17 points, 6 hearts

[Guest Jlall]

edit

[foo]

Stephen,

 

1= "New Minor Forcing" is misnamed and should actually be called "New Minor Artificial".

It's not that a new minor was forcing or not before, it's that NMF allows you to make this bid even if you have a void in the bid minor...

 

2= I called around to a bunch of experts and teachers I know to see if I could find consensus as to whether the sequence 1m-1M;1N-2om "natural" is forcing even if not playing NMF.

Surprise, surprise, there was far from consensus. The strongest players I knew said it was. Many I knew said it wasn't. The best teachers I knew were split on the topic.

 

So then I started digging through all the books in my library, and I think I found the source of the confusion:

(You may not believe this, I certainly had a hard time with it)

In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.

In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.

 

...and I threw up my hands in disgust. Evidently SA bidding has evolved but no one decided to let anyone know explicitly it had evolved.

 

 

For my part, I have always agreed with the more modern logic. If Responder has a minimum, they should not be introducing new strains that might force the auction to 2N; particularly after Opener has shown a minimum.

 

After 1m-1M;1N-?? a minimum responder has plenty of reasonable places to place the contract without introducing a new strain; especially if the 1N rebid promises a hand w/o a stiff or void (not that I'm necessarily advocating that!) (since if Opener has no stiff or void, this makes rebidding a 5 card suit far less risky).

 

I am sorry for the confusion. I thought the situation was clear cut when it obviously wasn't.

 

Right. Reference that 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing:

_ACBL Club Series_ p120 (In NA, this pretty much defines novice SA)

[EricK]

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).

Actually, I think you misunderstand Reese's point. One of the points he is making is that only using the SJS when you have an absolute powerhouse with a near solid suit of your own is not getting the best out of the bid. So Reese would definitely disagree with the people who say that this hand isn't right for a SJS.

 

Another point that a SJS does not in the end waste space is also true.

Your XYZ auction with a jump to 3♥ is exactly comparable in terms of space used to the SJS of 2♥ followed by 3♥. But you are wrong if you think you find out something useful about partner's hand. Often you find out something which is useless or worse than useless because partner doesn't know you have a strong hand. Compare 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ where 1♠ may be xxxx with 1♣ 2♥ 2♠ where you know that partner has a genuine ♠ values. Or compare 1♣ 1♥ 1NT wherer partner may have Kxx or KQ in ♥ with 1♣ 2♥ 2NT where you know that partner does not have any sort of support for your suit.

 

And this ties in with his third point that not making a SJS forces you to make a load of artificial forcing bids which don't tell your partner anything about your hand except that it is strong. So after eg the XYZ sequence 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♦ (GF) what do you bid with, say, KQx Kx QJxx QJxx? Is he looking for a club fit? For this level of Heart support? For confirmation that the unbid suits are well stopped for NT? Co-operative bidding on this sort of hand is much more than one person simply making forcing bids and the other trying to divine what it is their partner needs to know.

[foo]

SJS are out of favor for many reasons, most of them very good ones.

 

But in order to handle the problems that SJS's solve w/o usiing them, your bidding system has to become considerably more complex.

 

SJS are in B & I SA because it would be cruel to B & I players to have to learn XYZ, Bart, 2 or 3 way checkback, Inverted Minors, 2/1 GF, etc, etc, along w/ everything else they are trying to digest.

 

Even w/ all the gadgetry, and even in 2/1 GF, there are Responding hands that might want to "abruptly change the direction of the auction" by demanding Opener not follow business as usual and instead tell Responder very specific information. ...and that is exactly what SJS's are for.

 

Historical note:

SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener. The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted. I know you're busted. Nonetheless We very likely have a Game. Start telling me what I need to know."

 

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

[whereagles]

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

 

As justin said, this hand is way too flexible to propose her suit. Especially on the possible misfit.

 

As for

 

1♣ 1♥

1NT

 

just use your usual gadget to show a strong hand with hearts.

[helene_t]

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

I disagree (but probably this is just semantics):

 

A SJS describes your hand and leaves the rest to partner. This seems to me to be the oppoisite of "masterminding".

 

So the criteria is not if you know where you are heading, but if you think partner will know where he's heading.

[hrothgar]

Look in between the parentheses ...

I stand corrected

[cherdano]

edit

I agree.

[helene_t]

edit

I agree.

Ditto, I changed my mind as well. Oh no, thinking more about it I actually didn't. :)

[cherdano]

And this ties in with his third point that not making a SJS forces you to make a load of artificial forcing bids which don't tell your partner anything about your hand except that it is strong. So after eg the XYZ sequence 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♦ (GF) what do you bid with, say, KQx Kx QJxx QJxx? Is he looking for a club fit? For this level of Heart support? For confirmation that the unbid suits are well stopped for NT? Co-operative bidding on this sort of hand is much more than one person simply making forcing bids and the other trying to divine what it is their partner needs to know.

You rebid 2N of course. I am not sure I understand your point. Partner can still bid 3♣ over my 2N rebid.

[whereagles]

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

I disagree (but probably this is just semantics):

 

A SJS describes your hand and leaves the rest to partner. This seems to me to be the oppoisite of "masterminding".

 

So the criteria is not if you know where you are heading, but if you think partner will know where he's heading.

