Weak Jump Shift vs Bergen Raises

[mike777]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

11 opposite 12. Nearly cold for slam. Can only get there by playing fit jumps.

 

Expected tricks is more than just total high card points and total trumps.

It helps to have a double fit and a source of tricks.

 

 

 

lol you dont have 11 pts....fit jumps may be great but if you think this hand is only 11 that is just silly bridge.

 

It is nothing new to say double fits and source of tricks are important...geez...

 

but it is really silly to start a conversation saying 11 pts

 

If you can only get there by playing fit jumps..sorry to hear that...

 

 

with that said sure fit jumps do work just as you can find any toy works on cherry picked hands...

[jogs]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

----- 1♠

3♣ - 4♠

all pass

 

Easily would make only ten tricks with spades as trumps.

Opener knew immediately hands didn't fit.

 

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

----- 1♠

3♣ - 3♦

3♠ - 4♠

all pass

 

4♠ will probably fail. Hard to stop short of game.

Bidding game on momentum.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

Thanks to "AWM" for the actual frequencies of

these types of hands.

 

Also thanks for all the comments and suggestions

about jump shifts and fit showing bids.

 

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my

partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens

one of a major.

 

jerdonald

[relknes]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

11 opposite 12. Nearly cold for slam. Can only get there by playing fit jumps.

 

Expected tricks is more than just total high card points and total trumps.

It helps to have a double fit and a source of tricks.

 

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

----- 1♠

3♣ - 4♠

all pass

 

Easily would make only ten tricks with spades as trumps.

Opener knew immediately hands didn't fit.

 

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

----- 1♠

3♣ - 3♦

3♠ - 4♠

all pass

 

4♠ will probably fail. Hard to stop short of game.

Bidding game on momentum.

 

On the first hand:

----- 1♠

- 4♥

and you are off to the races since opener knows the shortness is working

 

On the second hand:

----- 1♠

- 4♥ - 4♠

since opener can see that there are wasted values in hearts

 

On the third hand:

----- 1♠

- 3♠ - Pass

 

Or, if you are not playing 2/1, the third hand might go:

----- 1♠

- 2♣ - 2N

- 3♠ - Pass

 

so to say that fit showing jumps are the only way to bid these hands acurately seems like an exageration.

[PhilKing]

BBO forum,

Thanks to "AWM" for the actual frequencies of

these types of hands.

 

Also thanks for all the comments and suggestions

about jump shifts and fit showing bids.

 

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my

partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens

one of a major.

 

jerdonald

 

Quite a few of the world's top pairs do more or less that, so it can hardly be all that bad.

[jogs]

On the first hand:

----- 1♠

- 4♥

and you are off to the races since opener knows the shortness is working

 

Not hardly. Knowing the shortness isn't enough. Change the hands.

 

Axxx x KQJxx Kxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

The QJ is working in the jumper's suit. But is of unknown value

in a side suit.

 

On the third hand:

----- 1♠

- 3♠ - Pass

 

A huge underbid.

Or, if you are not playing 2/1, the third hand might go:

----- 1♠

- 2♣ - 2N

- 3♠ - Pass

 

Most players would rebid 4♠, not 3♠.

The values don't have to be wasted.

 

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

Change the ♥Q to ♣Q.

 

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx Jxx Ax Qxx

 

There aren't sufficient rounds of bidding for the partnership to exchange

all necessary info.

 

All current systems seem more interested in total points than

whether the points work together. Bidding systems should make

a greater attempt to determine if the partnership hands fit.

Fitting hands produce more tricks on fewer high card points.

[woefuwabit]

You need to stop playing against beginners. This is potentially similar to the discussion above about which way round to play splinters. Beginners let you play 2M here a lot; good intermediates do not, and Advanced+ will push you out of your comfort 2M nearly all of the time when it is right.

 

I play mostly against advanced+, and mostly IRL, hardly playing online anymore, so I'm going to just ignore your uncalled for ad hominem attack.

The thing you have conveniently ignored, is that after a 1M-2M raise, you are still allowed to bid 3M if the 4th hand opponent suddenly choose to compete into 3m, in which case you are no worse off than if you had made a 3rd level mixed raise. Now, occasionally your opponent would decide that his/her holding is not worth a risk competing into 3m (especially against a 2M raise which could well have only 3 card support), and that is where normal raises win.

