Splinter GP's

I have recently seen a theme come up a few times. Worth restating general principles.

Some splinters are made as quantitative shape-bash bids in some sequences. In other words, "I have a stiff and slam interest" is all that we know.

That said, GP suggests that LTTC be available, at a minimum, if available.

Thus, consider a sequence where spades is (or will be by the splinter) agreed.

A 4♥ splinter sends that message, but the range should be rather tight, because partner must decide now, on this information alone, whether to resign to game only or venture into the five-level, often without a good safety net, on a slam try.

A 4♦ splinter, however, can be more flexible. This is because partner has three options. First, he could "Hell No!" your try and resign to 4♠. Second, he could giddily charge forth into the five-level. Third, and critical to the point, is that he can send it back at you with a 4♥ Last Train bid. The ability for partner to hedge here allows you to be more flexible with your two-under splinters, showing either a good sound splinter (will accept a LTTC bid) or a weakish splinter (will decline).

Three-under splinters (4♣ here) have even more room with which to work and can, therefore, be even more flexible. One might want to devise some techniques here to distinguish, for example, a 4♦ reply to a 4♣ splinter, a 4♥ reply, and, as to the 4♦ reply, the meaning of 4♥ by the person who splinters.

There are even four-under splinters, where LTTC and Serious 3NT are both available. 1♥-P-3♠ is a classic example. Opener can start cuebidding with or without a Serious 3NT if he wants.

The point, ultimately, is that there is not a need to define all splinters equally, or to treat them equally. Recognize this space principle, and recognize partner's recognition of the space principle.

Empathetic Auto Splinter?

An empathetic splinter is typically a bid of a worthless fragment to show great values everywhere else and worthiness of slam IF partner has a stiff in THIS suit.

An "auto splinter" is a splinter made in "support" of your own suit, such as a jump to 4♦ after transferring to hearts.

What about an "Auto Empathetic Splinter?" A bid of a worthless fragment, expressing the need for a specific stiff if partner can support your own suit? Yep, the beast exists.

The idea arose from a problem at BBF ("matmat" proposed the problem). You have ♠Kx ♥Jxx ♦Ax ♣AKxxxx and open 1NT. Partner bids 2♣ Stayman, and you obviously respond 2♦. Partner bids 2NT, invitational. What now?

The vast majority responded with something like "3NT. What's the problem?"

But, give partner decent club support, a stiff heart, the spade Ace, and maybe the diamond King. It is easy to construct hands for partner where 6♣ is a very strong bet.

So, why not bid 3♣? The concern is that zooming to 3NT avoids helping the defense make a lead. Fair point, but I doubt that a club lead was coming, anyway. The 3♣ bid, therefore, probably does not help much. Responder bidding stoppers might, though. So, perhaps 3♣ should simply be a natural call expressing uncertainty, suggesting a hole, and asking a conditional question:

"If you have an unbalanced hand and support for my clubs, bid your shortness."

The parallel is a 3♦ call from Opener, instead of 3♣. As only 3♥ and 3♠ are available for Responder, however, a 3♦ call would suggest long diamonds and a worthless holding (for notrump) in one of the majors -- an either-or empathetic splinter if you will. A 3♦ call, then, announces a different question:

"If you have support for my diamonds and shortness in one of the majors, indicate your short major."

If Opener has diamonds and interest in short clubs from Responder, he can bid the cheapest unbid major. Thus, for instance, after the example auction of 1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT, Opener could bid 3♥ as an "Auto Empathetic Splinter," showing long diamonds and a worthless club fragment.

I say "the cheapest unbid major" to cover 1NT-2♣-2M-2NT sequences. Opener could rebid his own major because he has five of them. If Opener bid 2♠, then 3♠ is natural (five-card suit) but 3♥ could be the Auto Empathetic Splinter, with diamonds and a stopper hole in clubs. If Opener bid 2♥, and if 3♠ is not needed to handle 4-4 majors, then 3♠ would serve that function. Obviously, in this latter situation the diamond suit will be shorter because of the obvious length in the bid major.

Matchpoints

Matchpoints is a strange game. +430 beats +420 as much as +980 beats +480. This causes unique concerns for bidding in the context of matchpoints.

