAYC notes JT refers to seems to imply some of these caveman-like principles. Whoever wrote these notes has not cracked a book on bidding in probably 40 years.

No, JT is just misunderstanding these notes.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Jul 31 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

I think some of the SAYC notes JT refers to seems to imply some of these caveman-like principles. Whoever wrote these notes has not cracked a book on bidding in probably 40 years.

No, JT is just misunderstanding these notes.

If there's something I'm misunderstanding here, please correct me.

SAYC is a caveman system. It does not, unless somebody can find something to the contrary, differentiate between jump bids and jump reverses, to use jlall's example. When playing caveman systems, you bid like a caveman. I'm not apologizing for that.

If your caveman choices here are 3♦, 4♥, or 4♠, I think your best choice is 3♦. The others don't give you the space and they don't describe the hand well enough to find good slams, or for that matter to keep you out of bad ones.

I agree that in a modern system, 3♥ (not 4) would be Splinter, and that it blows away all of the other possibilities. It solves everything here nicely.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jul 31 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

The bid of 4♠ is hopeless.

Does 4S show a different hand to you or something? I believe most people would think 4S is stronger than 3S, and 3S is usually bid with a balanced 18 count, so 4S can hardly be described as hopeless.

I understand north's decision not to splinter with stiff ace as it may cause a poor evaluation by south. On this hand I think south might well have bid on over 4S, and I think 4S shows a very good hand.

I'll use very basic Goren point count analysis here.

The HCP count is 19. You add 3 for the stiff when you have support. That gets you to a 22-count.

Of course, this undervalues both the fact that you have all four Aces, which are under-valued, and the fact that partner, lacking even a single Ace, will tend to be conservative.

So, what does a 4♠ call actually show? As most would splinter with a stiff, a 4♠ call typically denies a stiff. It would be expected to show a balanced hand with a maximum. If the 2NT opening range is 20-21, you'd expect a 19-count, and possibly some 18's.

Of course, Opener might also have some general "player" where he wants to keep matters secret and rely upon a running club suit and a bad lead for a possible game, meaning lighter net strength hands with some play.

However, this suggests to me that the nature of the hand type is off and that the strength of the hand is off by about a King. Make the hand a 18 HCP hand with 4234 shape, one more for the doubleton, and you have a classic 4♠ call. Thus, maybe ♠Axxx ♥Ax ♦Axx ♣AQxx.

Obviously, a non-forcing 3♠, which you commented upon and discarded as nonsensical, would be equally nonsenical by my analysis. Not sure what your point is with that issue.

South had ♠KQJxx ♥xxxxx ♦K ♣xx. A slam might well be making, opposite the spade Ace, both minor Aces, and some useful heart help. So, South probably does have cause to move, anyway. That part I do not disagree with. The question for South, however, would be whether the five-level is safe. The five-level is not assuredly safe, but it does seem reasonably safe. My concern was not to address South's decisions, though.

[P_Marlowe]

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

<snip>
I'll use very basic Goren point count analysis here.

The HCP count is 19.  You add 3 for the stiff when you have support.  That gets you to a 22-count.

Of course, this undervalues both the fact that you have all four Aces, which are under-valued, and the fact that partner, lacking even a single Ace, will tend to be conservative.
<snip>

Of course it does not matter that you overrate the single Ace?
A single Ace is not undervalued, it is overvalued.

This may be countered by other aspects, but counting the single
Ace as 7points is a little bit too much, dont you think?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 31 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

<snip>
I'll use very basic Goren point count analysis here.

The HCP count is 19.  You add 3 for the stiff when you have support.  That gets you to a 22-count.

Of course, this undervalues both the fact that you have all four Aces, which are under-valued, and the fact that partner, lacking even a single Ace, will tend to be conservative.
<snip>

Of course it does not matter that you overrate the single Ace?
A single Ace is not undervalued, it is overvalued.

This may be countered by other aspects, but counting the single
Ace as 7points is a little bit too much, dont you think?

With kind regards
Marlowe

Well, of course it does. That's why I said that this 4♠ call is about a King off. I'd expect four Aces and a fitting QJ with my clubs (expected location) to be worth about 21 HCP on their own merit, plus 3 for the stiff, for 24 total points. Reducing for duplication by a full 2 seems appropriate, considering the stiff Ace and 4441 pattern.

