BridgeBuff

I prefer option (6) which you missed :-). Open 1C with either 3=3 or 4=4 with balanced hands where I intend to rebid 1NT (or raise pard's M with four, of course). If unbalanced I will open 1D when 4=4. As a weak notrumper, you want to give pard the option of bidding 1D over 1C instead of some nebulous 1NT bid, and have the strong hand exposed. If the opps interfere, I can often introduce some kind of double to imply diamonds. I want to avoid 1D - 1NT || 2NT (opener rebid to show 15-17) which gets you too high, and wrong declarer when 1C - 1D || 1NT settles you in the right spot (although more open to overcalls). There are different implications for 15-17 notrump openers, which I try to avoid being.

Yes the calculations of the (ABCD) components in this thread reflect rules that responder would use. Using Short Club Jammer, on a scramble, one of those rules would be ‘holding equal-length majors, bid hearts’ so responder with 4=4=2=3 opposite opener with 5=3=4=1 would land in 2H oops. That hand combination would be in the ‘B’ category and the 70% lawfulness is accurate that way. (You might decide to use a rule that says bid 2S with equal-length majors for pre-emptive reasons) Any system has ‘oops’ bids. The two-suiter bids have better precision for the two suits, but more ‘oops’ bids overall. Rough Diamond has 40% ‘oops’ positions compared to 30% Jammer, so you have to look at the bigger picture. You’re right about safety versus lawfulness. One system might be less lawful but safer but that would have to be tested at the table for some period of time. Certainly a 10% difference in lawfulness is a huge difference to make up and Jammer might very well be ‘safer’ as well because it is not so well defined. As well, the Jammer bid frees up 2H for another purpose. That two-suited Frelling 2S bid looks very reckless to me, but to each his own. Yes that response system is sensible. With a weak hand you just scramble. For invitational+, you could build a sensible response system starting with 2N. Maybe 3C would then show a minimum hand not both majors (3 of one of them), 3D minimum both majors, 3H maximum both majors, 3S maximum with 4+ spades, 3N maximum with hearts .. or ??? Strong responder with 4=4=2=3 opposite opener with 5=3=4=1 would find his spade fit with: 2D 2N query 3C minimum one major 3D which major? 3S pass or 4S There might be more clever response systems ….

The Rough Diamond is relatively unlawful in large part because the 4432 and 5431 hands are treated as two-suiters when partner might have a nice fit in the 3-suit. Surely it makes sense to find those fits cheaply if you can. I took another look at Short Club 2D Jammer. Those include 5431, 4432, 4441 and 5440 hands with club shortness. The only serious problem is when responder has clubs and no second suit, say 223=6 or worse, 233=5 hands, when you risk playing in your 3-3 fits. With 6 clubs you cross your fingers and bid 3C (or if non-vul and weak, maybe try passing or goofing around) … close to half the time you will hit the doubleton in a 4432 hand so that isn’t disastrous. What to do about the 233=5 hands? If you bid the lower 3-suit, from time to time you will hit partner’s 3-suit. Oops. But if non-vul and weak, you might try passing first. If it is passed out, you might be in a shitty contract but you might not. If it is doubled, then you could play that XX asks opener for his lowest 4+ suit (he must have one in hearts or spades). If you do this, you will eliminate those 3-3 fits and sometimes find a nice 5-3 spot. (For notation (ABCD), A = % of hands 2 cards less than law requirements, B = 1 less, C = lawful, D = >lawful.) So if you bid the cheapest 3-suit with those 233=5 hands (or pass with three diamonds), Short Club Jammer comes in at (6.0, 23.6, 38.9, 31.5) which is a very safe 70.4% lawful. If you pass and XX to possibly improve your fit, it produces (3.9, 23.9, 39.2, 33.0) which is even safer at 72.2%, with considerably fewer disasters. Short Club Jammer covers your ‘two-suited’ majors and diamond-majors in one bid that is much safer than Rough Diamond (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7), lawful just 59.9%. With a weak hand you just scramble. For invitational+, you could build a sensible response system starting with 2N. Maybe 3C would then show a minimum hand not both majors (3 of one of them), 3D minimum both majors, 3H maximum both majors .. or ??? I’m flogging a dead horse with you guys but I’ve at least convinced myself now that Short Club is worth a trial, and to heck with those risky Frelling bids.

