Bidding over jump shifts

[fuburules3]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt743hdt875ca754&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1hp1sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPS. You're playing 2/1 without too much discussion. I'm always a little lost on what are slam going actions versus just trying to find the best game. What do you bid?

 

In theory, partner could be 2632 and bid like this. In such cases, how do you avoid playing a bad 4-3 diamond fit?

 

What should 3S show here? How do you find the 5-3 (or on a different hand the 6-2) spade fit when it is there?

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt743hdt875ca754&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1hp1sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPS. You're playing 2/1 without too much discussion. I'm always a little lost on what are slam going actions versus just trying to find the best game. What do you bid?

 

In theory, partner could be 2632 and bid like this. In such cases, how do you avoid playing a bad 4-3 diamond fit?

 

What should 3S show here? How do you find the 5-3 (or on a different hand the 6-2) spade fit when it is there?

 

 

fwiw I would try 4c...second choice 4d

 

 

I hope pard will take 4c as cue, agree diamonds

As a passed hand I should not be introducing clubs as a real suit to play in at the 4 level at this point.

 

I am not going to worry pard has only 3d here.

I am not going to rebid a 5 card spade suit to the Jack with 4d to the ten.

[aguahombre]

3D commits us to game. It is partner's problem if he manufactured the 3D bid (I raise). If he now bids 4H, it is natural, to play, and I pass. If he now bids 4S instead, I will still be bidding during the drive home after the game.

[rogerclee]

These auctions can be hard, it may be comforting for you to realize that even if partner has 6 hearts and playing 3N is right, he may not pass 3N.

 

Anyway, we have a good hand for diamonds, and we want to play in diamonds opposite a real diamond suit, so don't overthink it, just bid 4D. Both 4M bids by partner would be natural, which is obviously not great for your slam bidding, but they are too valuable to give up in the name of having a variety of cuebids.

[whereagles]

If 3D shows 4 cards, then I'll try 5♦. I think 4 here is bit of an under/over bid (delete where appropriate, according to what you meant with 4D).

 

If 3D can be a 3 carder I'll bid 3♠ and leave it to pard.

[aguahombre]

If 3D shows 4 cards, then I'll try 5♦. I think 4 here is bit of an under/over bid (delete where appropriate, according to what you meant with 4D).

Here is what 5D should look like: JXXX - KQXXX XXXX (for example). 4D is staying out of partner's way while showing a distinct preference between the red suits for now.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt743hdt875ca754&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1hp1sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPS. You're playing 2/1 without too much discussion. I'm always a little lost on what are slam going actions versus just trying to find the best game. What do you bid?

3D should always be at least 4 cards. ( Use 3C! when you need an "artificial GF " ).

 

What was NOT bid over 1H:

.... 2C! = Rev Drury showing a limit raise w/ 3 or 4 cards ♥ .

.... 2H = mixed raise w/ 3 or 4 cards.

.... 3H = weak raise w/ 4 cards

 

After the 3D SJS:

.... 3H = bare minimum preference with as little as 2 cards ♥.

.... 3S = ♠ still in the picture with at least 2 of top 3 honors, 5+ cards; no interest in ♥/♦.

.... 3NT = none of the above, also no interest in ♦, but more than likely not the best spot.

 

For this hand that leaves:

.... 4C! = advance cue for ♦... should be 1st Rnd Ctrl.

.... 4D = weak preference w/ 4+ cards ♦

.... 5D = stronger preference and/or added length, but no outside Ctrls.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think I'll only go 4D on this one.

[the hog]

I will bid 4D on this. I don't understand how 3D can be a 3 card suit - this looks unplayable to me.

[S2000magic]

4♦ and both natural.

[whereagles]

I will bid 4D on this. I don't understand how 3D can be a 3 card suit - this looks unplayable to me.

 

It's the yankee way to 'solve' strong two hands. They loath dumping those hands into the 2C opener.

[johnu]

I don't understand how 3D can be a 3 card suit - this looks unplayable to me.

 

IIRC, there was a Bridge World Master Solver's problem from several years ago where the top score went to a jump shift on a singleton ace. A 3 card suit doesn't look so bad :P

[fuburules3]

Thanks for the replies. This is basically what I thought.

 

At the table I bid 4♦ and partner responds 4♥. What do you do now? At least one poster suggested pass--is this the consensus? I can see where having a system where 3♦ guarantees four would be nice here.

[han]

IIRC, there was a Bridge World Master Solver's problem from several years ago where the top score went to a jump shift on a singleton ace.

 

How many Australians were on the panel?

[ArtK78]

Thanks for the replies. This is basically what I thought.

 

At the table I bid 4♦ and partner responds 4♥. What do you do now? At least one poster suggested pass--is this the consensus? I can see where having a system where 3♦ guarantees four would be nice here.

