BW Master Solvers

[helene_t]

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

But if opener has a fit for your side suit he may not be able to draw trumps before opps start ruffing it. Of course this depends on trump quality as well. So maybe it a fit jump should be allowed with a good 3-card support.

[hrothgar]

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

For what its worth, I did some simulations about the frequency of different fit jump styles a few years back. I wanted to compare the relative frequency of the more traditional fit jumps (requiring a 5-4 pattern) with other styles based on 6-3 pattern. (The study was done in the context of a raise structure over a MOSCITO style major suit opening, so the numbers would obviously differ from a 5 card major based opening followed by a takeout double or an overcall)

 

As I recall, things were pretty much a wash. Issues like suit quality requirements and the like ended up overwhelming shape. (I ended up going with the 6-3 patterns because I was reasonably happy lumping the 5-4s into either an invitational raise or a value raise. In contrast, I was never that happy treating the 6-3 patterns as either a 3 card raise or a NNF 2/1)

 

If you decide to start allowing a fit jump on a 5-3-3-2, you'll dramatically increase the frequency (especially if you don't exlude the 5-4s), however, I'm not sure whether you'll be happy with the results. I don't think that opener is going to be well positioned to know what to know. This sounds more like a blame transfer to me.

[ralph23]

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

It's really a consequence of the old old rule that "All good hands (10+) redouble after partner's one-of-a-suit opening is doubled for takeout."

 

The old old rule was modified in "modern standard" (if there is such a thing) to say "Oh, one-over-one responses can still be good hands."

 

But you're right in that 2♦ and 3♦ after partner opens 1♠ - (x) are somewhat duplicative. It's a matter of degree I suppose ... after all in standard american, opening 2♠ and 3♠ are also "somewhat duplicative" ---

[foo]

Richard,

Did you investigate the frequency of a FJS promising

a= 4+ support, a stiff/void, & a 5+ card suit

VS

b= 3+ support, a stiff/void, & a 5+ card suit

??

 

I'm not mentioning suit quality requirements because they should be the same for both and therefore don't matter.

(FWIW, my suggestion for minimum suit quality would be something like a suit 5+ cards long, headed by the A or K, whose length + honors add to 7+: AJxxx, Axxxxxx, Kxxxxxx, etc. This also assumes that most of the hand's values are concentrated in the trump suit and the side suit. Hands with values more or less scattered evenly should not make bids like FJS which are suggestive of value concentration.)

[han]

I'll start with 2D, hopefully I will be able to bid 3H next. I think that 2D (NF) followed by 3H is a much better description of this hand than 2H followed by 3D.

 

It is not unlikely that the auction will be above 3H when it comes back to us, but then I don't mind having shown diamonds instead of hearts. Will partner be able to compete sensibly if we bid 2H? I don't think so. If partner bids after we have shown diamonds then I'm pretty sure that it will be right.

 

I will not make a support jump with Jxx support.

 

Isn't it time that BWS starts using transfers over 1X-Dbl? :P