[matmat]

Was reading one of the threads where a very nice 1363 hand was posed as a rebid problem. some chose a 3d underbid, others a 2n underbid, others still a reverse into hearts, and a few a jumpshift into clubs. (and some bid 3nt)

so... suppose you have a hand that is suitable to either jumpshift as opener or reverse (in terms of strength, but not necessarily shape). What is sacred to you, in terms of suit lengths for either of the two actions?

i think i could probably come up with a cleaner way to ask this, but i'll leave it as this for now.

[kenrexford]

Unfortunately, the options provided do not allow me to answer my practice here.

To explain:

If there are multiple options, then major calls will be real but other-minor calls might not.

Thus, if I have options, I will not reverse or jump shift into a three-card major. However, I might reverse or jump shift into the other three-card minor.

If I have no options, then I might be forced to reverse OR jump shift into a three-card major OR minor.

The other discussion concerned the option to reverse after a 1♦ opening with a 2♥ call or to jump shift 3♣. I would JS to 3♣ because I have that option and because clubs is the other minor.

If we each bid a minor (1♣-1♦), then I might JS into a major with a three-card suit because of a lack of alternatives.

I might reverse into a minor as the best option. After 1♣-P-1M-P-?, 2♦ might be based on a three-card suit, as the alternative of a reverse to 2♥ or a jump shift to 2♠, respectively, would be unpalatable.

[Echognome]

I voted either can be 3, but it's somewhat situation dependent. It depends, for example, on how well I can handle the subsequent auction.

Suppose that we have a 3=3=6=1 hand with reversing strength. If the auction starts 1♦ - 1♠, you will get a lot of people reversing into hearts, because they can always take partner back to spades. However, given a 1=3=6=3, this option is no longer valid and it will depend somewhat on what is the best description of the hand.

As was mentioned, there are simply too many hands to cover in the slots we assign them. Of course partner should consider these slighty askew shapes as possibilities depending on the subsequent auction.

[awm]

It's more complex than this.

In general these bids are supposed to promise 4+ cards in the second suit and 5+ cards in the first. However, there are certain hands that are very difficult to bid in most systems. The main offenders are:

(1) GF one-suited hands not quite big enough to open a strong 2♣ and not suitable to rebid 3NT.
(2) Strong hands with 3361-type shape and three cards in the suit named by partner.
(3) Very strong 4441 patterns.

If opener holds one of these hands, it may be necessary to "fudge" either a reverse or a jump shift in order to create a forcing auction. Partner is supposed to assume that you have the normal holding of 4+/5+ respectively in your suits at least initially, although the later bidding may imply otherwise.

With this said, the decision will be which fake suit to reverse/jump shift in? The general rules are:

(1) Try to have a strong three-card holding in the second suit. This will help partner evaluate his hand and decide whether notrump is right, and gives you some protection if partner raises.

(2) Try to avoid bidding a major in which partner might hold four cards. In general it is easier to convince partner not to play in a minor than it is to convince partner not to play in a major. For this reason, a 3♣ jump shift is probably the most-often-abused call, and some players have made formal rules about this and use a relay to uncover opener's hand type.

(3) Try to choose the cheaper of reasonable alternatives to preserve space.

I think the most often calls to be three-card suits are:

1M - 1X - 3♣ (it's the cheapest jump and it's a minor)
1♥ - 1NT - 2♠ (partner has denied four spades, so it's pretty safe)
1m - 1NT - 2M (partner has denied a major, "better 3-card suit" with 1-suited GF)
1♣ - 1M - 2♦ (it's a minor, and quite cheap)

[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Apr 9 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

I voted either can be 3, but it's somewhat situation dependent.  It depends, for example, on how well I can handle the subsequent auction.

Suppose that we have a 3=3=6=1 hand with reversing strength.  If the auction starts 1♦ - 1♠, you will get a lot of people reversing into hearts, because they can always take partner back to spades.  However, given a 1=3=6=3, this option is no longer valid and it will depend somewhat on what is the best description of the hand.

As was mentioned, there are simply too many hands to cover in the slots we assign them.  Of course partner should consider these slighty askew shapes as possibilities depending on the subsequent auction.

Nice point -- OK to reverse into hearts with spade fragmentary support. I agree.

I also agree with AWM -- reversing into a fake major is OK if already denied by partner.

[Flameous]

Easier to just play gazilli. One bid to fix all the problems of offshape bids.
If my p doesn't play it though... I tend to bid NT with most hands instead of fake suits.

[Echognome]

Flameous, on Apr 9 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Easier to just play gazilli. One bid to fix all the problems of offshape bids.
If my p doesn't play it though... I tend to bid NT with most hands instead of fake suits.

By same token easier to play strong club or forcing pass or whatever. But it's completely an aside, since each choice has their own issues.

No need to creep on the thread.

[Dwingo]

Echognome, on Apr 10 2008, 02:43 AM, said:

Flameous, on Apr 9 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Easier to just play gazilli. One bid to fix all the problems of offshape bids. 
If my p doesn't play it though... I tend to bid NT with most hands instead of fake suits.

By same token easier to play strong club or forcing pass or whatever. But it's completely an aside, since each choice has their own issues.

No need to creep on the thread.

Probably he voted for the option

Quote
I play a system you couldn't possibly fathom to understand, so this is never a problem for me.

[matmat]

Dwingo, on Apr 9 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Probably he voted for the option

Quote
I play a system you couldn't possibly fathom to understand, so this is never a problem for me.

that was there for people like him... there's always a few

[whereagles]

My solutions:

1. Open those pesky strong 2 hands 2♣ and tweak the response scheme to cater for them. There are many options on the market for this.

