[gerry]

Other day we had the auction 1♦-1NT-3♥. Partner was hoping to show a max 2♥ bid. Got me thinking though, what is the best use for this call...

I guess either FG 65 or an auto splinter are the obvious candidates. Any other thoughts?

TA

[smerriman]

All of the strong hands can already be shown by starting with 2♥. I would say a minimum 6-5, NF.

[DavidKok]

You need a bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. What hand type can you not already show with a cheaper bid?

In general it is quite popular to try to invent a meaning for an uncommon auction, reasoning that by defining a new bid and therefore taking a hand type out of other sequences we are gaining definition. In practice things don't work so cleanly - this introduces exceptions in your system and gets complicated quickly. Plus, sometimes the sparkly new use has ill-defined continuations or comes with its own problems. If you currently do not have a rebid issue I would be content to leave it idle.

As for an actual use suggestion, keep in mind partner has limited their hand and denied as many as four hearts, four spades or five diamonds (and depending on agreements may also have denied four diamonds). If we have a weak hand with short spades I expect the opponents to be in the auction. I have played a few constructive sequences specifically allowing me to show 6m5♥ 11-15 hands cheaply - it hasn't come up a single time in almost six years. I've been dealt hands like this, but the auctions look more like 1m-(1♠)-2om-(4♠); ? than any cheap constructive system. I would not worry about weak shapely hands without spades on constructive sequences.

Strong hands should bid slowly, to leave maximum room for exploration. On this sequence you likely have to investigate 3NT versus 5♦ versus 6♦ (versus some number of clubs, as responder likely has a weak hand with long clubs). With a game forcing 5♥6♦ hand I prefer to rebid 2♥ and then bid 3♥ again next round, giving partner more room to show their shape. That leaves the auto-splinter, which I think is a decent use. Though, again, we are assuming that the opponents with 9(+) hearts combined are not in our auction - but at least this time we have enough extra strength that they might be too weak to enter.

[Cyberyeti]

smerriman, on 2024-November-16, 00:49, said:

All of the strong hands can already be shown by starting with 2♥. I would say a minimum 6-5, NF.

All your strong hands WITH HEARTS

May depend whether 1N guarantees clubs or might be diamonds and insufficient to inverted raise

[mw64ahw]

x46x 18-21 for me given
a) I play a MAFIA approach
b) 1N is limited 3334/(332)5, maybe SB with 6 small ♣
c) My 1♦ is 3+ unbalanced or 6+ SB

Absent agreement I'd assume x56x or better with enough playing strength to have relative safety at the 4-level opposite a min. for a 1N response

[Zelandakh]

I know of 2 popular possibilities for this call, the super-reverse and the auto-splinter. The first shows a hand with 6+♦ and 5+♥ that is too weak in terms of honour strength for a normal reverse; the second is a GF 1-suited hand with 0-1♥. Your suggestion of a GF reverse seems to me to be a poor idea. In the end I do not think it matters very much - as a junior I played the super-reverse but came to see it with experience as more of a negative than a positive. The only part of the world where this still seems to be widely played is Italy. And I play in a part of the world where the majority of systems in common use have a way of showing a strong 1-suited (Acol 2) hand via a specialised opening or sequence, making the auto-splinter an extremely rare event. In other words, you might actually be better off with no agreement at all unless your system has a specific hole that this call can conveniently cover.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-16, 02:17, said:

this introduces exceptions in your system and gets complicated quickly.

In this case, there is a simple meta-agreement: When opener's 2-level rebid would be strong, the jumpshift is minimal 2-suited.

As you said, with the 1NT response, the agreement is academic because of the opponents.

But how about 1m - 1♠ ; 3♥ ?

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2024-November-16, 09:16, said:

In this case, there is a simple meta-agreement: When opener's 2-level rebid would be strong, the jumpshift is minimal 2-suited.

As you said, with the 1NT response, the agreement is academic because of the opponents.

But how about 1m - 1♠ ; 3♥ ?

You could play this way, but I'm not sure it is smart to do so. On a lot of the hands where partner will have a nice bid over 3♥ partner would also not have passed a 2m rebid. The fact that there's no interference in the fourth suit is also worrying - it is quite probable that partner has a spade-other minor two-suited hand. I think this treatment gains when partner has a not-quite-invitational hand with 3 hearts, is about break even when partner has a game force or has four hearts (as now we'll find the fit regardless), and likely costs some when partner has long single-suited spades or a spade-om two-suited hand.

In general when I wish to introduce a new agreement I look for several factors: frequency of occurrence, size of the gains when it comes up, complexity/how well it generalises to a good rule. I think this proposed treatment scores poorly on all three marks. It is very rare that we have a minimum 5♥6m hand in an uncontested auction, if we do have such an auction I think it is about break even whether this agreement wins or loses compared to rebidding 2m, and in a lot of other situations I play "one-level-over-the-strong-natural-bid" as a splinter or support bid of some sorts.