If the hand was Axxx A Axx AQJxx, this would be about a 24-count, IMO.

[neilkaz]

This is a nice problem ! First of all I don't open with this aceless 9 HCP and stiff K.

Opener's hand is an absolute monster and I strongly think should do something other than bidding 4♠ even though 4♠ shows 4 trumps and at least a good 19 support points..ie expects good play for game even if PD responded a bit light with 5 HCP and 4 trumps.

I don't understand those who'd bid 3♦ here when 2♦ is a forcing reverse and 3♦ may be interpretted as a splinter ?!?

Speaking of splinters..what would 3♥ be ? If that would be a splinter, I think it's a perfect bid here, inspite of the stiff Ace. I don't like splintering with a stiff ace, but here you have almost an ace extra from a min splinter, and will happily carry on in search of slam if PD cooperates in the least.

If 3♥ wouldn't be understood as a splinter, certainly 4♥ would, and after that as South, I like my hand for slam as my K of ♦ is likely useful and I have 5 solid trump and PD can ruff lots of my ♥.

[ochinko]

The bidding was perfect till the last pass. South can't open unless there's a specific bid showing 5:5 in the majors, and a weak hand. North can't make a splinter with 5 losers in the hand if you play disciplined splinters from the opener.

After 4♠ though South should make a move. Partner said a game should be there if we have the minimum for 1♠, which is 9 losers. We have two less, and they are likely to produce two more tricks, as we have great trumps.

[Edmunte1]

I don't think you can drive normally to this slam using simple SAYC or 2/1 methods. You need some artificial stuff, for example, method to show a strong bal/semibal raise (i don't like splintering with an stiff Ace). There are more ways for this, the simplest is using first jump reverse for showing that.
In our case 1♣-1♠-3♦. Now South should show some slam interst and North will happily drive to slam:
------ Pass
1♣-1♠
3♦-3♥ (natural)
4♣-4♦ (cues)
4NT-5♣ (1KC)
5♦-6♦ (♠Q+♦K, no♣K)
6♠

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Jul 31 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jul 31 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

I think some of the SAYC notes JT refers to seems to imply some of these caveman-like principles. Whoever wrote these notes has not cracked a book on bidding in probably 40 years.

No, JT is just misunderstanding these notes.

If there's something I'm misunderstanding here, please correct me.

SAYC is a caveman system. It does not, unless somebody can find something to the contrary, differentiate between jump bids and jump reverses, to use jlall's example. When playing caveman systems, you bid like a caveman. I'm not apologizing for that.

If your caveman choices here are 3♦, 4♥, or 4♠, I think your best choice is 3♦. The others don't give you the space and they don't describe the hand well enough to find good slams, or for that matter to keep you out of bad ones.

I agree that in a modern system, 3♥ (not 4) would be Splinter, and that it blows away all of the other possibilities. It solves everything here nicely.

Note: In Goren, a reverse was forcing and unlimited.

I don't think jump reverse or splinter type bids were even defined, although splinters were just coming into being in the early 60's I think.

So I have no idea where JT (or the author of this SAYC article) can come to a conclusion that a jump reverse is simply stronger than a reverse.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Jul 31 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

So I have no idea where JT (or the author of this SAYC article) can come to a conclusion that a jump reverse is simply stronger than a reverse.

It's not an article, it's the ACBL's SAYC booklet, most recent version (2006).

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

Quote

Rebids with a medium hand (16–18 points):
Jump raise of responder’s suit or jump rebid of opener’s suit;
Reverse in a new suit, i.e., bid a new suit at the two level which is higher ranking than the opening suit;
Non-reverse bid in a new suit (this has the wide range of 13–18 points).
With a maximum hand (19–21 or 22 points) opener must make a very strong rebid:
Jump in notrump;
Double jump raise of responder’s suit or double jump rebid of opener’s suit;
Jump shift in a new suit.

In the official document, reverse is a medium hand, jump shift is a maximum hand. Personally, I'm used to reverse meaning an unlimited strong hand (and 1 round forcing) but tending to deny support for partner's suit, while a jump reverse is a GF which sets partner's suit as trump, but I don't see support for that here.

Don't blame me! I didn't write the damn thing.

[cherdano]

I think this is just badly written, I doubt the authors intended a jump reverse with a maximum opener. And I am pretty sure they assume you would just raise whenever you have support - to game when you have a jump raise.