[mike777]

Recently here in the forums we have had several deals where a splinter over a minor was one choice.

I seldom see splinters used over the minors in the forums.
I would add in my local area, at least, they are almost never used, outside of myself it seems...

I was taught them ages ago, so they are hardly new.
Yet people seemed almost shocked by them. Assuming of course they must be weak and 7 or 8 card suits or just baffled and having no idea what I am doing


I note splinters over the majors were always on...


They seem pretty useful..they come up, but then I am looking for them with potential slam going values..

[mikeh]

In my ,air partnership we play 1C 3c, where x is any suit other than clubs, as 6+, with good texture and around 10-11 hcp. Our 1C is 2+ and is how we open all balanced hands out of range for 1N and lacking a 5 card major. We can even be 3=3=5=2. So the chances of us having a gf splinter raise of clubs is very, very low. Meanwhile we play 2S as a gf raise which may contain shortness, which we can show over opener’s most common rebids and we play 1C 1N as a balanced gf relay. Thus we don’t need a splinter.

Over 2D, which is unbalanced and shows 5+ unless 4441 (any stiff). Again,we use 2S as a gf raise and can ask for or show shortness later. So we play the same meaning for 3C/H/S. We do require very solid texture, especially opposite 1D. Ideally something like KQJ10xx. In fairness, one of these bids, other than 1C 1N come up so I can’t claim they work wonderfully

[Cyberyeti]

It is system dependent.

If you play a strong NT with a potentially short club, it makes sense for 3M to be natural of whatever range.

If as we do, you play a weak NT with a 4+ card club (and if minimum only 4 with 4414) then it makes much more sense for it to be a splinter.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-August-22, 01:03, said:

It is system dependent.

If you play a strong NT with a potentially short club, it makes sense for 3M to be natural of whatever range.

If as we do, you play a weak NT with a 4+ card club (and if minimum only 4 with 4414) then it makes much more sense for it to be a splinter.

If the Italian nationals who designed our (2+ club, strong NT) system thought that it made more sense for 3M to be natural then I trust them to be right
There are occasional hands like this where the splinter would work well, but even then it is rarely essential as our control-bidding methods easily convey shortages.

We do splinter as Opener over a minor bid by Responder, which I find a more useful bid, particularly as the splinter can sometimes be at an enticingly low level.

[mycroft]

Matchpoints is a great game - but it's not Bridge™.

Mike's reasons are system-based, and he doesn't build system for MPs; two reasons that statement doesn't apply to him.

But for most of us Bracket 2s or below, the number of hands where 3M is more useful naturally than looking for 6m (or even avoiding blind-walking 3NT and hoping partner has it/they don't find it - more than once I've pinpointed "3NT doesn't make" and bid 5m, only to find that a) 5m doesn't make either, or b) we still get a 30% score because *in practise* 3NT makes more often than not), no matter what strength that Natural is, has to be huge. And MPs is All About The Benjamins Frequency. Add that to "am I *sure* partner can effectively use the shortness information at MPs?" and "am I *sure* the opponents can't effectively use the shortness information at MPs?" and, well, yeah(*).

Having said that, I play it as a splinter with everyone I've agreed (that plays standard, at least - 1♦-3M is preemptive in SMP, as I believe is 1♣-3M IIRC in The Junior System I'm learning. Again, context from an ambiguous minor opening). Consistency and expectation are indeed the bugbear of little minds.

(*) Having said that, I am a strong proponent of "anything but WJS. Not because they're bad, but because for many they are too alluring." Giving those players Yet Another Chance to preempt partner is - maybe not such a good idea.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-August-22, 13:39, said:

Matchpoints is a great game - but it's not Bridge™.

Mike's reasons are system-based, and he doesn't build system for MPs; two reasons that statement doesn't apply to him.

But for most of us Bracket 2s or below, the number of hands where 3M is more useful naturally than looking for 6m (or even avoiding blind-walking 3NT and hoping partner has it/they don't find it - more than once I've pinpointed "3NT doesn't make" and bid 5m, only to find that a) 5m doesn't make either, or b) we still get a 30% score because *in practise* 3NT makes more often than not), no matter what strength that Natural is, has to be huge. And MPs is All About The Benjamins Frequency. Add that to "am I *sure* partner can effectively use the shortness information at MPs?" and "am I *sure* the opponents can't effectively use the shortness information at MPs?" and, well, yeah(*).

