Bid 7 using splinters & exc blackwood

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq763hqj64dacqj9&n=sat9842hdkj2cak72]133|200[/hv]

 

South is the dealer and opens 1♠

 

 

Using splinter bid and exclusion blackwood bid this to get to 7

 

Thank you

[Cyberyeti]

By our style, the auction goes 1♠-4♥(void, singleton splinters thru 2N, bid 4♠ with rubbish or give an exclusion response) so this is a non issue, partner has 12 points outside the void suit so shows 2+Q with 5♥, you bid 6♣(I have K or Q, bid 7 with the other) and S does.

 

For many people the N hand will be too good to splinter, so this will depend on your methods over 1♠-2N

[Zelandakh]

The reason North would splinter here in standard methods would be that they wanted to start a slam drive. One mthod that gets posted here often is that a splinter followed by RKCB/Kickback is Exclusion. Such an auction (1♠ - 4♥; 4♠ - 4NT; 5♠ - 6♣; 6♥ - 7♠) would meet your criteria but perhaps not be the best bridge.

 

Another gadget that can be used is split-range splinters, where a direct 4 level splinter is normal and a delayed splinter via some pre-arranged response shows a stronger splinter raise. That might lead to an auction like: 1♠ - 2NT; 3♣(ask) - 3NT(any void); 4♣(ask) - 4♥; 4NT - 5♠; 5NT - 6NT; 7♠.

 

But this responding hand is perhaps even too strong for a "strong" splinter in such a scheme. That leaves your generic GF raise (Jacoby or whatever) or beginning with a GF 2♣ and hoping to learn enough in the bidding room that has been saved. Neither of those really gives what you want though and in any case there is going to be a big variety of possible auctions here depending on a number of style factors.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

Another gadget that can be used is split-range splinters, where a direct 4 level splinter is normal and a delayed splinter via some pre-arranged response shows a stronger splinter raise. That might lead to an auction like: 1♠ - 2NT; 3♣(ask) - 3NT(any void); 4♣(ask) - 4♥; 4NT - 5♠; 5NT - 6NT; 7♠.

Would Cyberyeti's treatment over a Void response offer an "improvement" to your scheme ?

Namely: for Opener to "Show" a void reply ( as if Exclusion were asked ) rather than "Ask" for key cards .

 

After 4H ( Responder's void ):

Opener:

??

4S = sign-off

4NT = 0/3 ( excluding ♥ )

5C = 1/4

5D = 2 - ♠Q

5H = 2 + ♠Q ...

 

Now, after 5H, Responder can either ask for Kings ( 5NT ) or ask for a 3rd Rnd Ctrl in a suit ( at 6-level ) :

..... - 6C

7C = ♣Q J ....

..... -7S

[Zelandakh]

I prefer for partner of the splinter bidder to be the one taking control - they are the ones that know best how well the hands fit and the general strength. I do do something along these lines in some other auctions where the known hand is the one bypassing 4 of the agreed major. In this situation it is also a waste to use the normal RKCB responses since 5♠ over 5♥ would be non-forcing. So 5♠ should also be a possible response, perhaps 2+Q without ♦K.

 

This hand actually illustrates that to a limited extent - when Opener finds out about ♠A, ♠ length, ♥ void, ♦K and ♣AK it is very easy to place the contract. In CY's auction (and also my first one) Responder has to guess in which minor to ask Opener about third round control.

 

Finally I am intrigued by your SSA response structure. In the online book a raise of the asking suit shows KQ (iirc) and even by steps you would expect QJ to be not higher than step 3 (6NT) if included at all. You use steps and have QJ higher than a singleton perhaps? In any case it would be nice to see it providing it does not derail dickie's thread.

[aguahombre]

One method that gets posted here often is that a splinter followed by RKCB/Kickback is Exclusion. Such an auction (1♠ - 4♥; 4♠ - 4NT; 5♠ - 6♣; 6♥ - 7♠) would meet your criteria but perhaps not be the best bridge.

