[coyot]

Chamaco, on Aug 10 2005, 06:49 AM, said:

Quote

See the above... WJS definitely has significantly higher probability (my guess would be a number between 2 and 3).

Perhaps, in theory, I don't know...
But in practice, are you really sure ?
I agree that it makes sense to use wjs *after opps overcall*, but -honestly -how many times was it useful to you *when opps were silent* ?

I also like to preempt, but I found out that the frequency was too low, mostly because too many hands were TOO STRONG for a wjs (= using a wjs with those hands would have resulted in preempting a strong pard rather than preempting opps).



Say you hold

AKQJxxxx-void -xx-xxx

You do not play SJS.
If you could, you would like to set trumps, and then verify via cuebids the controls in the minor suits, and finally use EKB

1D-1S (1)
2C-2H (2)
2NT-3S (3)
3NT- ??

1- I have time to set trump (!?!?!?)

2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF

3-now I have tld pard that I have long spades, but he does not know I have a selfsufficient suit. I would have bid the same even with AJxxxx-xx-Ax-Kxx, and this is wrong, wrong wrong, to bid the ame way these totally different hands

4- Now what do I bid ? Ideally I would have liked to check side controls and use EKB, but now I am stuck

====

Using SJS, you just set trumps, then use serious 3NT, cues, and RKCB/EKB to find the small/grand slam.
Quite a few times we were able to bid a grand thanks to the ability to set trumops early in the bidding (something that 4sf auction do not allow)
============================

I am sure, in practice as well as in theory.

And, yes, I use WJS even when opps are silent - and it is usually a good idea.

Unless your WJS hand hits a void in opener's hand, you're in the clear. You're in the contract you're most likely to end in anyway...

I play WJS as 2-5 HCP, concentrated into the bid suit if possible.

Imagine something like KJxxxx or QJxxxx after partner opens a minor. With this hand, you have two options only (if you don't play WJS)
1) bid 1M and on any partner's response bid 2M
2) pass and when opps reopen, reenter the bidding.

Either option gives opps chance to either hear more about your partner or to bid themselves.

The example is really nice, apart from the fact that your opps have a ton of hearts and forgot to interfere with your bidding :-). Also, your partner has shown good heart stoppers and no interest in spades. But, if you bid 4♠ over his 3NT, do you think that he will NOT get the message that you're interested in spade slam? Why would you bother with bidding FSF and 3♠ if you just wanted to blast into the game?

I admit that SJS do have some merits, of course, but on quite a lot of hands these can be worked around.

I can promise to start making notes about hands that could use SJS and see if we would be able to arrive in a better contract with SJS or without but I'm not going to just take your word for it . The merits of WJS are good enough for me not to get converted so easily

[mike777]

Prefer to use Jump shifts for other use.
1Minor=2h=reverse flannery
1Minor =2s=invite in minor, unbalanced very often.
1Minor=jump in other minor is game force in minor unbalanced very often.
1Heart=2s=unknown stiff, 2nt asks.
1Major=Bergen or other versions.

The WJS must come up as the only winning action so rare.
In comp is ok but how often after an opening bid in first or second seat and the opps are silent is this the winning action? My guess is the Opportunity Costs are too high.

Running a simulation seems impossible with all the factors to be considered, opp bidding, opportunity cost of using j/s as something else, etc.

In any event please post your successes so the rest of us can learn, thanks.

[luke warm]

since i'm partial to roland's minor suit structure, neither weak nor strong j/s (over minors anyway) would enter into it

[Double !]

coyot, on Aug 9 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

Our system:
1♦-1♥ - (better minor - F1 )
2♣-2♠ - 5-4 or 4441 - GF
2NT-3♥ - stopper - 6card or good 5card.
3NT - pass (no interest, denies doubleton honor in hearts).

Is it definite that responder should pass 3NT (vs. possibly bidding 4D)?

Just an observation, not advocating anything but: here's another hand where the stronger J-S might have made life easier provided that brakes were then applied. And, is 6D (or even 6H or 6NT) such a poor slam?

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Aug 10 2005, 11:24 PM, said:

since i'm partial to roland's minor suit structure, neither weak nor strong j/s (over minors anyway) would enter into it

Jimmy, I'd like to read more about Roland's minor suit structure.
Could you repost it (so I do not have to dig it through the zillion of past BBF posts) or send it to me a private message ?

Thanks a lot !!

[Chamaco]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 10 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

Just because you put it in bold type and underline it, doesn't make it true.

Everybody I know in my country (England) who plays weak jump shifts (they aren't that common here) uses them as a constructive tool.

It occurred to me probably too late that the use of boldface font might resemble too much the use of uppercase fonts in internet jargon (e.g. might sound aggressive and "shouting").

This was not my intention.
Usually I employ different fonts in all my posts that are longer than a few paragraphs: the use of different fonts is intended as a way to highlight different sections of the posts , and/or specific paragraphs that I believe are key issues.

In this case I wanted to underline the fact that in the US literature the term "Weak Jump Shift" is intended with a purely preemptive meaning, 05/6, no aces at all (unless vuln) and no AKs outside the long suit.

Some refs I can quickly list:

Max Hardy "Standard bidding for the 21st century"
http://www.bridgeguy...kJumpShift.html
OKBridge 2/1: http://www.annam.co.uk/2-1.html#pjs

(I'll skip here many other minor links that describe the wjs as 0-6 and purely preemptive, they would not add anything to the content of the discussion)


Whether we like it or not, for some topics, the US literature is virtually the only one available on the market (not always the best, but that matters little, if it's the only one), so, to avoid miscommunication, it seems logical to adopt the jargon used in the most widely available documentation.

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is described as a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

It seeems that the use of 3/4-7 hcp for the JS is more widely used in europe, and, while I would not play this way, I have no objection.
But the point is avoiding miscommunication: if we go on adopting the same term for 2 completely different uses (one destructive, the other constructive), we'll end up nowhere.

Adapting ourselves to the most widely spoken language (whether we like it or not) is a matter of practicality: to make another example, I'd much prefer to write in italian rather than english (which is *your* native language, not mine) but that would not be practical to communicate.
Similarly, I think it would be much more practical if you reconcile to not call "weak" a jumpshift that is actually constructive.


I hope you understood my point even without boldface fonts.
If not, I might have to resort to Italian.

[Fluffy]

Chamaco, on Aug 11 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

I've met several old ladies that play it 7-11 and label it weak, so guess

[Chamaco]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Aug 11 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning).

I've met several old ladies that play it 7-11 and label it weak, so guess

LOL :-)

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Aug 11 2005, 02:23 AM, said:

Jimmy, I'd like to read more about Roland's minor suit structure.
Could you repost it (so I do not have to dig it through the zillion of past BBF posts) or send it to me a private message ?

Thanks a lot !!

hi mauro.. ck out this link

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...633&hl=inverted

basically, a jump in the suit following the minor (1c/2d or 1d/2h) is either limit in the minor or very strong hand of your own... then 1c/2c and 1d/2d is game force

after 1c/2d, opener must bid 2h after which responder, by bidding 3c, shows the limit hand... any other bid shows the strong hand.. anything roland wants to add, inferences etc, would be welcome