[Zelandakh]

nekthen, on 2016-September-07, 04:49, said:

I play a slightly different version of exclusion, which has some pros and cons. After I make a splinter bid, if my next bid is 4N it is exclusion rkcb. This allows me to hear partners response to my splinter before I choose to bid 4N. Obviously, the downside happens when I splinter with a singleton, but if I choose to cue bid instead of bidding 4N, partner will realise that my splinter was a singleton.

An alternative to this, possibly better, is to differentiate between void and singleton splinters immediately. For example:

1♥
==
3♠ = void splinter in any suit
... - 3NT asks
... - ... - 4♣♦ = void in suit bid
... - ... - 4♥ = spade void
3NT = splinter with a singleton spade
4♣♦ = splinter with a singleton
--

1♠
==
3NT = void splinter in any suit
... - 4♣ asks
... - ... - 4♦♥ = void in suit bid
... - ... - 4♠ = club void
4♣♦♥ = splinter with a singleton
--

An oft-seen alternative is for the direct splinter to show a void and the 3M+1 condensed splinter to be with a singleton. That has an advantage in terms of information leakage (you are more likely to want to know a void suit) but is less efficient on more hands (voids are less common than singletons). If you combine it with a second sequence to show maxi-splinters (ie splinter raises with extras) you can cover the entire range of hands fully differentiated in both strength and type of shortage. But this is not really a N/B method, just a FYI about possibilities along the way.