[FrancesHinden]

{yes, of course there's a ruling associated with this. But you might struggle to guess what the ruling actually involved.}

---

You are playing in a not very regular partnership with a good player.

[mtvesuvius]

I have little to no imagination here, but I'd play partner to have a splinter in support of hearts, and bid 4♣.

[kayin801]

Well maybe RHO is taking a wait-and-see approach with something like AKQJxxx, x, x, Axxx, but if he isn't and just has a "normal" takeout X, then all the signs point toward partner being 4450 with a good hand, and something like Axxx, QJxx, AKxxx, - could give us slam. That having been said, anything worse or with more points but worse controls could hurt us, and our club values look wasted, AND trumps could be 4-0, so I'm just bidding 4♥.

[aguahombre]

I get to look at my hand. And when I do, the idea of a spade splinter seems remote. If asked, I would have a problem answering during the auction. I guess the best answer who be "undiscussed in this competitive situation". That would not be telling anyone what I have in my hand.

Answered the poll, based on what I see. Cue for hearts, not splinter --and would just bid 4H per what Kayin said.

[dburn]

Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values.

Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you have 2 cards Sp and partner has one, why aren't the opps bidding them ?

[cherdano]

A 4450 hand would bid 4♣, which is unambiguously a splinter for hearts.
Partner either has a splinter for hearts, or a good hand with spades and diamonds (maybe he isn't sure 2S is forcing, or maybe he is afraid he can't show his extra values later).

[aguahombre]

conditions state he is a good player. 2S would have been forcing.

[cherdano]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-13, 20:31, said:

conditions state he is a good player.

Uh thanks. That clarifies that it is not a cuebid for hearts.

[y66]

No idea. I'm going to play him for a hand with running diamonds and a spade stop looking for a club stop for 3N.

[aguahombre]

ok...it seems no one wants to anticipate the ruling situation...might as well let us have it. Something obviously went wrong at the table, but I still contend that pard can't have a splinter in spades.

[the hog]

y66, on 2011-February-13, 20:55, said:

No idea. I'm going to play him for a hand with running diamonds and a spade stop looking for a club stop for 3N.

I suspect that is indeed what he has.

[mtvesuvius]

Any jump in a new suit that you have to look at your hand to decipher it's meaning is clearly wrong. I don't see why this wouldn't be a splinter, regardless of what we have. If we had xxxxx KQxxxx xx - does that make it a splinter now?

I know I don't want to make a two-way call that is either a single-suited hand without support or a great hand with support, and leave partner to figure it out based on his hand.

[Bbradley62]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-13, 23:21, said:

Any jump in a new suit that you have to look at your hand to decipher it's meaning is clearly wrong. I don't see why this wouldn't be a splinter, regardless of what we have. If we had xxxxx KQxxxx xx - does that make it a splinter now?

I know I don't want to make a two-way call that is either a single-suited hand without support or a great hand with support, and leave partner to figure it out based on his hand.

Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning...

[655321]

dburn, on 2011-February-13, 18:24, said:

Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values.

Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex.

Yes.

Don't understand all these later posts about a jump in a new suit being a cuebid (!) or stopper-showing (!).

[mtvesuvius]

Bbradley62, on 2011-February-13, 23:22, said:

Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning...

Isn't that all the more reason for it to be the assumed standard meaning though? And not some convoluted two-way stopper ask?

[Bbradley62]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-14, 00:18, said:

Bbradley62, on 2011-February-13, 23:22, said:

Since OP specified that this is a new partnership, it's entirely possible that this sequence had never been discussed. Presumably it was discussed after this hand and they didn't agree on a two-way meaning...

Isn't that all the more reason for it to be the assumed standard meaning though? And not some convoluted two-way stopper ask?

Yes, I would certainly expect it to be a splinter. I think the question is "in a new partnership, do you look at your short spades and wonder if maybe you're having a miscommunication?" Once we're done beating this, I expect OP will come back and tell us that there was a long hesitation before the 3♠ bid, and we (not necessarily you and I, but those who have posted replies) have now said that there are logical alternatives that are completely opposite each other, so this pair is screwed.

[y66]

655321, on 2011-February-13, 23:42, said:

Yes.

Don't understand all these later posts about a jump in a new suit being a cuebid (!) or stopper-showing (!).

I admit that jump cue bid = stopper showing is insane. It just seems less insane than believing 3S=shortness after what I think I've heard and seen so far at the table.

[Vampyr]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-February-13, 19:11, said:

If you have 2 cards Sp and partner has one, why aren't the opps bidding them ?

Maybe because partner has bid them?

[ArcLight]

If 3♠ is asking for a Spade stopper for 3NT, then that implies pard has a ♣ Stopper. Since we hold the AQ, then pard holds what? Kx in Clubs? Jxxx in Clubs? What is LHO holding in clubs for his overcall? 987654?

But it does bother me that Spades have not been bid. If 3♠ is a splinter, then spades are 5-5 with the opps, implying LHO has more Clubs, call it 6. With 5-1-1-6 Might not 2NT have been a better bid than 2C?

So pard can't have a Spade splinter. I guess he has a good hand for hearts, since 2S would have been a Reverse and forcing.

I'm confused, I guess I'll bid 3NT. Maybe part will put me back in hearts.
I hope to get a plus, instead of going down in a misunderstanding.