[DavidKok]

Slam interest.

[AL78]

jillybean, on 2023-February-04, 11:42, said:

Perhaps we could use a primer on splinters?

I've just found this link about splinter bids which I found very useful:

https://www.bridgebu...m/splinters.php

It includes an explanation about splinter bids being limited to seven loser hands, 9-12 HCP which are good enough to go to game but not slam. They are effectively a mild slam try if opener has extra values and a well fitting hand. I think most of my partners don't play splinters with a strength limit.

[smerriman]

I know you prefixed your message to say different people play different things, but this may still be worth going into more detail on as you two don't often disagree:

DavidKok, on 2023-February-05, 05:47, said:

I think 3♠ actually denies spades.

mikeh, on 2023-February-04, 08:42, said:

3S by opener shows three card support.

Showing 3 card support with a 3541 type hand seems more logical to me (this was the one pattern not listed in your post - what would you bid with that?), even if it may turn out to be theoretically suboptimal, so is what I would have assumed is standard (and did with my earlier post, though I'll be the first to admit my posts don't ever have much weight behind them compared to yours!)

[DavidKok]

I think it is a good idea to reserve 4♣ for 3=5=4=1 hands - it 'should' show a 1=5=4=3 when natural, but that hand type bids 3NT. Alternatively it 'should' show a club auto-control bid setting diamonds as trumps (which I also suggested in some earlier post), but 4♦ is adequate to cover those hand types and they are rare to begin with.
Without discussions none of my suggested uses for 4♣ will be understood by partner, so at the table I'd probably choose between 4♥ and 4♠. Again I think it is fine to bypass 3NT on this sequence as our singleton club opposite a doubt-showing partner is insufficient. So we're likely playing 4M in the 7-card fit, and I might as well pick spades where we get club ruffs in the short hand (and on a good day partner has five spades). Passing back the buck with 4♣ would be even better though, relieving partner from the pressure of deciding when to correct back to diamonds (with, say, a 4=2=4=3 minimum, where 4♠ is likely best opposite 3=5=4=1 but 5♦ is attractive opposite 3=5=5=0).

Edit: maybe to clarify why all these unnatural bids are not as crazy as they seem: hands with 3 spades and club shortage have a relatively clear idea on what we should play, i.e. 4M (possibly in a 7-card fit). Meanwhile hands with short spades are less certain - 3NT, 4♥ and even 5♦ are still very possible. So, in keeping with the idea that the cheapest bid should be the flexible punt and game bids should be more descriptive, the long(-ish) spade hands should bid past 3NT while the short spade hands should stay below it. At the risk of simplifying too much I think the 'standard' rebid structure over 3♥ is:

• 3♠ - 2-3 decent clubs, suggesting playing in 3NT opposite a half stopper.
  
• 3NT - 3(+) decent clubs (AK or AQ tight is good enough as well, and honestly with AJ tight or ATx I'd bid it as well just to attempt to end the auction), to play.
  
• 4♣ - Does not exist (but can, and ideally should, be used to take some pressure off of the higher bids).
  
• 4♦ - 5(+)♥5(+)♦
  
• 4♥ - 6(+)♥4(+)♦ or 2=5=4=2 with very weak clubs. With 5(+) diamonds the hearts are considerably stronger than the diamonds.
  
• 4♠ - 3♠5♥4-5♦0-1♣

Higher bids do not exist. This gives up on reaching 4♥ when the 5-2 fit plays better than the 4-3 spade fit, but gets to 3NT pretty much always when it is right.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-05, 07:03, said:

Slam interest.

Ooof, of course. I am so focused on the spades here I was trying to come up with an acronym for Spade-something.
The more I delve into this, the more I have to accept that even if I can get my head around it, without a partner putting in the same work, I'm not going to have this level of agreements. We'll be back defaulting to jumping to an il conceived keycard ask and hoping for the best.

