[hanp]

jjbrr, on Apr 25 2010, 02:42 AM, said:

if 3♠ doesnt show this hand, i suggest reconsidering agreements.

I'd bid 3S, but 3S does not show this hand.

[hotShot]

Since there is no other way (after my 1NT bid) to show my ♠ fit, I'll have to bid 3♠ now. There is not enough room to show ♠ fit, ♣ fit and stopper in the red suits.

I assume that 2m instead of 1NT would have shown a 5 card suit or a stronger hand.

[ONEferBRID]

bid_em_up, on Apr 24 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

opps silent.

1S-1N
3C-?

---

what's your choice and why please?

I hope we get to see Opener's hand sometime in the near future.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is a favorite quote from Februrary ( http://forums.bridge...showtopic=37712 ) by Phantomsac ( Justin's [ Jlal's ] alter ego ) pertaining to SJS hands of this type [ Continuations after jump shift ...thread started by bftboy ]:

".....imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jumpshift."

[bid_em_up]

ONEferBRID, on Apr 26 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

I hope we get to see Opener's hand sometime in the near future.

1♠-1N
3♣-4♠
all pass

---

South thought 4♠ showed a limit raise. North thought otherwise.

[Free]

nvm, hand posted first showed AKQxx in ♠ and ♣

[bid_em_up]

Free, on Apr 26 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

nvm, hand posted first showed AKQxx in ♠ and ♣

sorry, that was what I remembered, but when I went and looked it up, it was actually the hand as now posted.

[pooltuna]

bid_em_up, on Apr 24 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

opps silent.

1S-1N
3C-?

---

what's your choice and why please?

I am surprised by the number voting for 3♠. I had presumed possibly incorrectly that you were playing a 5 card major system and thus 1NT had to be at least semi-forcing. This would make the 3♠ call equivalent to a less than constructive raise/choice of suits bid. Perhaps you can update your system information as the second choice for me would be 4♣ but my red suit cards look likely to be somewhat wasted for that choice.

[pooltuna]

bid_em_up, on Apr 26 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Apr 26 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

I hope we get to see Opener's hand sometime in the near future.

1♠-1N
3♣-4♠
all pass

---

South thought 4♠ showed a limit raise. North thought otherwise.

IMO South is correct if 1NT was forcing or semiforcing. And if it was not either of those then 1NT would be correct only if you were playing either a 4 card major system or allowed opening a 4 card major in 3rd or 4th seat.

[hijumper]

There are three options for me after 3c strong jumpshift: 3D, 3S and 4c. First of all, 4s is out of scope because this hand is too strong for this limited raise. I believe that 3S would be choice of the most players due to the apparent reason. 4c could be second choice. But 3D is my choice after analysis of the hand. There isn't very good support to partner in that two suits and diamond could be the hole for the 6 Spade, which I believe the likely final contract for most 3S bidders. The advantage of 3D is its flexiblity. It is a strong reponse and doesn't deny anything about S and C. It leaves more space and fore partner to further describe his hand. It also protect the weakest suit of the hand esp. when I am trying to play 6NT. I believe the 6NT would be the best contract if slam is possible.

[ONEferBRID]

♠ AKQxx
♥ x
♦ Ax
♣ KQ10xx


♠ 952
♥ AK
♦ K542
♣ J983

1S - 1NT!( forcing 1 round )
3C - 3D! ( relays to 3H to show various holdings )
3H! - 4C! ( this option shows 3♠ and 4 or 5♣ )
?? Now opener can use 4D! ( 6 Ace kickback )
4D! - 4S ( 2nd step = 1 key card )
5D! ( specific K-ask; can still stop in 5S if no outside K's )
5H ( ♥ K ) - 6S

[cherdanno]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 26 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

3S, we play (which seems to be general consensus), that 3S showes the
limit raise.

I thought that this agreement was non standard, and voted 4C, afterall
we also have a club fit, but of course 4C tells p, that we have 10-12 bal.
hand (or a max. standard 1NT response with good club supp.).

I think you are misunderstanding. Most 3S bidders don't assume that 3S shows a limit raise, just that 3S includes a limit raise as a possible hand. I think most would also bid 3S with Kx Kxx Qxxxx xxx.

