jump reverses

[dosxtres]

Edited. Mistake with examples.

(Thank you gerben)

 

The jump reverse set up the trump suit. That is?

 

1♣ 1♠

3♥ Shows spade fit. That is right? Show anything more? short in hearts?

 

So, if that jump reverse is right, what's the diferences with 3 and 4 hear support?

1c 1s

3s

 

1c 1s

4s

 

2NT is forcing?

 

1c 1s

2NT

 

If not, jump reverse (3♥) could be done as a 18-19 balance spade raise?

 

 

Another question about my mistake when posted it first time.

 

1♣ 1♥

2♠ ? What is 2♠ then?

 

Thank you.

[Gerben42]

A jump reverse setting the trump suit would not mean 1♣ 1♥ 2♠ since 1♠ instead of 2♠ is not a reverse.

 

A jump reverse is an auction like 1♣ 1♠ 3♥, where 2♥ would be a normal reverse.

[han]

The following are the most common answers in North America playing SAYC or 2/1:

 

A jump reverse to the 3-level is commonly played as an invitational splinter:

 

1D-1S-3H shows 4 spades, typically a stiff heart and invitational values.

 

The jump 1D-1H-2S is usually not referred to as a jump reverse but a jump shift, and is natural and very strong.

 

1D-1S-2NT shows a balanced hand with 18-19 points. It is not forcing.

 

1D-1S-3S shows invitational values and 4-card support, about 16-18 pts.

[Guest Jlall]

agree with han.

[sdoty]

Han gave a good outline. I'll throw in a few more details (still US, sayc or 2/1 based):

 

1x : 1S : 2S = 13-15 with 4 card spade support

1x : 1S : 3S = 16-18 with 4 card spade support

1x : 1S : 4S = 19-21 with 4 card spade support

 

(all point ranges include distribution points)

 

the 4S jump raises usually don't include a small singleton IF the partnership uses Splinter raises in those auctions. If you aren't playing Splinters, when you have four card support for responder's major you'll typically just make whichever of the above three bid fits your strength.

 

To identify which jumps are Splinter raises, find opener's NATURAL AND STRONG (forcing) bid in the suit. For example:

 

1D : 1S : 2H = Natural, hearts, forcing for 1 round (a Reverse bid)

so

1D : 1S : 3H = Splinter (invitational, since the partnership can stop in 3S)

 

1D : 1S : 2C = natural, doesn't show extras

1D : 1S : 3C = natural and game forcing

so

1D : 1S : 4C = Splinter (game forcing)

 

1D : 1H : 1S = natural, doesn't show extras

1D : 1H : 2S = natural and game forcing

so

1D : 1H : 3S = Splinter (game forcing)

 

The Splinter bids show 4 card support for responder's major and a singleton or void in the splinter suit. If the Splinter leaves you room to stop in 3 of responder's major, opener shows extra values but doesn't have to be strong enough to force to game.

 

 

1 of a minor : 1 of a major : 2NT = 18-19 hcp, balanced. Non-forcing. This jump to 2NT denies 4 card support for responder's major, but opener may have four cards in the other major.

 

Susan

[han]

Hmm, 1D-1S-2S shows 4 trumps? Forgive me for nitpicking, but it doesn't seem right to me to teach beginning US players to bid in a way that almost no US experts bid. It is true that simple rules will make it easier in the beginning, but the bad habits you create will make it twice as hard to make progress later.

[Flame]

Hmm, 1D-1S-2S shows 4 trumps? Forgive me for nitpicking, but it doesn't seem right to me to teach beginning US players to bid in a way that almost no US experts bid. It is true that simple rules will make it easier in the beginning, but the bad habits you create will make it twice as hard to make progress later.

I will take your word about the top US players, but as a teacher i think its very important to teach them the 8 card fit principle.

The last thing that is important is for the students to learn the best system, much more important is for them to understand a system even if its far from best.

[han]

Perhaps you are right Flame, I would like it if more people gave their opinion on this subject.

 

Here is another topic that is closely related in my mind. I recently had a discussion with yoder, who was giving bridge lessons about suit combinations on BBO (I thought her lessons were excellent btw). One lesson she taught the combinations AK765 vs Q1098 and AK765 vs Q987 (with the first, cash the ace first, with the second, cash the queen first). She told me that next time she was going to talk about the similar combination missing the jack and the 9, and she asked if I knew the combination.

