[mohitz]

Playing 2/1, teams, partner deals and opens 1♠. What do you bid playing your fav 2/1 system when you hold

1) ♠Kxxx ♥- ♦Axxxx ♣xxxx

2) ♠KT9xx ♥- ♦Axxx ♣xxxx

3) ♠KT9xx ♥- ♦AJTx ♣KJxx

If vulnerability matters, say so.

Thanks

[aguahombre]

1) 3S, L.R. (10-12 dummy points)
2) Pet gadget to show a 4S leap with a bit extra above the preempt.
3) A little heavy for a splinter, but will live with it. Not strong enough to "bid around".

This is in a non-Bergen context, and a non-J2N context ---so certainly others will disagree. The OP question was worded so as to allow for different styles.

[ArtK78]

1) and 2) Using a gadget, I show a mini-splinter and then raise to game if partner does not bid it himself.

3) Using a gadget, I show a better-than-game forcing (maxi) splinter.

I have mentioned the major suit raise structure that I employ in other threads. It incorporates Bergen, Jacoby 2NT, mini, regular and maxi splinters.

[mohitz]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 11:22 PM, said:

1) 3S, L.R. (10-12 dummy points)

This looks too conservative to me.

In my opinion, anytime we have 4 card support and a void, 4M should be the minimum contract that we should aim to play.

[gnasher]

4♠
4♠
2NT planning to show heart shortage in a hand that's too strong for a splinter

[Cascade]

I don't play 2/1 but I can't see how that matters. You can play mini-splinters with 2/1.

We play:

3♥ = invitational splinter or better

4♥ = void splinter* (*transfer splinters are even better)

1 and 2 are probably not good enough for our void splinters so the choice is between 3♥ hoping to have a constructive auction and 4♠ hoping to keep the opponents out. With an ace and the king of trumps my hand looks much more like a constructive hand than a destructive hand so I would splinter.

3. Is a void splinter - 4♥.

[Flameous]

1. I have to go with fitjump here even though minisplinter would be more descriptive. Can't have it all.

2. Really annoying one, maybe I'd show this as a singleton splinter? Or just bid 3D fitjump again. 4S also an option.

3. I show void splinter via 3NT, bit strong but not enough to expect to be able to control the auction.

[aguahombre]

mohitz, on Aug 19 2010, 11:59 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 11:22 PM, said:

1) 3S, L.R. (10-12 dummy points)

This looks too conservative to me.

In my opinion, anytime we have 4 card support and a void, 4M should be the minimum contract that we should aim to play.

My mistake. Didn't know it was a test.

[mikeh]

The 1st two hit a seam in my methods.

My options appear to be:

a bergen limit raise followed by a pass of 3♠ or a raise of 3♠. The latter is permitted in my partnerships to show a minimum gf, allowing j2n to have a slightly higher lower end

a splinter

a gadget to show a preemptive raise to game with extras.....too much for 4♠, too little for a splinter. In most partnerships this is 3N, in one it is 4♦ (all splinters start with 3 other major, with next step asking...opener needn't ask if he has no interest)

The splinter shows a hand worth about 11 hcp or so with 4+ trump and a stiff.

I would use my gadget on both....even tho 2 side suit 1st round controls are more than he'd ever expect. Game will be silly if he has a normal opening with values in my void and some weak length on the side, but I can't miss game and I can't describe these hands more accurately whatever I do.

On the third, I think this is easy because I see only two plausible alternatives and both should work well on most hands. J2N will often work, but I wouldn't choose it myself out of fear that he will bid 4♠ on a lot of hands where we may be cold for slam...and on a lot of hands where we shouldn't be higher than game. Axxxx Qxx Kx Q10x and I want to be in slam: AQxxx KJx Qx xxx and I don't want to be higher than game.

I would prefer 2♣: if we can find a minor suit fit and set trump in spades at a low level and then show our shortness, partner is more likely to evaluate accurately for slam.

But I think it's close.

[655321]

4♠
Gadget (to show 'preempt' with extras)
2NT GF raise - partner bids 3♣ with minimum, and we can show heart shortage.

[jdeegan]

Personally, for what its worth, I am categorically against splintering with a void. Pard has to know his ace in my splinter suit is working or not because of slam bidding considerations. I've heard if you splinter with both a stiff and a void, the void occurs 15-20% of the time - anyone know if this is correct.

On the hands you give, I am a 2♦ bidder on the first unless playing 2/1 in which case I guess 3♠ is OK. On the second, 4♠ should be OK. On the third, 2♦ seems best to me even playing 2/1.

The principle is to bid out game going hands with a void, and splinter hands with a stiff and 10-12 working HCP. Playing 2/1 there is a strong case imo for playing mini-splinters showing invitational hands with either a stiff or void.

[mohitz]

aguahombre, on Aug 20 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

My mistake. Didn't know it was a test.

Wasn't a test surely. Sorry if i offended you.

[aguahombre]

mohitz, on Aug 19 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 20 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

My mistake. Didn't know it was a test.

Wasn't a test surely. Sorry if i offended you.

no offense. the point is: when you word it like you want to know how people handle something within THEIR style, it is not cool to express your opinion of how bad that style is....no matter how bad that style is

If the question is "what is the best way to...?" answers to that are fair game to be dumped on by all, for cause -- and deserve to be challenged, especially if it is I who had the timerity to claim what is "best".

