[ArtK78]

The choice between making a splinter bid and bidding 2NT should be based not solely on the strength of the hand but on who should be the captain and who should be the servent; i.e., who should be asking and who should be telling. Here, you can provide your partner with a great deal of information in one bid - 4 card spade support, game forcing values, shortness in clubs - which should put partner in a position to make an intelligent assessment of slam prospects. He will know that secondary club cards should be discounted, and that secondary cards in the other suits are valuable. Your hand is not so strong so that you will be able to ask questions and get enough information to make an intelligent assessment of slam prospects unless you are lucky enough to get a diamond shortness showing response from partner.

So, even though your 2NT asking bid starts at a lower level, it is far from clear that you will get the information that you need if you take control. On this hand, it is likely to be better to tell than to ask.

[fromageGB]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-23, 10:19, said:

So, even though your 2NT asking bid starts at a lower level, it is far from clear that you will get the information that you need if you take control. On this hand, it is likely to be better to tell than to ask.

I think you miss the point. After 2NT I show the club shortage with a 3♠ bid and NOBODY is in control. I have described my hand. Partner may expect a couple more in hcp, but I think he will be compensated with what I have. Certainly, if my club shortage made his hand better, HE can take control.

[ArtK78]

fromageGB, on 2013-May-23, 10:28, said:

I think you miss the point. After 2NT I show the club shortage with a 3♠ bid and NOBODY is in control. I have described my hand. Partner may expect a couple more in hcp, but I think he will be compensated with what I have. Certainly, if my club shortage made his hand better, HE can take control.

So, essentially, you are making a splinter raise with your 3♠ bid. That is fine as far as it goes.
But when you say that nobody is in control, that could be the worst of all possible worlds. Someone should be the captain on this auction.

[Codo]

How can this hand be too strong for a splinter?

[fromageGB]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-23, 11:12, said:

... But when you say that nobody is in control, that could be the worst of all possible worlds. Someone should be the captain on this auction.

The topic of "someone in control" has been discussed recently.

My view is that there are some auctions (of which this is one) that start off with both hands equal, neither in control, describing their hands. After 1♠ 2NT neither is in control. One has expressed 12 hcp, 5 cards, the other 13 hcp, 4 cards. Both pretty equal. They then make a further bid: 3♣ (= no shortage, no expression of strength); 3♠ (= club shortage, no expression of strength). Now opener can refuse control by signing off with non-serious 3NT, or assume temporary control (which may be usurped) by making a serious cue bid. After cue showing or denial, if opener bids 4♥ this is a relinquishment, expressing slam interest with additional values, but denying a powerhouse. Now responder assumes control by ace asking or another continuation, or by signing off in game.

Bidding, in my view, is an exchange, sometimes a conversation between equals, until one party has enough information to come off the fence. Often, of course, you are off the fence with the first bid. But not this sequence.

[fromageGB]

Codo, on 2013-May-23, 11:49, said:

How can this hand be too strong for a splinter?

It isn't, of course, if a splinter can be any strength. For some, splinters are split into different ranges to help in the slam assessment. For me in particular, a splinter is limited to a hand without the hcp for a 2NT bid, which is the mechanism we use to show a "strong splinter". You can draw the line as you wish. I would bid 4♣ with Axxx Kxx KJxxx x and 2NT with Axxx KQx KJxxx x. Other people have different bids for weak and strong splinters.

[ArtK78]

Codo, on 2013-May-23, 11:49, said:

How can this hand be too strong for a splinter?

Fromage already answered this question in the context of his system, in which there is a bid that shows a "strong splinter."

I also have splinter bids divided into ranges. In my major suit structure, there are three types of splinter bids: (1) mini-splinters, which have a shortness, 4+ card trump support and game invitational values; (2) game forcing splinters, which have a shortness, 4+ card trump support and minimally game forcing values; and (3) maxi-splinters, which have a shortness, 4+ card trump support and at least a K more than game forcing values. The hand in the OP falls nicely into the second category - minimally game forcing values and meeting the other requirements of a splinter bid. Apparently, Fromage has a lower threshold for a game forcing splinter bid if he considers the hand in the OP as too strong or almost too strong for a game forcing splinter bid.

[ggwhiz]

I consider this hand to be a tweener. The controls make it a LOT stronger than a soft 11-12 count and worth a strong 14 in support, not enough for a maxi splinter though.

