[SoTired]

That was an aside about splinters. Say partner opens 1H and you hold
x KQxx xxxx AKxx. This is a perfect splinter of 3S. It should find the slam when opener holds 1) xxx AJxxx AKx Qx and avoid the slam when opener holds 2) KQx AJxxx Axx xx. In my system, opener would q-bid 4D with #1 and sign-off in 4H with #2 because of the wasted spade strength. But in your system, opener would q-bid 4D with both hands. So how does responder tell whether opener has fatally wasted spade strength?

Therefore, most experts would NOT q-bid after a splinter when the splinter signals wasted strength opposite shortness. That is also why you don't want to splinter with too much excess strength because partner may just sign-off when you need a q-bid regardless of wasted strength.

The purpose of a splinter is to find slam on game-strength hands by quickly identifying a super fitting hand because there is shortness opposite weakness.

[dake50]

Do you not have C-ask, then D-ask?
You'll know 4H/6H/7H after those 2 asks. hope for 5H + 6D + 1CA + 1Sruff.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Mar 9 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

The second tproblem with the splinter is your hand is too good, MUCH MUCH too good for a splinter. As opener, you can splinter with monsters in support of parrtners initial response, but as responder, you will get better results if you save splinters for more limited values. Just enough to force to game COUNTING THE SHORT SUIT values. Here you have enough to force to game even ignoring the short suit values, thus it is too strong.

I tend to subscribe to the view that in many circumstances it is reasonable to have split ranges of values that qualify for a particular treatment. An example might be to distinguish 1N-3M(slam try) from 1N-4R(tfr)-4M-??(slam try) and so on. But returning to this particular thread, if you have a splinter show a particular range OR a much much stronger hand, then you can generally cope well. Partner assumes the weakest interval possible, until you continue following a sign-out.

Not that I voted not for a splinter on this hand - I went for a direct 6H. If they have two cashing Club tricks they are less likely to find it on this auction, following which at least one of them has good chances of disappearing.

[jdeegan]

All you need in partner's hand for a virtual laydown seven heart bid is the ace of clubs and the king of diamonds. You want to develop an auction that leads to cue bidding controls as opposed to wholesale asking bids (i.e. Blackwood). Playing 2/1 a 2♦ response makes sense. Playing SAYC, a 3♦ strong jump shift is a good start. A game forcing heart raise like a Jacoby 2NT should also work well.

1♥-P-2NT(Jacoby 2NT)-P
3♦(singleton)-P-3♠(cue bid)-P
4♣(club ace)-P-4♦(diamond ace)-P
4♥-P-4♠(first and second round spade controls)

At this point partner will be momentarily confused, until he works out your spade void. He will be concerned about trump honors, but you will keep pushing. Six is certain, and seven is still possible if partner has the diamond king or six hearts.

[Fluffy]

2♦ seems clear, you can bid 4♠ next round.

[HeartA]

Fluffy, on Mar 12 2007, 04:23 AM, said:

2♦ seems clear, you can bid 4♠ next round.

Well, pd might think 4S was to play and pass with 3♠s and 2♦s.

[kenrexford]

Some of the analyses have hit on some good observations, most notably that from Inquiry. That being said, it is particularly difficult to answer this question without knowing more about the systemic approach.

What, for example, are the requirements that you have for a fit-jump? Are there follow-up auctions to explain your hand? Can you unravel the hand after 3♦ sufficiently? I mean, if 3♦ shows a semi-solid trick source (three of the top four diamonds, and 5+ in the suit) with good trumps (two or more top honors), with a concentration of values (no key honors outside), this is a good sart for the fit-jump. If partner usually bids 3♥ to allow completion, perhaps 3♠ would identify a stiff or void by you, isolating a probable lack of club control, a good second step. If Opener can then cue 3NT with one top trump and the missing diamond, then 4♣ instead would seem to deny this and be assured. Maybe this allows you to cue 4♦, LTTC, showing extra's. Even after a sign-off, your 4♠, a void, would clarify this hand quite well. So, parameters and follow-ups are key.

What about 2♦? If your agreements would allow you to clarify three of the top four diamonds, a spade void, no club control, at least two top hearts, plus extra's (sixth diamond, third top heart, whatever), then 2♦ would initiate only auctions where you do not have that hand. If 3♦ initially could not be unwound to show this hand, then 2♦ may be the only alternative. However, a one-under 2/1 is guaranteed to result in trumps being set at the three-level. Partner will dislike his hand, as noted, and space is greatly consumed.

In the end, it seems to me that 3♦, a fit-jump, is a call that you came up with as an interesting treatment for difficult hand like this. Use it. However, define it and create auctions after it to handle only those hands that are unsuitable for an auction initiated through 2♦. COV makes sense. If COV is the idea, then facilitate shortness indications or similar case-specific alternatives.