How would you bid this

[P_Marlowe]

My bidding:

1D-1H

2C-2S

3NT-??

2S: 4th suit forcing (not GF!), limit hand.

 

Questions:

- Most seem to play 2S as GF. Is that more standard and is it better?

Hi,

 

playing FSF as GF is easier, altough you still

need to discuss, what you do, with the inv.

hands.

 

playing FSF as INV+ is better but also mor complicate

and you need more partnership discussion, to

understand what certain bids mean, e.g. raising

the 4th suit.

 

Playing FSF as GF, it makes sense to play the raise of

the 4th suit as natural, not promising any extras, playing

FSF as inv+, well ... if opener is minimum and responder

as well, things will get interesting on the 4 level, if opponents

know how to use the red card.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ochinko]

Agree completely with you and Helene. Picking between WJS and SJS is a matter of style, I don't believe it can be proved mathematically that one is better than the other. My preference is for the weak jump not because I believe it comes more often, but because of its preemptive value.

One of them is that 3♥ is GF in the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - (not 1NT) - 3♥. Another big one is the same auction but responder rebids 2♥. This is invitational.

This I play differently, though. After 1♦ - 1♥ all heart rebids by the opener show exactly four hearts, but we bid upon our LTC here:

2♥ - 7 losers

3♥ - 6

4♥ - 5

No invitations. We just bid what we have, and give partner the opportunity to make an informed decision.

 

Petko

[coyot]

(*) People, who claim that the weak jumb shifts  have a higher

frequency than the strong jumb shifts and also play, that the

weak jumb shift shows the range 2-6, have no clue about the

mathematics.

If weak = 0-6 hcp, then I wholeheartedly agree.

 

I agreed to play wjs = 0-6 for about 2 years and it came up only twice, ehereas hands suitable for strong jumpshifts came up about 15 times.

 

And it's a myth that "if you have a hand suitable for SJS, you can bid them slowly", because you have a hard time to describe your honor concentration.

 

The power of SJS is to be able to set trumps immediately, below the level of game: if you start slowly, your pard will always "refuse" your offer to play there, and you'll reach game without being able to check for side controls.

 

Since when we adopted SJS, our slam biding has improved dramatically, without losing much on the 0-6 wjs.

 

Things would be more shaded is the jumpshift was slightly stronger (say 4-8/9 hcp), but then it would easy to bid these hands going slowly... :)

I happen to have some clue about mathematics.

 

Odds for a 0-6 hand are 20.56%. (2-6 18%)

 

Odds for a 12+ hand are 26%.

 

This might seem to speak in favour of strong jump shifts, BUT:

The odds that you get 12+ hand opposite a partner that already opened bidding are much lower, as this is conditional probability.

 

The only way to calculate it correctly would be to determine the probabilities for 12+ hand against all possible strengths for opening, as for each opener's extra point, the probability of 12+ decreases since there are less HCP to divide.

 

The point that seems to speak in favor of WJS is:

 

SJS happen only when your partnership has 24+HCP (17% of hands)

 

WJS happen when your partnership has 12-25 HCP (cca 80% of hands!)

 

The probability difference between WJS and SJS hand (generic probability above) is about 6%, but the theoretical range space in which WJS can occur is at least 4 times bigger!

 

The conditional probability involved may change things, but I doubt that the chance will be of the similar order. If WJS does not happen to you too often, bad luck :).

 

Anyone care to do the real math? What are the odds for getting 12+HCP out of 28 remaining for three hands? (and 27... and 21)?

 

(Or a real big simulation, I don't have the proper tools).

 

I would bet a good sum of money on WJS coming more often :-).

[Chamaco]

My preference is for the weak jump not because I believe it comes more often, but because of its preemptive value.

In estimating the cost/benefit of a bidding treatment, you cannot ignore the frequency of occurrence.

