[gwnn]

5♣ is certainly not exclusion here. It probably shows a void (or stiff A?). But why not let partner sign off with a bad bad hand? You can bid 5♣ exclusion if you must and if it had been agreed.

But thanks for posting the hand. I think I would have passed at the table but now I see how that's a bad decision.

[OleBerg]

pclayton, on Aug 15 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

The more hands like I see like this, the more I like playing an unbalanced 1♦, where 2N is a strong spade raise.

Which also allows 4♣ to show a void, removing much ambiguety.

[zasanya]

gwnn, on Aug 16 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

5♣ is certainly not exclusion here. It probably shows a void (or stiff A?). But why not let partner sign off with a bad bad hand? You can bid 5♣ exclusion if you must and if it had been agreed.

But thanks for posting the hand. I think I would have passed at the table but now I see how that's a bad decision.

What I meant was after 1♦-1♠ should we splinter or directly bid 5♣ which my P would interprete as exclusion blackwood.After 4♣ splinter 5 ♣
will show1st round control as you say.

[gwnn]

oh sorry, my reading is below par. In that case, no, exclusion is a bad idea. You want to know of pard's heart holding, not his ♠A.

[Rossoneri]

gwnn, on Aug 16 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

5♣ is certainly not exclusion here. It probably shows a void (or stiff A?). But why not let partner sign off with a bad bad hand? You can bid 5♣ exclusion if you must and if it had been agreed.

But thanks for posting the hand. I think I would have passed at the table but now I see how that's a bad decision.

I agree with you. 5♣ now shouldn't be exclusion, and it should be showing the void.

And yes, you want to know p's heart holding

[P_Marlowe]

zasanya, on Aug 16 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

<snip>
What I meant was after 1♦-1♠ should we splinter or directly bid 5♣ which my P would interprete as exclusion blackwood.After 4♣ splinter 5 ♣
will show1st round control as you say.

The question is, do you need only
the Ace of spades, to make 6S?

No, you need at least length in hearts,
of course better would be heart values.

Each post convinces me, that going
slowly is a lot better than the splinter,
but I seem to be fairly alone.
After a 2H bid, you learn that partner is
not dead and has a fit for diamonds,
which means you have a double fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[fred]

FWIW my regular partner and I have recently given up on using this sequence:

1m 1M
4m

in the way that every else seems to use it (as some good 6-4 hand but nobody seems to have any real clue what exactly to expect in terms of overall strength, side suit controls, and suit quality).

Instead we use this bid to mean "I have enough to drive to the 5-level in support of your major but I may be willing to consider giving you a chance to bail out at the 4-level if your hand is really terrible".

I first heard about this concept from Rosenberg-Zia (who used when they were still partners and for all I know might have "invented" it).

Even better from a theory point of view would be to use the "most expensive splinter" for the 5-level drive type hand and the 4m rebid as a surrogate for the most expensive splinter. My partner and I decided to forget about this improvement as we were concerned about remembering it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[SoTired]

fred, on Aug 16 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

FWIW my regular partner and I have recently given up on using this sequence:

1m 1M
4m

I beg your pardon... But I thot 6-4 or better, 2+ of top 3, and was going to bid 4-splinter but bid this instead was fairly standard.

My partner and I were only ones to find 6S with KQxx x Ax AQJxxx opposite Axxx xxx xxx Kxx. And without RKC. I was responder and after BW I gambled that opener's spades were good and that opener had x/Ax in reds rather than xx/A.

[pclayton]

OleBerg, on Aug 16 2008, 05:16 AM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 15 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

The more hands like I see like this, the more I like playing an unbalanced 1♦, where 2N is a strong spade raise.

Which also allows 4♣ to show a void, removing much ambiguety.

We play as a s/v, but denying a control in the 4th suit.