[SimonFa]

My new partner learned SAYC when he worked in Bermuda and we are building our partnership on that basis. I am really keen and partner is a good follower who is happy to let me do the leg work. We have also just started playing 2/1 based on Marty Bergen's pamphlet. Occasionally though I'm finding that we have differing understandings of SAYC and last night another one came up in which partner made a WJS to my 1C opening that caught me out as I expected a SJS. When the dust had cleared and ops had written down their telephone number partner claimed that WJS were part of SAYC.

This isn't about whether or not WJS is part of SAYC, I was just setting the scene, but about the merits of each and which one we should settle on.

This morning I read this article on Bridge Guys which makes a good case for weak jump shifts then I saw this article via BBO in which Andrew Gumperz advocates strong jump shifts.

I appreciate there are no right answers but was wondering what the thoughts are on this subject regarding a new B/I partnership?

As always, thanks in advance,

Simon

PS Is a WJS alertable in EBU land where the majority play strong or intermediate?

[daveharty]

For what it's worth, you are correct about SJS being part of SAYC, rather than WJS, although it's hard to suss that out by just looking at the card itself. You have to look at the official SAYC system booklet under the section "Responses and Later Bidding After a 1H or 1S Opening" to find a mention of it.

Re. the actual merits of the two treatments, SJS are great for slam bidding when they come up, which is almost never. WJS hands are much more common, so on a frequency basis, it's hard to argue against them; but SJS advocates will say that those hands can be handled via other ways, while showing the SJS type hand is much more difficult if you play WJS. I have little experience playing SJS, they are pretty rare around here except for those old-timers who still play "Charlie Standard" from the 1950s; so if you were in my area, it might be easier to adopt WJS simply because there will be a lot more people around to advise you on it.

[Vampyr]

SimonFa, on 2012-January-10, 04:50, said:

PS Is a WJS alertable in EBU land where the majority play strong or intermediate?

Yes.

[RMB1]

There is some informed discussion at http://www.ebu.co.uk...gust/Debate.pdf

But note that the arguments for SJS are firmly based on Acol.

[wank]

you say you're starting to play 2/1 on a sayc basis. you need to remember it's not so simple as just making all your 2/1s game forcing. it has a knock on effect on other parts of your system, most obviously the 1NT response to a major becoming forcing or semi-forcing.

weak or intermediate jump shifts at the 3 level become much more useful in 2/1 because with a strong jump shift, you can bid 2 then rebid the suit at the 3 level safe in the knowledge the bidding won't die and you get your extra values across later, e.g. with a quantitative 4NT (note this logic doesn't apply for 2 level jump shifts, although WJS in this situation have other advantages).

[gwnn]

1♣-p-2♦ is a good auction for a SJS. The rest are not as good.

[mycroft]

Weak Jump shifts may be awesome if used correctly. I try to avoid playing them (especially 1M-3m) because most of my partners overuse them. There is less of a need in a 2/1 context for strong jump shifts (but removing them from the 2/1 structure is still useful - announcing extras to partner is the "2/1 problem", and removing SJS from that discussion helps).

When I read the following (from MacKenzie Myers) all the little "recognition" bells went off (granted, this is in competition, so SJS makes no sense, but if anything, it's worse after 1M-p:)

Quote

So [experts] moved to weak jump-shifts [in competition], in large part (in my opinion) because there weren't any other widely-publicized alternatives. I played them for a while, but noticed that even when the right hand for a weak jump-shift came up*, two or three of my long suit wasn't always the right contract. In fact, it'd often give the opponents the fielders' choice of doubling me or bidding to their best contract (remember, they've already shown values and shape on your right). So when someone explained FSJ to me, I was an overnight convert.

*Also, my partners would often not wait for the right hand to come up to make the weak jump-shift... giving the opponents even more of a fielders' choice.

[Zelandakh]

Playing 2/1 it makes alot more sense to use WJS or IJS than SJS. There are also some decent alternatives to both out there. Over a minor suit opening an increasingly popular method is to use reverse Flannery responses to handle the otherwise awkward 5♠4♥ hands; there are several threads about them on these forums if you do a search. Over a major suit opening you can use extra jump shift bids to show various kinds of raises - Bergen is an example of this and I have posted my own version a few times too. Finally you can combine weak and strong jump shifts by using the lowest JS bid as a SJS in any suit and others as WJSs. For example:-

1H - 2S
2N (relay)
==========
3C = SJS in clubs
3D = SJS in diamonds
3H = SJS in spades with heart support (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3H)
3S = SJS in spades with self-supporting suit (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3S)
3N = SJS in spades with big balanced hand (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3NT)

You can adjust this according to the hand types you like to include in a SJS.