 

I told her what I thought was the answer, namely that with AK1087 vs Q654 it doesn't matter what you cash first, while with AK876 vs Q1054 there are 2 equivalent ways to play: ace first and queen first, both catering to exactly one of the 4-0 breaks. She told me that this was correct, but that she was planning to tell the students to always cash an honor opposite from the 10 first, as that is easier to remember.

 

Even though I understand that many students would benefit, I could never teach such a rule. Instead of trying to teach students how to play a suit combination, I want them to learn how to think about it, so that they can figure out new combinations themselves (some even as the hands come up at the table). I recognize that this is too much to ask for from some students, but they can learn bridge from someone else ;).

 

Thoughts?

[luke warm]

re: 1D : 1S : 2S

 

the 2S bid would show 4 spades if i bid it a vast majority of the time... i'd only bid 2S with 3 if i had no other bid... say i had a 13 count, 3442 or 3451... i can't reverse and i don't like rebidding a 5 card minor unless necessary

[ArcLight]

>re: 1D : 1S : 2S

 

Mike Lawrence advocates raising with only 3 cards support. But he will also say that 1NT may be a good bid if you have an NT type hand (with stoppers).

[sdoty]

Beginners are beginners because they still have a lot to learn. The majority of them lack the experience to discriminate between the hand types where it is/isn't appropriate to raise with 3 card support.

 

Keep in mind that most I/N players will never become experts, or even advanced players. A teacher has to understand his students to teach effectively: thier abilities, interests, and goals. Does my teaching vary depending on whether my students are college/grad students, or newly retired social bridge players? Of course it does. But one thing is consistent: too much information can cause more harm than good. The hours I've spent untangling beginners who've been needlessly confused by nuances they don't need to worry about yet stand as a firm testament to that (at least in my mind).

 

I agree that 'rules' in bridge shouldn't be presented as absolutes, and I would never dream of telling my students that it's wrong to ever raise with 3 card support. If a hand came up where it was appropriate, I would have no qualms talking through why they might consider raising with 3 card support as a 'a small fib, but the best overall description of the hand' with intermediate players who know enough to have a good sense of their bearings, but that's completely different than complicating the simple -- and practical -- raise structure I (and countless bridge teachers before me!) give them.

 

New players interpret things in interesting ways, and don't always apply things the way we intend them to. If I taught 1D : 1S : 2S even as "a Minimum raise, usually with 4 trump but sometimes 3", I'd see all of the following more than once:

 

- raising responder's major on a 4432 auto 1NT rebid

- *jump* raising responder's major with 3 card support

 

I'd also have to coax responders who are unfortunate enough to only have a 4 card suit into bidding game in their major, because they'd be afraid of playing in a 4-3 fit.

 

I would also unduly stress my students, and that more than anything is why I would never teach it that way to I/Ns.

 

You might say that if I explained the auctions properly, or showed enough examples, or what have you that my students would -never- have these hiccups (or that they'd at least quickly get over them). If that's what you choose to believe, all I can do is shrug. I'm confident that anyone who knows me would vouch that my presentation skills are unlikely to be the cause of the problem. Bridge is a complicated game, and there's a lot to learn. No matter how clearly explained, the more ambiguity there is in a sequence the more likely they are to get it wrong.

 

If you have an exceptionally bright beginner -- who doesn't already have enough other things to worry about, such as not making a Reverse bid with a flat 14 count, or not rebidding 2NT (or 2D) after 1H : 1S : 2C with his 4-2-5-2 7 count, or any of the other countless sequences that still require thought and effort on their part -- well, then I'd say you don't have a beginner on your hands. :) I'd also say that the beginner with the potential and ambition to become an advanced player is a rare bird. Of course they exist, but if the discussion is about what's best for the I/N population in general, then you can't use those few as your assumed audience.

