17 points, 6 hearts

[Finch]

With a regular partner I trust both not to pass a forcing bid, and to have a sensible exchange of information, 1H. With a pick-up online partner, 2H. This has the merit of i) forcing to game, and ii) getting to an easy slam when partner has extra values.

[cherdano]

Usually, one of the hand types in a strong jump shift is a hand with one good suit (5+), balanced, and about 15-17 points. I am tempted to show this hand type, i.e. jump to 2♥ and rebid NT at the lowest level after that.

 

The suit definitely isn't good enough to show this as a SJS single suiter.

[mike777]

1H

 

I can see an ugly 4sf auction coming up.

 

If partner wants to bid a strong jump shift with 2H , fine, this is playable.

[jillybean]

For the 1♥ bidders, how do you continue after 1♣:1♥ 1nt ?

[helene_t]

SJS are to be used with very, very specific hand types, which you should have pre-agreed with pard. Otherwise you're better off forgetting the words "strong jump shift"

 

Fine for you and your partner, but *playing sayc* is dollars-to-doughnuts with a piackup pd, who will interpret it as any strong hand.

I prefer to have more respect for my pick-up partners. Since 1♥ would not deny GF values, 2♥ cannot mean "any strong hand". When you want to stay in control and/or when you can describe your hand via 1♥, it's better to do so.

 

This is a hand that is too weak to insist on slam yet too strong to sign off if partner responds in some wide-ranging fasion (1♠ is the only option that applies here) to 1♥. Here are some possible ways of dealing with this hand:

1) 1♥. When opener rebids 1♠, use FSF to get more info of p's hand, especially whether it's minimum or not. Then make a decision.

2) 1♥. When opener rebids 1♠, use FSF followed by 3♥ to show these values.

3) 2♥. This can show a number of hand types. Opener will usually relay with 2N. Rebidding 3♥ shows this hand: 16-18 points, one-suited. Opener can make a decision.

 

You can combine 1) and 2) of course: start with 1♥, then FSF, then place the contract if you know enough and otherwise kick the ball back to p with 3♥. The problem with this is that such a sequence does not necesarily show more than just GF values. It is unclear how much extras p needs to start cuebidding over 3♥. It is not even clear (to me at least) if 3♥ will set trumps or if p can still make a natural 4♣ call.

 

The problem with 3) is that it probably shows a better suit and/or some club tollerance. Besides, it is far from clear that 2♥ followed by 3♥ would actually show this hand (some would assume a solid suit, some would assume less general values). Finally, there is no standard (AFAIK) for opener's follow-ups other than 2N. And p may even pass 2♥, assuming WJS.

 

I bid 2♥. I never use SJS unless I have specific agreements about how to use them and/or playing a system with non-forcing simple shifts such as Viena.

[skjaeran]

For the 1♥ bidders, how do you continue after 1♣:1♥ 1nt ?

That's an easy one.

Those who play simple oldfashioned check back stayman rebids 2♣.

Those who play NMF rebid 2♦.

Those who play xy-NT or xyz rebid 2♦, art. GF.

Playing check back or NMF you have to follow up with a GF.

[foo]

For the 1♥  bidders, how do you continue after 1♣-1♥;1N- ??

As I posted before, 1♣-1♥;1N-2♦

(NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else.)

 

possible continuations and their implications:

;2♥

3 card ♥ support means a 9 card fit. Now probe for slam.

Opener's most likely shapes are =3334, =2344, =2335, or =3325

 

;2♠

For some would imply Opener is =4333 (Most with 44 in the Blacks would rebid 1S, not 1N). For others, it's conventional of some form. Unless previously discussed as conventional, assume =4333.

 

;2N

Denies 3 cards in ♥'s. Denies 4 cards in ♠'s. Shows ♦ stop(s). Opener is most likely =3244, =3235, =2245, or even =3145.

 

;3♣

Denies all of the above and denies ♦ stops as well. Usually shows a 5 card suit implying Opener is ~ =3235 w/ weak ♦'s.

 

;3♦

An unusual bid in this sequence. Strongly implies that Opener is =3244, =2245, or =3145 w/ xxxx in ♦'s.

[foo]

Pardon the delay in responding to all of you with obvious interest in what a SJS should show and what the best bidding structure involving them should be.

I've been working and have not had a chance to get back.

 

I'll start a separate thread on SJS's and the best SJS structures after I've had some rest.

[foo]

2x post.

