[ONEferBRID]

mikeh, on May 3 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

....why do so many people think that someone .....is looking for a gadget to solve the problem?

How ofter per month do we see a post on a sequence:
1M - 1NT!
3m - ??

And to quote Justin again regarding these sequences:
" .... imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jumpshift. "

Since the GF jump-shift takes up a fair amount of room in these cases, I've resorted to gadgetry as a solution... albeit, it is not mainstream.

Just ignore the gadget posts if they bother you.

[junyi_zhu]

mikeh, on May 3 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

Let me add my voice to those who, in essence, say 3♣, wtp?

Obviously 3♣ is not perfect, but we have a flawed hand, so nothing is going to be perfect.

As for advocatiing gadgets, why do so many people think that someone posting in the SAYC and 2/1 forum is looking for a gadget to solve the problem? They are looking for advice on a judgment call: in the confines of having no gadgets, what call is best?

I often add my thoughts on gadgets, and I have one here, as do many players, but why not simply answer the posted question, providing description of gadgetry as additional information for those interested, rather than as 'the solution'?

We bid 3♣, establishing the gf, and retreat to hearts if possible (ie NOT over 5♣!). If partner insists on clubs, he will have 5+ and 0-1 heart so clubs will usually be preferable. And, on those hands on which we have slam, we have room to explore for it.

1 If one really wants to lie, it seems to me that 2S is a smaller lie because most likely, you won't play in any spades contracts.

2 It is important to have a bid to show a gf one suiter.

3 even if you have a bid to show gf one suiter, it's still unclear to me whether you want to play in NT or H if partner bids 3NT, if partner has one hearts, you probably don't mind playing 4M, otherwise, 3NT might be high already.

4 It seems to me that those who claim "3C, wtp" never have any problems when partner holds 4 clubs. For example, suppose you bid 3C and partner bids 4C, do you expect partner to pass 4H with a stiff H and 4 clubs?

5 Although I live in US, I never liked the "standard" lie of 3C. To me, 4H is a closer description for this hand if I have no gadgets, because 4H is usually where you should play facing a stiff H, facing a void H, you are unlucky.

6 if you really like some gadgets, it's a simple treatment to bid 2S to show either spades gf or H gf one suiter, 2NT as a relay to ask you to clarify your hand type and later you can design step responses. With spades, 16-18 HCP, you can either open 1NT or rebid 2NT after partner's 1NT to show your range.

[mikeh]

Quote

4 It seems to me that those who claim "3C, wtp" never have any problems when partner holds 4 clubs. For example, suppose you bid 3C and partner bids 4C, do you expect partner to pass 4H with a stiff H and 4 clubs?

yes....and, frankly, I am amazed that any experienced player would even ask this question. I'd expect partner to pass it with a stiff and FIVE clubs, unless he had slam interest.

Hands rarely match the prototypical examples one finds in texts, but a typical fake js then 4♥ suit looks like AKQJxx, and my experience playing these opposite a stiff has been far more enjoyable than having partner run to 5♣ with AKx opposite Qxxx. of course, your judgment and experience may differ

And on the hand in question, let me (please) play 4♥ opposite a stiff rather than 5♣ opposite, say, Jxxx.

[the hog]

mikeh, on May 4 2010, 05:35 AM, said:

Quote

4 It seems to me that those who claim "3C, wtp" never have any problems when partner holds 4 clubs. For example, suppose you bid 3C and partner bids 4C, do you expect partner to pass 4H with a stiff H and 4 clubs?

yes....and, frankly, I am amazed that any experienced player would even ask this question. I'd expect partner to pass it with a stiff and FIVE clubs, unless he had slam interest.

Hands rarely match the prototypical examples one finds in texts, but a typical fake js then 4♥ suit looks like AKQJxx, and my experience playing these opposite a stiff has been far more enjoyable than having partner run to 5♣ with AKx opposite Qxxx. of course, your judgment and experience may differ

And on the hand in question, let me (please) play 4♥ opposite a stiff rather than 5♣ opposite, say, Jxxx.