A problem faced by my opponents illustrates the concern well. Opener had started 1♥ and received a 2♦ response in an uncontested auction. Opener raised to 3♦ (not my call, but a fair call) and heard 3♥ setting trumps. After 3♠ from Opener, Responder bid a serious 3NT. Opener finished the auction by bidding 4♥. My partner, of course, elected a club lead from Qxx(x) instead of a spade from J109x(x) [I cannot remember the exact lengths], allowing us to hold the contract to +450 instead of +480. Actually, the score was +420 for them because of an eight-ever-nine-never violation, perhaps done because of a fear that the cues had resulted in an unfavorable lead.

Now, I found this somewhat humorous, as it had been quite a while since any cuebidding sequence had a noticed detriment for me personally. The poor opponents!

I also recognized that my sequence would not have been entirely the same, as I would have opted to not raise diamonds (with xxx support and a minimum) and would not have made a serious slam move with Responder's hand. So, I technically may have avoided this problem. But, the reality exists that some sequences may result in a lead-direction that can be costly at MP scoring. As I hate MP anyway, my normal reaction is to find this to be a fortunately rare occurrence and to simply bid as I think I should anyway.

However, I do understand the concern. One possible tweak I considered at the time was to switch the meanings of 2NT and 3NT for matchpoints, and then making 2NT frivolous instead of serious. I don't think that this is ideal, but it might be a consideration at MP.

Imagine a sequence like 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠. If Opener now bids 2NT, this could be a "frivolous" 2NT, rendering all other cuebids serious. (Picture Jumps remaining the same.) After a frivolous 2NT, Responder could sign off, or he could cuebid anyway with a hand that has slam prospects opposite a frivolous holding.

In either event, three of the major would still be a trump cue (two of the top three honors), bypassing of which would limit the major honor contribution. Also, 3NT would then be another "trump cue," showing extra trump above that already promised, or the the third trump honor, or two trump honors if partner has denied two, bypassing of which denies the same.

A direct 2NT-P-3NT sequence would seem to be a suggestion of 3NT as a MP contract.

The full permutations resulting from this MP tweak I have not worked out, nor will I because of my strong dislike of system impurity to cater to MP analysis and playing the (idiot?) field. Even if I were to try, my biases are too ingrained to allow me to do this effectively, I am sure. For anyone who likes this or a similar idea, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

An Interesting Deal with the Wife

♠AQ8xx ♥AKxxx ♦Qx ♣A :Opener
♠J9xx ♥Qxxxx ♦Ax ♣xx :Responder

1♠-P-2♠ started our sequence. Because of agreements with my wife, Leah, I cuebid 3♣ next, and she cue'd 3♦ (Ace or King and possibly a hedge). I cue'd 3♥, and she made a fine raise to 4♥. At this point, I have to admit that I made an idiot bid of 6♠. Obviously, I should bid 6♥. Judgment was just, as the spade hook failed (2-2 split), and the diamond King was well-placed. 6♥ makes, using spades to ditch her losing diamond.

I thought about the auction that I would have if she was up on all the "weird stuff you and your friends play." Assuming a 2♠ raise:

1♠-P-2♠-P-
3♥-P-3NT (super-accept of hearts)-P-
4♣(agrees hearts, asking)-P-4♥(two covers)-P-
???

I don't think I'd see the power of this hand yet. I need a cover in diamonds, and she will have the Ace of anything for this sequence. If the King is placed right, it seems fairly good odds that I can ditch her diamond losers on the spades, and I might even make seven if the spades cooperate. If she has two internal covers, however, a diamond lead will be fatal to the slam. I seem to have several options. I could blast and pray (good living?).

One option is 4♠, RKCB for spades in this sequence, but that leaves me scratching my head. I might make slam opposite the diamond Ace and heart Queen, but not opposite the spade King and heart Queen. Bad option.

Better is 4NT, RKCB for hearts. If she has the diamond Ace, I am happy. Interesting...

Even Better Michaels Thoughts

As is often the case, thinking through a problem from one perspective leads to a better mouse trap. However, thinking through the problem again, from an entirely different perspective, improves upon that mousetrap. Systems, conventions -- they all evolve and grow, if one constantly rethinks.

Consider the circumstance of a heart-based Michaels call. 1♠-2♠-P-? This is a much more cramped sequence, of course. Is there, then, a method for handling the "general invite" that is not so much fit-dependent? For, 3♥ might simply be a simple preference bid, which seems to force 2NT...3♥ as the invite, or does it?

