[wank]

---

2 hearts was a fit jump

after west's double hearts are unlikely to be 5-2 and there's the spade hook to fall back on, so 7 diamonds is a pretty hot contract.

[WellSpyder]

wank, on 2010-November-08, 06:30, said:

after west's double hearts are unlikely to be 5-2 and there's the spade hook to fall back on, so 7 diamonds is a pretty hot contract.

And indeed, diamonds could be 1-1 in which case you don't need to establish hearts or take the spade finesse.

South's bidding looks to me pretty much what he had. North is the one with extra values - only 6 losers, compared with a minimum of 8(?) for the jump fit. So I think maybe North should just have raised 5♦ to 6 and apologised if the defenders cashed 2 aces. Not sure getting to seven is easy, though....

Having said that, South could have cue-bid on the way to 5♦ at little extra cost, and clearly his failure to do so both discouraged North and left no room for exploration.

So North 70%, South 30%?

[hotShot]

I blame South 100%.

Jumping to 5♦ is an order to North not to bid on. North fit jump promised ♥, so passing 3NT can only mean that South has (the black) side suits wide open in a NT contract and no interest in trying to reach 6m.

[mike777]

wank, on 2010-November-08, 06:30, said:

---

2 hearts was a fit jump

after west's double hearts are unlikely to be 5-2 and there's the spade hook to fall back on, so 7 diamonds is a pretty hot contract.

Per Bridge Encyclopedia P. 158.
pass hand fit SHOWING jump `1d=2h

"An ideal hand for the auction given above would look like this:

53...AQJ87...KT76...62"

[mike777]

mike777, on 2010-November-08, 08:28, said:

Per Bridge Encyclopedia P. 158.
pass hand fit SHOWING jump `1d=2h

"An ideal hand for the auction given above would look like this:

53...AQJ87...KT76...62"

---

I have never played fit showing jumps.

Again it seems in the forums fit showing jumps are rather random hands.

----------


With that said I think north does not have an easy hand as a passed hand. It is basically an adjusted 5 loser hand for diamonds and pard has opened the bidding. Too good to even splinter. I might start with xx, in any case I am thinking about slam.
---


give pard: Axxx..xx.....Axxx...Axx=6

[Free]

South 99%, he has too many Aces to just jump to 5♦. Missing grand is probably acceptable/reasonable/normal, but missing small slam isn't.

[Phil]

What is 1♦ - x - 3♥ for you?

Many play a FJ into a major as non-forcing, and that would be very bad since the North hand has far too much playing strength. If both 2♥ and 3♥ are NF, I would not bother with a FJ.

However, when we play a contract two levels below our optimum, both partners are generally culpable, however, if North is 2542 as Mike reasonably suggests, why would six be appealing?

So North gets the some of the charge and the partnership gets the rest for not adequately defining what a FJ means.

[WellSpyder]

So if I've read this right, of the first five people to respond two put most of the blame on North, two on South, and one is sitting on the fence a bit. Does that help resolve any discussions with partner????

[mikeh]

I'm with those who criticize South.

There is so much room between 3♣ and 5♦ that S's jump was lazy.

Blaming North feels like resulting. If I were North, I'd be thinking that while I have a super hand for my auction, it is within the parameters of a fit showing jump AND partner had a lot of room to ask me if I were interested.

Put it another way: make S's hand AJxx Qx AJxxxx x, and have North raise S's 5♦ to slam and post an ATB question.....wouldn't we get a lot of 'North 90%...S's 5♦ bid shut the auction down...N had shown his hand type already' type of answers.

Anytime one player makes a lazy bid, it is almost always wrong to assign much blame to the partner, whose only failure was to assume partner knew what he or she was doing.

[mtvesuvius]

I like to play Fit Jumps not just as a single-jump, but double-jumps etc also, according to your level of fit. IMO, this is a great hand for a 3♥ call if it is available. Either way however, I give South most (if not, all) of the blame on this hand. Jumping to 5♦ seems counterproductive. We have plenty of room to explore slam, and opposite most fit jumps, slam will be at worst on a finesse. Starting with 4♣ is probably my choice, then partner could probably figure out to Keycard with 4♦ (or 4N as 6 RKC Blackwood), and get all the necessary information. I doubt we'd find 7 though.

