[Viren169]

I think 2D is fine for now... followed by 4D splinter on my next bid...

BR
Viren

[skjaeran]

I'm bidding 4♦, voidshowing.

[Echognome]

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D." So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question. I do not direct this thought at any particular poster.

Point #2 - I prefer a fit jump to showing shortness (even if I can show a void), because (a) I think it describes our hand better and (b ) it gives us more room. I definitely prefer it in the context of comparing the fit jump with the splinter.

[kenrexford]

han, on Dec 15 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I like the relay very much (though I might play different responses: none, low singleton, high singleton, low void, high void).

I thought of that. You show the location of your shortness and whether you have control in the fourth suit or not. Then, there will always be space to ask if the shortness is stiff or void below game. In the one situation where you cannot do this (partner's response will be one-under game), there will be some unused bid out there, to show the "one-under void," if you want.

Of course, you could also show the nature of the shortness, as you mentioned, and then have the "ask" inquire about control of the fourth suit. I suppose it all works out the same in the end.

[Fluffy]

Echognome, on Dec 17 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D." So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question. I do not direct this thought at any particular poster.

Can't agree more, you can freely point out your personal convention, but it doesn't hurt that much to just answer the problem that accounted at the table as well.

[CSGibson]

Fluffy, on Dec 17 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

Echognome, on Dec 17 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D."  So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question.  I do not direct this thought at any particular poster.

Can't agree more, you can freely point out your personal convention, but it doesn't hurt that much to just answer the problem that accounted at the table as well.

In this particular case, I appreciate the people who had a reasonable but different approach describing their methodology. Though I was looking for, and appreciate, the theoretical talk as a general guide to what to do in a situation where there are multiple features to show (and I like the general rule of showing the feature that is cheapest if both seem important, hoping to catch up later), it is possible that the solution to my problem is also to be found in better bidding tools.

Thank you to those who responded, I found this enlightening.

[jakob_r]

mtvesuvius, on Dec 14 2008, 03:24 AM, said:

4♦. I show my hand, then partner judges what to do. If partner judges wrong, oh well. If partner judges right, that's great for him. If I have a bid to describe my hand, I use it!

AJK

if playing with Adam i would prefer our swedish jacoby 2nt, allowing me to show my shortness at my 2nd bid and get a much better impression of his hand as well. 3♣ modified bergen (9-11hp, 4 card M support, and shortness somewhere) would work as well.

4♦ showing 12+hcp and void seems misleading, Adam?

[mtvesuvius]

jakob_r, on Dec 18 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Dec 14 2008, 03:24 AM, said:

4♦. I show my hand, then partner judges what to do. If partner judges wrong, oh well. If partner judges right, that's great for him. If I have a bid to describe my hand, I use it!

AJK

if playing with Adam i would prefer our swedish jacoby 2nt, allowing me to show my shortness at my 2nd bid and get a much better impression of his hand as well. 3♣ modified bergen (9-11hp, 4 card M support, and shortness somewhere) would work as well.

4♦ showing 12hcp and void seems misleading, Adam?

Yes, Jakob... If we have other tools available I will gladly use them, but given the choices I had... I strongly prefer 4♦ to any of the other choices. 4♦ describes my hand for the most part, but unfortunately it pre-empts partner. This is the advantage of playing Swedish Jacoby 2NT/Mod. Bergen... (I am not one to suggest using new methods, but I think Swedish Jacoby/Mod. Bergen is a useful addition to any system, and it has very few disadvantages...)


AJK