If partner bids 4♥ over 4♦, it means his jump shift was made on a short suit (presumably 3 cards but could be shorter in a pinch) and was based on a long, strong heart suit and a forcing to game hand.

 

I would pass 4♥.

 

What would you bid on x AKQJTxxx Axx x (Assuming you don't open these type of hands 2♣ and you don't play NAMYATS)?

[mikeh]

Thanks for the replies. This is basically what I thought.

 

At the table I bid 4♦ and partner responds 4♥. What do you do now? At least one poster suggested pass--is this the consensus? I can see where having a system where 3♦ guarantees four would be nice here.

I agree with the 4♦ call, and upvoted roger's post.

 

Partner's 4♥ call doesn't deny a 4 card diamond suit: the main purpose of the bid is to show a very good 6+ card suit. x AKQJxx AQxx Kx would be one type of hand.

 

You should not pull 4♥ unless you feel your hand is well-suited (pun is accidental) for an 11 or 12 trick diamond contract. You don't pull from fear....you pull, if you do, from optimism.

 

Here, you have no grounds for optimism, so you pass.

[bluecalm]

I will bid 4D on this. I don't understand how 3D can be a 3 card suit - this looks unplayable to me.

 

Didn't you notice it's "unplayable system discussion" forum ? :)

 

On serious note, assuming 3D is normal, let's say 4+cards (or even 5+) I wonder if that hand isn't too strong for 4D.

If I had like: Axxxx x Jxx xxxx I would bid 4D too presumably ? I think we need to make some distinction between weak and better hands at this point.

I think 4D should be minimum hand with support and lack of good stopper in 4th suit and 4C should be club cuebid setting diamonds as trumps and decent hand. Now if this one qualifies is another matter (maybe it doesn't) but it would be interesting to arrive at some general guidelines.

Also what kind of hand bids direct 5d here ?

 

What would you bid on x AKQJTxxx Axx x (Assuming you don't open these type of hands 2♣ and you don't play NAMYATS)?

 

I mean we really need to get rid of that. This is awful terrible unplayable and confusing system which nobody very good at bridge play but "teachers" keep shoving down B/I's throats.

This philosophy of "not opening 2C if you have other choices" and then manufacturing reverses with 2 cards or jumpshifts on 3 cards is total nonsense. It's inferior, it's confusing it's harmful to people who are learning this game and try to understand it.

You have 10 tricks in hand, you open 2C how hard is that ? What kind of convulated thinking is that to open this 1H just to have a chance to jump rebid your Axx next round ? I mean what the *****.

[ArtK78]

Didn't you notice it's "unplayable system discussion" forum ? :)

 

On serious note, assuming 3D is normal, let's say 4+cards (or even 5+) I wonder if that hand isn't too strong for 4D.

If I had like: Axxxx x Jxx xxxx I would bid 4D too presumably ? I think we need to make some distinction between weak and better hands at this point.

I think 4D should be minimum hand with support and lack of good stopper in 4th suit and 4C should be club cuebid setting diamonds as trumps and decent hand. Now if this one qualifies is another matter (maybe it doesn't) but it would be interesting to arrive at some general guidelines.

Also what kind of hand bids direct 5d here ?

What would you bid on x AKQJTxxx Axx x (Assuming you don't open these type of hands 2♣ and you don't play NAMYATS)?

I mean we really need to get rid of that. This is awful terrible unplayable and confusing system which nobody very good at bridge play but "teachers" keep shoving down B/I's throats.

This philosophy of "not opening 2C if you have other choices" and then manufacturing reverses with 2 cards or jumpshifts on 3 cards is total nonsense. It's inferior, it's confusing it's harmful to people who are learning this game and try to understand it.

You have 10 tricks in hand, you open 2C how hard is that ? What kind of convulated thinking is that to open this 1H just to have a chance to jump rebid your Axx next round ? I mean what the *****.

Show me the 10 tricks.

 

If you REALLY don't like that hand (and next time, don't mince words - tell us how you really feel) how about:

 

-- AQJTxxxx Axx Kx

[fuburules3]

What is partner has a strong hand with a not so great heart suit, say

 

S: AK

H: Axxxxx

D: AKx

C: Qx

 

What will he bid over 4D (or will he not open 1H?)?

[ArtK78]

What is partner has a strong hand with a not so great heart suit, say

 

S: AK

H: Axxxxx

D: AKx

C: Qx

 

What will he bid over 4D (or will he not open 1H?)?

I am sure some players (not me) would open 2NT. I would open 1H, but my rebid would be 2NT.

[bluecalm]

Yeah 9 tricks, sorry. The point is that you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1.