Speaking for the poster who mentions this method often: I wouldn't know what the 6H bid meant to you, but the 6♣ call would be a check for 3rd round club control which opener does have -- and with her absolute Diamond control as a bonus, she would be bidding the Spade Grand immediately over 6C.

 

Perhaps not the best Bridge, indeed. But as Charlie Tuna says....

 

Five-level Exclusion-asks seem to gobble up too much room for my taste, especially if Hearts are the exclusion suit.

[Zelandakh]

Speaking for the poster who mentions this method often: I wouldn't know what the 6H bid meant to you, but the 6♣ call would be a check for 3rd round club control which opener does have

6♣ is indeed meant as a SSA here. 6♥ shows the queen and denies the king using a step-based response method but you are probably right that North can bid the grand themselves at this point. The potential problem, as per the previous post, comes when South has ♦Q and no ♣Q.

[aguahombre]

The potential problem, as per the previous post, comes when South has ♦Q and no ♣Q.

Our ask would have been for 3rd round control, not necessarily Queens. We would think of it differently: we probably can't survive a Grand without 3rd-round club control. If Opener has, for instance, four small in clubs there is no hope; if opener has AQ of Diamonds and XXX of clubs, the Diamonds must also be Doubleton.

[Cyberyeti]

This hand actually illustrates that to a limited extent - when Opener finds out about ♠A, ♠ length, ♥ void, ♦K and ♣AK it is very easy to place the contract. In CY's auction (and also my first one) Responder has to guess in which minor to ask Opener about third round control.

 

No he doesn't, 6♦ over 6♣ would say "I haven't got K/Q♣, but I have got ♦K or Q".

[Zelandakh]

Our ask would have been for 3rd round control, not necessarily Queens. We would think of it differently: we probably can't survive a Grand without 3rd-round club control. If Opener has, for instance, four small in clubs there is no hope; if opener has AQ of Diamonds and XXX of clubs, the Diamonds must also be Doubleton.

An SSA is an ask for third round control so the same - 6♦ in response would show a doubleton club but deny ♣Q. The hand you describe is the one I was thinking of that seems to be an issue for this method.

 

No he doesn't, 6♦ over 6♣ would say "I haven't got K/Q♣, but I have got ♦K or Q".

The the problem for this method comes in locating minors of ♦Ax ♣xx. ♦A ♣xxx seems like it might be a problem for everyone (excluding relayers perhaps).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

My version ( in my notes ) to a 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask ( by-passing the K-ask of 5NT ):

 

6 trump = no third round control

7 trump = doubleton

6NT = Q

7-ask = QJ

[aguahombre]

No he doesn't, 6♦ over 6♣ would say "I haven't got K/Q♣, but I have got ♦K or Q".

Since I have never inquired about 3rd round control without holding 1st & 2nd, I wasn't aware of that treatment. I think I would get confused.

[aguahombre]

My version ( in my notes ) to a 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask ( by-passing the K-ask of 5NT ):

 

6 trump = no third round control

7 trump = doubleton

6NT = Q

7-ask = QJ

Would this scheme be useful unless we held the ACE of the exclusion suit and could suggest 7NT? I guess it depends on when we would bid 6C after RKC at all; we have only used SSA when 3RC is all we want to know for the grand.

[Zelandakh]

My version ( in my notes ) to a 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask ( by-passing the K-ask of 5NT ):

 

6 trump = no third round control

7 trump = doubleton

6NT = Q

7-ask = QJ

You could probably improve that immediately by switching doubleton to the first step and moving a singleton to 7trump. If you were feeling really adventurous you might try (without losing anything I think):

 

6trump (here 6♠) = JT9 or worse

1st step (here 6♦) = dbl

2nd step (here 6♥) = Qx

3rd step (here 6NT) = QJ

4th step (here 7♣) = K

5th step (here 7♦) = KQ

7trump (here 7♠) = sgl

 

I am using something along similar lines to this.

[Cyberyeti]

Since I have never inquired about 3rd round control without holding 1st & 2nd, I wasn't aware of that treatment. I think I would get confused.

