Keycards....

[Fluffy]

♠AQxxz

♥KJxx

♦-

♣Qxxx

 

 

1♠-4♦-(double)

pass-redouble (redouble = first round control)

4NT-??

 

 

Now change ♣Q by ♦A and bid the same hand.

 

 

Next one;

 

1♣-2♣

2NT-3♥ (short)

4♣-4♥

4NT-??

 

KQx

A

QJx

Kxxxxx

[dicklont]

♠AQxxz

♥KJxx

♦-

♣Qxxx

 

 

1♠-4♦-(double)

pass-redouble

4NT-??

 

 

Now change ♣Q by ♦A and bid the same hand.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand the bidding, did I splinter 4♦ in this auction:

1♠ - (pass) - 4♦ - (dbl)

pass - (pass) - rdbl - (pass)

4NT - (pass) - ??

 

then I bid 5♦ now, 1 (3) keycard and a void.

Edit: I bid 6♦ now, 1 (3) keycard and a void.

5 was a typo, I don't bid so sophisticated that I would assume the void to be know already.

 

With ♣Q changed to ♦A I would have bid a game forcing 2NT, treating it as balanced, becasue I don't want to splinter an ace.

Edited August 24, 2014 by dicklont

[gnasher]

On the first one, partner would have redoubled with ♦A. Hence we should show the void, if there's a way to do it.

 

Without the double we wouldn't have that inference, so we'd have to guess whether to show the void or not. Here are two ways to avoid such problems:

- Agree that you don't splinter with a singleton ace.

- Agree that a direct raise of a splinter is void-inclusion Keycard. Then 4NT tells you not to show the void. (This is the only useful thing I got from a 30-page system file that Lamford made me read before a club pairs game in 1997. Unfortunately since then I haven't found anyone who's willing to play it.)

[gnasher]

On the second one, isn't it just a question of what 4NT means? If it's a signoff I pass, because we're missing the top diamonds, or possibly just short of aces. If it's discouraging, I bid 5♣ for the same reasons (though 4NT could be safer). If it's encouraging I bid a slam. If it's Keycard I tell him how many I've got. If it's Turbo I wish I hadn't agreed to play a method I don't understand.

[Fluffy]

All of those are keycard askings, the simple problm is do you show the stiff ace as an ace or is 4NT exclusion blackwood after you redoubled your splinter or rebid the splinter?

[shyams]

♠AQxxx

♥KJxx

♦-

♣Qxxx

 

1♠-4♦-(double)

pass-redouble (redouble = first round control)

4NT-??

I'd bid 5♦ - to show one key card.

 

Now change ♣Q by ♦A and bid the same hand.

After 1♠ 4♦ (dbl); pass, I would probably take the cautious view and bid 4♠.

[aguahombre]

All of those are keycard askings, the simple problm is do you show the stiff ace as an ace or is 4NT exclusion blackwood after you redoubled your splinter or rebid the splinter?

Our agreement is to show keycards, including the stiff ace. Either way it sucks, because a splinter has a narrow HCP range to begin with, and Opener probably would like to know whether 4 of our HCP (seven of our total support points) are all balled up into the Diamond suit.

 

However, our redouble was specifically a void for much the same reasons...so that problem is out of the way.

[jogs]

Our agreement is to show keycards, including the stiff ace. Either way it sucks, because a splinter has a narrow HCP range to begin with, and Opener probably would like to know whether 4 of our HCP (seven of our total support points) are all balled up into the Diamond suit.

 

However, our redouble was specifically a void for much the same reasons...so that problem is out of the way.

 

This is really true? Is there any wide spread agreement as to what that range is?

 

Also I like splinters to show a singleton only, never a void. I like 3♥(9 cards in two suits) with that hand. Fit showing jump shifts both in and out of competition.

[gnasher]

All of those are keycard askings, the simple problm is do you show the stiff ace as an ace or is 4NT exclusion blackwood after you redoubled your splinter or rebid the splinter?

 

Ah, I'd completely missed the point. That's an interesting idea. It would need advance agreement, obviously, but it seems workable to assume that the splinterer has a void, so you don't count the singleton ace as an ace.

 

 

 

[aguahombre]

This is really true? Is there any wide spread agreement as to what that range is?

 

When I mention that our agreements are such and such: yes, it is really true. However, I believe that a narrow range for space-consuming splinters is fairly common even though I didn't claim that idea to be universal.

