[P_Marlowe]

inquiry, on Jun 14 2005, 09:27 AM, said:

As usual I will post the panel replies, one hand at a time. This time, however, I will also post all their votes in the original posting in table format, updating the table as I post their comments on each hand as I go along. Also as usual, I will wait a few days before posting all the panels votes so as not to stifle the discussion of the hands.

This hand, however, I have already posted a follow up poll about, in an effort to get a better feel for what the community thinks. I believe whole-heartedly that justin is correct that reverses ARE NOT GAME force. This has important implication because if 3S was now forcing, you could bid 3S to show shortness in diamonds (bid three suits natually, short in fourth). You can also jump to 4S or 4D to show the same, diamond shortness (theoretically I guess, you could be 2-4-2-5 with short diamonds and just too dang strong to stay out of game and bid 4S I guess).

So, to start off the unofficial panel response to this problem, let me say that none (so far) discussed the possibility of bidding 3S, nor mentioned rather they think that bid is forcing or not. However, my feeling from their responses is that 3♠ would NOT be forcing over 2♠... and right now, the even number responses in the Ingberman poll are way ahead (even number has 3♠ raise as non-forcing). So I think we will soon decide at least for the auction D (the 3S raise), that this is not forcing --- just as Justin states --- but time will tell, the poll is still open.

Ben

Hi Ben,

assuming that 2S is non forcing, which is absolute necessary,
I believe that it wont make a real difference, to play a raise of
2S to 3S as forcing or not.

The hands for which this will be relevant is

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: For memory sake, I voted for non forcing.

[HeartA]

4♦.

[Double !]

Walddk, on Jun 14 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

You seem to forget that weak jump shifts are part of the system, so we can rule out quite a few hands partner can have.

Oh, great....sigh

Now we need a poll to determine what kinds of hands people bid wjs on. Some play it like a mini-weak 2, about 3-7 with 6-bagger, some play it as weaker and less disciplined.

Isn't it nice to know that there is such a thing as Standard? lolololololololololol

[Winstonm]

Quote

If he has game invitational+ values, he should rebid 3♠ over 2♥. In other words: Responder is weak (2♠ is passable as I play it) with exactly 5 spa

This is an interesting method, but seems geared toward weaker reverses than I would use. My bottom on a reverse is a hand valued at 17. As long as partner isn't responding 1-level with Kxxxx and out, then our combined 22-23 should be somewhat safe at the 3-level, especially with a fit.

I would take a jump as you showed as a mild slam try instead of a game try. To my thinking, it doesn't make any sense to take up more space than necessary if we're still probing around for the best strain. Take a hand like: AQxxx, Qx, xxxx, xx. 1C-1S-2H-? If my pard shows next a spade fit, I love my hand; however, if he bids 2N or 3C, it's not so wonderful anymore. For me the constructive aspect of using 2S as a force makes more sense than occassionally being able to play precisely 2S.

It gets down to whether your partnership believes in more accurate partscore bidding verese game/slam bidding IMHO.

WinstonM

[Walddk]

Winstonm, on Jun 15 2005, 12:24 AM, said:

I would take a jump as you showed as a mild slam try instead of a game try.

WinstonM

Please read what I wrote. Since the system operates with weak jump shifts, and since responder's 2♠ rebid is passable, how else can he show an invitational+ (note the +) hand without jumping to 3♠?

That is not a game try, that is a game force opposite a reverse. My reverses are always sound, and they have to be if 3♠ is game forcing (roughly 8-11 with a goodish 6-card suit if only invitational).

Logically, 2♠ is a weak hand with exactly 5 spades, conceivably a 6-card suit, but unlikely since he didn't jump to 2♠ over 1♣.

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♠

is different in the sense that responder doesn't have to jump any more. There is no reverse, so 2♠ becomes invitational, and 3♠ will be game forcing. 2♠ on the above auction shows a game invitational hand with 6 spades. That is the whole idea of playing WJS.

Roland

[Winstonm]

Quote

Since the system operates with weak jump shifts, and since responder's 2♠ rebid is passable, how else can he show an invitational+ (note the +) hand without jumping to 3♠?

