[luis]

The June edition of BW has an interesting article on "Jammer" a new form of 2♦ opening bid, the article discusses the likeability of finding a "lawful" fit after using different conventions and find "Jammer" better than a standard weak 2 with diamonds and other methods and the frequency is quite high. Basically there're 2 options

Both shows a weak hand with 4-9 HCP
Jammer-long-spades: 4432, 5431, 4441 or 5440 with 4+ spades
Jammer-short-clubs: 4432, 5431, 4441 or 5440 with short clubs

The first treatment has better frequency (7%) but is less likely to find a "lawful fit"
The second variation has better chances of finding a good fit but less frequency (4%)

Maybe a good option is to use Jammer-Long-Spades when NV and Jammer-Short-Clubs when Vuln?
I liked the idea so I would like to know what you think about it.

Luis

[glen]

It will not work well at expert levels, since one will end up in a considerable number of 4-3 fits without a lot of compensating values, and the opponents will repeatedly play trump, reducing these contracts to, in effect, 2NT with few points.

They are some other flaws as well:

- It will provide a roadmap to the play of the hand, when the opposing side chooses to declare the contract.

- The opening will find few better contracts than normal bidding would reach.

- There will be less opportunity to preempt the bidding to the three or four levels, compared to other preemptive bids.

- It does not direct the lead as well as other preemptive bids.

However it would certainly be fun to play!

[luke warm]

playing this, what meaning is given the 2♥ and 2♠ bids?

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Jun 24 2005, 09:39 PM, said:

It will not work well at expert levels, since one will end up in a considerable number of 4-3 fits without a lot of compensating values, and the opponents will repeatedly play trump, reducing these contracts to, in effect, 2NT with few points.

Personally, I'm not fond of the Jammer Structure... I think that the frequency with which responder can pass 2♦ is too low. I also think that the response structure makes it very difficult to control the auction.

With this said and done, Jammer is an example of an Assumed Fit preemptive structure. Similar methods like the Ekrens, "Rough" and Frelling 2♦ are proving reasonably successful at top levels of play...

[hotShot]

What you do here is open a hand that would (preemptive) rise a 4/5 card opening suit to the 2 level, hoping to find your partner with opening strength and a suitable suit.

This will lead to a good result, if it keeps your LHO from bidding, who would have had an opening otherwise.
It can lead to bad results if your partner has a weak hand too and opps are prepared to do a penalty double at 2 level.

Like a forcing pass system, it works best against unprepared opps, and i guess the benefit is minor (if any) against prepared strong opps.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Jun 25 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

What you do here is open a hand that would (preemptive) rise a 4/5 card opening suit to the 2 level, hoping to find your partner with opening strength and a suitable suit.

This will lead to a good result, if it keeps your LHO from bidding, who would have had an opening otherwise.
It can lead to bad results if your partner has a weak hand too and opps are prepared to do a penalty double at 2 level.

Like a forcing pass system, it works best against unprepared opps, and i guess the benefit is minor (if any) against prepared strong opps.

Wrong on so many levels...

First, you are perfectly correct to say that this method works best against pairs who do not have experience defending against it, however, the same can be said for ANY bidding system.

With this said and done, the advantage of this type of method does not depend on partner having opening strength and suitable hand. Assumed fit methods are a very logical extension of the "pressure bidding" style that has come to dominate top level bridge. This style relies on a very simple philosophy: During a competitive auction you don't want to "walk the dog" and provide the opponents with mutliple opportunities to desaccribe their hand. Rather, one should immediately force the auction to the level that you are comfortable playing at. This style is designed to force the opponents to make the "last guess".

Assumed fit preempts apply this same concept to weak balanced/semi-balanced hands. Most bridge hands are battles for the part score. Assumed fit methods permit us to enter the auction with a highly descriptive bid, simultaneously limiting both our strength and our shape. Equally significant, we force the opponents to start describing their hands at the two level. The opponents have much less room to explore for a fit and often stumble into piss poor 3NT contracts. Equally significant its much more dangerous for them to start bidding. We get a LOT of good results when LHO enters the auction and CHO is able to drop the axe...

Personally, I expect to see a strong upswing in such methods. It won't happen in the good old USA - The ACBL ruled that assumed fit methods are inherently destructive so theres no danger anything like this will ever be tested on its merits. With this said and done, my impression is that a lot of pairs in Europe are starting to adopt this style...

[paulg]

It is interesting that BW publishes an article for a convention that is so contrary to their local (ACBL) licensing policies that it is hard to see it being played in the US during the next decade.

When you consider that the latest changes to Mid-Chart removed the 4-4 majors option for Ekren, forcing it to be at least 5-4, Jammer has no chance!

