cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 06:59 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Oct 24 2008, 04:16 PM, said:
jdonn, on Oct 24 2008, 01:24 PM, said:
That a singleton is not good opposite a splinter is something I only learned through experience. For some reason if it hasn't come up for you and then it does, it somehow feels like a good thing, but time after time it's not. I do think south is worth a cuebid though, although it's pretty close to not enough.
Yeah, this is actually really easy. If you cuebid 4
♥, partner either will or will not have the diamond King. If he has it, then you are probably safe at the five-level.
Kxxx Qxx KQxxx x. But yeah, if you don't cuebid you might miss a 50-50 slam.
I'm not so sure that hand is good enough to accept. For that matter, I'm not sure that hand is good enough to bid 4
♣.
For that matter, the actual hand is a tad light for what I would expect. Actually, quite a bit light. P-1
♠-4
♣ is actually quite sick with the actual hand. It seems vastly more reasonable to bid drury (if in play, hopefully) and then to splinter if talked into it.
The hand for the immediate splinter, forcing game opposite a possible junker, should look somewhat different, IMO. I'd suggest that
♠Axxxx
♥Qx
♦Kxxxx
♣x is vastly more reasonable, or perhaps
♠AKxxx
♥Qx
♦xxxxx
♣x. In fact, I usually have the understanding (seems obvious, but...) that a splinter here must promise some wild-ass distributional hand just shy of opening.
I suppose that the hand I want,
♠AKxxx
♥xx
♦Kxxxx
♣x, is one where I would usually open 1
♠. So, I think passing is right, in the end. Give me the King of spades instead, and I'll cue. Sure, partner might have
♠AK432
♥32
♦K5432
♣2, but I think he will move too often with the two earlier examples, which is bad.
Now I don't know. What the heck should 4
♦ or 4
♥ by me be seeking? If we assume that a splinter should be based on some sort of non-COV 5521 hand, then I suppose we will expect something like five trumps with one of the top three honors, a five-card side suit with one of the top three honors, and a doubleton with an honor, with probably one of these three honors being just a Queen, but not two. We also can probably expect that one of the three honors could float to the trump suit. So, starting suits in order of trumps-side-frag-stiff (not rank), we'd expect...
Hxxxx-Hxxxx-Qx-x
Hxxxx-Qxxxx-Hx-x
Qxxxx-Hxxxx-Hx-x
HQxxx-Hxxxx-xx-x
HQxxx-xxxxx-Hx-x
HHxxx-Qxxxx-xx-x OR
HHxxx-xxxxx-Qx-x
It seems that I can re-order these from strongest-to-weakest as to potential, as to the minimum number of covers needed from partner...
Hxxxx-Qxxxx-Hx-x
HHxxx-Qxxxx-xx-x
Qxxxx-Hxxxx-Hx-x
HQxxx-Hxxxx-xx-x
HHxxx-xxxxx-Qx-x
Hxxxx-Hxxxx-Qx-x
HQxxx-xxxxx-Hx-x
Maybe these could be tweaked a bit.
In any event, it seems like the best use of the cue is to perhaps inquire as to whether a specific Queen is or is not an external cover. Or, put another way, a "supportive-empathetic" cue, showing interest in "this suit" if the same is partner's side suit.
The hand sought for the slam is HHxxx-Hxxxx-xx-x, which is too big unless a downgraded AKxxx-Kxxxx-xx-x. But, it perhaps most closely resembles HHxxx-Qxxxx-xx-x. This would suggest, strangely, making a 4
♦ cue, but only if is there is some way to unwind this puppy, which I cannot figure. I mean, 4
♥ by Responder should show something (maybe LTTC), but that sounds like perhaps indicating that one of his covers is the dubious trump Queen or the dubious heart Queen. I cannot imagine that 4
♥ would clarify, under this thinking, that Responder has the "dubious diamond Queen."
If there were no allowed "dubious queens," then the issue would be easily solved. Responder would be forced into one specific hand (because of our holdings), namely AKxxx-Kxxxx-xx-x. In that event, the auction would be simple -- P-1
♠-4
♣-6
♠. The auction would be the same if, perhaps, the only "dubious queen" was allowed in trumps.
Well, now that I have fully explored the idea of supportive-empathetic cues and the dubiosity of queendom, I think I'll retire. LOL
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.