[foo]

Most casual writing on Strong Jump Shifts says things like it requires 18+
HCP and then gives an overall bidding structure regarding them that says
something like "bid naturally afterward". The lower limit is based on the sound
idea that a minimum opening bid is 12+ HCP and that 12+18= 30 => enough that
slam should be investigated.
Unfortunately, neither the above lower limit nor the advice to "thereafter bid
naturally" are anywhere near to the way Experts actually use SJS.

If you watch Experts using SJS's you may see SJS's being used with hands
containing as few as 14 HCP (Axxx.x.KQJxx.Axx after 1S-??) and being avoided
with 20+ HCP hands. Yet, Experts bid to the correct spot more accurately than
those using the "18+" rule. Clearly, something other than merely HCP is being
used.

Experts use bidding like a surgeon's scalpel, not like a caveman's HCP based
bludgeon; and the Strong Jump shift is no exception. Here's how you can start
to use SJS as accurately and usefully as experts.


I: What Does the Strong Jump Shift Look Like?

The SJS is made with hands that are more than "merely" GF. Above all, a SJS is
a "wake up pd!" bid that tells Opener that business as usual has been suspended
in favor of a very specific asking auction.
SJS are hands that have slam interest opposite an opening bid.
Thus how strong they need to be depends on what your partnership's requirements
are for a 1 level opening bid.


Requirement 1= Power; or "Bridge is the game of A's and K's"

If you play an "up the middle" style, which is what the rest of this write up
will assume, then a minimum 1 level Opening will tend strongly to have what our
bridge forefathers called 2 "Quick" or "Honor" Tricks.
A quick summary of Quick Tricks:
A suit headed by
AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, and Kx= .5 Quick Tricks.

Why are Quick Tricks important? For many reasons, but the one that matters most
for discussions regarding SJS's is that Quick Tricks all contain _Controls_.

There are 12 controls in a deck: each A= 2 controls, and each K= 1 control.
Thus 4 A's + 4 K's => 4*2 + 4*1= 12.
Controls are important because most of the time you need 7+ controls to make
3N or 4M, 9+ controls to make 5m, and 10+ controls to make a slam.

Let's list all the combinations that add up to as close to 2 Quick Tricks as
possible and see how many controls are in each of those combinations:
AK= 2 QT, 3 controls
AQ + Kx= 2 QT, 3 controls
AJ + KJ= 2 QT, 3 controls
A + A => 4 controls
A + KQ => 3 controls
A + KJ + KJ => 4 controls
A + Kx + Kx => 4 controls
KQ + KQ => 2 controls *NOTE THIS ENTRY*
KQ + KJ + KJ => 3 controls
KQ + Kx + Kx => 3 controls
KJ + KJ + KJ => 3 controls
KJ + KJ + Kx + Kx => 4 controls.

For Our discussion here, the most important line above is the one that shows
that it is possible to have 2 Quick Tricks with as few as 2 controls. Since a
SJS is a GF bid and game usually requires 7+ controls:
*A STRONG JUMP SHIFT PROMISES A MINIMUM OF 5 CONTROLS.*
...or at least 1/2 of the controls usually needed for small slam.

It should be stressed that the above is an absolute _minimum_. A SJS has no
maximum. An SJS hand could conceivably have every control in the deck other
than those in Opener's hand.


Requirement 2= Low Loser Count; or "Shapely hands take more tricks"

The Modern Losing Trick Count taught us that if there is
a= a 9 card fit between Us, or
b= a 44 8 card fit with a side ruffing value between Us, or
c= two 53 or 62 8 card fits between Us
usually it takes
14- losers between the two hand to make 3N or 4M,
13- losers between the two hands to take 11 tricks, and
12- losers between the two hands to take 12 tricks.
With only one 53 or 62 8 card fit, pretend you have an extra loser and be more
cautious about how high you bid.
With a 10+ card fit, pretend you have one less loser and be more optismistic
about high you bid.

*THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE +IN ADDITION+ TO THE CONTROLS REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST SECTION*

More details on LTC can be found elsewhere. For now, the important thing is that
*A STRONG JUMP SHIFT PROMISES A LOW ENOUGH NUMBER OF LOSERS THAT IT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT WE BELONG IN A SLAM AND IT GUARANTEES THAT WE HAVE 5 LEVEL SAFETY*

How many losers is that? Again, we turn again to our Bridge ancestors; who said
"The Limit Bid is the most important bid in Bridge."

An ordinary responding hand opposite a normally 7- loser Opening hand usually
has between 9 and 7 losers. This 3 loser range tends to nicely differentiate
minimum, Invitational, and GF responding hands opposite a minimum opening bid.

However, once in a while you get a nice 6- loser hand that is outside the above
strength range. If Responder holds a 6- loser hand and Opener holds a 6- loser
hand, then the potential for 12+ tricks is there if the hands fit well and the
proper values are in the right places.

Since 12- losers between the two hands means We should be seriously considering
bidding a slam, the implication is that
*A MINIMUM SJS HAS 6- LOSERS IF YOUR OPENING BIDS PROMISE 7- LOSERS*
*(or 5- losers if your opening bids promise 8- losers.)*
(Sorry believers in "light initial action", you can't have it both ways.
Extra aggression initially means Responder has to be more conservative later.)

This is the way many experts make SJS's when using them; but less experienced players should "stiffen up" their requirements for a SJS and usually only make them with 5- loser hands opposite 7- minimum openings (or 4- loser hands opposite 8- minimum loser openings).

Experts can get away with more aggressive SJS's because they have better
bidding, declaring, and table feel skills than the rest of the Bridge populace.
Once you are experienced enough, you too can use SJS more aggressively; but in
the initial stages of your Bridge learning, give yourself more margin of error.


Requirement 3= Known Direction; or
"I'm not asking you; I'm telling you where We are playing".

The usual course of an auction is that of an exploration for strain followed by
an exploration for level. The SJS declares emphatically that Responder knows
enough to take charge of the rest of the auction.

You hold: AJx.KQT9xx.AKx.9
Playing SA, SAYC, or 2/1 GF it goes 1C-?? Do you want to make a SJS of 2H?

6 controls. 5 losers. Looks plausible.

But you don't know what strain We should play in. At the moment, what strain is
best is still very much up in the air. Also, the 1C opening implies a strong
chance of wasted values opposite our stiff C9.

Change the Opening bid to 1D or 1S or change the hand to AJx.KQJxxx.AKx.9 and
suddenly Responder has no doubts as to be able to control the auction.
Some experts would insist that the H suit actually be even better and require
KQJTxx in the above example!

*A STRONG JUMP SHIFT PROMISES THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE AUCTION AND SET STRAIN*

Thus any hand that requires a delicate exchange of shape information should not
make a SJS. This is especially true of two suited hands.

Thus there are usually 3 kinds of hands that make SJS:
1= Powerful, single suited hands with a self sufficient suit.
2= Powerful hands with support for Opener and a notable side source of tricks.
3= Flat hands w/o support for Opener with 6+ controls and 18+ HCP (19+ HCP if 11
HCP Openings are commonly allowed) +and+ a suit or suit fragment that is worth
mentioning as potentially being useful in a slam.
The loser count requirement doesn't exist in the 3rd case.

_Never_ SJS into a bad suit or bad suit fragment.


Part II will go into consideration of what an optimal bidding structure is after
a SJS.

[pclayton]

Some nice ideas, but boy this is tough to read

[mikeh]

A lot of effort into that post, but I think it is based on a faulty premise (not to mention that I don't agree with all of it, anyway).

That faulty premise is that experts use the SJS. Some do, but my experience is that the majority of experts don't.