Lastly I think it is somewhat reasonable with a very minimum 5♥6m hand to open 1♥ and show the hand as a 5-5. This is the only time I'd suggest opening a 5-card suit ahead of a 6-card suit. The point isn't so much the constructive auctions (though it does matter there), but that this can help on the contested auction. If it goes, say, 1♣-(1♠)-2♦-(4♠); ? now bidding 4NT (two places to play) is not ideal - partner will likely choose diamonds over clubs, and pulling that to hearts to introduce a 5-card suit at the 5-level without guarantee of support is not great. On the similar auction 1♥-(1♠)-2♦-(4♠); 4NT partner knows what's going on - we have hearts and clubs, and now if partner chooses diamonds anyway we can pass. Most systems also don't raise minor suits nearly as frequently as major suits, so we'll be forced to take a rebid before partner can assess the degree of minor suit fit anyway. In my experience it is more difficult to involve partner in the 5-level and possible slam decisions with this hand type having opened 1m.

It frustrates me a little that you quoted one sentence, when the sentence right after is a pivotal issue of this bid.

[Cyberyeti]

How do you bid xx, AK, AKQJxxx, Qx ? This is what I think 3♥ should be, I'd like to bid 3N but don't have a spade stop.

[mikeh]

Personally, with a weak 5=6 reds, inadequate for a reverse, I open 1H and treat it as a 5=5 hand. Bear in mind that reversing into 2H with 5=6 doesn’t, imo, require the same hcp as it would for 4=5/4=6. X AKxxx AQJ10xx x is enough.

So I play the 3H bid as an auto splinter. With cyber’s 9 trick hand, with Qx as a bonus, I’d bid 3N over 1N. So I go down. I’d rather go down when they guess or are dealt the winning lead than tell them how to defeat 4D after I bid cyber’s 3H and guarantee a spade lead if partner can’t bid 3N and sometimes get a winning, for the defence, club lead. The opps aren’t always dealt the lead that beats 3N and I’d hate to paint such a picture that they can’t go wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2024-November-16, 12:04, said:

Personally, with a weak 5=6 reds, inadequate for a reverse, I open 1H and treat it as a 5=5 hand. Bear in mind that reversing into 2H with 5=6 doesn’t, imo, require the same hcp as it would for 4=5/4=6. X AKxxx AQJ10xx x is enough.

So I play the 3H bid as an auto splinter. With cyber’s 9 trick hand, with Qx as a bonus, I’d bid 3N over 1N. So I go down. I’d rather go down when they guess or are dealt the winning lead than tell them how to defeat 4D after I bid cyber’s 3H and guarantee a spade lead if partner can’t bid 3N and sometimes get a winning, for the defence, club lead. The opps aren’t always dealt the lead that beats 3N and I’d hate to paint such a picture that they can’t go wrong.

I think I can get to:

3N opposite QJx, xxx, xx, J10xxx (add enough to get a response for frosting)
4♦ opposite xxx, xxx, xx, KJxxx (again add enough to get a response)
5♦ opposite xxx, xxx, xx, AKxxx with 3N going down a fair bit of the time

I was assuming 1N showed clubs, so the chance of a club lead working is fairly small.

Also note opening leader in NT is more likely to have 5 or 6 spades than his partner who didn't bid them over 1♦.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-16, 09:42, said:

It frustrates me a little that you quoted one sentence, when the sentence right after is a pivotal issue of this bid.

Sorry, but this came up 50+ years ago with Kaplan-Sheinwold, in regard to the auction 1♦ - 1M ; 2♣ - ?

Originally, this was forcing, either 5+ ♣ or strong, with ♣ possibly a stopper rather than length*. This apparently proved unplayable.

So by 1972 the minimal 2-suiters were moved to the jumpshift.

*Readers sometimes misunderstood this as 2♣ being an artificial rebid showing 18 hcp. One pair alerted 2♣ as showing 18 hcp. The hand was 18 all right, but had 3 ♦ and 5 ♣.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-16, 10:08, said:

How do you bid xx, AK, AKQJxxx, Qx ? This is what I think 3♥ should be, I'd like to bid 3N but don't have a spade stop.

Around here, well over 90% open that hand 2♣ or 2♦, with a small smattering of 1♣ers making up the rest.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2024-November-16, 16:39, said:

Around here, well over 90% open that hand 2♣ or 2♦, with a small smattering of 1♣ers making up the rest.

A few play benji here, but most play 2♣ only strong bid and this is not good enough.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-16, 16:43, said:

A few play benji here, but most play 2♣ only strong bid and this is not good enough.

Maybe 10-20% play Benji Acol here, almost exclusively coming from a town ~60km away that is well known for the system. Benji-style 2 bids do not necessarily equate to Acol and here the dominant system is 5cM SNT.

[jillybean]

Zelandakh, on 2024-November-17, 07:41, said:

Maybe 10-20% play Benji Acol here, almost exclusively coming from a town ~60km away that is well known for the system. Benji-style 2 bids do not necessarily equate to Acol and here the dominant system is 5cM SNT.

Where is here?