The splinter foul up in the early stages up the auction involved the 3♦ being taken as a splinter, believing 4♦ would have been a void splinter. A little knowledge, and probably a good concept but as often happens, a bid considered in isolation of the rest of the system. You don't have the time to sit and think at the table, especially under the gun with this sort of hand. Unless it comes naturally and I think it probably does to some, it's going to take a lot of work, time and commitment to get to this level.
I'm humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners.

We've decided 1♥:2♠ is drop dead so I don't have to worry about continuations with this partner, we do need to discuss splinters.

[jillybean]

1♥:1♠
3♦:3♥
3♠

I'm stuck and confused here and want to take back the first response and bid a gf 2♣. I find the 1M:2♣ auctions allow so much bidding space, the auction is easy. Why not extend it to include a 63xx hand as suggested up thread.

[DavidKok]

I think the 3♥ bid is a mistake and responder should rebid 3♠ (and give up on hearts). As far as I know there is no way to show "6+ good spades and 3-card heart support" over a strong jump shift by opener. So over 3♦ you have to take stock and pick what you are still going to show (and I would pick the spades).

Also a belated welcome to modern 2/1, where we cram as many hands as can fit into 1M-2♣ just because it's easier

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-05, 13:29, said:

Edit: maybe to clarify why all these unnatural bids are not as crazy as they seem: hands with 3 spades and club shortage have a relatively clear idea on what we should play, i.e. 4M (possibly in a 7-card fit). Meanwhile hands with short spades are less certain - 3NT, 4♥ and even 5♦ are still very possible. So, in keeping with the idea that the cheapest bid should be the flexible punt and game bids should be more descriptive, the long(-ish) spade hands should bid past 3NT while the short spade hands should stay below it. At the risk of simplifying too much I think the 'standard' rebid structure over 3♥ is:

• 3♠ - 2-3 decent clubs, suggesting playing in 3NT opposite a half stopper.
  
• 3NT - 3(+) decent clubs (AK or AQ tight is good enough as well, and honestly with AJ tight or ATx I'd bid it as well just to attempt to end the auction), to play.
  
• 4♣ - Does not exist (but can, and ideally should, be used to take some pressure off of the higher bids).
  
• 4♦ - 5(+)♥5(+)♦
  
• 4♥ - 6(+)♥4(+)♦ or 2=5=4=2 with very weak clubs. With 5(+) diamonds the hearts are considerably stronger than the diamonds.
  
• 4♠ - 3♠5♥4-5♦0-1♣

Higher bids do not exist. This gives up on reaching 4♥ when the 5-2 fit plays better than the 4-3 spade fit, but gets to 3NT pretty much always when it is right.

I disagree, especially with your suggestion that the sequence 1H 1S 3D 3H 4C doesn’t exist or that opener jumps to 4S with 3=5=4=1 shape over 3H

I recognize that individual partnerships tend to develop their own meanings for sequences. I’m definitely in that camp in one partnership.

But in standard, 1H 1S 3D 3H 3S shows something like AQx AKxxx AQxx x

Unless playing Gazilli or something akin, where opener makes a cheap but forcing bid over 1S (in Gazilli, a potentially artificial and forcing 2C), opener should bid 3D over 1S. Committing to spades is silly. Picture Kxxx x KJxxx Axx where 7D is the desired contract, yet setting spades as trump over 1S eliminates any realistic chance of ev3n finding the diamond fit.

Meanwhile, responder would rebid 3H over 3D with hands such as KJxxx Qx Kxx xxx

He’d also do it with xxxx Qx KJx xxxx, and I doubt we’d enjoy 4S very much

So here’s my notion of mainstream bidding

1H 1S 3D 3H

3H is essentially a punt. In a BW MSC problem years ago, there was support for the notion that with a peculiar hand, responder could do it with a stiff Jack, but that wasn’t the panel consensus and I’m not suggesting it…merely observing that the expert consensus is the 3H says very little…it’s more that it denies certain holdings than that it sends any clear positive message. Responder can’t rebid spades, bid 3N or raise diamonds or jump to 4H and that’s about it.

