Presumptive Fit Preempts .. Jammer 2D

[BridgeBuff]

I think 7%, not 15%. I mis-spoke if I said otherwise.

 

Hey that's why I need someone smart to look at the responses! Know anyone like that?

 

Game invitational values with 4-5 Hearts?

Game forcing values with 5 Hearts?

Game forcing values with 3 Spades?

Game forcing hands with both minors?

 

It's been some time since I played this and right now I'm not where my instructions! to my pard are. I think I used 2NT as a request for best minor, but if responder rebids something .. that's something else.

 

With invitational hearts, start 2NT and over opener's minor, bid 3♥?

 

With forcing hearts start 3♦. If partner has hearts, he'll bid them and you're off to the races.

 

I guess with forcing values and three spades you could consider 3NT if balanced. Maybe you could use 2NT with a 3♠ rebid to show that hand.

 

With forcing both minors, maybe start 2NT, then bidding the other minor shows that hand.

 

The point of it was to be aggressive and frequent and lawful and a real irritant and only to take up one lousy bid, not a precision instrument. You want precision, use the Frelling bids and use up all your two bids :-)

[jtfanclub]

Jtfanclub:

 

Of course there are combinations of patterns that don’t do well. It is that way with any bid. I don’t stop using Unusual NT because sometimes partner is 5=5 in the majors. I don’t stop opening 1H because sometimes LHO has eight of them.

I didn't make myself clear, I'm sorry.

 

I'm saying if OPENER has 4-2-3-4, it looks worse than 4-3-3-3. What hand could responder have where you'd say "whew, good thing I'm 4234" (in that order)?

 

 

I am presuming that the response when weak is 2S with 3 or more spades, pass with two or fewer, never look for a heart fit when weak (unless doubled, at which point you have XX for runout). Is that correct?

[BridgeBuff]

I'm saying if OPENER has 4-2-3-4, it looks worse than 4-3-3-3. What hand could responder have where you'd say "whew, good thing I'm 4234" (in that order)?

 

 

I am presuming that the response when weak is 2S with 3 or more spades, pass with two or fewer, never look for a heart fit when weak (unless doubled, at which point you have XX for runout). Is that correct?

 

Well whenever partner has ANY suit except hearts, especially if he has clubs, the 4=2=3=4 will be a better dummy than 4=3=3=3.

 

I've scribbled a possible response system previously. You would look for a heart fit if you had an escape somewhere. With say 2=6=4=1 you might first pass, then try 2♥ if doubled. You might try 2♥ first, then over 2♠ bid 3♦. Or you might try passing the 2♠ rebid (20% of the time opener will have five, more if you remove 4432's). If the heart suit is a good one, rebid 3♥. Some juggling is required; we discovered that when playing it. Don't forget the opps have no idea that we haven't found a nice fit somewhere. There is some adventure, some table-feel is useful, and it isn't for the faint-of-heart.

 

Maybe you have a good idea there .. pass with any weak hand (<3 spades) and build some framework around XX.

[MickyB]

I've played a 2♦ bid similar to Frelling 2♦ in several partnerships. My personal preference is to restrict it to 4-5♦ and exactly 4 in the major, which is usually called 'Rough Diamond'. This is because 4D5M will frequently leave you in diamonds when you should be in the major, and 5-5s have too much playing strength unless very weak in HCP.

 

Like Richard, I feel that Jammer is inferior to Rough and Frelling bids for a number of reasons - it seems to give the opponents more options (usually two doubles and a cue for direct seat), gets to the 3 level too often, doesn't do as well constructively and (I suspect) lands in misfits more often. These are big costs for a little extra frequency. Even if you want to keep 2♥ and 2♠ as natural, I would choose Frelling 2♦ over Jammer 2♦.

 

IMO opening Rough/Frelling 2♦ on a 4-4 2nd seat vul is a big risk for little gain, it should almost certainly be kept to 5-4 here IMO, if it is going to be played at all. In one partnership I am hoping to play Rough Club (4♣4M) and Diamond as 3-9 1st NV and 5-9 in 2nd green vul, then in other positions play GF 2♣ opener (probably with weak options) with constructive (6-10/8-11) multi+dutch 2s. I haven't analysed any results to back up not playing Rough bids at other positions and vuls, I probably should!