 

That's the difference in our asks, the club ask in my case is not a 3rd round control ask, it's K or Q specifically and the same kind of treatment in the diamonds, you can usually between 5N(specific Ks)/6♣ and a 6♥ (anything else) reask find out about what you need.

[fromageGB]

North is too good for an immediate splinter the way we play, but can show a splinter later if the bidding develops that way. Our standard bidding would be :

 

1♠ 2NT (Jacoby type)

3♣ (up to a 14 count, may include a singleton)

... 3♥ (strong hand, singleton or void splinter) (on another hand 3♦ would ask for any opener singleton)

3NT (which?) (on another hand 3♠ would be no interest)

... 4♦ (2 steps = void)

4NT (keycard ask excluding hearts)

... 5♦ (2)

5NT (kings?)

... 5♣ (1 or 2, this is cheapest)

5♦ (got this as well?)

... 7♠ (yes)

 

Easy here in that South asks. If the side suit quacks were in the other hand, South could instead of ace asking, give his "reply" so that North continues, so the outcome is not really fortuitous.

 

Edit : Woops! Just noticed I miscounted the South hand, start again.

 

1♠ 2NT

3♠ (15+, no shortage) (We don't count a singleton ace as a splinter because it can lead to misevaluation)

... 3NT (heart splinter, singleton or void) (3NT substitutes for the awkward 4♥ bid which leaves no room for the inquiry)

4♣ (which?)

... 4♥ (2 steps = void)

4NT (keycard ask excluding hearts) and as above to 7♠

[rmnka447]

I think the hand is too good to splinter. Normally, a direct splinter would show something 11-16 value unless you have some special agreements.

So I agree completely with the thought that a lot depends on one's methods over Jacoby 2 NT.

 

I like the idea of playing a splinter followed by RKCB/1430 as an exclusive RKCB/1430 bid.

[rmnka447]

BTW, my favorite partner and I would have little problem getting to 7 ♠. We play a very structured control bidding methodology that works well on this hand after we get through our modified Jacoby 2 NT responses. It's based on using trump bids and NT bids as waiting bids in the control bidding. We also still adhere to bidding 1st round controls before 2nd round controls.

 

1 ♠...2 NT

3 ♣...3 ♦ (minor shortness... Which minor?)

3 ♠...4 ♣ (♦ shortness...1st round ♣ control, no 1st round ♦ control)

4 ♦...5 ♥ (1st round ♦ control...Sweep Cue)

7 ♠

 

The Sweep cue shows in turn all intervening controls. In order, it shows in order -- a 1st round ♥ control, a high trump honor, a 2nd round ♣ control, ♦ K, and a 2nd round ♥ control. With all that information, opener can bid 7 ♠ pretty easily.

 

Just included this post to show there are different ways to skin a cat.

[fromageGB]

I like the idea of playing a splinter followed by RKCB/1430 as an exclusive RKCB/1430 bid.

If you do this immediately when the splinter is singleton, you are in the dark as to the ace of the shortage suit. I think you need to first ascertain whether it is singleton or void, and then the shortage suit ace counts as the 5th or not accordingly.

 

Edit : unless methods allow the splinterer to cue a first round control there before ace asking starts. It is rare that you have this much room, though.

[aguahombre]

If you do this immediately when the splinter is singleton, you are in the dark as to the ace of the shortage suit. I think you need to first ascertain whether it is singleton or void, and then the shortage suit ace counts as the 5th or not accordingly.

 

Edit : unless methods allow the splinterer to cue a first round control there before ace asking starts. It is rare that you have this much room, though.

You misunderstand. The concept applies as follows:

 

The person who splinters has narrowed his hand in most cases and will not be the one taking over via RKC; so when he splinters, and then does take over with RKC, he did so to create exclusion and will be void in the splinter suit.

 

A player who intends to take over via RKC at the outset after setting partner's suit as trumps will do so via J2N or whatever other method you have, even holding a singleton, if he wants to use regular 5-key RKC.

