[pbleighton]

4S, which I hope pd will interpret as a splinter.

Peter

[Apollo81]

I am worried that I have a little too much for a splinter here.

give partner Qxx A Kx AQxxxxx, or AQx x Kx AQxxxxx for instance

If I could find out about 1 thing, it would be whether we have hearts controlled. The problem is that I dont think I can create an auction where 4♥ by pard is clearly a cuebid and not some sort of offer to play. I would probably just bid RKC at the table.

[inquiry]

I would cue-bid 3♦ planning on (hopefully) making my intentions clear with a jump to 4♠ over 3♥. I understand that this 4♠ could be misconstrued as happy partner supported hearts. An immediate 4♠ paints a pretty picture, but partner missing two keycards might not try blackwood and risk getting past 5♣ facing one too few keycards -- especially given partners clubs are so "weak" for his jump.

[mike777]

uggg.....minor suit jump rebids are so random.......ugggg

I would have bid 4clubs....allowing room for 4d kickback I guess.
I think my spade stiff will not be that important.

[kenrexford]

Not a problem I'd face.

However, forced to not use a specific tool, I believe that I am in trouble. 4♠ might be right, if we have discussed possible splinters at this level. If not discussed, this seems to be an esoteric bid.

If that is not available, I might bid 3♦, planning to bid 4♠ later. Of course, this might be even more esoteric.

Perhaps 4♣? That's at least natural. I'm not sure what to do next, though.

Thank God I would have bid 2♣ immediately, showing limit+ with no five-card major and club support if not GF. On this one, he'd bid 2♠, denying a four-card major and showing length in clubs. I'm not sure how strong he is, but I'd bid 3♦, agreeing clubs, and showing a diamond control, because I can force 5♣ with this hand. Wherever we end up would be a matter of what he actually holds. But, my first two bids would be easy.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2007, 01:45 PM, said:

Thank God I would have bid 2♣ immediately, showing limit+ with no five-card major and club support if not GF. On this one, he'd bid 2♠, denying a four-card major and showing length in clubs. I'm not sure how strong he is, but I'd bid 3♦, agreeing clubs, and showing a diamond control, because I can force 5♣ with this hand. Wherever we end up would be a matter of what he actually holds. But, my first two bids would be easy.

Hmm... should I respond by saying if my partner opened 1♣ I'd bid 2♥ showing a 3-suited hand with a short major and positive values, then over his 2♠ rebid I could bid 2NT showing short spades and then 3♦ over his 3♣ relay showing 1=4=4=4 exactly. wtp? My bids are extremely easy.

Meanwhile, back in the world of no special agreements, I will choose to bid 4♠ splinter. I believe it about shows my hand.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 21 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

You can assume 4S will be understood as a splinter if you want to use that bid.

Excellent! Having an agreement, I'll bid 4♠ as a splinter. Now, I wonder if 4NT is an offer to play or LTTC.

[Fluffy]

I am worried we are too weak for 4♠ hehe. Oh well count me also for that

[Edmunte1]

I'll start with 3♦. This primarily is for 3NT. Now suppose parter bids:
a] 3NT - most often. I'll bid 4♣ saving some space, and showing slam interest. Now over partner's 4♦ cue i'll bid 4♠ showing second round cue in ♠ (with first cue i would have bid 4♠ directly over 3nt).This bids denies ♥ control. If partner bids 4♥, denying ♦ control, i'll bid 5♣
b] partner bids 3♠ showing doubt about ♠ stopper. I'll bid probably 6♣
c] partner bids 3♥. This should show Hxx(AK?). Now i'll splinter 4♠, transmiting the message about missing ♥ control.
Anyway, an important thing, when clubs are trumps is better to play Turbo instead of RKCB (4nt showing an even number of KC, bypassing it an odd number)

[Free]

4♠ for me

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would show the fit direct, ... most likely i
would bid 4C, natural and forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cnszsun]

i see some options here to set ♣ as trump and show slam interest:
1. 3♦ then 4♣ (3♦ to be treated as advanced cuebid by most);
2. 4♣ to set trump quickly (I think no need to reserve a bid here as inviting to 5♣);
3. 4♠, splinter but relinquish the control.

