[Cyberyeti]

IMPs

1:

---

There was a certain amount of excitement on this board, but what do you do now and what does it show ?

2:

---

2♦ ? 3♦ ?

3: A hand we got horribly wrong and were lucky to only lose 2 imps. It raised the following questions.

(2♦ natural weak)-2♥-(P)-2♠ is this forcing ? Is 3♠ instead of 2 big natural and forcing, splinter or fit (we play a fair few fit jumps in our system)

4:

---

Pass or double ? 2♠ is classical natural weak 5-9 6cs (sorry vul wrong, is love all)

[DavidKok]

• I think 4♥ is fine, though 4♦ seems reasonable as well. I do not have great methods to show this hand: I like my splinters to be three-suited, but we're very strong for a preemptive raise.
  
• 2♦, and in my opinion it is not close. I have a rule to never upgrade if I open a long minor hand and partner responds my short major. Taking away space here is so bad, it's difficult to overstate how many problems this creates for partner. I pair this with 1♦-2♥ weak (4-8) natural NF, eliminating some potential problem hand types opposite these unbalanced hands. Keep in mind that if partner passes 2♦ they have 5-9, what are we missing opposite that (and what are the opponents doing)?
  
• Yes, I play that changes of suit by unbid hands are forcing. 3♠ is a fitbid for me. Some people play that 2/2 or 2/1 by advancer is not forcing, they might have more issues here.
  
• Pass seems clear to me. No borrowed kings theory here.

[mw64ahw]

1. 4♦ with 3 controls and a void. 4♥ would be pre-emptive.
Edit: I use 2N as 6♣ invitational or a good mixed raise. After 3m you can show the void via 3♠

2. 2♦ unless you have a way to show an intermediate jump. Playing my unbalanced♦ I'd bid 1♠ unlimited given 1♥ is either Major.

3. 2♥ for me would be some strength and an asking bid, so X if applicable. 2♠ non-forcing ♦ weakness. 3♠ self-sustaining invite expecting a raise opposite a max.

4. Nothing to get excited about so Pass.

[shyams]

• 4♥. My worry with 4♦ is that it will help opponents find their diamond sacrifice (which may well make if there are freaky distributions all round).
  If we explore, we disclose to LHO their 'lower risk' option to sacrifice. Let them decide to take that plunge by themselves.
  
  
• 2♦
  
  
• Forcing. If their side made a preemptive bid, a new suit by an unpassed advancer is forcing.
  
  
• Dbl. It is IMPs.

[mike777]

1. 4D, if anything too strong for this.
2. I can rebid an artificial 2C here, but
if not permitted then 2D.
3. yes forcing
4. Easy pass

[pescetom]

1. a clear 4D
2. a clear 2D
3. yes forcing
4. a clear pass

[mikeh]

1. The problem with 4D is that opener has no way to express interest below game. He either bids 4H or forces to the 5 level. The problem with 3H is that we have a fifth trump (ok, that’s within expectations) and first round control of diamonds and the spade AK, neither of which will partner cater to in his decision making. 4D could get us too high. 4H could miss a slam. It’s imps but there’s no magic to bidding thin slams, unlike the advisability of bidding thin vulnerable games, the test for bidding slams is whether the slam is at least 50%

To me, it’s tough to construct a hand for partner where he’ll go past 4H and we get too high. One additional factor…splinters should deliver limited hcp…ok, usually more than 7, lol. But we’d bid 3D, not 4D, with opening values. That factor sways me to choose 4D.

2. 3D is a huge overbid imo. We have a void in partner’s suit, which is a negative. Our suit isn’t running without help from partner. And 3 D often endplays partner in the auction. 2D is at most a slight underbid.

3. the game is way too tough if 2S isn’t F1.

4. I’d need a fourth heart to double with a borderline hand. Pass.

[Cyberyeti]

Mike:

1: you're a passed hand and you open fairly light, so the opening hand for 3♦ argument is silly.

2: 8 playing tricks opposite a stiff is not enough for 3♦ ?

3: I agree, but 3♠ fit or splinter ?

4: I thought for a long while about this, thought it was close

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-17, 11:01, said:

2: 8 playing tricks opposite a stiff is not enough for 3♦ ?

This is an example of hand evaluation being really important. I think this description of the hand is technically correct, but completely misses the mark on this auction.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-17, 11:04, said:

This is an example of hand evaluation being really important. I think this description of the hand is technically correct, but completely misses the mark on this auction.

For us the issue is different, in that 3♦ is limited in that REALLY big hands that want to GF are bid via GF unbal 2N, so this is an absolutely clear 3♦ which could be a fair bit worse.

[DavidKok]

For me 3♦ shows approximately 14-16. I am not sure what your range is, if it's much lower than that I highly recommend reconsidering your system approach. Preempting partner with weaker hands than that seems like a bad idea. Play bad systems, get to bad contracts.

