[patroclo]

Someone may explain me the utility of splinter in an under suit (undercolor ?), and why an advanced player suggest to have an ace when tell a splinter.

[Zelandakh]

The main advantage of a transfer splinter against intermediate players would be to test their agreements about doubles. It really makes little difference to follow-ups - you get a little extra space here and a little less there. As for having an ace, this is something I have never heard before. Presumably the player thinks that not having an ace = no slam interest, or something like that. Obviously, you upgrade aces and downgrade quacks here but this requirement is unnecessary. I hope (s)he provides this in the explanation when the opponents ask and does not consider it "just bridge".

[32519]

This is something that I have never heard of before, so obviously I have never seen anyone using it either. These "off-the-wall" ideas are the sort of things I love to shoot off some totally random ideas to get thoughts and ideas from others.

So here goes:
What advantage would I possibly be gaining?
1. Saving 1 step of bidding space, a scarce asset to be highly treasured?
2. The step saved can be used by partner bidding it to encourage the slam try i.e. the splinter fits in well with partners hand?
3. It may entice a lead directing double from the opponents, tipping off declarer to the location of a critical card to either sign off in game or to bid the slam knowing the location?

Disadvantages?
1. Allowing the opponents to make a lead directing double?
2. Wiley opponents may deliberately make a "false" lead directing double to mislead declarer i.e. the player who has nothing in the suit makes the "false" lead directing double? I don't think this will work when the suit never gets led. Declarer may cotton onto something fishy?

[32519]

Nah, I've changed my mind. There is no way this can work. How do you show a one-under ♣ splinter? With 3♠? What if ♠ is the agreed trump suit? Now the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

Dumped it already.

[PhilKing]

32519, on 2013-July-22, 04:02, said:

Nah, I've changed my mind. There is no way this can work. How do you show a one-under ♣ splinter? With 3♠? What if ♠ is the agreed trump suit? Now the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

Dumped it already.

You don't need to be Einstein to work out that, when spades are trumps, the suit below clubs is hearts. But I agree it is not really for you.

The plus is that it stops them doubling a splinter and finding a sacrifice (which is not that uncommon). The other factors are break even (space) or minus (lead directing doubles). The last point is not necessarily true against some pairs. For instance, I play a double of a splinter asks for a lead of the suit below when my side is vulnerable.

[Trinidad]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-22, 04:43, said:

You don't need to be Einstein to work out that, when spades are trumps, the suit below clubs is hearts. But I agree it is not really for you.

I just got in touch with the Swedish Royal Academy of Science to nominate you for a Nobel prize. But they told me they don't have one for bridge.

Rik

[Trinidad]

patroclo, on 2013-July-17, 01:54, said:

Someone may explain me the utility of splinter in an under suit (undercolor ?), and why an advanced player suggest to have an ace when tell a splinter.

Natural splinters have a drawback: An opponent can double the splinter bid to show that he holds a lot of cards in that suit and suggest a save. (And since responder holds 0-1 cards in the suit this happens fairly often.) He doesn't need to bid the suit (and stick his neck out). He just needs to double.

If you show club shortness by bidding an other suit than clubs (let's say diamonds), it is not so easy for opponents to show that they have a lot of clubs:

• They need to have an agreement that double shows clubs. (Most pairs won't have that agreement.)
  
• If they have that agreement, it is riskier to double the artificial splinter than it is to double the natural splinter. After all, they may be doubling our secondary fit. Before they know it, they might be on lead against 4♦X. And 4♦X with an overtrick scores much better than 4♠ with an overtrick.

The drawback of these non natural splinters is, of course, that you will have to remember which way you play them. I have seen "one over" and "one under" splinters. And one misunderstanding will do more damage than letting the opponents occasionally find their save.

Rik

[32519]

So we got a useful reply. A better solution to the break even regarding space needs to be found. Then this might actually be worth adopting. Until then?

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-17, 02:03, said:

As for having an ace, this is something I have never heard before.

I like to play a space-consuming bid like a splinter very strictly. To wit, 3 or 4 controls where A=2 and K=1 (or else, of course, a monster). These thin slams are not going to make with minor honours in the side suits.

[EricK]

32519, on 2013-July-22, 04:02, said:

Nah, I've changed my mind. There is no way this can work. How do you show a one-under ♣ splinter? With 3♠? What if ♠ is the agreed trump suit? Now the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

Dumped it already.