Is the trade off of being able to pass 2S when it is exactly right worth the sacrifice of a level of bidding space that a jump eats up or do you use 4th suit as an "all-purpose" bid for any and all undefined hands?

WinstonM

[Rebound]

RW:

I admit I know little about weak jump shifts. I prefer to avoid them at all costs. However, since they are part of BBO Adv., depending on style, I feel the following may apply:

Perhaps partner passes 1♣ holding a very weak 1-suited hand that is not good enough for a jump to 2♠. Further, ♠/♦ 2-suiters with more than a total bust would bid 2NT/2♥. With a weak ♠/♦ 2-suiter, it would be Pass or 3♣ /2♥ since Kxxxx opposite x will not play well in 2♠. So that leaves 1-suited spade hands that are too good for 2♠ directly over 1♣ IMHO such as ♠AK10xxx ♥xx ♦Jxx ♣xxx. If this reasoning is sound, it is therefore unnecessary to bid 3♠/2♥ to show a game invitational or better values. 3♠ can now indicate slam interest paving the way for serious 3NT continuation. I have long subscribed to the view that free bids show extras. I realize that is becoming more and more uncommon, but I find it works for me.

All that having been said, Fred has quite correctly pointed out more than once that we lesser players take lightly the wisdom of such undeniably expert and phenomenally experienced players as yourself to our detriment more often than not. So I ask your considered opinion. Am I totally out in left field?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Am I totally out in left field?

Ditto.

[Rebound]

Double !, on Jun 14 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 14 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

You seem to forget that weak jump shifts are part of the system, so we can rule out quite a few hands partner can have.

Oh, great....sigh

Now we need a poll to determine what kinds of hands people bid wjs on. Some play it like a mini-weak 2, about 3-7 with 6-bagger, some play it as weaker and less disciplined.

Isn't it nice to know that there is such a thing as Standard? lolololololololololol

Forgive me if this was intended as a joke and I'm just being a pedantic dud, but I believe one of the stated purposes of the quizes is to reach a consensus about BBO Advanced and such treatments. Suspect this in large part the reason for selection of this particular problem.

[luke warm]

i don't think we're trying to reach a consensus on all aspects of the system... wjs is part of the system, and discussing it isn't the same as discussing serious 3nt/lttc... regarding the strength needed for the bid, after something like 1d : 2s i'd expect the 2s bidder to have <5/6 hcp and 6+ spades.. iow, a hand he can't respond with a forcing 1s

[Rebound]

Sorry, I was imprecise. I'm can't argue the text-book definition of a weak jump-shift, but each time I've seen it bid by a partner or opponent on BBO, it has always been with a much weaker hand. To me, your post implies I have basically reversed the meanings of 1♠ and 2♠ over 1♣ as described in my previous post. Answering this and such other questions as whether 3♠ would be forcing or what have you by consensus are what these quizzes are all about if you ask me.

[Winstonm]

Quote

To me, your post implies I have basically reversed the meanings of 1♠ and 2♠ over 1♣ as described in my previous post.

This is my problem as well. For me, the WJS is used for 2 reasons: to 1) find a better spot that 1C when you don't have enough to respond and 2) obsruct the opponents (namely LHOwhen RHO passes). Obviously, this changes if RHO makes a 1-level bid. I simply don't respond on KJxxx, Jx, xxxx, xx.

WinstonM

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 14 2005, 08:16 PM, said:

Quote

To me, your post implies I have basically reversed the meanings of 1♠ and 2♠ over 1♣ as described in my previous post.

This is my problem as well. For me, the WJS is used for 2 reasons: to 1) find a better spot that 1C when you don't have enough to respond and 2) obsruct the opponents (namely LHOwhen RHO passes). Obviously, this changes if RHO makes a 1-level bid. I simply don't respond on KJxxx, Jx, xxxx, xx.

WinstonM

Here is one tiny vote for junking WJS Now we can play 2h over 1minor as reverse flannery which is one convention(perhaps not with 2h) Fred favors.

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-003A

No opponent bidding.

