[jdonn]

Yes that's what I meant. Exceptions only for the best hands in that range. And as responder I bid game over that very aggresively.

[straube]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes that's what I meant. Exceptions only for the best hands in that range. And as responder I bid game over that very aggresively.

Ron Klinger's Modern LTC lists Axxx x AJx KQxxx as qualifying for a jump raise of spades. It meets his requirement of 14 HCP and 6 losers (I count 5.5 or so)

I inferred from his book that the 18-19 HCP hand averages 5.5 losers, but I think they tend more toward only 5 losers.

In either case, the 18-19 would usually have a little in reserve for a jump to 3M.

So I'm uneasy about 1m-1M, 3M as my typical path for the 18-19. I also wonder about the exceptional 18-19 pt hand that feels a jump to 4M is warranted. It's only a 2-point range and I'd been planning a 2N rebid. I'm wondering how often it really can be right to want to differentiate hands of such a narrow point range when partner hasn't really asked me to do so. Perhaps if the hand is exceptional enough to want to bid 4M then I should have opened it 2N to begin with.

Anyway, I've been trying to come up with a solution for the 18-19 and thought I had it in the jump reverse. Now I'm starting to wonder if the jump reverse would do better to show loser count. But while Klinger said that the jump to 3M showed a 6-loser hand, all three examples he gave were 5.5 loser hands. I'm thinking that most 6-loser hands will raise to 2 quietly. So...

1C-1H, 3H=5.5 losers
1C-1H, 3D=5 losers

Responder can still show shortness or ask for shortness.

[straube]

jdonn, on Dec 27 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

Auctions like 1♣ p 1♠ p 4♣ show some strong 4-6 hand in 'standard' bidding, but I have never liked the bid. Not only do I rarely seem to get the right hand for it, but partner doesn't know which other suit you are short in, which seems important. And do you need a control in the other suit that you are not short in? How good of a minor suit do you need? What's the big gain anyway? I guess in theory it can help you find slam in the minor, but keycard isn't even for the minor and I've never actually seen it happen anyway.

In short I think that bid is almost a total waste. I don't have too many fantastic ideas about what else it should be, but my best thought is it could be a relay showing a void splinter.

1♣ - 1♠ -
4♣: Splinter with a void in either red suit. 4♦ relay to ask which.

But since of course you don't have that much room over other combinations of suits, you would have to make the cheapest of the three side-suit double-jumps the relay bid, and if needed use another bid as the substitution for the bid the relay stole.

1♦ - 1♥ -
3♠: Splinter with a void in either black suit.
4♣: Club splinter
4♦: Spade splinter

Thoughts about my idea? (Perhaps it's too costly to take what may have been a cheap 'regular' splinter and move it higher, like spades in the last example?) Other ideas about a use for the 4m rebid? Or does anyone want to defend the standard meaning?

As others have said, the 4M6m definition has to be agreed by both partners for it to be useful. I thought it was a hand like AKxx x xx AKJxxx, denying controls in the stiff and doubleton while a splinter suggested a control in the third suit. However, if my partner had different ideas, then we might have done better to use 1C-1S, 4C as something else.

You could arrange things different ways...

1C-1S, 4C=diamond shortness
.....4D-asks
..........4H-singleton
..........4S-void
1C-1S, 4D=heart singleton
1C-1S, 4H=heart void

Not sure if that's better or worse.

When hearts are raised, you have 1m-1H, 3S as a multiple bid. You can show more than 2 things.
3N asks
......4C-void lower
......4D-void higher
......4H-4/6?

I think I still like to be able to show the pure 4/6 or 5/6 or 4/7 type hand. It's true that this hand poses some guesswork for partner as to the residues, but it creates guesswork for the opponents as well and more importantly warns/informs partner as to the nature of your raise to game.

I like a lot of artificial continuations for standard auctions, but at some point it just makes more sense to go to a strong club system.

[lowerline]

glen, on Jan 5 2010, 08:13 AM, said:

lowerline, on Jan 5 2010, 04:47 AM, said:

Danny Kleinman calls the following "Four Strong Winds":

1m-1♥
3♠ = singleton unbid suit (4♣ relay)
...