2. Play some variant of polish club that dumps them into the 1♣ opener.

3. Assign a 2♣ or 2♦ opener specifically for them.

4. Assign an artificial 1m-1x-2NT rebid for them and either lower the 2NT opener 2 hcp or dump the bal 18-19 hands into a mexican 2♦.

What I would never, ever do is to "invent" suits

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Apr 10 2008, 03:50 AM, said:

My solutions:

1. Open those pesky strong 2 hands 2♣ and tweak the response scheme to cater for them. There are many options on the market for this.

2. Play some variant of polish club that dumps them into the 1♣ opener.

3. Assign a 2♣ or 2♦ opener specifically for them.

4. Assign an artificial 1m-1x-2NT rebid for them and either lower the 2NT opener 2 hcp or dump the bal 18-19 hands into a mexican 2♦.

What I would never, ever do is to "invent" suits

How about playing a sexy new artificial convention called "Multi-Strong Reverses" and "Multi-Strong Jump Shifts?"

The way the scientific gadget conventional thingie works is that you might, for example, jump to 3♣ after a 1♦ opening to show one of three types of hands. You either hand a strong minor two-suiter, or a strong diamond one-suiter, or a super-strong hand with fragmentary support for Responder's major.

There's a whole series of asking bids, like Responder making somehing we call a "Multi-Strong Lebensohl-esque Courtesy Correction Response." Also, "One-Over Transfer Rebids," where one bids above the normal suit that you would use to transfer to the next-up suit.

[NickToll]

I like to play as game forcing sequences like

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ (always a four-card suit or longer)
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠ (jump reverse)
1♣ - 1♠ - 3♣ (jump suit rebid: not common, but effective)

As a consequence, holding a one-suited hand not strong enough to force, we play that:
- a jump to 2NT shows a 15-18 one-suiter, with stoppers in both the unbid suits (strong balanced hands are opened at the two level);
- a third suit, reverse or not, can be a real suit or a stopper (the reverse approach is similar to Kaplan-Sheinwold).

The odd case is relevant to 15-18 one-suiters with a side suit unstopped: it is usually revealed when opener returns to his first bid suit. In the development, the fourth suit by responder is not necessarily strong, and suggests a fit for the second suit (if real).

[helene_t]

In a strong-NT context, I like opener's 1NT rebid to be a catch-all (well, almost all) so that a 2/1 shift by opener shows either 15+ or 10+ cards in the two suits. This allows opener's 2/1 shifts to be forcing so that jump shifts can be more specific.

I think this is playable in a weak-NT context also but the system becomes more complex, then.

Agree with Gnome's point but generally I am more likely to fake an economic bid like a 2♦ reverse, and also more likely to fake a 2NT rebid than a 3/1 shift, so I voted that reverses can be 3 while jump shifts must be 4.

[whereagles]

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

How about playing a sexy new artificial convention called "Multi-Strong Reverses" and "Multi-Strong Jump Shifts?"

over my dead body...

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Apr 10 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

How about playing a sexy new artificial convention called "Multi-Strong Reverses" and "Multi-Strong Jump Shifts?"

over my dead body...

I hope you caught my intended meaning. LOL

[Fluffy]

I play 2NT as GF normally 18/19 balanced, but exceptionally strong 1 suiter. I bid real suits then.

[Echognome]

helene_t, on Apr 10 2008, 04:10 AM, said:

In a strong-NT context, I like opener's 1NT rebid to be a catch-all (well, almost all) so that a 2/1 shift by opener shows either 15+ or 10+ cards in the two suits. This allows opener's 2/1 shifts to be forcing so that jump shifts can be more specific.

I think this is playable in a weak-NT context also but the system becomes more complex, then.

Agree with Gnome's point but generally I am more likely to fake an economic bid like a 2♦ reverse, and also more likely to fake a 2NT rebid than a 3/1 shift, so I voted that reverses can be 3 while jump shifts must be 4.

Unfortunately, you can always come up with exception hands:

A xxx AKJTxx AKx

1♦ - 1♠;
?

Are you bidding 2♥, 3♣, 3♦, 3NT?

For me this is a clear 3♣.

[helene_t]

Sure, 3♣ for me also, that's why I said "I am more likely to fake a 2NT rebid". One of the advantages of being a statistician is that one can never be proven wrong

[jdonn]

The 3♣ rebid can be taken to ridiculous extremes. What if you have AK xxx AKJxxxxx -. 1♦ p 1♥ p ? If you have no gadget like a 2NT rebid for game forcing single suited hands, and if 4♦ shows four hearts with six or more diamonds or such, and if you agree with me that 3♦ is beyond absurd, then you essentially have a choice between rebidding 2♠, 3♣, 3NT, and 5♦. It's not at all hard for me to see why one would choose 3♣, and I know of at least a few experts who would.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

The 3♣ rebid can be taken to ridiculous extremes. What if you have AK xxx AKJxxxxx -. 1♦ p 1♥ p ? If you have no gadget like a 2NT rebid for game forcing single suited hands, and if 4♦ shows four hearts with six or more diamonds or such, and if you agree with me that 3♦ is beyond absurd, then you essentially have a choice between rebidding 2♠, 3♣, 3NT, and 5♦. It's not at all hard for me to see why one would choose 3♣, and I know of at least a few experts who would.

3♣ for me also.

Quick aside (sorry). If you can stomach a strategic 3♣ on a void, you might not have as much problem with a strategic 2♣ on a fragment in another sequence. But, I digress.