[BridgeBuff]

You guys might prefer Short Club Jammer. Frequency is about 4% (compared to 7% for Long Spade). It is lawful 72% of the time (compared to 2% and 74% lawful for 9+ major Ekren). I forget the response structure I used to derive the 72% but it would be something fairly straighforward. Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

[jtfanclub]

Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

That seems odd. Do they let you play mini-Roman?

 

The reason why I don't mind being 4333 (4 spades, 3 clubs of course) is because while that terrible shape probably cost us a trick, it probably also gained them a trick (making the thirteeth card of a 4-3 fit good, let's say). So if you're pre-empting, why not?

[hrothgar]

One last comment thatis probably worth making:

 

3 suited hands are often MUCH better on defense than offense:

Just another reason why I prefer the 4432/two suited assumed fit style to this

4432/three suited structure...

[MickyB]

You guys might prefer Short Club Jammer. Frequency is about 4% (compared to 7% for Long Spade). It is lawful 72% of the time (compared to 2% and 74% lawful for 9+ major Ekren). I forget the response structure I used to derive the 72% but it would be something fairly straighforward. Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

Possibly, but compared to Rough Diamond it is less frequent and gives the opps more info, with no advantages that I can see. IMO by far the best Jammer variant is Long Diamond, indeed most of the criticisms in this thread don't apply to it.

[BridgeBuff]

I’m curious how someone judged that Rough Diamond was a relatively safe bid. In fact it is very dangerous.

 

This is how I test these bids. My commercial deal generator cannot do it without some tweaking, so I sneak in a back door and build some code. To test RD I simply generate a random deal, no constraints, and if the South hand qualifies for RD (I’m looking only at pattern, not HCP), then I check to see what the North hand would do, and what is the resulting degree of fit.

 

The South hand qualifies if it has 4/5 diamonds and either 4 hearts or 4 spades.

 

When that happens, the North hand has some choices, in approximately this order. Small variations to this order would not make much difference.

 

· North has 4+ both majors. He bids 2H, pass or correct. If South has hearts, they play in 2H, otherwise they play in 2S.

· If North has 4+ hearts and 4+ diamonds, he tries 2H and if South corrects to 2S, he plays in 3D

· If North has 7+ hearts they play in 3H

· If North has 7+ spades they play in 3S

· If North has 6+ clubs they play in 3C

· If North has 3+ in both majors, he bids 2H pass/correct and they play in 2H or 2S

· If North has 5+ spades they play in 2S

· If North has 5+ diamonds they play in 3D

· If North has 3+ diamonds they play in 2D ‘he passes

 

Now you are approaching very dangerous territory. What is left are basically hands with 4-5 clubs, and 4-5 of a major. Options with 2515, say, are a little scary. There are more of these than you might think.

 

I guessed that if North has 5 clubs, he would try the major and bid 3C necessary.

 

For something like 2524, I passed ….

 

This might be improved slightly. I made no provision for contracts in NT. I also assumed that the contract would be played in the lowest strain (except for the 3D preempt).

 

After several thousand trails, the (ABCD) values are (6, 38, 38, 18) meaning 6% of contracts were 2 trumps short of law requirements, 38% were 1 trump short, 38% were lawful, and 18% were better than lawful.

 

That’s a fairly scary bid at just 56% lawful. Long Spade Jammer was 62% lawful and Short Club was 72% lawful.

 

I don’t think I made a material mistake.

[EricK]

One last comment thatis probably worth making:

 

3 suited hands are often MUCH better on defense than offense:

Just another reason why I prefer the 4432/two suited assumed fit style to this

4432/three suited structure...

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

A 4432 hand is just as suited to defense whether you call it a 3 suiter or a 2 suiter. If you want to defend with it, then pass. If you want to try to declare with it why does it matter if it called a 2 suiter or a 3 suiter?

 

Eric

[MickyB]

Hrothgar is referring to the other hand types in the bid - Jammer opens 4432s and 3 suiters, Rough Diamond opens 4432s and 2 suiters.

 

Bridgebuff - I would be very surprised if your figures are correct, they are nothing like the ones I've seen other people suggest. Do you have anything in there that will stop it being played in the major when responder is 3343, or from being played in spades when responder is 5242 opposite 4 hearts? Or in clubs when responder is 2146 or 2236? Also, I wouldn't often bid past 2♦ holding 4♦4major, and if I did I wouldn't expect law protection.