You  Partner
1♣     1♠
2♥     2♠
? you bid

Submitted by Mike777

---

This hand deals with follow up following a reverse. The panel was one vote short of unanimous for 4♦ as a splinter. The discussion, however, showed some disagreement how they play after a reverse, with two expressing the desire for 4♣ to be long clubs, short diamonds, and a spade fit (just as Richard wanted in the this thread. But, since 3♣ would not be forcing by opener, it seems that 4♣ has to be held back for clubs and forcing unsuited for notrump.

I will let the panel speak for themselves, and only interject a few comments. We will start with the newly crowned USBF championship.

Fred 4♦. This is the strongest bid I can make in support of spades. We might belong in clubs, but I cannot get that message across without distorting my distribution at the same time. In my style partner's 2♠ does not promise a good 5-card suit (or any extra values) so I have an easy Pass if he signoffs in 4♠. Fred’s willingness to stop in four spades is echoed by Henri (Ritong) The toughest of this set 4diamonds, we see later. I’ll pass 4 spades with discipline. Fluffy agreed almost word for word with his collegues. 4♦, let partner decide if slam is playable, or if 5 level is too high already. Will pass 4♠

While Fred, Fluffy and Ritong were thinking a discipline pass over a potential 4♠ bid, Luis was looking for more positively, but even he plans to pass 4♠ by his partner. 4♦ splinter. A very useful bid, it shows pd we have 3 card support for spades, a singleton or void in diamonds and a strong hand with clubs and hearts. But the best is that pd who hasn't promised anything will now cuebid 4♥ with the king or a singleton, that's mandatory. I plan to look for slam over 4♥ or pass 4♠.

Our last contest winner, Arend (cherdano), was on the same wavelength 4♦ splinter. (I assume 2♠ is forcing with 5+ spades) Splinter with only 3 trumps is iffy, but I have a void, and hopefully partner will allow for only 3 trumps (since I didn't splinter immediately). Hence we may still be able to get back to clubs when that is right. I won't move on to slam myself even if partner encourages with 4♥ last train, as with 2 out of ♠AKQ ♥A slam is probably bad (imagine playing 6♠ or 6♣ opposite ♠AKxxx ♥xx(x) ♦xxx ♣xx(x) on a diamond or heart lead) , and with 3 of them partner will insist on slam.

Roland (Walddk) Also was on the same page except perhaps the comment about responders rebid of his suit as being not forcing. I am not sure that is the way the panel plays reverses. 4♦. Rebid of own suit is the only bid I can pass after a reverse, but I'm much too good for that with this hand. Let's see if a splinter wakes him from the dead. I will still be interested if he can cue bid 4H now (5S next). If he signs off, I have done enough. He could easily have a weak hand with 5-5 in spades and diamonds, and then we are high enough. Even though we play weak jump shifts, his 2S is not invitational after a reverse. If he has a limit+ hand with 6 spades, he should rebid 3S over 2H.

Justin (Jlall) wanted to do more than 4♦ perhaps, but in final analysis, he too went with the majority. 4♦. Really tough hand. I looked at BBO advanced notes and it included 1430 exclusion (this should really be 0314 exclusion btw) so that is a viable option. There are two main problems with that bid. First, we can't find out about the queen of trumps if pard has only 1 keycard. Slam may be awful if he doesn't have it and great if he does. Secondly, they may work out to lead a heart through. Maybe we should play in 6C? This will protect our heart king as well as avoid this possible defense: diamond lead ruffed. spade jack, ducked all around. If pard has KQxxx of trumps he may still go down. 6C won’t work when we need tricks coming from diamond ruffs (meaning pard has no HK). It also won’t work if they can holdup twice in spades and shut us off from dummy. As partner will strain to respond to 1C with a 5 card major I won't bury him but this plan is not foolproof. 4♦ is obviously a splinter for spades, if I actually had diamonds I would bid 3N now.

