[nigel_k]

I prefer invitational, for the reasons given by Gerben. But only if playing inverted raises. I'd prefer to play a single raise as NF then I need jump shifts to show a good raise.

[Siegmund]

awm's style points are important I think. My tendencies seem to be similar -- reverse flannery hands are only a problem after 1m-1S-2m, and rebidding 1NT more often (and also being a little bit looser in my reverses than is fashionable, down to say Kxx AQxx KQTxx x, counting extra for fitting SK+shortness) cuts way down on the need for that.

[fred]

Siegmund, on Dec 15 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

awm's style points are important I think. My tendencies seem to be similar -- reverse flannery hands are only a problem after 1m-1S-2m, and rebidding 1NT more often (and also being a little bit looser in my reverses than is fashionable, down to say Kxx AQxx KQTxx x, counting extra for fitting SK+shortness) cuts way down on the need for that.

Reverse Flannery hands may only be a "problem" in the class of auctions you mention, but playing Reverse Flannery has benefits in other auctions.

For example, when the auction starts 1m-1S-reverse, 1m-1S-1NT, or 1m-1S-2NT, knowing that responder does not have a hand suitable for Reverse Flannery makes life easier (much easier in some cases).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I don't know why this rarely gets more attention, but if you are playing SJS anyway then why not throw one of the balanced hands (invitational or GF) in with 2♥ and leave a direct 2NT response as the other? It works so well that I have even been happy playing the direct 2♥ as only some particular range of balanced hand.

[Elianna]

I think that you should play whatever raises the probability that
(a) your partner will remember what the bid means.
(b) remember to make that bid with a suitable hand.

My vote goes for SJS.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I think that you should play whatever raises the probability that (a) your partner will remember what the bid means. (B) remember to make that bid with a suitable hand.  My vote goes for SJS.

Although I agree with points (a) and (B) I fail to see how this relates with SJS... For me, playing a jumpshift as something strong goes against my basic philosophy that jumping around should be some specifica hand type, leaving partner an informed decision. Also the hand type should not be extremely rare.

Opposite an opening bid (13 HCP on avg.) partner rates to have 9, so IJS will come up a lot. Also, they are well described and very often give partner a simple decision. With a SJS, there are just so many more contracts possible opposite partner's nondescript 15-count, that I wouldn't want to rob him a cheap rebid.

It is often the case that with a SJS hand you would want to vary your strategy based on partner's rebid. For example I can think of cases where I do not rebid my 6-card suit based on the auction. With an IJS you often just want to show your hand and let partner make the tough decisions.

To come back to (a) and (b) for me it's very easy to identify a good IJS hand, but to identify and make a SJS, you need to consider complicated reasons why it would be preferred over bidding 1M instead, looking at all possible rebids by partner etc.

So for me, (b) is not given for a SJS. Maybe that's lack of education.

[Elianna]

Gerben42, on Dec 14 2009, 11:02 PM, said:

Quote

I think that you should play whatever raises the probability that (a) your partner will remember what the bid means. ( remember to make that bid with a suitable hand.  My vote goes for SJS.

Although I agree with points (a) and ( I fail to see how this relates with SJS... For me, playing a jumpshift as something strong goes against my basic philosophy that jumping around should be some specifica hand type, leaving partner an informed decision. Also the hand type should not be extremely rare.

Opposite an opening bid (13 HCP on avg.) partner rates to have 9, so IJS will come up a lot. Also, they are well described and very often give partner a simple decision. With a SJS, there are just so many more contracts possible opposite partner's nondescript 15-count, that I wouldn't want to rob him a cheap rebid.

It is often the case that with a SJS hand you would want to vary your strategy based on partner's rebid. For example I can think of cases where I do not rebid my 6-card suit based on the auction. With an IJS you often just want to show your hand and let partner make the tough decisions.

To come back to (a) and ( for me it's very easy to identify a good IJS hand, but to identify and make a SJS, you need to consider complicated reasons why it would be preferred over bidding 1M instead, looking at all possible rebids by partner etc.

So for me, ( is not given for a SJS. Maybe that's lack of education.

