[SteelWheel]

When did weak jump responses become "standard" or a systemic component of 2/1? Several times in the past few weeks, I've sat down with new partners here on BBO, and partner tells me we're playing "standard".

At some point during the match or tournament, I'm confronted with a jump to 2 of a major in response to my 1 of a minor opening. The opponents (naturally) stay silent. I get stuck having to field a call from CHO, with no clue as to whether we're headed for slam, or whether we're already overboard. I'm amazed at the number of "experts" and/or people with high BBO rankings (J, Q, or K) who believe that this is standard bidding.

Have I missed out on something here? Or should I just make note of these tendencies and just make sure I don't choose to play with these people the next time 'round?

Thanks.

[Miron]

I've seen three types of jump shifts after openning (1♣-2♦♥♠, 1♦-2♥♠, 1♥-2♠)

• Weak, 0-6, 6 cards
  
• (5)6-9, 6 cards
  
• 16+, 5-cards

All of them could be played in standard american (and not only these ). But all my partners took that the "standard" is the weak one.

[awm]

SAYC: All jump shifts are strong (at least game forcing).

BBO Advanced: Weak jump shifts.

In general, weak jump shifts are probably the norm if you have agreed to play "two-over-one." If you've agreed to play "standard american" it's anybody's guess. Note that the treatment of jump shifts is not really a requirement of these families of systems...

[SteelWheel]

So, I'm really supposed to assume that if someone says they play "2/1" and/or "BBO standard", that weak jump responses are the default understanding, absent any other discussions, then? If that's the case, then I guess I'll just have to grin and bear it--but I'll go to my grave insisting that this is a ridiculous perversion of bridge as I learned it. And I'd love to be there to play against such people when they actually do have a strong jump shift hand type, and find themselves unable to bid their slams because they have such silly agreements.

Thanks for replies.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Feb 14 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

BBO Advanced: Weak jump shifts.

Even so, there are (at least) 2 ways to play wjs:

a. totally preemptive, say 0-5 and a 6 bagger
b. weak but semiconstructive, e.g. 5/6-9 and a 6+ bagger

[Codo]

I play Sayc knowing, that it is strong jump shift in the notes but that at least 75 % play it different.
I think, that weak jumps are much better, because:

1. You are able to bid any strong hand via new minor forcing ( or checkback or whatever you want to use) , so there is no urgent need to jump right away.

2. Normally, you play weak twos to shut down the opponents, but after your pd opened and rho passed, this is not longer the main targetl for the weak jump shift.
The main target is to describe your hand very quick to your pd, because it is much easier to define biddings like 1 m 1M 1 NT 2 M and 1m 1M 2m 2M and others, if you know, that responder could not have just a weak two.

3. The frequency for weak twos is much higher then for strong hands with 15+. Actually I can just remember very few hands which had been sufficent for strong twos, but many with weak twos...

[kenrexford]

Central Ohio, and perhaps other places, now has a large following in the constructive jump shifts. They show about a high-end weak two-bid (8-11?).

I am not sure of any "standard" any more in any call. Bergen Raises, Drury, Two-Way Checkback. Each has multiple flavors. I am sure that few "know" what is the "normal" meaning any more. It is getting harder and harder to play with a new person these days.

I recently played with a great player for the first time in F2F. We discussed jump reverses, how to handle a canape weak after 1minor...1NT, and three-level jumps to a 1NT opening, but little else. We assumed "standard" for 2/1 GF. But, most auctions featured "multi" bids. So strange...

[SteelWheel]

I don't think this is about which treatment is "better". In any case, I've never been convinced that weak jump responses are better/more effective than strong responses anyway. In a "Standard" system, I think it's more important to be able to get your strong single-suited hand described quickly, since it makes it easier to look for a slam--rather than torturing partner with some kind of lengthy NMF auction, where partner will just never believe that you have a hand with such playing strength, and all of it in your main suit.

There may be a somewhat stronger argument for weak jump responses in a strong club/limited opening bid system, where slam is less likely, even if responder does hold a strong hand. Although, even there, I've seen far too many silly 2♠ contracts that make 5 easily, to believe that it's such a great treatment.

The real question in my mind (and I know that at this point, this is more of a rant, than anything else, so I apologize in advance), is why do people insist on believing that a weak jump response is "Standard"? In general, I've always insisted, when playing with new partners that our default understanding is that "all strange bids are forcing". It leads to far fewer misunderstandings.

I don't see why people can't just respond 1 of a major, and then rebid 2 of a major. It would eliminate unnecessary ambiguity...and besides which, it's "Standard".