[Phil]

I wonder what information North can provide in a slower auction?

[rogerclee]

Without saying anything about south's bidding, passing 5D with the north hand is hopeless. What did he think his partner had? There are almost no reasonable 5D bids where 6D isn't just a claim.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2010-November-08, 15:00, said:

I wonder what information North can provide in a slower auction?

I would start by cuebidding clubs, and over 4 red suit, bid 4♠. I'd expect partner to figure out that I held both black Aces and a good hand, too strong to simply bid game.

Now, will this reach 7? I very much doubt it....S won't likely be able to show the stiff heart.....but N would have to be in a coma not to bid 6 after this sequence.

[awm]

I'd blame north. This is really the wrong sort of hand for a fit jump. Partner will tend to over-evaluate heart length such as Kxx or Qx (both of which are actually not so hot) and under-evaluate holdings like x or xx. The fit-jump should show slower heart cards (like KQxxx would be ideal) and also typically shows fewer diamonds. After the fit-jump and 5♦ bid, I think north has a pretty clear 6♦ call. Might not make, but we weren't planning to pass 3♦ from partner surely, so why pass 5♦?

South should have done more to try for slam too (i.e. 6♦ is pretty good opposite xx AKxxx Kxxx xx which is a pretty typical fit jump) but I think north's bidding is worse.

[rogerclee]

mikeh, on 2010-November-08, 10:29, said:

Put it another way: make S's hand AJxx Qx AJxxxx x, and have North raise S's 5♦ to slam and post an ATB question.....wouldn't we get a lot of 'North 90%...S's 5♦ bid shut the auction down...N had shown his hand type already' type of answers.

I guess the most likely thing that is going on is that we have 12 diamonds, they have 11 clubs, and partner has no heart control.

Anyway, the auction could have gone

P P 1D X
2H 3C 5D P
5H P 7D AP

Bridge is an easy game when you think about what partner has and then describe your hand!

[chasetb]

I don't like North's 2♥ bid as the hand isn't quite strong enough for my standard (9-11 HCP), but I can accept it. South FULLY deserves the blame. North showed his/her hand fully with one bid, so unless South uses Voidwood or asks for control of a suit, why should North bid again?

[mikeh]

rogerclee, on 2010-November-08, 15:24, said:

I guess the most likely thing that is going on is that we have 12 diamonds, they have 11 clubs, and partner has no heart control.

Anyway, the auction could have gone

P P 1D X
2H 3C 5D P
5H P 7D AP

Bridge is an easy game when you think about what partner has and then describe your hand!

Hmmm....there I was thinking that we probably wouldn't have made a fit jump shift on Jxxxx in hearts:huh:

As for the shape I was suggesting, your argument is essentially from a priori odds...which is silly. If I held x Axxxx Kxxxxx x, and heard the auction, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to learn that clubs were 5=6...the fact that takeout doubler probably has at most 1 diamond would allow me to infer a high likelihood of 5 clubs, and I once knew a player who bid 3♣ in this auction to hold 6! Arguing a priori odds leads to concepts such as doubling every grand slam the opps bid, since it is very rare for the opps to take 13 tricks.

I may have been too pessimistic in my view of N....but you must play in markedly different games than me if you really think that N should not merely bid 6♦ but should instead make a try for grand via 5♥!!!!!!

Here I was, thinking that S was an idiot, and there you are thinking that N should actually bid as if small is always cold or near cold no matter what, and that it is worth exploring grand! Frankly, bidding 6♦ strikes me as either optimistic or mildly insulting towards partner (can you seriously construct a hand on which 6 is cold and S had a clear 5♦ call?) while trying for grand strikes me as tantamount to (correctly as it turns out) calling partner the idiot I took him to be...the difference being I formed my opinion in the post-mortem and you formed and acted on your opinion in the bidding.