I hope to get some hints on the difference between these bids.

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Feb 22 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

I kibitzed Alfredo Versace bid this hand.

Alfredo bid 3D, his partner bid 3N, and he bid 4C. .

Needless to say, I think Alfredo got it right!

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Feb 22 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

I kibitzed Alfredo Versace bid this hand. I must admit that even among the very best players Alfredo has always stood out to me as remarkable, so I was very interested to see how he handled this hand. My gut reaction was to bid 4S, but I know the italian style is generally to go slower.

Alfredo bid 3D, his partner bid 3N, and he bid 4C. Partner cuebid 4H, and now he bid 4S. I think his partner should have signed off now with AQT A Jxx AQxxxx and that would have been a very pretty auction. This seems like a very difficult slam to avoid.

At the other table the player splintered and now the long club hand had to guess what to do (4N was not last train in that partnership). He opted for blackwood then slam.

I have no idea what the right way to handle this is but I thought Alfredo's auction was a little better than a splinter.

There is partly a systemic issue here: after 4S splinter I would play 4NT by opener as natural, discouraging (ideal on the hand). If partner's only options over a 4S splinter are Blackwood, sign-off, or slam then I don't like it.

I have to admit, I'm not keen on 3D (unless it's agreed to be artificial) and prefer 4C which seems to be a lot more clearly agreeing clubs than adding murk with 3D... The difficulty with 1C - 1H - 3C - 3D - 3NT - 4C is that it doesn't sound like such good clubs - how would you have bid with x KQxxx AKxx Jx, say? I would have the inference that partner can't be 4-4 in hearts and clubs as he would have raised clubs at once rather than bid 3D. But this is another systemic - or partnership style - issue.

[mike777]

I was a 4club bidder but assuming Pard cues 4H now, I think I would still end up in slam. Very tough to stop in 4nt or 5 clubs now. Going to email this one around for comments, thanks for good post.


BTW I would never make a limit raise in clubs with this hand over a one club opener.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 22 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

I think his partner should have signed off now with AQT A Jxx AQxxxx and that would have been a very pretty auction. This seems like a very difficult slam to avoid.

At the other table the player splintered and now the long club hand had to guess what to do (4N was not last train in that partnership). He opted for blackwood then slam.

Opener made a jump rebid with AQxxxx in clubs, as expected.

He has AQx in spades, opposite a stiff. These are bad values opposite a stiff.

He has the stiff Ace in partner's only shown suit. That is a bad holding.

He has three small diamonds, in the unbid suit, also a bad holding.

His hyand is exactly what Responder would expect, except that he has wasted values in Responder's shown short suit and a stiff in Responder's shown suit.

He did not know what to do and opted Blackwood.

I don't understand the problem at all. He cannot accept, and he should bid 4NT (if that is an offer to play) or 5♣. That seems easy.

The Versace auction might make sense in their style, but it sounds problematic. If 4♠ would be a splinter, then 3♦...4♣...4♠ must be different from classic expectations from a splinter. My gut tells me that this auction emphasizes the diamond holding. Ace-empty might be enought o emphasize diamonds, perhaps, but then 4♠-P-4NT would make no sense as ace-asking unless the two teams were using different agreements, ebcause the failure to bid 3♦ would advertise a diamond hole.

Alternatively, 3♦.. 4♣...4♠ could emphasize the heart strength (would have changed tack if delayed heart support shown), but this would make 3♦ a poor choice with Qxxx in hearts.

4♠ immediately seems to show a stiff spade, good club support, and scattered honors in the reds, probably fast control (Ace or King) in diamonds and possibly slower in hearts, as actually held.

So, I hate to say this, but Versace's auction seems questionable unless he has different understandings with his partner than I would expect, and whoever moved after the 4♠ splinter also seems to have made an error, unless they also have different understandings than I would expect.

[mike777]

I think this hand is just too tough to stay out slam at the table, in fact some people I gave this hand too tried for 7 and signed off in 6, Stopping at 5 was not an option .