SJS's take up a lot of bidding space to convey a message that can usually be adequately conveyed in other ways. Bear in mind that SJS's were developed in the infancy of the game and then refined as bidding improved. But, in their heyday of expert use, no-one had such tools as 2/1 gf responses, 4SF, various flavours of new minor or checkback.

As these more subtle tools became available, experts began exploring other uses for the space-consuming jumpshift. We began seeing preemptive and seni-preemptive uses, amongst other approaches.

I don't travel to tournaments much, so my understanding of current expert practice is based mostly on reading the BW and in competing in the Pacific NorthWest of N.A. Based on that admittedly less-than-perfect exposure, I doubt that one expert in 3 uses SJS's... maybe 1 in 10?

As for your definitions of a SJS: I suspect that very few current experts (I stress, I am speaking only of NA experts) would think of making a SJS on a balanced hand, no matter how strong. Flat 20 counts don't need to jumpshift.

To the extent that SJS's remain part of the expert's arsenal, in NA at least, they appear usually to be what are sometimes known as Soloway Jump Shifts. A Soloway JS shows either a self-sufficient trump suit or a long, strong suit with good support for partner's suit. In other words, after partner has made a Soloway JS, opener knows that the contract will be played in one of his suit, responder's suit, or notrump. This means that opener will not, usually, make a shape-descriptive natural new suit bid. Indeed, his primary role is to stay out of responder's way, in order to let responder clarify which of the 2 hand types he owns.

As for counting Honour Tricks or Quick Tricks, I doubt that many current experts do that. Counting losing tricks, however, is a reasonable idea.

Sorry if I seem to be raining on your parade, foo, but I think that it is important that, in the B/I forum, those for whom the forum is primarily intended not be lead astray (as I see it, anyway) in terms of what they need to learn in order to advance as bridge players. I think that a basic understanding of the SJS is a good idea, and I entirely agree with you that it is important not to think simply in terms of a SJS showing a 'good hand'.

[SoTired]

SJS were very well defined by Soloway. Most experts who use SJS actually use Soloway SJS.

A Soloway SJS is one of three hand types:
1) Primary support for opener's suit (4-card if major, 5-card if minor) and a good 5+ card suit with about 15+ hcp
2) Self-sufficient suit with about 15+ HCP
3) Balanced 19+ HCP

Opener normally rebids the cheaper of opener's suit or NT. Responder then raises opener's suit or bids shortness for hand #1, rebids own suit for hand #2, or bids NT for hand #3. If responder's 2nd bid is 4N RKC, then hand type is #2 and trump is responder's suit.

Hands that are strong enough, but do not fall into one of the 3 categories, do not make a SJS.

Edit: Soloway SJS go along well with a natural 2N response showing about 13-15 HCP and 3N showing 16-18 HCP

[foo]

pclayton, on Jun 18 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

Some nice ideas, but boy this is tough to read

Yeah, I know

I'm very open to suggestions as to how to make it an easier read and still adequately cover the material.

The main idea I'm trying to get across is that a SJS is not about HCP.
It's about having a hand with so much in power tricks and so little in losers that slam is definitely a possibility; but it's a slam where you may need the right Q in a side suit or some other subtlety that normal cubidding may not be adequate for.

In short, a proper SJS is a value location based slam try just like a splinter is.

The other benefit of the SJS is that if you are playing them there is a negative inference available when Responder doesn't use them. That's what my comments regarding SJS and limit bids is about.

It's darn hard to distill at least a week's worth of teaching material (Defensive AKA Quick AKA Honor Tricks, Controls, LTC, finally SJS...) into 1 coherent post!

[foo]

Yep, these are basically Soloway Jump Shifts. With the operational details thrown in so that people know how to get them "right" ATT.

There are also some advanced bidding tricks that I'm not planning on covering unless parts I and II do well enough.

...and of course I know that most experts have abandoned the use of SJS. But they have machinery and skills that can (usually) make up for SJS not being available.

Even at that, you'll occasionally get a bidding problem from one of your expert friends and someone in the crowd will sigh and say "this would've been much easier if We still played SJS."...

