[Echognome]

Pure judgment call here. Suppose your agreement is that splinters over 1M are limited (if you want a rough estimate say 10-12). Which of these hands will you splinter with over 1♥?

a. xxx Kxxxx x Kxxx
b. xxx Axxxx x Kxxx
c. xx Axxxx x Kxxxx
d. xxxx Axxx x Axxx
e. xxx Axxx x Axxxx
f. xxx Axxxx x Axxx

[han]

a, b, d and e are clearly not good enough imo.

I'd say f is good enough and c is perhaps just short, not sure.

[the hog]

Only f.

[jdonn]

None of them, but F is pretty close.

[Codo]

cf

[Fluffy]

Agree with Josh.

[ochinko]

With super fits controls and losers are far more relevant than points. The way I play it I wouldn't splinter with any of these but if I had to, I'd splinter only with C as all others have more than 7 losers.

[mr1303]

Have limit raises gone out of fashion these days?

I wouldn't splinter on ANY of these.

[Free]

C and F, B is close

[pbleighton]

Quote

Have limit raises gone out of fashion these days?

I wouldn't splinter on ANY of these.

Ditto.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: The fundamental problem that you are running into is that you aren't happy with "HCP" as a metric. None of the hands that you list has 10-12 HCPs. If you are a walrus and your strict agreement is 10 - 12 HCPs, then none of the hands qualify. I suspect that some other measure like LTC or (can't believe that I am saying this) Zar points would be a better gauge with a known fit. The right course of action would (probably) be to see what metric provided the most accurate results and then go back and see which of the hands met these conditions.

Comment 2: I would (probably) only splinter with F.

Hand C is a nice hand and could offer more playing strength than F. However, the critical issue here is likely to be whether or not you have a double fit and I don't think that a splinter is the best way to find out about this. (Which is not to say that we will necessary get more information if I chose some other bid)

[keylime]

I'm pretty classical in terms of splinters, so I'd say none of them.

[skjaeran]

I'd not splinter with any of these hands. A splinter would show just a little stronger hands than the best of these and a void. With my regular partner I'd bid 2♠, showing some minisplinter. Hand c is close to, but not quite worth a GF.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Aug 29 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Hand c is close to, but not quite worth a GF.

Just out of curiosity to clarify, are you not bidding game on all the hands with 5 trumps?

[pclayton]

This is the crux of the problem for me. I want to be in game opposite b, c and f - and possibly a. D and E are marginal, and I might want to be there at red.

I'm assuming a 3N call is available to show a preemptive raise with a little extra. How much extra is the question.

[skjaeran]

Echognome, on Aug 29 2007, 06:23 PM, said:

skaeran, on Aug 29 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Hand c is close to, but not quite worth a GF.

Just out of curiosity to clarify, are you not bidding game on all the hands with 5 trumps?

You're bloody right - I was making a too quick reply.

A and b I'd just raise directly to game, not bid 2♠.

I can't do that on f, since a raise to game denies 2 KC. I'd bid 2♠ followed by 4♥, unless partner makes a move towards slam.

I'd do the same with hand c; I think it's got too much potential to just blast to game.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Aug 29 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 29 2007, 06:23 PM, said:

skaeran, on Aug 29 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Hand c is close to, but not quite worth a GF.

Just out of curiosity to clarify, are you not bidding game on all the hands with 5 trumps?

You're bloody right - I was making a too quick reply.

A and b I'd just raise directly to game, not bid 2♠.

I can't do that on f, since a raise to game denies 2 KC. I'd bid 2♠ followed by 4♥, unless partner makes a move towards slam.

I'd do the same with hand c; I think it's got too much potential to just blast to game.

Note that I would bid these as mini-splinters if I had that option as well. I should possibly have made this a poll with the following options:

2♥ Usual raise of about 5-9
2♠ Limit Raise or better (i.e. 4+♥)
3♥ Preemptive
3N "Good" 4♥ preempt with an outside A/K
4♦ Limit splinter (around 10-12)
4♥ "Bad" 4♥ preempt

We're just trying to put some parameters around these bids.

[ArtK78]

Finally, some common sense.

All of these hands are mini-splinters, and none of them are game-forcing splinters. That is not to say that I would not bid game on f. I just would not represent that my hand is worth a game force.

The main purpose of a splinter bid is to explore for slam based on fitting hands. If my pard is interested in moving towards slam opposite a game-invitational splinter, fine. But I am not going to represent a game-forcing splinter with any of these hands so that my partner will launch into RKCB only to find I have one fewer ace or king than he expected to find in my hand.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Aug 29 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

All of these hands are mini-splinters, and none of them are game-forcing splinters.

I wouldn't minisplinter with 5 card support, I'd just power straight to game (or GF and bid slowly if I have sufficient key cards and covers to do so). If we have game with 20 hcp, so might they. I'd like this auction to stay non-competitive, and that means not giving them a free double.