Anyway, I would also bid 3♠. But I also think it's quite ugly - having a limit raise opposite a jump shift is one of the worst auctions in standard IMO.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 26 2010, 06:46 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 25 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

Could you elaborate on how a jump shift into a 3 card suit would work badly if we were 2344 here?

You can't bid 4♣. Thus you might miss a good slam.

You can still bid 4♣. And I bet you can guess what opener will do with his 3 clubs and 6+ spades.

[bid_em_up]

pooltuna, on Apr 26 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

I had presumed possibly incorrectly that you were playing a 5 card major system and thus 1NT had to be at least semi-forcing. This would make the 3♠ call equivalent to a less than constructive raise/choice of suits bid. Perhaps you can update your system information as the second choice for me would be 4♣ but my red suit cards look likely to be somewhat wasted for that choice.

I wasn't playing the hand, only kibitzing. The pair that did was playing 2/1.

[nige1]

bid_em_up, on Apr 24 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

opps silent.
1S-1N
3C-?
what's your choice and why please?

---

IMO, assuming that 3♣ is GF, 3♥ (Advance cue) = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♣ = 8.
4♣ should show 5+♣ or a double fit.

[awm]

nige1, on Apr 26 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 24 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

opps silent.
1S-1N
3C-?
what's your choice and why please?

---

IMO, assuming that 3♣ is GF, 3♥ (Advance cue) = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♣ = 8.

I didn't think anyone played "advance cuebids" anymore. Live and learn I guess.

Personally I think that this situation is part of why having 3-card limit raises in your 1NT response is not a good method. These hands offer substantial slam prospects opposite opener's game-forcing jump shift, and it is difficult to clearly show the major suit fit at a low level (you either jump to 4M, which destroys crucial space, or you bid 3M which is quite ambiguous as to both strength and degree of fit and basically just a "catch all" bid).

With all that said, if I'm handcuffed by the methods I would bid whatever my agreement is about how to show the 3-card limit raise in this auction. I think the "standard" (okay old-fashioned) agreement is that 4♠ shows this hand so I would bid that if no other discussion.

[Free]

ONEferBRID, on Apr 26 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

♠ AKQxx
♥ x
♦ Ax
♣ KQ10xx


♠ 952
♥ AK
♦ K542
♣ J983

1S - 1NT!( forcing 1 round )
3C - 3D! ( relays to 3H to show various holdings )
3H! - 4C! ( this option shows 3♠ and 4 or 5♣ )
?? Now opener can use 4D! ( 6 Ace kickback )
4D! - 4S ( 2nd step = 1 key card )
5D! ( specific K-ask; can still stop in 5S if no outside K's )
5H ( ♥ K ) - 6S

Why do you play 6♠ if you know all this? You want a ♣ ruff?

Your 3♦ tool looks ok, but isn't exactly 2/1 or sayc...

[ONEferBRID]

Free....
You are right... 6C would be safer.

The first few bids are 2/1 GF.
Some of the follow-ups ( not all shown ) after the SJS are my invention and probably too complicated since other SJS in the series require other steps...

But the "out of focus" suit bid to create a relay gives you TWO ways to reach 3NT bids or 4-level bids --eg. a direct 4C bid ( over 3C ) has a different meaning.

[ONEferBRID]

I also serve up the "relay" method as a solution to Josh's ( Jdonn ) sometimes questionable use of the 3C SJS as an artifical GF when holding a long major:

1S - 1NT!
3C! - 3D! ( relay to 3H )
3S = bypassing 3H to show the long Sp GF hand,
    whereas accepting the relay to 3H shows a real 2-suiter.

[ I offer it at no charge since he has been so kind to me in the past ] .

[aguahombre]

awm, on Apr 26 2010, 11:46 PM, said:

Personally I think that this situation is part of why having 3-card limit raises in your 1NT response is not a good method. These hands offer substantial slam prospects opposite opener's game-forcing jump shift, and it is difficult to clearly show the major suit fit at a low level (you either jump to 4M, which destroys crucial space, or you bid 3M which is quite ambiguous as to both strength and degree of fit and basically just a "catch all" bid).

We found that using up other bids to show 3-card limit raises hurt us in different layouts where we could have used those bids in a more helpful way.

But, not using the forcing NT with 6-7 pt. crap 3-card raises hasn't proved to be a big loss.