[Stephen Tu]

Mike, I don't think experts abandoned SJS because they think going through PLOB bids is a superior way to bid all strong hands. The bidding theorists abandoned them for other uses based on frequency. They thought using up so many bids for rarish strong hands was less useful than some other treatments that come up much more often and/or plug other holes. Not that using minimum bidding + 4SF gropes was going to lead to superior contracts than the SJS when appropriate hands came up. They just thought they could perhaps get by and not lose too much in accuracy compared to the SJS going through those other sequences, at least not enough to offset gains from using the jumps for something else. And plenty of non-theorist experts simply just followed the herd.

To me, the decision to SJS or not, if you play them, is whether you think it is better on a particular hand to tell partner what you have, or ask what he has. If you think you can do all these delicate probes you can find out if partner has the right bits, go slow. But sometimes when you just PLOB around partner doesn't know what's most important since he doesn't know exactly what features you are looking for, since one PLOBs on many different hand types. Sometimes it's best to say, hey I'm close to slam, I've got this big one suiter, or some big fit for you, or something like 17-19 balanced, you should really go if not a misfitting minimum. Otherwise you just keep on making these minimum forcing bids & later on you & partner are arguing over how one could have inferred this or that & gone on to slam or stayed out of slam. I think it was Kaplan who wrote something along the lines of "one good descriptive jump is better than a ton of negative inferences".

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jun 18 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

As for your definitions of a SJS: I suspect that very few current experts (I stress, I am speaking only of NA experts)  would think of making a SJS on a balanced hand, no matter how strong. Flat 20 counts don't need to jumpshift.

To the extent that SJS's remain part of the expert's arsenal, in NA at least, they appear usually to be what are sometimes known as Soloway Jump Shifts. A Soloway JS shows either a self-sufficient trump suit or a long, strong suit with good support for partner's suit. In other words, after partner has made a Soloway JS, opener knows that the contract will be played in one of his suit, responder's suit, or notrump. This means that opener will not, usually, make a shape-descriptive natural new suit bid. Indeed, his primary role is to stay out of responder's way, in order to let responder clarify which of the 2 hand types he owns.

Any reference I have seen of Soloway jump shifts mentions 3 possible hand types: a) self-sufficient suit, b) with good fit, c) balanced.

BWS includes the balanced hand type, too:

Quote

a jump-shift shows more than ordinary game-going strength (the equivalent of 16 HCP plus), a substantial suit (at least five-card length with at least two of the top three honors), and one of three hand-types: balanced, one-suited, support

I have never played SJS and probably never will, but if you do I think it makes a lot of sense to include balanced hands with a decent 5-card suit in the 16-18 pts range (just about not good enough to raise a natural 3N to 4N).

[foo]

Some SJS examples from p183 of the 1938 edition of Culbertson's _Contract Bridge Complete: the new gold book_. All are 1H-??

1H-2S;
AK9xx.Kxx.AQ8x.x
AQJ8.QJx.AKxx.KT
AKJxxx.x.KQ8.Axx

1H-3C;
xx.QT9x.Ax.AKQxx

1H-3D;
Ax.Q8x.AK8x.KQxx
-.Q9xx.AKQxxx.KQx

They all look remarkably familar even ~70 years later.

[awm]

Part of the reason strong jump shifts are less popular today has to do with 2/1 game force. Say partner opens 1♠. You have one of:

(1) A game force with a long, strong club suit.
(2) An invite with a long, strong club suit.
(3) A weak hand with a long, reasonably strong club suit.

Playing standard american in some form (or acol for that matter), hands (1) and (2) start with 2♣. Partner rebids something (usually two of a red suit) and now 3♣ is non-forcing and shows hand (2). This means that on hand (1), where you are fairly likely to have slam, responder is forced to start manufacturing bids to create a forcing auction. This is awkward to say the least, and hurts your slam bidding substantially. Strong jumps essentially solve this problem by starting with 3♣ on a game force with slam interest.

