[paulg]

What hand(s) do you expect partner to have for his 4♦ call in the sequence

1♦   1♥
1♠   4♦

with (i) a regular partner and (ii) an expert from these forums?

[hanp]

Short diamonds and spade support.

[gordontd]

Splinter.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

What hand(s) do you expect partner to have for his 4♦ call in the sequence

1♦   1♥
1♠   4♦

with (i) a regular partner and (ii) an expert from these forums?

I used to think everyone played it as a splinter, until I had a disaster with a good player who thought it was a slam try in diamonds. Nowadays I tend not to risk it without discussion.

In one of my two most serious partnerships it's a splinter; in the other it's natural.

[whereagles]

If you play that the sequence shows 5♦ + 4♠, it would be a bit anti-statistical to play it as splinter (i.e. a pard with 5 cards is very likely to have diamond wastage).

I wouldn't do it without discussion. If one of my pards were to do it, I would simply take it as some sort of spade raise.

[gordontd]

whereagles, on Jul 18 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

If you play that the sequence shows 5♦ + 4♠, it would be a bit anti-statistical to play it as splinter (i.e. a pard with 5 cards is very likely to have diamond wastage).

The whole point is to be able to take advantage of those occasions when partner doesn't.

Have you never had Axxxx or xxxxx for this sequence?

[jdonn]

Not this again! I would like to preemptively bar the hog from this thread

[ONEferBRID]

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

What hand(s) do you expect partner to have for his 4♦ call in the sequence

1♦   1♥
1♠   4♦

with (i) a regular partner and (ii) an expert from these forums?

I'm in the Splinter camp -- for Spades ( the last bid suit ) -- as would 4C!

[ Don't try this on Hog if he is your partner ] .

[Siegmund]

Splinter.

There are other exotic conventional meanings possible, sure. But I find the suggestion of natural more than a little bizarre.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Jul 18 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

What hand(s) do you expect partner to have for his 4♦ call in the sequence

1♦   1♥
1♠   4♦

with (i) a regular partner and (ii) an expert from these forums?

I used to think everyone played it as a splinter, until I had a disaster with a good player who thought it was a slam try in diamonds. Nowadays I tend not to risk it without discussion.

In one of my two most serious partnerships it's a splinter; in the other it's natural.

I think this experience was an outlier and you can still risk it

[whereagles]

gordontd, on Jul 18 2010, 09:23 PM, said:

Have you never had Axxxx or xxxxx for this sequence?

I did. But you still have a lot of ruffing to do

[bluecalm]

Splinter for me.

[Mbodell]

Apparently ii is a splinter.

For i I'd expect 10+ red cards. I think it was 5+ diamonds and 6+ hearts when my partner and I discussed it last, but maybe it was 6/5 the other way.

[JLOGIC]

Mbodell, on Jul 18 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Apparently ii is a splinter.

For i I'd expect 10+ red cards. I think it was 5+ diamonds and 6+ hearts when my partner and I discussed it last, but maybe it was 6/5 the other way.

Why can't he bid 2C? It lets you show way more of your hand before the auction escalates, and he can just keep bidding diamonds.

There is no reason to just preempt your auction. Even if 4D shows 6-5 in the reds, how strong is it? How does opener intelligently judge whether to try for slam or not, especially if he has a heart fit and doesn't know whether it's good to go beyond 4H yet or not. If he can be 5-6 or 6-5 it's even worse.

On the other hand if you have spade support, you often won't be able to show that you have short diamonds. Short diamonds will often be the key feature to slam (how well does your partners diamond holding fit). If you later cue diamonds, your partner's first bid suit, after 4sf and raising spades, he might think you have a fitting honor like the king and will misevaluate an AQJx type of holding.

[Cascade]

Splinter. Partner never has the right hand. But if she ever does - wow!!!

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jul 18 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

Not this again! I would like to preemptively bar the hog from this thread

Do you mean he will think it is pass or correct?

[Mbodell]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Jul 18 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Apparently ii is a splinter.

For i I'd expect 10+ red cards.  I think it was 5+ diamonds and 6+ hearts when my partner and I discussed it last, but maybe it was 6/5 the other way.

Why can't he bid 2C? It lets you show way more of your hand before the auction escalates, and he can just keep bidding diamonds.

This was in a context where 2♣ isn't fsf for us, it is XYZ.

I'm not saying it is the best agreement, but it is what we had. Our meta agreements are to not splinter in partner's suit and also not cue shortness in partner's suit.

[mich-b]

Mbodell, on Jul 18 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Our meta agreements are to not splinter in partner's suit and also not cue shortness in partner's suit.

"Not to cue shortness in partner's suit" is a good meta agreement when your cue would be ambiguous - honour OR shortage (because partner really needs to know which). But , if you can show a shortage specifically (splinter) in partner's suit , there is nothing wrong with it , and in fact can be very useful.

[hanp]

Mbodell, on Jul 19 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

This was in a context where 2♣ isn't fsf for us, it is XYZ.

So you bid 2D, this is irrelevant.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2010, 04:34 AM, said:

Not this again! I would like to preemptively bar the hog from this thread

Obvious strong hand with Ds.

That's what you meant, isn't it Josh?