[Jinksy]

---

After the 1N bid, our system is very basic - checkback stayman with 3 weak TOs at the 2 level, nat at the 3 level. Who erred, and what should they have done differently?

(If relevant, we don't play Last Train)

[Jinksy]

Duplicate post

[TylerE]

Seems like a system fix to me. The jump to 4♣ consumes a lot of space.

How about something like (made up)

1♣ - 1♠
1NT - 2♣ (checkback style, GF)
2♠ (3+ card support, sets trump) - 3♣ (cue)
3♥ (cue) - 5♣ (exclusion)
5♠ (2) - 6♠

[ArtK78]

Why splinter? Splinter bids seem to be a knee jerk reaction to many players. There are other ways of showing a strong hand.

1♣ - 1♥
1NT - 2♣ (checkback)
2♠ - 3♣
3♥ - 4♦
4♥

One way or another after this start slam will be reached.

Or, if responder is impatient, he can use the route set forth above by Tyler. Exclusion BW is sort of an extension of a splinter bid, and I am not convinced it is the best route. But it makes more sense than the immediate splinter used in the OP.

It is my experience that players are too quick to employ splinter bids in much the same way as they are too quick to employ blackwood. It is sort of a warm and fuzzy bid. And this hand is far from ideal for a splinter bid. A perfect splinter bid would be something like:

KQJxxx
KQx
KQx
x

Splintering with a void often leads to difficult problems. Here, opener assumed that there was a club loser. So he would not make a move over 4♣ even with Axx AKJ in the majors. Opener was probably wrong not to cue bid the ♥A, but I have some sympathy with a wasted ♣K and no diamond control.

There is certainly no guarantee that slam will be reached if responder does not splinter. But I believe that the splinter created a headache for opener and led (rightly or wrongly) to his failure to cooperate in the slam venture. Obviously responder cannot move over 4♠.

EDIT: In response to the comment by MrAce below, I see that the 3♣ bid has come under fire. I have to admit, I did not think this through. The 3♣ bid in this sequence should be a forcing club raise, so it is clearly not right. Responder should just bid 3♠, which should be a forcing spade raise. Now opener cues 4♥. The fact that opener did not cue 4♣ is good news to responder, which should be sufficient for him to RKCB secure in the knowledge that opener does not have the ♣A.

[mike777]

For starters do you play splinters as a limited bid say 7 loser hand? If so then this 4.5 loser hand is way too good.

Also you state you play checkback..ok so after checkback how does responder set trumps and show a gf at a low level?

IF I don't have any way to do that I would rather just blast to 6s and later discuss how to fix this system hole.
One option is to play some variation of XYZ

so:


after 1nt then:

1nt=2d(art/gf)
2s=3s(slam try)
4c=4d
4nt=6c(void and 1-3)
6s

[whereagles]

South. Has 4.5 losers opposite an average 4 cover cards. Even discounting one cover card for club wastage, slam is still 50% at worst.

[gszes]

Before employing a splinter see if it will accomplish the goal you
set out to accomplish. With your given hand would you not be happy
to be in a small slam if opener has say 11 useful HCP outside of clubs?

If the answer to that question is yes then decide if opener will give
a positive response with a good 11 outside clubs (without the club A).
For virtually everyone that employs splinter (and having shown a 15-17 hand)
the answer will almost always be negative and since we have no idea on how
negative we end up taking the conservative route and signing off (probably
reasonable).

That is what happened with your bidding sequence. If your partner happened
to have a good hand for slam your side may easily bid a grand but on far too
many hands you will be afraid to venture beyond game. Look at this another way
would you not love to be able to invite slam looking at KQxxxx xxx KQxx void?
where you can get to 6 if p has as little as 15 (even 14) useful outside clubs?
That is the best time to splinter because a negative response will almost always
mean slam is odds against.

I do not know your system so I cannot offer you bidding advice

In my case it would go
1n
2h
2s
3d forcing
3h good heart stop but worries about clubs for nt purposes (not
much to no stops) note that opener can always convert 3n to spades
so there is no real rush to show spade support. That information
alone would get me to a small slam and I would then bid 5c exclusion
ending up in 6s. There would be little doubt opener had at least
11 hcp outside clubs so a small slam is wonderful and a grand may be
possible

[kenrexford]

Actually, I will disagree somewhat. 4C is the one splinter that doesn't consume much space. Additionally, the is about the only option to ever show shortness in partner's opened minor.

If North realizes that, he need not sign off just because he has a wasted King. If he had the perfect hand, he could bid 4NT. Anything on route to 4S denies the perfect hand but caters to partner being still interested.

Opener still has five controls, two key cards, and a few well placed Jacks. I think North could make one small try with a 4H call, at least f South is known to invite slam cautiously. While South does have better than expected, he might be cautious on this deal because of a fear that Opener might value up a club Ace. If so, South might be discounting one cover. The heart Queen is a tentative cover, as well. South is also aceless. It is not unreasonable to view the South hand as about a 5 losers hand and to also discount the club Ace cover, and then to expect a primed out Opener to make a mild 4H call if Opener has this or a similar hand.

The problem with this deal is that partnership style and visualization and trust can induce different plausible sequences, IMO.

[mikeh]

I was all prepared to write a post lamenting about how poor the methods were, and they do suck, for sure, but this is a difficult hand.

