Handling the Strong Jump Shift

[Echognome]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sjhq4dq9854ckt863]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P - 1♠

1NT - 3♣

?[/hv]

 

Partner shows you a big hand and you suddenly have this big fit.

 

What's your bidding plan?

[HeartA]

5C

[Codo]

4 ♣ with anybody forcing

(and RCK for clubs with std. partner, maybe not a winner in this situation...)

 

I would like to play Kickback after this, but I cannot confess my pds.

[Free]

4♣, setting trumps. Even if it's NF, I still like the bid B)

[whereagles]

5♣ seems par. Good shape and no red suit controls is what the bid should show, and this hands fit that.

[Chamaco]

I bid 4C

 

3C has set a gameforce, hence 4C must be forcing.

 

If pard has good controls, slam is a distinct possibility, I think that an immediate 5C signoff offer is too one-sided.

[whereagles]

I bid 4C

 

3C has set a gameforce, hence 4C must be forcing.

 

If pard has good controls, slam is a distinct possibility, I think that an immediate 5C signoff offer is too one-sided.

I think you should be able to distinguish between a super hand like...

 

x

Axx

Kxxx

KTxxx

 

from the lousy actual hand. Bidding 4♣ on both these two hand doesn't feel right. At least it doesn't to me.

[Chamaco]

I bid 4C

 

3C has set a gameforce, hence 4C must be forcing.

 

If pard has good controls, slam is a distinct possibility, I think that an immediate 5C signoff offer is too one-sided.

I think you should be able to distinguish between a super hand like...

 

x

Axx

Kxxx

KTxxx

 

from the lousy actual hand. Bidding 4♣ on both these two hand doesn't feel right. At least it doesn't to me.

IMO the hand in question is pretty much down-the middle for a 1NT bid.

It could be much worse to start with.

Furthermore, when pd bids clubs, it has 5 (!) card support.

Even the stiff J is likely to be a pretty good card opposite pard's opening suit.

 

Take away a red queen and the J of spades (e.g. a minimum 5-6 count) and I'll jump to 5C.

 

========================

 

It remains to be defined the tendency of partner: some people like to jump reverse at the 3 level into a 3 card minor with honors concentration, in absence of better tools (Gazzilli/Riton ?) to set a GF. In this case, any bid bypassing 3NT could commit us to a bad spot.

 

If pard can reverse into a 3 card suit, I suspect that 3D is the practical bid....

[whereagles]

Take away a red queen and the J of spades (e.g. a minimum 5-6 count) and I'll jump to 5C.

Mauro, that's all fine but you seem to be missing a point here: opener has a very good hand, and opposite such a hand it's not a matter of how many hcp you hold, but rather where and of what type they are.

 

In this case the two queens on pard's short side suits will be of little use. I wouldn't count value them as a plain "4 hcp". What pard wants in the side suits are control cars, preferably aces.

[Chamaco]

Take away a red queen and the J of spades (e.g. a minimum 5-6 count) and I'll jump to 5C.

Mauro, that's all fine but you seem to be missing a point here: opener has a very good hand, and opposite such a hand it's not a matter of how many hcp you hold, but rather where and of what type they are.

 

In this case the two queens on pard's short side suits will be of little use. I wouldn't count value them as a plain "4 hcp". What pard wants in the side suits are control cars, preferably aces.

Hay I agree the hand is not great, but not minimum either:

 

1- the 5 card support improve greatly the hand;

2- one of the Q is probably wasted but the other red Q is likely to complement some values (after all, the jump reverse to 3C should be 19+, in standard bidding, so pard is likely to have complement values in at least one red suit)

3- the J of spades is a very good card

 

So: the wastage on one red Q is, IMO, quite counterbalanced by other pluses.

Finally: we cannot know for sure what partner needs to know, so, holding a down-the-middle hand, let's just bid 4C, leaving to pard the room to explore what he needs to know: since we cannot know what partner needs (controls?), I believe it is one-sided to take ourselves the decision.

 

I think bidding 4C should not promise a super hand (such as the 4-controls hand you used as an example), but simply a down-the-middle hand or better, leaving to pard the control of the bidding.