You are actually saying the hand is near the bottom of the next range ...

One of the benefits of playing Flannery (some might say the biggest) is that you normally play 1♥ - 1♠ to show five. Opener won't have four or he would have Flanneried. If opener was too strong to Flannery he will reverse. So Flannery bidders bid 2♠ with that hand. It's near the top of the range, but then something has to be.

I don’t think I like Long Diamond Jammer, so I didn’t pursue that line. Although it doesn’t put as much pressure on LHO, the anchor suit for Long Spade Jammer is more preemptive, and responder has an extra chance to find a decent spot with a 2H bid on the way to 2S. The response system for Long Diamond Jammer is largely “pass with diamonds, or scramble” so you would miss out on a number of decent major-suit fits. I did decide to take a look at Long Spade Jammer excluding 4432’s, so the bid would be largely 5431 shapes with some true three-suiters. I also decided to run a larger sample on Rough Diamond and Long Spade (with 4432) .. about 10,000 samples each. For Long Spade Jammer (with 4432), (ABCD) = (7.0, 29.1, 36.8, 27.1) with lawfulness at 63.9%. Without 4432 Jammer = (3.6, 33.5, 38.4, 24.5) with lawfulness at 62.9%. Rough Diamond = (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7) for lawfulness 59.9%. Jammer without 4432 is not quite as lawful, because responder’s long suits opposite shortness are now hitting singletons and voids, never doubletons, I guess. However the number of disasters (the A component) is halved, so maybe that is an argument for it. Frequency is about 4% compared to about 7% for the Long Spade variety.

Those response tweaks improved Rough Diamond a little more than I thought, to (5, 35, 40, 20). That makes it 60% lawful (8-fit at two-level, 9-fit at three-level) putting it in approximately the same class as Long Spade Jammer at 62%, so both provide roughly the same 4=3 thrills at the two-level, and 5=3 thrills at the three-level. Frequencies are approximately equivalent as well. I will check out that Long Diamond Jammer variation to see what's up there.

I'll check to make sure it passes with it 3=3=4=3. I'll see what it does with 3=4=4=2 and the like; pretty sure it passes. What is the book sequence when responder is 5=2=4=2 vs say 6=2=2=3? The source I checked said bid 2S with 5+ spades, and opener would pass (or raise with 4). If you think it is better tactics to pass with 5=2=4=2 (or bid 3D) you'll miss out on some nice spade fits. I can check either way. I'll check those club hands too. I very much doubt these changes will make much difference but we'll see. This is the only way to properly simulate the lawfulness of the bid, by stepping through a set of sensible responses. You cannot rely on pattern tables, because the shape of the opener influences the shape of responder. Also you have to make sure your analysis is not double-dummy, that responder isn't peeking. The analysis is correct (pending these tweaks). One source at the Cavendish site said there was a '66% chance of landing in an 8-card fit in hearts spades or clubs for a 2H opening. That club fit is unlawful, so any comparison you want to make with the (ABCD) notation is comparing apples with oranges because that notation reflects 8-fits at the two-level and 9-fits at the three-level. And if someone thinks that a system which generates lots of 4=3 fits with weak hands at the two-level is GOOD, then that guy is a better dummy player than I am, even though it does pressure the opps. Where two suits are known for sure, the Ekren majors say, the lawfulness is higher because responder knows more about opener's hand. Where there is doubt, sometimes for safety's sake responder must settle in an inferior spot when there is a chance of a better spot but it isn't prudent to look for it. With 4=2=3=4 responder will normally pass Rough Diamond (won't he?) but if the analysis 'peeks' and sees 4 spades with opener .... 2D Ekren 9+ majors is lawful 74%. Short Club Jammer is lawful 72%, and with twice the frequency (although apparently not playable in the ACBL).