I see your point, and you're right. But now it struck me:

 

SJSs over unlimited openers are inconsistent.

 

Why? Because SJS are strong hands and strong hands should be taking charge, not handing it. But taking charge is wrong when opener is unlimited!

 

That's it: SJSs should be binned forever. They only make sense over LIMITED openers!

[hrothgar]

I see your point, and you're right. But now it struck me:

 

SJSs over unlimited openers are inconsistent.

 

Why? Because SJS are strong hands and strong hands should be taking charge, not handing it. But taking charge is wrong when opener is unlimited!

 

That's it: SJSs should be binned forever. They only make sense over LIMITED openers!

Here's the thing: Not everyone believes that its best for the strong hand to "take charge"... Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that folks who espouse such a view have a simplistic/superficial understanding of the issues involved.

 

The simplest counter example is to consider relay bidding structures. Many relay systems are deliberate engineered such that the balanced hand asks while the unbalanced hand shows. (Jeff Rubens had a very good article on this subject a few years back)

 

The more complex answer is to consider just what "taking charge" actually means. Take a look at some standard response structures that are used over a strong jump shift. Most of them require that the opener starts to describe his hand.

 

If opener has the two side suits stopped, then opener bids NT

If opener has Hx or better in responder's suit, then opener raises

If opener's suit is better than (whatever), then opener rebids his suit

If opener has HHx or better in a side suit, then he shows it

If opener can say anything specific, then he temporizes

 

In this case, the player making the Strong Jump shift is captain. The captaincy MIGHT shift as the auction progresses.

[foo]

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

 

EDIT: I posted it here in the B & I forum.

[hrothgar]

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

 

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

 

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.

[helene_t]

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

 

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

 

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.

I think Mike Lawrence's approach makes more sense. It's the only one I've seen described at such a level of detail. And it certainly does not command cuebidding by opener.

 

Anyway, I think Foo should just describe whatever style he's familar with and recommends. Those interested in Lawrence's style can just buy Lawrence's books.

[foo]

Look in between the parentheses ...

I stand corrected

No, you don't. At least, not if you are bidding according to the more modern teaching texts on SA.

 

If Audrey Grant (ACBL Series) and Edwin Kantar (_Bridge for Dummies_) are teaching today's novices that the only acceptable calls by a minimal responder after 1m-1M;1N are

a= pass, or

b= take a preference, or

c= rebid your suit cheaply

Then that is current modern SA.

 

The older style is no longer being taught by the ACBL's official teaching course. The ACBL official teaching course defines novice SA. Therefore the older style is no longer novice SA.

 

...and it even makes sense from the POV of basic principles that go back to at least as far as Charles Goren. Introducing new suits in auctions that could push the partnership to 2N means the partnership had better have the combined assets to handle 2N

A minimum opener opposite a minimum responder has no justification for being anywhere near 2N.

 

It is vitally important that the B & I's reading this get the correct information.

[hrothgar]

I stand corrected

No, you don't. At least, not if you are bidding according to the more modern teaching texts on SA.

I claim that I didn't read the ACBL's booklet on SAYC carefully enough.

[foo]

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

 

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

 

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.

Before we can have any discussion or debate regarding what the best response structure is to a SJS, first we must agree what a proper SJS looks like...

 

One of the major themes of this thread is confusion as to exactly that.

 

Additionally, I never claimed to care about casual writing on this or any other Bridge topic. I want to teach players to bid as well as experts with whatever tools they have available to them; and that means "standard" means something akin to "expert standard" not "casual standard".

[whereagles]

Here's the thing:  Not everyone believes that its best for the strong hand to "take charge"...  Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that folks who espouse such a view have a simplistic/superficial understanding of the issues involved.

 

The simplest counter example is to consider relay bidding structures.  Many relay systems are deliberate engineered such that the balanced hand asks while the unbalanced hand shows.  (Jeff Rubens had a very good article on this subject a few years back)

People don't believe it's best for the strong hand to take charge because they are too scared of taking charge in the first place. Be it with a strong hand or a weak one, and experts included. Anyway, the point is people don't necessarily believe in stuff for technical reasons. Sometimes, their disbelief is more of an irrational reflection of one's personality.

 

Cheap psychology aside, you're right that there are occasions where it might be advisable for the weak hand to take charge, but those will be exceptions (even relay bidding doesn't quite work as you suggest). That's my point: as a rule, you're better off letting the strong hand do the asking. I don't think this is simplisitic. If you think so, well, as you know, I don't care much for what others think of my ideas... lol

[vuroth]

I started digging through all the books in my library, and I think I found the source of the confusion:

In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.

In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers!

[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.

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.

That depends on which version of xyz you play. A jump to 3♥ here would show a distributional invite with a 7-card suit the way I'm familiar with.

[mikeh]

For the record, in my methods I'd bid 2♦ with this hand, transfer, showing either a WJS or a SJS (in ♥'s).

Hey! I thought that I (and my former partner, Gord McOrmond) were the only ones who played this! I love it, btw... and remember, fondly, getting to 6♥ from opener's side with the ♦ suit of xx in dummy opposite my Kxx and RHO holding QJ10... a natural ♦ lead.

[whereagles]

hum.. that transfer JS might be interesting after some proper twinking :)

[mikeh]

Historical note:

SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

 

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.

[BebopKid]

1♥, show strength later.