[P_Marlowe]

For the 1♥ bidders, how do you continue after 1♣:1♥ 1nt ?

Hi,

 

you can take either the lazy route, i.e bid 4H or

go scientific, using NMF, i.e. bidding 2D followe

by 3H, which would show game going hand with 6

hearts, the 2nd option is certainly better.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pbleighton]

I prefer to have more respect for my pick-up partners. Since 1♥ would not deny GF values, 2♥ cannot mean "any strong hand". When you want to stay in control and/or when you can describe your hand via 1♥, it's better to do so.

 

Helene, what hands would you bid 2H on, if not this one?

 

Peter

[Fluffy]

1♣-1♥

1NT-4♣

 

wich is auto-splinter for me, maybe its not standard on other countries.

[EricK]

I will quote from Terrence Reese (this particular quote comes from "Bridge for Ambitious Players", published 1988 but I am sure I could find similar quotes from him):

 

"The old-fashioned forcing response, such as two hearts over one diamond, has become - well, it has become old-fashioned. In America, particularly, a jump response tends to show either a very rare giant or, for some players, a long suit in a weak hand. It may be right not to force when you have no fit, but when you have a good suit of your own, or strong support for partner, it must be sensible to make a jump response. As Culbertson pointed out more than 50 years ago, you don't save time by making a minimum response, because you have to jump later; or bid around the cllock, giving no picture of what you hold."

 

What can be gathered from this thread is that this opinion is, if anything, even less popular these days. And more to the point, that "bidding around the clock, giving no picture of what you hold" (i.e. FSF, NMF, fake reverses and so on) is not considered to be a bad thing.

 

I, on the other hand, agree with Reese. The fact that forcing immediately is best on this type of hand is constantly reinforced by the sheer number of hands posted here or on rec.games.bridge where somebody asks how to bid a pair of hands and the obvious solution is to start with a SJS. On the other hand one never sees hands posted where a SJS to the 2 level was made and they got to the wrong contract as a result.

[pclayton]

For the 1♥  bidders, how do you continue after 1♣:1♥  1nt ?

That's an easy one.

Those who play simple oldfashioned check back stayman rebids 2♣.

Those who play NMF rebid 2♦.

Those who play xy-NT or xyz rebid 2♦, art. GF.

Playing check back or NMF you have to follow up with a GF.

Agree with all of this except the XYZ followup. Playing XYZ you dont have to monkey around with 2D, but rather bid a direct 3H which expresses this hand type well.

[helene_t]

Helene, what hands would you bid 2H on, if not this one?

None, maybe. Depends on agreement. In the absense of agreements, I would never use SJS.

 

If I could assume partner had read roughfly the same books as I have, I would probably make a SJS shift with this one. I'd prefer a slightly better suit, it's boarderline.

 

What I'm objecting to is your "any strong hand" statement. That is simply not playable, even if partner can be assumed to be on the same wavelength. Make the suit slightly weaker and I don't think anybody would make a SJS. Also, if this is the correct strength for a SJS, you cannot make a SJS with three points less as well.

[foo]

I agree its close.

 

Change the hand to ♠AJx♥KQJxxx♦AKx♣9, and I'd be willing to make a SJS even opposite a 1♣ opening.

 

Change the Opening to 1♦ or 1♠, and I'd be willing to make a SJS with the original hand of ♠AJx♥KQT9xx♦AKx♣9

[Stephen Tu]

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

 

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt". The reason the convention is called "new minor forcing", is obvious, it's because its different from the standard meaning, which is non-forcing. It's just that NMF is such a common convention now that some people think it's part of standard.

 

Note also that people who play checkback stayman only, often play 2d as NF. Sometimes it's good to be able to play a 2d contract.

 

As for the hand in question, I kind of like a SJS if available, I think the Morehouse school (read "On bidding") is right, get the hand off your chest, tell partner you have a slammish hand with a good heart suit, then let him decide. You can make all these delicate forcing bids, but what exactly are you hoping to hear that will make things

clear for you to place the contract? Sometimes it is better to just tell instead of trying to ask.

[pbleighton]

What I'm objecting to is your "any strong hand" statement. That is simply not playable, even if partner can be assumed to be on the same wavelength. Remove the suit slightly weaker and I don't think anybody would make a SJS. Also, if this is the correct strength for a SJS, you cannot make a SJS with three points less as well.

