Story time

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sk954h8742dcaq983]133|100|Scoring: MP

(P)-P-(P)-1♠,

(P)-?[/hv]

 

Right or wrong, you decide to pass this hand 2nd seat, and partner comes up with a 4th seat ♠ bid.

 

Your agreements are that you play 2/1, with 2-way drury on in 3rd & 4th (3 card limit raise is 2♣, 4 card 2♦), fit jumps by a passed hand showing at least Hxx in spades plus a good 5 card suit, and splinters still on, though rarely used since most hands that incorporate them would either have opened or gone through drury.

 

What do you think is best to start out your exploration?

[OleBerg]

Voted 4♦.

 

In my system it shows a void, as I use 3nt to show an unknown limited splinter.

[JanM]

Voted 4♦.

 

In my system it shows a void, as I use 3nt to show an unknown limited splinter.

Exactly what I was about to say :P, although I voted "other" since 4♦ wasn't defined as a void in the choices.

[CSGibson]

Voted 4♦.

 

In my system it shows a void, as I use 3nt to show an unknown limited splinter.

Just curious, if the auction was hearts, does that make 3♠ your ubiquitous shortness showing bid and 3N a spade void?

[OleBerg]

Voted 4♦.

 

In my system it shows a void, as I use 3nt to show an unknown limited splinter.

Just curious, if the auction was hearts, does that make 3♠ your ubiquitous shortness showing bid and 3N a spade void?

Yes. :P

[Hanoi5]

I'd rather show my shortness, my rank and 4-card support, 4♦.

[whereagles]

4♦.

 

With a pet pard, I play this as void splinter even :P

[mtvesuvius]

4♦. I show my hand, then partner judges what to do. If partner judges wrong, oh well. If partner judges right, that's great for him. If I have a bid to describe my hand, I use it!

 

AJK

[matmat]

i think i prefer a fit jump to a splinter. At least that emphasizes the suit i have stuff in. P might end up playing me for some honors in hearts i don't have and go a little overboard.

 

 

edit -- meant one suit said another. fixed.

[maggieb]

If I can show a diamond void, that is clearly the best way to start, since that is such a huge feature when I have 4 card major support. However, if all I can show is diamond shortness, I think 3♣ is a better description.

[gwnn]

shortness is a more important story than AQ 5th vs K 4th imho

[vang]

i voted 3♣ since for me splinter doesn't show a void. i hope i can catchup later with diamond shortage. 4♦ eat too much space for a hand who has more than one feature to show

[Fluffy]

4♦ seems like best description possible.

[kenrexford]

When in doubt, tend to make the descriptive bid that leaves space. As the space gain increases, the tendency increases.

 

So, 3♣ for me.

 

4♦ leaves partner with one call -- 4♥ -- if he is in doubt.

 

3♣ leaves partner with seven options, and each step closer to 3♣ has more depth of back-and-forth capability.

 

BTW -- have you incorporated any methods after the fit-jump to explore more about Responder's hand? Like, for example, a 3♦ relay after 3♣? Using a very simple approach, my 3♦ relay would ask for more info. 4♦ by Responder would show that the shortness is in diamonds, with no heart control. [3♥ would have shown a singleton heart with no control in diamonds; cheapest NT -- 3NT -- for stiff diamond (other minor) and a control in hearts; cheapest Agreed -- 3♠ -- for stiff in OM plus control in other minor.) Thus, Responder can bid the clubs (3♣) and then show the shortness (4♦), while also denying control of the fourth suit (hearts), with enough space left for Opener to NOW bid 4♥ as Last Train (void ask, if you want?). Let alone, any other option Opener would have (not relay).

[helene_t]

3♣, what Matmat said.

[glen]

p-1♠;-3♣(fit showing)-3♦®;-4♦(void)-!, as KRex recommended, not including his BTW details

[mikeh]

3♣ for me, for the reasons that Ken set out, even without specialized agreements.

 

Nothing matters, really, unless partner has slam ambitions, and, then, everything matters :)

 

The splinter makes it impossible for opener to evaluate his round suit holdings, while preventing us from showing our source of tricks, and our lack of anything better than 5th round heart control.

