[fromageGB]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-21, 06:39, said:

You misunderstand. The concept applies as follows:

The person who splinters has narrowed his hand in most cases and will not be the one taking over via RKC; so when he splinters, and then does take over with RKC, he did so to create exclusion and will be void in the splinter suit.

A player who intends to take over via RKC at the outset after setting partner's suit as trumps will do so via J2N or whatever other method you have, even holding a singleton, if he wants to use regular 5-key RKC.

Yes, I agree with you that splinterer will not normally be ace asking, it's the other hand that can judge playability. But when you have a strong hand, partner splinters, and you want to ace ask, this is one of the scenarios I am talking about. When it can be either singleton or void, you are in trouble when ace asking, whether using exclusion or not.

[kenrexford]

Not what you asked for, but to illustrate a point of analysis, consider my auction for the first five bids as a starting point to a principle:

1♠

2♣ (GF)

2♥

2♠ (spades set, start cuebidding, Responder does not have any of many possible picture bids)

3♣ (Opener has two of the top three spades and one of the top three clubs)

Notice how at this point Opener has solved the problem of finding the club Queen already. And, for that matter, he already knows that the spade suit is solid at the top. He also knows that partner has only four cards in the minors (at most), with a grand obviously solid if Opener has the diamond Ace.

This is a common theme. When Responder has a legitimate ability to bid 2♣ as GF and has shortness in a suit under Opener's major, this auction very commonly leads to a rebid in that short suit and setting trumps low enough to find out if Opener does or does not have a missing honor of interest in clubs. If Responder wants to know about that card, this kind of sequence works wonders.

Let's suppose, for others, that the same auction start would not result in a club cuebid because Opener would need the Ace or King to cuebid 3♣. That's helpful, too. If Opener does not cuebid 3♣, and hence lacks the club King, then a later asking bid of 6♣ would be asking for the Queen, the best card you could have in context.

Suppose, instead, that you pattern out as Opener in this sequence. That's fine, also. By starting with a 2♣ call, Responder in all three of these sequences already found out that Opener has at most 4 cards in the minors, such that the club Queen is immaterial already. Thus, the auction in all three sequences, regardless of cue methods, could be simple. Bid 2♣, heart two hearts, set trumps in spades, hear whatever useless bit of information Opener has to offer, and then bid Exclusion, knowing that you do not need the club Queen anyway.

The general principle, then, is that skipping all the way to Exclusion as your first bid is really dumb, IMO, if you need to know about side tertiary values and/or shape. Slow it down. All of these nuanced meanings for SSA or whatever are somewhat dumb on this hand because the issue should have been mooted out with a simple start of 2♣. Now, granted, Opener might spoil the plan by rebidding 2♦ if that only promises 3+ in your methods (but then you might get the club cue or something else that helps) or by rebidding 2♠. The chance of a 2♠ rebid seems small, however. Even then, you might get a cue in that helps.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-21, 07:21, said:

Yes, I agree with you that splinterer will not normally be ace asking, it's the other hand that can judge playability. But when you have a strong hand, partner splinters, and you want to ace ask, this is one of the scenarios I am talking about. When it can be either singleton or void, you are in trouble when ace asking, whether using exclusion or not.

Exclusion is used by the hand which wants to exclude a particular suit because he-himself doesn't have any of that suit. There are void-showing answers to RKCB, but that isn't what is under discussion here.

[fromageGB]

Unfortunately in this scenario the asker is not void - he could well have 3 small. When teller has bid a singleton or void splinter, asker cannot use either blackwood or exclusion. Unless you first find whether it is void or singleton, of course.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-21, 10:04, said:

Unfortunately in this scenario the asker is not void - he could well have 3 small. When teller has bid a singleton or void splinter, asker cannot use either blackwood or exclusion. Unless you first find whether it is void or singleton, of course.

Why can't I use Wood with XXX in a side suit where partner is known to hold shortness? He will answer Key Cards and show the void at the same time if he isn't already known to be void. Remember, the Wooder shouldn't be wooding if he can't handle the response, and responder knows the difference between "useful void" and any void.

[fromageGB]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-21, 10:29, said:

Why can't I use Wood with XXX in a side suit where partner is known to hold shortness? He will answer Key Cards and show the void at the same time if he isn't already known to be void.

Sure. But depending on your void methods this may interfere with subsequent King asks and SSA. I find that if I'm intending to ace ask, it is better to discover the nature of the shortage first, whether by a specific ask at the 4 level, or perhaps cue bidding if lower. There is always room for me to make a specific ask, and I need that room for no other purpose if no room to cue. Each to his own.