An underutilized bid

Recent experiences cause me to wonder if the raise of opener’s rebid minor to the three level is one of the more underutilized bridge bids.

Example 1 was the product of a question from another player (AP), regretting a game swing loss from a prior day match.

• AP:  What would I rebid with ♠AKx, ♥x, ♦xxx, ♣AKJxxx after opening 1♣ and hearing a 1♥ response?
• I:  2♣ would be my choice, with some sympathies for 1♠ and 3♣. 
• AP:  That’s what I bid, but my counterpart at the other table chose 3♣ and their side got to a good 3NT. 
• I:  That’s too bad, I sympathized, and then thought to ask what was his partner’s hand. 
• AP:  He had Qxx of clubs and a ten count. 
• I:  Shouldn’t he have rebid 3♣?

Example 2 was from a regional pairs event.  Partner held ♠AQ6, ♥KJT84, ♦943, ♣85.  I opened 1♦ and partner responded 1♥.  I rebid 2♦.  Partner, concerned about missing a 5-3 heart fit, chose to rebid 2♠.  I bid 2NT on ♠KT3, ♥7, ♦KQJT65, ♣K74.  Partner passed 2NT.  I lost four clubs and two red aces for -50 when 3♦ would have made an overtrick (clubs were QJ963 to my left and AT2 to my right).

First, I think the concern about missing a 5-3 heart fit was overblown.  Had my major suits been reversed, I would have raised to 2♥.  Second, I think the 2♠ rebid created a game force.  Third, partner’s hand seems like a 3♦ rebid to me.  On the instant hand, I would pass 3♦.  But on a slightly stronger hand – say one where my diamond suit was AKJ-sixth instead of KQJ-sixth, I might have chosen the same auction through 2♦ but then would have chosen to bid 3NT over the 3♦ raise.

Example 3 is similar to Example 1 but from another blogger’s website.  There, West held ♠A, ♥96, ♦AQT654, ♣A654.  The blogger’s teammate earned a game swing when he chose to rebid 3♦ over his partner’s 1♠ response.  His partner next bid 3NT, making easily opposite ♠KT85, ♥K82, ♦J93, ♣K32 when the ♦K was in the slot.  At the blogger’s table, West chose to rebid only 2♦ and game was missed.

But is the cause of the missed game West’s rebid choice, or East’s failure to have raised his partner’s 2♦ rebid to 3♦?

Notice that had West held a slightly weaker hand, say one where the ♠A morphed into a small spade, a 3♦ second round bid by East would not have led to 3NT but might have shut out a paying heart partial reached through a balancing call.

In all three examples, I think responder should have raised opener’s 2m rebid (a wide-ranging call) to three.  (The raise is often appropriate on a two-card holding in the minor, too, when holding invitational values.)  Perhaps that raise is one of the more underutilized bids in bridge.