 

1. I should have said "any hand with 17+ hcp", not "any strng hand". My bad.

2. As a matter of judgment, I agree that I wouldn't make a sjs without a decent 5 card suit at the 2 level or a decent 6 at the 3 level, but in fact the sjs in sayc isn't restricted as to hand type, and if you are playing with a pickup pd, with no discussion, and pd makes an sjs, you had better be prepared for any hand with 17+ hcp, regardless of shape.

 

Peter

[jdeegan]

:) 2♥. Classic strong jump shift. Just ask yourself three questions:

 

(1) Will this hand produce a laydown small slam opposite a perfect minimum(s)?

(2) Do I have a two suiter such that the final strain is in doubt?

(3) Is my suit long and strong - a good source of tricks?

 

If #1 is yes - and a small family of "perfect" mins is much more better.

If #2 is no - don't use up bidding space you may need to establish your best fit

If #3 is yes - pard will value minor honors in your suit like aces and kings.

 

Then the classic jump shift is for you when playing SAYC. Playing 2/1 is another story altogether.

[vuroth]

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

 

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

 

An interesting thread, and probably one that rates as high intermediate. Not that all B/Is can't or shouldn't play FSF and NMF, but I'm sure many leave at least one of them off the scoresheet.

 

The moral of the story seems to be that there's more than one way to force to game, and having a clear distinction between SJS and other GF methods make sense.

 

In a B/I pickup match, I think 2♥ rates to be a clear winner. In an established B/I partnership, I think I'd want to discuss this kind of hand with partner - vis a vis 1♥ vs 2♥.

 

V

[foo]

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

 

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

 

Your POV here is a reasonably common misconception I've seen, but even if not playing NMF, the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om is =100%= forcing.

 

This is a new suit, and at a new level to boot, by responder. When responder could have

a= passed 1N

b= rebid their suit

c= taken a preference

to show a passable minimum.

 

Check any reliable reference on SA such as _Common Sense Bidding_ or _The Bidding Dictionary_ to verify this.

[hrothgar]

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

 

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt".

Agreed, and I'm glad someone pointed it out.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

 

Your POV here is a reasonably common misconception I've seen, but even if not playing NMF, the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om is =100%= forcing.

 

This is a new suit, and at a new level to boot, by responder. When responder could have

a= passed 1N

b= rebid their suit

c= taken a preference

to show a passable minimum.

 

Check any reliable reference on SA such as _Common Sense Bidding_ or _The Bidding Dictionary_ to verify this.

Foo is correct on this one

 

Check out the following quote from the ACBL's original SAYC write up available at

 

http://alumni.imsa.edu/~freaksho/sayc.html

 

SUBSEQUENT BIDDING BY RESPONDER

 

If responder has bid a suit at the one level, he next determines

whether he wishes to sign off in a partscore, invite game, sign off in

game, or force to game and get more information about opener's hand.

Having made his choice, he selects the best available bid.

 

Bids available for signoff in partscore: Pass, 1NT, 2 of a previously

bid suit.

    1H -- 1S

    2C -- Pass, 2H, 2S = 6-10 points, signoff in partscore.

 

Bids available for inviting game: 2NT, 3 of a previously bid suit:

    1H -- 1S

    2D -- 2NT, 3D, 3H, 3S = 11-12 points, inviting game.

 

Second-round forcing bids. A new suit response (other than after a 1NT

rebid by opener) is a one-round force. If it is a fourth suit in the

auction, it may be artificial.

    1H -- 1S

    2C -- 2D = one-round force, could be artificial.

... but ...

    1H -- 1S

    1NT-- 2C, 2D = non-forcing. Responder must jump shift to 3C or 3D

                  to force game.

[neilkaz]

NMF! if you play it. Obviously forcing else

 

Sorry, but 1c-1h-1nt-2d is absolutely non-forcing in SAYC without NMF agreed. The standard rule is "new suits by responder forcing, except not simple new suit rebids after opener rebid 1nt". The reason the convention is called "new minor forcing", is obvious, it's because its different from the standard meaning, which is non-forcing. It's just that NMF is such a common convention now that some people think it's part of standard.

 

Note also that people who play checkback stayman only, often play 2d as NF. Sometimes it's good to be able to play a 2d contract.

 

As for the hand in question, I kind of like a SJS if available, I think the Morehouse school (read "On bidding") is right, get the hand off your chest, tell partner you have a slammish hand with a good heart suit, then let him decide. You can make all these delicate forcing bids, but what exactly are you hoping to hear that will make things

clear for you to place the contract? Sometimes it is better to just tell instead of trying to ask.

