[AlexOgan]

Scoring: MP

---

Partner deals and opens 1S in a strong club context (5+S, ~11-15HCP). RHO passes.

[hrothgar]

4♠ for me...

I don't think that its a particularly tough decision

[mr1303]

In a strong club context I bid 4S. This is the advantage of playing a strong club. Opponents won't know if I have a good hand or a bad hand, and the chances of a slam here are reduced if partner has a max of 15.

Otherwise I'd bid 3C

[mike777]

4H no problem yet. Splinter and limited.

At this vul the opp can figure out what hand I got for a direct 4s bid. Rather describe my hand to partner in case the bidding is not over.

[SoTired]

4S- not 4H splinter since opener is limited to 15 HCP.

[pbleighton]

Quote

At this vul the opp can figure out what hand I got for a direct 4s bid.

How?

Peter

[jdonn]

I like splinter, we need very very little for slam. Qxxxxx Axx x Axx? (and it doesn't even need the spade queen.) I think if you bid 4♠ and it goes 5♥ p p back to you, you are compelled to double having not the slightest clue what is right.

The reason I choose 4♥ is to show two important aspects of my hand (4 card support and singleton heart) which should help partner decide what to do if the next hand bids, as well as still maintaining a lot of preemption.

[rbforster]

I voted for 4♠, but didn't like my choices . I like splinters to be a little more constructive in terms of values, but as people have said the right opening hand can still make slam here. I prefer to combine the invitational and minimum 4 card raises into 3♦ to free up 3♥ to show this hand type - min GF values but based shortness and a good fit. Partner can then ask for shortness with 3♠ or just sign off in game most of the time.

[whereagles]

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

[Free]

4♠, next

[hatchett]

4♥, No reason why partner can't have a hand that makes slam a lay down despite his limited opening.

[AlexOgan]

I did a quick double dummy simulation. South gets any 11-15HCP, 5+ spades, spades >= hearts. West gets a hand that looks like a pass (this was quick and dirty -- I'm sure I'm accepting some hands West would actually bid and rejecting some where West would actually pass). Anyway, here's a table of the number of tricks available, double dummy, in spades, with South declaring:

(100 trials)

7 tricks: 1
8 tricks: 1
9 tricks: 11
10 tricks: 29
11 tricks: 39
12 tricks: 17
13 tricks: 2

So slam is certainly in the picture...

Alex

[ochinko]

Partner has 7 losers or less, I have only 6, we have a great trump fit, slam is definitely a possibility. If we play mini splinters - 3♥, else - 4♥.

[Apollo81]

I don't know how the auction will work after your 3♣, but it seems like 4♥ describes my "mild slam try" perfectly. If my hand was a trick better then I'd have to bid 3♣ I guess. 4♠ is not the right bid with significant extras beyond a min GF.

[pclayton]

A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short diamonds? We are looking at the ♠AK, so its hard to see how pard will cooperate with a slam try holding the right minimum: ♠QJxxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣Axx.

I'll start with 2N and see if that gets me anything useful.

I don't see any merits of 4♠. We have a 6 loser hand - can't pard also hold a 6 loser hand?

[jtfanclub]

So as raises, agreeing on spades, you have...

2♠
2NT
3♣
3♦
3♥
3♠
4♣
4♦
4♥
4♠

Did I miss any?

Using a much less fit-oriented Precision system, my choices would come down to:
1NT- forcing, asks for shape, intending to bid diamonds later as a GFTI.
2NT- Game forcing, asks for specific controls.
3♥- Minisplinter

Any of those should work fine. With 10 freakin' raises, surely one of them will tell me what I need to know without going to the 4 level. For example, 2NT or 3♣ ought to be asking for specific controls.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Jun 14 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

You don't even need the queens for slam to be good!


To Phil: how could partner not bid blackwood after a 4♥ splinter with your example!

[Gerben42]

4♥. We may have a slam, it may be their hand after all. If the auction went

1♠ p 4♠ 4N
p 5♣

do we know what to do? NO! So let's help partner out here...

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jun 14 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short diamonds? We are looking at the ♠AK, so its hard to see how pard will cooperate with a slam try holding the right minimum: ♠QJxxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣Axx.

I'll start with 2N and see if that gets me anything useful.

I don't see any merits of 4♠. We have a 6 loser hand - can't pard also hold a 6 loser hand?

I see two big advantages to a direct 4♠ bid:

1. The more hand types that get forced into a direct 4♠ bid, the less well defined that bid becomes. While this means that we will (occasionally) miss some good slams or overbid slightly, it makes it much more difficult for the opponents to decide whether or not to sacrifice.

2. If we declare 4♠, I want the auction to be short an sweet. I don't want the opponents to have a clue whether this was bid to make or whether I am sacing over 4♥. I don't want them to know whether I am desperately trying to make the contact or whether we're fighting for overtricks. I don't want them to have an opportunity to sneak in a three level overcall or make any lead directing doubles.