He wants to play 1m-1♥;-3♠(♥ fit + unknown singleton)-3NT as natural?

The article (http://dannykleinman...ONG%20WINDS.pdf) does not say that. I guess it is because of symmetry.

Steven

[Fluffy]

the problems with kleimann's four wind thing are:

1m-1M-4M is artificial, you cannot gamble
1m-1M-4M is nor forcing, you cannot show an overstrong hand

[Fluffy]

I'll add that maybe telling the opponents what your doubleton is might not be a bright idea when you have a 4-6 with a good 6 card suit.

On the ideal squence 1♣-1♠-4♣ you have no real need to know wich singleton declarer has, you cue the red suit you stop, and someone keycards and if you don't miss 2 keycards you are good playing 6♠ I guess. You might fail if you miss ♠A and they lead your doubleton, but they need to guess your doubleton first.

Of course with void you are better placed splintering IMO

[fred]

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pooltuna]

fred, on Jan 6 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

so I guess 1m-1M-4M hands are reserved for something like ♠y ♥AQ92 ♦AQ9753 ♣z where y & z are either {0,3} or {1,2}?

[fred]

pooltuna, on Jan 6 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 6 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

I agree that 1m-1M-4m is not especially effective as it is usually played. No doubt this is at least partly because people don't tend to spend a lot of time discussing exactly which hands qualify for making this call or what happens after this call is made.

But my sense is that the very concept is flawed - either the definition has to be very specific (making hands suitable for 1m-1M-4m very rare) or the lack of space and ambiguity will result in a lot of guesswork.

My regular partner take a different approach. We use 1m-1M-4C to mean:

"My hand is strong enough in support of your major to drive to at least the 5-level".

I am not sure, but it is possible that we "stole" this idea from Rosenberg-Zia.

1m-1M-4D is a splinter in the other minor.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

so I guess 1m-1M-4M hands are reserved for something like ♠y ♥AQ92 ♦AQ9753 ♣z where y & z are either {0,3} or {1,2}?

What 1m-1M-4M means is a completely separate issue - the weird 4C convention has no impact on this.

Can the 6-4 hand you are trying to describe contain, say, a side Ace in addition to AQxx AQxxxx? If no, I suggest you bid 3H with these hands and use 4M for something else. If yes, you need to do a better job of defining the range of the 4M bid.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Fred, I think Pooltuna is getting at the question of what to do with the concentrated 6/4s. Perhaps you're comfortable bidding only 3M with the hand he gave, but increase its strength a little (e.g. x AQxx xx AKxxxx) and what then is your systemic bid? Splinter with 3S?

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game. What do you think? Do you use them as mini-splinters?

Thanks

[fred]

straube, on Jan 6 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

Fred,  I think Pooltuna is getting at the question of what to do with the concentrated 6/4s.  Perhaps you're comfortable bidding only 3M with the hand he gave, but increase its strength a little (e.g. x AQxx xx AKxxxx) and what then is your systemic bid?  Splinter with 3S?

Right.

Quote

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game.  What do you think?  Do you use them as mini-splinters?

For me these bids are game-forcing with 6+ of the minor and 3 spades. I think this use of the jump reverse is highly-obscure (ie you might not be able to find very many people at all who bid this way).

Lots of people think mini-Splinters are a good or a great convention. I haven't played mini-Splinters enough to have a qualified opinion, but my instincts tell me they are no great shakes. However, it is not as if I have any great shakes of my own to recommend for jump reverses. Unless you are going to be super-serious, mini-Splinters is probably a reasonable choice (and they might be a good choice even if you are super-serious).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on Jan 6 2010, 07:51 PM, said:

Quote

Also, I've been pushing the idea of using the jump reverse bids for hands that have too much for a single jump and not enough for a jump to game.  What do you think?  Do you use them as mini-splinters?

For me these bids are game-forcing with 6+ of the minor and 3 spades. I think this use of the jump reverse is highly-obscure (ie you might not be able to find very many people at all who bid this way).

