Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Splinter responses to a strong 1NT opening bid
347 views
Skip to first unread message
bridge...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2014, 12:08:18 PM8/4/14
to
With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
paul...@infi.net
Aug 4, 2014, 12:40:32 PM8/4/14
to
On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:08:18 PM UTC-4, bridge...@gmail.com wrote:
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
> Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
I would guess that most players are more familiar with splinters than fragments. It is clearly riskier to double a fragment since opener might redouble with five or a chunky four; the double may as well suggest a sacrifice in the short suit, but this gives our side extra options and with good agreements we should be able to punish them or bid accurately.
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
> Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
Bruce Evans
Aug 4, 2014, 6:42:12 PM8/4/14
to
In article <a80d7de5-089e-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
IMO the classical splinter is best. Doubling it for the lead usually
gets nowhere since leading it is rarely right. It gains mainly to
find sacrifices. Well prepared opponents should probably play it as
lead directional in an agreed side suit. Leading the fragment is more
often right, and even not so well prepared opponents can double the
fragment bid for the lead. It is not very risky to double a fragment
for the lead, since it is you and not opener has the length or the
chunky 4 if you want it lead. Even with unsound doubles for the lead,
most of the risk is for the redoubling side. The doubler usually has
2-3 trump tricks in the doubled suit and it only takes a couple of
side tricks to beat 3 level contracts.
Bruce
gets nowhere since leading it is rarely right. It gains mainly to
find sacrifices. Well prepared opponents should probably play it as
lead directional in an agreed side suit. Leading the fragment is more
often right, and even not so well prepared opponents can double the
fragment bid for the lead. It is not very risky to double a fragment
for the lead, since it is you and not opener has the length or the
chunky 4 if you want it lead. Even with unsound doubles for the lead,
most of the risk is for the redoubling side. The doubler usually has
2-3 trump tricks in the doubled suit and it only takes a couple of
side tricks to beat 3 level contracts.
Bruce
dake50
Aug 4, 2014, 7:18:34 PM8/4/14
to
I assume splinter 3M fill in some shapes gapped in your lower treatment, esp. what do rebids after Stayman asking mean? After transfers? Then my question is why *that* gap?
Michelle Steiner
Aug 4, 2014, 10:01:31 PM8/4/14
to
In article <0766a5a1-a586-4dda...@googlegroups.com>,
told me today that this hand comes up about once every 1,500 deals, and
half that time it will be in the opponent's hands. That's the reason
he doesn't play it. He did say that quite a number of strong pairs do
play it, though.
> Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if
> the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the
> splinter instead of the fragment?
Because if the 1NT bidder has five of the fragment suit, he gets to
play the hand instead of being the dummy.
<bridge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over
> partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in
> the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
I play that with my mentor. One of the strongest players in our club
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over
> partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in
> the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
told me today that this hand comes up about once every 1,500 deals, and
half that time it will be in the opponent's hands. That's the reason
he doesn't play it. He did say that quite a number of strong pairs do
play it, though.
> Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if
> the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the
> splinter instead of the fragment?
play the hand instead of being the dummy.
Steve Willner
Aug 6, 2014, 6:05:57 PM8/6/14
to
On 2014-08-04 6:42 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Well prepared opponents should probably play [double of a splinter] as
unbid" (i.e., normally clubs) is the most common suit to ask for, but I
don't know why. I'd think the fragment suit, if there is one, might be
more useful.
Anybody know more about what experts are playing?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> Well prepared opponents should probably play [double of a splinter] as
> lead directional in an agreed side suit.
I've read that is in fact a common expert agreement. I gather "lowest
unbid" (i.e., normally clubs) is the most common suit to ask for, but I
don't know why. I'd think the fragment suit, if there is one, might be
more useful.
Anybody know more about what experts are playing?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Michael Angelo Ravera
Aug 6, 2014, 6:50:37 PM8/6/14
to
On Monday, August 4, 2014 9:08:18 AM UTC-7, bridge...@gmail.com wrote:
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
>
>
>
> Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
If you have a singleton or void in the named suit and partner has opened a strong 1NT, there is a good chance that a lead directing double will fail to achieve anything. Opener can have the ace or Responder can have a void.
> With several partners I have played that jumping to 3H or 3S directly over partner's 1NT opening bid shows a singleton in the bid major, three cards in the OM, and 5-4 either way in the minors.
>
>
>
> Since opponent's can double such a splinter bid for lead direction and/or to suggest a sacrifice, wouldn't bidding the fragment OM make more sense? (I do understand that some opponents may have developed enough lead directing double agreements to use a double of the fragment to suggest leading the splinter suit.) Beyond the obvious question of perhaps wrong-siding the contract if the auction ends in 4 of the fragment major, why do most bid the splinter instead of the fragment?
The advantage of shortness showing bids are that the values to make 3NT when Opener has a lot of high cards in Responder's short suit (quite frequent in my experience) are very similar to what are needed for slam when Opener's values are all concentrated in the three suits where Responder has length.
My partners and I don't require exactly 3 cards in the other major. 5+-5+ minors as well as a hand where you won't quite know what to do, if you use stayman and Opener names your short suit, are permitted in the way that we play.
S. Needham
Aug 6, 2014, 9:03:30 PM8/6/14
to
"Michael Angelo Ravera" <mara...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8cfad3bb-d08b-435e...@googlegroups.com...
The advantage of shortness showing bids are that the values to make 3NT when
Opener has a lot of high cards in Responder's short suit (quite frequent in
my experience) are very similar to what are needed for slam when Opener's
values are all concentrated in the three suits where Responder has length.
**************
Opener has a lot of high cards in Responder's short suit (quite frequent in
my experience) are very similar to what are needed for slam when Opener's
values are all concentrated in the three suits where Responder has length.
Very true. And, when I was working on these hand types, running 100s of
layouts, I found that one of the biggest advantages was the ability to stop
in 4m with misfitting values (our stuff allows us to do that when O holds
wasted values and R is min). Most will be in 3N off a couple.
0 new messages