Moss-Ekeblad Problem Hand

[Winstonm]

I don't understand the reason why 4C is not splinter.

On other day, supposing you hold:

♠Kxx ♥A10xxx ♦Axxx ♣x. Do you think it's best to define 4C as control rather than splinter?

It is very standard among experts to define 4x as showing some kind of value in that suit. The reason is after 1S p 1N p 2H p you are already very likely to have at most 2 spades. Splinters are infrequent and not that useful. But sometimes you hav a super hand for hearts and want to bid 4x to show it.

So how do you bid this in the same auction: KJ, AQJxx, xxx, xxx? :huh:

[Finch]

Schools 1 & 3 are very similar, so much so that I would not try that hard to separate them.

 

School 4:

1S - 1NT

2H -

 

4C = huge raise to game (this sort of hand)

4D = OK raise to game, could be making slam opposite a maximum

4H = just bidding game to see what happens, please don't bid on

 

(I actually prefer schools 1/3 but I've seen this played)

 

NB: Even playing semi-forcing NT I tend to keep 3NT as natural.

[kenrexford]

I like some of these analyses. Just one concern.

 

I'm assuming that the 3415/3451 patterns are deemed highly unlikely (when slam is possible) because these hands would be handled through a constructive raise. That makes sense, to a degree. However, isn't 1♠-P-1NT-P-?-P-3♠ the normal method of showing a limit raise?

 

What do you bid, after 1♠, with say ♠Kxx ♥QJxxx ♦x ♣Kxx? If this is strong enough for a 2/1 GF (partner does not open 5332 11-counts like mine), then remove the heart Jack, or the Queen if necessary. It seems that these hands are too strong for a simple raise, even if constructive, but too weak for a 2/1 GF. (SAYC removes the problem, but this is for 2/1 GF folks).

[whereagles]

"That's funny. I'd say it's a little heavy for a 3♥ jump, given it has 4 losers "

 

4 losers???? Looks like 5 to me.

huh..? Did someone changed the hand? I thought I had a void club and 65. With 5 losers one obviously can't open 1♣.