[joshs]

G_R__E_G, on Feb 14 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

On the ACBL convention card the only response that is not alertable is the weak version. I would therefore go on the assumption that the non-alertable treatment is standard. Of course you might be playing with someone from halfway across the world that doesn't even know what ACBL stands for....

Actually, all non-forcing new suit bids by an unpassed hand are alertable in the ACBL. See the alert column in ACBL's alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html

Josh

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Feb 15 2006, 02:26 AM, said:

G_R__E_G, on Feb 14 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

On the ACBL convention card the only response that is not alertable is the weak version.  I would therefore go on the assumption that the non-alertable treatment is standard.  Of course you might be playing with someone from halfway across the world that doesn't even know what ACBL stands for....

Actually, all non-forcing new suit bids by an unpassed hand are alertable in the ACBL. See the alert column in ACBL's alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html

Josh

I think this only refers to responses...

[SteelWheel]

OK, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, and I really did not mean for this to turn into a forum for discussing the merits of strong/intermediate/weak jump responses. But I do have to ask: Where in the BBO "2/1" CC is it indicated that weak jump responses are part of the system? I've looked over both the BBO "basic" and "advanced" CCs...I can't see a reference to such a treatment anywhere.

[mike777]

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=7822

[joshs]

joshs, on Feb 14 2006, 06:26 PM, said:

G_R__E_G, on Feb 14 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

On the ACBL convention card the only response that is not alertable is the weak version.  I would therefore go on the assumption that the non-alertable treatment is standard.  Of course you might be playing with someone from halfway across the world that doesn't even know what ACBL stands for....

Actually, all non-forcing new suit bids by an unpassed hand are alertable in the ACBL. See the alert column in ACBL's alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html

Josh

I should have said after partner opens the bidding. After partner overcalls, the rules are strangly different.


Someday they will simplify the alert rules. Personally My rules would be:
a. Alert all conventional bids below 3N (yes even stayman). A conventional call is anything that does not promise length or values in the given strain OR promises length or values in some other strain (E.G 1N-2C showing C and another promises stuff in clubs, but also says something about some other suit so is conventional)
b. Do not alert any x's or cuebids or passes. The opps should ask about these. This keeps the alert procedures simple.
c. ALERT natural calls in new suits by unpassed hands that are not forcing (the opps need to know now that they might not get a second chance) in response to partner's suit bid.


Some definition of Natural is required (so you can tell if your bid promises length or values in the given suit) and thats about it. In the US its customary for a new minor to promise 3 cards and a new major to promise 4 (but having values there is always sufficient) but in later rounds of the auction it might be less (E.G. 1S-1N-2C-2S-3H shows 5S 4C 3H, if this auction promises less than 3 hearts in your partnership then its an alert .)
Anyway, my usual rambling...

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

On the ACBL convention card the only response that is not alertable is the weak version

No. Read the alert chart.

Responses to one-level opening bids in a suit:
Not alertable: Natural *forcing* jump shifts, and natural jump shifts in competition
alertable: A natural, non-forcing jump shift after a pass by RHO (no competition)

WJS in comp are not alertable. WJS not in comp are. Intermediate, NF jump shifts not in comp are also alertable.

What's standard, not in comp? Define "standard" first. If your only agreement is SA or SAYC, I think the default assumption is SJS, because that's what has been established historically in the former, and by publication in the latter. 2/1 has SA roots, so I think one should also assume SJS without discussion, if your only agreement is the ambiguous "2/1", rather than "BBO Advanced 2/1". WJS is considered a special agreement, not something assumed, in every book I've ever read about SA. Bridge World Standard, a consensus system based on polling of a panel of experts & readers, specificies strong jump shifts, further evidence of what should be assumed w/o discussion. Only if your agreement is "BBO Advanced", which specifies WJS by publication, should you assume WJS.

What's best? Hard to say. Almost certainly you have to consider 1M-3m and 1m-2M as separate issues. In the first case, your alternate 1st bid of 2m shows strength, and you have many more forcing followups, possibly all of them if playing 2/1 GF. You may need to use IJS or WJS in order to handle a particular hand range otherwise unbiddable by your other agreements (mainly depending if 1M-2m-?-3m is GF or not). In the second case, 1M doesn't guarantee much at all, and with the strong variety you will often have some tortured 4th suit auction & never really give a great description of your hand. I think SJS certainly gain something, when they come up. I am of the opinion that very weak WJS not in comp, as is commonly assumed in America, ~3-6 points, is a losing treatment. When they are limited to extremely weak hands, they are not any more common than SJS, maybe even less common (depending on your criteria for SJS), especially because your RHO has already bid something first. I don't think you usually gain a whole lot when they do come up either. Using them as semi-constructive, 5-9- or so, is considerably more common, and can get you better auctions on your invitational & strong one suiters. With the invitational hand, you can just rebid your suit at the 2 level, and avoid some 3M-1 when partner has a minimum + misfit or min + bad breaks, a relatively frequent gainer, and with the strong hand you can jump rebid your suit forcing, without having to make PLOB bids which sometimes lead to ambiguous situations.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Feb 14 2006, 03:09 PM, said:

Having said this, I don't know any 2/1 players who play SJS, and I consider WJS more standard. However, this is something I tend to discuss when playing for the first time, and if I haven't then I don't make a jump shift. If you just discuss what you are playing (and how you are playing it) then there is no problem.

