Weak jump shift

[VixTD]

This occurred in the club pairs championship last night:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3h87dk975cqt985&w=shak9daj8643cj432&n=sk976hq642dqcak76&e=sajt8542hjt53dt2c&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1dd2sp3dp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

There were no alerts during the auction. East's 2♠ was intended as a natural weak jump-shift (this was their actual agreement). I was called at the end of the auction by South who said that they all knew what the 2♠ bid was, but wanted to know if the 3♠ rebid could have been based on unauthorized information from the failure to alert 2♠. (West scowled and berated himself for not alerting.)

 

I said I couldn't help them at this point, but that they should call me back at the end of play if they wanted a ruling.

 

Result: 3♠(E)=, lead ♥8, NS -140 (1 / 8 MPs)

 

EBU TDs are invited to supply chapter and verse of any alerting regulations that apply here, as if answering a TD exam.

 

I also invite comments on East's 3♠ rebid.

[StevenG]

I didn't think the 2♠ was alertable and I can't quickly see anything in the 2015 Blue Book (the last I downloaded) to suggest it might be.

 

As for the 3♠ rebid, it seems to me normal to rebid a 7-card major over a partial fit in a minor, at least at pairs.

[helene_t]

I don't think 2♠ is alertable. Anyway, even if it is alertable, does the failure to alert it (and, hence, the suggestion that it might have been interpretted as strong) make 3♠ more attractive? I would think the opposite: If I were afraid that p might think I was strong I would like to pass ASAP before the wheels fall off.

[RMB1]

EBU TDs are invited to supply chapter and verse of any alerting regulations that apply here, as if answering a TD exam.

 

Assuming 2♠ is NF, it alertable: BB 4H2(c)(3)

4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

...

(c) Responses to a non-forcing opening bid of one of a suit:

...

(3) A non-forcing new suit response below game,

unless responder has previously passed, bids over a natural NT overcall, or makes a double jump

[lamford]

I agree with RMB1 who beat me to it. 3S looks the normal bid. You have a seventh spade, and whether partner's 3D is constructive or not it is the bid you would have made if he had alerted 2S as weak. No adjustment for me.

[Vampyr]

I agree with RMB1 who beat me to it. 3S looks the normal bid. You have a seventh spade, and whether partner's 3D is constructive or not it is the bid you would have made if he had alerted 2S as weak. No adjustment for me.

 

You agree with Robin? Well, so do I, but he supplied the regulation that confirms that 2♠ is alertable, and did not express an opinion about 3♠. He may or may not agree with your opinion, but it is not up to you to decide.

[VixTD]

Assuming 2♠ is NF, it alertable: BB 4H2(c)(3)

When the auction was initially explained to me it wasn't made clear that the opening bid had been doubled, so it was clear in my mind that 2♠ should have been alerted. When I found out about the double, I thought that relieved West of the need to alert, but I thought I'd better check in the Blue Book to make sure.

 

This was the regulation I remembered:

 

[bB2012] 5 G 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

[...]

(c) Responses to an opening bid of one of a suit:

[...]

(4) A non-forcing new suit response unless:

(a) The response is a double or triple jump;

(b) The response is at the game or slam level;

(c) Responder has previously passed;

(d) The opening bid was doubled; or

(e) The opening bid was overcalled with a natural no trump bid.

 

I was looking for something like this in the 2016 Blue Book, and didn't find it. I had no idea this regulation had changed. It seems regressive, in that a natural treatment that is gaining popularity has gone from not requiring to requiring an alert. Anyway, I was right first time, and it did require an alert.

 

When we were discussing the hands in the pub after the game another pair had the same start to the auction and passed 3♦, so pass seems to be a logical alternative. I suppose whether bidding on is suggested or not depends on how likely it is that partner will remember the agreement during the next round.

[lamford]

You agree with Robin? Well, so do I, but he supplied the regulation that confirms that 2♠ is alertable, and did not express an opinion about 3♠. He may or may not agree with your opinion, but it is not up to you to decide.

I was only agreeing with Robin that it was alertable. The full stop indicated that I began a new subject, but a new paragraph would clearly have been better.

[weejonnie]

OK - I agree 2♠ should be alerted and that East has UI from West's failure to alert (even though West had actually remembered!).

 

May not be important - but might south have bid 3♣ if they had known east was weak with spades?

I think 4♣ is not going to be as successful is 3♠ though - but if it isn't doubled it might be.

 

I think that with a 7th spade east is right to go on BUT - having shown a non-forcing spade suit - why not bid 3♥ - there could be a 4-4 fit there. Is 3♥ a LA (after all partner can always put you into 3♠)? If it is then it might be the bid we have to use. (3♠ being demonstrably suggested by the failure to alert). Polling?