 

The cost-benefit should be more or less (in a somwhat implified manner- I do not mean to be superscientific here)

 

benefit = (frequency of wins) x (average amount of wins- either in MP or IMPS, according to score)

 

cost = (frequency of losses) X (average amount of losses)

 

Therefore, it is vital to assess the frequency of occurrence of the hand type: if you use the WJS for hands that never come up, then it is a wasted bid.

[helene_t]

The silence of the opps makes your strong hand more likely, especially after a second seat opening (unless playing Precision in which case some opps might have the policy of passing strong hands and overcalling with weak hanss after your p opened 1♣).

 

Style can change the odds a lot, but generally it's probably safe to say that a SJS must be more diciplined (in terms of not having a side suit etc) than WJS.

 

I prefer WJS because it's easier. You don't have to agree on a rebid scheme (control showing? Fast arrival?). Opener just passes or raises.

[Chamaco]

I would bet a good sum of money on WJS coming more often :-).

Well, if you had held the same hands I held in the last 4 years, you would have lost your bet, and I played on average 100 hands a week.

 

I used to play too WJS for nonconstructive hands for about 2 years exactly for the reason you mentioned: the textbooks advertising WJS claimed the same points.

 

But I surrendered to the fact that, in real life, WJS almost never came up.

 

SJS, on the other hands, proved to work great at IMPS, where slams matter much more than at pair

 

=================================

 

I have to say that *after opps overcalls/doubles*, there there is much more point to use WJS.

This TOTALLY different than the case of opps silent, because when your opps are silnt, the chance of slam are higher, so the best tools for slam (SJS) should be preserved.

[coyot]

See the above... WJS definitely has significantly higher probability (my guess would be a number between 2 and 3). The harder part would be determining the wins/losses.

 

How many slams would you miss because you could not establish trump suit at 2nd level? (Usually you establish it on 3rd level in those cases)

 

Honestly, I don't know.

 

I play WJS because I like to preempt :-) (apart from believing in the higher occurence).

 

WJS has it's beauty. Against weak hands, it shuts out the opponents quickly. Against stronger hands, it warns partner. I have been playing WJS for 4 years and do not recall a significant disaster (some must have happened, but nothing big).

 

It will be in fact impossible to establish the costs/gains properly. It is easy to compare two ways to bid an identical hand, but impossible to compare two hands bid with identical bid :)

[Chamaco]

See the above... WJS definitely has significantly higher probability (my guess would be a number between 2 and 3).

 

Perhaps, in theory, I don't know...

But in practice, are you really sure ?

I agree that it makes sense to use wjs *after opps overcall*, but -honestly -how many times was it useful to you *when opps were silent* ?

 

I also like to preempt, but I found out that the frequency was too low, mostly because too many hands were TOO STRONG for a wjs (= using a wjs with those hands would have resulted in preempting a strong pard rather than preempting opps).

 

 

 

How many slams would you miss because you could not establish trump suit at 2nd level? (Usually you establish it on 3rd level in those cases)

NOT using SJS, it is not true that usually you set trumps at the 3-level: when you DO have a SJS hand, pard is often short in that suit and refuses to support you below 3NT.

 

The usual mechanics is the following.

Define SJS = 5-5.5 losers hand with self sufficient suit, not merely 17+ hcp.

 

Say you hold

 

AKQJxxxx-void -xx-xxx

 

You do not play SJS.

If you could, you would like to set trumps, and then verify via cuebids the controls in the minor suits, and finally use EKB

 

1D-1S (1)

2C-2H (2)

2NT-3S (3)

3NT- ??

 

 

1- I have time to set trump (!?!?!?)

 

2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF

 

3-now I have tld pard that I have long spades, but he does not know I have a selfsufficient suit. I would have bid the same even with AJxxxx-xx-Ax-Kxx, and this is wrong, wrong wrong, to bid the ame way these totally different hands

 

4- Now what do I bid ? Ideally I would have liked to check side controls and use EKB, but now I am stuck

 

====

 

Using SJS, you just set trumps, then use serious 3NT, cues, and RKCB/EKB to find the small/grand slam.