I'm curious if any of the 4♣ bidders have ANY hand that they would choose 2nt on instead and I doubt it. Surely these hands exist and (just imo) this is one.

[billw55]

ggwhiz, on 2013-May-23, 15:23, said:

I consider this hand to be a tweener. The controls make it a LOT stronger than a soft 11-12 count and worth a strong 14 in support, not enough for a maxi splinter though.

I'm curious if any of the 4♣ bidders have ANY hand that they would choose 2nt on instead and I doubt it. Surely these hands exist and (just imo) this is one.

Easy, just keep adding high card points, eventually everyone will get there. Strange thing to say really.

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2013-May-24, 05:45, said:

Easy, just keep adding high card points, eventually everyone will get there. Strange thing to say really.

You don't even have to do that. Make the hand:

♠Axxx
♥xxx
♦AKxxx
♣x

And it is becomes worth 2NT followed by 4♣, imo. But yeah, your point about him being wrong is correct.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-May-24, 05:45, said:

Easy, just keep adding high card points, eventually everyone will get there. Strange thing to say really.

Once you've added enough, people will start splintering again, with the intention of bidding on.

[Zelandakh]

If a normal splinter is ~13-15 (ie ~10-12hcp + sgl), a maxi splinter is ~16-19 and a normal splinter followed by bidding on is 20+, that does not leave a great deal of space for adding hcp. Perhaps if you play your maxi-splinter as ~17-19...

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-27, 06:51, said:

If a normal splinter is ~13-15 (ie ~10-12hcp + sgl), a maxi splinter is ~16-19 and a normal splinter followed by bidding on is 20+, that does not leave a great deal of space for adding hcp. Perhaps if you play your maxi-splinter as ~17-19...

At some point, your hand is so strong that you don't splinter. You use Jacoby or whatever mechanism you employ to take control of the auction. When your hand is that strong, it is much easier to ask then to tell to figure out where you belong.

[Zelandakh]

That might depend on the difference between, say, 1♥ - 4♣; 4♥ - 4♠ and 1♥ - 2NT; 4♥ - 4♠, along with how optimised the follow-ups are. If you play the former sequence as Exclusion then certainly a strong enough hand with shortage is going to respond with the default forcing raise instead. Of course, if you are not playing Jacoby but a GF raise with different follow-ups, it can easily be that it is always easier to get the information you want via that route.

[gszes]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-24, 05:52, said:

You don't even have to do that. Make the hand:

♠Axxx
♥xxx
♦AKxxx
♣x

And it is becomes worth 2NT followed by 4♣, imo. But yeah, your point about him being wrong is correct.

With this hand maybe a start of 2d is better than 2n espcially if playing 2/1)

[y66]

Was just going to ask PhilKing why not 2D there.

[inquiry]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-22, 18:24, said:

Is that usual? I would never splinter with a hand with 14(!) points, and never with more than 4 controls.

Since you quoted me, it seem to me you did so without reading what I wrote.. here it is....with the key thing you missed it seems bolded and underlined....

inquiry, on 2013-May-22, 09:03, said:

This is a very good question!

A splinter bid shows shortness in the splintered suit (check), four card (or more) support (check), no more than 15 "support points" (some play 14 support points) (check).

Two over one then support partner shows game force with support (check), and a decent or better five card suit (nope)-- so 2♦ is out.

Jacoby 2NT shows game forcing hand with support (check) not suitable for 2-over-1 (check) or Splinter (whoops).

A serious question you can ask here, is for some reason this hand 10 hcp plus three points for the singleton club worth more than a usual 15 (or 14) max of a splinter bid? You could be concern about what partner might do with a hand like...♠KQxxxx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AQxx. If the answer is he would devalue his hand and sign-off, then that supports the view to bid 2NT. I would splinter the hand, but I certainly understand concerns that this is an exceptionally good hand to splinter on.

I never splinter with 14 or 15 hcp either. Why, because you get three "support points" for a singleton and five for a void. So with a singleton, the max HCP you can hold is 11 (if you go the 14 support route). Here you hold a very good 11. So for those people they have a potential issue of this being "too good for a splinter, especially if you are like Vampyr and never splinter with "four controls".

[rmnka447]

Put me down for a 4 ♣ splinter on this hand.