[lycier]

---

How to bid up to 6♠?

[the hog]

1S 1NT
4H
Autosplinter is a good start. Now Sth knows the J of S and the C cards are golden. 5C after this to show the C cards and 6S.

[mikeh]

the hog, on 2013-January-09, 23:28, said:

1S 1NT
4H
Autosplinter is a good start. Now Sth knows the J of S and the C cards are golden. 5C after this to show the C cards and 6S.

Nice if one plays adjective bridge. Dangerous otherwise: you'll need to buy a lot of hearts in dummy to make 4♥ better than 4♠

Personally, I don't think I can ever get there. It's just too magic.

No system can diagnose every perfect fit and you'll drive yourself nuts if you don't just accept that some hands simply fall in the gaps of your methods. If this happens a lot, then look at your methods, but this particular sort of perfecto is just one of those things. If it bothers you a lot, switch to a big club method...if S can make an immediate positive in clubs, opener gets excited.

[cherdano]

I don't play adjective bridge, but do we really have to assume a pickup partnership with no agreements?
I play 4H as a self-splinter, and I agree this should get you to slam.

[the hog]

I also don't play adjective Bridge. The 4H in my system is an autosplinter. It has come up a few times and neither partner has ever forgotten the agreement, so I do not understand the rather snide comment, Mikeh.

[Cyberyeti]

Well you could play really old fashioned acol where the S hand is worth 2♣ over 1♠, or you autosplinter

Edit: Of course I forgot, old fashioned acol would open a strong 2♠ after which I'd have no issues reaching 6♣ but could reach 6♠ also.

[Codo]

I had opened different, but in the given system, 4 ♥ looks clear and is surely a splinter for anybody I care to play with- else we at least have a good story...

[billw55]

Agree, and I don't even think this layout is all that "magic" or "perfecto". Singleton opposite four small is a fairly common form of low hcp slam; isn't this why splinters were invented in the first place? Furthermore, in north american standard bidding (both old fashioned and 2/1), opener's 3♥ rebid is natural and game forcing, so why assign the same meaning to 4♥?

That said, yes, perhaps a strong club system will work better.

[mgoetze]

the hog, on 2013-January-09, 23:28, said:

1S 1NT
4H
Autosplinter is a good start. Now Sth knows the J of S and the C cards are golden. 5C after this to show

... Jx Axxxx QJxxxx void?

[kenrexford]

I agree with the others who say the following, in essence:

1. An auto-splinter is not all that tricky. All you need is a general understanding that a bid in a suit one level higher than the level needed to make a 100% forcing bid is a splinter, and tada!
2. This hand is right for that call.
3. Responder should know what to do.
4. There is nothing all that perfecto about this situation.


I would disagree with those who cannot stop themselves from advocating strong clubs and relays. For one thing, this is ridiculously wrong. Ease might be a subjective term, but compare:

1♠(I have spades)-1NT(I don't)
4♥(How about that!?!?)-6♠(duh...OK)

or perhaps Responder asks questions or something.

...with any number of auctions startng artificially, perhaps by both partners, perhaps with cross-fire from the enemy muddling things.

I mean, when the problem hand to describe features a solid one-suiter in a major, a stiff in the other major, and control of the two other suits, you have the best case scenario for a natural system. A strong club system typically can be advertised when you have 5-4-3-1 shape with a stiff King and need to find the 4-3 fit in your 3-card suit for the grand slam.

[lalldonn]

How could 4♥ possibly be natural? I think that is adjective bridge, and the adjective is "dumb".

[mikeh]

lalldonn, on 2013-January-10, 09:18, said:

How could 4♥ possibly be natural? I think that is adjective bridge, and the adjective is "dumb".

I know a number of very good players (admittedly a lot older than you) who would take 4♥ as natural. Your view may well be more 'current' and may be of more use (tho I have never held a hand on which I'd want to auto-splinter 4♥)but that doesn't make it universal, and my point was that absent an agreement or discussion, it isn't safe to assume it is an auto-splinter.

When making an undiscussed call that could be natural one takes a risk if playing it as artificial. Given that slam isn't likely opposite a 1N response, that's a big risk one takes.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

lycier, on 2013-January-09, 22:21, said:

---

How to bid up to 6♠?

1S - 1NTF
3C! ( GF, may be artificial: long ♠ or real ♣ suit )
...... - 3D! ( next step asks )
3S ( long ♠; whereas any other bid shows real ♣ suit )
...... - 4C ( advance cue for ♠ )

And the rest below is resulting:
5C ( ♣- cue ; at least ♠A and K to go past 4NT; still room for Red cues )
...... - 6C
6S

[lalldonn]

Mike, sometimes old players play dumb things that they learned before people figured out the smart things. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to avoid making obvious bids.

[the hog]

mikeh, on 2013-January-10, 09:30, said:

I know a number of very good players (admittedly a lot older than you) who would take 4♥ as natural. Your view may well be more 'current' and may be of more use (tho I have never held a hand on which I'd want to auto-splinter 4♥)but that doesn't make it universal, and my point was that absent an agreement or discussion, it isn't safe to assume it is an auto-splinter.

When making an undiscussed call that could be natural one takes a risk if playing it as artificial. Given that slam isn't likely opposite a 1N response, that's a big risk one takes.

Where in the op does it say that he was not playing autosplinters? I must have missed that.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-10, 03:15, said:

Edit: Of course I forgot, old fashioned acol would open a strong 2♠ after which I'd have no issues reaching 6♣ but could reach 6♠ also.

Am interested how your Acol 2 auction would go. Presumably it starts 2♠ - 3♣; 3♠?