I'm not sure why the GF hands are relevant, those are too strong for 3♦ in standard systems.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-17, 11:12, said:

For me 3♦ shows approximately 14-16. I am not sure what your range is, if it's much lower than that I highly recommend reconsidering your system approach. Preempting partner with weaker hands than that seems like a bad idea. Play bad systems, get to bad contracts.

I'm not sure why the GF hands are relevant, those are too strong for 3♦ in standard systems.

14-16 with 6 not unreasonable, this is worth way more than 13 even with the heart void due to the honour structure and 7th card. If partner is passing, it's not unlikely ops are making 3♠ and we're making 3♦, 3♦ is less likely to get a spade balance or X.

The GF hands (and I mean hands that are GF after the response) are relevant because some do rebid 3♦ (and partner passes it less often than we do).

[DavidKok]

I think you've entirely missed the point that there is a lot of opportunity to improve on hand evaluation here. The hand is way stronger than a typical 13-count with six diamonds, but 3♦ is a bad bid. If your partner or you thinks something along the lines of "the hand is really strong, I should bid 3♦ to show the extra playing strength" then that's exactly the mistake I was referring to.

[mike777]

Deal one is tough
I chose to splinter but partner will probably not play us for two first round controls and a fifth heart

At least we forced to game as a passed hand, and let them know we are short in D with four trump

I also if permitted could bid three spades
As unspecified splinter, start a relay, and show the D void

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-January-17, 11:49, said:

Deal one is tough
I chose to splinter but partner will probably not play us for two first round controls and a fifth heart

At least we forced to game as a passed hand, and let them know we are short in D with four trump

I also if permitted could bid three spades
As unspecified splinter, start a relay, and show the D void

I don't see it as particularly tough.
We have more controls in the pointy suits than expected, less in the curvy suits than expected, length to compensate weak trumps.
Agree with mikeh that it's a pity to have to splinter in the suit below trumps, but I think it's a worthwhile bid all the same.

[gszes]

1. 3D firm believer of going slow when the range of contracts (opposite a minimum from partner) from game to slam. Imagine
xxxx Kxxxx Kx AQ OR Qxxx AKxxxx xx A. 4h might be the limit with hand 1 but 7h with hand 2.

2. 2d I'll pay off if partner has the spade and dia Aces. w/o those 2 specific cards p will need inv+ for us to make game. If the bidding does not die, I like our chances of getting to the best spot.

3. 2s would be forcing but I would use that bid if our spade/club suits were reversed. I would continue with 3c which has to primarily be a search for 3n and not a suit since I would have strained to bid 2c earlier with a club suit.

4. PASS At IMPS I fail to see much of any upside and the downside can be huge (especially if P passes for penalty). I have little extra above the 7HCP p would normally borrow from my hand in direct seat. AT MP I would x, if I needed a top, because I will not get one from passing 2s.

[mw64ahw]

gszes, on 2026-January-17, 20:04, said:

AT MP I would x, if I needed a top, because I will not get one from passing 2s.

If everyone else is doubling do you want to pass?

[Cyberyeti]

OK, what was going on:

I bid 4♦ (void specifically), I had fit jumps available, so the implication was I didn't have a decent side 5 card suit. This piqued partner's interest looking at QJx, AKQJ10, Jxxx, A and we sailed into 6. 7 was there ruffing out the clubs, but 6 was enough for the gain, we were the only pair to bid this one in 15 or so tables.

2: I bid 3♦, partner had Ax, KQ108x, A108, Qxx. We bid 6 which is a little better than 50% on the best spade lead, but much better without one. They led a trump, I ran the K♥ pitching a spade and now either ruffing out ♥J or dropping ♣Q both work. 6 was bid 3/15 tables.

3: partner fell off the planet, and had a big hand with spades while I was trying to work out if it was fit or splinter. We played 4♥ with 6♠ cold and 7♠ which was bid at one table making on a finesse. My trump fit was AKJ8x opposite stiff 9, I made 11 losing 2 to 4♠+3.

4: I doubled as they did at the other table. I guess it was doubled at 6/15 tables, I presume this is how some people got to 3N our way going off. The all seeing eye says 7 tricks are available in spades, but our opponents dropped a trick at both tables so this was +470/+300.

[pescetom]

gszes, on 2026-January-17, 20:04, said:

1. 3D firm believer of going slow when the range of contracts (opposite a minimum from partner) from game to slam. Imagine
xxxx Kxxxx Kx AQ OR Qxxx AKxxxx xx A. 4h might be the limit with hand 1 but 7h with hand 2.

3D is not this hand for most of us.
Over 4D, would you not sign off in game with hand 1 and explore slam with hand 2?
Admittedly you probably aren't going to learn more than spades Ace before having to decide.

[mike777]

Deal 2

Being imps certainly makes this deal much easier to get to slam even after partner makes a minimum rebid.