PhilKing

The main problem with invitational jump shifts is that opener generally faces an awkward guess over whether to punt 3NT or not. It sounds like a great treatment, but in practice, opener is not that well placed. My preference is to play them slightly differently. After 1♠: 2NT = Inv+ raise, 4+ trumps 3♣/♦/♥ = Approximately a hand that would opener a classic vulnerable preempt The IJS hands respond 1NT. Opener only passes when balanced with 11 to a terrible 13 (ie hands that would have passed an IJS). As long as opener rebids 2♣(nat or 13+ bal or good 2♠ rebid), there is no issue: 2♦ = 9+ relay (then 3♦/♥ = IJS) 2♥/♠ = nat 2NT = death hand (eg 1453) not particularly invitational 3♣ = WJS 3♦ = WJS 3♥ = fit jump 5♥, 4-5♣ The strength of the method is that responder gets to decide how to treat 11 counts with a 6 card suit more flexibly. For instance, in the above scenario, after relaying with 2♦ and hearing 2♥ (13-14 balanced) they can just punt game having not revealed their shape. If opener rebids 2♦, we lose the ability to make an IJS (a simulation strongly suggested it was correct to play 3♣ as weak) and over 2♥ we lose definition in both minors. However, when opener bids two suits, most points based IJS hands can simply bid an invitational 2NT over which opener can patter out when advancing. Also, I have given some of the worst case scenarios, which tend to occur after opening 1♠. After 1♥, it all works smoothly via a Kaplan inversion, so most hand types have an extra step or so.

Leo Lasota's analysis was way better than the average commentator, and once he stops wasting his time thrashing GIB Bots, he should get a spot playing rather than commentating.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66440-tournament-hands/page__pid__794158#entry794158 No - the conspiracy seems to be much wider. I think it's time we had real answers! :angry:

Probably - I can't find a single instance of this auction occurring naturally in top-level bridge.

Yep, partner is clearly not worth bidding diamonds at either previous turn, since he needs a perfecto for slam (♠x♥xxxxx♦T9xx♣xxx), and how can he expect us have as much as that?

There is a Bayesian inference in this type of auction that is generally overlooked - the lack of a heart raise reduces the odds that partner has a shapey minimum take-out double. For my money, 1NT is miles ahead of the alternatives.

By playing it in this spot only, the number of exceptions is one, which most people can handle. 3♣ is preemptive 2♣ nat f (I also include 18-20 balanced, freeing up 2NT to show a game forcing diamond one suiter without a major-suit splinter). Not so tough.

The real solution is to play 2♣ as forcing - this is almost zero cost, since if our last making spot was 2m, the chances of being passed out are negligible.

The truth is you probably need to drop most of the gadgets you currently play and get back to basics - not having a forcing club bid here is pretty shocking.

Anyone else bet on the bearded lady?

If anyone wants to do the work I have filtered out 90 hands where one side opened 3♣ and the other did something else.

I don't think pass and pull to 5♥ is stronger in this system. I pass because partner may have a game-forcing hand with one or both minors. A direct 5♥ promises a good suit. A delayed one show some doubt about strain.

7NT redoubled by them, rubber bridge, with 150 honours.

On what basis do you suggest that a simulation can possibly answer the question? Show your workings!

As many of you know, I have a searchable database of a bit less than 20K hands form top-level play. I am pretty certain this is not remotely large enough to provide an answer to the questions posed. When I get it up to 100k (and with more functionality) I will start looking at such things, and see if the data pool is large enough. Any methodology that suggests the use of DD analysis is, in my opinion worse than useless - preempts are all about pressure, and even world-class pairs underperform in this area - no pair can reach the par contract against a preempt without the use of coughing and sneezing. I agree with the answers that point out that looking at whether (say) Woolsey/Stewart show positive results with an aggressive strategy are almost irrelevant for several reasons.

Am I the only one who assumed it was the mentee that bid 1NT? :ph34r::P

I prefer 4♦, since this is more likely provoke cooperation. Take the actual hand - partner would bid 4♠ and now we could invoke RKCB (in my case via a bid of 5♥, since 4NT would be rolling). I intend to follow with 6♣ to offer a choice if we are off a banger.

I give about 17% each - it's the kind of position that usually gets mangled, and one needs to be on the ball to avoid giving declarer a chance. The early defence was well thought out - a spade return works OK here but is a weak defence on many layouts and is rarely necessary. The reality is that these positions are usually muffed, so we would get away with misdefending most of the time.

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

Last time I had this situation (it was quite recently in an on-line match against "experts"), I played in 1M redoubled up three - responder interpretted the pass of the redouble as a 1435 hand with good hearts. The moral is that a jump to 4♥ would be premature. B-) FWIW, I think it is best to play the redouble as a general good hand.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq632hkt4da95cak2&w=shq3dkq86432cq763&n=sa854h8765d7cj954&e=skjt97haj92djtct8&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=3dppp]399|300[/hv] Jeff Sapire quoted this hand in a thread about the Doctors on BridgeWinners. Wladow's decision to pass 3♦ out is indeed remarkable. The hand has much better prospects than the one we Frances asks about - holding Axx in the preempt suit gives is much more control of the hand. The point is when we are able to shut out lefty, we will often make game on less than 25 points, but it partner has an 11 count with two small opposite our Qxx, we can lose the first six tricks. I held the hand discussed in this thread and would like to think I would have passed out 3♣, but West did not preempt at my table. :)

Oh, I forgot the "why": since Blackshoe is asking, I assume I am in trouble, so I make the cheapest action other than pass ...