I'd jump to 5C only with a really crappy hand, which I do not believe this hand is :-)

[whereagles]

A.

Hay I agree the hand is not great, but not minimum either:

 

1- the 5 card support improve greatly the hand;

2- one of the Q is probably wasted but the other red Q is likely to complement some values (after all, the jump reverse to 3C should be 19+, in standard bidding, so pard is likely to have complement values in at least one red suit)

3- the J of spades is a very good card

 

 

B.

Finally: we cannot know for sure what partner needs to know, so, holding a down-the-middle hand, let's just bid 4C, leaving to pard the room to explore what he needs to know: since we cannot know what partner needs (controls?), I believe it is one-sided to take ourselves the decision.

 

 

C.

I think bidding 4C should not promise a super hand (such as the 4-controls hand you used as an example), but simply a down-the-middle hand or better, leaving to pard the control of the bidding.

 

 

D.

I'd jump to 5C only with a really crappy hand, which I do not believe this hand is :-)

A.

1. Yes, but that's just about the only plus-value the hand has. Pard is probably even expecting it when you bid 5♣ because doing it with only 4 clubs would be very, very rare.

 

2. On the other hand, pard might have a 55 (unless you open max black 55s 1♣), in which case the queens are worthless; or good spades, in which case there might be some discards, making again the queens worthless. Sure, there are also some cases where the queens are useful, but I think they are way less important as a red ace. Swap the queens for that ace and 4♣ is 100% obvious B)

 

3. Hum.. unless pard has AKQ or plans on taking a ruffing finesse, that jack won't be as hot as you think.

 

 

B.

You don't know what pard wants to know, but you *can* give him a clear pic of your hand, and 5♣ does show what you have: good fit, some shape, no red suit controls. That would be my definition of 5♣, and that's what the hand has as well. I think that info will be very useful to pard, who will be in a great position to "mastermind" the final contract.. lol :)

 

 

C.

But how can you tell you have a super hand then?

- 3♦/♥ would be a long, weakish suit.

- 3♠/NT is fit/misfit.

- 4♦/4♥ will probably be taken as a splinter.

 

That seems to leave only 4♣ to show a good hand, I'd say.

 

 

D.

Well, I do think this hand is crappy. Not as crappy as it gets, but close :P

[han]

I think that both 4C and 5C are reasonable. It depends on how much slam interest you think 4C shows. I would bid 5C without the club king, so I think that I will bid 4C followed by 5C over whatever cuebid partner makes.

[mcphee]

I can't believe there is any other choice. A jump to game = you have NO chance to produce slam with my hand, this is not the case here. The idea of bidding slowly is to allow your side room to investigate potential slams. I think this hand easily has a shot at 12 tricks.

 

The eagle wants to define the difference between good and really good. The hand example shown is A SLAM hand after a j/s to 4C most days. If not you are making j/s on the wrong hand types.

[SoTired]

I play both minorwood and kickback. When minor suit fit is established below 4m, then 4m is RKC. When 4m is needed to establish the minor fit, then the next step above 4m is RKC.

 

I like 5C because it would say: "I have no controls in any side suit, but I have good trump." Having a couple of red queens is not enough for me to bid 4C.

 

A case could be made for 3D, enticing partner to bid 3H so we could bid 3N, which rates to be the best game.

[whereagles]

1.

A jump to game = you have NO chance to produce slam with my hand, this is not the case here.

 

2.

The hand example shown is A SLAM hand after a j/s to 4C most days. If not you are making j/s on the wrong hand types.

1. If you want 5♣ to merely mean "we can't have a slam", then I would say you're following a wrong strategy because a weak hand cannot possibly know what a strong pard needs to make slam. What the weak hand must do is show what she has, and I believe 5♣ does that job properly. I wouldn't qualm with 4♣, though I do think it's a bit of an optimistic bid. In fact, a straightforward 3NT bid here might be just the right thing to do........

 

2. *Sigh* we're into cultural issues again. To me, 3♣ is something like 18-20 with 54 or better. In the US I guess it can be something like a 6-3 with 20-22 hcp or a 5-5 with 10 playing tricks.............