[gnasher]

I agree with awm that North's hand is atypical for a fit jump, but it's difficult to see what else he might have done, except a 3♥ fit-jump if one was available. East might have been about to bid 4♠, so it was a good idea to show the diamond support straight away. Concealing a five-card major also seems a bad idea when partner might be 4=4=3=2.

[rogerclee]

mikeh, on 2010-November-08, 16:51, said:

As for the shape I was suggesting, your argument is essentially from a priori odds...which is silly. If I held x Axxxx Kxxxxx x, and heard the auction, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to learn that clubs were 5=6...the fact that takeout doubler probably has at most 1 diamond would allow me to infer a high likelihood of 5 clubs, and I once knew a player who bid 3♣ in this auction to hold 6! Arguing a priori odds leads to concepts such as doubling every grand slam the opps bid, since it is very rare for the opps to take 13 tricks.

I have a hard time believing that you think I don't understand the difference between a priori and current odds, but thanks for the math lesson. This is actually not hard, just ask yourself some questions about what kinds of hands partner is likely to have:

How many spades do you think partner has?
How many hearts do you think partner has?
Do you think partner has a balanced hand?
If partner has no shortness, what is his shape?
If partner has some shortness, do you think it's in CLUBS, or HEARTS?
Do you know how much more likely an 11 card fit is than a 12 card fit?

mikeh, on 2010-November-08, 16:51, said:

I may have been too pessimistic in my view of N....but you must play in markedly different games than me if you really think that N should not merely bid 6♦ but should instead make a try for grand via 5♥!!!!!!

Lets assume for the moment that we should not pass 5D (I think the above questions, when you answer them, make it obvious to bid again). What kind of hand would bid 5H? Well, we don't have a void in clubs or spades, I would always cuebid that since it's the most important part of our hand, and I really can't be 55 and make a grand try, especially since I personally would have even opened a hand like x AQxxx Kxxxx xx. That makes me 5-6 or 6-5 in the red suits. Do I have 6 hearts? I guess it's possible but my argument doesn't really hinge on this, so let's say we know we are 1561 or 1651.

What is my honor structure? I can't have 3 big cards as a passed hand, so I have two. The ace of hearts is one of them. Is the king of hearts the other? No, x AKxxx Jxxxxx is not a grand try, and I didn't open 2H. Maybe x AKxxx Qxxxxx x is, but that's also an opening bid to me. So my other card is not the HK. I must have a diamond card! So now partner knows my hand is something like x A?xxx ?xxxxx x or x Axxxxx ?xxxx x, where I have the A or K of diamonds and may or may not have a secondary heart honor.

So you can either bid 6D to play, or you can bid 5H so that partner knows exactly what your hand is and can make the final decision. Or I guess you could pass!

FWIW none of this is contrived at all in my opinion, it's pretty amazing that within 3 calls partner can look at his hand and know exactly what I have just using basic logic.

mikeh, on 2010-November-08, 16:51, said:

(can you seriously construct a hand on which 6 is cold and S had a clear 5♦ call?)

LOL

[mikeh]

rogerclee, on 2010-November-08, 17:14, said:

FWIW none of this is contrived at all in my opinion, it's pretty amazing that within 3 calls partner can look at his hand and know exactly what I have just using basic logic.


LOL

None of this is contrived? I guess not, once you specify that you'd always open on AKxxx Qxxxxx. That's not contrivance of course....partner will always know exactly what you've got...that same partner who thinks it's normal to bid 5♦ on AQxx Q Axxxx AJx. LOL.

As for the math lesson, I admit that I overreacted to your silly comment suggesting that I thought that the 'most likely' layout was the one I suggested was 'possible'. Since you appeared to conflate 'possible' with 'probable', it seemed to me entirely possible that you didn't know the difference between a priori and current odds....but maybe it's just that you don't know the difference between probable (more than 50%) and 'possible'.

Or that you're like me in that sometimes we make silly statements in an effort to make a point about a post we didn't really take the time to understand.