As you can't bid 4H over 5C, I assume that a 5C bid is banned in any of your partnerships?

[mikeh]

The_Hog, on May 3 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

As you can't bid 4H over 5C, I assume that a 5C bid is banned in any of your partnerships?

What is there about any post of mine that warrants that assumption? Or do you seriously think that there are hands on which one jumps from 3♣ to 5♣ on 4 card support for a suit known to be possibly 3 cards long? The jumpshift into a 3 card club suit has been part of standard bidding for decades (I am not speaking of strong club methods or Acol 2 bid methods).

As it happens, I play a gadget that allows responder to enquire a to my hand via an artificial 3♦ relay, but even in those partnerships in which the gadget is absent, it strikes me as absurd to jump to 5♣ on 4 cards.

Of course, the fact that one does not jump to 5♣ on 4 card support would not, to a rational person, suggest that there are no hands on which one can make that call. It may be strange to you, but I have seen hands respond 1N to 1♥ with more than 4 cards in clubs.

[lmilne]

The_Hog, on May 3 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

I have already stated that Gazilla or another gadget is superior. Lacking these methods, I would expect 3C to show 4+C.

To back others (and myself) up, if you don't play gadgets there is MORE reason to jumpshift on 3-card or even 2-card suits, as you have to invent bids for hands which you can't otherwise express. E.g., this hand with one less heart and one more diamond... clearly you wouldn't bid 4♥ with only 6, so you are forced to 'fake' a jump shift.

And to those who would bid 2♠ because we won't play in spades, this is a reason NOT to bid it. We might want to play in clubs, so bid them - partner shouldn't expect us to always have 4+.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on May 3 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

As you can't bid 4H over 5C, I assume that a 5C bid is banned in any of your partnerships?

Of course not, many hands would pull the later 4♥ bid to 5♣ anyway. But no difference, I can't even remember 5♣ being bid directly over 3♣ nor do I miss it. There must be a better argument against the style than losing that bid.

[Codo]

Of course 3 ♣ as a 3 card suit is playable, after all, many people play it this way. But I guess you need a lot of discussion how to proceed after that bid.

So, when do you raise? With 3,4 or 5 cards?
If 1 NT shows 6-12 F, how do you later bid with strong hands? You need to bid 4 club with any hand with a 4 card fit, so you are still qwuite unlimited.
If partner with x5y5 wants to play opposite a 3 card fit, how do you find this out?
If he has x6y4 or x7y3, how do you find it out?
If he bids 4 ♥ over your 4 club, what is the worst hand to look for slam? Where is the borderline to prefer a heart fit to a club fit?

I am quite happy that over here "semiforcing openings" are standard so that you never need to jump to 3 card suits.

[hanp]

mikeh, on May 3 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

As for advocatiing gadgets, why do so many people think that someone posting in the SAYC and 2/1 forum is looking for a gadget to solve the problem?

It has become clear that our Australian friend thinks that a 3C bid that could be short is a gadget, and he has a point. What you may consider "standard bidding" and "judgement" comes partly from the meaning you assign to certain auctions. Your partner will know that in the auction

1H - 1NT
3C - 4C
4H,

you may not have real clubs. Is this a gadget?

Over here it is very common to play 1M - 1NT - 2C, so common even that some otherwise sane players think 1H - 1NT - 3C as NF is not alertable. This gadget, as you call it, is especially useful in a 2/1 or SAYC background, nobody in their right mind would play it in a precision context.

Besides, who will be hurt by telling what agreements we play ourselves, and at the same time say what we would have bid without such agreements?

[junyi_zhu]

mikeh, on May 3 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

Quote

4 It seems to me that those who claim "3C, wtp" never have any problems when partner holds 4 clubs. For example, suppose you bid 3C and partner bids 4C, do you expect partner to pass 4H with a stiff H and 4 clubs?

yes....and, frankly, I am amazed that any experienced player would even ask this question. I'd expect partner to pass it with a stiff and FIVE clubs, unless he had slam interest.