I think it s difficult hand even with better methods, because hands with voids in partner's semi-natural 1st suit, and with no Aces, are always difficult to evaluate. So much depends on where opener's high cards are.

I generally don't like splinters on voids, unless we have a specifically void-showing meaning. However, I think that time the splinter is as good as any other unattractive call.

Opener's hand now is borderline, but Kxx opposite the usual x isn't all bad news. He might have had KQx or KJx. Plus he has maximal hcp and 6 controls. 6 controls is a lot for a 15-17 1N opener. A cue below game isn't a strong slam try...it merely says that opener is not completely disinterested. Thus 4♥ seems obligatory. I suspect that slam might still be missed by players who haven't seen both hands. I mean, show me a hand on which the Jack in a side suit, never bid, becomes one of the critical cards for slam and I will show you a very difficult hand to bid reliably.

So while I think that N made a poor bid over 4♣, and thus is the only partner known to bear blame, it remains possible that the partnership would have missed the slam anyway.

[chasetb]

I agree with mikeh almost 100%. 6 controls is basically the top number for 15 HCP, above average for 16 HCP, and average for 17 HCP. Regardless, since 4♣ is so wide-ranging, Opener has to cuebid 4♥ because the hand hasn't lost too much value, and then I expect the slam to be found.

[mcphee]

I can not bring myself to not blame N 100%. Clearly he should cue bid 4H in spite of the wasted K of C. Where does N think his partners cards are? Partner splintered (I am not fond of that) and could be facing a stiff trump(generally 2) he has nothing in H, unless partner is a massive overbidder how can they not have good D cards? I would place KQJ of trumps in his hand for sure, if I allow for the Q of H this means he must still hold at least the KQ of D or AQ.

[kenrexford]

Although I agree with all of the posts after mine, and although there are 6 controls technically, there are only 5 well placed controls. I know that the sixth control is a nice addition that could play a role. But, I think it should be acknowledged so that South haters don't have a quick counter argument.

[whereagles]

How about a simple solution that I've been implementing for some time now? Make splinter an asking bid:

1♠ 4♣= splinter, asks for working HCP outside clubs (ace counts as working)
4♦ = less than a min outside clubs (11 at most)
4♥ = a min outside (12-14)
4♠ = a med outside (15-17)
4NT+ = a max outside (18+), with runoff to RKCB if you want.

In this particular situation you could have, say,

bla bla
... 4♣
4♦ = 9-11 outside clubs
4♥ = 12-14 outside
4♠+ = 15-17 outside, runoff to RKCB

[Jinksy]

What about the methods is it people dislike so much? They're not very sophisticated over 1N, but they just seem like bog-standard normal/natural stuff to me. I hadn't really thought about S's HCP strength at the time (I was N, and in the post-mortem we were more worried about his lack of controls), but since we do play splinters as fairly strict limit bids (or a hand so strong it's prepared to ignore a signoff), S's hand looks too good for one.

I'd prefer to play 2-way checkback, but with current methods, I think S should rebid 3♦. Not sure what I should do as N then - anything other than 3♠ or 3N shows ♦ support in our meta-agreements, so probably 3♥.

[MrAce]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-10, 05:59, said:

What about the methods is it people dislike so much? They're not very sophisticated over 1N, but they just seem like bog-standard normal/natural stuff to me. I hadn't really thought about S's HCP strength at the time (I was N, and in the post-mortem we were more worried about his lack of controls), but since we do play splinters as fairly strict limit bids (or a hand so strong it's prepared to ignore a signoff), S's hand looks too good for one.

I'd prefer to play 2-way checkback, but with current methods, I think S should rebid 3♦. Not sure what I should do as N then - anything other than 3♠ or 3N shows ♦ support in our meta-agreements, so probably 3♥.

Your methods look better than some suggested ones, particularly Art and Tyler's. They used check back and then bid 3♣ and expected this to be cuebid which escapes me. How was responder supposed to make a forcing bid with with 4 spades and longer clubs? If direct 3 Cl is the solution how was responder supposed to bid the same hand with invitation values?
In your method, pd at least know you have 6 card spades and club shortness and slam interest.

Tyler believes, wrongly, that opener who is limited and who is being asked via check back, is also the one who gets to set the trumps.
Mike is right that this hand is actually much more difficult than it looks and especially when you don't see both hands IMO.

[joshb7]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-09, 11:32, said:

---

After the 1N bid, our system is very basic - checkback stayman with 3 weak TOs at the 2 level, nat at the 3 level. Who erred, and what should they have done differently?

(If relevant, we don't play Last Train)

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

[joshb7]

 joshb7, on 2014-October-10, 07:16, said:

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

[joshb7]

 joshb7, on 2014-October-10, 07:16, said:

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

[joshb7]

 joshb7, on 2014-October-10, 07:16, said:

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

[kenrexford]

 joshb7, on 2014-October-10, 07:16, said:

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

This is so true. It is amazing how many of us missed this simple concept. We need t first recognize a 1NT opening when we see one. Then, Responder has an easy bid to decide that spades are trumps. Once that happens, one of the partners can then establish the level. That makes this problem a ton easier.

EDIT: I also agree that this needs to be restated, several times. Good advice is worth repeating!