[kenrexford]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 14:47, said:

I would always bid 2N with this hand, never 2♣ so this is a very interesting discussion. I would not splinter here, my hand is a little too strong.

As phil_20686 touches on, I play 2C/1M as gf clubs or balanced, most often a 3 card M raise and this is not a hand I would have made a gf 'clubs' bid on. How does this agreement affect this appraoch? Partner does not know I have clubs until later, 2♣/1M I could be as few as 2. (yes, we alert)

Often it develops through the auction. If, for example, you show unbalanced, then clubs are natural.

Consider 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-4♦ as a simple example. If 4♦ is a splinter (caveat for Mike), you cannot have started with a balanced hand. Therefore, the club call must be natural.

If the auction takes longer, like 1♠-2♣, 2♦-2♠, 3♣-4♦(splinter assumed -- for Mike), you might still get the message sent.

There can be auctions where it gets difficult to handle, but then that also is a reason to consider alternatives. Here, none of the majority of rebids from Opener will cause a problem, so 2♣ seems easy. With different structures, or different patterns, the hand might foretell a problem and argue for an alternative like a Splinter or Jac2NT (if OK with Mike).



BTW -- since you now established that 2♠ rebids promise 5+, the same principles apply that I mentioned earlier. Opener still is very likely to respond 2♦ or 2♥. But, I would recommend in this specific auction adding in 2♦ by Opener as "diamonds or balanced," both because a lot of good players are doing this now (apparently) and because it just makes life easier in the long run. But, that's just a proposal.

[phil_20686]

daveharty, on 2012-April-16, 14:35, said:

No, it's just that splinters are very expensive, so a lot of people like to play them as strictly limited (say, 10-12 HCP or whatever), and use another route when the hand is stronger than that.

EDIT: Sorry broze, you're too quick for me.

Think std is about 10-14, at least in this part of the world. Appreciate the reasons for a smaller range, but if you make them to narrow you never use them

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-16, 14:42, said:

When you have two mainstream approaches (2♠ can be bid with 5; 2♠ promises six) but the OP does not state which approach is used, I think it to hardly be idiosyncratic or brilliant to comment that responding 2♣ probably will allow for a simple second call of 2♠ because the odds of a 2♠ rebid is lower when you have four cards, especially when I caveated at the end that all of this requires an analysis of methods, which were not stated.

In other words, lighten up Francis. In my honest opinion, you are WAY off base with your comments.



I mean, your own comments assume a response structure to 2NT that was not stated, assume that 4♦ is a splinter if Opener rebids spades, assumes for that matter that Opener would rebid spades with your proposed hand (which assumes the opposite treatment without the OP claiming that), and assumes that 4♥ after a splinter is a true cue and not LTTC, which also was not stated. Where do YOU get the right to assume methods not stated but others cannot even with caveats given?

Ken, let's not get involved in another tedious, boring flame war.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-16, 14:42, said:

I mean, your own comments assume a response structure to 2NT that was not stated, assume that 4♦ is a splinter if Opener rebids spades, assumes for that matter that Opener would rebid spades with your proposed hand (which assumes the opposite treatment without the OP claiming that), and assumes that 4♥ after a splinter is a true cue and not LTTC, which also was not stated. Where do YOU get the right to assume methods not stated but others cannot even with caveats given?

I am shocked, truly shocked, that Mike would assume that the OP has standard agreements until the OP indicated otherwise.

[MrAce]

I dont mind either 2♣ or 2 NT, but i think direct splinter with that hand is a joke.

[mike777]

MrAce, on 2012-April-16, 15:47, said:

I dont mind either 2♣ or 2 NT, but i think direct splinter with that hand is a joke.

ditto

[blackshoe]

Just to throw some more hydrogen on the fire , I would bid 3NT with that hand, playing the admittedly non-standard Hardy Raise structure. The bid shows a good 12 to a bad 15 HCP, 4(+) spades, and a singleton or void in some side suit.

[jillybean]

Yuk
all that room wasted...

[dwar0123]

broze, on 2012-April-16, 14:34, said:

No, the main reason mikeh dismissed the splinter bid is because the hand is too strong. To make the bid effective you need to place a limit on HCP and the standard range is about 9-11. Otherwise, I would just about prioritise the splinter over the 2/1.