 

So, although the final result is probably OK, it is not as clear cut as some may make out.

[RMB1]

I was looking for something like this in the 2016 Blue Book, and didn't find it. I had no idea this regulation had changed. It seems regressive, in that a natural treatment that is gaining popularity has gone from not requiring to requiring an alert. Anyway, I was right first time, and it did require an alert.

 

The motivation was that it is very common to play the same new suit responses over a Pass or a Double, so the same regulation should treat the expectation of forcing/non-forcing the same in both sequences.

 

Yes, WJS are popular but they are common in an uncontested auction, and those were alertable before the change.

[ahydra]

Indeed I was wondering if passing 3D could be an LA given you do have two cards in the suit. OTOH you do have 7 spades, and it's pairs where playing in a major carries a premium. Perhaps a poll (of more than one player) would be useful.

 

ahydra

[VixTD]

The motivation was that it is very common to play the same new suit responses over a Pass or a Double, so the same regulation should treat the expectation of forcing/non-forcing the same in both sequences.

 

Yes, WJS are popular but they are common in an uncontested auction, and those were alertable before the change.

I prefer the current regulation, it's much easier to explain to players, and easier for them to remember. The intervention of a takeout double doesn't materially alter the meaning of the response, it just makes the probability of responder's having a strong jump-shift much lower. I think it's better to make alertability dependent on the meaning of the call rather than its frequency.

[gnasher]

Assuming that the UI tells East that West has forgotten the system:

 

Pass ends the auction. If you bid anything and partner thinks you have a strong jump shift, you may well find yourself in a hopeless game or slam. Hence pass is suggested over any bid.

 

If you bid 3H, partner may bid 3S, which you can pass. If you bid 3S, partner, thinking you have a strong jump shift, will bid something higher, and you may well find yourself in a hopeless game or slam. Hence 3H is suggested over 3S.

 

Therefore 3S is not merely legal. It is required by law.

[Vampyr]

I was looking for something like this in the 2016 Blue Book, and didn't find it. I had no idea this regulation had changed. It seems regressive, in that a natural treatment that is gaining popularity has gone from not requiring to requiring an alert. Anyway, I was right first time, and it did require an alert.

 

Is it gaining in popularity? IMO it is inferior to the traditional fit jump.

[barmar]

Yes, WJS are popular but they are common in an uncontested auction, and those were alertable before the change.

On this side, I'd guess WJS in uncontested auctions is played by somewhere around half of intermediate-to-advanced partnerships, but a minority of beginners and experts. But it's probably played by a vast majority of intermediate-to-expert players in competition -- only beginners are likely to ignore the double. The ACBL Alert Chart reflects this: WJS is not alertable in competition.

[mycroft]

I would guess that a majority of beginners in the ACBL that have an agreement on the JS play it as weak. That does not contradict barmar's statement above.

 

I/A? In this area, I'd say 80-90% of I/A play undefined jump shifts as weak (of course, for many of them, the only natural J/S they have are 1m-2M), and 95% in competition. Again, I am not sure that contradicts barmar's statement above, but do not read into his comment that anybody plays strong J/S - I'd say about 5% of I/A in this area. Instead, they play criss-cross raises of some sort for J/S in the other minor, and Bergen or mini-maxi splinters after major openings.

[VixTD]

Assuming that the UI tells East that West has forgotten the system:

 

Pass ends the auction. If you bid anything and partner thinks you have a strong jump shift, you may well find yourself in a hopeless game or slam. Hence pass is suggested over any bid.

 

If you bid 3H, partner may bid 3S, which you can pass. If you bid 3S, partner, thinking you have a strong jump shift, will bid something higher, and you may well find yourself in a hopeless game or slam. Hence 3H is suggested over 3S.

 

Therefore 3S is not merely legal. It is required by law.

I could be persuaded that bidding is suggested over passing, but I'm not sure it's as clear as you make out. Bidding will probably land you in game, but it's not at all certain you don't have a game on if partner has some sort of doubleton support in spades. I doubt that a diamond part-score will score well in any case. 3♥ strikes me as a strange bid to make with a weak jump shift. I would have thought that would sound to partner like a cue-bid showing a strong hand with spades and diamond support, but accept that it might enable you to get out in 3♠.

[VixTD]

Is it gaining in popularity? IMO it is inferior to the traditional fit jump.

I suppose it depends on what sort of period we're talking about. In the timescale of alert regulation changes (decades rather than years) I would say they have become much more popular.