[BridgeBuff]

I don’t think I like Long Diamond Jammer, so I didn’t pursue that line. Although it doesn’t put as much pressure on LHO, the anchor suit for Long Spade Jammer is more preemptive, and responder has an extra chance to find a decent spot with a 2H bid on the way to 2S. The response system for Long Diamond Jammer is largely “pass with diamonds, or scramble” so you would miss out on a number of decent major-suit fits.

I did decide to take a look at Long Spade Jammer excluding 4432’s, so the bid would be largely 5431 shapes with some true three-suiters. I also decided to run a larger sample on Rough Diamond and Long Spade (with 4432) .. about 10,000 samples each.

For Long Spade Jammer (with 4432), (ABCD) = (7.0, 29.1, 36.8, 27.1) with lawfulness at 63.9%. Without 4432 Jammer = (3.6, 33.5, 38.4, 24.5) with lawfulness at 62.9%. Rough Diamond = (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7) for lawfulness 59.9%.

Jammer without 4432 is not quite as lawful, because responder’s long suits opposite shortness are now hitting singletons and voids, never doubletons, I guess. However the number of disasters (the A component) is halved, so maybe that is an argument for it. Frequency is about 4% compared to about 7% for the Long Spade variety.

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Aug 31 2004, 07:08 AM, said:

You think this is scary? I think it's a WONDERFUL system!

- We are not looking for the optimal contract, we are looking for a 'playable' contract. 2-level in a 4-3 is playable (watch MOSCITO sometimes ).

Meep!

I was always taught that 4-3s go downhill fast when you start subtracting points. 2-level 4-3 with 21 points is great. 2 level 4-3 with 18 hcp is scary. 2 level 4-3 with 15 is 800 if you're not vulnerable. Basically, they're making 3NT, and your 4-3 trump suit isn't going to slow them down.

But then, lots of stuff I've been taught was wrong. Is this one of them?

[Free]

Yes hehe

[Flame]

Thxs for the resposes richard, we decided to play frelling except the 2sp opening . it just that 6 spades and 4 spades/5 clubs are too much apart, i will have a big problem when i hold good support for club and short in spade, and will hve to pass 2sp maybe even with a void.

[Free]

Yeah, I also don't like the 2♠ for the same reason, however I haven't had much bad experiences with it. For me, it didn't come up enough yet to know if it really works or not. Theoreticly if we have game, we will find it, but the battle for partscore is probably poor if responder has a 3 card ♠ support.

I've suggested to play 6+♠ or 5+♠-4+♣, but then the opps will know what they're defending against (♠s ), which isn't the case at this point... And that's one of the strong sides of all frelling two's.

[Flame]

Free, on Sep 1 2004, 01:31 PM, said:

I've suggested to play 6+♠ or 5+♠-4+♣, but then the opps will know what they're defending against (♠s ), which isn't the case at this point... And that's one of the strong sides of all frelling two's.

I thought about this 5♠-4♣ or 6♠ too and i think we will go for it, sure its not perfect.

[hrothgar]

I've never understood why people find the 2♠ opening so objectionable. Sure, the opening is no-tradition, however, its downright innocuous compared to so of the stuff that the Italians are playing. Case in point 2♠ = 6+ spades or 9-11 balanced... I've never been able to figure out a good response structure for that one:

From my perspecitve, the split nature of the 2♠ opening is actually one of its strengths. Typically, when you are multiplexing different hand types, you want the different hands to be logically distinct. This makes competitive bidding much more easy. I experimented with 2♠ = 6+ spades or 5+ spades 4+♣. From my perspective, it made the opening structure much worse:

Couple points to consider

First, if the auction starts: 2♠ - 3♣, where 3♣ is pass or correct, the 2♠ opener should correct to his lowest 3 card suit holding a single suited hand. This often allows the partnership to scramble into a 5-3 fit at the three level.

Second: Here's a table that might prove helpful

Holding 3-3 in the Black suits
pass with a hand suitable to play in a Moysian, otherwise correct or Clubs

Holding 2 Spades and 3 Clubs: Rebid 3♣, pass or correct

Holding 2 Clubs and 3 Spades: Pass

Holding 1 Spade and 3 Clubs: With luck, you're in a 6-1 fit. If not, you probably picked off their 8 card Spade fit

Holding 3 Spades and 1 Club: Pass: You are almost certainly in a Moysian. Learn to play these.

Holding 2-2 in the majors: Worst possible holding. Pass and pray...

[BridgeBuff]

The Rough Diamond is relatively unlawful in large part because the 4432 and 5431 hands are treated as two-suiters when partner might have a nice fit in the 3-suit. Surely it makes sense to find those fits cheaply if you can.

I took another look at Short Club 2D Jammer. Those include 5431, 4432, 4441 and 5440 hands with club shortness. The only serious problem is when responder has clubs and no second suit, say 223=6 or worse, 233=5 hands, when you risk playing in your 3-3 fits. With 6 clubs you cross your fingers and bid 3C (or if non-vul and weak, maybe try passing or goofing around) … close to half the time you will hit the doubleton in a 4432 hand so that isn’t disastrous.

