Advancing a jump shift

[Mbodell]

You are playing matchpoints all white and 2/1 with Bergen (so 3♣/1♠ is a spade raise not a weak JS or invitational JS). You are not a regular partnership and have to fall back on "expert standard" over jump shifts. What is the expert standard bid here and how do you envision the auction going? Is there a good primer on this? When asked there are at least 3 calls that get support from various good players.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhj6d8654cqjt643&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1n(forcing)p3d(nat%20GF)p]133|200[/hv]

[mike777]

5d

 

 

pard could have just bid 2d to show extras with long spades

this is important, very important

 

1) 3d shows more much more in d and huge hand compared to 2d

2) 5d shows less much less than 4d now.

3) please note that means you cannot, cannot rebid 2d with any normal opening bid....2d shows extras...

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

 

 

Of course you can play with other agreements.

[Vampyr]

3) please note that means you cannot, cannot rebid 2d with any normal opening bid....2d shows extras...

 

In what universe?

[mike777]

In what universe?

 

 

a universe where 2s is forced with minimum.

 

Or do not open the hand.

 

 

2/1 not gf.

-------

 

Of course you can play other agreements.

[aguahombre]

5D to show a horrible hand with 4 Diamonds would be fine if 3D will always be natural, and not some invented stall with long spades.

 

Bergen raises preventing a 3C response immediately have created this problem. If I were allowed to bid 3C, 3D as a rebid would be natural and strong and forcing. We could get back to a 5D raise showing four of them and the same bad hand.

 

So, I don't get a vote since I can't find a solution with the conditions. If there were a gun to my head, I would have to bid 4D and hope partner can sign off in 4S. If she really has diamonds, however, she will have no idea how good or bad this responding hand is; we will have bypassed 3NT and rot will set in.

[aguahombre]

a universe where 2s is forced with minimum.

 

Or do not open the hand.

 

 

2/1 not gf.

-------

 

Of course you can play other agreements.

Since 2/1 is stipulated, why are you saying these things?

[mike777]

Since 2/1 is stipulated, why are you saying these things?

 

thanks missed that.. but still I think you can play 2d shows extras in a 2/1 univ. which was the Q

 

granted you need to be prepared to open the bidding in first or second seat or pass if 2d promises extras.

 

Or as posters point out; as you point out.....3d can lead to confusion.

[Stephen Tu]

thanks missed that.. but still I think you can play 2d shows extras in a 2/1 univ. which was the Q

 

How is this playable? Isn't this just a great way to frequently play 5-1 spade fits when 9 or 10 card diamond fits are available? With 5341/5x5x opposite 1x5x etc.

 

It seems to me there are a lot better methods available if you want 3♦ to absolutely promise diamonds, like Gazzilli, Meckstroth adjunct, or using 3♣ artificial, moving the strong 1-suiters into a different rebid, without having to open 1♠ and rebid 2♠ on 9xxxx x AKJxx Ax

[Jinksy]

At IMPs I'll bid 5♦ (assuming P could have rebid 3N to show such as AKTxxx KQ QJx Ax).

 

At MPs I'll go with Hamman.

[PhilKing]

Do not jump to 5♦!

 

In my view it's a pretty significant mistake to play "fast arrival" in the minors. I prefer to use it to show a mild slam try with good trumps and not much else. But that's not the main reason it's a mistake - the silver bullet is that you often need to give partner the chance to offer 4♠ as a contract. So I would raise to 4♦ here, and pass if he continues with 4♠ holding something like:

 

♠AKJTxx

♥Qx

♦AKQx

♣x

[Zelandakh]

How do you play 3♥ followed by 4♦/5♦, Phil?

[PhilKing]

How do you play 3♥ followed by 4♦/5♦, Phil?

 

If I bid 3♥ and pard bids (for instance) 4♥, 5♦ would be undiscussed, but I guess a cue for hearts. If I want to cue hearts, I have to jump to 4♥ over 3♦ (usually showing the ace).

 

I don't see why 3♥ then 4♦ is not just natural (64 or good 54).

[mikeh]

I would bid 3♠ and think it is clearly the correct call.

 

He is allowed to pattern out with 4♦, over which I will bid 5, but if he is 5=4 in the pointed suits, I would far rather play 4♠ than 5♦.

[billw55]

I would bid 3♠ and think it is clearly the correct call.

 

He is allowed to pattern out with 4♦, over which I will bid 5, but if he is 5=4 in the pointed suits, I would far rather play 4♠ than 5♦.

