Jump to content

BWS2001Defaults - Competitive Bidding


Recommended Posts

Following bidding sequence:

 

W___N____E____S

-___1___1___3

 

Playing BWS2001defaults: 3, a jump shift, is pre-emptive.

 

What would be 4 ?

Staying in the same line of thinking, one could propose 4 as equally pre-emptive.

But almost equally defendable: as the double shift is not explicetedly defined, only the single jump is, 4 should be, according to the BWS defaults settings, natural: a strong single suiter.

 

Any opinions ?

 

Besides: do you really think - taking into account the other BWS-agreements after an overcall of our 1 or 1 opening - that playing that jump shift as pre-emptive is the best use of that bid ?

 

This is one of the sequences where I have difficulties following the BWS standard. I would prefer to play 4 as a good raise with a suit. Im not so sure about 3.

All opinions welcome.

 

Any ideas about the use of jump shift responses, after an intervention of our 1 of a minor ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurpoa - (or PalingL, or GulLur, or TongLu, or Ploate), it seems a bit surprising to me that you expect people to answer your posts.

 

 

Was it the font? Or the suit symbols?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurpoa - (or PalingL, or GulLur, or TongLu, or Ploate), it seems a bit surprising to me that you expect people to answer your posts.

Well actually it has been suggested to me that this may not be the real Lurpoa after all :)

I had the same initial thought, but it was still a long shot. Some well deserved downvotes for you. :P

Lurpoa would never use another profile, she said she's not here to get a good reputation and her actions confirm this.

 

Back to topic, I'm no BWS expert or anything, the system is already 10 years old so it might need an update. To me it seems logical to use 4 as a fit jump, a splinter, or as a preempt (pick one). But not as a strong single suiter (which can bid 2 right?).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now, people. This is a legitimate question, whoever is asking it. (Though, admittedly, I am not aware of the relevant disputes.) Also, BWS 2001 is getting a bit out-of-date, but it is still a fairly comprehensive list of standard treatments. Does anyone know when it will next be updated?

 

It seems 4 is natural and non-forcing by default:

 

The only definition relevant is

In responding to a major-suit opening over an overcall: (e) [default] a jump-shift is preemptive. [leaf] fit-showing.

which doesn't cover double jumps.

 

The relevant defaults are:

 

non-forcing:

Forcing vs. nonforcing: When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or nonforcing and there is no explicit agreement: In general: [default] In a competitive situation, treat as nonforcing; in a noncompetitive situation, treat as forcing or nonforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer [leaf] forcing rather than nonforcing.

 

natural:

Suit jumps: [default] If an undiscussed competitive suit jump might logically be interpreted in more than one way, it is natural [leaf] a fit-jump.
Interpretation priorities: When a call is subject to different possible interpretations and there is no explicit system agreement, it should be considered: (a) natural rather than artificial
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually it has been suggested to me that this may not be the real Lurpoa after all :)

 

Still feel that way after the subsequent posts? :P

 

I think Don's structure would be expert mainstream, but there are some R/S true believers that would play 4 also as fitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If playing preemptive jumps in competition, I think four of a minor should probably be an exception regardless of whether it is a single or double jump. But I wouldn't make a general exception for all double jumps, e.g. three of a major or five of a minor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now, people. This is a legitimate question, whoever is asking it. (Though, admittedly, I am not aware of the relevant disputes.) Also, BWS 2001 is getting a bit out-of-date, but it is still a fairly comprehensive list of standard treatments. Does anyone know when it will next be updated?

 

It seems 4 is natural and non-forcing by default:

 

The only definition relevant is

 

which doesn't cover double jumps.

 

The relevant defaults are:

 

non-forcing:

 

 

natural:

 

 

 

You made a very good analysis !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2D = natural ( I suggest forcing )

3D-jump ( fit-showing-jump in competition or by a passed hand )

4D-double jump = splinter

 

 

Very Good suggestions I think.

 

But they have nothing to do with the BWS Standard, but may be taken into account for a futur update of the Standard.

 

I would be nice to have a short justification for each of those bids.

 

Thank you for your contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same initial thought, but it was still a long shot. Some well deserved downvotes for you. :P

Lurpoa would never use another profile, she said she's not here to get a good reputation and her actions confirm this.

 

Back to topic, I'm no BWS expert or anything, the system is already 10 years old so it might need an update. To me it seems logical to use 4 as a fit jump, a splinter, or as a preempt (pick one). But not as a strong single suiter (which can bid 2 right?).

 

 

Yes !

You offered a 3rd possible BWS interpretation of that bid ! The Splinter Raise !

 

And indeed it is what prescribed in the standard after a 1 of a minor opening, and an overcall: the double shift is a Splinter Raise. I do not see any reason why it should be anything else here.

Ibelieve that in the light of possible further competition, thissplinter should show extra values, and not be solely based on thedistributional values of the shortness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that whenever we have a bid hearts and they have bid spades, a jump to 4m is best played as fitted.

 

 

What you think is not so important.

What is important is the justification for such a bid.

 

Robson Segal have written a whole book to justify this fit raise, which is now considered by many experts as a very good treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...