[Tramticket]

---

IMPs (Teams of 4 Knock-out - you were 7 IMPs up going into the final stanza)

Methods: You play a weak NT and Jacoby transfers (but not Texas transfers. Partner could have responded 3♠, inviting a slam). Partner's 4♣, is a splinter showing 6+ good spades and a singleton/void in clubs.

Question 1: Given these methods, are you obliged to cue-bid a control over 4♣? Or can you attempt to sign off with an unsuitable holding?
Question 2: Do you cue-bid 4♦ on this hand?

[eagles123]

I don't think we're obliged to cue bid, but I certainly would on this hand. ok, our spades are crap, but we have little wastage in clubs and our diamond and heart holdings are nice. partner can't expect us to have everything!!

[eagles123]

I don't think we're obliged to cue bid, but I certainly would on this hand. ok, our spades are crap, but we have little wastage in clubs and our diamond and heart holdings are nice. partner can't expect us to have everything!!

[rmnka447]

I would cue and show a control. You hold controls in both other side suits. So, it looks like there are not 2 quick losers in any one suit. Partner has the big hand and is in control, so let him/her make the decision. I'd be more apt to bid 4 ♠ if the hand was something like ♠ xx ♥ AJxx ♦ Q10xx ♣ KQx.

[nige1]

Tramticket, on 2018-April-01, 12:29, said:

IMPs (Teams of 4 Knock-out - you were 7 IMPs up going into the final stanza). Methods: You play a weak NT and Jacoby transfers (but not Texas transfers. Partner could have responded 3♠, inviting a slam). Partner's 4♣, is a splinter showing 6+ good spades and a singleton/void in clubs.
Question 1: Given these methods, are you obliged to cue-bid a control over 4♣? Or can you attempt to sign off with an unsuitable holding?
Question 2: Do you cue-bid 4♦ on this hand?

---

• You are not obliged to cue-bid with unsuitable hand e.g. wasted values in ♣s
• You could Cue-bid 4♦ -- or 4♥ with Gib. But with quacks and poor trumps, I'd sign off in 4♠ opposite a mild slam try.

Having read other posts, I accept that I'm wrong. With control of both red suits, you owe partner a cue-bid.

This post has been edited by nige1: 2018-April-02, 07:04

[FelicityR]

Make the ♣Q the ♠Q and you have more of a suitable holding than as it stands now. You could have both a ♠ and a ♣ loser as it stands. I'm more inclined with a ♠ doubleton to just sign off in 4♠. Probably the wrong decision but difficult at this level to clarify whether the splinter is a void or singleton and the strength of partner's ♠s. If partner is certain of being in the slam zone he had other options available: the splinter was a mild slam try, nothing more.

[Stephen Tu]

I think you simply must cooperate here. Think of it from partner's perspective, your hand could easily be the same with the minors reversed, which would be infinitely worse. Sign off with that hand not this hand.

If partner gives up after 4d showing a very min try then you can give up also.

If partner is making slam tries such that he doesn't want you to cooperate unless having 13 points outside of clubs in weak nt opening hand, I think he is being far too optimistic, and hurting your accuracy on stronger slam tries if you are supposed to sign off in 4s with this hand.

[gszes]

You showed a 12 14 NT and you have 11 outside clubs. Hardly horrific and the dia sequence (in a 4 card suit) is a tremendous asset. If the 5 level is not safe then your partnership requirements for a self splinter are too low. Bid 4d, this does not promise the world merely a hand that is reasonable for slam purposes opposite a club splinter. Your methods after a splinter response will go a long way to determining how far you can progress. Another thing to think about, what would you have bid with 14 outside clubs? If it is also 4d maybe rethink what you should bid with a max. This will allow lower level cue bids to show positive hands that are more marginal for slam purposes:)

[0deary]

North didn’t break the 2H transfer so South can’t expect an especially suitable hand

(After the 2S some use 3S as a suit settler and invite control bids, but many use that as Invitation)

After 4C North can rely on South solid spade suit, club control and asks North specifically have you a diamond control? Bypassing that risks missing slams so I’d absolutely show the control

Some use only first round controls, so without the Ace diamonds it’s (and can only) bid 4H. I think it’s more useful to show second round controls below Blackwood, so 4D it is!

[Caitlynne]

While different agreements are possible, the usual approach to the use of Splinter Bids is an announcement that there is slam possibilities IF partner has no wasted honor values opposite the shortness and the trump fit is sufficiently solid to play at the slam level. A Splinter Bid is neither an announcement of sufficient strength to make slam probable nor is it a command that partner cooperate in the exploration of a slam.

Here, opener is looking at a wasted honor value in clubs (the Queen) and knows the trump fit/support is as weak as it can be expected to be. So there is no way that opener should encourage or cooperate. If opener does make a cue bid, it shows good trumps and suggests that there is very little wastage in clubs. The wastage of the Queen is hardly inconsequential given that opener is not clearly maximum and trump support is weak. It is clear cut for opener to bid 4S at his/her third turn.

[sfi]

Tramticket, on 2018-April-01, 12:29, said:

Question 1: Given these methods, are you obliged to cue-bid a control over 4♣? Or can you attempt to sign off with an unsuitable holding?
Question 2: Do you cue-bid 4♦ on this hand?

1. No - the splinter asks partner to evaluate their hand in light of the shortness and determine whether their hand is good in context.
2. Yes - the hand is huge despite the poor spade holding. Give partner AKxxxxx of spades and the diamond ace and slam is not far below average. Add the jack and slam is a good bet, so I can't sign off.

Another way to look at it is to replace the CQ with a small club. Opening 1NT would still not be an overbid, so you have to take some positive action.

[Tramticket]

Thanks all. I signed off in 4♠. Partner's hand was:

---

I was particularly worried about the poor trumps at the time - as well as the wasted Q♣ and my reasoning was similar to Nige1 and others.

I think that this was short-sighted. gszes gave the crucial comment in my opinion:

Quote

the diamond sequence (in a 4 card suit) is a tremendous asset

These diamonds opposite the A♦ will provide three tricks + a further trick from the A♥ = 4 tricks, which is surely as much as partner can expect from a weak NT. For slam to be good we need 12 tricks as well as controls and with my tricks the five-level is likely to be safe, so I am worth a 4♦ cue bid. (Note the slam is a poor option if you weaken the diamonds: ♠XX ♥AJXX ♦KQJ ♣QXXX.)

Thank you all for your comments. Very educational.