[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2018-March-25, 13:36, said:

So they overbid by one level to help partner decide what to do if the opponents follow your lead?

Bidding at the 4 level with a known 11 card fit is not overbidding.

[Cyberyeti]

steve2005, on 2018-March-25, 14:45, said:

Mini-splinter over an overcall? 3♣ just forces it doesn't have to be a splinter.

What I call a mini splinter is mini in points, it's still a 4♣ bid.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-March-26, 11:13, said:

What I call a mini splinter is mini in points, it's still a 4♣ bid.

It usually causes confusion to use words in idiosyncratic ways.

[GrahamJson]

A mini splinter is usually taken to mean a jump to the three level below the agreed suit, so that partner can sign off at the three level if he has an unsuitable hand. A splinter jump to the four level is, well, a splinter.

https://www.bridgeha...ni-Splinter.htm

[Cyberyeti]

GrahamJson, on 2018-March-26, 11:54, said:

A mini splinter is usually taken to mean a jump to the three level below the agreed suit, so that partner can sign off at the three level if he has an unsuitable hand. A splinter jump to the four level is, well, a splinter.

https://www.bridgeha...ni-Splinter.htm

But I thought it had to be a jump which 3♣ isn't over 2♣ overcall.

[Joe_Old]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-March-26, 13:07, said:

But I thought it had to be a jump which 3♣ isn't over 2♣ overcall.

If the purpose of a mini splinter is to give opener the option of bailing out at the 3 level, a response at the 4 level defeats that purpose. Bidding at the 4 level turns a limit bid into a forcing bid, thus overstating responder's values.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2018-March-25, 14:30, said:

I'm with you all the way and authorise you to tell p so
Splinters in a 2/1 system with fast arrival are all about hands that are just strong enough to risk game.
That way you give a clear message about strength as well as distribution, and have a good reason to pre-empt.
In this case p should realise that there is no chance of slam, and if he really does want to check he should control-bid 4♦ as you say.

Splinters are all about getting to thin slams, which is why they should not be based on Controls rather than HCP. In competition other considerations may apply.

[apollo1201]

Even in my country where we play probably weaker splinters (hands with often 2 « nice » features and a singleton) than in NA, the hand is a bit too weak. But even if played stronger splinters, South with a flattish and quacky 16-count (and no uncontrolled suit!) should stop at 4S. So 4NT is a bad bid but not as atrocious as W’s over call red vs green with a lousy suit and 5332 10 count. E seems to be aware of his partner’s style as he didn’t bid 5C...

[miamijd]

North has a 9-loser hand; that's too weak for a splinter (but see below). 4S is the only realistic option unless you have a gadget available to show a game-level preempt with some defense.

South didn't bid perfectly. A balanced 17 with AQx in the splinter suit with the King known to be offside isn't so great. XX over the X seems clear to me.

As far as splinters go, they are not slammish. They are game-forcing picture bids that allow partner to move ahead if he thinks the hands are a perfect fit (or if he has a lot of extra strength). Anything beyond a minimum opening bid is too good for a splinter. Make the Jh the Ah and you have a splinter (slam still isn't so good).

Cheers,
Mike

[neilkaz]

Shocking bidding all around here. North's hand with an ace and two jacks is a preemptive raise and not close to a splinter. South shouldn't bid blackwood with two possible fast losers in ♥ especially when has two other bids available to check controls. XX should show first round ♣ control and 4♦ would show the ♦ control.

The overcall red vs white with a hand too weak to open in most systems and a lousy 5 card suit is really bad. What was the purpose of that X of the splinter with a hand where you usually don't want ♣ lead? Or does XX suggest a sac? Sac'ing at the 5 level red vs white requires a special hand to work well.

Anyhow, this is too weak to splinter and South should cue rather than 4NT.

[pescetom]

Joe_Old, on 2018-March-26, 08:48, said:

Splinters were created to find slams opposite a shapely 14 count or a grand opposite a shapely 18. Originally they were intended to set trump, force game and invite slam, meaning that game was all but guaranteed opposite a 4432 12 count.

Can you quote a source for that?
I realise that it is quite common in NA to play splinters so strong, but most common internet sources indicate lower point ranges. Bridgeguys goes into some detail about the history of the convention and then says 9-12 with a void or 10-13 with a singleton. Usually conservative intermediate-level teachers are close, with Richard Pavlicek giving an example of 11 and Larry Cohen specifying 11-15 "counting shape". Italian and French teachers of 2/1 indicate 9-11 not counting shape and specifically advise against splintering with more strength.

