[han]

A cuebid?

[jdonn]

Well I would say the worst bid is clearly 7♥ and second worst 5NT, since there can't be a good grand. But I would still want to vote for 4♦ since it caused the whole mess and a hopeless slam would still have been reached.

Edit: I should say could have been reached, since they had a chance to stop. But 5 might be too high anyway.

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 10 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

I think the west hand is actually difficult. Game is pretty good opposite a variety of lousy opening hands such as:

♠xx
♥AKQxx
♦xxx
♣Qxx

If hearts are 2-2 then you need one of two finesses in the blacks. If hearts don't break there are some handling issues, but you should still make pretty easily if the club jack is onside. Add the club jack and game is almost cold, but I still don't think I'd accept a limit raise.

♠Axx
♥AKxxx
♦xxx
♣xx

Basically either of hearts 2-2 or the club finesse.

♠Jx
♥AKxxx
♦Qxxx
♣Qx

You need hearts to behave, but if they do you are cold (pitching one diamond on a spade, ruffing two others).

I don't think any of these hands are likely to bid game over a limit raise, do you? While it's certainly possible to produce some hands with a lot of diamond wastage where game is bad, there are plenty of hands where a limit raise misses a good game. You do have seven losers after all.

So while I'd categorize 4♦ as a "slight overbid" I think if you add a black-suit jack it becomes fairly clear-cut. Bidding 4NT with a bit extra and not much wastage in diamonds seems normal (if potentially unfortunate) especially opposite a fairly wide-range splinter, but the 5NT bid really should be a 5♦ call, allowing responder to bid on if holding three controls.

I think the problem with this argument is not that it is invalid, but that it is based on the premise that we think that we should be able to reach all game contracts that have reasonable play. The simple answer is that we can't... or at least, mere mortals can't. For every hand on which we miss a game by making a limit raise, we can easily construct hands on which we bid too much by forcing to game as responder.. not to mention the horrific prospect of reaching a doubled grand off 3 Aces

We need, I think, to accept that our methods, whatever they will be, are imperfect, and avoid trying to force them to do something they can't. It's like me on the golf course... I have a tough shot over water onto a small green.. or I can lay up. I CAN make the tough shot... I remember making one like it 5 years ago... but the odds are I'll be fishing for my ball, or trying to recover from a horrible lie. My swing just isn't good enough and if I am smart (which I am very rarely) I'd accept it and not play for the low percentage shot.

So unless we agree that a splinter is acceptable, on this weak a hand, we can' t make the bid, and we live with missing the magic game/slam. And, if we do agree that a splinter is acceptable, then clearly opener was insane...with both 4N and 7♥. I suspect responder was at fault, but I don't know the partnership agreements.

[655321]

I like to play that a splinter promises around 8-11 HCP. As opener, playing that style, I sign off in 4♥ (sure, slam is still possible opposite something like xxxx Kxxx x AKxx).

But if your agreement is that a splinter shows a better hand, clearly this aceless 9 count is not good enough.

Doubtless the later auction could have been different, but I agree with the posters who put most of the blame on the lack of agreement on the strength needed for a splinter.

[ArtK78]

Let's take this one step at a time.

4♦ - I believe that most players would say that this hand is not good enough for a game forcing splinter. It is close, but just not enough. Standing on its own, the 4♦ bid was an overbid which led the partnership down a terrible path. The 4♦ bid was the impetus for:

4NT - Not the worst bid I have ever seen. Obviously, opener did not suspect that responder could have the hand that he held for a 4♦ bid. He was looking for something more like Axxx Kxxx x Kxxx or better, in which case 6♥ rated to be easy and, if resonder had exactly the right cards, a grand was possible.

Responder made the correct response to 4NT (yay!) and then:

5NT - absolutely horrifying. Responder showed 0 or 3. Anyone who plays multi-meaning responses to RKCB should know that if you get a 0 or 3/1 or 4 response, you MUST assume the lower number and sign off. If responder has the higher number, responder must continue by showing or denying the trump Q. Opener assumed that responder had 3 key cards for this response, and that set the stage for

7♥ - on the assumption that responder held Axxx Kxxx x AKxx, this bid is absolutely clear. But the assumption was flawed.

In my opinion, 5NT was clearly the worst call in the auction. 4♦ was an overbid, but it is not a terrible overbid. Had opener bid 5♥ and the result was down one, then 4♦ would have been the worst bid in the auction. But 5NT was just terrible, and put the partnership beyond hope of a normal result.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Dec 10 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

I don't know anyone who plays splinters as strong as East thinks they can be. Trying for grand is really an overbid.

I do.

With 13-15, splinter.

With 10-12, bid 3♣ as a multi-purpose raise. Partner bids 3♦ to ask you meaning if interested. You bid:

3♥ = minimal limit (about 9-10)
3♠ = 10-12 splinter (3NT asks for stiff)
3NT = control-rich (4+) maxi-limit (about 11-12)
4minor = COV maxi-limit (maybe ♠xx ♥QJxx ♦xxx ♣AKJ10?)
4♥ = control-poor (0-3) maxi-limit

With 7-9, bid one-under (3♦); can bid again if "big" mini-splinter, I suppose.

[HCP ranges approximate -- more "cover card" than HCP]

[Fluffy]

4♦ is ridicoulous IMO, but some styles might let it go.

4NT is clearly wrong, 4♠ stands out a mile. With minimum fitting values, you are not prepared to go on by yourself, and you lack ♣ control.

[H_KARLUK]

I am OK with 1 ♥>1♠. The idea is to see opener's range and shape with his rebid.

[karlson]

I have to admit that I learned splinters as a minimum GF with shortness. That makes it about 9-11. Admittedly responder has a bad 9, but I wouldn't call it a ridiculous overbid.

Playing this style, opener basically doesn't move with a minimum, even with little wasted in the splinter suit. Opposite ♠A,♣K,♥K, we still have a bit of work to make 6 (and might just have no play on a trump lead). So I think 4n was a significant overbid (and obviously so were the rest of east's bids, clearly in this style A K AK is not a splinter.

I am very happy to be playing tiered splinters (one way to show 9-11, another to show 12-14) in my regular partnerships.