But won't partner take 3♠ as preference? Which does not really seem right, the Q is nice for a stiff but still not worth 4 small? I mean, what if he ends the auction by "correcting" 6♦ back to 6♠?

 

 

 

 

 

[mikeh]

But won't partner take 3♠ as preference? Which does not really seem right, the Q is nice for a stiff but still not worth 4 small? I mean, what if he ends the auction by "correcting" 6♦ back to 6♠?

 

Well, yes, he will take it as preference but I don't see why he would be likely to want to later correct diamonds to spades, and if he held a hand on which that made sense, I venture to suggest that the stiff spade Q would be as valuable as xx.

 

What I want to do is to slow the auction down, while allowing partner, who has the big hand, a reasonably cheap opportunity to make a further descriptive call..

 

Wouldn't we all bid 3♠ on xx Jx xxx KQxxxx? Tell me how the preference on Q xxxx is likely to cost?

 

As for your more general point, discussions like this tend to be circular.

 

I say: 3♠ is the standout bid. I know that I can call in aid theorists such as Kokish, but I would rather show why the call makes sense than make an appeal to authority.

 

Since, to me, 3♠ is clearly right, my partner, who shares my views, will be fully alive to the fact that if I later 'prefer' diamonds, it is because I have at least 2 more diamonds than spades.

 

However, if to you, this is too much of a distortion, then your partner, who shares your views, may well take a call that works out poorly, expecting better spades (at least, better in comparison to the diamonds).

 

So imo we need to consider the merits of the calls without worrying how partner may take it. Obviously, if I thought partner would see 3♠ on this hand as misguided, I wouldn't make the call, altho I would later try to persuade him to think about it.

 

3♠ on stiff Q will work as well or better than 3♠ on xx most of the time, and imo by a wide margin. Consider what the jumpshift will usually show. It is worth noting that for me the jumpshift is truly a BIG hand. I don't auto jumpshift just because I hold, say, 18 hcp. I may do it on 17, but if so I hold two very good suits.

 

By bidding 3♠, I keep the bidding low. I am not guessing as to whether he holds a 5=4 hand. Bear in mind that for most a bid of 4♠ over a 4♦ raise by us suggests a good 6 card suit, yet there are many, many layouts on which a 5-1 spade fit is the best game, especially at mps, where 620 beats 600.

 

Consider AKJxx Ax AKJxx x

 

Where would you like to play this hand? I know I'd rather play in 4 spades than 5 diamonds.

 

What about AJ10xxx Ax AKQx x?

 

I don't mean to say that 4♠ is always superior, nor that bidding 3♠ is the only way to get to a good spade game, but I do mean that it will be easier to find 4♠ when it is best, by bidding 3♠, while still affording every chance of reaching diamonds, including slam, when that it better. However, that requires that partner understand the approach, which gets me back to the circularity of this type of argument.

[wank]

But won't partner take 3♠ as preference? Which does not really seem right, the Q is nice for a stiff but still not worth 4 small? I mean, what if he ends the auction by "correcting" 6♦ back to 6♠?

 

it's false preference in exactly the same way as you bid 1s-1nt-2d-2s with 2s and 4d an an 8 count.

 

you don't know you belong in diamonds. if you bid 4d you can't play 3nt and it should show more or better diamonds. you can't bid 3n with pony hearts. 3s is the only sensible option left unless you want to pass 3d, which is what i would actually do and earn the ire of the partnership trust brigade.

[mikeh]

it's false preference in exactly the same way as you bid 1s-1nt-2d-2s with 2s and 4d an an 8 count.

 

you don't know you belong in diamonds. if you bid 4d you can't play 3nt and it should show more or better diamonds. you can't bid 3n with pony hearts. 3s is the only sensible option left unless you want to pass 3d, which is what i would actually do and earn the ire of the partnership trust brigade.

I've known people to fake a jumpshift into a minor. Admittedly, clubs are the usual suspect here, and indeed I like Jeff's Magic Elixir, which uses 1♠ then 3♣ as artificial, gf, primarily to allow a 3♥ jump to guarantee 5 hearts, tho I prefer 3♣ to show either 4 hearts, or real clubs, or simply a massive one suiter, almost a 2♣ bid.