[fromageGB]

You misunderstand. The concept applies as follows:

 

The person who splinters has narrowed his hand in most cases and will not be the one taking over via RKC; so when he splinters, and then does take over with RKC, he did so to create exclusion and will be void in the splinter suit.

 

A player who intends to take over via RKC at the outset after setting partner's suit as trumps will do so via J2N or whatever other method you have, even holding a singleton, if he wants to use regular 5-key RKC.

Yes, I agree with you that splinterer will not normally be ace asking, it's the other hand that can judge playability. But when you have a strong hand, partner splinters, and you want to ace ask, this is one of the scenarios I am talking about. When it can be either singleton or void, you are in trouble when ace asking, whether using exclusion or not.

[kenrexford]

Not what you asked for, but to illustrate a point of analysis, consider my auction for the first five bids as a starting point to a principle:

 

1♠

 

2♣ (GF)

 

2♥

 

2♠ (spades set, start cuebidding, Responder does not have any of many possible picture bids)

 

3♣ (Opener has two of the top three spades and one of the top three clubs)

 

Notice how at this point Opener has solved the problem of finding the club Queen already. And, for that matter, he already knows that the spade suit is solid at the top. He also knows that partner has only four cards in the minors (at most), with a grand obviously solid if Opener has the diamond Ace.

 

This is a common theme. When Responder has a legitimate ability to bid 2♣ as GF and has shortness in a suit under Opener's major, this auction very commonly leads to a rebid in that short suit and setting trumps low enough to find out if Opener does or does not have a missing honor of interest in clubs. If Responder wants to know about that card, this kind of sequence works wonders.

 

Let's suppose, for others, that the same auction start would not result in a club cuebid because Opener would need the Ace or King to cuebid 3♣. That's helpful, too. If Opener does not cuebid 3♣, and hence lacks the club King, then a later asking bid of 6♣ would be asking for the Queen, the best card you could have in context.

 

Suppose, instead, that you pattern out as Opener in this sequence. That's fine, also. By starting with a 2♣ call, Responder in all three of these sequences already found out that Opener has at most 4 cards in the minors, such that the club Queen is immaterial already. Thus, the auction in all three sequences, regardless of cue methods, could be simple. Bid 2♣, heart two hearts, set trumps in spades, hear whatever useless bit of information Opener has to offer, and then bid Exclusion, knowing that you do not need the club Queen anyway.

 

The general principle, then, is that skipping all the way to Exclusion as your first bid is really dumb, IMO, if you need to know about side tertiary values and/or shape. Slow it down. All of these nuanced meanings for SSA or whatever are somewhat dumb on this hand because the issue should have been mooted out with a simple start of 2♣. Now, granted, Opener might spoil the plan by rebidding 2♦ if that only promises 3+ in your methods (but then you might get the club cue or something else that helps) or by rebidding 2♠. The chance of a 2♠ rebid seems small, however. Even then, you might get a cue in that helps.

 

 

 

 

 

[aguahombre]

Yes, I agree with you that splinterer will not normally be ace asking, it's the other hand that can judge playability. But when you have a strong hand, partner splinters, and you want to ace ask, this is one of the scenarios I am talking about. When it can be either singleton or void, you are in trouble when ace asking, whether using exclusion or not.

Exclusion is used by the hand which wants to exclude a particular suit because he-himself doesn't have any of that suit. There are void-showing answers to RKCB, but that isn't what is under discussion here.

[fromageGB]

Unfortunately in this scenario the asker is not void - he could well have 3 small. When teller has bid a singleton or void splinter, asker cannot use either blackwood or exclusion. Unless you first find whether it is void or singleton, of course.

[aguahombre]

Unfortunately in this scenario the asker is not void - he could well have 3 small. When teller has bid a singleton or void splinter, asker cannot use either blackwood or exclusion. Unless you first find whether it is void or singleton, of course.

Why can't I use Wood with XXX in a side suit where partner is known to hold shortness? He will answer Key Cards and show the void at the same time if he isn't already known to be void. Remember, the Wooder shouldn't be wooding if he can't handle the response, and responder knows the difference between "useful void" and any void.