[petterb]

1♣-2♣

2NT-3♥ (short)

4♣-4♥

4NT-??

 

KQx

A

QJx

Kxxxxx

With a heart void you bid 3♥ instead of 2♣.

[Fluffy]

Lol people are avoiding the main question with excuses and custom agreements.

 

Ok lets see this one:

 

♠KQ10xx

♥-

♦AQxx

♣Kxxx

 

vs

 

 

♠KQ10xx

♥A

♦AQxx

♣xxx

 

 

1 ♠ - - (2 ♥) - - 4 ♥ - (double)

pass-(pass)-redouble-(pass)

4 NT -(pass) - ???

[Zelandakh]

1 ♠ - - (2 ♥) - - 4 ♥ - (double)

pass-(pass)-redouble-(pass)

4 NT -(pass) - ???

This one is interesting but not for the reason you want. Playing normal methods South would have redoubled to show the ace, no? But the double provides an interesting possibility for reclaiming the lost minor suit cues. We could potentially use a pass to ask for (or show) a club control and a redouble to ask for (or show) a diamond control.

[whereagles]

1.

♠AQxxz

♥KJxx

♦-

♣Qxxx

 

1a. 1♠-4♦-(double)

pass-redouble (redouble = first round control)

4NT-??

 

1b. Now change ♣Q by ♦A and bid the same hand.

 

 

2.

KQx

A

QJx

Kxxxxx

 

1♣-2♣

2NT-3♥ (short)

4♣-4♥

4NT-??

 

 

1a. 6♦: odd number of keycards + useful void

1b. 5♠: the usual "2 keys + queen" stuff

 

2. 5♠ (pard probably has 4+ clubs)

[Zelandakh]

1a. 6♦: odd number of keycards + useful void

I am never going to understand the logic of this. Partner already knows our shortage so why not use 6♣ for this instead? Or better still use the different 6 level calls to show/deny the trump queen and side kings.

[whereagles]

I am never going to understand the logic of this. Partner already knows our shortage so why not use 6♣ for this instead? Or better still use the different 6 level calls to show/deny the trump queen and side kings.

 

Well, 6♦ confirms the void, while 5♠ shows that the splinter was made with a singleton ace.

 

Agree it's not optimal, but it's mnemonic to usual agreements. There's nothing more to it.

 

By the way, under these agreements 6♣ would show a dbl void (as in 6700 or 5800 shape... lol).

[benlessard]

Its simple after a XX You never count the A of D. Doesnt matter if its void or stiff A or A of D you simply never count it. Also there is no need to show a void.

[whereagles]

I'm not sure if it's that that simple.. what if the singleton ace was taken into the HCP count for the splinter?

 

Well, you can always agree this sort of stuff with pard, but without much discussion it's not clear-cut.

[benlessard]

Ive never saw it backfire. Try to find an example where it could backfire.

 

Splinter with a stiff A is always a gamble because partner may have KQx in the suit (useful rather than wasted values) but if its in ennemy suits its ok.

 

 

1S-(2D)-4D-(X)

XX------4NT

 

You dont count the A of D counting it is dumb because responder could have a void. Its totally normal to bid 4NT with a D void here.

 

1S-(2D)-4D-(X)

P-------XX---

4NT

 

Again its irrelevant if you have a D void or stiff ace of D you simply dont count it.

 

Again im really surprised that most players didnt know this its something ive already considered standard and fairly obvious.IIRC its well explained in one of the Rosenkraz books.

[benlessard]

1S--4C--(X)

XX

 

its the same thing

 

1S---4C--(X)

P----XX

 

here it should be a void since splinter with stiff ace is weird, but it doesnt matter the principle stay the same dont count the A in the XX suit and there is never a need to show the void.

[whereagles]

I "solved" the problem in another way. Singleton A, K, Q counts as 2 cards :)

[benlessard]

What problem ? :)

[whereagles]

Of determining whether to splinterize with singleton A, K, Q.

[PhantomSac]

I have always played that you just don't redouble with stiff A, so redouble shows a void. I have never seen the problem in that when you've already shown shortness.

[Fluffy]

I have always played that you just don't redouble with stiff A, so redouble shows a void. I have never seen the problem in that when you've already shown shortness.

Doesn't lack of redouble announce a sure loser in the suit?, so if partner has a sure loser in another suit how are you going to play slam?