I would guess that playing transfer splinters, 1♠ 3NT shows short ♣; 4♣ shows short ♦ 4♦ shows short ♥ and 4♥ could be natural. You could play that completing the transfer shows the Ace and anything else denies it - which might be useful for partner to tell how well the hands fit if he could have either a void or singleton.

[aguahombre]

EricK, on 2013-July-22, 11:37, said:

I would guess that playing transfer splinters, 1♠ 3NT shows short ♣; 4♣ shows short ♦ 4♦ shows short ♥ and 4♥ could be natural. You could play that completing the transfer shows the Ace and anything else denies it - which might be useful for partner to tell how well the hands fit if he could have either a void or singleton.

It gives opener an extra tool, relaying thru the singleton..to mean whatever the partnership wants it to mean.

[the hog]

32519, on 2013-July-22, 06:19, said:

So we got a useful reply. A better solution to the break even regarding space needs to be found. Then this might actually be worth adopting. Until then?

As I stated in a different thread, my dog has a greater knowledge of systems theory than you do. One under, or even two under splinters can be quite useful. You can use the "between bid(s)" to ask various things about the hand type - here are some possibilities - min/max, trump quality, etc etc. I am not suggesting anyone play them, just that like many things they can be good on the right hand types. They alslo, as has been pointed out, often avoid the"x "I have length in this suit" bid. However PK is correct; they are probably not for you. They are not uncommon by the way.

Another method is
1H 3S - any 10-12 spl, 1S 3N = same - step asks l/m/h shortage
1H 3NT/4C/4D 13-14 spl, 1S 4C/4D/4H = same.

[32519]

1♥-3♠ = a natural ♠ splinter
1♥/1♠-3NT = Many play this as Jacoby 3NT, exactly 3-card trump support and 12-15 HCP, balanced, giving opener a choice of games to play.
1♠-3♥ = some play this as a fit-jump, 4X♠ and 5X♥, HCP requirement vary according to agreement, some starting at 7 HCP, plus all the distributional values of the hand quickly raises the total point value of the hand

Useful posts are always appreciated, but you’re right. I won’t be adopting this. I will stick to the old way of showing splinters.

[aguahombre]

Related, but offtopic: We would have had to abandon our (much maligned) Mini-Roman, had we not developed the "suit below" response to the 2NT asking bid.

2D-2N!
3x---x=suit below the singleton. Responder can relay through the singleton for a sign-off at any level; or she can set trump (forcing) for slam exploration. It also allows a relay "thru" and then 3N with a quantitative hand willing to play 3NT but interested in a minor-suit slam if Opener is maximum.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-23, 09:33, said:

Related, but offtopic: We would have had to abandon our (much maligned) Mini-Roman, had we not developed the "suit below" response to the 2NT asking bid.

This is standard, or at least it was ~20 years ago when I briefly played the Mini-Roman.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-23, 09:47, said:

This is standard, or at least it was ~20 years ago when I briefly played the Mini-Roman.

Yes, I didn't say we developed it recently. We have been playing R2DII since the 70's (give or take about 25 years of not playing at all).

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-22, 22:06, said:

It gives opener an extra tool, relaying thru the singleton..to mean whatever the partnership wants it to mean.

If you think there's value in that, you can just play natural splinters with step 1 as a relay. There's no more space after 1♠-4♣ showing diamond shortage than there is after 1♠-4♣ showing club shortage.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-July-24, 08:11, said:

If you think there's value in that, you can just play natural splinters with step 1 as a relay. There's no more space after 1♠-4♣ showing diamond shortage than there is after 1♠-4♣ showing club shortage.

What am I missing? Is there not extra space available When 3N shows what 4C would have shown, or when 4C shows what 4D would have shown? In other words, if I bid (say) 4D, isn't partner restrained from bidding 4D?

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-24, 09:26, said:

What am I missing? Is there not extra space available When 3N shows what 4C would have shown, or when 4C shows what 4D would have shown? In other words, if I bid (say) 4D, isn't partner restrained from bidding 4D?

That's not an argument for using transfer splinters, that's an argument for using 3NT to replace your most expensive splinter.

You have exactly the same amount of space playing:
  3NT = heart splinter
  4♣ = club splinter
  4♦ = diamond splinter
as you do playing
  3NT = club splinter
  4♣ = diamond splinter
  4♦ = heart splinter

In either method, you can, if you wish, play step one as a relay.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-July-25, 07:14, said:

In either method, you can, if you wish, play step one as a relay.

Step one might be trumps.