[jdonn]

cherdano, on Jun 2 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

Are you suggesting they couldn't think of a single hand with this shape and approximate highcards that is less than a game force originally but strong enough to invite now? His question was the one to which you think the answer is obvious, not "how good is the actual hand", and he gets ignored and ignored.

Well that question has been answered and I don't see why it should be forbidding to answer related questions as well.

The poster was begging people not to! The question has not been answered, several people think 3♠ is better than 2NT.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 2 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

Are you suggesting they couldn't think of a single hand with this shape and approximate highcards that is less than a game force originally but strong enough to invite now? His question was the one to which you think the answer is obvious, not "how good is the actual hand", and he gets ignored and ignored.

Well that question has been answered and I don't see why it should be forbidding to answer related questions as well.

The poster was begging people not to!

We had this discussion many times on BBF (including a couple of times with Mauro...), in my opinion BBF would be a lot less interesting if posters were only allowed to answer exactly the question the original poster would like to get answered, and especially if, as is the case here, the answers are really closely related to the original question.

[jdonn]

life is also more interesting if 1 out of every 3 times you go outside you get randomly punched in the face, except for the fact it will make you not want to go outside any more. whatever, when you are the poster and people do that it is irritating as all heck.

[kenrexford]

The butler, in the library, with the candlestick.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

The butler, in the library, with the candlestick.

I do not have a clue what this post means.

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Jun 3 2007, 01:57 AM, said:

Bidding doesn't work the way Mauro's question implies (first I decide whether this hand is a GF, invite, or less than that, and then I try how to best show this range and my hand type). When you have an invitational hand that is impossible to describe as an invitational hand, you often decide to guess and either overbid or underbid so that at least you get the strain right. When is the last time you invited with a 1345 shape opposite a 1N opening?

Arend, my point was that I wanted to keep the systemic issues separated from the hand evaluation issues.

Had I not explicitly written that, I am almost sure that some % of posters would have started to say that *this is not an invitational hand* while others would have started explaining *why it is an inv hand*, followed by some others who would just treat it as a GF hand.

If this had happened, my original question (how do you bid a 6m4M hand with invitational values and a stiff ace in pd suit) would still be unanswered. Everybody would start discussing the specific hand which is interesting in general, but would divert the attention from my point, which was discussing how to bid a specific shape with an invitational value, whatever invitational mean to you
If you say it's not how bidding works, perhaps, but I am sure of the way Online Forums work :-)

Hence my decision to state that "if this hand is not inv to you, just make it a little stronger; if it's GF to you, just make it a little weaker"

Anyways, asking not to dscuss the hand evaluation was a favour I asked to the readers, of course I know I cannot *rule* a thread, that becomes ownership of everybody after it starts

I think Jdonn got my point though

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Jun 2 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

The butler, in the library, with the candlestick.

I do not have a clue what this post means.

Part of the discussion so far has been a heated debate about whether one should answer a question other than that which was asked. I decided to answer my own question as well.

[Chamaco]

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 2 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

The butler, in the library, with the candlestick.

I do not have a clue what this post means.

Part of the discussion so far has been a heated debate about whether one should answer a question other than that which was asked. I decided to answer my own question as well.

My personal idea about this is the following:

Think of a poster asking a question as somebody asking for help.

If someone is starving, asks help, begging for bread and water, and you decide giving him coffee is better (because you prefer coffee to bread, in this moment)... or you tell him that right now it's not the season for bread (and therefore one should buy bread in the supermarket, but supermarket bread sucks).... is this a real help ?

My personal idea is that, if a question is very focused, it should be avoided that the discussion drifts (as often happens). Sometimes it does happen as an accident, but in my opinion, efforts should be made to keep the answers centered around the original questions, if the intention is really to help the original poster.

I am convinced of this, even if often these "drifts" bring up many interesting issues.

Instead, when the original questiosn are posed in a much more generic and loose, way, I think it's pretty normal to bring up also some side issues. But if the poster is really interested in a specific question, I'd rather be disciplined in the replies.

