[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 20:09, said:

Actually I would be surprised if they were taught anything at all. But if they are, to avoid having an idle bid, is it really a hand too good to rebid 3♣? When I assume they were also taught strong jump shifts?

I don’t know what they do in the US. I was not a beginner when I learnt that there are clubs and tournaments, and it was even later that I discovered that there are lessons. So I am not an authority on what beginners are taught, here or there.



Well, it was in the big Goren book I had as a child, and even back then it was old. A convention (often called The Convention Without a Name) that has been around that long has, I would imagine, seeped onto everyone’s consciousness.

Over here too it would be natural, without discussion. Beginners are taught that the jump to 3 level is strong but non forcing, and therefore the jump to 4 in a major is justified when one is unwilling to play for less than game. A jump to 4 in a minor is not usually discussed.
My big old Goren book (New Bridge Complete) says the same BTW (pages 71,72).

[AL78]

4♣ only makes sense to me as a cue bid agreeing spades, slam interest, although I would expect a stronger hand for this. It soesn't make sense for it to be natural, a hand that can self support its minor suit, bypassing 3NT and inviting slam investigation opposite what could be a six count with no support should have opened their hand their system the equivalent of an Acol 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 20:09, said:

Actually I would be surprised if they were taught anything at all. But if they are, to avoid having an idle bid, is it really a hand too good to rebid 3♣? When I assume they were also taught strong jump shifts?

No it isn't it's a hand like x, A, Qxx, KQJ10xxxx where neither 2♣ nor 3♣ adequately describe the hand and NT doesn't look good in that a heart lead might easily kill the club suit (particularly if a 4♣ opening bid would have shown hearts).

[haka9]

 DavidKok, on 2020-October-22, 01:44, said:

I would bid 4♣, showing a GF hand with 4(+) spades and 6(+) decent clubs, and values in the long club suit. This has the advantage over 4♥ in that, as Vampyr points out, there is room for partner to make mild slam investigations without bypassing 4♠. You are a bit light but any other bid invites more confusion, so I would consider this 'the smallest lie'.
If you do not have this agreement at your disposal I would bid 3♥ (splinter) and raise partner's sign-off to 4♠, although if partner has heart values (because of course partner has heart values on that auction) you need to have your apology for the post-mortem ready.

I would happily bid 4 ♣ showing 4+ ♠ and 6+ decent ♣, if my partner could understand it. I think not so I bid 4 ♥. Now I don't have play that as in 1 ♠ - p - 4 ♥ -ppp.

[Zelandakh]

Many years ago it was fashionable in some circles to play this 3♥ rebid as a super-reverse, showing a 6-5 hand with the playing strength but not the honour strength for a normal reverse. Most pairs these days seem to use 3♥ to differentiate between different kinds of splinter raise. One idea is for 3♥ to be a mini-splinter and 4♥ a normal GF splinter. Others play 4♥ (and 4♦) as a singleton splinter and then 3♥ can be a void splinter in either suit (additional hand types can also be included). And some reverse these so that the direct 4red is a void and going via 3♥ is a singleton. Finally, it is possible to combine these ideas so that 3♥ is either a mini-splinter in hearts or a GF void splinter in either red suit. In this scheme Responder's 3♠ rebid becomes a non-forcing relay and 3NT a forcing relay. Again, it is possible to reverse whether it is the singleton or void that gets bid directly with 4red according to taste.

The practical difference between any of these schemes in reality though is close to negligible. Therefore the most important thing is for a pair to have an agreement in place that both will remember 100% of the time, even 2 years later when it first comes up. The "correct" call depends on your actual agreements and perhaps also on response style. If you are playing with a pick up partner and you have no idea about their level, there is something to be said for just rebidding 4♠ (4 not 3 so you can see quickly whether they can play cards), even though that would clearly be the wrong bid in pretty much every system with a regular partner.

[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]

 mikeh, on 2020-October-25, 15:36, said:

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.

 mikeh, on 2020-October-25, 15:36, said:

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]

 nullve, on 2020-October-25, 15:57, said:

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]

 mikeh, on 2020-October-25, 18:43, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-October-25, 19:03, said:

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.