 

This is a little like Drury. If you call a limit raise 11-12 then a game try is unnecessary but if you have a game try available then you want to increase the range by a point or so. Now not having the game try would be awkward.

 

With Drury, the re-invite over a LR is necessary because opener's minimum opening range has been much reduced (often 8 LTC instead of 7 LTC), and can also be a 4 card opening. In normal cases, a LR is not required. In fact, I think a game try is more necessary after a mixed raise than a limit raise, since a LR will generally have 8 LTC whereas a mixed raise have 9-10 LTC. I've often questioned why Reverse Bergen (which allows for game tries over LR but not for MR) seem to be more popular than standard Bergen (which allows for game tries over MR but not LR).

 

One of the things I have against them is precisely that they often are a disadvantage. It is not uncommon that Opener knows whether to bid game or not without knowing the side suit. Now that knowledge is simply helping the opening lead. Where FSJ are very good is in competition because judging the secondary fit there is a key factor in success. If opps bid over the FSJ then we are extremely well placed. Occasionally one can find a low hcp slam using them too. Overall I preferred to have them than not; but that is true of every serious option. If you were to play, say, that 1♥ - 2♠ was a FSJ with any side suit or a strong splinter, would that work for you or is the loss of the immediate side suit too important? It is easy to unwind if they do not bid (2NT asks):

3m = FSJ

3♥ = INV FSJ with spades

3♠ = GF FSJ with spades

3NT = strong spade splinter

4m = strong splinter

 

Obviously you are worse off than an immediate FSJ if they bid though.

 

If I wanted to, yes, it's not too hard to design a sytem which combines any two of the raise structures (WJS, FJS, Mini splinter, Bergen Raises), if we don't mind messing the Jacoby 2NT up a little when you have to bid 1♠-3♣. I'm in between regular partners atm though, so would rather KISS. I played Moscito with my last regular partner, so it didn't really matter.

 

I am familiar with Hardy Raises even without having read any of his books. Quite a lot of research into the various methods being played at high levels went into constructing the raise structure I suggest. One of the other BBFers came up with an almost identical structure independently. The biggest advocate of Hardy here is probably TWO4BRIDGE but I am not sure if even he plays his raises. Can you think of any current world class pair that does?

 

I'm definitely not advocating Hardy Raises, just his views on mixed raises.

 

I've looked through the convention cards of most of the pairs playing in the knockouts of the 2011 Bermuda Bowl. Naturally, there is no consensus of what is the prefered raise structure, but I didn't see anyone using Bergen Raises. Some pairs do use Mixed Raises - most of them as 1M-3M instead of 1M-3m, and some pairs do play FSJ. Some even play both MR and FSJ, making 2NT LR+. Many pairs don't even mention a raise structure that they use - I presume they play WJS in this case.

[fromageGB]

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens one of a major.

Certainly not uncommon. I play Berganesque after a major, and major suit WJS after a minor, and like the idea. You can do it whatever style of minor bids you use : I play transfer walsh and shortage/long diamond, but it works just as well with "natural" minors. You just have to make sure they fit in with the whole system so you don't miss out on being able to handle other hand types.

[Zelandakh]

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my

partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens

one of a major.

That's essentially what I do, although "Bergen" is not strictly right (see above). After a 1m opening, you might also consider Reverse Flannery - that can be quite valuable in Standard.

[Vampyr]

I play mostly against advanced+, and mostly IRL, hardly playing online anymore, so I'm going to just ignore your uncalled for ad hominem attack.

 

I love it when people disagree with or are offended by something someone else posts, so they call it an ad hominem attack, clearly without knowing what that means.

[Codo]

I'm convinced fit showing is the most effective way of playing jump shifts. At least for 5-card major openings systems.

1M - 3m. Any 5+m hand with 4+M support worth forcing to game. Axxx x xxx AKxxx. Partner opens 1♠. Bid 3♣. This sequence occurs with relatively high frequency.

 

I am convinced that this is just true for competetive auctions.

 

Frequency is not all that matters. And hands like your example are easily bidden with standard tools.