3S by opener…3=5=4=1 or 3=5=5=0

3N. 2=5=4=2 with good clubs or one stopper and a difficult choice. Or 1=5=4=3. Or, very rarely 0=5=5=3…many such hands might choose 4D.

4C agrees hearts. Hearts are good enough that mere tolerance is sufficient. Slam try in hearts, but responder’s 4D is support, not a cue bid. Why? Because 3D might have been a 3 card suit.

Jx AKQxxx AQx Ax

Responder AQxx Jx KJxx xxx It’s possible that 4D might be better than 3H but responder would be uncomfortable passing opener’s 4H bid so might choose 3H, hoping to show diamonds (and slam interest) next time. After all, opener might be 6=3 reds but also might be 6=4 or 5=5 etc

I’m not claiming that ‘everyone’ in NA (at an expert level) would agree, especially not with everything. But I’m pretty sure that this approach would be fairly common, at least in NA in partnerships that play 2/1 without Gazilli or similar.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-05, 13:57, said:

I'm humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners.

We've decided 1♥:2♠ is drop dead so I don't have to worry about continuations with this partner, we do need to discuss splinters.

Glad I convinced you that can be drop dead, at least

I think you are wrong to be humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners: it's not much harder to remember a new card than an auction or the cards played, so long as it is basically a variant on a system you know. What's difficult is playing with a partner who doesn't remember his own card.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-05, 14:26, said:

Also a belated welcome to modern 2/1, where we cram as many hands as can fit into 1M-2♣ just because it's easier

Haha, I truly feel like I am groundbreaking with some of this stuff. Years ago when I was very new to the game and the Vancouver Bridge scene, thanks to Forums, I started playing 2♣ / 1M gf balanced or clubs. People would roll their eyes, laugh and shake their heads, now of course they are playing it.
Considering extending the 2♣ meaning is exhilarating. So 2♣/1M turns into GF, could have 3 card support for the major, otherwise completely undefined?

Apologies for continuing to have a side conversation while the very important but over my head discussion regarding 3♠ is going on.
Off to the club with my new meaning for 2♣/1M

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-February-05, 16:09, said:

Haha, I truly feel like I am groundbreaking with some of this stuff. Years ago when I was very new to the game and the Vancouver Bridge scene, thanks to Forums, I started playing 2♣ / 1M gf balanced or clubs. People would roll their eyes, laugh and shake their heads, now of course they are playing it.
Considering extending the 2♣ meaning is exhilarating. So 2♣/1M turns into GF, could have 3 card support for the major, otherwise completely undefined?

Apologies for continuing to have a side conversation while the very important but over my head discussion regarding 3♠ is going on.
Off to the club with my new meaning for 2♣/1M

You have to be careful…it’s possible to take this too far. Years ago I played a relay method wherein 1M 2C was completely artificial. It wasn’t legal in most ACBL events, so there we compromised so that it always had 3+ clubs even with much longer suits elsewhere

Absent a relay method, which I don’t recommend, 2C over 1S should, imo, be at worst 3442.

Over 1H, while there’s some merit in bidding 2C on 4=3=4=2 (because it sets the gf and avoids awkward problems after say 1H 1S 2H or 1H 1S 2D….in the latter, 3C is very unwieldy and in the former, you have to invent a way to force), I prefer 1S and, if you have 5 spades, you’ll never show them after 2C.

[DavidKok]

I play a method where 2♣ is an absolutely awful mess. I have no idea what the ACBL thinks about it. The method is very effective, surprisingly so over interference. Since you specifically asked I'm happy to briefly give the full method, and also a simpler version that I think is more common and almost as effective. It is worth pointing out that I think others call this (and even some less complicated versions of 2♣) 'relay' although you could argue it is not - for example, the answers are not coded shape-showing, we don't have followup relay bids clarifying opener's hand and whatnot.

Spoiler

1M-2♣ is forcing but not GF for me, showing one of five hand types:

• A GF hand with long clubs.
  
• A GF balanced hand without a fit for opener's major.
  
• A SI raise for opener's major (may even have short clubs, i.e. a 5=3=4=1 15-count over 1♠).
  