 

don't mince words - tell us how you really feel) how about:

 

I didn't. BBO filter did for me :)

 

How I feel about it:

There is something very wrong with teaching bridge. People are taught inferior illogical, hard to apply stupid system in the name of "standard" or "natural". Then they are faced with impossible problems like the hand given. Then when they come up with logical simple solution: "let's open 2C at least we are in GF auction now so we can exchange some information instead of jump rebidding 3card suits" they are told the hand "doesn't meet standards" for 2C opener.

People are taught "natural" but when:

1H- 1S

3D comes up they are told they shouldn't raise with support lightly because hey, that could be 3 cards (or 1 card...) because some 'experts' said so.

[aguahombre]

What is partner has a strong hand with a not so great heart suit, say

 

S: AK

H: Axxxxx

D: AKx

C: Qx

 

What will he bid over 4D (or will he not open 1H?)?

 

I am sure some players (not me) would open 2NT. I would open 1H, but my rebid would be 2NT.

Yeh, Partner doesn't always respond 1S when I open this one 1H. If she does, I rebid 2NT. On a better day she will respond 1NT, and I can rebid 3NT which shows the sixth heart.

[ArtK78]

Yeah 9 tricks, sorry. The point is that you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1.

don't mince words - tell us how you really feel

I didn't. BBO filter did for me :)

 

How I feel about it:

There is something very wrong with teaching bridge. People are taught inferior illogical, hard to apply stupid system in the name of "standard" or "natural". Then they are faced with impossible problems like the hand given. Then when they come up with logical simple solution: "let's open 2C at least we are in GF auction now so we can exchange some information instead of jump rebidding 3card suits" they are told the hand "doesn't meet standards" for 2C opener.

People are taught "natural" but when:

1H- 1S

3D comes up they are told they shouldn't raise with support lightly because hey, that could be 3 cards (or 1 card...) because some 'experts' said so.

Suffice it to say that I don't open 2♣ on a hand like the 9 trick hand I used as an example. If I am playing NAMYATS, I would use it. Otherwise, I open 1♥.

 

Bidding after 2♣ openings, especially if responder has values, is awkward enough as it is. Adding strong one suited hands with many tricks but short on high-cards to the 2♣ basket makes bidding after the 2♣ opening even more difficult.

 

This seems to be an argument for strong club systems or other non-Standard systems. And maybe it is. I am learning Modified Fantunes for the BBF Pairs event this coming Sunday, and I would rather bid this hand in Modified Fantunes than in Standard. Sometimes it is nice to open 1♥ and know that partner cannot pass.

[bluecalm]

This seems to be an argument for strong club systems or other non-Standard systems.

 

I don't think it is.

It's argument for some solution to problems which are now solved in very inneficient way.

Old Polish solution is to bid 2N which is multimeaning and game forcing (either 5-4 GF or one suited GF). This is not perfect but at least clear and let the jumps be what they should be: 5-5 hands.

Other solution is to place many strong hands in multimeaning 2C rebid (Gazilli and similar) which might be very simple or very complicated depending on how you make it. Some other solution are transfers for example but those are a bit complicated.

 

The problem with "standard" is that in effect there is very inefficient artificial gadget: jump to 3m which means:

1H - 1S

3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and clubs better than diamonds

3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and diamonds better than clubs

 

This is obviously very bad design. Why is it promoted as "standard" and why it's called "natural bidding" instead of what it really is beyond me really.

For some reason though this illogical system is taught to beginners and intermediate players just because some guys in the past who didn't have much clue about bidding thought it's good way to play and couldn't conceive of better solutions.

 

If you really like standard structure you could at least agree that all one suited GF's go to 3C and 3D is normal and natural. Then introduce some kind of relay after 3C and maybe it's playable somehow.

[whereagles]

I find 4H as a "choice of games" bid, intending to "fix" the phony 3D jump shift, an even more agricultural bid than 3D itself. These so-called standard methods are beginning to border on the ridiculous and it's no wonder new people get confused.

[whereagles]

you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1. (...) How I feel about it: There is something very wrong with teaching bridge.

 

The teaching is wrong because people teach technically wrong stuff. You need a systemic way to show a strong 2 type of hand and sayc and 2/1 don't have one. Everything is done on case-by-case basis. It's no wonder stuff becomes highly ambiguous.

 

There are some systemic ways out, say 1x-1y-3NT or opening 2C. I don't consider 1x-1y-3z a solution. It's more like sweeping the problem under a new rug (3z) than a solution.

 

My opinion is that you should just dump those hands into the strong 2C. That opening can take a beating and it's easy to adjust the system to cater for a lighter 2C. But then again people have silly prejudices. They think 2C must show the world and beyond.