[jmcw]

2 spades was an unspecified splinter

---

Making 5 after a club lead.

The problem is that neither partner nor I had taken time to discuss how to handle the interference. We were just guessing

Subsequent discussion has not rendered a satisfactory solution. Any suggestions would be welcome.

[PhilKing]

I think we need more information, such as what other splinter otions were available and whether 2♠ was game-forcing.

[ArtK78]

Agree that we need information. But if responder was going to bid game anyway, why not bid 4♣ to show short clubs?

In standard Jacoby 2NT, when there is interference over 2NT the usual way to show shortness in the suit bid is to double, and if there is a different shortness to bid it. I am not saying that this is the best method available, but it is a simple solution and can be adopted here. At least you would be on the same page.

The other day, I was playing against a pair that seemed to have some sophisticated agreements. However, they did not have any agreement as to the meaning of their bids when we bid over their Jacoby 2NT. So I don't know how well known the usual way to show shortness that I described above really is.

[jmcw]

PhilKing, on 2013-September-09, 11:29, said:

I think we need more information, such as what other splinter otions were available and whether 2♠ was game-forcing.

We are playing mini/maxi, game force usually limited to a maximum of 6 controls.

Thanks, for your interest.

[jmcw]

ArtK78, on 2013-September-09, 11:36, said:

Agree that we need information. But if responder was going to bid game anyway, why not bid 4♣ to show short clubs?

In standard Jacoby 2NT, when there is interference over 2NT the usual way to show shortness in the suit bid is to double, and if there is a different shortness to bid it. I am not saying that this is the best method available, but it is a simple solution and can be adopted here. At least you would be on the same page.

The other day, I was playing against a pair that seemed to have some sophisticated agreements. However, they did not have any agreement as to the meaning of their bids when we bid over their Jacoby 2NT. So I don't know how well known the usual way to show shortness that I described above really is.

Your right the same problem could so easily occur over J2NT.

[ggwhiz]

Without discussion I would think that 3♥ shows a diamond splinter and you just bid any black suit splinter. Jumping to game is a generic "just kidding" splinter which shouldn't happen but the ♦K and min values calls for it here.

[FrancesHinden]

It isn't totally best, but if we are in a game forcing auction, our agreement is that

- if we pass over RHO's action (whether it is a double or a new suit bid that still leaves us room below game) then we are denying first or second round control in their suit
- if we redouble or double we are showing a singleton in their suit
- if we bid, that means whatever we've agreed it to mean but also promises at least second round control in their suit

So if you were playing 1H P 2S P 2NT as asking for the shortage, 4H as weak and other calls as own void (say), then after
1H P 2S dbl

- 2NT still asks
- redouble shows own shortage, and responder can evaluate accordingly
- pass denies a control. Responder now bids in an agreed fashion (we always play steps, so now all of our steps would be one lower i.e. redouble, 2NT, 3C mean what 3C,3D,3H would have meant over a 2NT enquiry)

You are still low enough after 1H P 2S 3D that you can pass to ask with no control, and bid 3H to ask for shortage with a control, and double to show your own shortage.
After higher intervention you have to have a rethink. We just stick with pass denies a control.

(There are various reasons why this isn't best e.g. pass should probably show a control an bidding on deny one at low levels and reverse this at higher ones, but this is short enough for us to remember)

[Zelandakh]

There are lots of generic defences you can employ here. Frances' idea of having different asks is interesting and is good against LHO raising the stakes. You could choose just to have a generic ask instead. That is (arguably) simpler but gives less information if they start barraging. For example, you might play Pass as an ask and 3♠/3NT/4♣ as shortage/void, with 3♥ starting a cue auction (if they leave us alone) without needing to know partner's shortage. Over the Pass, you can just show shortage as normal (but up a couple steps) or also include an additonal piece of information, perhaps about diamond control or whether the shortage is a void. For example, X might be any void; 3♥ = diamond singleton; 3♠ = spade singleton; 3NT and up = club singleton. Or X might deny a diamond control; with 3♥ = diamond shortage; 3♠ = spade shortage + diamond control; 3NT+ = club shortage + diamond control.

Since this is the expert forum, I guess you should go with the different ask structure. If you were only asking as an intermediate then I would be inclined to suggest the simpler method. An advantage is that it requires less discussion in the more general case.

[mcphee]

To bid freely without any control in opps suit is looking for a problem. The first issue is that control card once the opps have directed a lead. Bidding anything should show a control, A or K and double shortness, which allows your side to advance with confidence. Passing allows partner to dble and show a control, or make and advance and show a control in the enemy suit.

[jmcw]

Thank you all for the help.