Quite a few times we were able to bid a grand thanks to the ability to set trumops early in the bidding (something that 4sf auction do not allow)

============================

[P_Marlowe]

See the above... WJS definitely has significantly higher probability (my guess would be a number between 2 and 3). The harder part would be determining the wins/losses.

 

How many slams would you miss because you could not establish trump suit at 2nd level? (Usually you establish it on 3rd level in those cases)

 

Honestly, I don't know.

 

I play WJS because I like to preempt :-) (apart from believing in the higher occurence).

 

WJS has it's beauty. Against weak hands, it shuts out the opponents quickly. Against stronger hands, it warns partner. I have been playing WJS for 4 years and do not recall a significant disaster (some must have happened, but nothing big).

 

It will be in fact impossible to establish the costs/gains properly. It is easy to compare two ways to bid an identical hand, but impossible to compare two hands bid with identical bid :)

Hi,

 

for what's it worth, just my thought.

 

Assume for sake of simplicity, that an average opener shows

13 HCP. The following argument gets stronger if you open light,

and weaker, if you open conservative.

 

There are 27HCP out for 3 players => Average expectation for

a hand is therefore 9HCP.

 

Both weak and strong jumb shifts contain a 6 card suit, i.e the

probability for the hand pattern is the same, if honours are contained

in the hand, they should be in the suit.

 

Now with 0-6 HCP hands you are on avg. -3/4 from the avg. value 9,

with strong jumb shifts you are +3/4, a hand with 12/13 HCP and a

strong 6 carder is sufficient.

 

The distribution is not symmertric, i.e. -3/4 is more likley than +3/4,

but the flaw gets compensated by the other hand types, which are

included in the strong jumb shifts.

 

Do you still hold the wager?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The above mathematical arguement is crude and an approximation,

but I am pretty sure, that the final conclusion is correct.

[Gerben42]

2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF

A common misconception. The whole point is that 3♠ here is forcing.

Please read my previous post again.

 

The relevant range for a WJS is not 0 - 6 but 4 - 8 or so.

[Chamaco]

2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF

A common misconception. The whole point is that 3♠ here is forcing.

Please read my previous post again.

 

The relevant range for a WJS is not 0 - 6 but 4 - 8 or so.

 

The relevant range for a wjs cannot have 7-8 hcp (even 6 hcp is suspicious, if pard has 18/19 hcp we might miss game), according to all textbooks (see for instance, among others, Hardy's books): the reason is that we are in an unlimited opening world, and we risk preempting pard.

A weak js, in natural systems DENIES ANY WILLINGNESS OF CONSTRUCTIVE AUCTIONS, unless there is fit. t shows a hand worse than a 3-level preempt.

You can indeed use up to 8 hcp, but only in a limited opening world (strong club etc), because you do not risk preempting pard.

 

 

 

I know how you play wjs, Gerben, but it is not standard, at least neither in 2/1 nor SAYC, nor (for what it matters) in the italian 4 and 5-card major systems.

(in other words, you need special agreements)

 

In these standard, 3S is invitational: then if you use your approach, you need another way to show invitational hands (which I do not fancy), and/or Bourke relays and/or other gadgets, which I personally do not like.

The standard requirement for weak js is a hand without Aces and at most 6 hcp (for many, it wd be 0-5 hcp); the invitational hand should be 9/10+; in this scheme it becomes cumbersome to show the constructive hands with 7/9 hcp, too good to preempt and too weak to invite.

 

IMO, adopting the scheme you play into a natural system only gets things overcomplicated just for the sake of keeping a wjs bid that never comes up.

I think it makes some sense in a strong club system (when you can use wjs with 0-7/8 hcp without preempting pard), but less so in an unlimited system.

 

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

 

Also keep in mind that I am advocating giving up wjs only in UNCONTESTED auctions, and such auctions are more likely to be OUR hand, so the need to preempt is less.

In contested auctions, wjs is perfectly ok from my perspective.