However, I agree with Arend, when he says that *once the question has been answered*, there is nothing wrong in adding one's side notes (Arend did this; someone else did not, and just bashed into the hand evaluation without responding to the inquiry), although I think this should be done trying to avoid that this originates a new branch of the thread that takes over the initial one

Just my opinion though

[foo]

david_c, on Jun 2 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Funny, I posted about this on my blog just yesterday. I really, really hate IJS, but seeing as many very sensible people like to play that way I suppose it's just a personal thing.

I suppose if I'd agreed to play this way I'd bid 1NT then 2NT on this hand.

No wonder you hate IJS's; you aren't using them correctly.

1= The point of the IJS is to use it as a Picture Jump, not simply a single suited Invitational Hand.
An IJS
a= has 2- cards in Opener's Major
b= HAS A SUIT THAT WILL PLAY FOR ONE LOSER OPPOSITE A SMALL STIFF.
c= has ~(9)10-11(12) HCP. IOW, it is Invitational.
The point of an IJS is to show a source of tricks for 3N.

The sequence 1M-1N;foo-3m should show an invitational hand that does not have the kind of suit the IJS does. Therefore, it will take more work to set up in 3N.

The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed. Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP.
That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents.


Chamaco,
With the OP's given ♠A♥QT9x♦xx♣AT98xx,

a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?)
rebid 2N

b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ?
100%

c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?
Very flawed. See responses to dave_c above.

[foo]

Dave_c,

"In my experience the invitational jump-shift is almost guaranteed to put opener in a difficult position. Let's try these very ordinary hands, after the bidding starts 1S-3D!;??

S AJ974 H J3 D Q5 C AKT4

Here perhaps partner can stop the hearts and you can run lots of tricks in NT. Or perhaps he can't. How are you going to find out, with no bid available below 3NT?"

Playing IJS correctly, you know there is almost certainly a hole in H's. You also know
a= that your 7 loser hand is now a 5 loser hand and that you can safely play 4D.
b= that if responder has 1-S or 2-C, you have an excellent chance of making 5D.


"1S-3D!;??
S KQJ52 H AQJ83 D 3 C 84

Here if partner has heart support you might belong in 4H, but alternatively the hand could be a complete misfit not making anything higher than 3D. Make the hand a little stronger and you know you should be in game, but will you find 4H if that's the best spot? How will partner know you have five hearts?"

With this hand, a correctly descriptive 3D IJS by Responder throws freezing water on any and all hopes you have. Hopefully either 3D will make or the opponents will dive into this misfit auction and you can X them into oblivion.


"1S-3D!;??
S AK965 H A53 D K842 C T

A lovely hand in support of diamonds, but how do you distinguish this hand from all the other different shapes that might want to raise?"

If this auction occurs when you are holding this hand, it's time to go look for a D slam. =iff= your 3D IJS is properly descriptive.


...and all these Good Things happen because the 3D IJS shows a very specific kind of hand.

[P_Marlowe]

a) 2NT, as was already suggested
b) sure, but 3C would also be reasonable,
although I have more problems with
suit quality than with the 4 card heart suit
... as long as 3H from opener still is 5-4,
in case he accepts the inv.
I would say, that it should not cost a lot
to have this req.
This may cost you playing MP, but playing
IMP's you should be ok
c) it gets played, i.e. no
Personnally I am still looking for something
reasonable for the auction 1M - 3m,
I believe the best I found until now are Soloway Jump
Shift, but partner did ask to switch ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

This post has been edited by P_Marlowe: 2007-June-03, 15:02

[FrancesHinden]

Back to the original question.

This depends partly on our weak two style, and how little partner needs to open in 1st seat.

If I make this an invitational hand, then, given its two aces and distribution, if I were raising I would bid 3S.

There is a school of thought that 2NT should be forcing on this auction, on the grounds that it can't really be right to pull 2M to 2NT, and you would only ever make a game try here with some form of spade fit.

[ArcLight]

foo, on Jun 3 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

No wonder you hate IJS's; you aren't using them correctly.

1= The point of the IJS is to use it as a Picture Jump, not simply a single suited Invitational Hand.
An IJS
a= has 2- cards in Opener's Major
b= HAS A SUIT THAT WILL PLAY FOR ONE LOSER OPPOSITE A SMALL STIFF.
c= has ~(9)10-11(12) HCP. IOW, it is Invitational.
The point of an IJS is to show a source of tricks for 3N.