Sorry to disagree with my friend, but you know one.

Actually, I play a different version of 2/1 than most, to wit, 2/1 GF except for suit rebid. Have done reasonably well with it IMO.


At times in the past I have commented on some of the virtues of playing a SJS. Acknowledging the fact that some will think this to be obsolete, and some will feel that SJS's just aren't necessary (or that there is a better use for the jump-shift), I believe that there are some hands that one needs to "get off of one's chest" quickly and then describe in more detail. Just my personal opinion.

I have a problem with playing invitational jump-shift, perhaps due to insufficient knowledge. My understanding is that an IJS shows an invitational hand with a reasonable 6-card suit (+/-), and that the bid is passable. This is fine if responder is 1-suited, something like 6322/ 6331. BUT: it would seem to present opener with problems should opener be 2-suited and not bare minimum (pass the J-S). This approach would also seem to create bidding problems for responder when responder holds a 6-4 hand like 6m and 4M and invitational values. For example: you hold x, Kxxx, xx, AKTxxx and partner opens 1 spade: your bid.

Enlighten me!

Just some thoughts from the resident bidding dinosaur.

DHL

[kenberg]

I think this thread has served a very useful purpose in bringing out fundamental differences in basic expectations.

Sdoty, above, gives a link to a blank acbl card. Looking at this card makes it undeniable that weak jump shifts, third hand, not in competiton, are alertable in ACBL land. This means that they are not standard. Commonly played, yes, but standard, no. There is a difference.

As far as BBO 2/1 is concerned, on the BBO website you can log on, click on Explore Bridge, then on Bridge Base Standard, then on Advanced (the Advanced does the 2/1, the Basic is SAYC like). You will find that in BBO 2/1, jumps shifts are weak.

For SAYC, assuming you accept the ACBL as the authority on what SAYC is, you can go to http://web2.acbl.org...y/sayc_book.pdf. You will find that jump shifts are strong. (You will also find that 1D-2NT is 13-15 but that's another story.)

Obviously people disagree about what is best, but if you agree to play SAYC without further discussion, you are playing strong jump shifts. If you play BBO 2/1 without further discussion, you are playing weak jump shifts. If you are playing "standard 2/1", good luck.

When playing 2/1, as has been mentioned, it makes sense to distinguish between jump shifts to the two level, and jump shifts to the three level. Playing 1H-3C as "If 2/1 were not a game force, I would have bid 2C planning on re-bidding a decent but passable 3C" makes sense. More useful than Bergen, imo. 1C-2H is different. I can't see any reason at all that it matters whether non-jump 2/1 bids are game forcing. If 1C-2H is weak, then with the big hand you start with 1C-1H. Whatever arguments you advance for either the weak or strong treatment (or something else) of 1C-2H are equally valid, whether or not 1S-2D is game forcing. Personally, I like strong jump shifts to the two level but I am not a fanatic about it and will play them weak if partner prefers. Just so I know.


K

[ehhh]

If partner WJS to your opener, and with opps silent, I'm miffed that noone in ACBLand pointed out that this is far from standard and is definitely alertable whether you are playing sayc or 2/1.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I also play strong jump shifts in some partnerships. I do not play weak jump shifts in any partnership (and despise them). I prefer none of the above.

That's a wow.

I also play WEAK jump shifts in some partnerships. I do not play STRONG jump shifts in any partnership (and despise them).

Just so that's clear

BTW the 0 - 6 version is bad, instead try the not-so-weak one (6 - 9).

[Miron]

The not-so-weak one is more often (approx 2x). That's its main plus. Also it makes some non-jump bidding stronger. But you can not respon with 0-5 to opennings. (or you have to play something - 1♥ - something - 2♥ as extra weak).

[Chamaco]

Miron, on Feb 15 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

The not-so-weak one is more often (approx 2x). That's its main plus. Also it makes some non-jump bidding stronger. But you can not respon with 0-5 to opennings. (or you have to play something - 1♥ - something - 2♥ as extra weak).

Right.
Playing that structure (e.g. constructive wjs) means that you pass hands with a bust a a 6 bagger.
Hence if pard opens 1D and you hold
Qxxxxx-xx-void-xxxxx

you have to pass....
unless you play a system where every 1m opening is forcing, but then the system must have tools to find out whether responder has real stregth or is just responding because forced- this would become a system totally different from 2/1 or similar

[cherdano]

Chamaco, on Feb 15 2006, 01:05 PM, said:

Miron, on Feb 15 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

The not-so-weak one is more often (approx 2x). That's its main plus. Also it makes some non-jump bidding stronger. But you can not respon with 0-5 to opennings. (or you have to play something - 1♥ - something - 2♥ as extra weak).

