[mike777]

(1c)=1d=p=1h
p=2h=p===3s?

Imps both vul.

In expert bridge what sort of general hand does 3s show?

[han]

splinter

[kenrexford]

Whereas I would guess splinter is expert standard, that makes little sense to me, for several reasons.

First, partner does not have 3451 shape. He would probably double. He surely does not have 4450 shape. Hence, he cannot have the right hand for a splinter, without the opponents having a ton of spades, and silent throughout.

Second, partner has already shown a likely shortness somewhere. Just showing another shortness seems somewhat redundant and somewhat lacking in utility.

Third, how can I just have some boring 1♥ call with emerging slam interest at this point?

IMO, 3♠ must logically first say something about partner's suit, namely that I have a fit there as well. If partner, for example, has simple 5-4 shape, we can expect to take nine tricks in those suits if we have sufficient cards there. If I have five hearts, partner with a stiff can likely take two ruffs in that short suit for 11 tricks. Thus, I simply need the Ace of the fourth suit to have slam zone.

Imagine, for example, these two hands:

Partner: ♠x ♥KQxx ♦AQJxx ♣xxx
You: ♠xxx ♥Axxxx ♦Kxx ♣Ax

You have 12 tricks on this layout, probably, despite only 23 HCP.

Hence, I think an Empathetic Splinter makes more sense -- good diamond support, good hearts, and the side Ace, bidding the hole.

But, no one would read this. I would not even read this playing opposite myself as partner. Well, maybe now I would...

[peachy]

Splinter, hearts are trump. Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever (to me, that is).

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Aug 31 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Hence, he cannot have the right hand for a splinter, without the opponents having a ton of spades, and silent throughout.

.....

Hence, I think an Empathetic Splinter makes more sense -- good diamond support, good hearts, and the side Ace, bidding the hole.

Isn't your argument against it being a splinter the exact same argument against it being an empathetic splinter (at least in the cases in which it would gain)? As much as I know you just love to be clever....

BTW in your example hand overcaller has AT LEAST a 3♥ bid.

[the hog]

Splinter for me also.

[skjaeran]

Obvious splinter.

1♥ is forcing for me, so I'm unlimited. 3♠ of course invites slam.

[jillybean]

non expert splinter too

[P_Marlowe]

skaeran, on Sep 1 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

<snip>
1♥ is forcing for me, so I'm unlimited.
<snip>

That is the key, ... for me 1H is nonforcing.
Actually this may mean, that 3S does not
exist at all.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[OleBerg]

Splinter. Wouldn't expect anything else at all.

Ill try to convince my partner that playing it as void is better, but that would be a special agreement.

[nige1]

mike777, on Aug 31 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Imps both vul.
(1♣) 1♦ (_P) 1♥
(_P) 2♥ (_P) 3♠
In expert bridge what sort of general hand does 3♠ show?

IMO Splinter e.g. ♠ x ♥ Qxxxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Axxx

[P_Marlowe]

nige1, on Sep 1 2008, 05:35 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 31 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Imps both vul.
(1♣) 1♦ (_P) 1♥
(_P) 2♥ (_P) 3♠
In expert bridge what sort of general hand does 3♠ show?

IMO Splinter e.g. ♠ x ♥ Qxxxxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Axxx

Which min / med. overcall should will give slam a
reasonable chance?
We may or may not agree, that 1H is non forcing,
but 2H certainly can be passed, and 2H would not
even promise add. strength, if 1H was forcing.
In short, with the given hand, I am not even
convinced game is cold.
... unless you overcall 1 in a minor only with opening
strength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nige1]

mike777, on Aug 31 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Imps both vul.
(1♣) 1♦ (_P) 1♥
(_P) 2♥ (_P) 3♠
In expert bridge what sort of general hand does 3♠ show?

nige1, on Sep 1 2008, 05:35 AM, said:

IMO Splinter e.g. ♠ x ♥ Qxxxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Axxx

P_Marlowe, on Sep 1 2008, 06:06 AM, said:

Which min / med. overcall should will give slam a reasonable chance? We may or may not agree, that 1H is non forcing, but 2H certainly can be passed, and 2H would not even promise add. strength, if 1H was forcing. In short, with the given hand, I am not even convinced game is cold. ... unless you overcall 1 in a minor only with opening strength.

It's a matter of judgement. IMO If 1♥ was not forcing then 3♠ cannot be considered an overbid. The example is a minimum. But most players would consider the hand to be worth a raise to 4♥. Partner is aware that your hand is limited so he'll proceed with caution. Slam is possible opposite say
♠ xxx ♥ AKx ♦ Axxxxx ♣ x

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 1 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 31 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Hence, he cannot have the right hand for a splinter, without the opponents having a ton of spades, and silent throughout.

.....

Hence, I think an Empathetic Splinter makes more sense -- good diamond support, good hearts, and the side Ace, bidding the hole.

Isn't your argument against it being a splinter the exact same argument against it being an empathetic splinter (at least in the cases in which it would gain)? As much as I know you just love to be clever....

BTW in your example hand overcaller has AT LEAST a 3♥ bid.

1. Overcaller can have Kxx in spades and a stiff in the fourth suit as effectively. So, the EP works.

2. Yeah, the hands are off a bit, perhaps. Take a top card from Overcaller and give it to Advancer, if you want.

[brianshark]

I think you are over-thinking the problem Ken. Surely any random expert in a pickup partnership, the simplest meaning for the bid is going to be the right one.

This is a splinter.

[kenrexford]

brianshark, on Sep 1 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

I think you are over-thinking the problem Ken. Surely any random expert in a pickup partnership, the simplest meaning for the bid is going to be the right one.

This is a splinter.

As I said, that's how I would take it. My comments were just suggestions that a splinter might not be the ideal meaning, in theory.

[brianshark]

Ah, right. Living up to the title I see.