[paulsim]

Hi, all

---

playing this 3S and 3H promising void/singleton with exactly 3 cards in the other major

1.- Do you think this is a good convention?


2.- If playing this, how can you investigate slam with a 6 card major if lacking control in a side suit:
Let's say your partner open 1NT


Assuming a standard approach for the rest of the secuence: transfer and minor shows a natural suit with 4+ cards
How do you investigate slam with: AQJxxx xx AKx x


Maybe this 1NT--3P needs a different meaning for minors after a Jacoby Transfer secuence?


Thanks all,
Kind Regards,
Paul_S

[mw64ahw]

paulsim, on 2024-September-30, 06:04, said:

Hi, all

---

playing this 3S and 3H promising void/singleton with exactly 3 cards in the other major

1.- Do you think this is a good convention?


2.- If playing this, how can you investigate slam with a 6 card major if lacking control in a side suit:
Let's say your partner open 1NT


Assuming a standard approach for the rest of the secuence: transfer and minor shows a natural suit with 4+ cards
How do you investigate slam with: AQJxxx xx AKx x


Maybe this 1NT--3P needs a different meaning for minors after a Jacoby Transfer secuence?


Thanks all,
Kind Regards,
Paul_S

1. As an option you can play it as 3 cards and short the other major. Never quite sure that it makes much difference, but either seems like a reasonable approach. My minors are also exactly xs54 or xv55 as I show the 45 minors via 2♣
2. With a slam going 6 card Major I'll transfer and then start a cue-bid sequence so 1N-2♦-2♥-3♠ shows 6+♥ SI with ♠ control. Skipping ♠ will deny the ♠ control

Not quite sure what your last comment is about but for me after 1N
3♣ (41)44
3♦ 2254
3♥ 3154
3♠ 1354
3N 4♣6♦ is an option
and
1N-2R-2M-3M is invitational with 6M

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3H / 3S is usually played as showing 5431, sometimes the bid showes length / sometimes shortage in the bid major (*).
55 minor hands go through a direct 2NT bid.

This is combined with xfer for all suits.

The adv., responder can show more shapes, the downside: Inv. bal. without a 4 card major will also be forced to go
through 2C, i.e. openers shape gets revealed.

The given hand would make a xfer to club and bid either hearts or spades, a control bid, ... depending on agreement,
it could be either based on values, or based on shortage.

has it merrit? Sure. Do you need to play it, no.


(*) The argument for values / length is, that a lead director of the suit can be a possible endcontract.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

I play that the suit identifies the splinter, not the fragment, and I think that is fairly standard although I have seen the opposite advocated.
One obvious advantage for playing it this way round is that Opener can raise a spades fragment at 3 level.
I guess a disadvantage is that it can be doubled more often for lead direction (although that offers us extra bidding space if we are smart enough to exploit it).

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2024-September-30, 09:53, said:

I play that the suit identifies the splinter, not the fragment, and I think that is fairly standard although I have seen the opposite advocated.
<snip>

We play length.

But we usually play length / value showing, if given a choice.
Trial bids, xfer breaks, the first control bid.

I think you should make up your mind and go with one option, the
difference wont matter most of the time.

[mikeh]

It’s standard (in NA) but hardly universal to play 1N 3M as showing (54) minors and a 3 card major. I’ve played that one bids the fragment or that one bids the shortness. Bidding the fragment can wrongside 4M when opener raises to a moysian game (especially since the lead of declarer’s short suit is usually indicated…opener isn’t stacked in that suit else they’d have bid 3N). Bidding the stiff begs for a lead-directing double.

As for slam bidding with ac6 card major and lacking controls in one or (often) more suits?

Transfer at the 2 level then splinter

No shortness? Transfer at the 2 level then raise to game. If one plays texas, and one should imo, then transferring at the two level and raising to game is always a slam try, denying shortness (no splinter).

[Zelandakh]

1. When building a 1NT structure, you generally set 3♥ and 3♠ to the most important GF hand type that was not covered elsewhere in the system. If that happens to be the splinter type then it is not only a good agreement but a perfect one. If you have the splinter type covered adequately elsewhere (such as when switching to 2♣ Puppet) then you typically also need to find a new meaning for 3♥ and 3♠. In other words, no call like this is good or bad in isolation; it is how the system as a whole plays that is important.

2. There are a number of ways of handling this hand type, most of which start with a Jacoby transfer. My personal scheme is to use 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 2♠ and 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♣ as multi-way calls with one of the bundled hand types being a slammy 1-suiter that initiates a Frivolous/Serious and control-showing auction. Another solution that has been posted here quite often, albeit with an obvious drawback, is to play 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 4♣ and 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 4♦ as requesting cue bids. Finally there is always the fallback of 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 4♥ and 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 4♠, which is typically a mild slam try when combined with Texas.

3. The usual way of showing a slammy one-suited hand with a side shortage is a Jacoby transfer followed by a splinter, so 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 4♣.

[mycroft]

When I play pickup, I tell people that I will play anything they want for 3 bids over 1NT, as long as we discuss what it is. Whatever you would want to play, it only comes up when you *don't* discuss it.

When I play (31)(45), I play the fragment for Mike's reason. I know the issue with it (the bit that Mike mentions) but a) that applies just as much if the Moysian is played by opener, and b) fewer players can work that out than can figure out to make a lead- or sacrifice-suggesting double. I don't play against as many world champions as Mike does, so I am allowed to build my system with "opps don't know how best to handle it" in mind.

Oh, and c) it never comes up, so I don't care.

About the 6-with a hole: transfer then 4 should be a mild slam try. Does that help? Yes, it is nice to have the SuitSetSlamTry so partner can cue us the answer to the open suit, but again, "it never comes up".

[steve2005]

mw64ahw, on 2024-September-30, 06:54, said:

1. As an option you can play it as 3 cards and short the other major. Never quite sure that it makes much difference, but either seems like a reasonable approach.

If you open a lot of 5-card majors 1NT the fragment can be useful as you have a way to make a slam try in both majors. Playing splinters you can only make a slam try in spades.

1N-3♥ (3 hearts) - 3♠ (likes hearts)
1N-3♠ (3 spades) - 4♥ (likes spades)

[Zelandakh]

steve2005, on 2024-October-01, 18:05, said:

If you open a lot of 5-card majors 1NT the fragment can be useful as you have a way to make a slam try in both majors. Playing splinters you can only make a slam try in spades.

This is true and what I always see as the fundamental theoretical advantage of bidding the fragment. Against that, if you do open a lot of 1NTs on 5 card majors, you can handle the hands more efficiently by switching to 2♣ Puppet. That offers the chance to use delayed 3M responses (1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3M) to show the (13)(54) hands without any risk of missing a 5-3 major fit, meaning that the immediate 3M responses are freed up for a different problem hands within the structure.