[Joe_Old]

pescetom, on 2018-March-27, 06:25, said:

Can you quote a source for that?
I realise that it is quite common in NA to play splinters so strong, but most common internet sources indicate lower point ranges. Bridgeguys goes into some detail about the history of the convention and then says 9-12 with a void or 10-13 with a singleton. Usually conservative intermediate-level teachers are close, with Richard Pavlicek giving an example of 11 and Larry Cohen specifying 11-15 "counting shape". Italian and French teachers of 2/1 indicate 9-11 not counting shape and specifically advise against splintering with more strength.

I was writing about the standard in the late 1960's (I believe that would be the date, maybe slightly later) when I first learned it. Responder was expected to have a hand that would be a bare opener, at best, as you describe. The 14 and 18 HCP (ranges) that I quoted refer to opener's hand, not responder's.

Sorry if I was unclear.

As a side note, I know of some strong players (NABC+ champions) who experimented with "unlimited" splinters. The thought was that even if opener's hand was square, a suitably powerful and shapely responder could compensate. It didn't work well for a number of reasons and they soon returned to the standard treatment. To the best of my knowledge none of them ever wrote about their experiment.

[dokoko]

I judge:

N to blame 50% for getting to high because 4♣ is an overbid, but:
S to blame 100% for getting to high because he has no reason to go past 4♠ when neither partner has a ♥-control.

(please don't argue my arithmetic)

If you exchange ♠A and ♠3, North has his bid and they go down in 6♠

[xbabarx]

4s

[Stephen Tu]

So IMO 9-11 HCP is too low to be useful often enough. You need some ~27 or so working HCP (or compensating extra shape from the other side) for slam to be good on average, no? If you are spl on 9 count, you need partner to have both considerable extra values AND no wastage, instead of just a sound min and no wastage. Those hands are rare. And 12-14 hcp isn't really enough to drive safely beyond game yourself if partner isn't cooperating which he will have to signoff often if you usually have 10 HCP only.

To me 12-14/13-15 or some approximation of that is more useful range, you have go/no go decision based on partner's holding in the suit far more often.

If you utilize *tiered splinters*, e.g. 1s-3nt = 9-11 spl any suit (4c asks), 1s-4x = 12-14 spl, then showing 9-11 is fine, still have both ranges covered.

In competition your options are more limited though, perhaps one can cue bid those hands rather than spl, then have some followup asks for a spl if opener is extra strong.

For original hand this post, spl is just way too much.

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-March-27, 08:11, said:

So IMO 9-11 HCP is too low to be useful often enough. You need some ~27 or so working HCP (or compensating extra shape from the other side) for slam to be good on average, no? If you are spl on 9 count, you need partner to have both considerable extra values AND no wastage, instead of just a sound min and no wastage. Those hands are rare. And 12-14 hcp isn't really enough to drive safely beyond game yourself if partner isn't cooperating which he will have to signoff often if you usually have 10 HCP only.

You're trying to use the Splinter convention in a different way from OP, let's call it "Strong Splinter" - Joe Old described it well, your splinter is a slam invite and already guarantees game opposite almost any opening. Nothing wrong with that if it fits the rest of your system.

But OP and many of us prefer to play "Weak Splinter" instead - splinter shows a hand that is unlikely to make game opposite a really minimum opening, but still gives a precise basis on which to seek slam if opener has a really strong hand and no wasted honours. A speculative and aggressive bid like this fits neatly into a 2/1 system with weak jumps and fast arrival and has the benefit of making the pre-emptive jump where it is really useful (strong in attack only). Stronger hands can go through 2/1 GF and then show shortness in other ways. The fact that splinter responder has limited his strength to a fairly narrow range is invaluable to opener with a so-so hand like S in this example.

[Vampyr]

miamijd, on 2018-March-26, 16:24, said:

As far as splinters go, they are not slammish. They are game-forcing picture bids that allow partner to move ahead if he thinks the hands are a perfect fit (or if he has a lot of extra strength). Anything beyond a minimum opening bid is too good for a splinter. Make the Jh the Ah and you have a splinter (slam still isn't so good).

I think you are quibbling over semantics above. You would just bid game if there were no hope of getting (infrequently) to a thin slam. But anyway I think that HCP are the wrong approach. I play splinters as 3 or 4 controls. So with an ace and a kind they could be as few as 7 HCP and with two kings and an ace they could be 10, maybe 11. You wouldn’t want too have many queens and jacks with the controls, because then you are nearing a high-card raise to game, where slam may be possible on power if partner has extras.

I am not sure but I believe that most play that you can also splinter with a monster, intending to bid on after partner’s signoff. But I think that a hand you wold choose to bid that way would be very rare.

