splinter??

[mikeh]

The answer to the OP question is, as revealed by many of the comments, subject to partnership agreements.

 

In my partnerships, we have the following ‘good’ distributional raises:

 

3H: invitational or better splinter. A void is possible with a non-gf hand.

 

4H: a void showing gf splinter

 

4C: a 4=6 in the blacks, good suits.

 

I think this hand is just a touch too weak for 4H. Switch my red suits, and 4D is attractive, because it leaves room for partner to express (or deny) slam interest via 4H. As it is, were I to bid 4H, partner has to make a decision without knowing whether I like my hand or not (in context).

 

Make my diamonds Kxx and I’d bid 4H.

 

3H is attractive. Put another way, if I bid 3H and partner signs off in 3S, should I give up? Qxxxx KQx xxx xx, and even 3S may fail. Meanwhile if he has say Qxxxx xxx KJx xx, a weaker hand, he should happily bid 4S. And with stronger hands, he can cue something on the way to game.

 

This ability to allow partner to evaluate the location, as well as the number, of high cards in his hand makes, imo, 3H a better bid than my second choice of 4C.

 

If 3H were a game force splinter then I’d still select that call over 4C. Over 4C, partner doesn’t know, with any certainty, that the heart King is almost worthless....could you not have Ax or Qx in hearts?

 

Note also that it is standard, for most, to open 1D with 4-1-4-4 so bidding 3H shows 4=1=3=5 (as a minimum) which is very close to what we have.

 

 

As for 3H being natural, I’ve never seen it played that way in almost 50 years of bridge (except once when a pickup partner pulled it on me). That’s not to deny that some players, especially many years ago, may have used this treatment. It makes no sense to me: one can always bid 2H then 3H, having gained a level,of bidding for your partner to describe his hand.

[nullve]

As for 3H being natural, I’ve never seen it played that way in almost 50 years of bridge (except once when a pickup partner pulled it on me). That’s not to deny that some players, especially many years ago, may have used this treatment.

Versace-Lauria and other top Italians have.

 

It makes no sense to me: one can always bid 2H then 3H, having gained a level,of bidding for your partner to describe his hand.

The idea seems to be that e.g.

 

1♣-1♠

3♥

 

is not only weaker than

 

1♣-1♠

2♥-something

3♥

 

but also denies the values for a tradtional reverse.

[mikeh]

Versace-Lauria and other top Italians have.

 

 

The idea seems to be that e.g.

 

1♣-1♠

3♥

 

is not only weaker than

 

1♣-1♠

2♥-something

3♥

 

but also denies the values for a tradtional reverse.

Thanks for this...I learned something😀. I looked at Daniel o’neill’s writeup and he says 1m 1S 3H as 5-6 ‘good hand’, whatever that means

[Zelandakh]

Thanks for this...I learned something😀. I looked at Daniel o’neill’s writeup and he says 1m 1S 3H as 5-6 ‘good hand’, whatever that means

I think it means what I wrote above Mike - playing strength worth a reverse but without the expected honour strength.

[Cyberyeti]

I think it means what I wrote above Mike - playing strength worth a reverse but without the expected honour strength.

 

We use a variant of this, we play all the jump rebids as "2 good suits but not an especially good hand", so this would be x, KQJxx, x, AKxxxx type, 1♥-1♠-3♣ would be the same hand with a small club less and a short suit card more, NF but rarely passed.