 

However, not everyone has seen the wisdom of this approach ( :D ) and some would shudder at bidding, say, 3♣ on some huge 6=3=3=1, not quite good enough to open 2♣ and wrong, for any number of reasons, for 4♠ or 3N. Such would bid 3♦, and be perplexed/apoplexic to see dummy coming down.

[MrAce]

Mike777, 2♠ shows 6 card spade so I do not understand what you mean by 2♦ showing extras.

 

I think how we should continue over 3♦ is obvious. Bid 4♦ and pass if pd bids 4♠. Pd can have 6-7 ♠ and 3 card diamond as well as 5♠ + 5♦. Just show him what you got and if he has the long spade version he will bid 4♠.

 

5♦ is awful bid imho.

[Trump Echo]

I'd raise to 4♦

[ArtK78]

You hold:

 

AKJT9xx AQ AQx x

 

The auction starts:

 

1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (P)

 

What is your call?

 

I suspect that many players (if not most players) who do not have any specialized gadget would bid 3♦ on these cards. Slam in spades is virtually cold opposite:

 

xxx Kxx Kxx xxxx

 

and has play opposite other hands consistent with a forcing NT response.

 

My point is to show how hopeless it is for partner to raise diamonds (especially 5♦) on the hand in the OP. A diamond raise by responder should show 5 (and probably 6) diamonds with no more than a singleton small spade.

[gwnn]

You hold:

 

AKJT9xx AQ AQx x

 

The auction starts:

 

1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (P)

 

What is your call?

 

I suspect that many players (if not most players) who do not have any specialized gadget would bid 3♦ on these cards. Slam in spades is virtually cold opposite:

 

xxx Kxx Kxx xxxx

 

and has play opposite other hands consistent with a forcing NT response.

 

My point is to show how hopeless it is for partner to raise diamonds (especially 5♦) on the hand in the OP. A diamond raise by responder should show 5 (and probably 6) diamonds with no more than a singleton small spade.

4C is fine with that hand but I prefer 2C initially. I respect 3S on the stiff Q (I wouldn't ever say it is hopeless) but I like 4D more, planning to pass a 4S rerebid by opener.

[GrahamJson]

Some here play a system that is very strange to me. 4D seems the obvious bid. I certainly wouldn't expect anything like the huge hands opposite that some have suggested, although clearly he should have good values.

[wank]

that's a 2c opener. partner won't have that.

[helene_t]

Mike777, it is a very unusual agreement that 2♦ would show extras. Even if 1NT is not forcing, 2♦ is normal with a 5-5 11-count.

 

I thought it was forum standard to rebid 3♦ on some strong 6331 hands so I voted 4♣ but maybe 4♦ is better, p will either have 4+ diamonds or 6+ spades so either way his rebid will probably take us to the best game.

[mikeh]

I agree that Art's example looks like a 2♣ opener to me, and I suspect that he would be in a tiny minority were he to open 1♠ in real life. Make it AKJxxxx Ax AQx x, and he'd have a lot more company (altho even then I suspect some would open 2♣), and now his basic argument is valid, unless one played that one could self-splinter to the 4 level, which I don't. If one does, then make it AKJxxxx x AQx Ax. Maybe some splinter in hearts, but I play it as a pronounced 2-suiter, with tricks and not hcp (hence not 3♥). A typical hand would be 6-6.

 

I may be doing the diamond bidders a disservice, but I think that their arguments, as I see them here, really boil down to 'Partner won't understand/expect 3♠ on this hand, so I won't do it'. I haven't seen any arguments about what makes 3♠ a worse choice than 4♦ other than this expectation issue. Since in my partnerships, 3♠ is understood to include a 'punt', the 'he won't expect this' is irrelevant and my partners and I can make our choices based on the bridge merits of the action.

 

Now, if the diamond bidders view that their choice is superior on bridge factors, great....and I'd enjoy reading them, since they may persuade me.

 

Note that I am not claiming I would never raise diamonds. Give me, say, Q Jxx Qxxx Axxxx and I would bid 4♦ because this hand has real slam aspirations and should partner hold real diamonds, I am not the least bit afraid of 5♦. The actual hand is a piece of crap, to the point that one poster suggested passing a forcing bid! I don't have any desire to play 5♦ on a 4-4 fit or even many 5-4 fits, if 4♠ is a reasonable spot on a 5-1. Partner is NEVER bidding 4♠ to play on a 5 card suit, since our failure to bid 3♠ tends to deny as many as 2 cards in the suit, and our possession of the spade Q means his suit will look broken to him.