[Chamaco]

2. On the other hand, pard might have a 55 (unless you open max black 55s 1♣), in which case the queens are worthless; or good spades, in which case there might be some discards, making again the queens worthless. Sure, there are also some cases where the queens are useful, but I think they are way less important as a red ace. Swap the queens for that ace and 4♣ is 100% obvious ;)

 

3. Hum.. unless pard has AKQ or plans on taking a ruffing finesse, that jack won't be as hot as you think.

 

 

B.

You don't know what pard wants to know, but you *can* give him a clear pic of your hand, and 5♣ does show what you have: good fit, some shape, no red suit controls. That would be my definition of 5♣, and that's what the hand has as well. I think that info will be very useful to pard, who will be in a great position to "mastermind" the final contract.. lol :)

 

 

C.

But how can you tell you have a super hand then?

- 3♦/♥ would be a long, weakish suit.

- 3♠/NT is fit/misfit.

- 4♦/4♥ will probably be taken as a splinter.

 

That seems to leave only 4♣ to show a good hand, I'd say.

 

 

D.

Well, I do think this hand is crappy. Not as crappy as it gets, but close :P

As I said, we are assuming "standard american" bidding, where 3C shows 19+ hcp.

 

It is hard for me to construct 19 hcp hands (even 55) for opener where pard does not have either solid spades (where stiff J is great) nor a good complement for one of the red queens.

 

Of course, you might find a couple of such hands, but I believe that it is much easier to expect hands where the SJ and one red Q will be useful, in which case bidding slowly will let opener evaluate better the slam chances.

[whereagles]

Mauro: yeah.. it might be a difference of US/Europe. Though I still think 5♣ is a good bid. If pard is THAT strong, he'll be able to add a 6th by himself.

 

(And ye ole conservatives don't gimme that "5♣ is a sign-off and pard must respect it" and other assorted rubbish - that is an incorrect usage of the bid ;))

[jdonn]

I bid 4♣. If partner bids 4♠ over that I pass.

[pclayton]

Some bids ask, some bids show.

 

5C SHOWS this hand. No red suit controls, great trump and short spades.

 

Does it preclude slam? NO. Pard will pass with: AKQxx, xx, A, Axxxx, will make grand noises with the red aces, and just bid 6 with a lot of others.

 

Now if pard invented a jump shift with a strong 6331, we'll have a frank discussion about playing a gadget like an artificial 2N or 3C after a F1NT.

[awm]

I'll bid 4♣. I don't like the methods either, but the fact is that opener sometimes has to make up a bid with a one-suited game force. Jumping to 5♣ can easily hang partner if he holds something like:

 

AKQxxxx

Ax

x

Axx

 

I'm sure some people open 2♣ with that, some people rebid 3NT or 4♠, some people use an artificial rebid over 1NT to show it... but I think it is within the range of 3♣ bids in a standard system. I would rather play 4♠ than 5♣ opposite this hand for sure.

 

So I agree with Josh on the bidding, and agree with everyone else who wishes we were playing a better system. :P

[cherdano]

I think that both 4C and 5C are reasonable. It depends on how much slam interest you think 4C shows. I would bid 5C without the club king, so I think that I will bid 4C followed by 5C over whatever cuebid partner makes.

I am not sure 4C-then-5C is obviously stronger than a direct 5C. 5C could also be understood as a picture jump, showing mostly good trumps and no controls in the red suits. 4C could also be a weaker hand that would pass 4S (catering for partner 6133 jump shift).

So it's certainly a matter of agreement , and I wouldn't venture a guess which is the more standard one.

 

Arend

[mikestar]

I'll bid 4♣. I don't like the methods either, but the fact is that opener sometimes has to make up a bid with a one-suited game force. Jumping to 5♣ can easily hang partner if he holds something like:

 

AKQxxxx

Ax

x

Axx

 

I'm sure some people open 2♣ with that, some people rebid 3NT or 4♠, some people use an artificial rebid over 1NT to show it... but I think it is within the range of 3♣ bids in a standard system. I would rather play 4♠ than 5♣ opposite this hand for sure.