Ah thanks, another bad habit identified and understood. This does seem about 2 points weaker then what I remembered when I last played bridge a lot 20 years ago but it certainty makes sense.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on 2012-April-16, 15:31, said:

I am shocked, truly shocked, that Mike would assume that the OP has standard agreements until the OP indicated otherwise.

I am not sure, but I would actually be surprised to find out that repeating a major with a 5-card suit is deemed "standard" in a 2/1 context. I understand that there is a lot of popularity to that approach, but "standard" seems to imply either majority or majority in the context of mainstream or at least expected in the context of "no discussion." In running a Google search on this, I ran into Larry Cohen claiming that a rebid promises 6 and Eric Rodwell saying that it promises six. If I recall correctly, the basic difference is between Hardy and Lawrence, with lawrence thinking being along the "nopt necessarily GF" strain and hence not 2/1. Something similar, but not true 2/1GF, as the lack of the GF makes it not GF.

My point, though, was not that Mike made an assumption (apparently a Lawrence assumption) but that my assumption (Hardy/Cohen/Rodwell?) was attacked as some sort of trolling or something.

That said, I remain questioning as to whether 5+ is in fact "standard" for 2/1. I would expect 6+ to be "standard."

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 12:30, said:

---

I know some players like to make a 2/1 2♣ bid with this hand rather than a J2N raise.
How important is it to show a 4card raise, what do you think of 2♣ rather than 2N ?

There have been a number of similar theads on this subject..... at least 2 or 3 this year.
I always used to be of the opinion to show a GF Support Raise ( such as Jacoby, but modified ) but
I'm leaning toward a 2/1 with a good 5 card suit ( perhaps as little as a good 4 cards ).
I'm not sure if it is mikeh or Ken's arguments in these threads that has "moved me " .

The thing is, you can find a double-fit with the following bidding:
1M - 2m!
3m - 3M ( eventho this only promises 3 cards, Responder may very well become Captain )

But you can't the other way around:
1M - modified Jac2NT
3D! ( artificial showing NO shortness, but extras ) - 4C or 4D now are cuebids , NOT a natural 4+ minor suit

With the double-fit auction, I would use 6 Ace-RKC .

If Opener cannot support your 2/1 suit, no matter... agree the Major and commence with the "Serious/Non-serious" and cuebids and LTTC ( Last Train... ) if needed.

[Cthulhu D]

broze, on 2012-April-16, 12:38, said:

I would always bid 2♣ (showing 5 in my partnership) with this hand. For me J2NT is more of a last resort than a go-to convention, ideally with a fairly balanced hand.

How do you get 2C to always show 5 after 1S? I play the others as 5, but 2C is clubs or balanced because otherwise I am doomed with hands like:

S: Ax
H: Axxx
D: Axxx
C: AKx

Or is it (4)5+?

[jmcw]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 12:30, said:

---

I know some players like to make a 2/1 2♣ bid with this hand rather than a J2N raise.
How important is it to show a 4card raise, what do you think of 2♣ rather than 2N ?

I very much doubt you'll get a convincing answer to your basic question. I wonder how one would go about "proving" their respective point of view.

FWIW I never 2/1 with 4 or more trumps and I never Jacoby with a stiff or void. This is clearly a splinter for me.
I've been playing that system for a long time. I think it works ok.

One think for sure. With 9+ card fit and the 3 top honors it would be unlikely to drop a trump trick, the same cannot be said if the trump length may only be 8.
Splinters show 4 or more trumps and are unlimited for me. I don't understand why folks apply a top limit "to make the bid effective". Perhaps, they will respond.

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-16, 15:05, said:

Think std is about 10-14, at least in this part of the world. Appreciate the reasons for a smaller range, but if you make them to narrow you never use them

I prefer to define them by number of controls; you are not going to get to the thin slams holding four queens. Well, you might get to them, but you won't make them!

[the_clown]

With a 6th♣, I would certaily bid 2♣+3♠. I dont feel this hand is good enough for it (The jump to 3S would show a 4card support and a pretty good side suit as a source of tricks). For me it is a 50-50 choice between a splinter and 2NT. If I have 3♦ available as splinter I would probably bid that, otherwise 2N

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 16:55, said:

Yuk
all that room wasted...

Is it really? Do you know the whole system?