[Free]

~snip~

After several thousand trails, the (ABCD) values are (6, 38, 38, 18) meaning 6% of contracts were 2 trumps short of law requirements, 38% were 1 trump short, 38% were lawful, and 18% were better than lawful.

 

That’s a fairly scary bid at just 56% lawful. Long Spade Jammer was 62% lawful and Short Club was 72% lawful.

 

I don’t think I made a material mistake.

You think this is scary? I think it's a WONDERFUL system!

 

- We are not looking for the optimal contract, we are looking for a 'playable' contract. 2-level in a 4-3 is playable (watch MOSCITO sometimes :D ).

- What kind of opps play penalty Dbl at 2-level on a 2♦ opening? I don't think many do that, so you play undoubled and you'll have a good score.

- You can preempt hard in ♦, even violating the LOTT and bid 3♦ on a 4 card, hoping opener has a 5 card...

- From the moment opps bid, you lose the possible backfiring, so no problems there.

 

I remember a hand where Richard opened 2♥ showing 4+♥ and either 4+♠/5+♣. I had something like a 5-1-5-2 and I passed! We had a good score since opps bid and got the trumps against them :) . Richard thought it would be better for me to bid P/C and play in a possible 5-2 fit in 3♣, but I still think passing can be good on such hands. Opps will Double 3♣ a lot easier imo. My LHO has to pass or bid. They usually bid, and if he Dbls and it comes back at me, I can still bid...

[hrothgar]

When I ran my last set of simulations, the Frelling 2♦ opening resulted in:

 

a 7+ card fit ~90% of the time

an 8+ card fit ~65% of the time

 

Accordingly, we will play a 2 level contract in a 7 card fit approximately 25% of the time.

 

While you characterize this as a Law Violation, I actually consider it to be a part of the strength of the system. Its relatively easy to complete over LAW-abiding bids. When was the last time that good opponents allowed you to playing 2♥ in a known 8 card fit? the very same fit that protects you allows the opponents to compete effectively.

 

In contrast, a bidding style that allow a partnership to declare 2M with a reasonable number of 7 card fits places MUCH more pressure on the opponents since they have much less protection when they choose to balance.

[BridgeBuff]

Bridgebuff - I would be very surprised if your figures are correct, they are nothing like the ones I've seen other people suggest. Do you have anything in there that will stop it being played in the major when responder is 3343, or from being played in spades when responder is 5242 opposite 4 hearts? Or in clubs when responder is 2146 or 2236? Also, I wouldn't often bid past 2♦ holding 4♦4major, and if I did I wouldn't expect law protection.

 

I'll check to make sure it passes with it 3=3=4=3.

 

I'll see what it does with 3=4=4=2 and the like; pretty sure it passes.

 

What is the book sequence when responder is 5=2=4=2 vs say 6=2=2=3? The source I checked said bid 2S with 5+ spades, and opener would pass (or raise with 4). If you think it is better tactics to pass with 5=2=4=2 (or bid 3D) you'll miss out on some nice spade fits. I can check either way.

 

I'll check those club hands too.

 

I very much doubt these changes will make much difference but we'll see.

 

This is the only way to properly simulate the lawfulness of the bid, by stepping through a set of sensible responses. You cannot rely on pattern tables, because the shape of the opener influences the shape of responder. Also you have to make sure your analysis is not double-dummy, that responder isn't peeking.

 

The analysis is correct (pending these tweaks). One source at the Cavendish site said there was a '66% chance of landing in an 8-card fit in hearts spades or clubs for a 2H opening. That club fit is unlawful, so any comparison you want to make with the (ABCD) notation is comparing apples with oranges because that notation reflects 8-fits at the two-level and 9-fits at the three-level. And if someone thinks that a system which generates lots of 4=3 fits with weak hands at the two-level is GOOD, then that guy is a better dummy player than I am, even though it does pressure the opps.

 

Where two suits are known for sure, the Ekren majors say, the lawfulness is higher because responder knows more about opener's hand. Where there is doubt, sometimes for safety's sake responder must settle in an inferior spot when there is a chance of a better spot but it isn't prudent to look for it. With 4=2=3=4 responder will normally pass Rough Diamond (won't he?) but if the analysis 'peeks' and sees 4 spades with opener ....

 

2D Ekren 9+ majors is lawful 74%. Short Club Jammer is lawful 72%, and with twice the frequency (although apparently not playable in the ACBL).