Hands rarely match the prototypical examples one finds in texts, but a typical fake js then 4♥ suit looks like AKQJxx, and my experience playing these opposite a stiff has been far more enjoyable than having partner run to 5♣ with AKx opposite Qxxx. of course, your judgment and experience may differ

And on the hand in question, let me (please) play 4♥ opposite a stiff rather than 5♣ opposite, say, Jxxx.

Ok, following your logic, you are saying that opener has to bid 5C with many 6 card suits that can't tolerate a singleton. For example, this one:
AK KJxxxx x AKJx
if your partner bids 4C, you can't bid 4H, cause your dear partner would pass it with
QJx x Kxxx Qxxxx and you may lose 3 hearts easily.
However, your dear partner may hold xxx Tx KQxxx Qxxx if you bid 5C and wonder why you go down 5 C because you misguess in H or H is unlucky when 4H is cold for H 3-2 split.
Also, if you hold x KJxxxx AKx AKJ, following your logic, opener can't bid 4H, cause it's not playable facing a stiff H. This time, opener is just very out of bids.
There is nothing simple after such a high jump which only shows 3 or more in that suit with possible H one suiter hands.
No matter how experienced one claims, there are just tons of problems, if one adopts this method. Some problems can't really be solved.
Also, if a voluntarily jumpshift to 3 level followed by a raise to 4 level, can't even set up the trump suit, I don't call it a modern system.

[jdonn]

junyi_zhu, on May 4 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Ok, following your logic, you are saying that opener has to bid 5C with many 6 card suits that can't tolerate a singleton. For example, this one:
AK KJxxxx x AKJx
if your partner bids 4C, you can't bid 4H, cause your dear partner would pass it with
QJx x Kxxx Qxxxx and you may lose 3 hearts easily.
However, your dear partner may hold xxx Tx KQxxx Qxxx if you bid 5C and wonder why you go down 5 C because you misguess in H or H is unlucky when 4H is cold for H 3-2 split.
Also, if you hold x KJxxxx AKx AKJ, following your logic, opener can't bid 4H, cause it's not playable facing a stiff H. This time, opener is just very out of bids.
There is nothing simple after such a high jump which only shows 3 or more in that suit with possible H one suiter hands.
No matter how experienced one claims, there are just tons of problems, if one adopts this method. Some problems can't really be solved.
Also, if a voluntarily jumpshift to 3 level followed by a raise to 4 level, can't even set up the trump suit, I don't call it a modern system.

You obviously don't understand how the players should bid after the jump shift. For example xxx Tx KQxxx Qxxx (minus either a spade or a diamond) should (clearly!) bid either 3♦ or 3♥ rather than 4♣, why in the world would you waste all that space so early? In fact the raise of 3♣ to 4♣ should be either 5+ clubs or a hand that is going toward slam anyway, no 6 counts with 4 clubs. Likewise x KJxxxx AKx AKJ or whatever has an easy 4♦ bid over 4♣. Your criticisms are really invalid and show that you just haven't thought about the followups.

[junyi_zhu]

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 08:04 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on May 4 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Ok, following your logic, you are saying that opener has to bid 5C with many 6 card suits that can't tolerate a singleton. For example, this one:
AK KJxxxx  x AKJx
if your partner bids 4C, you can't bid 4H, cause your dear partner would pass it with
QJx x Kxxx Qxxxx and you may lose 3 hearts easily.
However, your dear partner may hold xxx Tx KQxxx Qxxx if you bid 5C and wonder why you go down 5 C because you misguess in H or H is unlucky when 4H is cold for H 3-2 split.
Also, if you hold x KJxxxx AKx AKJ, following your logic, opener can't bid 4H, cause it's not playable facing a stiff H. This time, opener is just very out of bids.
There is nothing simple after such a high jump which only shows 3 or more in that suit with possible H one suiter hands.
No matter how experienced one claims, there are just tons of problems, if one adopts this method. Some problems can't really be solved.
Also, if a voluntarily jumpshift to 3 level followed by a raise to 4 level, can't even set up the trump suit, I don't call it a modern system.

