Doubles of Splinter Bids
#1
Posted 2010-September-13, 14:10
What is the current expert thought on the meaning of a double of a splinter bids? Is it different if it is a direct splinter bid by responder (i.e., 1♥ - 4♣) or a splinter raise by opener (i.e., 1♦ - 1♥ - 4♣)?
What about later splinters?
Thanks.
#2
Posted 2010-September-13, 15:07
I've always played a splinter double suggests a sac NV, and asks for the a lead of the higher ranking suit (some reverse this - I think there's a reason but I can't remember).
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#3
Posted 2010-September-13, 19:20
Phil, on Sep 13 2010, 01:07 PM, said:
I've always played a splinter double suggests a sac NV, and asks for the a lead of the higher ranking suit (some reverse this - I think there's a reason but I can't remember).
It is slightly better for double to be the lower ranking suit because you may be able to bid the higher ranking suit yourself to suggest the lead/sac, but the lower ranking suit would take you to a higher level. So 1♠-P-4♦-X showing clubs lets you sometimes bid 4♥ to show hearts.
#4
Posted 2010-September-13, 23:02
With discussion, I play the "shows the lower-ranking non-splinter suit" lead directing method, with a few partners.
After the splinter raise by opener, I would be a bit less eager to use the non-splinter lead director, since I now have a 'dummy's first bid suit' available at the end of the auction too.
#5
Posted 2010-September-14, 00:32
#6
Posted 2010-September-14, 01:35
Echognome, on Sep 14 2010, 07:32 AM, said:
The answer, as always, is to always ask.
#7
Posted 2010-September-14, 05:27
gnasher, on Sep 14 2010, 09:35 AM, said:
Echognome, on Sep 14 2010, 07:32 AM, said:
The answer, as always, is to always ask.
We don't need to 'always' ask to nullify this problem. 'Often', or even 'sometimes' is more than enough, since we won't be bidding a lot here anyway.
#8
Posted 2010-September-14, 06:41
MFA, on Sep 14 2010, 05:27 AM, said:
gnasher, on Sep 14 2010, 09:35 AM, said:
Echognome, on Sep 14 2010, 07:32 AM, said:
The answer, as always, is to always ask.
We don't need to 'always' ask to nullify this problem. 'Often', or even 'sometimes' is more than enough, since we won't be bidding a lot here anyway.
I don't understand that. If you sometimes, but not always ask you create a recognizable pattern of behavior (UI).
#9
Posted 2010-September-14, 07:06
aguahombre, on Sep 14 2010, 02:41 PM, said:
MFA, on Sep 14 2010, 05:27 AM, said:
gnasher, on Sep 14 2010, 09:35 AM, said:
Echognome, on Sep 14 2010, 07:32 AM, said:
The answer, as always, is to always ask.
We don't need to 'always' ask to nullify this problem. 'Often', or even 'sometimes' is more than enough, since we won't be bidding a lot here anyway.
I don't understand that. If you sometimes, but not always ask you create a recognizable pattern of behavior (UI).
I don't think so.
I ask when I need the answer. And I ask sometimes at random, when I don't. Unrelated to my hand. That should be sufficient noise to throw partner off. If it were a situation where I would tend to need the answer quite often, like (1NT)-2♣* I would change questioning strategy, but that's another discussion.
Theoretical, sure it would be ideal to ask always about any bid, but that is not really practical.
#10
Posted 2010-September-14, 08:32
Did we not at least look at their CC to have this answer in hand?
Did we not look to see what treatments we are oppocing?
--How did we decide which counter to their 1N is ON: Capp or DONT; penaltyX or T/O?
--Is our counter to Bergen /Drury /1Nforce ON?
Then, if CC is not looked at, is not any question UI? Could have the answer by looking, so what is the difference by asking? Unauthorized Information!!?

Help
