[MomoTheDog]

With a pickup partner, one should aim for practical straightforward bridge. It's a clear 2nt opener for this reason as it quickly defines opener's hand.

[benlessard]

Quote

A jump shift into a minor suit could be invented on this auction, but a jump shift into spades must be real.

Common misconception. Wheiter you like it or not all jump-shift & reverses could be bid on 3 cards and even in 2 cards. This is standard practice since Goren. Switch the small club for a 6th diamond and you will see why. Once partner decided to open this 1D he had no other alternative then 2S.

http://forums.bridge...topic=22722&hl=

This is a hand that i said i would bid 2D with an experienced partner otherwise ill bid 2Nt. Jump shifting in 2-3 cards allow ...

1- to GF and to show a delayed 3 card raise

2- to avoid 3Nt without stoppers. Often 5m or 4M (in 5-2) will not make but i prefer to have a small shot then to lose the first 5 tricks.

3- To make partner declarer in 3Nt.

Reversing into 2&3 cards suit allows

1- to show a delayed 3 card raise
2- to avoid to rebid 2Nt without stopper or with an unbalanced hand.
3- To avoid rebidding our suit at the 3level if its crappy. (1C---1S---2D instead of 1C---1S----3C)

In uncontested auction experts are making way more JS then intermediate players and there making nice profits.


To avoid the JS into 2-3 cards to backfire you have to use common sense and some agreements.

My simple rules are

1- If you bypassed 3Nt you are showing a fit-in the 1st suit or a fit in the 2nd and a tolerance in the 1 st suit.

2- If you are coming back into opener 1st suit you are temporizing.

3- If opener 3rd bid is in the responder 1suit its always a 3card raise not a Cue.


1H-----1S
3D-----3H
3S
trumps are S not H


1D-----1S
2H-----4C
showing D fit not a H

[jdonn]

benlessard, on Dec 17 2007, 02:14 AM, said:

Quote

A jump shift into a minor suit could be invented on this auction, but a jump shift into spades must be real.

Common misconception. Wheiter you like it or not all jump-shift & reverses could be bid on 3 cards and even in 2 cards. This is standard practice since Goren. Switch the small club for a 6th diamond and you will see why. Once partner decided to open this 1D he had no other alternative then 2S.

No other alternative? 3♣ is about a million and a half times better. Not that it matters since 2NT is clear.

[Walddk]

1) 1♥
2) 3♠

Partner has shown 5+ diamonds and 4+ spades and a game force when responder bids. 2♠ is a jump shift and confirms that it is a suit because you should not lie about length in a major responder may have support for. It's different after say 1♥ - 1NT where responder can't have four spades.

I don't believe in fast arrival on an auction like this, so I would never rebid 4♠.

Roland

[mcphee]

1: 1H
2: 3S

I do not agree that jumping to 4S is correct or that it shows D. I also think that 2S should be a real suit most days but to leap to 4 is foolish in my view when holding 4D as well. It is easily possible slam could be cold facing 4 1 6 2 and I have a hand that is interested should partner want to explore further.

[brianshark]

While I'm no expert:

1. I open 2NT.

2. I believe the jump shift promises 4♠s.

3. Therefore I believe 4♠ is a minimum signoff and that's what I bid.

Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation?

[Walddk]

brianshark, on Dec 17 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation?

Because we may have a slam on although responder is very weak ...

AQxx
A
AKQxxx
xx

or

AQxxx
--
AKQxxx
Kx

Give opener room to explore, and before someone asks. No, I would not open any of those hands 2♣.

Roland

[ArtK78]

Walddk, on Dec 17 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

brianshark, on Dec 17 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation?

Because we may have a slam on although responder is very weak ...

AQxx
A
AKQxxx
xx

or

AQxxx
--
AKQxxx
Kx

Give opener room to explore, and before someone asks. No, I would not open any of those hands 2♣.

Roland

Seems to me that on the second one the strong hand can bid the slam on his own. It is either a claim or on a finesse.

On the first one, it is tougher to diagnose the perfect fit. Even if responder bids 3♠ it is going to be difficult to work out that all that is needed is a singleton club.

By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣. It is too good to risk playing in a partial. Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass. This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out. And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing.

I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards. Getting to slam is another matter.

[Walddk]

ArtK78, on Dec 17 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣. It is too good to risk playing in a partial. Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass. This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out. And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing.

I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards. Getting to slam is another matter.

Count again. The first one has more high cards (19) than the second one (18), so please explain why the opponents are more likely to balance if you open 1♦ with those cards (first hand)?

The second hand has an extraordinary shape. There is no reason to believe that it will go all pass when you open 1♦.

Roland

[mikeh]

I am late to this thread, and find that just about everything I wanted to say has been said by (especially) Roland and Josh.

The 'expert' is not. There may be hands on which a fake jumpshift into a 3 card major makes sense, but this sure wasn't one... not even close. Yes, a hand full of Aces is often more oriented to suit play than to notrump, and may well function best as dummy, but so what? The first priority is to tell partner what you have, and surely 2N (and this is a super-max 20-21 2N) does that job far, far better than 1♦... a call that endplays opener into a horrendous distortion at his next bid unless he is very lucky (partner responds 1N, for example.. now 3N is ok).

As for the 3♠/4♠ choice, I am not as adamant as Josh who says that he would never bid 4♠... I can see the benefit of using 4♠ as conveying a meaning different from 3♠, but my hand is too good to sign off. Anyone who merely counts points, and argues that this is a very weak hand, doesn't understand valuation. I would bid 4♠ with the same hand and 4=4=3=2 shape, for example, but it is too easy to conjure up 4=1=6=2 or 4=0=6=3 hands where slam is wonderful. At the same time, wild horses couldn't make me splinter.... that is a call for which I am about an Ace short: Kxxx Axxx Jxxx x is a clear splinter.

BTW, it will be no surprise to those familiar with my postings that I agree wholeheartedly with Roland's stance on 2♣ openings on the hands he posited for opener.

[ArtK78]

Walddk, on Dec 17 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 17 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣.  It is too good to risk playing in a partial.  Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass.  This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out.  And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing.

I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards.  Getting to slam is another matter.

Count again. The first one has more high cards (19) than the second one (18), so please explain why the opponents are more likely to balance if you open 1♦ with those cards (first hand)?

The second hand has an extraordinary shape. There is no reason to believe that it will go all pass when you open 1♦.

Roland

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the chances of our side making a game on the second hand opposite almost nothing are better than they are on the first hand.