Playing two-over-one, hand (1) is easy to bid as you just start with 2♣ and rebid 3♣ game forcing. The problem for two-over-one is that both hand (2) and (3) are starting with 1NT (forcing) and rebidding 3♣ over partner's likely red suit rebid. This makes it very hard for opener to bid game opposite (2) with mild extras while passing 3♣ when responder has (3)! For this reason, many two-over-one partnerships use jump shifts to show an invitational hand (hand type 2) or a weak hand (hand type 3) with the other option being the only one to go via 1NT forcing and a 3♣ rebid.

Of course, this doesn't apply to strong jump shifts at the two-level.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Jun 19 2007, 12:34 AM, said:

I think strong jumpshifts are really underrated.

And I think the world would be better off without them... lol

Funny game, this bridge.

[foo]

Rightly or wrongly, SJS is what we teach novices when they are first starting out.

If we are going to teach something at all, we may as well do it correctly.

[Fluffy]

They never taught me strong jump shifts nor strong 2s, I have problems to tell if they are good or bad conventions, but the only sure thing is I won't use them.

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jun 19 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

They never taught me strong jump shifts nor strong 2s, I have problems to tell if they are good or bad conventions, but the only sure thing is I won't use them.

Interesting. What was the base system you were taught and ~ how long did it take for you to feel "at home" with it?


...and FTR, even I won't teach Strong Twos even to novices at this point.
I want novices to be able to pick up a partner at the desk of the local club or tourney as soon as possible after they start learning. While most players have at least some instinct for SJS, Strong Two's are so alien to the average player and Weak Two's so ubiquitous that there really is no point in teaching anything else.
(Not all teachers agree with me on this.)

[Fluffy]

I started young (13), and they taught me something very close to french standard (you would say similar to sayc).

But in my initial system 2 level openings or jump shift would just not exist.

I can't tell you how long it took me to take it since I am still learning (as everyone is). But initially it was very simple to say 1x-1y is 6+ forcing.

I remember I reinvented weak 2 thinking.... if we open 3 wih 7 cards 7-11, why not open 2 with 6?.

Then they explained me weak 2 and I would open 2M everytime I had 6, even with 12-15 (but then I would rebid 3M!, I got some tops doing this)

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jun 19 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

...

I remember I reinvented weak 2 thinking.... if we open 3 wih 7 cards 7-11, why not open 2 with 6?.

Then they explained me weak 2 and I would open 2M everytime I had 6, even with 12-15 (but then I would rebid 3M!, I got some tops doing this)

ROTFL!

...I've had some students like you...

(...and very long ago and very far away I was told I was a similar student myself... )

lol

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jun 19 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

I started young (13), and they taught me something very close to french standard (you would say similar to sayc).

But in my initial system 2 level openings or jump shift would just not exist.

I can't tell you how long it took me to take it since I am still learning (as everyone is). But initially it was very simple to say 1x-1y is 6+ forcing.

IIRC, when I was introduced to French Standard it was still a canape system...

I certainly don't teach 2+ level openings other than 2C and 2N in the first week. It may happen in the first month if the pace of the course is brisk enough.

JS's, even SJS, tend to be after that.

But certainly within the 1st 3-6 months, most SA novices will probably be exposed to both.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 19 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

IIRC, when I was introduced to French Standard it was still a canape system...

When was this? I know that canape type methods enjoyed some popularity in France in the distant past, however, the country is notorious for highly standardized bidding based on 5 card majors and "la longue d'abord"

[Gerben42]

In Germany beginners are currently taught several things that the world (or at least the poor defenseless students) are better off without. SJS, although I don't like them, are not very high on this list. My top 3 is:

* Strong 2-bids <eek!>
* 1NT opening showing 16 - 18 HCP <sigh!>
* When they finally get rid of strong 2-bids they learn... Benji <d'oh!>