Strong Jump Shifts - why are they so good?

[Gerben47]

I would like to understand the advantages of this treatment.

 

How do you use them and is it really so good?

WJS (5 - 8 HCP or so) really solve some problems compared to SJS and WJS are usually motivated in this way. How would you motivate SJS to a WJS player?

 

(Assume a WJS structure where for example 1D - 1M ; 2C - 2M is invitational and 3M is game forcing)

[helene_t]

Mike Lawrence writes in his 2/1 Workbook that strong jump shifts enables him to show some specific hands that can't be shown otherwise (solid suit, or a 5-card plus a 5-card fit). The problem with not playing SJS is that almost all strong hands have to go via FSF. I wonder if a better treatment of respoonder's second bid (such as the "new suit invitational" suggested by Hannie) would make SJS obsolete.

 

Another advantage of SJS is that opener immediately knows what kind of information responder needs. It is not a priority to find a fit in a 3rd suit so he should show concentration of strength (or singletons) rather than a second long suit.

[MickyB]

I play your WJS structure as well, but it isn't without problems - you have to make WJS on some fairly nasty hands (3 card support for partner's minor, 4 cards in the other major, awful suit etc). SJS can help your bidding on hands that can be worth a lot of IMPs.

[Free]

I used to play transfer jump shift over 1♣ openings: jump is transfer to the next suit, either weak or GF (example 1♣-2♦ = 6+♥ weak or GF) :rolleyes: This combines both at the cost of a jumpshift at 2-level in ♦. After other openings however, it's not as simple to play these. :rolleyes:

 

Imo slam bidding after SJS is a lot easier, but WJS is nice preemptive. It depends on what you prefer, it's (as always) a matter of style.

[Gerben47]

Micky: with an awful suit you can reevaluate your suit to a 5-card suit.

Also with a side 4-card major you might want to treat the hand as a 5-4. Basically decide before you make a bid if you respond 1M or 2M.

 

Edit: I checked some top pair's CC:

 

Fantoni Nunes: SJS but can be 5 cards. Forced by system as 1-level bids are limited but no lower limit.

 

Lauria-Versace: After 1♣: 2♦ WJS in either major, 2M show trouble hands. After 1♦ limited fit jumps (4♦ and 5+M)

 

Bocchi Duboin: Invitational jump shifts, 1♣ - 2♦ = Flannery hand. After 1♦ CC does not say (the same?)

 

Auken - v Arnim: Weak jump shifts (after 1♦, 1♣ = Precision)

 

Hamman - Soloway: Strong jump shifts (after 1♦, 1♣ = Precision)

 

Brink - vProoijen: Invitational jump shifts, 1♣ - 2♦ Multi (weak jump shift in major)

 

So maybe we should play invitational jump shifts :rolleyes:

[Chamaco]

SJS are good for hands where responder needs to take control.

 

This is not so easy in natural bidding, whereas Relayers can take control with a relay without the need of a SJS.

 

Therefore, if you have a strong relay to take over after your pard's 1m opener, and just haveing opener describe his hand, you might not need SJS.

 

So, let's consider natural bidding

 

[hv=d=n&n=sxhxxdakxxxcakxxx&s=skqjtxxxxhadxxxcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

North opens 1D

South, from the start, knows he will need cuebids: asking for aces won't help, because if opener has one ace only we may have 2 suits unguarded.

 

Natural bidding without SJS, uncontested:

 

1D:1S

2C:2H*= 4sf, a wannabe attempt to be able to show a strong 1suiter

3C:3S

?

 

And now ?

From opener's viewpoint, responder can have a myriad of hand types.

If opener bids 4C or 4D, it will debatable whether it is a cue or natural: responder will often have to guess, gambling on the fact that "opener must have some honors somewhere", but I do not think this is reliable bidding.

 

I would not be happy to explain to my teammates that we overbid to 5/6S down 1 because I simply gambled that "pard must have something somewhere". :-)

 

I much prefer a scheme where responder can gather explicit infomation on side suit controls.

 

 

Let's see with SJS

 

1D:2S*

3C:3S** (sets trumps, asks cue)

4C:4H*** (either cue, or Last Train- I prefer LTTC)

5H****:6D*****

6S

 

 

****= Lackwood: asks to respond keycards if holding first round control in the Last Train suit, to bid directly small slam if holding 2nd round control

*****= 2KC + trump queen.

 

Now regardless of whether using or not tools such as Last Train and Lackwood, setting early the trump suit is useful when all responder needs is the knowledge of sidesuit controls.

[Chamaco]

Edit: I checked some top pair's CC:

Yeah, as I said in another post, I believe both approaches have merits :-)

 

Actualy in my post (2m responses over Precision 1D) I was trying to verify whether with a small price (giving up explicit invitational hands with 2 of a minor) one could have the best of both world :-)

[Rebound]

I agree that it comes down to which you deem to be more valuable: on strong hands a SJS makes it much easier to investigate slam, on weak hands a WJS is good way to preempt the opponents and clearly describe your hand.

 

OT:

I strongly prefer SJS. To me, WJS is a new idea lol. I've been wondering how long it's been in common use. A great many players I've run into on BBO view it as standard - this took me by surprise, lemme tell ya! So, at the risk of sounding like a dummy, I'd like to ask, when did WJS replace SJS in "standard" bidding?

