[kenrexford]

After a minor opening from partner, what is the consensus meaning for three of a major? E.g.,

1♦-P-3♠

I know what I play when discussed, but I had an auction occur in an undiscussed partnership and wondered what the default expert treatment is. I think I know, but then...

[ArtK78]

Splinter.

By the way, the "classic" meaning of 3♠ over 1 of a minor was preemptive with long spades, but that may predate the widespread use of splinter bids, and I find splinters (while rare) to be more useful.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Splinter

[Flem72]

kenrexford, on 2011-October-14, 07:09, said:

After a minor opening from partner, what is the consensus meaning for three of a major? E.g.,

1♦-P-3♠

I know what I play when discussed, but I had an auction occur in an undiscussed partnership and wondered what the default expert treatment is. I think I know, but then...

What do you think about using the 3M as weak, 7ish M, and using inverted THEN a jump as the splinter ("inverted" here = whatever your forcing raise might be -- unless it is a j-s in om, I guess)?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[pooltuna]

for me, I would assume it is a splinter but you need to be cautious I have seen some PUPs use it as stronger than 2♠ (note there is no player quality in the PUP acronym) and they don't use PJS

[Free]

Splinter. Inverted minor followed by a jump shows a stronger splinter.

[Fluffy]

this is a weak preempt for me, and would assume that meaning with anyone I played around my zone. To splinter I use inverted+ suit WITHOUT raise

[han]

Both splinter and weak are common here.

[aguahombre]

With 2m available as a space-saving force, and the appropriate follow-up structure; plus the fact that 1m openings do not guarantee more than 3 of the suit ---we decided that direct splinter 3-bids were not useful enough and took up too much room. So, we stick to the old fashioned 7-card major meaning.

I can picture other styles where 1♦is limited in strength and/or 4+in length in which the splinter might be more helpful. When 1C could be short, you might wait a long time for a hand which you couldn't handle in other ways and would lament not having a direct splinter available.

[Phil]

I think its reasonable to play splinters over 1♦ and weak over 1♣.

I've also seen transfers played here over 1♣.

[kenrexford]

My problem hand was ♠x ♥AJ ♦J10xxxx ♣KJxx

Obviously, a really good option to consider would be a 3♠ splinter. However, I had no idea how this partner would take it and did not want to face the nonsense that might result if this was wrong.

Not playing inverted minors with this partner, I tried 2♣, but then partner's 2♠ call messed everything up. Playing inverted minors would not help that much if partner bids 2♠ next, as 3♠ would hardly be a splinter in that context.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on 2011-October-14, 08:52, said:

Playing inverted minors would not help that much if partner bids 2♠ next, as 3♠ would hardly be a splinter in that context.

Why is that? You have (presumably) denied a 4-card major by bidding 2♦. Partner's 2♠ bid is not showing a suit - it is a notrump probe or a cue bid. Why would 3♠ not be a splinter if you have agreed that the inverted raise followed by a 3-level major suit bid was a splinter?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-14, 09:01, said:

Why is that? You have (presumably) denied a 4-card major by bidding 2♦. Partner's 2♠ bid is not showing a suit - it is a notrump probe or a cue bid. Why would 3♠ not be a splinter if you have agreed that the inverted raise followed by a 3-level major suit bid was a splinter?

I mean, that's sort of a dumb question. Obviously, if you have agreed that "Bix X" shows a splinter, then "Bid X" would show shortness.

However, there was no such agreement. Absent an agreement, calls are generally construed as natural if natural makes sense. You seem to conclude that natural makes no sense for errant reasons.

You claim that 2♠ is not natural but simply a notrump probe or a cuebid, with the assumption that Responder's denial of four spades somehow compels that result. However, with 5♠/6♦, Opener might have five spades, such that a 5-3 spade fit might exist. Second, 4-3 spade fits are played from time to time, especially if probing for notrump yields a suggestion of a suit strain instead. So, the assumption that somehow a spade strain is logically impossible is far from accurate.

Whereas the normal use for 2♠ by Opener is probe or cue, that does not end the inquiry. I myself have seen auctions substantially like if not absolutely exactly like this:

1♦-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-3♠-P-
4♠-all pass

This is not to say that one could not agree to another meaning, but inferring that this is somehow in bridge theory an obvious conclusion seems dead wrong.

[Hanoi5]

I play splinters in the minors as 14+ HCP's. Is this wrong?

[Cyberyeti]

Free, on 2011-October-14, 07:43, said:

Splinter. Inverted minor followed by a jump shows a stronger splinter.

Or one is singleton the other is void, which is how we do it.

[aguahombre]

Hanoi5, on 2011-October-14, 10:30, said:

I play splinters in the minors as 14+ HCP's. Is this wrong?

It is wrong if your partner doesn't. Otherwise, it is just what you do, in the context of your other methods.

[JLOGIC]

I play preemptive. I would not consider splinter or preemptive as standard, they are both so common. I feel like without discussion splinter might be better since you probably don't have methods to bid inverted minors then show shortness, but with that discussion, preemptive seems more useful. If it happened at the table I'd try the "look at my hand and figure it out" trick. That said, my partner and I once played 3S in a 1-0 fit when a splinter was passed because my partner looked at her hand and didn't think I could be splintering!

[TWO4BRIDGE]

FWIW.... Max Hardy's 2/1 GF yellow paperback, page 42: 1C - 3S! = splinter whereas 1C - 2S! = preemptive jump-shift.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-14, 09:01, said:

Why is that? You have (presumably) denied a 4-card major by bidding 2♦. Partner's 2♠ bid is not showing a suit - it is a notrump probe or a cue bid. Why would 3♠ not be a splinter if you have agreed that the inverted raise followed by a 3-level major suit bid was a splinter?

Not everybody denies a 4M by using the inverted raise, we certainly don't. 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♠ has just found our 4-4 spade fit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-October-14, 16:10, said:

Not everybody denies a 4M by using the inverted raise, we certainly don't. 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♠ has just found our 4-4 spade fit.

Anybody who is anybody DENIES a 4 card major with an inverted minor raise.