 

For my part, I've learned that my I/N students are best served by clear and simple guidelines -- which I never pretend are absolutes. They may not be 'best' from a pure bridge perspective, but they -are- best for my students at that point in their bridge career. I'm perfectly willing to accept that they'll rebid 1NT on some hands that would be better described by a 3 card raise, at least until they've advanced enough to recognize when - and why - the raise is sometimes appropriate. I trade off a few 5-3 major suit contracts, but in return both sides of the table feel 100% confident in the auction, the value of an 8 card trump fit is reinforced, they don't expend energy worrying over a simple sequence, and they don't misapply the concept in other situations. They also don't have to play the occasional 4-3 fit which they have neither the the experience / card sense to navigate.

 

 

I don't intend my post to sound defensive, or critical, and I hope that it isn't read in that light. I think a question is a valid one. Teaching I/N players is my profession, and I spend a considerable amount of time not only in class with those students, but also conferring with colleagues, reworking materials, considering system nuances... well, suffice to say that I've logged a lot of thoughtful hours on I/N bridge. That of course doesn't mean that I'm automatically right, and I respect those with differing opinions. But my comments aren't casual ones... they're based on a lot of hours and effort spent trying to do my absolute best for my students.

 

Susan

[sdoty]

I should add that to me it sounds as though Hannie's comments are made with the "future expert" portion of the I/N population in mind. Which is fine of course, and perhaps warrants separate consideration, but I suspect that most bridge teachers find that the "future club players" far outnumber the "future experts" in their lessons.

 

Is there value in showing any student how to work through things, and how to -think- about the situations they're presented with? Unquestionably so, and those are the things that allow intermediates to progress beyond pushing cards. It can be good for beginners too, to be exposed to how the thought process works, but they aren't going to have the time or the energy to reason through every hand they play in a session. They also don't have the experience base to fully process what they're being told/shown. I don't advocate "dumbing down" bridge or pretending that it's cut and dry, but practicality has its place even for the future experts. Basic rules provide a lot of value in the I/N universe, especially if the rationale behind them is explained (as it should be). They start to learn some of the most fundamental concepts and principles, and have something reasonable to fall back on at the table... I think it's a good deal all around. After all they do -play- bridge occasionally (and frequently unsupervised) when they're in their formative years. :) Simple guidelines serve them in good stead until their experience and judgment develop enough to appreciate when it's right to depart from them.

 

As far the comment that rules contributing to bad habits goes... well, first I don't think I'd go as far as to call always having 4 card support for responder's 4 card major a "bad habit", but I'm much more concerned about the habits they form when they -don't- have rules to fall back on. A good teacher should be able to give his students easily applied rules without turning them into automatons.

 

Susan

[han]

Thanks for your replies Susan, I like them a lot.

[Echognome]

Perhaps there is a good distinction here between BIL and IN/ADV. Some of these key issues might be useful to gather for teaching the latter. Coordinating with some of those that contribute so much to BIL would be great. Then when students feel ready to start learning the next steps, there would be some useful items to consider for their progression.

[Double !]

Just a FWIW, but playing a jump-reverse as an inviational splinter is not the only possible interpretation of the bid. A few years ago Karen Walker wrote a short series of article for the ACBL Bulletin about using the jump-reverse to show a weak or minimum 5-6 type of hand. I shall leave it up to the teachers to determine which method to endorse. Just be aware that there is another possible way to play the bid, and probably more possibilities.

 

DHL

[han]

Garozzo has been advocating these 5-6 jumps for a while I think, but it seemed to me that the question was not how one could possibly play them, but what the most standard way to play them is. I clearly stated in my first post that I was only reacting to that question.

[Double !]

Garozzo has been advocating these 5-6 jumps for a while I think, but it seemed to me that the question was not how one could possibly play them, but what the most standard way to play them is. I clearly stated in my first post that I was only reacting to that question.

Not commenting about anyone's response in particular. Just sort of thinking aloud with my keyboard.

 

I'll give you another (possible) specialized meaning of the bid/ jump-reverse that no one except for me and an old partner played: a running minor (7+), control(s) in the bid suit, and needing a stopper in the unbid suit for 3NT. Not advocating this bid, just a demonstration that people can be creative.

I appreciate hearing what others consider to be the "standard" interpretation of the jump-reverse bid. Invitational splinter seems to be the consensus, and that's Ok with me. I never get such good hands anyway

 

 

DHL