The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed. Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP.
That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents.

Foo,

What you suggest is different form whats on Mike Lawrneces 2/1 CD. I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, but I am not sure what you are suggesting is standard.

On his CD the requirements are 9-11 points (I assume HCP), and a 6-7 card decent suit.
He never mentions having 2 cards in openers suit.
Obviously jumpong to the 3 level with a 6 card suit vulnerable may require a better suit than a 7 card non vulnerable.
He gives an example of n invitational jump shift over pards 1♠ of
♥K 7 3
♦ 9 8 7 3
♣A Q T 8 6 3

My point is - no 2 cards in openers suit (void), and thr suit is good , but not opposite a stiff.


Your method may be good, but it seems like it would rarely come up.
Having precisiely 2 cards in pards suit and that good a side suit.

[Edmunte1]

1. I would pass
2. I don't like a direct 3♣, we may lose hearts and the suit is too weak
3. Often 3♣ preempts the partner. Maybe playing reverse a direct 3m weak, and 1nt followed by 3m could work better

[Codo]

Chamaco, on Jun 3 2007, 02:52 AM, said:

After 1♠:1NT:2♠,

a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?)

b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ?

c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?

a:
2 NT or 3 Spade, both not flawless but reasonable

b: You have this problem only with 4 Hearts and a long minor, else you had bid 1 Spade after 1 Heart. So maybe a solution is to know that 3 Club and 3 Diamond can be bid with a two suiter with 4 Hearts and a pd who will accept the invitation can check for the Hearts on his way to another contract. Of course, you will loose other possible meanings for a 3 Heart bid, but it is possible.

c:Yes, but otoh: I do not have many 1426 hands after pds 1 Spade opening, so there are bigger holes in the system then this one.

[foo]

ArcLight, on Jun 4 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 3 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

No wonder you hate IJS's; you aren't using them correctly.

1= The point of the IJS is to use it as a Picture Jump, not simply a single suited Invitational Hand.
An IJS
a= has 2- cards in Opener's Major
b= HAS A SUIT THAT WILL PLAY FOR ONE LOSER OPPOSITE A SMALL STIFF.
c= has ~(9)10-11(12) HCP.  IOW, it is Invitational.
The point of an IJS is to show a source of tricks for 3N.

The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed.  Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP.
That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents.

What you suggest is different form whats on Mike Lawrneces 2/1 CD. I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, but I am not sure what you are suggesting is standard.

On his CD the requirements are 9-11 points (I assume HCP), and a 6-7 card decent suit.
He never mentions having 2 cards in openers suit.
Obviously jumpong to the 3 level with a 6 card suit vulnerable may require a better suit than a 7 card non vulnerable.
He gives an example of n invitational jump shift over pards 1♠ of

♠♥K73♦9873♣AQT863

My point is - no 2 cards in openers suit (void), and thr suit is good , but not opposite a stiff.


Your method may be good, but it seems like it would rarely come up.
Having precisiely 2 cards in pards suit and that good a side suit.

A= That 6-7 card "decent suit" ML mentions is playable if you use
1M-1N;blah-3m as a weak sign-off.
(Note that "blah" is any non-strong bid. So it's not a reverse, or 2N, or a jump rebid, or a jump shift).

I've already mentioned the flaw in that approach.
The chances of ending up at the 3level w/o a fit or w/ < 23 HCP or both are too high.
Worse, the methods warn the opponent's to go looking for penalty X's when this auction occurs.

If you properly !don't! use 1M-1N;blah-3m as weak sign off and use it to show an Invitational hand, then you can use the IJS to tell partner something very specific and very important about the likely play of the hand. And that's what Picture Jumps are for.

After 1S-??
With ♠♥K73♦9873♣AQT863,
I'd respond 1N and rebid 3C, Invitational.

For a 3C IJS as I suggest playing them, the C suit in the above hand would have to be something like HHHHxx (always 85+% chance of 5 tricks).
AKQxxx (5 is ~85%) works, but no other 6 card suit headed by the A or K but with only 3 honors is good enough unless the presence of the 9 or 98 helps enough.