[Free]

1. 3♦ (6-9, 4+♠), and after a 3♥ inquiry 3NT showing 6-8 with an unknown void. Then 4♣ asks, 4♥ shows the ♥ void. (after 3♠ signoff I'll bid 4♠ obviously)

2. Same as 1, but after RKC I'll respond 2 keycards with trump Q (since I can't have 9HCP, partner knows 2 keycards and a 5th trump).

3. 3NT showing 12-14 with an unknown void. Then 4♣ asks, 4♥ shows the ♥ void.

An alternative for 2 is to start with 3♥ showing 9-11 Splinter. After the 3♠ inquiry, again, 3NT shows an unknown void. Then 4♣ asks, 4♥ shows the ♥ void.

[fromageGB]

4♠, 4♥, 2NT

Hand 1 I have sympathy with the Bergen bidders, but I don't want them to find the 5♥ contract, and 3♣ or 3♦ makes it easy for them. A splinter has the same trouble. So it's 4♠.

Hand 2 I think is close to 4♠ for the same reason, but I am good enough to bid 5♠ if they find 5♥, and the splinter gives the picture that can help partner if she has a strong hand.

Hand 3 is good enough for the J2N, but we never jump to game in response. If opener has no shortage, she will bid 3♣ which allows me to bid 3♥ to show the shortage. Then non-serious 3NT and I sign off, or I will cooperate with a serious cue bid of 4♣ by bidding 4♦ and over partner's 4♠ (quite safe, as the serious cue bid showed slam interest) I will continue by Ace/King asking.

[fromageGB]

jdeegan, on Aug 20 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

Personally, for what its worth, I am categorically against splintering with a void...
...The principle is to bid out game going hands with a void, and splinter hands with a stiff

There's something to be said for this. My partnerships splinter with void or singleton, but it's an area for discussion.

Does anyone have any other input on this point ?

[gnasher]

fromageGB, on Aug 21 2010, 11:52 AM, said:

jdeegan, on Aug 20 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

Personally, for what its worth, I am categorically against splintering with a void...
...The principle is to bid out game going hands with a void, and splinter hands with a stiff

There's something to be said for this. My partnerships splinter with void or singleton, but it's an area for discussion.

Does anyone have any other input on this point ?

I think it's a valid point, but sometimes overstated. If partner has an ace opposite a singleton, he should downgrade it anyway, because it's worth only one trick whereas if it were somewhere else it would tend to be worth more. Also, this problem arises only if he does have the ace - holdings like KQx are equally wasted opposite a singleton or a void.

Having said that, it makes sense if you can to distinguish between a singleton and an ace. Many partnerships play 1♠-3NT and 1♥-3♠ as an unspecified void.

You may be able to do the same after bidding 1M-2NT. I sometimes play 1M-2NT;3♣ as any minimum and 1M-2NT;3♦ as non-minimum without a shortage. Over either of these, one could use the same structure to show shortages - 3M+1 is any void, and the rest show singletons.

[FrancesHinden]

mohitz, on Aug 19 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

Playing 2/1, teams, partner deals and opens 1♠. What do you bid playing your fav 2/1 system when you hold

1) ♠Kxxx ♥- ♦Axxxx ♣xxxx

2) ♠KT9xx ♥- ♦Axxx ♣xxxx

3) ♠KT9xx ♥- ♦AJTx ♣KJxx

If vulnerability matters, say so.

Thanks

Surely it all depends on the rest of your methods? In the two regular partnerships I play in, I would bid

Partner A
--------------
1) 3NT (unspeficified void, less than about 11 HCP)
2) 3NT (this is similar enough in strength to the first hand to bid it the same way)
3) 3H (opening strength, 4-card support, unspecified singleton or void - partner asks next)

Partner B
-------------
1/2: Heart void, about 6-10 HCP, four card support
3: 3D (opening strength, 4-card support, unspecified singleton or void - partner asks next)

With both partners we distinguish (i) between voids and singletons and (ii) three ranges of strength for each (less than opening values, about 11-15, about 16+)

This is very nice when it comes up. Whether it's worth the use of space is not yet obvious.

[1eyedjack]

I am quite interested in arguments about not splintering with a void, speaking from the viewpoint of one who would normally splinter with either (assuming the hand lends itself to a splinter in any other qualifying respects).

To my mind the purpose of a splinter is to enable partner to evaluate whether his cards are working hard or not. Values opposite the shortage are generally not working hard, regardless of whether the shortage is singleton or void.

In the special case where partner has the Ace opposite shortage, it may indeed be superfluous opposite a void, and it may be a cover card opposite a singleton, but the fact remains that if he has a specific number of aces then the ace opposite the singleton would probably still be more valuable elsewhere. The only material wastage is that you may later cue the shortage to confirm a void when that cue is of no assistance to partner holding the Ace.

[Hairy_Scot]

Since this all depends on partnership agreement I see little point in this type of post.
However I guess it does let the various theorists hold forth on their particular idiosyncransies.
Playing a bounce game instead of with a regular pard I would go:-
1. 4♠
2. 4♠
3. 6♠