• 11-12 (semi)balanced hand without support for opener's major.
  
• 10-11 with 5(+) hearts and no support for spades (over 1♠ only).

The continuations are:

• 2♦ - natural diamonds, or any boring minimum. If the opening was 1♠, denies having 4(+) hearts.
  
• 2M - 6(+) in the opened major, not a minimum 6322 (so at least slight extras in either HCP or shape).
  
• 2oM - 5(+)M4(+)oM, 1♥-2♣; 2♠ shows a non-minimum but 1♠-2♣; 2♥ can be any lousy 11-count.
  
• 2NT - 15+ balanced
  
• 3♣ - 5(+)M4(+)♣ with extras.
  
• 3♦ - 5(+)M5(+)♦ with concentrated values, non-minimum.
  
• 3M - a not self-sufficient suit, 6(+) but usually 7(+), denies good support for other suits.
  
• 3oM - does not exist.
  
• 3NT - a self-sufficient 7(+)-card suit.

Over the common 1M-2♣; 2♦ as well as 1♠-2♣; 2♥ responder's rebids are:

• 2M - SI with a fit, asks opener to describe their hand further.
  
• 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2♠: 5(+)♣, 4(+)♠, GF.
  
• 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥: 10-11 5(+)♥ NF (note: on 1♠-2♣; 2♥ this hand bids 4♥).
  
• 2NT - 11-12 balanced, no fit, NF.
  
• 3♣ - GF long clubs
  
• 3♦ - GF long clubs with diamonds
  
• 3♥ and up: we should use these to distinguish the balanced hands (e.g. by strength), but since opener almost always has a minimum it's not a big cost to use 3NT and 4NT quantitative here.

What I would recommend playing is the 3-way 2♣ CLUBS or BAL or FIT, throwing out all my non-GF nonsense. I'd keep opener's rebid structure, but free up responder's second rebid to just clarify hand type (e.g. 2M shows a fit with at least mild SI and does not promise anything about clubs, 2NT is balanced, other bids show clubs and a second suit/extra length).

As mikeh pointed out you can take a plunge a step deeper and go for relay, where 2♣ doesn't promise anything about hand type but just says "I would like to know more about your hand, GF" and play shape-showing artificial responses. I think this is honestly not ideal, you are more vulnerable to interference, the bidding is already too high for most standard forms of relay so you'll be facing unpleasant compromises, it often exposes opener's hand (who is likely to become declarer), it is almost impossible to evaluate your hand as opener when responder hasn't said anything about shape and I think these methods really make a lot more sense with limited openers, e.g. in a strong club context.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-05, 17:26, said:

I play a method where 2♣ is an absolutely awful mess. I have no idea what the ACBL thinks about it. The method is very effective, surprisingly so over interference. Since you specifically asked I'm happy to briefly give the full method, and also a simpler version that I think is more common and almost as effective. It is worth pointing out that I think others call this (and even some less complicated versions of 2♣) 'relay' although you could argue it is not - for example, the answers are not coded shape-showing, we don't have followup relay bids clarifying opener's hand and whatnot.

Spoiler

1M-2♣ is forcing but not GF for me, showing one of five hand types:

• A GF hand with long clubs.
  
• A GF balanced hand without a fit for opener's major.
  
• A SI raise for opener's major (may even have short clubs, i.e. a 5=3=4=1 15-count over 1♠).
  
• 11-12 (semi)balanced hand without support for opener's major.
  
• 10-11 with 5(+) hearts and no support for spades (over 1♠ only).

The continuations are:

• 2♦ - natural diamonds, or any boring minimum. If the opening was 1♠, denies having 4(+) hearts.
  
• 2M - 6(+) in the opened major, not a minimum 6322 (so at least slight extras in either HCP or shape).
  
• 2oM - 5(+)M4(+)oM, 1♥-2♣; 2♠ shows a non-minimum but 1♠-2♣; 2♥ can be any lousy 11-count.
  
• 2NT - 15+ balanced
  
• 3♣ - 5(+)M4(+)♣ with extras.
  
