[rbforster]

Uncontested auction, inverted minors if relevant.

1♣-1N
3♦-?

What does 3♦ show?

[gwnn]

some very strong (23)17. auto splinter, asks nicely for a cuebid but doesn't force one.

[655321]

Agree this is an autosplinter.

[CSGibson]

Splinter. (Because this is the B-I forum I will explain why)

You do not need to jump shift into 3 diamonds, because 2 diamonds is already a forcing bid, being a natural reverse. You don't need it to show 6-5 in the minors, because that auction still bids the natural reverse, then bids either 3 or 4 diamonds next again, depending on agreements and strength of hand. The only other common use for a jump bid is to show shortness. Since on this hand the 1N bidder has promised club tolerance, the self-splinter is useful.

If the auction had been 1♣-1♥-3♦, that would be a splinter agreeing hearts, for the same reasons (you don't need the natural bid, etc). People used the jumps to 3♦ and 4♦ to either show singleton and void, or to show different high card point ranges usually.

[andy_h]

2D is forcing, hence 3D is autosplinter.

[rogerclee]

Some people play this as showing a weakish hand with 5♦-6♣. These people are really dumb, this is obv a splinter.

[FrancesHinden]

It ought to be an autosplinter, because as others have described, 2♦ is a reverse and therefore forcing.

However, if random club opponents bid 3D here, they would have a strong hand with clubs and diamonds, because 2D doesn't 'sound' forcing.

So don't try this with a pick-up partner.

[han]

rogerclee, on May 30 2008, 03:23 AM, said:

Some people play this as showing a weakish hand with 5♦-6♣. These people are really dumb, this is obv a splinter.

I think Garozzo came up with this, and I don't think it is really dumb.

[rogerclee]

han, on May 30 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

rogerclee, on May 30 2008, 03:23 AM, said:

Some people play this as showing a weakish hand with 5♦-6♣. These people are really dumb, this is obv a splinter.

I think Garozzo came up with this, and I don't think it is really dumb.

I have a weak hand, partner is limited, and the opponents have 18+ cards in the majors. I do not understand having a bid to deal with this scenario.

[P_Marlowe]

Standard would be GF, with 5-4.

But it may make sense to define it as splinter,
if you happen to play 3D in the sequence

1C - 1H
3D

as splinter as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Depending on your style, the 1NT response may or
may not gurantee a 4 card club suit, some would bid 1NT
as well with 4 diamonds and 4333 shaoe.

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on May 30 2008, 04:20 AM, said:

han, on May 30 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

rogerclee, on May 30 2008, 03:23 AM, said:

Some people play this as showing a weakish hand with 5♦-6♣. These people are really dumb, this is obv a splinter.

I think Garozzo came up with this, and I don't think it is really dumb.

I have a weak hand, partner is limited, and the opponents have 18+ cards in the majors. I do not understand having a bid to deal with this scenario.

"I do not understand why" doesn't mean whoever came up with it is really dumb! Probably it was invented on an auction like 1♦ p 1♠ p 3♥, and if you play that then it just doesn't make practical sense to change for the given auction even if it's extremely unlikely that the opponents are silent.

For the problem I agree 'should' be a splinter and I would be confident even undiscussed with any of my partners, but I would never bust this out with a random B/I player. Better safe than sorry.

[kenrexford]

Whereas I agree that a splinter seems to be the obvious meaning, I wonder if this is the best meaning in theory.

When the auto-splinter is in the context of a major suit, the obvious end goal is a major contract. However, long minor hands seems to suggest notrump contracts as at least a good option to consider. Therefore, it seems reasonable that a call such as this, which forces 4♣ as the worst option, could appropriately be used as a "weakness or shortness" bid. "Weakness" might be something like a solid or semi-solid suit with all suits stopped except this.

Responder can cater to this easily. With no interest of any variety, 4♣. With interest opposite the weakness (and hence a very poor holding opposite the splinter), 3NT. With interest opposite the splinter but not the weakness, something else useful (or at least available).

If the auto-splinter/weakness bid had been 3♠, room is not available to untangle this. The solution, it seems, would be to have 3♠ (below 3NT) be a weakness bid and 4♣ an implied spade shortness bid.

[FrancesHinden]

Did you notice what forum we are in Ken?

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on May 30 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Whereas I agree that a splinter seems to be the obvious meaning, I wonder if this is the best meaning in theory.

OK Frances I hear you about which forum...

Never the less, Ken, can't you handle this with the stronger version of an inverted minor raise anyway?

Nick

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on May 30 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

Did you notice what forum we are in Ken?

Better yet, exchange the words "forum" for "planet".

[kenrexford]

NickRW, on May 30 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 30 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Whereas I agree that a splinter seems to be the obvious meaning, I wonder if this is the best meaning in theory.

OK Frances I hear you about which forum...

Never the less, Ken, can't you handle this with the stronger version of an inverted minor raise anyway?

Nick

I don't understand.

Responder would not make any type of inverted raise if he has a 1NT response.

However, give Opener something like:

♠Ax ♥Ax ♦xx ♣AKQJxxx (solid version)
♠Ax ♥Ax ♦xx ♣AQJxxxx (semi-solid version)

In the first instance, Opener needs a diamond stopper to make 3NT. In the latter, he needs a diamond stopper and a club card.

xxx-xxx-xxxxx-(K/x)x probably does the trick. That's no raise.

(I have two types because I am still undecided.)

Granted, the diamond version is probably less useful. The short or no-stop major bid makes more sense. (I'd just cross the fingers with the diamond hole.) But, the diamond call might be the hole+card request.

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on May 30 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

I don't understand.

OK. Never mind. I wasn't on the same wavelength.

[neilkaz]

Rob F, on May 30 2008, 12:21 AM, said:

Uncontested auction, inverted minors if relevant.

1♣-1N
3♦-?

What does 3♦ show?

This is B/I...what should it show or what does it likely show ?

My "guess" that opener didn't realize that 2♦ was a forcing reverse. (I've seen them 'forget' more than several times).

Anyhow..as responder I take this as 100% GF and will Q something in a major and let opener clarify.

Now what would I play ? Self-splinter with at least minimal slam interest.

.. neilkaz ..

EDIT... I have also seen it played as a monsterous GF and now S/I minor two suiter with better ♣ than ♦

[nige1]

We learn all the time.

• In Acol, I think 1♣- 1N - ; 3♦ would be forcing reverse.
  a 2♦ rebid would also be a reverse, showing a strong hand (15+HCP) and longer ♣ than ♦ but it would be non-forcing.
  
• I don't know SAYC but, similarly, I would expect 3♦ to be natural and forcing.
  
• In 2/1, perhaps you should not be too surprised that 1♣ - 1N - ; 2♦ is forcing.
  2/1 has more forcing bids than most systems.