mikeh, on Mar 2 2006, 06:48 PM, said:
Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 08:29 PM, said:
mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 01:43 AM, said:
The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.
This contradicts what Fred said in another thread that splintering absolutely surrenders captaincy (if I'm remembering correctly).
I ought to have been more precise. I completely agree that the splinter operates, at that stage, as a denial of captaincy. If Fred uses the term 'syrrender' of captaincy in that sense, there is no contradiction.
What I am really stressing is that in my view there will be many, many situations in which neither partner is captain: that captaincy has not been assumed.
Thus the splinter denies interest in being captain, at that stage of the auction, but does not insist that partner assume captaincy.
That is what I meant by suggesting that a common bid by the non-splinter hand is a cue: which may result (immediately or later) in the splinter hand assuming captaincy. If Fred said that all splinters forever forsake captaincy for the balance of the auction, then I respectfully disagree.
Also, bear in mind that not all splinter auctions are identical. Most would play that a splinter response to a 1 major opening, as an example, is tightly defined, and thus in those sequences, it is highly unlikely that responder will ever be in a position to assert captaincy, and (for reasons similar to my rule that a 1N opening bid may never keycard) it may be playable to state that the splinter hand can never thereafter take control: I have not previously considered this issue and am not stating a position on it. But we are engaged in a different sequence here, and I see no particular reason for responder's splinter to prevent responder from taking control. After all, opener might have been bidding 3N, and when he did not, responder's hand can become massively re-evaluated and thus the nature of the auction has changed (compared to 3N over the splinter).
I think this is a matter of semantics.
Perhaps a brief vignette will explain the captaincy principles here:
1♣ - 1♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
Pass.
1. 3♠: Love my hand, stiff spade, values for game (captaincy sent to responder).
Hidden message: If you keycard here, you better have the right hand.
2. 4♣: (in a non-serious 3N context): Interested in slam, A, K or Q♣. Take control if you want.
Hidden message: Splinter, schminter, the strong hand takes charge. I ain't taking the wheel.
3. 4♦: Last Train. I REALLY like my hand, but still can't take the reins.
Hidden Message: The last time you cued here, you needed a perfect max for slam. I have a 21 count, but its not enough to insist on slam opposite your prime 7.
4. 4♥: .....Tank......Signoff (and simultaneously barring pard).
I can't trust your bidding. I have a nice 9 count, but if you can't take control across from my crappy trump suit and known club card, then we don't have slam.