Don't knock Stayman! LOL. Stayman is quite useful. Hands with 4=4 major fits generally play better in the suit-fit. Generally. There will always be exceptions, but over the long term, a partnership who looks for those fits will do better than one that doesn't. If your partner complains about some specific result, he's a dunce. As a rule with modest to good partnership assets, play in your 4=4 fits. But when the combined holdings are very strong, maybe 28+, then it is better to play in NT because now a bad trump split can hurt the suit contract, whereas the NT contract has enough tricks on power. With 5=3 fits it is reversed. Play your skinny 23-25 point 5=3 fits in 3NT because 9 tricks are easier than 10. More than that, usually the suit-fit produces a slightly better result. There are matchpoint/IMP implications as well.

I’m curious how someone judged that Rough Diamond was a relatively safe bid. In fact it is very dangerous. This is how I test these bids. My commercial deal generator cannot do it without some tweaking, so I sneak in a back door and build some code. To test RD I simply generate a random deal, no constraints, and if the South hand qualifies for RD (I’m looking only at pattern, not HCP), then I check to see what the North hand would do, and what is the resulting degree of fit. The South hand qualifies if it has 4/5 diamonds and either 4 hearts or 4 spades. When that happens, the North hand has some choices, in approximately this order. Small variations to this order would not make much difference. · North has 4+ both majors. He bids 2H, pass or correct. If South has hearts, they play in 2H, otherwise they play in 2S. · If North has 4+ hearts and 4+ diamonds, he tries 2H and if South corrects to 2S, he plays in 3D · If North has 7+ hearts they play in 3H · If North has 7+ spades they play in 3S · If North has 6+ clubs they play in 3C · If North has 3+ in both majors, he bids 2H pass/correct and they play in 2H or 2S · If North has 5+ spades they play in 2S · If North has 5+ diamonds they play in 3D · If North has 3+ diamonds they play in 2D ‘he passes Now you are approaching very dangerous territory. What is left are basically hands with 4-5 clubs, and 4-5 of a major. Options with 2515, say, are a little scary. There are more of these than you might think. I guessed that if North has 5 clubs, he would try the major and bid 3C necessary. For something like 2524, I passed …. This might be improved slightly. I made no provision for contracts in NT. I also assumed that the contract would be played in the lowest strain (except for the 3D preempt). After several thousand trails, the (ABCD) values are (6, 38, 38, 18) meaning 6% of contracts were 2 trumps short of law requirements, 38% were 1 trump short, 38% were lawful, and 18% were better than lawful. That’s a fairly scary bid at just 56% lawful. Long Spade Jammer was 62% lawful and Short Club was 72% lawful. I don’t think I made a material mistake.

You guys might prefer Short Club Jammer. Frequency is about 4% (compared to 7% for Long Spade). It is lawful 72% of the time (compared to 2% and 74% lawful for 9+ major Ekren). I forget the response structure I used to derive the 72% but it would be something fairly straighforward. Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

Well whenever partner has ANY suit except hearts, especially if he has clubs, the 4=2=3=4 will be a better dummy than 4=3=3=3. I've scribbled a possible response system previously. You would look for a heart fit if you had an escape somewhere. With say 2=6=4=1 you might first pass, then try 2♥ if doubled. You might try 2♥ first, then over 2♠ bid 3♦. Or you might try passing the 2♠ rebid (20% of the time opener will have five, more if you remove 4432's). If the heart suit is a good one, rebid 3♥. Some juggling is required; we discovered that when playing it. Don't forget the opps have no idea that we haven't found a nice fit somewhere. There is some adventure, some table-feel is useful, and it isn't for the faint-of-heart. Maybe you have a good idea there .. pass with any weak hand (<3 spades) and build some framework around XX.