• 3♦ - 5(+)M5(+)♦ with concentrated values, non-minimum.
  
• 3M - a not self-sufficient suit, 6(+) but usually 7(+), denies good support for other suits.
  
• 3oM - does not exist.
  
• 3NT - a self-sufficient 7(+)-card suit.

Over the common 1M-2♣; 2♦ as well as 1♠-2♣; 2♥ responder's rebids are:

• 2M - SI with a fit, asks opener to describe their hand further.
  
• 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2♠: 5(+)♣, 4(+)♠, GF.
  
• 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥: 10-11 5(+)♥ NF (note: on 1♠-2♣; 2♥ this hand bids 4♥).
  
• 2NT - 11-12 balanced, no fit, NF.
  
• 3♣ - GF long clubs
  
• 3♦ - GF long clubs with diamonds
  
• 3♥ and up: we should use these to distinguish the balanced hands (e.g. by strength), but since opener almost always has a minimum it's not a big cost to use 3NT and 4NT quantitative here.

What I would recommend playing is the 3-way 2♣ CLUBS or BAL or FIT, throwing out all my non-GF nonsense. I'd keep opener's rebid structure, but free up responder's second rebid to just clarify hand type (e.g. 2M shows a fit with at least mild SI and does not promise anything about clubs, 2NT is balanced, other bids show clubs and a second suit/extra length).

As mikeh pointed out you can take a plunge a step deeper and go for relay, where 2♣ doesn't promise anything about hand type but just says "I would like to know more about your hand, GF" and play shape-showing artificial responses. I think this is honestly not ideal, you are more vulnerable to interference, the bidding is already too high for most standard forms of relay so you'll be facing unpleasant compromises, it often exposes opener's hand (who is likely to become declarer), it is almost impossible to evaluate your hand as opener when responder hasn't said anything about shape and I think these methods really make a lot more sense with limited openers, e.g. in a strong club context.

I infer that you’ve not played relay.

Low level interference helps. If they double or bid 2D over 2C, they actually make the relay more efficient. A2H bid breaks even…doesn’t disrupt but doesn’t enhance.

If they compete higher, we revert to natural bidding. Including the ability to penalize. We collected a few numbers from opps who’d heard that the best defence to relay is to bid without values😀

Our relay method used an engine based on frequency of shapes, so that only the freakish hands were forced to jump around. It was incredibly effective so long as we both remembered. I studied for hours before every event we played, even after we’d been playing it for several years

For both of us, playing this method won us our first Team Trials, back to back in the late 1990’s, and I think our slam bidding was extremely good back then. We’re playing again, but we’re too old to sustain the memory work. Also, because of the structure of the relay, we opened a little sounder than we do these days, and we’ve have to rejigger the relays, especially the control steps, to cater to that, making them a little less efficient

Relay is not for the old or less than great memory ability😀

[akwoo]

One idea I've adopted in a couple partnerships is that 1H-2S (or 1H-2N if 1H-2S is your artificial game forcing raise) shows 5-6 spades, exactly 3 hearts, and invitational+ values. The simple responses are 3C/3D to game force in hearts/spades, and 3H/3S as both passable, but it's possible (especially after 1H-2S) to have better methods to cooperatively figure out which 5-3 fit to play in if you have both.

The main idea is to avoid the dreaded 1H-1S-2D-3C fsf auction where you are still trying to figure out strain at the 3 level. This way, it's clear that 3C is looking for one and only one thing, though it's not clear what it is.

Of course it doesn't help with the current hand. Here I agree responder should just give up on hearts.

I don't think grand is really findable without a relay method - either responder needs to find out about both the king of spades and the queen of hearts, or opener needs to find out about the queen of spades and the king of hearts. There isn't a good way to get to 6 keycard here, so I don't see a way to look for both (outside of a relay method).

[nullve]

akwoo, on 2023-February-05, 18:43, said:

I don't think grand is really findable without a relay method - either responder needs to find out about both the king of spades and the queen of hearts, or opener needs to find out about the queen of spades and the king of hearts. There isn't a good way to get to 6 keycard here, so I don't see a way to look for both (outside of a relay method).