You obviously don't understand how the players should bid after the jump shift. For example xxx Tx KQxxx Qxxx (minus either a spade or a diamond) should (clearly!) bid either 3♦ or 3♥ rather than 4♣, why in the world would you waste all that space so early? In fact the raise of 3♣ to 4♣ should be either 5+ clubs or a hand that is going toward slam anyway, no 6 counts with 4 clubs. Likewise x KJxxxx AKx AKJ or whatever has an easy 4♦ bid over 4♣. Your criticisms are really invalid and show that you just haven't thought about the followups.

The truth is that no any follow-ups in this world can treat many very common situations easily.
For example, suppose you bid 3D with xx xx KQxxx Qxxx after 3C, can I bid
4D with xx AKxxx Ax AKJx? Are you really sure your 5C over 4D would be offer a place to play?
The similar situation would just occur again and again and again, a jumpshift, a raise to 4 level, then both are in dark, no 8 card trumps can be set-up.
Also, change the hand to xx xx KQxx Qxxxx vs Axx KJ9xxx A AKx, do you really think you can find 4H confidently after 1H 1N 3C 4C?

3C may look good to some, but it really doesn't solve many problems and it creates tons of other problems. The major problem is that it's difficult to set up trumps at a relatively low level (indeed, you may not be able to setup trumps at 4 level).

[jdonn]

xx AKxxx Ax AKJx
xx xx KQxxx Qxxx

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 3♦
3♠ 4♣
4♦ 5♣
P

Axx KJ9xxx A AKx
xx xx KQxx Qxxxx

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 4♣
4♦ 4♥
P

or

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥ P

Any method is bad if you don't know how to bid over it. For example the hog recently posted that polish club is a better method than 2/1 game forcing. Now I don't really believe that is true. But my experience playing against polish club is limited and my experience playing polish club is non-existant. So I didn't challenge his assertion, because if I then tried to post reasons I thought polish club is inferior I'd probably just demonstrate I don't understand the followups, as per you here.

[Jlall]

Junyi's examples are quite bad as jdonn has indicated.

That being said Junyi's point that jumpshifting into fake club suits can be problematic, mainly on hands where you actually DO have clubs. These problems are not as bad as he indicates imo, but they're obviously real. This is easy to see theoretically.

I don't think anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would argue for using 2S as natural and 3C/3D as possible fake jumpshifts on the basis of it being superior.

[awm]

Phil, on May 3 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

I'm not exactly sure what Gazzilli does to solve this hand. Unless there is a way to later show a bad suit, with a GF, it doesn't appear to gain much, although I do not know some of the high-level continuations. Also, how does Gazzilli help bring clubs into the picture?

Gazzilli basically lets you find out a bit more about partner's values by making the forcing 2♣ rebid, then allows you to make a natural and game-forcing 3♥ call. Obviously this does not solve all the problems on this hand (it doesn't say anything real specific about suit quality, or exact pattern, or having aces outside) but it seems a lot better than blasting 4♥ or temporizing with a suit that we don't really hold.

As for "bringing clubs into the picture" -- it is a strange view of bridge when we have to bid our three-card suits rather than rebid our seven-card suits, just in case partner has six-card support (or maybe five-card support with a very strong and shapely hand). I'd much rather just give partner the opportunity to bid whatever suit he has than try to bid my three-card suits up the line just in case partner fits them.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on May 4 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Junyi's examples are quite bad as jdonn has indicated.

That being said Junyi's point that jumpshifting into fake club suits can be problematic, mainly on hands where you actually DO have clubs. These problems are not as bad as he indicates imo, but they're obviously real. This is easy to see theoretically.