Whether it it is worth to have Bergen as some more way to show different types of raises is another matter, but if I had to switch, it would be to some kind of non-fittig hands, like weak or interm. one-suiters.

[jogs]

I am convinced that this is just true for competetive auctions.

 

Frequency is not all that matters. And hands like your example are easily bidden with standard tools.

Whether it it is worth to have Bergen as some more way to show different types of raises is another matter, but if I had to switch, it would be to some kind of non-fittig hands, like weak or interm. one-suiters.

 

Non-fitting hands are easy. Just bid less.

 

I like the Robson/Segal term 'contested auctions'.

 

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

Think few partnerships would find slam with this pair of hands.

[Codo]

Non fitting hands are Easy?

Okay, in a 2/1 contest, how exactly do you bid x,xx,xxx,KQTxxxx and x,Ax,xxx,KQJxxxx over 1 ♠ from partner? (If the first is a pass for you, add a jack or whatever fits your style, if the second is a 2/1 rebid, make it a little weaker.)

 

And with your example hands:

 

In a standard system, you may or may not reach slam. Both hands are borderline for bidding on. But Axxx xxx x AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx are the same hands- and here game is the limit.

So, why do you think reaching slam with fitjumps is easy? 1 ♠ 3 ♣ and now?

Am I obliged to show my control always? Or can I show minimum hands with or without a second fit too?

[fromageGB]

I love it when people disagree with or are offended by something someone else posts, so they call it an ad hominem attack, clearly without knowing what that means.

I thought it meant an attack by terrorists with long black beards.

[woefuwabit]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

11 opposite 12. Nearly cold for slam. Can only get there by playing fit jumps.

 

Expected tricks is more than just total high card points and total trumps.

It helps to have a double fit and a source of tricks.

 

I would say that Axxx x xxx AKxxx is too strong a hand for a FJS. With this hand I would bid 2♣ GF.

 

The way I play it, FJS shows a hand that is below a Limit Raise in HCP, but equivalent in playing strength. Most of the time it would be a 54 hand with 8 LTC, and less than 10 HCP. So this hand qualifies:

 

Axxx x xxx Kxxxx

 

Without a FJS, you will have to choose between making a mixed raise or normal raise which would be an underbid. If you choose to make a limit raise instead, you show the true playing value of your hand, but your partner is likely to make a wrong decision if he/she has to 1) decide on a game, 2) decide to attempt a slam, 3) decide to make a penalty double

 

Now take a look back at the opener hand that you mentioned earlier: KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

This hand would generally not accept a generic limit raise invite, nor make a game try over a normal or mixed raise.

However over a 3♣ FJS invite, it would be an easy accept and an easily made game.

 

Now imagine if you make a limit raise and opener has KQJxx AQJ AQxx x

 

You'd be lucky to stop in 5♠, which may not even make. With a FJS opener knows to avoid slam.

[jogs]

I would say that Axxx x xxx AKxxx is too strong a hand for a FJS. With this hand I would bid 2♣ GF.

 

The way I play it, FJS shows a hand that is below a Limit Raise in HCP, but equivalent in playing strength. Most of the time it would be a 54 hand with 8 LTC, and less than 10 HCP. So this hand qualifies:

 

Axxx x xxx Kxxxx

 

Without a FJS, you will have to choose between making a mixed raise or normal raise which would be an underbid. If you choose to make a limit raise instead, you show the true playing value of your hand, but your partner is likely to make a wrong decision if he/she has to 1) decide on a game, 2) decide to attempt a slam, 3) decide to make a penalty double

 

Now take a look back at the opener hand that you mentioned earlier: KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

This hand would generally not accept a generic limit raise invite, nor make a game try over a normal or mixed raise.

However over a 3♣ FJS invite, it would be an easy accept.

 

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

[aguahombre]

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

If those esteemed folks defined a fit jump as that, and created a forcing pass with it, then wonderful for them. A lot of us use it as merely a tool to let partner decide what to do (a descriptive type of mixed raise). Apparently this is another example of why we shouldn't use names for treatments or conventions.

 

Edit: On second thought, having not read those references either, could it be that Robson/Segal and then Manfield were writing about a fit-jump method of first response in uncontested auctions ---and that since we only use them in competitive situations we are really discussing apples and oranges?

