[PriorKnowledge]

Playing 2/1 GF with no interference, in the sequence
1♠ - 2♣ - 3♦

Does the 3♦ bid show a club splinter or an extra strength spade-diam 2-suiter?

[flytoox]

PriorKnowledge, on Jul 2 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF with no interference, in the sequence
1♠ - 2♣ - 3♦

Does the 3♦ bid show a club splinter or an extra strength spade-diam 2-suiter?

In either 2/1 or sayc, 3D should be splinter for club, coz 2/1 establish gf, any unnecessary jump rebid is pic bidding. jump rebid the opening suit is solid suit, requestin pd to cuebid. jump rebid a new suit is showing singleton, with good spt for pd's suit.

mike lawrence's 2/1 workbook has discussed this sequence throughly.

Hongjun

[luis]

Club splinter no doubts.

[Flame]

I dont think one is better then the other, playing it as 5/5 strong is imo just as good as spliter. I used to play this as 5/5 weak when played sayc.

[inquiry]

I am not so certain as fly about the meaning of this jumpshift in 2/1. I think it is ambiguous at best until you define how you play it. When the jumpshift is to the four level, it is clearly a splinter (3 level rebids promise extra anyway).

There are two schools of thought about this jump to 3♦. You can play it as a splinter with support of or you can play it as a strong 5/5 hand with a concentration of values in your two suits. I doubt there is a "STANDARD" way to play this, you have to specifically agree with your partner. Some even play if a reverse at the two level was available, a jump to the three is splinter, if not 5/5 or better and strong.

Of course if you read one persons or anothers "2/1 system", they will define what it means for them.

Ben

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jul 2 2004, 05:29 PM, said:

I am not so certain as fly about the meaning of this jumpshift in 2/1. I think it is ambiguous at best until you define how you play it. When the jumpshift is to the four level, it is clearly a splinter (3 level rebids promise extra anyway).

There are two schools of thought about this jump to 3♦. You can play it as a splinter with support of or you can play it as a strong 5/5 hand with a concentration of values in your two suits. I doubt there is a "STANDARD" way to play this, you have to specifically agree with your partner. Some even play if a reverse at the two level was available, a jump to the three is splinter, if not 5/5 or better and strong.

Of course if you read one persons or anothers "2/1 system", they will define what it means for them.

Ben

I agree with Ben.

I consider it reasonable to treat 3♦ and a picture bid showing Spades and Diamonds and use a 4♦ jump as the splinter raise.

This is one of those sequences where some discussion in advance would be useful.

[flytoox]

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

From a theoretical point of view, chance that you have singleton and a fit for pd is much higher than you have a strong two suiter.

Hongjun

[Flame]

flytoox, on Jul 2 2004, 09:57 AM, said:

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

From a theoretical point of view, chance that you have singleton and a fit for pd is much higher than you have a strong two suiter.

Hongjun

When working out which bid is best its not enough to check which hand is more luckly accure. You should also check how much you will benefit from this bid, if for example splinter accure twice as much, but strong 5/5 is twice as imporent to show, then the bids are just as good.

[vang]

flytoox, on Jul 2 2004, 09:57 AM, said:

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

uh. i don't know hardy, but in lawrence, if i remember corectly, this jump shows a good 5-5, concentrated suits, some extra values etc

[Flame]

I didn't read Max Hardy or Mike Lawrence , or any other book about the subject, but do you consider their suggestions as a serious thoretical analization, or they just show an ok system with its logic that will help all around players.

[Trpltrbl]

In my 2/1 this shows a minisplinter, 6-9 HCP and at least 4 trump.

Quote

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

You don't have to play anything they say, just because they say so.
I like to use my own mind a little, while it is still working

Mike

[flytoox]

vang, on Jul 2 2004, 03:46 PM, said:

flytoox, on Jul 2 2004, 09:57 AM, said:

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

uh. i don't know hardy, but in lawrence, if i remember corectly, this jump shows a good 5-5, concentrated suits, some extra values etc

I just check Lawrence's book. There are a few different cases:

1) 1s 2c/d
3h
3h=strong two suiter

2) 1s 2h
4c/d
4c/d=splinter

3) 1s/h 2c
3d

no definition.