What precisely is the meaning of 1♠-2♠-P-3♦? Long diamonds? If that is what Advancer has, could he not simply bid 2NT, expecting the likely 3♣ (happily surprised if not), and then convert 3♣ to 3♦? It seems, therefore, that the 3♦ call could be put to a better use. That use? A constructive heart raise, equivalent with the 1♥-2♥-P-3♠ sequence I described.

Of course, you may see the obvious now. If that option exists for a heart-based Michaels, then can we not restore the preemptive spade raise in spade-based Michaels sequences? Could not 1♥-2♥-P-3♠ be preemptive and 1♥-2♥-P-3♦ be a bid to show a constructive spade raise? That actually is my preference.

Back to hearts. The same basic structure over 3♦ as a constructive raise as was proposed for after a constructive 3♠ makes sense to me, tweaked somewhat:

3♥ = ugly, ugly, ugly -- very passable
4♥ = acceptance
3NT = diamond fit-dependent
3♠ = ???

Now, notice that 3♠ can show the club fit-dependent hand. We end up, then, with a bid of the "other major" for the club fit-dependent hands and the bid of 3NT for the diamond fit-dependent hands.

As to spade-based, after 3♦?

3♠ = ugly
4♠ = acceptance
3♥ = other major for club fit-dependent
3NT = diamond fit-dependent

Notice how each saves space needed for cuebidding.

Also notice that 4♣ and 4♦ are available for showing something different. The stand-out option seems to be that bidding the minor directly shows a need for a heart control, as this will be the most jamming bid and the least powerful position.

What do you end up with, then, as a scheme?

After a major-based Michaels sequence (1♥-2♥-P or 1♠-2♠-P), Advancer can bid 3♣ to play, 2NT...3♦ to play, or 2NT...P to play the minor. With simple preference for the major, Advancer bids the major at the lowest possible level, or can jump to 3♠ as "preemptive." With game or better interest, but fit-dependent, Advancer can ask for the minor and then place the contract.

However, if Advancer has constructive or better values, he always bids 3♦. Partner is expected either to sign off in the major (garbage almost beyond belief) or to bid the game (minimum range, but acceptance values). With the high-end Michaels hands, a concept that is not all that "high end" as we have seen, partner can make a slam move on route to game. His options:

1. 4♣ or 4♦ identifies the minor but denies a control in Opener's major.
2. 3NT flags diamonds and allows cuebidding space, and partner has shown a control in Opener's major. This allows 4♥ to be LTTC when Opener's major is hearts.
3. Three of the other major flags diamonds and allows cuebidding space, and partner has shown a control in Opener's major.

Now, a couple of other points might be noted.

First, a 3♥ call flagging clubs (1♥-2♥-P-3♦-P-3♥) allows two additional bids of interest, namely a three-level cue of the major (3♠ by Advancer) and a Serious 3NT call by either side. This wildly enhances spade-based sequences.

Second, a 3♠ call flagging clubs (1♠-2♠-P-3♦-P-3♠) does allow at least a Serious 3NT bid by Advancer. As these heart-oriented sequences are not blessed by as much space, and as no LTTC call will be available, the ability to bid or not bid a Serious 3NT here seems to be very important.

I'll leave it to others to work out the finer details of the follow-up sequences. However, one point that I would add here is that this scheme seems to have similar application to any related sequences. Thus, for example, if you play Cappelletti as your defense to a Weak 1NT Opening, then this scheme, incorporating a constructive+ 3♦ call, makes sense after a 2♥ or 2♠ overcall.

So, how about Michaels sequences for both majors?

Well...

Some Michaels Thoughts

A sequence from a recent deal reminded me of some thoughts that I have had concerning Michaels sequences and gave me some new ideas as well.

Consider a simple start of 1♥-2♥-P, where partner has shown spades and a minor. The classic approach is for 2NT to ask for partner's minor, perhaps to sign off, but perhaps to gain more information for a game try. However, this leaves a strange problem. If you bid 2NT and then 3♠, partner will assume, correctly, that his minor was not interesting to you. Thus, this approach forces Responder to place the contract on the mere information of the suit alone. The problem is that there are many holdings where the minor is immaterial, such as when Advancer has Qxx/Qxx in the minors, but where the overall hand is still invitational.