Make that C suit a 7 carder (say transform a D) and the suit can be as weak as
AKJxxxx (only 5-0 off side can hurt you) or
AQJxxxx (only 5-0 can hurt you) or
AKTxxxx (ditto) or
KQJxxxx (ditto)
AQTxxxx is not good enough, but AQT9xxx is (again, only 5-0 is trouble). In fact, KQT9xxx is good enough (same reason).
7 card suits headed by AJT or worse are never good enough.

...and Yes, I've made IJS with 8 card suits in appropriate hands.


B= That's "2- cards", as in "2 or less cards" in =Opener's= suit, not the opponent's. IOW, you can't have support for Opener and make an IJS. This is the =opposite= of a Fit Showing Jump. An IJS denies primary support for Opener.


C= The frequency of the IJS as I'm defining it is less than that of the ML approach, but more frequent than a SJS, or a WJS, or a FJS.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 4 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

C= The frequency of the IJS as I'm defining it is less than that of the ML approach, but more frequent than a SJS, or a WJS, or a FJS.

I just ran a quick monte carlo simulation.

The sim assumed that North has a 1S opening and South holds

Spades(south) == 2 and
hcp(south) >= 9 and hcp(south) <= 12 and

(
clubs(south) >=6 and
clubs(south) <= 7
)

and

hascard(south, AC) + hascard(south, KC) + hascard(south, QC) == 2

Care to hazard and guess how often this 3♣ bid crops up?

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 4 2007, 03:05 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 4 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

C= The frequency of the IJS as I'm defining it is less than that of the ML approach, but more frequent than a SJS, or a WJS, or a FJS.

I just ran a quick monte carlo simulation.

The sim assumed that North has a 1S opening and South holds

Spades(south) == 2 and
hcp(south) >= 9 and hcp(south) <= 12 and

(
clubs(south) >=6 and clubs(south) <= 7
)

and

hascard(south, AC) + hascard(south, KC) + hascard(south, QC) == 2

Care to hazard and guess how often this 3♣ bid crops up?

You've got flaws in your definitions.

"Spades(south) == 2" should be "Spades(south) < 3".

The Suit Quality definition is also wrong.
For a 6 carder, HHHHxx or AKQxxx or AKJ9xx or AKT98x is good enough.
For a 7 carder, any suit better than AJT with a broken sequence or interior sequence is good enough. AQT9xxx and KQT9xxx are also good enough.

...and I've already stated that I have no problem with an IJS holding an appropriate hand w/ an 8 card suit. (This is minor compared to the two factors above.)

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 4 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

You've got flaws in your definitions.

"Spades(south) == 2" should be
"Spades(south) < 3".

The Suit Quality definition is also wrong.
For a 6 carder, HHHHxx or AKQxxx or AKJ9xx or AKT98x is good enough.
For a 7 carder, any suit better than AJT with a broken sequence or interior sequence is good enough. AQT9xxx and KQT9xxx are also good enough.

...and I've already stated that I have no problem with an IJS holding an appropriate hand w/ an 8 card suit. (This is minor compared to the two factors above.)

Write up your own script. I'd be more than happy to translate it over to something that Dealer uses. I suspect that my (main) point will still hold...

An IJS is (probably) significantly more frequent that either a fit jump, a weak jump shift, or (most) types of strong jump shifts. However, I still doubt that it occurs more than .5% of the time.

I don't think that the hand type is frequent enough to waste a bid on...

[foo]

foo, on Jun 4 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

C= The frequency of the IJS as I'm defining it is less than that of the ML approach, but more frequent than a SJS, or a WJS, or a FJS.

That's the only frequency claim I made. Glad to see that you agree.

As for "wasting a bid". If frequency matters so much in your definition of that, then
QED I have demonstrated by using your own criteria that Cliff IJS (the proper name for these) are superior to SJS, WJS, or FJS.

"ML IJS" are more frequent than Cliff IJS, but they have easily demonstrated flaws.
Bergen JS are in the same boat.

Find me a use for Responder's JS that is more frequent then Cliff IJS and not flawed, and I'll probably be using it ASAP.