 

But, if we restrict this discussion only on uncontested auctions, the frequency of occurrence of wjs (with aceless 0-6 hcp) vs sjs will shrink even further.

 

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

 

I know your approach is playable, yet I think that - outside of strong club/limited opening world - giving up wjs is not bad, because they do not come up often (opener being unlimited, with hands too strong for a wjs you would risk preempting him, not opps), so it's not a big loss.

 

In a strong club world, you can use wjs with slightly stronger hands (opener is limited, no risk of preempting him), so they come up more frequently, so it's a different issue, and I would be more keen to use them in that case.

[EricK]

It seems that there are two style for WJS

 

1) purely pre-emptive, probably fewer HCP than a minimum 1 level response.

 

2) the kind of hand which would bid 1M but then try to sign off in 2M unless opener showed significant extras.

 

I don't like choice 1, and would much rather play SJS. There just doesn't seem to be enough room to describe all your other hand types without making "nothing" bids (i.e. generalised forcing bids which don't tell partner anything useful about your hand).

 

Choice 2 is OK though. Probably just as useful as SJS and just as common.

 

Eric

[ochinko]

2) the kind of hand which would bid 1M but then try to sign off in 2M unless opener showed significant extras.

This makes no sense to me. You choose to bid the same thing in two different ways, thereby getting rid both of WJS and SJS.

 

Petko

[EricK]

2) the kind of hand which would bid 1M but then try to sign off in 2M unless opener showed significant extras.

This makes no sense to me. You choose to bid the same thing in two different ways, thereby getting rid both of WJS and SJS.

 

Petko

If you play WJS this way then bidding 1M and then rebidding 2M now shows the invitational strength hand.

 

Eric

[Finch]

The relevant range for a wjs cannot have 7-8 hcp (even 6 hcp is suspicious, if pard has 18/19 hcp we might miss game), according to all textbooks (see for instance, among others, Hardy's books): the reason is that we are in an unlimited opening world, and we risk preempting pard.

A weak js, in natural systems DENIES ANY WILLINGNESS OF CONSTRUCTIVE AUCTIONS, unless there is fit. t shows a hand worse than a 3-level preempt.

You can indeed use up to 8 hcp, but only in a limited opening world (strong club etc), because you do not risk preempting pard.

Just because you put it in bold type and underline it, doesn't make it true.

 

Everybody I know in my country (England) who plays weak jump shifts (they aren't that common here) uses them as a constructive tool. In fact, your argument about pre-empting partner is exactly why we play them as roughly 4-8 HCP and constructive. You jump in a suit to show a well-defined hand. Whether your definition is 0-5 or 4-8 doesn't change that fact that you have described your hand very well to partner, who now can make an informed decision.

 

I'm probably just going to repeat what Gerben said, but let me explain why so many people play the WJS as constructive. Define a 2-level jump response to partner's 1-of-a-minor opening as

 

3-7 HCP with a 7-card suit, 4-8 with a 6-card suit, depending a little on vulnerability, suit quality and level of fit for partner's suit (e.g. Kxxxxx x QJx xxx is often a 1S response to 1D becaue you could easily want to play in diamonds; KJ109xx x xxx xxx is a 2S response at all vulnerabilities).

 

Now you have three superb new constructive weapons:

i) 1m - 1M - 2 either m - 2M shows an invitational hand with 6 cards (about 9-12) and allows you to play at the 2-level on a misfit, or to investigate the best game at a sensible level. Standard bidding has no good way to show this hand (you have to overbid or underbid).

ii) 1m - 1M - 2 either m - 3M is game forcing with a good suit. This replaces some of the strong jump shift hands you have lost, though it doesn't have to be quite SJS strength.

iii) Responder has defined their hand well when she makes a WJS, so opener can make an informed decision. With 18-19 balanced for example, opener just bids game. Some people play system after a WJS - you could play exactly what you play in response to a weak two such as an Ogust 2NT enquiry. We play step 1 as a shortage ask (followed by step 1 as a trump quality ask for slam purposes).