Why something simpler than NMF (try teaching B/I whatever varient you prefer that includes ways to probe for minor suit slams) like X-Y-Z or two way checkback or X-Y-NT isn't standardized is beyond me !

http://bridgehands.com/X/XYZ_Convention.htm

http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.com/2005/06/...convention.html (Ben's)

http://www.2over1.com/modules/wfsection/ar...hp?articleid=12 (Roland's)

 

Correct me if I am wrong(being a 2/1er), but SAYC really cannot properly handle the given hand after a 1NT rebid since the jump to 3♥ is invitational. Responder can just jump to 4♥ knowing opener has 2 or 3 card support, but that misses many slams. Thus responder may wish to jump shift to 3♦ but that can become messy if opener suspects real ♦ but at least responder can pull any 6♦ to 6♥.

 

Many of us "experts" here rarely play basic SAYC and may have forgotten some of the often poorly defined bidding sequences. Some of us play 2/1 as non GF, but most use a few gadgets along the way. Once, again, beating the dead horse, but I jump shift to 2♥ here with any SAYC PD.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Stephen Tu]

Foo is correct on this one

 

Check out the following quote from the ACBL's original SAYC write up available

 

Did you even read what you quoted? It contradicts him directly.

 

A new suit response (other than after a 1NT

rebid by opener) is a one-round force

 

Look in between the parentheses ...

 

Foo, you have no idea what you are talking about. You will not find it published anywhere anything that supports your contention. I don't have Commonsense Bidding or the Bidding Dictionary, but I did check Modern Bridge Conventions, whose section on new minor forcing explicitly states that the default assumption is non-forcing. "25 Bridge conventions you should know" states the same thing. Bill Root says the same thing in ABC's of Bridge though he doesn't address specifically new minors, and I'm 99.999999% certain Commonsense bidding will say the same. Don't know about Truscott, but he hopefully distinguishes between sequences that are "expert std", say the assumption if playing Bridge World Std, and vanilla std.

 

New suit by responder is not by default forcing after 1nt rebid. I hope you will agree for certain that 1c-1s-1nt-2h is non-forcing. In standard, without conventional understandings, new minor is also non-forcing. It would be stupid to call the convention "new minor forcing" if the distinction between it & standard wasn't that it was forcing vs. non-forcing. It should be named "new minor artificial" or something like that if default forcing was the assumption. I challenge you to quote a passage / page # from Commonsense bidding that supports your contention.

[cherdano]

I will quote from Terrence Reese (this particular quote comes from "Bridge for Ambitious Players", published 1988 but I am sure I could find similar quotes from him):

 

"The old-fashioned forcing response, such as two hearts over one diamond, has become - well, it has become old-fashioned. In America, particularly, a jump response tends to show either a very rare giant or, for some players, a long suit in a weak hand. It may be right not to force when you have no fit, but when you have a good suit of your own, or strong support for partner, it must be sensible to make a jump response. As Culbertson pointed out more than 50 years ago, you don't save time by making a minimum response, because you have to jump later; or bid around the cllock, giving no picture of what you hold."

 

What can be gathered from this thread is that this opinion is, if anything, even less popular these days. And more to the point, that "bidding around the clock, giving no picture of what you hold" (i.e. FSF, NMF, fake reverses and so on) is not considered to be a bad thing.

 

I, on the other hand, agree with Reese. The fact that forcing immediately is best on this type of hand is constantly reinforced by the sheer number of hands posted here or on rec.games.bridge where somebody asks how to bid a pair of hands and the obvious solution is to start with a SJS. On the other hand one never sees hands posted where a SJS to the 2 level was made and they got to the wrong contract as a result.

I think you didn't get the point of most of the replies. Everybody here assumed 2♥ was a strong jumpshift. Noone rejected it because the hand wasn't good enough, but rather because the heart suit wasn't good enough to insist on it without knowing anything about partner's hand.

 

You may also note that bidding has improved a little since Reese was around. Playing XYZ, after 1♣-1♥-1N, 3♥ is forcing. While that's a very old concept, the implications of 3♥ forcing are much stronger when you have XYZ: it sets trumps (as the hearts are good enough to be set as trumps after partner has bid 1N), and shows slam interest, and compared to the comparable SJS auction we have not lost space, and know more about partner's hand.

(In the comparable SJS auction 1C 2H 2N 3H, the 2N bid is not even close to being as well defined as the 1N rebid after 1H).