kenberg, on 2016-July-25, 13:08, said:
If 3♦ over 2♣ is consistent with this holding I can't see why I would not do it.
The problem with splintering is not having a defined range for it. A splinter is usually towards the bottom of the range for the bidding, which in this case would make Opener's hand much too good for it unless they were going to splinter and follow with a drive. If the splinter also shows extras then no problem; the important thing is for the range to be relatively limited to enable partner to make informed decisions afterwards. The other potential issue with splintering is how things proceed when partner does not have real clubs but instead the balanced hand type. If you need to devote many continuations to unravelling this then the benefits get further diluted. Having an open-ended splinter strength opposite a nebulous 2
♣ response is essentially unplayable imho.
And now we get to the crux of things. The OP has given us a system in which 2
♣ serves double duty. To implement such a system you must surely have discussed how you unravel the different hand types in common auction types. A single raise would strike me as a common type so we are missing the important piece of information as to how it all works. If there is no agreement on this then we basically need to go back to basics and create a bidding system around it, probably using 2
♦ as some relay that includes club raises after clarifying Opener's hand type. For example:-
1
♠ - 2
♣; 2
♦
==========
2
♥ = 5+
♣, 4
♥
2
♠ = 5+
♣, 3+
♠
2NT = balanced
3
♣ = 6+
♣
3
♦ = 5+
♣, 4+
♦
3
♥ = 1444
3
♠ = any other hand type not covered elsewhere
The point here is that you should know your system better than us. This must surely have been the first question you asked when expanding the range of the 2
♣ response - so tell us what the answers were! The way I (or Ken) construct a bidding system is surely different from how you would do it and this seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question of philosophy rather than merely a judgement call.