Home Contents March 23 April 6 05-29-2006 17:01:49

March 30

Classic Two-Over-One

In tonight's "Bid 'Em Ups", first seat opens 1♠ or 1, and you are close to slam. Use whatever agreements you want. For example, 4-card Jacoby, 3-card Jacoby, or no Jacoby. Also, know that with a five-card major in the 1NT range, the computer opens the major.

Play deals investigate support doubles. First seat should open, second seat should pass, third seat should bid a major, fourth seat bids (jump okay), and opener has a support double. To benefit from these deals you have to get with the program.

Objectives of a 2/1 Response

Two-over-one game force serves several purposes:

Grant Baze decreed that with trump support for partner, and a source of tricks, you 2/1. You do not splinter and you do not use Jacoby 2NT. Robinson seems to think the same way about splinters. I am not sure.

Page 94 through 109 of Robinson's Washington Standard book gives rules and examples.

By the time he gets to the four-level, he knows whether or not there is slam. Given a yes, he then uses due diligence to bid slam. The value of Blackwood is to stay out of slam missing two controls, and to bid the occasional grand slam.

Comments

We do not use Jacoby 2NT in our big club system. If you wish, I can create and post Bid 'em Ups. As individual partnerships, or as a group, we can investigate the subject. We certainly need more than the six deals provided by Robinson.

Grant Baze: "If you have a source of tricks that is your bid. Do not use Jacoby 2NT on those hands."

There is no fast arrival. Robinson gives a specific definition to responder's jump rebid to game. I was dozing when I first read his definition. He eventually followed with an example where you are known to have 32 HCP in the partnership, and know there is no slam at the game level. I have him beat with a 34 HCP deal.

I believe in pattern bidding in 2/1. Therefore, the rebid of opener's major shows six. Responder must eventually show two-card support. I rebid 2NT, and then correct to partner's major. Opener's new suit at the three-level does not show extras.

Theorem: With choice of two descriptive bids, it is usually best to make the cheapest.

If responder has trump support, he shows it at the second bid. More often than not this is at three level. If opener has extras (about an ace), he cuebids (first or second round control. Ace, king, singleton or void.) If the fit is found at the two level, then a splinter is a possibility.

Showing extras in 2/1 auction
Total suit points Action
32-up 2/1, then bid slam.
29-31
  • Full splinter.
  • Jacoby 2NT, then show extras.
  • Cue-bid after fit is found.
25-28
  • Game splinter
  • Show minimum over Jacoby 2NT.
  • Cooperate with cue-bid sequence.
Opener's and Responder's minimum suit count.
Suit Opener's Count Responder's minimum
Opener's major 14 11
Opener's second suit 12 13
Raising responder 11 14
Opener's minor Let's talk.

Splinters are a good idea if you can remember. If you restrict them to 4-4-4-1 hands, they have a one in several thousand frequency. Can you and partner both remember that 3NT is a splinter?

Quiz

What is suit count for opener and responder to initiate a slam invite in these auctions? Last named suit will be established as trumps.

  1. 1♠2♣
    2
  2. 12♣
  3. 12
    2N3

Splinters

Chapter 17 of the Big Club notes discusses splinters of various kinds. Be aware that some of the discussion is specific to Big Club.

Note to John Strauch: Should we define 4 over 1♠ to be a splinter?

The easiest type to demo are the full splinters. (The lesson play deals can only be sabotaged by a second-seat preemptive overcall, so please don't preempt). Splinters remain on.

Responder will have:

Opener is unlimited. The issue may be to bid a grand slam. One of 500 deals satisfied these requirements.

Robinson's examples are too limited. A 5-4-4-0 pattern has to be a splinter. Responder with more than four trumps has to be acceptable, and I suggest three is okay. A short suit and a non-source-of-tricks long suit should be a splinter. Use your judgment on the play deals.

Two week's ago in Bid 'em Ups that I tried with Jon Wright:

♠ A K x x table marker ♠ x
x x A x x
A J x x x x K x x x x
♣ K ♣ A Q x x
1 3♠
?

My scientific approach on this hand is to bid 4. Responder is to bid the cheapest control (ace or king) that he comes to. Assume he bids 4 and this is doubled. Pass the double back to partner who redoubles with the ace. I bid 4 and not 4♣ to force the heart cue-bid. The splinter ceded control to me, and so I can direct partner's cue bidding.

Conclusion

It is not sufficient to agree to play splinters. More discussion and thought must follow.

Home Contents March 23 April 6 05-29-2006 17:01:49