[jillybean]

---

[smerriman]

First thought was 5♦ but if partner has K, AK in the minors and a likely heart void, slam is laydown.. what would a spade bid mean here - can't be natural, so maybe this?

[fuzzyquack]

4♥, that's the only way to show big ♦ fit and ambitions, and I'll raise 5♦ to 6 opposite non-expert partner

[johnu]

I'll try 4♠. Couldn't bid spades on the 1st round of bidding, so can hardly suggest playing in spades opposite a big 2 suited minor hand, so this should be a splinter bid in support of diamonds. .

[DavidKok]

4♥ - I don't have splinters in new suits in competition (instead I play that as fitbids, and partner may decide to pass with the likely 3=0=4=6 or 3=1=4=5 distribution).

Incidentally, what would 3♦ have been last round?

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-28, 01:14, said:

4♥ - I don't have splinters in new suits in competition (instead I play that as fitbids, and partner may decide to pass with the likely 3=0=4=6 or 3=1=4=5 distribution).

Incidentally, what would 3♦ have been last round?

3♦ looks like this hand.

---

over 4♥ do I cooperate and bid 4♠?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would prefer X over 3D, sometimes your last making contract is 3C.


I find it hard to create a reasonable auction towards 6D, ..., the key is the spade single.
I also play fitbids instead of splinter, ..., the question is, why did I not introduce a
real spade suit over 1H direct. Obv. we know the answer seeing all hands, ..., ask me at the
table, what I make of the bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[johnu]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-28, 10:38, said:

I also play fitbids instead of splinter, ..., the question is, why did I not introduce a
real spade suit over 1H direct.

That is the exact question to ask. How can South have spades (and diamonds) when they couldn't make a negative double or bid 1♠ over the 1♥ overcall. Let alone suggesting playing 4♠ opposite partner who has shown a 2 suited minor hand. It makes zero sense that South can have a 4 level fit bid with spades.

The answer is this sequence can't show a fit bid, so it must be a splinter. If it makes you feel better, call it the impossible splinter, analogous to the impossible major bid.

[DavidKok]

johnu, on 2025-March-28, 18:31, said:

The answer is this sequence can't show a fit bid, so it must be a splinter. If it makes you feel better, call it the impossible splinter, analogous to the impossible major bid.

I can think of other hands that might bid this way, such as ♠KJxxx, ♥x, ♦Txxxx, ♣xx. Some might consider this too weak to bid 1♠ over 1♥, but I also believe it is losing bridge to stop below 4♥ on this start of the auction, and we may have to coordinate our 5-over-5 auction (and 4♠ might be a better contract than 5♦!).
In the past I've played with partners who would somewhat often decide that 'this one time there is a clear exception to our meta-agreements, logically it cannot be anything else, so obviously this strange bid must show exactly my hand'. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it led to great confusion, faulty explanations to opponents, UI issues, and unplayable contracts in the wrong strain. It took me several years to (mostly) stop making bids like this myself. I have more agreements than most for competitive auctions, and I don't deviate from them. If there's a crack in the agreements we will sort it out after the deal. I think splintering in an unbid suit, with a standing agreement to never splinter in unbid suits in competition, is asking for trouble no matter how self-evident it seems to you (mind you: while looking at your own hand).
What's worse, on this deal we have already neglected to bid 3♦ last round. Clearly we shouldn't put all that much stock in partner not playing us for hands we've already denied, otherwise we're completely stuck.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-29, 05:02, said:

I can think of other hands that might bid this way, such as ♠KJxxx, ♥x, ♦Txxxx, ♣xx. Some might consider this too weak to bid 1♠ over 1♥, but I also believe it is losing bridge to stop below 4♥ on this start of the auction, and we may have to coordinate our 5-over-5 auction (and 4♠ might be a better contract than 5♦!).
In the past I've played with partners who would somewhat often decide that 'this one time there is a clear exception to our meta-agreements, logically it cannot be anything else, so obviously this strange bid must show exactly my hand'. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it led to great confusion, faulty explanations to opponents, UI issues, and unplayable contracts in the wrong strain. It took me several years to (mostly) stop making bids like this myself. I have more agreements than most for competitive auctions, and I don't deviate from them. If there's a crack in the agreements we will sort it out after the deal. I think splintering in an unbid suit, with a standing agreement to never splinter in unbid suits in competition, is asking for trouble no matter how self-evident it seems to you (mind you: while looking at your own hand).

FWIW I fully agree, making undiscussed calls with an "obvious" (to us at that moment) meaning is quite often unsuccessful and in any case sows the seeds for a less trusting partnership. I would rather make an uninspiring call (like bidding hearts here, or even diamonds) than hope partner will grasp and admire my latest genial improvisation (here spades).

A few years back, the FIGB commisioned Garozzi to specify a national standard 5 card major 2/1 system. It had many good ideas but had a lot of situations in which "obvious" illogical calls were not only possible but expected and encouraged, whether to set suit, splinter, show slam interest or whatever. The result was unplayable and soon fell into disuse.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-29, 05:02, said:

I can think of other hands that might bid this way, such as ♠KJxxx, ♥x, ♦Txxxx, ♣xx. Some might consider this too weak to bid 1♠ over 1♥

I'm not one of those who think this is too weak for 1♠.