What to do about the 233=5 hands? If you bid the lower 3-suit, from time to time you will hit partner’s 3-suit. Oops. But if non-vul and weak, you might try passing first. If it is passed out, you might be in a shitty contract but you might not. If it is doubled, then you could play that XX asks opener for his lowest 4+ suit (he must have one in hearts or spades). If you do this, you will eliminate those 3-3 fits and sometimes find a nice 5-3 spot.

(For notation (ABCD), A = % of hands 2 cards less than law requirements, B = 1 less, C = lawful, D = >lawful.)

So if you bid the cheapest 3-suit with those 233=5 hands (or pass with three diamonds), Short Club Jammer comes in at (6.0, 23.6, 38.9, 31.5) which is a very safe 70.4% lawful.

If you pass and XX to possibly improve your fit, it produces (3.9, 23.9, 39.2, 33.0) which is even safer at 72.2%, with considerably fewer disasters.

Short Club Jammer covers your ‘two-suited’ majors and diamond-majors in one bid that is much safer than Rough Diamond (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7), lawful just 59.9%.

With a weak hand you just scramble. For invitational+, you could build a sensible response system starting with 2N. Maybe 3C would then show a minimum hand not both majors (3 of one of them), 3D minimum both majors, 3H maximum both majors .. or ???

I’m flogging a dead horse with you guys but I’ve at least convinced myself now that Short Club is worth a trial, and to heck with those risky Frelling bids.

[Flame]

Isnt a bidding like 2sp-3c-3x-3sp a great recepy to get doubled on the 3 level on a 6/7 card fit ? we are telling the opponents we have no fit.
I think you should pass with a void in spade and 4 clubs.
Your points about the response stucture make sense, but i know that even if i will be convinced that its ok to play this, i will still have to convice my partner which wont be easy.
Anyway cant wait to try our new tool.

[Mr_Sock]

Quote

So if you bid the cheapest 3-suit with those 233=5 hands (or pass with three diamonds), Short Club Jammer comes in at (6.0, 23.6, 38.9, 31.5) which is a very safe 70.4% lawful.

I like the idea of the Short Club Jammer, but i haven't seen a response structure yet? are 2♥/2♠/3♣ all drop-dead bids, with 2NT as an enquiry? this would seem to be the most sensible, but aren't there problems when responder has equal length in the majors? - sometimes he is going to pick the wrong suit -- e.g. if 2♥ is drop dead, but recommended with 4-4 in the majors, then what is the chance that you have landed in a 4-3 heart fit (with an 8-card fit available in spades).

it occurs to me that the calculations on 'lawfulness' might not have taken this into account? -- so the figure of 70% may be an overestimate?

Quote

Short Club Jammer covers your ‘two-suited’ majors and diamond-majors in one bid that is much safer than Rough Diamond (5.3, 34.8, 40.2, 19.7), lawful just 59.9%.

By the way, I think that 'safety' and 'lawfulness' are related, but slightly different concepts, so the quote above may be slightly misleading. A hypothetical example -- if opponents were more likely to find a double of our failing contract after our SC Jammer 2♦ auctions than they are after our Rough 2♦ auctions (on identical deals), then it would follow that the SC Jammer is less safe? There must be other differences as well?

[BridgeBuff]

Quote

it occurs to me that the calculations on 'lawfulness' might not have taken this into account? -- so the figure of 70% may be an overestimate?

Yes the calculations of the (ABCD) components in this thread reflect rules that responder would use. Using Short Club Jammer, on a scramble, one of those rules would be ‘holding equal-length majors, bid hearts’ so responder with 4=4=2=3 opposite opener with 5=3=4=1 would land in 2H oops. That hand combination would be in the ‘B’ category and the 70% lawfulness is accurate that way.

(You might decide to use a rule that says bid 2S with equal-length majors for pre-emptive reasons)

Any system has ‘oops’ bids. The two-suiter bids have better precision for the two suits, but more ‘oops’ bids overall. Rough Diamond has 40% ‘oops’ positions compared to 30% Jammer, so you have to look at the bigger picture.

You’re right about safety versus lawfulness. One system might be less lawful but safer but that would have to be tested at the table for some period of time. Certainly a 10% difference in lawfulness is a huge difference to make up and Jammer might very well be ‘safer’ as well because it is not so well defined. As well, the Jammer bid frees up 2H for another purpose.

That two-suited Frelling 2S bid looks very reckless to me, but to each his own.

Yes that response system is sensible. With a weak hand you just scramble. For invitational+, you could build a sensible response system starting with 2N. Maybe 3C would then show a minimum hand not both majors (3 of one of them), 3D minimum both majors, 3H maximum both majors, 3S maximum with 4+ spades, 3N maximum with hearts .. or ???

Strong responder with 4=4=2=3 opposite opener with 5=3=4=1 would find his spade fit with:

2D
2N query

3C minimum one major
3D which major?

3S
pass or 4S

There might be more clever response systems ….