[nick_s]

Scoring: IMP


-- 1♦
2♣* 3♣
3NT Pass

---

* 10+ HCP

[inquiry]

I wish I had more than one vote. I voted for East should splinter, but WEST simply rebidding 3NT seems too timid also.

[TylerE]

Looks fairly normal to me. The East hand is way to anemic to splinter, if W can be on a hand like, say, ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦ xx ♣Axxxx. Perhaps it's opening the East hand that caused problems? I mean, I'm not saying it's not fairly normal to open it, but....

p-1NT
2♣! - 2♦!
3♣ - 4♣
4♥ - 4♠
6♣

.... is about the clostest I can come to a reasonable, not absurdly double dummy, auction to get there, but it's not clear to me that W shouldn't just bid 3NT over 3♣.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Jul 3 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

I wish I had more than one vote. I voted for East should splinter, but WEST simply rebidding 3NT seems too timid also.

I agree on all counts.

Edit: Didn't see that 2♣ was 10+. Of course then east shouldn't splinter. But certainly 3NT was not a good bid. It's also probable that east shouldn't pass it, or at least not clear that he should.

[Cascade]

I think a splinter shows extra values. 1=4=4=4 11 count is not enough to underwrite game for me.

West has an easy raise to 4♣.

[kenrexford]

I think East should actually splinter, personally, with the techniques given. Although 2♣ by definition is "10+," I cannot imagine that any old 10-count qualifies. Surely the 2♣ call cannot be made with a hand lacking ability to handle a three-level splinter in a major in this sequence.

IF a splinter is not allowed systemically, or if the splinter is too much, then I think East has to bid 2♥ and then 3♣. Otherwise, this problem arises, and East can be assured that this problem will likely arise.

West's incentiove to bid on is directly affected by East's failure to take either of these options, IMO. East could still have something like a weakish splinter with 1354 or 3154 or so, though. That hand is why I think the splinter should be allowed with the weaker hands.

As asides...

1. Those who play that 1♦ is an unbalanced opener come out way ahead on this hand. 1♦-P-2♣-P-3♣(shortness but weaker than 3M)-P-3♥(where?)-P-3NT(spades)-P-...

2. Those who use an artificial 2♣ GF come out way ahead on this hand. 1♦-P-2♣(GF, no five-card major, artificial)-P-2♦(four hearts)-P-2NT-P-3♣(1444 or so)-P-...

[gnasher]

Life is a lot easier if you open 1♣ on this shape. The only reason I can think of for opening 1♦ is if you plan to rebid 2♣ over 1♠, instead of 1NT. Who would want to do that?

[nick_s]

gnasher, on Jul 4 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Life is a lot easier if you open 1♣ on this shape.  The only reason I can think of for opening 1♦ is if you plan to rebid 2♣ over 1♠, instead of 1NT.  Who would want to do that?

That is what I used to do when I played in the UK (open 1♣).

Now I'm in the US and my US partner hates that style. We've considered playing transfer responses to 1♣ to make it safer to rebid 1NT with a stiff, but that's not GCC legal in ACBL land.

Thanks for the other responses - there's much food for thought there.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on Jul 4 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Life is a lot easier if you open 1♣ on this shape.  The only reason I can think of for opening 1♦ is if you plan to rebid 2♣ over 1♠, instead of 1NT.  Who would want to do that?

morons like me who hate to play 2 spades in a 5-1 fit

To Ken: I agree that if you can handle 3 clubs, you can handle 3 spades, but I don't really like 11-19 splinters, you should be able to differentiate them.

3NT looks like a lazy bid, 3 diamonds is natural, so 3 hearts or 3 spades should be bid IMO (3 hearts would work like a charm)

What about passing a 4441 11 count on first position?

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jul 5 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

Life is a lot easier if you open 1♣ on this shape. The only reason I can think of for opening 1♦ is if you plan to rebid 2♣ over 1♠, instead of 1NT. Who would want to do that?

Almost everyone playing a weak no trump system.

[Mbodell]

TylerE, on Jul 3 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

Looks fairly normal to me.

Me too. I mean East's opener is a little light, and West's line of 2♣...3nt is a little heavy, but it isn't beyond all reason.

If I'm West I'm picturing something like Qx Jx KQxxx KQxx for the 3♣ call, and 3nt by W doesn't look so bad.

But I guess my question is what are the agreements over 1♦ for immediate 3nt, versus 3♣, versus 2♣. Because if we are going to bid 3nt over a 3♣ raise, we should just bid 3nt now. And if our 1♦-3nt promises less than we have (13-15 or 12-14 or something), then maybe we should say if we are too good to bid 3nt we are good enough to do the strong jump.

[gnasher]

Quote

morons like me who hate to play 2 spades in a 5-1 fit

If you rebid 1NT you'll sometimes play 2♠ in a 5-1 fit. Presumably, though, that will happen only if partner has a weak hand with good spades. With reasonable values or a scattered weak hand he'll usually pass 1NT.

When responder has this weak hand with five spades, your auction will often go 1♦-1♠;2♣-2-♦. If that's a 4-2 fit, it's unlikely to make; if it's a 4-3 fit it probably won't be much better. If you draw trumps, you'll be playing it in notrumps except that you've been obliged to play on your weakest suit. If you get a ruff in dummy, it's likely that the opponents will be able to ruff some of your winners in exchange. 2♠ in a 5-1 fit may well play better than 2♦ in a 4-3.

Moreover, your auction will also lead to a shaky 2♦ on many other hands, where responder would have passed a 1NT rebid - 4333, 4324, 4234, many 5(332)s, etc.

What your approach does gain is that you may play in a 4-4 minor-suit fit instead of 1NT. However, that gain is partially balanced by the loss of a 4-4 heart fit which would have been found after a 1NT rebid.

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

Almost everyone playing a weak no trump system.

Playing a weak notrump I'd pass this hand, partly to avoid the rebid problem. The other reason is that when you open a suit partner will assume either a strong notrump or a five-card suit. Whilst 4441s are an exception to this, it's best to make the exceptions as rare as possible, so with a marginal 4441 I think it's better to pass.

[Codo]

I agree with the idea that opening a 1444 with 11 creates problems.

But given the start with 1♦ 2 ♣:
In my prefered system, a 3 ♣ response by opener has showed a GF hand, so we must rebid 2 ♦, which normally shows 5. After partners forcing 2 NT we had bid 3 Club to show a weak hand with 5 diamonds and 4 clubs.

Now responder, knowing about quite short majors in partners hand may judge to go on to 5 club, but this is still a gamble.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I think the bidding was normal, I dont think opener should make
a splinter, unless 3C creates a game force, which I doubt.

Responder has every suit stopped, is balanced, so 3NT is normal.

I would not have opened, but if this hand is a opening bid for the
partnership.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mich-b]

I don't like West's 3NT bid.

It seems that whenever the opener has 5-4 in the minors , there will be good slam chances (depending on controls) , and if opener is only 4-4 like here (rare for sure) he will always have a singleton, which also gives good play for slam.

This is IMPs , and 5♣ looks safe, so I think West should have done (much) more. If some of you think that East should not have opened this hand , this only implies that West could expect a better hand, so the slam prospects are even better.