All News

Shape!

Never mind the high-card point count. Take a look at one’s shape. Well, best look at both! How good then is the following 8-count after one’s partner opens 1S? I thought today we would take a look at how our Panel approach the following hand which technically is not strong enough to force to game but has plenty of potential.

Pairs. E/W Vul.

 

This is perhaps the conventional approach.

Peter Newell “2: and followed by 4. The value of these hands often will revolve around partner’s fit for my 6 card suit, and while I only have  8 points, the intermediates (9,10s) and shape make this a much stronger hand. When I rebid 4, I'm showing a delayed game raise with good diamonds.  It is usually a poor choice to splinter in these types of hands with a small doubleton in 1 suit and a good 6- carder in the other.”

However, there is strong emphasis on the singleton:

Bruce Anderson “4, splinter perhaps marginal in high cards but the quality of the trumps and the side suit justifies this bid in my view. If partner has nothing more that AKxxxx  xxx x Kxx game is still odds on. And if partner is strong, slam may well be possible. I would not have bid  2 as doing so makes it too easy for East to compete, perhaps with a heart suit or hearts and clubs. So, I am abstaining from the problem of try to work out what 3 over 2 means, and then finding a response.

We asked the Panel a subsequent question about what to bid had we chosen 2 and then heard a natural 3 from partner. More of that shortly.

The idea of bidding to game to keep the opponents quiet has its supporters.

Anthony Ker “4: At last an easy one. ???? Playing Precision my partner opening shows 11-15 and 5 spades. So we will simply jump straight to 4 - slam is unlikely (though not impossible e.g. AKxxx xx x AKxxx) and I'm not staying out of game. There is a danger of competition in hearts and clubs so pre-emptive action may be necessary.”

Stephen Blackstock “4: Several options here, none of which can give an ideal description. The hand is clearly worth a raise to game, either directly or subsequently, so I reject any sequence that does not reach 4 or higher. The options are 2, 2NT (constructive spade raise), 4 (splinter) and 4. The first three all suggest more high cards than I have, so may induce South to drive too high. 4is the only option that is clearly wrong: insufficient values and lacking the high card in clubs that South has a right to expect. It will also help EW with the opening lead. The problem with 4 is that the hand is more slam suitable than the bid suggests -but as QJ108 7 AJ1092 843 would likely get a majority vote for 4, can the hand we hold be so far off? 

 

The reason to prefer the mild 4 underbid to the mild overbids of 2/2NT is that we may keep the opponents quiet. Entering at the five level, vulnerable, often won't be attractive even though it could be their hand and not ours.”

That is certainly possible though one opponent has so far said nothing.

There are now other ways to splinter than by jumping to the 4-level.

 

Wayne Burrows “3: invitational with four spades and singleton heart.”

Michael Ware “3NT: 10-12 GF splinter somewhere (4 asks where). I think a lot of people are playing similar methods these days (Malcolm Mayer bids 3 to show same thing).”

and then initially showing spade support are:

Andy Braithwaite “3: 10-11 with 4 spades and follow up with a 4 splinter over a 3 response.”

Nigel Kearney “2NT, 4-card spade support. In the past I would have bid 2 on this hand type, but my experience is that too often it just doesn't work well. Either opponents or partner may bid something that prevents you completing the picture as you planned. Four card support is so important that I want that to be the message I communicate unambiguously right from the start. Especially with the diamond suit I have here, where even a singleton with partner may play well by establishing diamonds with a dummy reversal. If I had a suit like AQxxx or KQxxx where a fitting honour from partner would make a huge difference to the hand's trick taking potential, then the delayed game raise would have more upside. I am definitely not going to stop short of game with this hand.”

All are therefore going to game, some quicker than others, some emphasising their singleton and others concerned at keeping their opponents silent. We see as well some different approaches to showing a side-suit singleton.

As above, we asked how the Panel would bid had they bid a traditional 2 and heard a natural strong 3 bid from their partner. That created criticism in some quarters:

Wayne Burrows “ After 1 2 most would play 3 as a splinter agreeing diamonds.”

Andy Braithwaite “ If partner bids 3 over 2 that would be a splinter so I have lost the plot on this problem- but if it was natural 55, I would bid 4 as my diamonds are no good now.”

Stephen Blackstock “ What would I bid over 3 from South? Depends what that means - with 2 forcing, 3 should be a splinter but that is hard to believe here. I suppose 3 and see what happens is safe enough, but what I really expect to see is South bidding too much.”

While a forcing 2 and 3 as a splinter is a good approach, I am not sure that is by any means normal in this country yet.

Wayne Burrows “ After 1 2 3 if that is forced on me then I bid 3. Partner has game forced and I have no reason to not agree spades and to preserve room for slam exploration.

I think 1 2 3 is more normal as a splinter though. The general rule is if a bid would be natural and forcing as 1 2 2 would be here then one level higher is typically a splinter.”

The question is having bid 2 initially and hearing a natural strong 3, is your hand strong enough to suggest slam? Peter Newell has already indicated he would bid 4. So would…

Nigel Kearney “4 to emphasise my good trumps. It is not a great description but is the best I can do at this point. 3 would be too ambiguous as to both strength and shape and might not necessarily promise three spades, let alone four. For my 4 bid, partner will be expecting something more like KQx xx AKxxx xxx but I hope my extra shape and trumps will be compensation for the lack of high cards.”

Would 3 be stronger than 4 after the natural 3? Michael Ware thinks so:

Michael Ware “3: Over 2 then over natural 3 (most people play 3 as a splinter agreeing diamonds these days?) I bid 3 intending to co-operate fully in slam (and grand) investigation. Although my singleton heart isn't great opposite the natural heart suit, I still have a very good source of tricks, and the very valuable 4th trump opposite a partner who has just shown extras.”

The problem is what would you bid without a club hold and with say only a doubleton spade? Perhaps, that problem is one reason why it is a good idea to play a forcing 2.

The real issue here was not getting to game (all the Panel did) but in reaching slam.

I am sure South would take action over the delayed game raise 4 response and over a heart splinter. I am less confident if North had simply raised to game after South’s opening bid. Not vulnerable, North could be extremely weak.

Stephen Blackstock expressed the worry that South might go too high if North made a game-force splinter. On this occasion, that would not be a worry as there would be an 11 out of 10 bonus if one can bid and make all 13 tricks. West may well lead a trump after the splinter. South needs 3 discards on the diamonds and after a low ruff brings down the K, they would be a little worried (in grand slam) that West was not false-carding with Q as declarer discards on the third round of diamonds. Fortune this time favours the brave though there might be the usual worry of failing in grand only to see the opposition wallow at the game level.

An interesting array of methods suggested by our Panel. Thanks to all.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items