Alternatively, Advancer might bid 3♥, but this seems to be a GF bid, especially (obviously) if the majors are reversed (1♠-2♠-P-3♠). So, this does not handle GI hands at all.

What about a simple 3♠ call? Well, the apparent usual meaning is "preemptive." This structure, however, seems to leave an inability to make any general invite and only allows a fit-specific invite.

Consider a hand like ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦xxxxx ♣x. You "know" that partner likely has clubs. OK, but what is his strength? If he has ♥x ♦xx on the outside, you expect two quick losers in that suit. If his spade holding is good (maybe KQxxx) and his club holding decent (maybe Axxxx), then you expect to take five spades on dummy, the heart Ace, the club Ace, and, if trumps split 2-2, two club ruffs in hand, for a net of nine tricks. A tenth will come from establishing a late club when clubs are 4-3. So, if partner has ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦xx ♠Axxxx, game seems to be a fair bet. But, that's a perfect six-loser hand. Can't partner have something less remarkable, like ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣QJxxx? Or, ♠Qxxxx ♥xx ♦x ♣KJxxx?

I just don't get the basic approach of simply asking partner for his minor and then guessing. The simple solution, at least for me, is to give up on the wild preference for always preempting to the maximum limit. Preempts are great, but a Michaels call sometimes does the trick without the need for Advancer to add his "I can preempt too" touch to the thing.

Consider this problem, as well, from the standpoint of when Partner has the very strong Michaels hand. You bid 2NT, and partner flags his minor (3♥ for clubs, 3♠ for diamonds). The upside is that partner has shown extra values. The downside is that you have no easy way to force game and agree upon a suit. It seems that about the only way to agree the major is to perhaps bid 4♥, a very ugly call, or four of the other minor, which is almost as ugly. The problem with the latter is that you then lose ability to make any sort of positive supporting bid for the minor.

This very Advancer's hand came up in Detroit. Fortunately, my partner and I had a general agreement ditching preemptive jump raises for constructive jump raises. So, I was able to bid 3♠ with the correctly-interpreted meaning of "I want to bid 4♠, but you might have a P.O.C. 2♥ call, in which case passing is fine." That approach seemed perfect with this hand. I show the game interest with a hand that is really not fit-dependent. If partner has diamonds, I have a side shortness values and an amazing double-fit. If partner has the more likely club holding, I have two clear tricks and a fourth trump coupled with shortness, which is nice. Either way, I have a strongly invitational hand, and partner should do the right thing. He will know that I am not so much fit-dependent, or I would bid 2NT and then select the right contract (hopefully).

As a bonus, if partner has the strong hand, I have focused trumps without ambiguity, such that any further calls are understood as spade-slam approach (if that is our course, as it was).

So, next issue. What are partner's options with the strong hand? Well, to define options, one must first decide what partner needs to be in slam territory. I like to think about this concern from the standpoint of assessing what "worst possible hand" provides slam hope. If we can reach slam opposite that hand, then all others will be easy.

My thought of the "worst hand" was ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣KJ10xx. Wow! A five-loser hand? How is that possible? Well, how about if Advancer has a simple hand like ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Axx? Five spade tricks is easy. One diamond makes six tricks. If the club hook works, which may well be odds-on as against Opener, then we have five club tricks, for 11 so far. Two diamond pitches on the clubs allows a diamond ruff on the short side, and 12 tricks. This amazing result occurs because Advancer covers two losers with the two Aces, one cover comes from the probable club hook, and a fourth comes from Advancer having six or fewer clubs+hearts and a fourth trump. Note how moving either Ace to hearts makes this slam hopeless on a diamond lead.

How about a similar holding, changing ♣KJ10xx to AJ10xx? That works, but now Advancer can have the King or Queen of clubs and the spade Ace. ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Qxx probably works. Again, the switch of the either cover to the heart Ace, or even to the diamond King, makes this slam hopeless.

It appears to me, then, that Advancer's exact cards are critical. Note how spade Ace and club Ace was necessary on the first, but the club Queen is enough on the second. Exact cards are necessary.

So, how does one work all of this out?

I have thought about this for a few days, and I have a suggestion.