I don't think anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would argue for using 2S as natural and 3C/3D as possible fake jumpshifts on the basis of it being superior.

The truth is that all bidding systems suck, and the less artificial they are, the more they suck. Of course, the more artificial they are, the more chance of human error, so they suck as well.

As for finding that using 2♠ as a force is better than a possibly fake 3♣, sure, that can work but only by declaring that a natural bid is completely artificial AND instituting a relay method to permit description of the hand by opener, presumably over an artificial 2N.

And arguing for gazilli is much the same. Suggesting that the answer to the OP is to tell partner, mid auction, that we are now playing a new convention is problematic, even if partner knows the convention. The opps may object.

As I posted earlier, many of us have gadgets. Mine has been an artificial 3♣, with 3♦ available as a relay to permit clarification. After a 1N reponse, my 3♣ shows either clubs or a monster one-suiter: over 3♦, 3♥ shows hearts, 3N shows clubs but willing to play 3N, and 4♣ is an extreme 2-suiter. 3♠ is undefined in the notes but should, I think, show 3 card diamonds, to cater to finding diamonds when that is responder's suit.

Over 1♠, the same scheme applies, but 3♠ now shows 3 spades.

This scheme is imperfect, but then so is everything, including gazilli and the fake 2♠.

Given the constraints of the OP, and therefore NOT being allowed to introduce our preferred artificiality (I mean, why not say undo and insist on playing precision?), 3♣ is the clear choice...isn't it?

[jdonn]

Why do I feel like this is going in circles? I think everyone has long since agreed that any of a number of artificial gadgets would be an improvement, many times. It seems some here think that someone is arguing for a natural 3♣ on a 3 card suit as the best possible solution. I only argue for it as the best possible solution without any artificial gadgets, certainly far better than rebidding 4♥.

[Jlall]

Hey I would bid 3C don't get me wrong.

I was just saying that Junyi is right that bidding 3C can cause problems, if not on the hands where you fake jumpshift then on hands where you actually have clubs. There are just too many hand types and too little room.

I was also saying that using 3C or 2N instead of 2S is pretty lol but that's what's "standard" these days. I don't really care about getting into the debate about whether bidding 3C on 3 is artificial, but there are also hands where people bid 3C on 2, surely that is artificial.

I think even though bidding 3C causes strain on your system and auctions, it's much better than bidding 4H though.

[junyi_zhu]

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

xx AKxxx Ax AKJx
xx xx KQxxx Qxxx

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 3♦
3♠ 4♣
4♦ 5♣
P

Axx KJ9xxx A AKx
xx xx KQxx Qxxxx

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 4♣
4♦ 4♥
P

or

1♥ 1NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥ P

Any method is bad if you don't know how to bid over it. For example the hog recently posted that polish club is a better method than 2/1 game forcing. Now I don't really believe that is true. But my experience playing against polish club is limited and my experience playing polish club is non-existant. So I didn't challenge his assertion, because if I then tried to post reasons I thought polish club is inferior I'd probably just demonstrate I don't understand the followups, as per you here.

The problems of your sequences are that they are not intuitive at all. For one sequence, one has to cuebid 4D and hope partner to sign off in H. For the other, one has to bid 3H with 2 Hearts and not supporting clubs. Both of them may create a lot of other problems when the opener holds true club suits and looking for games or slams in C. That is actually why I don't like this 3C jumpshift at all: you have to guess well to reach a normal final contract. When you don't raise partner, you may risk losing club games or slams, when you raise partner, you may not be able to play 4H or 3NT sometimes.

[whereagles]

I really, really dislike this yankee tendency to jump shift into 3 card suits lol.

I've been solving (with considerable sucess) the problem of max 1-suited hands by opening a 18-20 2NT and reserve the 1x-1y-2NT rebid for the 1-suiter. That would be by bid with this particular hand.