[dickiegera]

---

Is there any difference here between a bid of 3♥ or 4♥

and would a bid of 4♣ be a better bid?


Thank you

[Vampyr]

 dickiegera, on 2020-October-21, 18:29, said:

---

Is there any difference here between a bid of 3♥ or 4♥

and would a bid of 4♣ be a better bid?


Thank you

Some people use both 3♥ and 4♥ as splinters, the former showing a singleton and the latter showing a void. Of course 4♥ is very space-consuming, so the hand should be rich in controls in the other suits; it is practically forcing to the 5-level, since if partner has anything she will need to bid above 4♠. Better to have any splinter go through 3♥.

4♣ is more descriptive than a splinter IMO, and leaves room for both red suits to be cuebid. The strength of the hand and the suits is a matter for partnership agreement.

BTW don’t include the other hand; people may make a response based on a subconscious bias.

[helene_t]

4♣ and 4♥ are overbids. If 3♥ is available as forcing only to 3♠ then that's fine, otherwise just 3♠.

I think 4♥ should show a void, unless you have the agreement that 3♥ is something else (natural 5♥6♣?)

[akwoo]

I don't know what 3♥ is, though mini-splinter does make perfect sense. I wouldn't assume it without explicit discussion. (I do know people who play it as 5♥6♣.)

I wouldn't try 4♣ without knowing my partner is fairly experienced either.

I think 3♠ is an underbid. Is partner really going to raise with ♠KQxxx ♥xxxx ♦xx ♣xx or ♠Kxxxx ♥xxxx ♦Kx ♣xx? And that's without counting on the club hook.
I even have some doubts about 3♥, though if you play it as this hand partner will get it right.

[DavidKok]

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.

[Cyberyeti]

 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 don't have this available, because we have a GF 2N available, 4♣ is more specific would make partner think he has the absolute bomb, for us it says "don't worry about any honours in the reds other than the ace".

My options are 4♥ (void) or 2N then 4♥ (typically 4135/4126) or just 4♠ (shape rather than points).

I'm not bidding 3♠, there are way too many hands partner passes where game is good to laydown.

[Vampyr]

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

I would bid 4♣...You are a bit light but any other bid invites more confusion, so I would consider this 'the smallest lie'.

Yes. Every potential bid has flaws. This one, at least, tells partner about 10 of your cards.

Quote

...you need to have your apology for the post-mortem ready.

Always. Or remark as you put down the dummy “I’ve seen you play them”.

[nige1]

DickieGera 'Is there any difference here between a bid of 3♥ or 4♥ and would a bid of 4♣ be a better bid?
++++++++++++++++++++
A matter of agreement. 4♥ could be exclusion RKCB. An alternative is to play double-jumps (like 4♣) as fit-jumps. 3♥ should be a splinter, initially showing a singleton. With a void, you can repeat the cue-bid (3♥ then 4♥).

Helene_t seems right that these efforts are overbids -- perhaps with the exception of 3♥.

---

[masse24]

 helene_t, on 2020-October-21, 21:06, said:

4♣ and 4♥ are overbids. If 3♥ is available as forcing only to 3♠ then that's fine, otherwise just 3♠.

I think 4♥ should show a void, unless you have the agreement that 3♥ is something else (natural 5♥6♣?)

This.

I think 3♥ is more commonly played as a splinter, rather than the 5-6 hand others have mentioned. Many play it as a GF splinter with a stiff, reserving 4♥ for a GF void. I'm pretty sure that is BWS2017.

But as Helene proposes, it can be used as a three-level splinter, meaning that the partnership can stop at the three-level if responder is a dead minimum. A Splimit bid! Billy Miller wrote a short article about this treatment in the ACBL Bulletin a decade ago. Note that Billy says it is a three-level or five-level splinter, meaning that it can be used for hands "so monstrous that a normal four-level splinter would not do it justice." A hand such as:
♠AQ32 ♥4 ♦AKQ94 ♣AQ3.

As far as the hand shown, I agree with Helene. It's not worth a game-force. If playing the gadget above, 3♥ would be my choice of bids. If not, I would jump-raise to 3♠.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-October-22, 02:26, said:

I don't have this available, because we have a GF 2N available, 4♣ is more specific would make partner think he has the absolute bomb, for us it says "don't worry about any honours in the reds other than the ace".

My options are 4♥ (void) or 2N then 4♥ (typically 4135/4126) or just 4♠ (shape rather than points).

I'm not bidding 3♠, there are way too many hands partner passes where game is good to laydown.

I would be shocked if you ever had the methods available in the OP. The question here was how do you continue with the given methods. If you prefer instead to suggest what the best methods are, better to open a new thread and explain it in more detail.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-23, 19:03, said:

I would be shocked if you ever had the methods available in the OP. The question here was how do you continue with the given methods. If you prefer instead to suggest what the best methods are, better to open a new thread and explain it in more detail.

That was more there for flavour, I wasn't sure 4♣ was a core part of system anyway, more something you agreed (I've known people play it as a really big 4225 for example), I also think it shows a bit more than this (make a small diamond the ace of hearts). The point I was mainly making was that I definitely WASN'T settling for less than game. I think I might just bid 4♠, but not sure if this specifically shows something huge in 2/1.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-October-24, 02:10, said:

That was more there for flavour, I wasn't sure 4♣ was a core part of system anyway, more something you agreed (I've known people play it as a really big 4225 for example), I also think it shows a bit more than this

I think that 4♣ has the meaning suggested by the OP universally absent discussion.

Yes the hand is a little light for this action.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 07:38, said:

I think that 4♣ has the meaning suggested by the OP universally absent discussion.

Yes the hand is a little light for this action.

Univerally is an overbid, but in I/A probably, I know a number of people of lesser ability for whom it would mean "I have 8 clubs and just a bit too much to open 4♣/4♣ shows hearts so I have to open 1".

[hrothgar]

Club suit isn't strong enough for 4!C

[Tramticket]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 07:38, said:

I think that 4♣ has the meaning suggested by the OP universally absent discussion.

I would assume natural without discussion. And it wouldn't be high on my priority list to discuss with a new partner - it is not a high frequency bid. But I agree that the meaning in the OP us more useful.

[Vampyr]

 Tramticket, on 2020-October-24, 09:21, said:

I would assume natural without discussion. And it wouldn't be high on my priority list to discuss with a new partner - it is not a high frequency bid. But I agree that the meaning in the OP us more useful.

I don’t think assuming natural would be successful, because that interpretation would probably not even occur to partner.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 16:15, said:

I don’t think assuming natural would be successful, because that interpretation would probably not even occur to partner.

Probably not anybody who would partner you, but I suspect beginners are taught nothing other than natural for quite a while in the UK

[akwoo]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 07:38, said:

I think that 4♣ has the meaning suggested by the OP universally absent discussion.

That's a ridiculous overbid. I don't think half the Life Masters in the ACBL would understand 4♣, never mind half of ACBL members.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-October-24, 17:02, said:

Probably not anybody who would partner you, but I suspect beginners are taught nothing other than natural for quite a while in the UK

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.

 akwoo, on 2020-October-24, 19:31, said:

That's a ridiculous overbid. I don't think half the Life Masters in the ACBL would understand 4♣, never mind half of ACBL members.

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.

[smerriman]

I can't imagine anyone being *taught* a different definition, so there is only really one possible explanation for what it means. Whether they know that definition is a separate issue.