[jillybean]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-16, 14:52, said:

BTW -- since you now established that 2♠ rebids promise 5+, the same principles apply that I mentioned earlier. Opener still is very likely to respond 2♦ or 2♥. But, I would recommend in this specific auction adding in 2♦ by Opener as "diamonds or balanced," both because a lot of good players are doing this now (apparently) and because it just makes life easier in the long run. But, that's just a proposal.

This is interesting and I will mention it to my partner.

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-April-16, 17:58, said:

There have been a number of similar theads on this subject..... at least 2 or 3 this year.
I always used to be of the opinion to show a GF Support Raise ( such as Jacoby, but modified ) but
I'm leaning toward a 2/1 with a good 5 card suit ( perhaps as little as a good 4 cards ).
I'm not sure if it is mikeh or Ken's arguments in these threads that has "moved me " .

The thing is, you can find a double-fit with the following bidding:
1M - 2m!
3m - 3M ( eventho this only promises 3 cards, Responder may very well become Captain )

But you can't the other way around:
1M - modified Jac2NT
3D! ( artificial showing NO shortness, but extras ) - 4C or 4D now are cuebids , NOT a natural 4+ minor suit

With the double-fit auction, I would use 6 Ace-RKC .

If Opener cannot support your 2/1 suit, no matter... agree the Major and commence with the "Serious/Non-serious" and cuebids and LTTC ( Last Train... ) if needed.

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.
I understand the reasoning for the 2/1 rather than the Jac2NT and I like it. We do play a modifed Jacoby and have discussed S3N but it has never come up, or we have missed it. I don't know 6 Ace-RKC and don't know the details of LTTC. They do sound interesting, whether I need them or not or if there is room on my CC is another thing.

jmcw, on 2012-April-16, 18:38, said:

FWIW I never 2/1 with 4 or more trumps and I never Jacoby with a stiff or void. This is clearly a splinter for me.
I've been playing that system for a long time. I think it works ok.

When I picked up splinters I would splinter on any hand that had a stiff or void. I think now my system is much better defined and effective since limiting splinters to specific, weaker hands. However what ever works for you is best, there are a multitude of ways to approach this game.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-16, 19:16, said:

Is it really? Do you know the whole system?

I don't know a thing about the system, you may have missed the
I do know that it seems preferable to agree to a fit as early as perhaps the 2 level and preserve one entire level as opposed to forcing partner to the 4 level.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 20:13, said:

I don't know a thing about the system, you may have missed the
I do know that it seems preferable to agree to a fit as early as perhaps the 2 level and preserve one entire level as opposed to forcing partner to the 4 level.

Fair enough, but a splinter, particularly one with that much high card strength, is a slam try. I don't think it's out of line to use up a little space, particularly if lower level bids are allocated meanings looking for game or part score more than slam. Hardy Raises are perhaps not the theoretical best approach to major suit raises (frankly, I don't know what is), but they're better than some — including, IMO, Bergen.

How would you structure responses such that agreeing partner's major at the two level is game forcing or more? A natural 2/1 may be forcing to game, but it doesn't establish the major suit fit. And if you start with that, are you going to be able to show both the fit and the shortage later?

[the hog]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-April-16, 12:46, said:

Hi,

J2N.

If you bid 2C, your next bid will be 3S, and you start the
slam exploration on the 4 level.

If you bid 2NT, you start a whole level lower.

With kind regards
Marlowe

True, however your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣
2C is a far superior bid, (as is a splinter for that matter.) Mike commented that the hand was too strong for a splinter, however you can of course, play 2 ranges of splinter. (eg over 1S 3NT = 13-14 any, and 4? = 10-12). I still prefer 2C and think jacoby is a joke on this hand.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-16, 22:36, said:

How would you structure responses such that agreeing partner's major at the two level is game forcing or more? A natural 2/1 may be forcing to game, but it doesn't establish the major suit fit. And if you start with that, are you going to be able to show both the fit and the shortage later?

The method I play 1♠ 2♣* 2♦/♥ 2♠ shows a gf ♠ hand. Once the major fit is identified we start a cue bid sequence, allowing repsonder to show shortage. Admittedly, the usual sequence is 1S 2m 2S so we don't often find the fit at the 2level but when we do, we have exchanged a lot of information below the 2M level.