 

After 1♠ 3♣, partner will correctly play us for 9+ black cards, and about this sort of strength in the blacks, and no meaningful high cards in the reds.. but we can still have and often will have a stiff (a void is always much less common).

 

So with AQxxxx x Axx Kxx, he can drive to slam, comfortably. With AQxxx Ax xxx Kxx, he can bid 3♥, and now our 4♦ call will get us to slam, and so on.

 

I think the main points are:

 

1. for slam purposes, the club suit is often going to be critical as a source of tricks.. and the splinter leaves that out

 

2. For slam purposes, the fit-jump shows the source of tricks and will often allow us to show the diamond shortness anyway.. we may even get to show the void, by cue-bidding 4♦ over 3♥ and then 5♦ over 5♣

 

So the splinter consumes valuable bidding space while leaving half our story untold. The fit jump consumes less space and offers the possibility of telling all or almost all of our story.

[CSGibson]

When in doubt, tend to make the descriptive bid that leaves space. As the space gain increases, the tendency increases.

 

So, 3♣ for me.

 

4♦ leaves partner with one call -- 4♥ -- if he is in doubt.

 

3♣ leaves partner with seven options, and each step closer to 3♣ has more depth of back-and-forth capability.

 

BTW -- have you incorporated any methods after the fit-jump to explore more about Responder's hand? Like, for example, a 3♦ relay after 3♣? Using a very simple approach, my 3♦ relay would ask for more info. 4♦ by Responder would show that the shortness is in diamonds, with no heart control. [3♥ would have shown a singleton heart with no control in diamonds; cheapest NT -- 3NT -- for stiff diamond (other minor) and a control in hearts; cheapest Agreed -- 3♠ -- for stiff in OM plus control in other minor.) Thus, Responder can bid the clubs (3♣) and then show the shortness (4♦), while also denying control of the fourth suit (hearts), with enough space left for Opener to NOW bid 4♥ as Last Train (void ask, if you want?). Let alone, any other option Opener would have (not relay).

We haven't hammered out follow-ups to our fit jumps yet, though a simple shortness showing response definetely seems reasonable.

 

Partner's hand was:

 

[hv=s=saqtxxxhxdaj9xckx]133|100|[/hv],

 

so the splinter definitely gets you to the good slam, and the fit jump should. The only thing that might give you trouble is drury, as partner is likely to just jump to 4 spades instead of playing you for the perfecto, though it isn't impossible to recover from that decision if partner decided to show heart shortness instead.

 

One pair out of 7 got to slam in an open game during STAC week at our club :) .

[kenrexford]

p-1♠;-3♣(fit showing)-3♦®;-4♦(void)-!, as KRex recommended, not including his BTW details

I understand that my 3♦ idea might be novel and great, but I did not get a registered trademark for the idea. :D

[han]

I like the relay very much (though I might play different responses: none, low singleton, high singleton, low void, high void).

[Viren169]

I think 2D is fine for now... followed by 4D splinter on my next bid...

 

BR

Viren

[skjaeran]

I'm bidding 4♦, voidshowing.

[Echognome]

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D." So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question. I do not direct this thought at any particular poster.

 

Point #2 - I prefer a fit jump to showing shortness (even if I can show a void), because (a) I think it describes our hand better and (b ) it gives us more room. I definitely prefer it in the context of comparing the fit jump with the splinter.

[kenrexford]

I like the relay very much (though I might play different responses: none, low singleton, high singleton, low void, high void).

I thought of that. You show the location of your shortness and whether you have control in the fourth suit or not. Then, there will always be space to ask if the shortness is stiff or void below game. In the one situation where you cannot do this (partner's response will be one-under game), there will be some unused bid out there, to show the "one-under void," if you want.

 

Of course, you could also show the nature of the shortness, as you mentioned, and then have the "ask" inquire about control of the fourth suit. I suppose it all works out the same in the end.

[Fluffy]

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D." So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question. I do not direct this thought at any particular poster.

Can't agree more, you can freely point out your personal convention, but it doesn't hurt that much to just answer the problem that accounted at the table as well.