[Caitlynne]

You were far too weak.

A Splinter raise promises:
1. Shortness
2. 4+ card support
3. Enough values to make slam likely if partner has sound values without wasted honor values opposite your short suit
4. Lack of a strong 5 card or longer side suit - it is all about ruffing values as the path to slam

So, if partner opens 1S and you hold:
Axxx, x, Kxxx, KJxx, you have a perfect Splinter and your hand is primarily about your ability to ruff hearts
Axxx, x, Kxxx, Jxxx, you should make an invitational raise - you are too weak for a Splinter
AKQ, x, Kxxxx, Qxxx, you should bid 2D and not Splinter because you lack 4 card support
Qxxx, x, AKJxx, Kxx, you should bid 2D and not Splinter because your hand is about having a source of tricks in diamonds, not primarily about ruffing values in hearts

[Stephen Tu]

pescetom, on 2018-March-27, 10:01, said:

But OP and many of us prefer to play "Weak Splinter" instead - splinter shows a hand that is unlikely to make game opposite a really minimum opening, but still gives a precise basis on which to seek slam if opener has a really strong hand and no wasted honours.

If you are splintering as weak as the original poster, basically he is catering to reaching slam only opposite a hand as strong as AKxxx AK KQx xxx. If partner has exactly that, yes, you win. How many thousands of times are you going to spl for no gain in the meantime? If you have a preemptive raise to 4M, just preemptive raise. Here gave East a chance to double with support but then avoid the bad sac when West had a joke overcall. And tempted partner who didn't know was supposed to wait for 19 HCP or equiv in distribution no wastage to move towards slam. (Agree other posters South should cue 4d and pass 4s when no 4h call)

If you are splintering stronger than OP, but weaker than I prefer, 9-11 as you suggest, occasionally at the low end you go down, but again slam is remote and you make bidding the stronger hands more difficult. How are you going to bid 13 HCP with a stiff? Those are the hands that are hard to bid, you have slam opposite the right holdings from partner, but not a big enough moose to insist on slam or move beyond game yourself. 9-11, slam is just way more rare. Why not just LR+ cue 3c with those (or if not in comp, used tiered spl or put some of them into a Bergen raise type of thing if you are doing that), and have some gadget for opener to ask shortness over that when he does have a moose?

What's the upside of bidding games that are unlikely to make? What's the upside of catering to slam only when opener has a moose, and making it way harder to find slam opposite more frequent medium strength hands, because you can no longer make the most descriptive call (if you are only playing one way to splinter)?

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-March-27, 12:05, said:

If you are splintering as weak as the original poster, basically he is catering to reaching slam only opposite a hand as strong as AKxxx AK KQx xxx. If partner has exactly that, yes, you win. How many thousands of times are you going to spl for no gain in the meantime? If you have a preemptive raise to 4M, just preemptive raise. Here gave East a chance to double with support but then avoid the bad sac when West had a joke overcall. And tempted partner who didn't know was supposed to wait for 19 HCP or equiv in distribution no wastage to move towards slam. (Agree other posters South should cue 4d and pass 4s when no 4h call)

If you are splintering stronger than OP, but weaker than I prefer, 9-11 as you suggest, occasionally at the low end you go down, but again slam is remote and you make bidding the stronger hands more difficult. How are you going to bid 13 HCP with a stiff? Those are the hands that are hard to bid, you have slam opposite the right holdings from partner, but not a big enough moose to insist on slam or move beyond game yourself. 9-11, slam is just way more rare. Why not just LR+ cue 3c with those (or if not in comp, used tiered spl or put some of them into a Bergen raise type of thing if you are doing that), and have some gadget for opener to ask shortness over that when he does have a moose?

What's the upside of bidding games that are unlikely to make? What's the upside of catering to slam only when opener has a moose, and making it way harder to find slam opposite more frequent medium strength hands, because you can no longer make the most descriptive call (if you are only playing one way to splinter)?

I'm splintering slightly (but not much) stronger than the OP, just as most bridge books and sources seem to suggest. It almost never happens that I splinter with no gain, unless you mean no gain versus just bidding game (which is no safer and is less efficient if there is indeed a chance of slam). Occasionally we go down one trick and even more rarely (once or twice per year) this costs a MP bottom when others stopped in a partial or sent the opps down. Far more often we get a good score by stopping in game when others are fumbling for an impossible slam, and if the slam is on we bid it without problem anyway. When responder is stronger than our splinter range we have several ways to show shortness after forcing to game at 2-level, and no reason to pre-empt.