[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - ?

---

Your call from the options above?

[655321]

A limit raise is reasonable, but really with 4 trumps and a singleton you don't want to stay out of game.

I am a bit uncomfortable about the description of 3NT as a preempt, if 3NT is allowed to have a trump card as well as an outside card I think that would be my choice.

Playing a strong club this is an easy 4♠ obviously.

[the hog]

3S limit raise.

[Fluffy]

sounds like a limit raise to me, maybe we miss some decent games by doing so, but I believe our slam accuracy will be much better than with any other option.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on Mar 17 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

sounds like a limit raise to me, maybe we miss some decent games by doing so, but I believe our slam accuracy will be much better than with any other option.

Yep. Our 3S shows four trumps, a stiff somewhere, and about 10-12 dummy points. 4S could be total crap with 5 spades. 4S with this hand would erode confidence. CHO is not the one I like to preempt. Add a spade ---subtract a club, and a forcing NT followed by 4S would be my choice.

[jjbrr]

655321, on Mar 17 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

Playing a strong club this is an easy 4♠ obviously.

This was the first thing that popped into mind, and as jdonn would say this is reason #1376 why strong club is good.

With the given options I will make whatever bid will ensure we don't miss game. I won't bid 3♠ LR if partner can pass.

[mike777]

limit raise


I dont want to bid pard's hand. He knows this is imps he knows we are vul, she knows she gets to play it.

[the hog]

Disagree with the comment about bidding 4S if playing a strong C system. Why? This is little different to a 2/1 or SAYC situation. If you think the opps will balance over 3S, be aware that they still have to bid at the 4 level, and you still have 2 bullets. nothing has changed apart from the fact that your opening is limited to 15HCP.

[MarkDean]

I would drive game and not feel bad about it. If this hand type is part of 3NT definition, I would use that. Otherwise, I guess I would bid 2NT. I do not like to bid a one step below game splinter with such disparity in the minors. I also think 2♣ is reasonable. We want partner to know KQxxx xx Axx KQx is gold, but KQxxx KQx Axx xx not so much.

[jjbrr]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

Disagree with the comment about bidding 4S if playing a strong C system. Why? This is little different to a 2/1 or SAYC situation. If you think the opps will balance over 3S, be aware that they still have to bid at the 4 level, and you still have 2 bullets. nothing has changed apart from the fact that your opening is limited to 15HCP.

Why? Because game will very often have a great chance of making, so it is important not to miss it. Add this to the (very small) chances that LHO has a problem and wants to bid against a weak 4♠ and pass against a real 4♠ and I think the jump to game is perfectly clear.

[Mbodell]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

Disagree with the comment about bidding 4S if playing a strong C system. Why? This is little different to a 2/1 or SAYC situation. If you think the opps will balance over 3S, be aware that they still have to bid at the 4 level, and you still have 2 bullets. nothing has changed apart from the fact that your opening is limited to 15HCP.

There are several things that make this better than in standard.

1. We aren't going to catch partner with a 20 count where 6 or 7 is cold.

2. It is harder for opponents to find a profitable sac over 4♠.

3. It is part of our mixed strategy of raising with flat 13 counts and shapely hands with few points and mixtures (like this) in between.

4. This will give the opening leader the least information.

I think all these reasons make 4♠ more favorable in a limited openers context than in standard.

[Phil]

Splinter was my 1st reaction. I really like the 5th club.

Then I noticed 1♠ was limited. What is your splinter style? I would think it shows a hand substantially stronger than this (so pard can move over 4♥) but I admit its been years since I played a big club.

So 3N I guess.

Invite. Not an LOL judging from the votes but I wouldn't.

[gwnn]

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Then I noticed 1♠ was limited.

I don't think it is.. It was just a side remark by 655321 unless I am really misreading this

[nige1]

Echognome, on Mar 17 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - ?

---

IMO 2N = 10, 3N = 9, 4♥ = 7, 4♠ = 6, 3♠ = 5, 2♠ = 3.
Aces are undervalued and reduce the attraction of pre-emption. This hand seems wrong for a splinter. ♥ duplication may detract from the nice shape, however, so the hand illustrates the argument for adopting mini-splinters.

[the hog]

1. We aren't going to catch partner with a 20 count where 6 or 7 is cold.

If pd has a 20 count, she will bid on over a limit bid

2. It is harder for opponents to find a profitable sac over 4♠.

Do you seriously think the opps will bid at the 4 level?

3. It is part of our mixed strategy of raising with flat 13 counts and shapely hands with few points and mixtures (like this) in between.

So?

4. This will give the opening leader the least information.

And 1S 3S 4S (if opener bids on) gives away a lot of information?

[effervesce]

The hand is too good for a LR imo. I'm happily bidding 4♠ playing limited openings, and also a standard opening. The problem is that partner will expect more high card values for 2NT or a splinter, yet the hand is worth bidding game rather than a LR imo. So I'm bidding 4♠ as least of all evils - [EDIT] - 3NT has an outside A/K - could use that I suppose instead.

[655321]

gwnn, on Mar 18 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Then I noticed 1♠ was limited.

I don't think it is.. It was just a side remark by 655321 unless I am really misreading this

Yes, sorry, wasn't trying to confuse anyone. Just trying to express that (unless the hand fits OP's 3NT bid) there is no ideal way of bidding it in standard, whereas it is a WTP 4♠ bid if playing different methods.

[y66]

4H splinter for me (shortness, 4c spade support, 9-12 HCP). I see why this is a problem.

[ArtK78]

If partner's opening bid is standard, I make a mini-splinter and then carry on to game unilaterally.

In my methods, I bid 2NT, which shows one of a number of types of spade raises, invitational or better. Over my partner's 3♣ puppet, I bid 3♥, showing an invitational hand with a singleton or void in hearts. Unless partner makes a slam try, I will bid game over any bid that he makes, including a signoff in 3♠.

In this way, I have given partner a good picture of my hand. He won't get too excited as he might over a direct game forcing splinter of 4♥, since I told him that I do not have game forcing values. But I am not going to play this hand in a part score.

If partner's opening bid were limited, as in a strong club system, I would bid it the same way. Partner could have a 1♠ opening with a perfect fit and we could have a slam, i.e.:

KQxxx
xxx
Ax
KQx

This is a reasonable slam, probably cold if spades are 2-2 and it rates to be makable if spades are 3-1 and clubs 3-2.

I don't see any reason why we need to give up on the possibility of reaching slam on a perfect fit. The chances that the opps are going to get into our auction profitably have gone down considerably after RHO has passed, and my bid - 2NT - should keep them out of the auction.

[phil_20686]

I dont think that I would ever stay out of game with this hand. The hand is extremal in a sense that it has a lot of truick taking potential opposite a strong hand. It is not hard to construct minimal ish hands where slam is v good:

KQxxx
xxx
Ax
KQx

I cannot imagione making a NF limit bid when i can construct wk nt's where slam is good. On the other hand, it contains too much defence to be a suitable preempt. Splinter gets across the trick taking potential well perhaps, but partner will expect a touch more.

Hands like these are IMO a good argument for playing some kind of artifical raises - if i could show a limit raise, and then bid game anyway if partner shows a minimum that would be ideal.

I would be shy about showing a GF with this hand because partner will then look for the singleton and tend to imagine hands that are 12 counts with a singleton, as opposited to 12 counts including the singleton.

I guess in the end i would splinter. Least of all evils. If partner makes a slam move i have great cards for him.