[jdonn]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

I actually like Josh's variant. However, I'm curious how Josh separates out the min and max with 3. What if responder has an invite with 4 trumps? How does he distinguish between say:

♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦KJTxxx ♣x

and

♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxxx ♣x

Won't both go 1♦ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠; 3♦?

Over 3♥ opener passes with the first, bids 3♠ with the second and lets partner pick the contract (4♣ would be like an "I still don't know" bid and then opener could bid 4♦). Obviously any system will get you to 3 of the major sometimes with four opposite three, that's when we get our play practice.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

Over 3♥ opener passes with the first, bids 3♠ with the second and lets partner pick the contract (4♣ would be like an "I still don't know" bid and then opener could bid 4♦). Obviously any system will get you to 3 of the major sometimes with four opposite three, that's when we get our play practice.

So is 3♦ forcing or will partner stretch to bid 3♥?

Suppose he held: ♠Kx ♥AQJx ♦xxx ♣xxxx

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

Over 3♥ opener passes with the first, bids 3♠ with the second and lets partner pick the contract (4♣ would be like an "I still don't know" bid and then opener could bid 4♦). Obviously any system will get you to 3 of the major sometimes with four opposite three, that's when we get our play practice.

So is 3♦ forcing or will partner stretch to bid 3♥?

Suppose he held: ♠Kx ♥AQJx ♦xxx ♣xxxx

NF but only passed if he feels he needed max with 4 to make game, and if he thinks he is in a better partscore. Club shortness is easy to infer with that hand with no one bidding spades and the hearts are good, so I think it's easy to go back to 3♥.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Aug 13 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Aug 13 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

Quote

young german experts who play this method use constructive jumps shifts... up to 8 hcp and a 6 card suit. That is surely playable, but is not remotely a weak jump shift as commonly understood in North America

FYP. WJS as 5-8 is quite common in Europe. I personally think it's a far superior range to the American one, comes up a ton more often, and opens up sequences for the stronger hands.

When forced to play WJS (and it isn't that often), I play 4-8. Personally I think 0-5 or something like that is unplayable.

FWIW, the method I currently use and like is for a JS to be "intermediate," which is better than the young German "constructive" and approximates the yound German non-jump followed by a non-jump (i.e., about 9-11). That makes 1M...2M less than 9 and 1M...3M as GF.

The main benefit that I have seen is that these 2M jumps fairly often eliminate any competition. If they do step in, we are in fairly good placement to decide between hitting them and bidding to the right level. The occasional problem is in assessing prematurely whether a specific holding in in range or out of range. Sometimes the tweeners at the high end are tough because they may or may not be worthy of GF. Sometimes the tweeners at the low end are tough as well.

It is nice, though, to not commit to a range at the low end, up front. 3 to a bad 8 is more workable if you don't preempt partner into an immediate decision.