[Gerben42]

Chamaco: Your example hand is a good hand for a 1-suited hand that goes through 1♠ and 3♠ directly: game forcing and no interest in alternative trump suits.

 

Suggested auction: yours but starting with

1D - 1S

2C - 3S

[MickyB]

Micky: with an awful suit you can reevaluate your suit to a 5-card suit.

Also with a side 4-card major you might want to treat the hand as a 5-4. Basically decide before you make a bid if you respond 1M or 2M.

 

Edit: I checked some top pair's CC:

 

[snip]

 

So maybe we should play invitational jump shifts :)

Sure, you can decide to treat the 6 card suit as being only 5, but that will cause a bad result on a different set of hands for opener. Obviously I believe that the merits of the structure outweigh these losses, otherwise I wouldn't play it!

 

Presumably people playing IJS play a jump rebid forcing, as we do, so the only difference is reversing the bidding of the intermediate hands and the weak hands. I suspect that WJS is the better method at the 2 level - the 'problem hands' that I mentioned for WJS exist for IJS as well, but they are more likely to cost due to the increased probability of game being on for our side. WJS also preempt when it is most likely that game will be on for the opps. Against that, if opps obstruct the auction after you have responded at the 1 level, you are happier not bidding again if you are weak than if you are intermediate.

 

IJS come into their own when opener could have a weak NT and a 1NT response would be NF, because 3NT could well depend on whether partner has a fitting honour.

[MickyB]

Chamaco: Your example hand is a good hand for a 1-suited hand that goes through 1♠ and 3♠ directly: game forcing and no interest in alternative trump suits.

 

Suggested auction: yours but starting with

1D - 1S

2C - 3S

How do you bid when you have 6 spades and you are open to playing in NT or possibly another suit?

[Chamaco]

Chamaco: Your example hand is a good hand for a 1-suited hand that goes through 1♠ and 3♠ directly: game forcing and no interest in alternative trump suits.

 

Suggested auction: yours but starting with

1D - 1S

2C - 3S

Sure, one cannot have it all. :-)

 

The auction you suggest is based on weak/intermediate JS (so that a simple major rebid at the level of 2 would be invitational).

 

But then again, you lose the ability of Flannery/Reverse Flannery/55M types of hands :-)

So, again, there is a tradeoff.

 

I think the discussion was raised to understand on which type of hands SJS gains, and by now it should be relatiley clear when/where it gains and loses:

it does gain on those rare slammish hands where responder needs to take control. Yes, they are rare and probably a net loss at MP, but probably a net gain at IMPS.

 

And yes, you may stick those hands into the 2nd round jump rebid of te major, but this conditions the rest of the structure and you'll find anyway some hands where you lose.

 

So, I guess it's just a matter of tastes :-)

[TimG]

(Assume a WJS structure where for example 1D - 1M ; 2C - 2M is invitational and 3M is game forcing)

Assuming that, how is opener supposed to know whether 3Mis a simple game force or maybe a little bit more -- slam interest? Opener can make a courtesy cue-bid on the way to 4M, but how is responder supposed to know whether opener is just being courteous or has some extras?

 

I think one drawback to 2/1 is players' reluctance to ever jump with extras. Some would open 1S and rebid 2S after a GF 2/1 with any hand with 6 (non-solid) spades, whether it has 12 or 18 HCP. I think the same sort of mentality is present with those who don't like SJS: no need to jump about when you can establish forces other ways, but this often makes slam exploration more difficult (or more of a stab in the dark).

 

Tim

[luis]

I think that if your style allows light openings and you are playing 2/1 then Invitational Jump Shifts are sound otherwise your forcing NT is a complete mess.

If you play sound openings (I think you don't, I think you shouldn't!) then SJS or WJS are good options.

 

Over major openings I prefer to play jumps as mini-splinter with invitational hands that can play game with no waste opposite the singleton.

Over minors WJS are fine making competition harder.

[Stephen Tu]

it does gain on those rare slammish hands where responder needs to take control

 

This is the wrong view to take IMO. It's actually best for slammish hands where responder wants to relinquish control, describe his hand to partner and let partner decide what to do / what features to show. SJS when you want to show what you have rather than find out what partner has.

[EricK]

One benefit of playing SJS is that they immediately tell opener which features of his hand are likely to be important and which unimportant.

 

eg ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AKQxx ♣Jxxx

 

If the bidding starts 1♦ 1♠ then you will likely bid 2♣ because you don't know yet if partner is interested in part score, game or slam or what strain he wants to play in. But if he responds 2♠ instead then you know that he isn't interested in your measly ♣ suit so you can rebid 3♦ and then support his ♠, showing him exactly what help you have for him.

 

Eric

[cherdano]

Chamaco: Your example hand is a good hand for a 1-suited hand that goes through 1♠ and 3♠ directly: game forcing and no interest in alternative trump suits.

 

Suggested auction: yours but starting with

1D - 1S

2C - 3S

How do you bid when you have 6 spades and you are open to playing in NT or possibly another suit?

If you play 2♥ as 4th suit forcing to game, you can bid 2♥ then 3♠. This should be a COG hand with 6 spades.

 

Arend