Edited November 8, 2012 by aguahombre

[woefuwabit]

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

 

Are you suggesting that my preferred treatment is inferior just because I did not read read the articles and the book?

[jogs]

Non fitting hands are Easy?

Okay, in a 2/1 contest, how exactly do you bid x,xx,xxx,KQTxxxx and x,Ax,xxx,KQJxxxx over 1 ♠ from partner? (If the first is a pass for you, add a jack or whatever fits your style, if the second is a 2/1 rebid, make it a little weaker.)

 

I have no idea what are the expected tricks with clubs as trumps with either of those hands opposite a 1♠ open.

Probably no one else knows either. No system can cater to all hands. The idea is to attempt to maximize our expected score. No system is capable of collecting the best result on every board. While you are concern with finding the ideal spot with possible misfit hands, I'm more interesting in catering to hands that fit. Manfield explains that when playing fit jumps partner will know immediately whether our hands fit. This will assist him in 4 and 5 level decisions on whether to double, bid on or pass.

 

And with your example hands:

 

In a standard system, you may or may not reach slam. Both hands are borderline for bidding on. But Axxx xxx x AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx are the same hands- and here game is the limit.

So, why do you think reaching slam with fitjumps is easy? 1 ♠ 3 ♣ and now?

Am I obliged to show my control always? Or can I show minimum hands with or without a second fit too?

 

Not easy, the fit jump shows the possibility of 5 tricks in a side suit in addition to the 5 tricks in the trump suit. Most players seem to think a 12-3 hand is always minimum for opening. While this is true at the time of the opening bid, during a slam auction any hand with four controls is better than minimum.

1♠ - 3♣

 

KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

This hand has the ♦A(2 controls), ♠KQ(1 1/2 controls), and the ♣QJ. The ♣QJ is known to be working. That's why it is worth a 3♦ cuebid.

 

KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

 

This hand is not worth cuebidding. The ♥QJ is of unknown value.

[Zelandakh]

Edit: On second thought, having not read those references either, could it be that Robson/Segal and then Manfield were writing about a fit-jump method of first response in uncontested auctions ---and that since we only use them in competitive situations we are really discussing apples and oranges?

Robson/Segal only deals with competitive auctions. A follow-up book on uncontested auctions was planned but never published. As for forcing passes, R-S had a very simple rule for when they apply over a FSJ:

 

A fit-jump or splinter-jump only sets up a forcing pass if you are at ‘red’ and are raising to the four level (or higher)

 

The reason for this is very simple - a FSJ does not say we hold the balance of power. It says that we hold the offensive strength for the level we are raising to. They go into the details of this in the book, essentially saying that the "balance of power" requirement being suggested restricts the usage too much against the trade-offs. Without reading the book, the other posters seem to have come to much the same conclusion.

[aguahombre]

Thank you. That sounds like "We declare or double the opponents if they declare." was not an accurate summation of R/S' method, and that they actually treated the fit jump pretty much like most of us do.

[jogs]

Thank you. That sounds like "We declare or double the opponents if they declare." was not an accurate summation of R/S' method, and that they actually treated the fit jump pretty much like most of us do.

 

You're right. R/S seem to recommend fjs with about a king lighter than Manfield. Although with 6-4 and 5-5 I would make a fjs with all his examples. Manfield used the fjs to set up the singleton rule on the 5 level.

[Antig2]

Weak jump response is probably ok to use. What is the idea to use this way of bidding. If you want to create difficulty to opponents you also create difficulty to your partner. Such situations are usually hard to handle. In this way partner has no chance for rebid. It is better to have as many bids as possible if the opponents win the contract which is often the case with long suits even if they have less points. Lets look this example.

1♦-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥.

(Jump response and standard sequence.).Both auctions describe the same hands.

 

In such auctions the points are often equal and the opponents often bid 2♠. In the second auction the defenders have more information and may organize a better defence.

 

Of course such auctions are usually complicated and even experts have a problem to find the right bid. In my opinion it is better to use the second way, but this is a matter of personal choice.In this way it is much easier to bid the slam hands (if jump response of 2♥ shows a possibility for slam) and slams often decide team matches. I think a novice/beginner should try to bid constructively. While destructive bidding may have some advantages it is for experts only and not a prefered way to play in bbo.