 

So I agree with Josh on the bidding, and agree with everyone else who wishes we were playing a better system. :P

If partner would jump shift with that, he deserves to be hanged. To me, this 9 trick hand is a 2♣ opener; but if not, then jump to 4♠ (or 3NT if this shows a hand with solid spades in your methods.)

 

Please let's don't invent bids on three card suits when it isn't necessary. Opposite a partner who does this regularly, I'm inclined to give up on slam--if the three card clubs suit is possible, your club length makes it more likely that he has only three than if you were shorter.

[Echognome]

I'll bid 4♣. I don't like the methods either, but the fact is that opener sometimes has to make up a bid with a one-suited game force. Jumping to 5♣ can easily hang partner if he holds something like:

 

AKQxxxx

Ax

x

Axx

 

I'm sure some people open 2♣ with that, some people rebid 3NT or 4♠, some people use an artificial rebid over 1NT to show it... but I think it is within the range of 3♣ bids in a standard system. I would rather play 4♠ than 5♣ opposite this hand for sure.

 

So I agree with Josh on the bidding, and agree with everyone else who wishes we were playing a better system. :P

I don't understand what you mean by this?

 

I was playing a natural system, much like what you play with Elianna. Partner MIGHT be making up a bid just to force me. But I don't see why we are assuming the worst.

 

In fact, I had an entirely different problem at the table. My partner rebid 3NT which produced an instand pass from me. However, he had a totally clear 3♣ bid, so I was just postulating what I would do over that.

[jchiu]

Whenever partner jump shifts into 3♣, I always consider the very valid possibility that he only has three clubs. Since 1M-1N; 4M shows about a 4M preempt with a side ace, partner must manufacture a bid with any hand too good to simply rebid 3♠. Adam produces a very typical example of such a hand (AKQxxxx Ax x Axx), but my experience has shown that the artificial 3♣ comes from a less pure 20-count with seven spades. I therefore require responder to have 5♣ for the direct raise to 4♣, which is my preferred action. As Josh has already mentioned, if partner continues with 4♠, I pass quickly.

 

Some expert pairs (e.g. Jim Krekorian - John Diamond) have defined 1M-1N!; 3♣ as an artificial bid showing a game forcing hand. This game forcing hand can be a traditional jump shift, or a game-forcing single-suiter. Then, 3♦ asks which and the opener's responses explain further. I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is insufficient room for showing one of these hands (the jump shift into clubs, possibly). If this is indeed the case, I suspect that their system compensates by defining the opening bid with 5♣ and 5♠ rigorously.

[awm]

The problem is that there is no clear bid in a natural system with a strong single-suited hand. Basically your options are:

 

(1) Open 2♣, which greatly reduces any defensive requirements for the bid, and means you often will open 2♣ on fairly non-descript 18-19 hcp hands including a 6-card suit.

 

(2) Open 1M and rebid 4M, meaning that you bid the same way with 11-14 points and an eight card suit (assuming no namyats) and with 18-19 with a six card suit.

 

(3) Open 1M and rebid 3m, which means you could be bidding 3m on a 3-card suit or even occasionally a 2-card suit (especially since rebidding 3♥ on 3-cards after opening 1♠ is undesirable).

 

There are several work-arounds for this problem. Note that it goes away completely if you agree to play Gazilli (as Elianna and I do) or Riton, or some similar convention. Another alternative is to play that 3♣ is explicitly an artificial game-forcing call with some kind of relay follow-ups.

 

Another note is that this problem becomes much more serious in the context of 2/1 game forcing (which Elianna and I do not play) because the 1NT response is that much more wide-ranging. Playing a non-forcing limited 1NT response, 4♣ is virtually automatic on any hand with a club fit because the need to distinguish between "good slam hand with club fit" and "bad slam hand with club fit" is much reduced by the narrower 1NT range.

 

However, as I understand "normal" 2/1, rebidding three (and even two) card minors at the three-level to establish a game force is normal. With this in mind I don't want to leap to the five-level on what could be an eight (or even seven) card club fit. Raising to 4♣ gives partner an "out" -- he can rebid 4♠ if he has six or more of them with three or fewer clubs, while also keeping 5♣ or even 6♣ in the picture.