4-tier splinters

[Apollo81]

Some of you are familiar with the convention "2-tier splinters", where 1M-[3M+1] is a splinter of minimum-gf strength and 3M+N, N in {2,3,4} shows significant extra values (e.g. 13+ hcp). Basically one splinter needs a fitting non-minimum opener for slam and the other needs only a fitting minimum.

 

Discuss the merits of extending this concept to the following, which I dub "4-tier splinters":

 

1. Direct splinters are similar to 2-tier, but promise a void.

 

2. Singleton splinters go through (modified Jacoby) 2NT. Opener's rebids modified to:

3♣: denies shortness

3♦: singleton somewhere

higher: could be used to show voids, 5-card suits, or whatever else

 

After 1M-2NT-3♣:

3♦: denies a singleton, shows more extras

3M: denies a singleton, shows at least a little bit extra

2-tier splinters on

4M: very minimum game force

 

After 1M-2NT-3♦:

3M: asks for the singleton

2-tier splinters on

4M: very minimum game force

 

Possible advantages include disguising the singleton in either hand when both hands are minimum, distinguishing between a void and a singleton at a low level, and clarifying both hands' hcp range. Possible disadvantages include being more vulnerable to interference.

[jdonn]

Another disadvantage is when opener has a singleton he has to show it a bid or two higher. But overall it seems like a workable idea.

[wank]

differentiating between voids+singletons = very useful.

 

differentiating between 2 ranges of splinters = waste of time

 

imo

[karlson]

I actually play something very similar, but split the 4 splinters into min,mid,max/stiff,max/void. Unlike wank, I think differentiating between strength ranges is very important.

 

It feels like the supermax splinter works pretty well when it comes up in bidding practice, but in practice it's never come up in actual play. It may be that your split is better.

[Apollo81]

Another disadvantage is when opener has a singleton he has to show it a bid or two higher. But overall it seems like a workable idea.

Also possible is to make opener's singleton rebids start at 3♦, much closer to traditional Jacoby. This would still preserve the 4-tier structure for responder.

[gnasher]

I can't see why differentiating between strengths should be less useful in this type of sequence than in any other. To make slam, one of the things you need is the ability to take is twelve tricks. One of the ways to find out whether you have that is to exchange information about strength.

 

In fact, I think it's probably more useful than immediately distinguishing between a singleton and a void. For the purpose of determining how well the hands fit, there is rarely much difference between a singleton and a void. KJx is as useless opposite a void as it is opposite a singleton; values in the suits where partner isn't short are going to be useful regardless of how short his shortage is.

 

In contrast, knowing whether partner has a 14-count or a 10-count can be very useful: it means that we don't have to make revealing cue-bids on a deal where we don't have the values for slam, and it helps us to decide whether to go to the five level.

[PhantomSac]

I can't see why differentiating between strengths should be less useful in this type of sequence than in any other. To make slam, one of the things you need is the ability to take is twelve tricks. One of the ways to find out whether you have that is to exchange information about strength.

 

In fact, I think it's probably more useful than immediately distinguishing between a singleton and a void. For the purpose of determining how well the hands fit, there is rarely much difference between a singleton and a void. KJx is as useless opposite a void as it is opposite a singleton; values in the suits where partner isn't short are going to be useful regardless of how short his shortage is.

 

In contrast, knowing whether partner has a 14-count or a 10-count can be very useful: it means that we don't have to make revealing cue-bids on a deal where we don't have the values for slam, and it helps us to decide whether to go to the five level.

Nailed it.

 

More to the point, splinters take up a lot of room so they can't have a wide range else there is not enough accuracy in judging whether to go beyond game, however we always want to show shortness and trump support with anything from a min GF to a slam force, so we need multiple ways to splinter. Putting some into your forcing raise is a great way to do this.

[Fluffy]

there are actually more tiers even, since the weakest tier can reopen and then becomes stronger than the strong one.

 

If one player its balanced and the other has a shortness it is very easy to determine the number of expected tricks just using an HCP escale, however it is not that true, someone tends to have a 5 card side suit and ruins most of the fun.

 

 

I agree that splinters at teh 4 level seem little weird since they take a lot of space, I even though about using 2NT as splinter and the 4 level for balanced hands wich made more sense to me. But apollos structure sounds very sound.