I hate to argue, but I do think that I am more capable of predicting what his partner would find more intuitive to remember than you are.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

1st choice: Natural and strong (Socal style), but 2♥ can also be invitational balanced. Opener asks about hand with next bid up, and responder bids 2NT over 2♠ on the invitational hand, otherwise 3♣+ on the strong hands to show support/single suited/shortness/balanced etc.

That way you get a direct 2NT response as game forcing, which we all know is very good to have.

There's also the "3-way" variant of this 2♥ that also includes a mixed raise, leaving 1m-3m for weaker hands.

I prefer either reverse Flannery or the above treatment (whether 2 or 3-way)

[Trinidad]

Elianna, on Dec 15 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

I hate to argue, but I do think that I am more capable of predicting what his partner would find more intuitive to remember than you are.

I don't doubt that you are right about that. But Adam didn't ask his partner. He asked BBF.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on Dec 14 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

a tie between reverse flannery and fit jump (forcing and non-forcing, promising 5M4m) for me.

I like both methods a lot, not only for what the bid shows, but also for the fact that other bids deny this hand type. (I play the fit bids as non forcing.)

Rik

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Dec 15 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

1st choice: Natural and strong (Socal style), but 2♥ can also be invitational balanced. Opener asks about hand with next bid up, and responder bids 2NT over 2♠ on the invitational hand, otherwise 3♣+ on the strong hands to show support/single suited/shortness/balanced etc.

That way you get a direct 2NT response as game forcing, which we all know is very good to have.

There's also the "3-way" variant of this 2♥ that also includes a mixed raise, leaving 1m-3m for weaker hands.

Yes you can squeeze lots of options in, but the point is that anything letting responder rebid 2NT doesn't interfere with the SJS rebids (other than pushing the balanced hand to 3NT which is no huge deal). Putting in a diamond raise as well hurts the SJS rebids.

[Elianna]

Trinidad, on Dec 15 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

Elianna, on Dec 15 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

I hate to argue, but I do think that I am more capable of predicting what his partner would find more intuitive to remember than you are.

I don't doubt that you are right about that. But Adam didn't ask his partner. He asked BBF.

Rik

Adam asked what the best method was.

I pointed out that the best method was the one that partner would remember.

Gerben agreed with that criteria, but disagreed with which one would be easier to remember.

It is the last point I am arguing with.

[crazy4hoop]

I prefer natural and strong myself with mandatory raises from opener with one of the top three honors, even if singleton. But I'm kind of a dinosaur in this regard. Close 2nd choice is SJS. Good luck!

[hanp]

I don't know what system would be most effective for Adam and Elianna so I will only comment on what treatment I prefer.

I don't have any experience playing strong jump shifts so can't comment on it's merits. I have played reverse flannery for some years but I've never been a big fan. Somehow when it comes up I always have a tough choice as opener, and I don't remember getting the problems it solves when I don't play it.

I don't know how to play constructive jump shifts. If 1D - 1M - 2C - 2M shows an invitational hand I would have to pass or bid 2D with a weak hand? Same comment about weak jump shifts actually. You could also jump to 3M with invitational hands of course, but doesn't that defeat part of the purpose of the constructive jump?

I currently play invitational jump shifts. I believe it has come up 3 times in the last 4 months and it has led to quick auctions to the best contract. We are both comfortable with the convention and our follow-ups. If all our conventions were as effective and easy to remember as this we would have scored much better.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Dec 16 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I don't know how to play constructive jump shifts. If 1D - 1M - 2C - 2M shows an invitational hand I would have to pass or bid 2D with a weak hand?
...
I currently play invitational jump shifts.

On the hands where you currently bid 1D-2M, bid 1D-1M;2C-2M.

On the hands where you currently bid 1D-1M;2C-2M, bid 1D-2M.

[hanp]

If I do that then 1D - 2M would show 0-8 which can hardly be called constructive.

[helene_t]

Very weak, and fit jumps, are both plausible by a passed hand (at least if you don't play junk multi, muid, or such).

[gnasher]

hanp, on Dec 16 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

If I do that then 1D - 2M would show 0-8 which can hardly be called constructive.

Of course. What I meant was that's the way to play jump shifts which are less than invitational, without sacrificing accuracy on better hands.