Having said that, I play it as a splinter with everyone I've agreed (that plays standard, at least - 1♦-3M is preemptive in SMP, as I believe is 1♣-3M IIRC in The Junior System I'm learning. Again, context from an ambiguous minor opening). Consistency and expectation are indeed the bugbear of little minds.

(*) Having said that, I am a strong proponent of "anything but WJS. Not because they're bad, but because for many they are too alluring." Giving those players Yet Another Chance to preempt partner is - maybe not such a good idea.

Heck, I agree with that too, whatever bracket 2 is. I was merely pointing out that some very wise system gurus decided that in a mainly MP oriented system "weak" natural was the better choice, for the reasons we both grudgily concede.
FWIW the only weak jump response I really like is 1m/H-2S "drop dead", and even then I risked blowing a promising new partnership when it really was the minimum of our agreed 0-6(5) HCP and 5+ spades (not because it would have led to a disaster, quite the contrary, but because he decided to fool himself he really could risk a second bid).

[DavidKok]

I personally played 1♣-3X as weak for several years. It came up once, and won big when it did. I think it's not important. There is an argument that minor suit splinter raises can bid inverted minor first, and also that we are likely to end up in 3NT anyway so the extra information doesn't benefit us that much. All things considered I don't have a strong opinion on these jump bids - if they never come up, who cares what the nominal definition is? Personally I think splinters might be slightly better, also in a strong NT system, if only for helping people avoid making a mess of their inverted minor.

 pescetom, on 2026-August-22, 14:43, said:

FWIW the only weak jump response I really like is 1m/H-2S "drop dead", and even then I risked blowing a promising new partnership when it really was the minimum of our agreed 0-6(5) HCP and 5+ spades (not because it would have led to a disaster, quite the contrary, but because he decided to fool himself he really could risk a second bid).

Yeah this always happens. People hold some 18-count and hear 'drop dead' and think "My hand is really strong, maybe partner was thinking I should stop bidding with a 15-count. But I have more! Surely the 3-level is safe, I will tell partner that this is an exception". This is especially funny with misfit hands.

[mycroft]

Yes. Frankly, my "point of discussion" (for other people, unless I just *can't* convince this pickup to play something other than WJS) is "when you WJS, do you expect partner to make 3NT with a balanced 18 and Hx in your suit?"; and there are only two acceptable answers: "Yes" or "No". Pick one, stick with it, I'll play either way.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-August-23, 11:17, said:

Yes. Frankly, my "point of discussion" (for other people, unless I just *can't* convince this pickup to play something other than WJS) is "when you WJS, do you expect partner to make 3NT with a balanced 18 and Hx in your suit?"; and there are only two acceptable answers: "Yes" or "No". Pick one, stick with it, I'll play either way.

This particular point is more radical than that: "did you really digest that at this zone if I respond 2♠ I might well hold a 5(332) of zero HCP in misfit with your suit, and that with almost any possible hand of yours a further bid is looking for trouble?".

Bonus point: "do you understand that at least half the bad vibes about this hand derived from your failure to clearly disclose the carefully discussed agreement to opponents, who were rightly aggrieved about missing 4♥ opposite 2♠ "weak" followed by a rebid ?

[mycroft]

Heh. Carefully discussed, but not actually agreed to. Your partner *heard* your words, but knew you were exaggerating for emphasis and you really *meant* what he or she actually believed is a WJS.

Never seen that before.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-August-24, 10:35, said:

Heh. Carefully discussed, but not actually agreed to. Your partner *heard* your words, but knew you were exaggerating for emphasis and you really *meant* what he or she actually believed is a WJS.

Never seen that before.

Your Honour, carefully discussed and not actually disagreed to. And the system card that I shared in the app and partner approved said just that.

But yes, he did not imagine that I am both literal minded and prone to unusual thoughts, a dangerous combination.
The absurd thing is that opponent who was understandably upset about the announcement of "weak" can not see the same system card in the app
It is currently only visible between partners, I have been protesting for two years to no avail yet.
And now they arbitrarily changed the system card format which risks delaying things even more.