 

Plus you have put in a mild pre-empt.

 

Alternatively, you could play the WJS as 0-5. I agree that this is a more common American treatment, and the constructive version seems to be more common in England. Personally I can see no advantage in this treatment because

i) 0-5 with a 6-card suit is (I think) less common than 4-8 with a 6-card suit, so the pre-emptive impact is less common

ii) You have removed one constructive call (the SJS) from your system, but not replaced it with anything, so your constructive auctions have to cover just as many hand types as before with fewer calls.

 

There must be some reason to play them this way - very weak - because so many people seem to do so. So I'm not going to say in bold, and underlined, that you cannot play it your way. But I'd rather play SJS.

[coyot]

See the above... WJS definitely has significantly higher probability (my guess would be a number between 2 and 3).

 

Perhaps, in theory, I don't know...

But in practice, are you really sure ?

I agree that it makes sense to use wjs *after opps overcall*, but -honestly -how many times was it useful to you *when opps were silent* ?

 

I also like to preempt, but I found out that the frequency was too low, mostly because too many hands were TOO STRONG for a wjs (= using a wjs with those hands would have resulted in preempting a strong pard rather than preempting opps).

 

 

 

Say you hold

 

AKQJxxxx-void -xx-xxx

 

You do not play SJS.

If you could, you would like to set trumps, and then verify via cuebids the controls in the minor suits, and finally use EKB

 

1D-1S (1)

2C-2H (2)

2NT-3S (3)

3NT- ??

 

1- I have time to set trump (!?!?!?)

 

2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF

 

3-now I have tld pard that I have long spades, but he does not know I have a selfsufficient suit. I would have bid the same even with AJxxxx-xx-Ax-Kxx, and this is wrong, wrong wrong, to bid the ame way these totally different hands

 

4- Now what do I bid ? Ideally I would have liked to check side controls and use EKB, but now I am stuck

 

====

 

Using SJS, you just set trumps, then use serious 3NT, cues, and RKCB/EKB to find the small/grand slam.

Quite a few times we were able to bid a grand thanks to the ability to set trumops early in the bidding (something that 4sf auction do not allow)

============================

I am sure, in practice as well as in theory.

 

And, yes, I use WJS even when opps are silent - and it is usually a good idea.

 

Unless your WJS hand hits a void in opener's hand, you're in the clear. You're in the contract you're most likely to end in anyway...

 

I play WJS as 2-5 HCP, concentrated into the bid suit if possible.

 

Imagine something like KJxxxx or QJxxxx after partner opens a minor. With this hand, you have two options only (if you don't play WJS)

1) bid 1M and on any partner's response bid 2M

2) pass and when opps reopen, reenter the bidding.

 

Either option gives opps chance to either hear more about your partner or to bid themselves.

 

The example is really nice, apart from the fact that your opps have a ton of hearts and forgot to interfere with your bidding :-). Also, your partner has shown good heart stoppers and no interest in spades. But, if you bid 4♠ over his 3NT, do you think that he will NOT get the message that you're interested in spade slam? Why would you bother with bidding FSF and 3♠ if you just wanted to blast into the game?

 

I admit that SJS do have some merits, of course, but on quite a lot of hands these can be worked around.

 

I can promise to start making notes about hands that could use SJS and see if we would be able to arrive in a better contract with SJS or without :) but I'm not going to just take your word for it :). The merits of WJS are good enough for me not to get converted so easily :)

[mike777]

Prefer to use Jump shifts for other use.

1Minor=2h=reverse flannery

1Minor =2s=invite in minor, unbalanced very often.

1Minor=jump in other minor is game force in minor unbalanced very often.

1Heart=2s=unknown stiff, 2nt asks.

1Major=Bergen or other versions.

 

The WJS must come up as the only winning action so rare.

In comp is ok but how often after an opening bid in first or second seat and the opps are silent is this the winning action? My guess is the Opportunity Costs are too high.