[ArcLight]

Mike Lawrence prefers Strong Jump shifts over weak, and has 3 types (they are not all Monsters either). He explains his rational, and says something to the effect of "If you play all 2/1 bids (including 1D-2C) as 100% GF, you need Weak Jump Shifts. " His system treats a 2/1 as a 95% GF, to game or 4 of a minor if 3NT isn't possible.

It seems to me that playing Match Points weak jump shifts are mor efrequent and might be better. I dont know which is better at IMPS. As Lawrence points out, a number of strong players (by his standards) use them.


The "fun" of 2/1 is it can mean many different things.

[pbleighton]

Very few 2/1 players I know play SJS. People play WJS (the majority) and Bergen (a substantial minority).

The problem I have seen with WJS is that people overuse it. I have a pd who did so (in a non-2/1 GF system), and we lost boards because of it. We switched to SJS, and while it rarely comes up, it isn't a problem.

Peter

[awm]

To make things even more confusing, invitational jump shifts are gaining in popularity.

These became part of 2/1 as early on as Hardy's book, where 1♦-3♣ was defined as natural and invitational. This is necessary because 1NT would not be forcing, whereas 2♣ would be a game force, and you need some call with 6+♣ and something like 10-11 high.

It turns out that playing invitational jumps removes a lot of the pressure on the forcing notrump response. In particular it cleans up auctions like 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♣ where in "normal" 2/1 the club call is extremely ambiguous with regard to strength. Playing invitational jumps it's more limited.

While I don't think anyone considers invitational jump shifts standard (yet?) it's one of the first treatments I suggest when I'm roped into playing 2/1 game force.

[mike777]

Then you can add Bergen/Crane style where almost all the jumpshifts are raises of some kind. .
1) over major=raises of some kind
2) over minors=criss cross minor suit raises or reverse flannery.
3) note this style solves many problem hands but leaves the unbalanced with long minor invite hand as an "issue" .

[han]

I think that both WJS and SJS are often abused, and both can be effective when properly used. I don't think that one is theoretically far superior to the other.

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.

[mike777]

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

I think that both WJS and SJS are often abused, and both can be effective when properly used. I don't think that one is theoretically far superior to the other.

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.

Great point Han esp. online bridge. SJS are rare so I can play those but WJS are played as random bridge here on BBO so I hate them. I do play them in Comp. as they tend to be less random on BBO.

[Al_U_Card]

As well as a question of frequency, you also have to fit them into your system of choice. Some intermediate J/S are even used to show other types of hands (cheapest J/S being 4S/5H in the majors with 7-9 hcp for instance) This hand comes up a bit less than a weak 2 but as often as a 0-3 hcp 6 carder with your points in your suit etc.)

I would say that the trend is towards WJS with lots of leeway for what pard considers "weak"....;-)

[kenberg]

Strong jump shifts are standard in SAYC because the SAYC write-up says so. Weak jump shifts are standard in BBO 2/1 because the BBO write-up says so. One major point of these write-ups (imo) is so folks can meet, say let's play, and get started. Unfortuantely, many folks want to play "2/1" which in my experience can mean damned near anything. When I play in the individuals, which I for some reason enjoy, I am always happy when partner agrees to play SAYC and even happier when I find he knows what this means. If he says he wants to play 2/1, I agree to do so and hope for a very simple auction. Even 1S-3S is suspect since he may think agreeing to play 2/1 means agreeing that this is a preemptive auction.

I personally like strong jump shifts. 1C-2H often leads to a very comfortable slam exploration (equally whether you are playing sayc or 2/1). As mentioned, Mike Lawrence agrees. But other experts disagree. What I really like, and relevant to the thread, is to know what I am playing.

Ken

[joshs]

The Washington DC style (here's to you Mr Robinson) when playing 2/1 is Invitational Jump Shifts at the 3 level (no need for ugly 4'th suit forcing auctions just to show strength when you make a GFing 2/1, and fills what is otherwise a hole in 2/1) and strong jump shifts at the 2 level (which does fill a hole) . Some prefer INV at the 3 and weak at the 2. I generally prefer strong at the 2 with no discussion, since it is less likely to come up. I hate having to guess what partner's range is for 1C-P-2S(weak) and to guess what my 2N means.... Basically, I think the default should be strong with no discussion, but I would never use the bid with no discussion....

Josh

[Kalvan14]

I played WJS for years (in a 2/1 system), but in the end got convinced that they are not the best way to go. Now I play JS over a minor criss-cross style (except 1♦-3♣, which is invitational with clubs only), and JS over a major are always raises of different kinds.

[G_R__E_G]

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....

[sdoty]

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'm not certain where on the ACBL cc it shows strong jump shifts in uncontested auctions as alertable. Weak jump shifts in competition aren't alertable (that's considered standard) but not in competition they are (the treatment is listed in red in the "other conventional calls" box at the bottom right).

blank ACBL convention card