[luke warm]

playing 2/1, bidding is

1C : 1H
2H : 4C

i meant it as a splinter, but is that how it should be understood?

another question ... is 3♦ forcing in this auction?

1C : 1H
2NT : 3D

gib passed 3D

[glen]

A ) 4♣ is a splinter for many, though can be natural & forcing for others. I would avoid it in a new partnership, and then, after the hand, say "I would have liked to splinter with 4♣, but wasn't sure how you would take it".

B ) 3♦ is forcing - new suit by responder below game etc.

[P_Marlowe]

4C could be a splinter, but this depends on the answer to your
2nd question i.e. what 3C and 3D mean
For me it is a trial bid, however you play them, i.e. 3C could be
short suit, long suit or help suit

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Walddk]

1. Natural, forcing. We have a double fit, partner. It is unwise to splinter in opener's suit. Responder can easily be 4-5 or 5-5 in hearts and clubs, but only 4 hearts if 2♥ promises 4-card support. If it does not, a 2♠ relay is better.

2. Yes, forcing, 5 hearts and 4 diamonds. If GIB passed 3♦ it needs to be re-programmed. Most people play (I hope) that a new suit by responder at the 3-level is not only forcing, it is game forcing.

Roland

[ochinko]

luke warm, on Aug 13 2005, 06:20 PM, said:

playing 2/1, bidding is

1C : 1H
2H : 4C

i meant it as a splinter, but is that how it should be understood?

another question ... is 3♦ forcing in this auction?

1C : 1H
2NT : 3D

gib passed 3D

1. Don't see any other use for 4C except as a splinter. I would understand it as 5+ hearts, since normally you splinter with 4+ over a 5 card opening suit; no other singletons, because you'd prefer to splinter in them; up to a 7 loser hand.

With 7 losers and a diamond Ace, I'd bid 4D. With 6 losers and no diamond Ace, I'd bid 4Sp with an Ace there.

2. Just as we thought GIB was the perfect bidding machine...
Could it be a misclick?

Petko

[luke warm]

i think it's obvious that gib took the 4C bid to be as roland said, a double fit.. we ended up in 7H (gib seems to love grand slams) off 1... on #2, maybe he did misclick .... anyway, he passed

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Aug 13 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

playing 2/1, bidding is

1C : 1H
2H : 4C


i meant it as a splinter, but is that how it should be understood?

Not a splinter: a splinter bid should promise a (potentially) *useful* shortness (for the same reason why we do not cuebid shortness in pard's suit)

In this sequence we do not expect shortness in the suit opened by pard to be useful: hence it should be a fitshowing picture bid, showing concentration of honors, and (usually) denying controls in side suits.

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Aug 13 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

another question ... is 3♦ forcing in this auction?

1C : 1H
2NT : 3D

gib passed 3D

I'd play 3D as artificial, New Minor Forcing Checkback for 3 card support in H or side 4S.

I think it's obvious GIB misclicked or psyched

[mr1303]

When you open 1C on xxx, why shouldn't 4C be a splinter?

If 3C here is natural and forcing, 4C doesn't need to be the same.

I had an incident with

1D 1H
2H 5D

What does this one mean?

[Chamaco]

mr1303, on Aug 13 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

When you open 1C on xxx, why shouldn't 4C be a splinter?

Of course you can open 1C with xxx, but bridge is a game of percentages.
And on percentage, pard is more likely to have values in the suit opened (hence shortness there can't be labeled as "useful").

I think that, if you agree (as many do) that you do not cuebid shortness in a suit bid naturally by pard, then you should consider in a similar way *splintering* in a suit bid by pard.

Of course, all is different if you open short club ( 4+ clubs or weak NT).

[glen]

One could also open 1♣ with Axx, Axxx, Axxxx etc., in which case a splinter would be welcome news.

[Chamaco]

officeglen, on Aug 13 2005, 10:17 PM, said:

One could also open 1♣ with Axx, Axxx, Axxxx etc., in which case a splinter would be welcome news.

That is true for any suit naturally bid by pard.
Nevertheless, it is a generally recommended rule not to cue shortness in pard's suit.

I fail to see the difference with splintering in pard's suit.

----

More generally, we can construct quite a few examples where it turns out that a splinter (or shortness cue) can be useful: but I think that on balance, when pard bids a suit, the likelihood he holds values that would be wasted opposite shortness (different from Axx/Axxx/Axxxx) outnumber the other cases.
Having to make a choice for the meaning of a bid, I prefer to go with the %.

[glen]

Well lets start with Bridge World Standard, which was created by polling expert players:

"After a one-level new-suit response, a responder’s rebid of four of opener’s minor is:

(a ) a splinter after opener’s simple new-suit rebid;

(b ) natural and forcing after opener’s simple or jump same-suit rebid."

So if opener does not rebid the opening suit, a jump in opener's minor is a splinter. So I'm not sure about "generally recommended rule", though do understand some play the way you suggest.

BWS at:
http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...d&f=bwsall.html

[Chamaco]

officeglen, on Aug 13 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

So I'm not sure about "generally recommended rule", though do understand some play the way you suggest.

"General recommended rules " refer certainly to 5+ cards suit by pard (Klinger, "Cuebidding to slams", pages 95-96, first book on slams I have here, but can find more refs from other books by other authors).

Most bridge schools in Italy teach to beginners/advanced not to cue shortness in pard's 4+ suit.

It is true that "better minor" openings can be 3+, but most US textbooks teach to consider it as 4+ (e.g. pard raises openber's minor assuming he has 4+).
If we have to assume 4+ in the opened minor when raising, I think it's fair to assume 4+ cards also when deciding whether to splinter or not.

-----------------------------

Perhaps cuebidding singleton/voids in pard's opening suit is expert/worldclass praxis, I cannot tell, as I am not in that range of strength.

However, if we do accept the rule of "no shortness cue in p's suit", it's clear that splintering in a pard's suit is just a special case of shortness cue in pard's suit and therefore does not comply with the given rule.

On the other hand, if we do not accept this rule, then anything goes.

In my opinion, bidding shortness in pard's suit is a poor strategy, on balance, but I won't argue further.

[han]

On the second question:

I like to play that 1C-1H-2H-3C is non-forcing (opener may pass with a minimum 3-card raise), but 1C-1H-2H-3D is forcing. BTW, there is no reason for this second auction to show 5 hearts imo.

[whereagles]

1. Matter of agreement. Without one, DON'T BID 4♣.

2. Also matter of agreement, but this time most people play it as forcing. (New suit after a strong rebid by opener = forcing.)