Lots of people think mini-Splinters are a good or a great convention. I haven't played mini-Splinters enough to have a qualified opinion, but my instincts tell me they are no great shakes. However, it is not as if I have any great shakes of my own to recommend for jump reverses. Unless you are going to be super-serious, mini-Splinters is probably a reasonable choice (and they might be a good choice even if you are super-serious).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I also used to have the agreement that a jump reverse was a game forcing hand with the minor. Eventually I switched to mini splinters for the simple reason that I think they are at least 5 times more common. I was simply getting no mileage out of the first meaning even though it seemed good to me in theory.

[kenrexford]

I still play that a jump reverse shows a frag support and length in the opened minor, values.

1♣-P-1♥-P-3♦

Values bid with 3♥/6+♣.

Could take it or leave it, frankly. In the last few years, it came up once, I think.

[FrancesHinden]

Having come back to this thread directly after reading the thread on transfer Walsh reminded me that one should never take sequences in isolation.

I agree that it feels "wrong" to raise a 1-level reponse to 3M on both a good distributional 14-count and 18-19 balanced. There are three ways to deal with this:
(i) live with it
(ii) Raise to game on the strong balanced hands.
(iii) Play more system

I don't like (ii) because you just get too high too often, particularly playing with a partner who responds very light. Getting too high with 14 opposite 4 usually isn't going to happen (the opponents usually either have or should have bid); getting too high when you have the strong balanced hand is usually bad.

There are various ways to do (iii). At various times I have played combinations of the following:

(i) Playing specifically 1C - 1M - 3D as 18-19 balanced with 4-card support. I think this is definitely more useful than the mini-splinter. One can play 1D - 1S - 3H similarly, but no simple answer to 1D - 1H - ?

(ii) Playing 1m - 1H - 2S as artificial (and 1m - 1H - 1S as forcing). The options are slightly different depending on whether you opened 1C or 1D, but include a 3=6 invite (the Bridge World "death hand") and 18-19 balanced with 4-card support.

(iii) Playing transfer responses to 1C, with a 1NT rebid showing 18-20 balanced, leaves us with the following (as an example)

1C - 1H (spades)
2S = min with 4-card support
3S = 4=2=2=5 (or similarly with a singleton honour) about 14-17
4S = 5=1=1=6 minimum
3D/3H = mini-splinter
4D/4H = splinter
4C = 4=(21)=6

2NT multiway, 3C (forced) asks, then
3D = game forcing with clubs
3S = 18-19 balanced with 4 spades
3NT = 4=2=2=5 18+
4C = 3 = (21) = 7
4D/4H = void
4S = 5=1=1=6 extras

You'll notice there's a bid missing, namely relay followed by 3H. We play this as a stronger splinter (i.e. interest in the 5-level). Perhaps not optimal, but it means we can play almost exactly the same sequences after 1C - 1D - 2NT when there's the spade mini-splinter to fit in as well.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 10 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

(iii) Playing transfer responses to 1C, with a 1NT rebid showing 18-20 balanced

Another way to do it is to open the 18-20 balanced hands at the two-level, play 1♣-1red-2NT similar to the way Frances suggests, and use 1♣-1red-1M and 1♣-1red-1NT to distinguish between 3-card support

[PrecisionL]

Interesting thread.

In my non Strong Club partnerships we have given up direct hcp raises and treat 1m - 1M - 3M/4M as a distributional raise.

HCP raises depend on the minor opened:

1♣ - 1M - 2NT = 3 or 4-card Major raise (or balanced hand with xx)

1♦ - 1M - 3♣ - either G.F. with ♣ or balanced 3 or 4-card Major raise.

I'm at a Sectional, so I can post more details Sunday night if there is interest.

Idea is from Pit Bulls bridge site:

http://www.pitbulls.shawbiz.ca/Coaches%20C...ump%20Shift.htm

[Free]

There are other ways to play "more system", even without transfer responses after 1♣.

For example, I play 1X-1M-2NT as 3-way:
- 18-19HCP, balanced
- GF with 4 card fit
- 16+HCP, 6+X, 3M (hand of death)
Haven't had any problems thus far.

Another way is to overload the following reverses (below 2 of responder's suit):
1♣-1♠-2♦/♥
1♣-1♥-2♦
1♦-1♠-2♥
You may combine them with some higher reverses or 2NT. I think this is the best way, but it requires more study.