Paul

[glen]

I experimented around with assumed fit bids in the late 90s. For example see:

http://www.bridgemat...om/etmpairs.htm

Here the ‘DONT NO’ openings of 2♣ and 2♦ showed “4 or longer in suit bid, may have a second suit, a weak hand, 3 to 10 HCP in first or second seat, can be a little stronger in 3rd seat, minimum or sub-minimum opening values in fourth. If no second suit, then suit is good enough to rebid on the three level (a semi-solid six or seven card suit would be appropriate).” The reason for not promising a second suit was to ensure it was a legal opening – that is it was natural.

Since the assumed fit openings have a relatively high frequency, one quickly becomes aware of both the positive and negative sides of these bids. The problem with assumed fit bids is when they don’t fit, which can be often in some styles.

In long spade Jammer, approximately 38% of the time an insufficient trump fit will be found. In my opinion, the risk/reward ratio of this opening is flawed, since not enough “good stuff” will occur to compensate for the not-enough-trumps times.

In short club Jammer, only 28% of the time is an insufficient trump fit reached, so now the risk/reward equation is more balanced (these percentages, such as 38% and 28% come from the Bridge World article). In addition, since both majors are promised, there is an increased possibility of the rewarding case of bouncing in a major.

In my opinion:

- The risk/reward equation of short club Jammer IS sufficient to make the opening viable/playable. Short club Jammer occurs about 4% of the time.
- However there are other uses for the 2♦ opening that provide far better risk/reward ratios and collateral benefits, such as Multi. A six card Multi weak two will have really insufficient trump only 4% of the time and occurs about 2% of the time. However allowing 5 card majors when Multi is not vulnerable really opens things up – only 16% of the time is the fit 6 trumps or less (the 7 trump case is frequent, but often a 5-2 major fit at the two level) – and this will put the Multi frequency higher than the short club Jammer (when not vulnerable).

So my view is that the short club Jammer, compared to Multi, will encounter less rewarding situations, and will face more risky situations.

Of course this is just my opinion based on my experiences (e.g. lots of great results from Multi). Certainly don’t allow my postings here to discourage you from having your own experiences

For more information on assumed fit bids, see Chris Ryall’s site, in particular this page:

http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/we...assumed-fit.htm


My recommended approach to defending against these bids is to use double to show opening values and takeout of a suit that:
a) can be held by the opponents
b ) is not the suit bid.

This “takeout” does not promise shortness in the takeout suit, just 3+ length in the other suits, so it contains many balanced hands.

So if defending a SPAMMER (long spade Jammer) 2♦ opening, double would be takeout for ♠s, ♥s or ♣s, and always with 3+♦s, which allows the double to be passed (i.e. threatens responder with this possibility in order to see if it might induce fleeing to a worse spot). If defending against CLAMMER (short club Jammer) 2♦ opening, the double would be takeout for ♠s or ♥s.

After this “takeout” double, a subsequent double by either player is negative – that is for takeout but passable with length in suit doubled. After two doubles, all further doubles then become penalty.

If the opponents end up in a doubled contract, frequently lead trump, though do not continue to play further trump without considering what the best approach for the defense is, now that dummy is seen.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Jun 25 2005, 05:28 PM, said:

In long spade Jammer, approximately 38% of the time an insufficient trump fit will be found.  In my opinion, the risk/reward ratio of this opening is flawed, since not enough “good stuff” will occur to compensate for the not-enough-trumps times.

My main issue with Jammer is also related to risk reward...

The opening allows for too many different shape. Its virtually impossible to devise a response structure that allows you to accurately investigate game... From my perspective, you'll suffer too many loses on the constructive auctions.

Check out the response structure over Frelling 2 bids... Responder is very well positioned to investigate shape, range, and degree of fit.

[hotShot]

hrothgar, on Jun 25 2005, 02:58 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 25 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

What you do here is open a hand that would (preemptive) rise a 4/5 card opening suit to the 2 level, hoping to find your partner with opening strength and a suitable suit.

This will lead to a good result, if it keeps your LHO from bidding, who would have had an opening otherwise.
It can lead to bad results if your partner has a weak hand too and opps are prepared to do a penalty double at 2 level.

Like a forcing pass system, it works best against unprepared opps, and i guess the benefit is minor (if any) against prepared strong opps.

Wrong on so many levels...

First, you are perfectly correct to say that this method works best against pairs who do not have experience defending against it, however, the same can be said for ANY bidding system.

With this said and done, the advantage of this type of method does not depend on partner having opening strength and suitable hand.