 

Running a simulation seems impossible with all the factors to be considered, opp bidding, opportunity cost of using j/s as something else, etc.

 

In any event please post your successes so the rest of us can learn, thanks.

[luke warm]

since i'm partial to roland's minor suit structure, neither weak nor strong j/s (over minors anyway) would enter into it

[Double !]

Our system:

1♦-1♥ - (better minor - F1 )

2♣-2♠ - 5-4 or 4441 - GF

2NT-3♥ - stopper - 6card or good 5card.

3NT - pass (no interest, denies doubleton honor in hearts).

Is it definite that responder should pass 3NT (vs. possibly bidding 4D)?

 

Just an observation, not advocating anything but: here's another hand where the stronger J-S might have made life easier provided that brakes were then applied. And, is 6D (or even 6H or 6NT) such a poor slam?

[Chamaco]

since i'm partial to roland's minor suit structure, neither weak nor strong j/s (over minors anyway) would enter into it

Jimmy, I'd like to read more about Roland's minor suit structure.

Could you repost it (so I do not have to dig it through the zillion of past BBF posts) or send it to me a private message ?

 

Thanks a lot !!

[Chamaco]

Just because you put it in bold type and underline it, doesn't make it true.

 

Everybody I know in my country (England) who plays weak jump shifts (they aren't that common here) uses them as a constructive tool.

It occurred to me probably too late that the use of boldface font might resemble too much the use of uppercase fonts in internet jargon (e.g. might sound aggressive and "shouting").

 

This was not my intention.

Usually I employ different fonts in all my posts that are longer than a few paragraphs: the use of different fonts is intended as a way to highlight different sections of the posts , and/or specific paragraphs that I believe are key issues.

 

In this case I wanted to underline the fact that in the US literature the term "Weak Jump Shift" is intended with a purely preemptive meaning, 05/6, no aces at all (unless vuln) and no AKs outside the long suit.

 

Some refs I can quickly list:

 

Max Hardy "Standard bidding for the 21st century"

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/WeakJumpShift.html

OKBridge 2/1: http://www.annam.co.uk/2-1.html#pjs

 

(I'll skip here many other minor links that describe the wjs as 0-6 and purely preemptive, they would not add anything to the content of the discussion)

 

 

Whether we like it or not, for some topics, the US literature is virtually the only one available on the market (not always the best, but that matters little, if it's the only one), so, to avoid miscommunication, it seems logical to adopt the jargon used in the most widely available documentation.

 

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is described as a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

 

It seeems that the use of 3/4-7 hcp for the JS is more widely used in europe, and, while I would not play this way, I have no objection.

But the point is avoiding miscommunication: if we go on adopting the same term for 2 completely different uses (one destructive, the other constructive), we'll end up nowhere.

 

Adapting ourselves to the most widely spoken language (whether we like it or not) is a matter of practicality: to make another example, I'd much prefer to write in italian rather than english (which is *your* native language, not mine) but that would not be practical to communicate.

Similarly, I think it would be much more practical if you reconcile to not call "weak" a jumpshift that is actually constructive.

 

 

I hope you understood my point even without boldface fonts.

If not, I might have to resort to Italian.

[Fluffy]

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

I've met several old ladies that play it 7-11 and label it weak, so guess :)

[Chamaco]

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

I've met several old ladies that play it 7-11 and label it weak, so guess :)

LOL :-)

[luke warm]

Jimmy, I'd like to read more about Roland's minor suit structure.

Could you repost it (so I do not have to dig it through the zillion of past BBF posts) or send it to me a private message ?

 

Thanks a lot !!

hi mauro.. ck out this link

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...633&hl=inverted

 

basically, a jump in the suit following the minor (1c/2d or 1d/2h) is either limit in the minor or very strong hand of your own... then 1c/2c and 1d/2d is game force

 

after 1c/2d, opener must bid 2h after which responder, by bidding 3c, shows the limit hand... any other bid shows the strong hand.. anything roland wants to add, inferences etc, would be welcome