Right.
Playing that structure (e.g. constructive wjs) means that you pass hands with a bust a a 6 bagger.
Hence if pard opens 1D and you hold
Qxxxxx-xx-void-xxxxx

you have to pass....
unless you play a system where every 1m opening is forcing, but then the system must have tools to find out whether responder has real stregth or is just responding because forced- this would become a system totally different from 2/1 or similar

I don't play 1m as forcing, but I really don't like to pass with this kind of hand. It has so many ways to gain - if partner raises to 4S, I would be happy as it might make, or else opponents might make 4♥. We have debated this before, but I don't think you need tools to find out whether responder can have a hand like the above; it's playing strength is far better than a random balanced 6hcp hand.

(Of course I understand it's necessary to pass this when play constructive wjs, because I cannot bid 1♠-2♠ at all.)

I often play 2♠ as reverse flannery, and I don't think that it is a much of a loss to lose the wjs. 1♠-then-2♠ is only marginally less preemptive than 2♠ directly.

Arend

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Feb 15 2006, 11:30 AM, said:

We have debated this before, but I don't think you need tools to find out whether responder can have a hand like the above; it's playing strength is far better than a random balanced 6hcp hand.

I agree Arend, but the problem I refer to does not arise when we are on offense.

This problem arises if we end up defending: opps end up in 4H and our pard would like to double but does not know whether we have a REAL response or not.

A normal rsponse should (in my opinion) guarantee a moderate amount of real values that opener can account for if he intends to double.

Yes, yes, I know.... "Points schmoints" .... but there must be a limit, or at least there should be a way - from the 1st round of bidding, before opps can bounce too high for us to clarify - to discriminate hands with value only in offence and others that can carry their weight for NT or in defending.

[kgr]

Jlall, on Feb 15 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

Even playing the 5-9 version, everything is not so cut and dried. There are issues like suit quality and second suits to consider. With Kxxx QJxxxx xx x I would never want to bid 2H "weak 5-9" and risk losing spades. However when partner rebid 1N or 2C I would bid 2H. Should this really now show extras? What about with Kxx Jxxxxx Kxx x. If partner opened 1D, I would not want to be forced to bid 2H. If he rebid 1S, 2C, or 2D I'd be willing to play it in diamonds. Only if he rebid 1N (so that I now know he has some kind of heart tolerance) would I bid 2H. To me the main problem of these 5-9 WJS is that people play a rebid of the suit in later auctions as showing extras. However, if they do not show extras they lose a lot of value.

Right. I play this now for not too long yet and the hands/distributions you mention are the reason that I consider to play jumps simply as weak again. So that rebid of suit does not promise extra, and rebid on 3 level is not forcing anymore.

[Codo]

I agree, that there are hands, where a weak jump leads to the wrong partial.
But this could be said for any agreement.
And with a "normal" opener and a weak responder, I don`t know, if the 6-1(2) fit is that much worse then the 4-4 spade fit you may have 1 in 100 hands...
And with strong openers, you have no real problem either, because you are still in control to find different fits.

[Gerben42]

The way I play it rebidding the suit shows extra's UNLESS partner rebids NT. So in your example case Kxx Jxxxxx Kxx x I would just bid 1♥ and treat it as a 5-card suit. Hands with 6 - 4 in the majors are a problem, though.

However, after for example 1♦ 2♥, we play that opener may introduce a 4-card in the other major. Although we may get to the wrong part score, surely we will now find the right game.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Feb 15 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

Even playing the 5-9 version, everything is not so cut and dried. There are issues like suit quality and second suits to consider. With Kxxx QJxxxx xx x I would never want to bid 2H "weak 5-9" and risk losing spades. However when partner rebid 1N or 2C I would bid 2H. Should this really now show extras? What about with Kxx Jxxxxx Kxx x. If partner opened 1D, I would not want to be forced to bid 2H. If he rebid 1S, 2C, or 2D I'd be willing to play it in diamonds. Only if he rebid 1N (so that I now know he has some kind of heart tolerance) would I bid 2H. To me the main problem of these 5-9 WJS is that people play a rebid of the suit in later auctions as showing extras. However, if they do not show extras they lose a lot of value.

Hands with 4-6 in the majors are indeed a problem, although not when partner rebids 1NT. He's limited his hand: you are just placing the contract when you pull (if you play cunning methods after a 1NT rebid you can even offer the choice of major suits to play in). I agree that after 1D - 1H - 2C you are in trouble (I would just give preference to 2D on your sample hand, but give me Kxxx QJ109xx x xx and I'm seriously unhappy - I'd do a WJS on that).

Your other example hand I don't see the issue. You have Kxx Jxxxxx Kxx x. Partner opens 1D, you bid 1H, partner bids 1S/2C/2D you give preference to diamonds. What's the problem? Partner rebids 1NT, you pull to 2H (or if you have the methods you offer 2D/2H).

In essence, playing WJS in this style you have to commit yourself on the first round of the auction: do you have a 1-suited hand or not? If yes, you have to do a WJS now. If not, you respond at the 1-level in the major and then effectively treat it as a 5-card suit in the subsequent auction.