One possibility:

1♥-1♠
3♦-3♠(1)
4♠(2)-4N(3)
5♦(4)-6♥(5)
7♠(6)-7N(7)
P

(1) 6+ S
(2) raise, often flawed
(3) RKC
(4) 1 or 4 key cards
(5) ♥Q ask*
(6) ♥Q
(7) contract

* it's a common agreement between Norwegian players that 6♣/♦/♥ over 4N(RKC(♠))-5♦ asks for a 3. round control in the bid suit.

[LBengtsson]

Back to the discussion very late. Although I agree with smerriman that South's hand does not technically qualify for a Soloway Jump Shift, given the indepth discussion that has followed it is evident that this hand is difficult to bid without a SJS.

In terms of distributional strength it comes out at about 15.5 on a Kaplan and Rubens evaluation, that is without knowing the ♥ fit between the two hands. Which South knows about as soon as his partner opens the bidding!

I actually think that a SJS is one of those bids in its original form that comes across heavily as 'I am looking for a slam straight away" as opposed to "I want to find the right contract and level please describe your hand further, and I want to keep the bidding open until game, maybe slam".

What the discussion has highlighted is the difficulty of having a long suit of your own with support for partner, and how awkward it is to bid these hands when you cannot make a game forcing bid on your first call. Good hand to post, jillybean +1

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2023-February-05, 19:37, said:

One possibility:

1♥-1♠
3♦-3♠(1)
4♠(2)-4N(3)
5♦(4)-6♥(5)
7♠(6)-7N(7)
P

(1) 6+ S
(2) raise, often flawed
(3) RKC
(4) 1 or 4 key cards
(5) ♥Q ask*
(6) ♥Q
(7) contract

* it's a common agreement between Norwegian players that 6♣/♦/♥ over 4N(RKC(♠))-5♦ asks for a 3. round control in the bid suit.

Is it a common agreement to use keycard and then somehow guess whether partner has Kx AQxxx AKQx Qx. Or Kx AQxxx AKxx Kx?

If so, your methods are likely to involve illicit communication of some kind, lol

Using keycard when it is trivial to construct hands, consistent with the auction, where one has no idea whether, after an entirely plausible response, one can make slam or are down off the top is not a habit most good players develope.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-February-05, 16:06, said:

Glad I convinced you that can be drop dead, at least

Only sometimes! happy to play it as this is what this partner prefers. However, I do like the SJS and so playing 1♥:1NT 2x:2♠ as drop dead, we don't lose anything do we?

mikeh, on 2023-February-05, 16:45, said:

You have to be careful…it’s possible to take this too far.

Yes, I'm only going to experiment & fool around with it for a while, should it come up. It's likely to fall flat rather quickly because I very much doubt that I can get partner on board, even to try it and he will have no idea what I'm doing.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-February-06, 00:48, said:

However, I do like the SJS and so playing 1♥:1NT 2x:2♠ as drop dead, we don't lose anything do we?

As long as partner is kind enough not to jump past 2♠, and the opponents don't bid 3m while you hide your decent 6-card suit on the first round.

For what it's worth it is somewhat controversial to even include a four card spade suit in 1♥-1NT. I think including a weak hand with long spades is not a good idea at all.

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2023-February-05, 20:34, said:

Is it a common agreement to use keycard and then somehow guess whether partner has Kx AQxxx AKQx Qx. Or Kx AQxxx AKxx Kx?

If so, your methods are likely to involve illicit communication of some kind, lol

Using keycard when it is trivial to construct hands, consistent with the auction, where one has no idea whether, after an entirely plausible response, one can make slam or are down off the top is not a habit most good players develope.

Not every good player thinks it's a good idea to start cuebidding at the five-level. For example:

Fred Gitelman, in Improving 2/1 GF, Part 2 said:

Always remember WE NEVER CUE-BID AT THE FIVE LEVEL.