So you are telling me that if you open a 4432 Hand with 4HCP, you will score well finding a partner with 3343 and 6HCP? Of cause you can expect to find your partner with (40-your points)/3. This is 12 HCP, if you are minimum and 10 HCP when you hold maximum. I would call that about opening strength. This is leading to a combined holding of 16 to 19 HCP you can be quite sure to have a at least a 7 card fit.
But this also means that opps hold the majoraty of points and your side might be to strong for them to make game. The LOT does not keep you from going down, it says that it usually will not be too expensive.
You are expecting to find partner with about opening strength and hope for a suitable fit. Just as i said.

hrothgar said:

Assumed fit methods are a very logical extension of the "pressure bidding" style that has come to dominate top level bridge.  This style relies on a very simple philosophy:  During a competitive auction you don't want to "walk the dog" and provide the opponents with mutliple opportunities to desaccribe their hand.  Rather, one should immediately force the auction to the level that you are comfortable playing at.  This style is designed to force the opponents to make the "last guess".

With less bidding space left, opps need a well prepared defence. Since opener revealed his distribution, it might be a good idea to enhance this information by showing 2 suits. Obiously bidding in second seat should be constructive. Partner in 4th seat knows a lot more about opps combined strength, and can make a better decision.

hrothgar said:

Assumed fit preempts apply this same concept to weak balanced/semi-balanced hands. Most bridge hands are battles for the part score. 

Well about 54% of the deal hold game or more, but of cause the battle for the partscore is important. A significant part of these partscore are made doe to "poor" defence, usually as a consequence of insufficent information. So it might be a good idea to think about the lead. Partner in 4th seat is most likely to lead, so we should help him if possible.

hrothgar said:

Assumed fit methods permit us to enter the auction with a highly descriptive bid, simultaneously limiting both our strength and our shape.  Equally significant, we force the opponents to start describing their hands at the two level.  The opponents have much less room to explore for a fit and often stumble into piss poor 3NT contracts.

They can only stumble into something if they are unprepared. Since the majors are not well distributed, they will have to play in a minor or NT very often. They need to make sure NT is not a poor contract.

hrothgar said:

Equally significant its much more dangerous for them to start bidding.  We get a LOT of good results when LHO enters the auction and CHO is able to drop the axe...

As i said above second seat must bid solid.

hrothgar said:

Personally, I expect to see a strong upswing in such methods.  It won't happen in the good old USA - The ACBL ruled that assumed fit methods are inherently destructive so theres no danger anything like this will ever be tested on its merits.  With this said and done, my impression is that a lot of pairs in Europe are starting to adopt this style...

I'm sure we will see more of it, and a little bit later we will see good defences against it.

[hrothgar]

>So you are telling me that if you open a 4432 Hand with 4HCP, you will
>score well finding a partner with 3343 and 6HCP?

The opponents have 30 HCP between them. At a minimum, they game. At a maximum they have slam. They will be forced to employ an overcall structure and have lost 1.5 levels of bidding space. Damn straight, I expect to score well. Traditionally, our worst scores occur when we have roughly 15 HCP between us and stumble into a misfit. We have enough scattered defensive tricks that the opponents can't make 3N, and we get butched in a doubled 2 level contract.

[the hog]

Agree with Richard, assumed fit bids win in the long run, even if you open 4432 shapes. Look at the success Ekrens has. Why are so many top partnerships playing it if it doesn't work in the long run?

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Jun 26 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

Agree with Richard, assumed fit bids win in the long run, even if you open 4432 shapes. Look at the success Ekrens has. Why are so many top partnerships playing it if it doesn't work in the long run?

Which top partnerships are using them? I'd seen more evidence of Rainbow, Tutti-Frutti, Red Flash etc. I was told that Helgemo stopped playing Ekren 2♦ due to poor results, but IMO this is greatly inferior to the Frelling 2♦ - it gives the opps more room because it is rarely passed, it gives them more information about the hand and it is half as frequent.

[Gerben42]

>So you are telling me that if you open a 4432 Hand with 4HCP, you will
>score well finding a partner with 3343 and 6HCP?

The opponents have 30 HCP between them. At a minimum, they game. At a maximum they have slam. They will be forced to employ an overcall structure and have lost 1.5 levels of bidding space. Damn straight, I expect to score well. Traditionally, our worst scores occur when we have roughly 15 HCP between us and stumble into a misfit. We have enough scattered defensive tricks that the opponents can't make 3N, and we get butched in a doubled 2 level contract.

If they have 30 HCP and your suit is not breaking 3-3 they will just think Christmas has come early and take 1100. Ekren with TWO known suits is okay, this Jammer comes from a website that is quite old already and yet I have seen no one playing it.

[glen]

The web site is:

http://www.bridgebuff.com/jammer2d.htm

Not sure how old it is.

[MickyB]

I found the website a couple of years ago I think, no idea how long it was around for before that. I saw it being used (in the form of a 2♣ bid showing clubs and two others) for the first time yesterday.