I think 7%, not 15%. I mis-spoke if I said otherwise. Hey that's why I need someone smart to look at the responses! Know anyone like that? It's been some time since I played this and right now I'm not where my instructions! to my pard are. I think I used 2NT as a request for best minor, but if responder rebids something .. that's something else. With invitational hearts, start 2NT and over opener's minor, bid 3♥? With forcing hearts start 3♦. If partner has hearts, he'll bid them and you're off to the races. I guess with forcing values and three spades you could consider 3NT if balanced. Maybe you could use 2NT with a 3♠ rebid to show that hand. With forcing both minors, maybe start 2NT, then bidding the other minor shows that hand. The point of it was to be aggressive and frequent and lawful and a real irritant and only to take up one lousy bid, not a precision instrument. You want precision, use the Frelling bids and use up all your two bids :-)

Jtfanclub: Of course there are combinations of patterns that don’t do well. It is that way with any bid. I don’t stop using Unusual NT because sometimes partner is 5=5 in the majors. I don’t stop opening 1H because sometimes LHO has eight of them. The bid is lawful about 2/3 of the time, and not lawful about 1/3. You found one of the 1/3. This Jammer is way less risky than opening 3♣ with a 6-bagger. And no, using 4=3=3=3 doesn’t work because there are too many bad matches. You would be making the same point about diamonds if opener had 4=2=4=3 instead of 4=2=3=4 shape. You have to consider where it works, not just where it doesn’t. I agree it is possible that removing 4432 might improve the lawfulness (with lower frequency) and I’ll look at that down the road. But there IS an advantage to those 4432 hands … dummy doesn’t go down with a singleton or void in partner’s 6-bagger. There are other variations that are more lawful. Jammer Short Club, for example, is very safe …. Hrothgar: Simple response system. This unlikely is optimum; some smart guy can sharpen it up. Remember there is a ‘safe haven’ in the anchor suit spades. 2♥ is pass/correct (opener passes even with three hearts) 2♠ says pass 2NT says bid best minor (also after 2♦/2♥||2♠/2NT) 3♣ says pass 3♦ is artificial force 3♥ is good suit 3♠ is preemptive Responder needs a forcing bid; looks to me like 3♦ is best. 2NT either directly or as a second bid asks for best minor. Responder has a one-suiter (6+). With long diamonds he passes. With hearts he bids 2♥ and if opener rebids 2♠ (denying three hearts) then must decide what to do. If including 4432, then much of the time opener will have a doubleton heart so 3♥ is an option. Or responder can bid 2♠ with three, or trot out a 4-card minor. With 2=6=3=3 he, what, can rebid 3♥ or try 2NT. I would have to test that scenario to determine which was best long-term strategy. With 6+ clubs he bids 3♣ and hopes. If he has 4+ spades he bids spades. If responder has a “two-suiter” 4=4 or better, he usually bids the cheaper suit. With 3=4=4=2 he tries 2♥ (slightly better than 2♠) and passes 2♠. With 2=4=3=4 or 2=4=4=3 he tries 2♥, then after 2♠ bids (I can’t remember if 2NT is better than simply bidding the four-bagger, have to look it up). With 2=4=5=2 or 2=4=2=5 he starts hearts, then bids the minor. The worse responder holdings are 2=335 hands. With five diamonds, pass. With five hearts, try 2♥ then 2NT. With 2=3=3=5, try 2♥ and get stuck sometimes in your 3=3 heart fit (although opps have no idea of course). There are some sample auctions here http://www.bridgebuff.com/jammer2d.htm

I don’t think I play that forcing, but I also don’t think there is much point to partner bidding 3♣ simply to improve the partial, so he must have an invitational hand of some kind, and a reason for not bidding 1NT or 2NT or 3♦. He must be unbalanced (his hand, that is). I think he must be 4=5 or 5=5 minors. He has nothing in majors or he would have bid one first or second chance. He isn't 4=4 minors unless something like xxx/xx/KQxx/Axxx and his partnership doesn't like a 1NT response with that holding. He isn't xxxx/x/KQxx/Axxx or he would have responded 1S, surely. He isn't xxx/x/KQxxx/Axxx or he would invite with 3♦. That leaves xxx/x/KQxx/Axxxx or xx/x/KQxxx/Axxxx or the like. At least that's what I think my partners would lay down. Looks to me like 4♣ is about right. With these 'what would you bid' questions, a lot depends on partnership style.