Also wanting to do something else, but finally agreeing on 4♦ was Gabor (ng) 4♦. Good problem! Btw, is Lebensohl here or Ingberman are part of the system? Yes, ingberman is part of the system) 4♦ is splinter, 3 card support with 3-4-1-5, 3-3-1-6 or 3-4-0-6 distribution and game forcing strength. 3♠ is not forcing (I guess), 4♠ is to play, no slam prospects. But...4♣ would be better than 4♦, if my partner think about it as follows:

“If 3♣ is not forcing, 4♣ definitely is: game forcing AND spade support. Without spades, South would have had many other GF bids. If 3♣ is forcing (I think it is not), 4♣ shows some extras: solid suit and 3-4-0-6 or 3-3-1-6 distribution. It promises 3 card spade support, because with other disributions South's third bid would be:
with

• 2-4-2-5 or 1-4-3-5 = 2N (with D stopper, 17-18 HCP)
  
• 2-4-2-5 or 1-4-2-6 or 1-3-3-6 = 3C (without or soft D stopper, 17-18 HCP)
  
• 2-4-2-5 or 1-4-2-6 or 1-4-3-5 or 1-3-3-6 = 3D (without (good) D stopper, 19+HCP)
  
• 1-4-3-5 or 2-4-2-5 or 1-3-3-6 = 3NT (with AK or AQ or AJx or KQx in diamonds, 18+HCP)
  
• 2-4-0-7 or 1-4-1-7 = 5C.

So I prefer 4♣, but for KISS (Keep It Simply Simple), my vote is 4[D splinter.

Finally there was Rich, (Reisig) who was out on a very lonely limb by himself with the creative “4♣ - should show a ♠ raise with great ♣ suit -similar to a direct 4♣ over 1♠.”

The scoring here should be clear, 4♦ was the prohibitive favorite



VOTES  Panel  Score
4♦        8      100
4♣       1       40
4♠        0      20
3♠        0      10

[Elianna]

Ok, someone sent a request to Ben, which was forwarded to me, asking for totals of bids (that you, the contestants sent in). I don't know if I'll do this for all problems, but for this one:

4♦ 14
5♦ 5
4♠ 4
3♠ 3
4♣ 2
3♦ 1
6♠ 1
5♠ 1

Please let me know if you find this interesting/useful. It's a bunch of work, and if only one person wants it, they can just get the file and do it themselves.

Also, if I see even one post that says something along the lines of "I can't believe that someone (or some number of people) made such and such bid" I will not post any of these totals anymore. Please remember that even if you hate a bid, you should not be mean to people who are feeling their way through the contest, and didn't know that their bids would become public (since it wasn't stated in the COC, and this was just a request made by Ben).

[Winstonm]

I will defend to the death my right to bid badly.

WinstonM

[P_Marlowe]

Elianna, on Jun 14 2005, 09:58 PM, said:

Ok, someone sent a request to Ben, which was forwarded to me, asking for totals of bids (that you, the contestants sent in).  I don't know if I'll do this for all problems, but for this one:

4♦ 14
5♦ 5
4♠ 4
3♠ 3
4♣ 2
3♦ 1
6♠ 1
5♠ 1

Please let me know if you find this interesting/useful.  It's a bunch of work, and if only one person wants it, they can just get the file and do it themselves. 

Also, if I see even one post that says something along the lines of "I can't believe that someone (or some number of people) made such and such bid" I will not post any of these totals anymore.  Please remember that even if you hate a bid, you should not be mean to people who are feeling their way through the contest, and didn't know that their bids would become public (since it wasn't stated in the COC, and this was just a request made by Ben).

Hi Elianna,

at least regarding this problem, it feels good to know,
that I am not alone with my 4S bid.

I still believe, that anything else is shooting for the
moon, but I am just me, and the panel consist of
some world class players.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joker_gib]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 15 2005, 09:34 AM, said:

at least regarding this problem, it feels good to know,
that I am not alone with my 4S bid.

I still believe, that anything else is shooting for the
moon, but I am just me, and the panel consist of
some world class players.

You're not alone ! I'm with you Marlowe !

Alain

[luke warm]

well there's not much to say about the panel's reasoning... my 5♦ was a little too optimistic

[Walddk]

luke warm, on Jun 15 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

well there's not much to say about the panel's reasoning... my 5♦ was a little too optimistic

A little bit. Opposite

Qxxxx
Jx
Qxxxx
x

even 4♠ is in jeopardy. I don't think anyone would pass 1♣ with that hand.

Roland