[BridgeBuff]

Those response tweaks improved Rough Diamond a little more than I thought, to (5, 35, 40, 20). That makes it 60% lawful (8-fit at two-level, 9-fit at three-level) putting it in approximately the same class as Long Spade Jammer at 62%, so both provide roughly the same 4=3 thrills at the two-level, and 5=3 thrills at the three-level.

 

Frequencies are approximately equivalent as well.

 

I will check out that Long Diamond Jammer variation to see what's up there.

[BridgeBuff]

I don’t think I like Long Diamond Jammer, so I didn’t pursue that line. Although it doesn’t put as much pressure on LHO, the anchor suit for Long Spade Jammer is more preemptive, and responder has an extra chance to find a decent spot with a 2H bid on the way to 2S. The response system for Long Diamond Jammer is largely “pass with diamonds, or scramble” so you would miss out on a number of decent major-suit fits.

 

I did decide to take a look at Long Spade Jammer excluding 4432’s, so the bid would be largely 5431 shapes with some true three-suiters. I also decided to run a larger sample on Rough Diamond and Long Spade (with 4432) .. about 10,000 samples each.

 

For Long Spade Jammer (with 4432), (ABCD) = (7.0, 29.1, 36.8, 27.1) with lawfulness at 63.9%. Without 4432 Jammer = (3.6, 33.5, 38.4, 24.5) with lawfulness at 62.9%. Rough Diamond = (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7) for lawfulness 59.9%.

 

Jammer without 4432 is not quite as lawful, because responder’s long suits opposite shortness are now hitting singletons and voids, never doubletons, I guess. However the number of disasters (the A component) is halved, so maybe that is an argument for it. Frequency is about 4% compared to about 7% for the Long Spade variety.

[jtfanclub]

You think this is scary? I think it's a WONDERFUL system!

 

- We are not looking for the optimal contract, we are looking for a 'playable' contract. 2-level in a 4-3 is playable (watch MOSCITO sometimes :D ).

Meep!

 

I was always taught that 4-3s go downhill fast when you start subtracting points. 2-level 4-3 with 21 points is great. 2 level 4-3 with 18 hcp is scary. 2 level 4-3 with 15 is 800 if you're not vulnerable. Basically, they're making 3NT, and your 4-3 trump suit isn't going to slow them down.

 

But then, lots of stuff I've been taught was wrong. Is this one of them?

[Free]

Yes :D :D hehe

[Flame]

Thxs for the resposes richard, we decided to play frelling except the 2sp opening . it just that 6 spades and 4 spades/5 clubs are too much apart, i will have a big problem when i hold good support for club and short in spade, and will hve to pass 2sp maybe even with a void.

[Free]

Yeah, I also don't like the 2♠ for the same reason, however I haven't had much bad experiences with it. For me, it didn't come up enough yet to know if it really works or not. Theoreticly if we have game, we will find it, but the battle for partscore is probably poor if responder has a 3 card ♠ support.

 

I've suggested to play 6+♠ or 5+♠-4+♣, but then the opps will know what they're defending against (♠s :D ), which isn't the case at this point... And that's one of the strong sides of all frelling two's.

[Flame]

I've suggested to play 6+♠ or 5+♠-4+♣, but then the opps will know what they're defending against (♠s :D ), which isn't the case at this point... And that's one of the strong sides of all frelling two's.

I thought about this 5♠-4♣ or 6♠ too and i think we will go for it, sure its not perfect.

[hrothgar]

I've never understood why people find the 2♠ opening so objectionable. Sure, the opening is no-tradition, however, its downright innocuous compared to so of the stuff that the Italians are playing. Case in point 2♠ = 6+ spades or 9-11 balanced... I've never been able to figure out a good response structure for that one:

 

From my perspecitve, the split nature of the 2♠ opening is actually one of its strengths. Typically, when you are multiplexing different hand types, you want the different hands to be logically distinct. This makes competitive bidding much more easy. I experimented with 2♠ = 6+ spades or 5+ spades 4+♣. From my perspective, it made the opening structure much worse:

 

Couple points to consider

 

First, if the auction starts: 2♠ - 3♣, where 3♣ is pass or correct, the 2♠ opener should correct to his lowest 3 card suit holding a single suited hand. This often allows the partnership to scramble into a 5-3 fit at the three level.

