rgheath Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 I am working my way through Mike Lawrence'd instructional CD on 2/1. I see that he recommends the use of invitational JS at the 3 level . That is 1X- 3Y where Y is a lower ranking suit. Applies when X is majors or diamonds. You have to give up Bergen raises and Mike usually gives the pros/cons of various treatments but does not say much on this issue other than you have to give up Bergen. Can anyone point me to an article, book that discusses this point. Also how common is the usage of invitational JS at the expert level? Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 IMO you need to be able to split the hands short of GF values into two ranges - invitational and weak. If you play 2/1 as totally GF, then your jump-shifts need to cover one of these ranges. I'm not sure whether I prefer WJS or IJS. In his book on 2/1, Lawrence suggests that sequences like 1S:2C, 2S:3C should be invitational. IIRC 1S:3C is then a strong-jump shift. Personally, I'd be quite happy to lose Bergen raises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Personally, I'd be quite happy to lose Bergen raises. I love 1S-3S to be weak preemptive raise.... This is the "reason" many choose to play Bergen. The enlightened (aka, me... :D ) use a limit raise or better "jacoby 2NT" so all the bergen hands are rolled into that bid... this leave 3♣ and 3♦ to be whatever you want... weak jump shift, strong jump shift, invitational with the suit, fit jump. It is up to you. I use to use them for fit jumps, but I have switched to invitational with bid suit which seems more useful. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 I play these with the partners that insist on "2/1 = 100% GF". Otherwise the 1N response gets overloaded with 5-12 point single suiters. Of course, I prefer to play Lawrence style where a 2/1 isn't a 100% GF/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Personally, I'd be quite happy to lose Bergen raises. I love 1S-3S to be weak preemptive raise.... This is the "reason" many choose to play Bergen. The enlightened (aka, me... :blink: ) use a limit raise or better "jacoby 2NT" so all the bergen hands are rolled into that bid... this leave 3♣ and 3♦ to be whatever you want... weak jump shift, strong jump shift, invitational with the suit, fit jump. It is up to you. I use to use them for fit jumps, but I have switched to invitational with bid suit which seems more useful. Ben Funny you mention this. I cooked up a scheme of major suit raises which very much looks like yours. The only difference is I play 1M 3x as an inv+ splinter. Since the splinter is given at a very low level, you have loads of bidding space to find out about extras/voids, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 why (and when) did the under & over jump shifts lose favor? you know, under j/s showing a limit splinter and over j/s a stronger one? it makes it simple to show the bergen constructive and limit bids that are more balanced (for example, 1H/3D would be an under j/s so 1H/3C would show 7-11.. 3D by opener, if he'd go to game vs. a limit raise, asks which type raise responder has) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I play them because I think you lose a lot of space if you play that: 1S 2C2 bananas 3C is not forcing. If I have to jump to the 4 level to show a game force with 6+ good clubs I want to play another system. Generally I find that the difference between the 6-9 Bergen raise and the 6-9 3 card support (single raise) is not so necessary, so as long as you can make pre-emptive and limit raises without overloading J2NT. 1 pair I know uses their Jacoby 2NT as limit +, but all of their continuations are designed for deciding when to bid game and when to stop in 3. Pointless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 why (and when) did the under & over jump shifts lose favor? you know, under j/s showing a limit splinter and over j/s a stronger one? it makes it simple to show the bergen constructive and limit bids that are more balanced (for example, 1H/3D would be an under j/s so 1H/3C would show 7-11.. 3D by opener, if he'd go to game vs. a limit raise, asks which type raise responder has) Well, you can use, say 1H 2S = inv splinter (any suit)1H 3C = strong splinter (any suit)1H 3D = very strong (or void) splinter (any suit) but I prefer to use 1H 2S/3C/3D = inv+ splinter because it gives the shape right away, and can occasionally save a tiny bit of bidding space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 im a big fan of IJS, and one of my partners (david grainger) is a big fan of them too, but also a big fan of the 1-3 jump being preemptive. Our compromise is J/S in the other major=limit, 2N=GF, and 3 of a minor is invitational. If you have invitational with hearts you can bid 1S-1N-2x-3H and it will still be a jump unless partner bids 2S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I feel that these invitational jump shifts are a must, as I really want to play a semi-forcing 1NT response. Hands with a good long suit (especially hearts over spades)often play really well opposite a fitting hand, and I would hate to bid 1NT with them. I also play 2NT as limit raise or better and 3M as weak as others do. I have played this for several years now and I'm quite confortable with it. I don't think that this overloads Jacoby 2NT, and there are many good Jacoby structures on the market. Since recently I play that we bid 1M-2C with a 3-card limit raise to further unload the 1NT response. This requires some serious discussion, but I think that this is a big improvement for the whole structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Since recently I play that we bid 1M-2C with a 3-card limit raise to further unload the 1NT response. This requires some serious discussion, but I think that this is a big improvement for the whole structure. I like this too... drury after all seats is neat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Since recently I play that we bid 1M-2C with a 3-card limit raise to further unload the 1NT response. This requires some serious discussion, but I think that this is a big improvement for the whole structure. I like this too... drury after all seats is neat Ben, I remember a BBO commentator said Drury is one of the worst convention. Do you know why? (I like 4 seats drury as you do) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.