First, a 4♣ call by partner, after 3♠, should show a presumably fit-dependent hand with clubs and spades. This seems obvious. If Advancer has two of the four top club and spade honors (♠AK, ♠A/♣A, ♠A/♣K, ♠K/♣A, ♠K/♣K, or ♣AK), he has it. RKCB seems called for. If Responder has two or three tenuous cards, like perhaps one of these four cards (♠A, ♠K, ♣A, or ♣K), plus a secondary blacks-suit card (♠Q/♣Q), plus the diamond Ace or King, he cues 4♦; if two tenuous cards only, he declines a 4♥ LTTC bid. If Responder has two tenuous cards but no diamond control, he makes a "LTTC" call of 4♥. Note that Advancer has no way to show or deny a heart control, but the heart Ace might be a third tenuous card justifying acceptance of a LTTC call. In other words, Advancer will note cooperate in a fit-dependent sequence unless he has at least one clear key cover and one tenuous card, but the holding of these two PLUS the heart Ace will merit acceptance of a LTTC call. Note also that 4♣ clearly implies heart control.

Second, partner bids 3NT with a diamond-oriented fit-dependent hand. This is huge, in my opinion. Advancer needs to be given space to cue a control in the other minor, and 3NT gets below 4♣. If Advancer does cue 4♣, this shows the same tenuous holding as before. However, partner can cue 4♦, repeating his suit, to suggest a need for a heart control (Advancer can bid 4♥ to show the heart control but suggest a tenuous internal card), or 4♥ as LTTC with a heart control. Same stuff, then, but an ability to check on a heart control when tenuous. Advancer can also bypass 4♣ (no club card) to cue 4♦ with two tenuous cards, allowing 4♥ as LTTC, presumably needing also a heart control (heart Ace, spade King, and club Queen, for instance). Advancer's 4♥ would seem to show the heart Ace and one key card.

These two bids and follow-ups might very easily need tweaking and improvement, but the idea is to handle fit-dependent hands in a way that maximizes space for description.

What, then, do 4♦ and 4♥ cover? Well, the one gap is the club-fit-dependent without a heart control. It seems to me that these should be somewhat split between 4♥, 4♦ with a hand that would decline a 4♥ LTTC response, and 4♦ with a hand that would accept a 4♥ LTTC response. One should seek primes, one should seek a high tenuous count, and would should accept a relatively low tenuous count. Just to agree on something, then, it seems that 4♥ is strongest, 4♦...P weakest, and 4♦...OK middlish.

So, what about handling hands that are not fit-dependent? Simple. One option is RKCB directly, obviously. The other is to get whatever information you can from whatever call is most likely to lead to an intelligent sequence. In other words, treat hands that are not fit-dependent as if they were fit-dependent.

A recap:

1♥-2♥-P-3♠ = constructive invite

Partner then:

3NT = diamond slam try
4♣ = club slam try with hearts controlled
4♦ = mild to middling slam try with hearts not controlled
4♥ = strong slam try with hearts not controlled

Advancer then cues his values and value types.

So, what if hearts is the major? That's next...

Empathetic Splinters -- Strange?

I find it humorous to hear back from people who are afraid of new things. Sometimes, "new things" are not all that new.

A case in point. On of the concepts that I have employed and developed is what I call the "empathetic splinter." Anyone reading this probably already knows that an "empathetic splinter" is a call, in simple form, that essentially shows interest in a slam if partner has this stiff. In other words, a jump to 4♥ might show slam interest if partner happens to have a stiff heart. You would use this typically when some constraint of the auction prohibited partner from splintering himself. So, you empathize a possible problem and answer it.

Some people have thought that this is a completely new and strange concept. Something extremely esoteric. However, I would suggest reading the definition of a conventional call known as a "Bluhmer." It seems that the "Bluhmer" and the "Empathetic Splinter" are essentially the same bid. What is different about an empathetic splinter, if there is a difference, is merely that I have noted certain sequences where a "Bluhmer" seems to make sense even though the existence of a short suit is not yet known.

In other words, a "Bluhmer 4♥" might be made opposite a known stiff heart or opposite a known stiff in either hearts or spades, for example. An "empathetic splinter" is a Bluhmer made when partner might have a stiff heart, might have a stiff spade, or might not even have a stiff. It is a call made in case Opener has a stiff.

Not much difference. It seems that all Bluhmers are empathetic splinters, but some empathetic splinters are used when a Bluhmer might not be available without assuming the existence of a stiff that might not be there. All of this is also explained with more theory, of course, than you will find in a mere definitions section of the Encyclopedia of Bridge or a bridge glossary.