 

Second: Here's a table that might prove helpful

 

Holding 3-3 in the Black suits

pass with a hand suitable to play in a Moysian, otherwise correct or Clubs

 

Holding 2 Spades and 3 Clubs: Rebid 3♣, pass or correct

 

Holding 2 Clubs and 3 Spades: Pass

 

Holding 1 Spade and 3 Clubs: With luck, you're in a 6-1 fit. If not, you probably picked off their 8 card Spade fit

 

Holding 3 Spades and 1 Club: Pass: You are almost certainly in a Moysian. Learn to play these.

 

Holding 2-2 in the majors: Worst possible holding. Pass and pray...

[BridgeBuff]

The Rough Diamond is relatively unlawful in large part because the 4432 and 5431 hands are treated as two-suiters when partner might have a nice fit in the 3-suit. Surely it makes sense to find those fits cheaply if you can.

 

I took another look at Short Club 2D Jammer. Those include 5431, 4432, 4441 and 5440 hands with club shortness. The only serious problem is when responder has clubs and no second suit, say 223=6 or worse, 233=5 hands, when you risk playing in your 3-3 fits. With 6 clubs you cross your fingers and bid 3C (or if non-vul and weak, maybe try passing or goofing around) … close to half the time you will hit the doubleton in a 4432 hand so that isn’t disastrous.

 

What to do about the 233=5 hands? If you bid the lower 3-suit, from time to time you will hit partner’s 3-suit. Oops. But if non-vul and weak, you might try passing first. If it is passed out, you might be in a shitty contract but you might not. If it is doubled, then you could play that XX asks opener for his lowest 4+ suit (he must have one in hearts or spades). If you do this, you will eliminate those 3-3 fits and sometimes find a nice 5-3 spot.

 

(For notation (ABCD), A = % of hands 2 cards less than law requirements, B = 1 less, C = lawful, D = >lawful.)

 

So if you bid the cheapest 3-suit with those 233=5 hands (or pass with three diamonds), Short Club Jammer comes in at (6.0, 23.6, 38.9, 31.5) which is a very safe 70.4% lawful.

 

If you pass and XX to possibly improve your fit, it produces (3.9, 23.9, 39.2, 33.0) which is even safer at 72.2%, with considerably fewer disasters.

 

Short Club Jammer covers your ‘two-suited’ majors and diamond-majors in one bid that is much safer than Rough Diamond (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7), lawful just 59.9%.

 

With a weak hand you just scramble. For invitational+, you could build a sensible response system starting with 2N. Maybe 3C would then show a minimum hand not both majors (3 of one of them), 3D minimum both majors, 3H maximum both majors .. or ???

 

I’m flogging a dead horse with you guys but I’ve at least convinced myself now that Short Club is worth a trial, and to heck with those risky Frelling bids.

[Flame]

Isnt a bidding like 2sp-3c-3x-3sp a great recepy to get doubled on the 3 level on a 6/7 card fit ? we are telling the opponents we have no fit.

I think you should pass with a void in spade and 4 clubs.

Your points about the response stucture make sense, but i know that even if i will be convinced that its ok to play this, i will still have to convice my partner which wont be easy.

Anyway cant wait to try our new tool.

[Mr_Sock]

So if you bid the cheapest 3-suit with those 233=5 hands (or pass with three diamonds), Short Club Jammer comes in at (6.0, 23.6, 38.9, 31.5) which is a very safe 70.4% lawful.

 

I like the idea of the Short Club Jammer, but i haven't seen a response structure yet? are 2♥/2♠/3♣ all drop-dead bids, with 2NT as an enquiry? this would seem to be the most sensible, but aren't there problems when responder has equal length in the majors? - sometimes he is going to pick the wrong suit -- e.g. if 2♥ is drop dead, but recommended with 4-4 in the majors, then what is the chance that you have landed in a 4-3 heart fit (with an 8-card fit available in spades).

 

it occurs to me that the calculations on 'lawfulness' might not have taken this into account? -- so the figure of 70% may be an overestimate?

 

Short Club Jammer covers your ‘two-suited’ majors and diamond-majors in one bid that is much safer than Rough Diamond (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7), lawful just 59.9%.

 

By the way, I think that 'safety' and 'lawfulness' are related, but slightly different concepts, so the quote above may be slightly misleading. A hypothetical example -- if opponents were more likely to find a double of our failing contract after our SC Jammer 2♦ auctions than they are after our Rough 2♦ auctions (on identical deals), then it would follow that the SC Jammer is less safe? There must be other differences as well?