I also check Bergen's better bidding with bergen. In his book, he clearly define jump to three of a new suit as splinter.

[flytoox]

Trpltrbl, on Jul 2 2004, 08:27 PM, said:

In my 2/1 this shows a minisplinter, 6-9 HCP and at least 4 trump.

Quote

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

You don't have to play anything they say, just because they say so.
I like to use my own mind a little, while it is still working

Mike

Everybody can use whatever he or she likes, but I think it is wiser to listen to authority's opinion before we start to devise our own sys.

[flytoox]

Flame, on Jul 2 2004, 04:08 PM, said:

I didn't read Max Hardy or Mike Lawrence , or any other book about the subject, but do you consider their suggestions as a serious thoretical analization, or they just show an ok system with its logic that will help all around players.

You can call me a blind follower of Lawrence But seriously, I think every single piece of his suggestion deserves our consideration.

Hongjun

[luke warm]

it's a fallacy to appeal to authority only in a debate.. it's a practicality in most (all?) other areas, bridge included

while i think flame has a point re: asking which meaning helps the p'ship more, rather than which is theoretically correct, i seem to sense in some other posts more than a little disrespect (verging on ridicule) for those who have won multiple national titles, and in lawrence's case a world title or two... both bergen and lawrence have well-deserved reputations as bridge theorists... to place ones own opinion over theirs, without the experience or reputation built on results to back it up, seems foolish

it makes me wonder whether or not they understand that comparing their skills to some of these great players is the same as comparing apples to oranges

[Flame]

Luke you are wrong, i love lawrence, i admire his geniousty in bridge and love his sense of humor, i seriosly ask wather a book on 2/1 by lawrence, or a book such as better bridge with bergen suppose to give a serious analysis that can lead to a conclusion such as "this is the best way to play it" , which is for example what zar was trying to do by cheking thousends of hands, or its a book explaining nice and good (but not necessary or even claimed to be best) to play a system.
Dont get me wrong, i think those books are great and my bridge would be much better much sooner if i read them instead of learning it the hard way at the field, but i dont think or atleast not sure that those books ment to show the best way, but they ment to show a good effective way.

[luke warm]

i wasn't criticizing you, flame... i think your post had merit, and i even said so... i was trying to address a tendency i've seen in some (not you - i've never seen you do this) to ridicule expert opinion, and was questioning the experience or result-based reputation that led to this

that isn't to say that we don't have the right to express our opinions, only that the opinions based on tournament experience and obvious skill, evidenced by results, might be more valuable

[Free]

Trpltrbl, on Jul 2 2004, 09:27 PM, said:

In my 2/1 this shows a minisplinter, 6-9 HCP and at least 4 trump.

Quote

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

You don't have to play anything they say, just because they say so.
I like to use my own mind a little, while it is still working

Mike

Minisplinter????? With what do you open in 2/1?

For me it's a normal splinter, minimum hand with support...

[bearmum]

I reckon it depends on partnership agreement

[Trpltrbl]

Free, on Jul 3 2004, 06:19 AM, said:

Trpltrbl, on Jul 2 2004, 09:27 PM, said:

In my 2/1 this shows a minisplinter, 6-9 HCP and at least 4 trump.

Quote

In both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence's 2/1 sys, this new suit jump rebid is splinter. I believe this should be authoritatvie enough.

You don't have to play anything they say, just because they say so.
I like to use my own mind a little, while it is still working

Mike

Minisplinter????? With what do you open in 2/1?

For me it's a normal splinter, minimum hand with support...

I play mini-splinters, 6-9 HCP, regular splinters, 10-14, and maxi splinters, 15+.
1M-3♣ is either a mini-splinter in ♣ or 8-10 HCP and 4+ trump.
1M-2NT is 4+ card limitraise or better, which includes the maxisplinter.
After opps interfere we still play the minisplinter or regular splinter as long as we can jump to it. Will get you to games most people don't even try for.

Mike