You can also combine some of these ideas together, for example

1H
==
2S = SJS in any suit
2N = GF raise
3C = limit raise
3D = mixed raise
3H = preemptive

or

1C
==
2D = SJS in any suit
2H = 5 spades, 4 hearts, weak
2S = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

Really, there are so many possibilities around. That said, as a B/I partnership starting out I think you should agree to either WJS or IJS initially and then look to see how that works out and whether you have a need for anything more complex later.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Probably not really appropriate for the B/I forum, but how about:

1♣-2♦: JS in ♥, either weak or strong
1♣-2♥: JS in ♠, either weak or strong
1♣-2♠: JS in ♦, either weak or strong

1♦-2♥: JS in ♠, either weak or strong
1♦-2♠: JS in ♣, either weak or strong
1♦-3♣: JS in ♥, either weak or strong

1♥-2♠: JS in ♣, either weak or strong
1♥-3♣: JS in ♦, either weak or strong
1♥-3♦: JS in ♠, either weak or strong

1♠-3♣: JS in ♦, either weak or strong
1♠-3♦: JS in ♥, either weak or strong
1♠-3♥: JS in ♣, either weak or strong

You could tweak this by including the jumps in NT and in the trump suit in the transfer structure, and perhaps in other ways.

[SimonFa]

wank, on 2012-January-10, 10:27, said:

you say you're starting to play 2/1 on a sayc basis. you need to remember it's not so simple as just making all your 2/1s game forcing. it has a knock on effect on other parts of your system, most obviously the 1NT response to a major becoming forcing or semi-forcing.

I read some now play it as semi-forcing. I don't want to complicate matter anymore than they need to be so we are sticking to a forcing 1NT.

Thanks,

Simon

[SimonFa]

RMB1, on 2012-January-10, 09:39, said:

There is some informed discussion at http://www.ebu.co.uk...gust/Debate.pdf

But note that the arguments for SJS are firmly based on Acol.

This is why I wondered about the alert. As it happens we played SJS twice, in the first half when it went wroing and the 2nd when we had agreed it and I did alert, much to the surprise of ops until they asked.

Regards,

Simon

[SimonFa]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-11, 08:06, said:

Playing 2/1 it makes alot more sense to use WJS or IJS than SJS. There are also some decent alternatives to both out there. Over a minor suit opening an increasingly popular method is to use reverse Flannery responses to handle the otherwise awkward 5♠4♥ hands; there are several threads about them on these forums if you do a search. Over a major suit opening you can use extra jump shift bids to show various kinds of raises - Bergen is an example of this and I have posted my own version a few times too. Finally you can combine weak and strong jump shifts by using the lowest JS bid as a SJS in any suit and others as WJSs. For example:-

1H - 2S
2N (relay)
==========
3C = SJS in clubs
3D = SJS in diamonds
3H = SJS in spades with heart support (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3H)
3S = SJS in spades with self-supporting suit (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3S)
3N = SJS in spades with big balanced hand (ie playing SJS 1H - 2S; any - 3NT)

You can adjust this according to the hand types you like to include in a SJS.

You can also combine some of these ideas together, for example

1H
==
2S = SJS in any suit
2N = GF raise
3C = limit raise
3D = mixed raise
3H = preemptive

or

1C
==
2D = SJS in any suit
2H = 5 spades, 4 hearts, weak
2S = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

Really, there are so many possibilities around. That said, as a B/I partnership starting out I think you should agree to either WJS or IJS initially and then look to see how that works out and whether you have a need for anything more complex later.

You're right, very interesting but far too much load on our new partnership which still gets the odd advanced Stayman wrong.

Thanks anyway,

Simon

[SimonFa]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-11, 09:30, said:

Hm. Probably not really appropriate for the B/I forum, but how about:

1♣-2♦: JS in ♥, either weak or strong
1♣-2♥: JS in ♠, either weak or strong
1♣-2♠: JS in ♦, either weak or strong

1♦-2♥: JS in ♠, either weak or strong
1♦-2♠: JS in ♣, either weak or strong
1♦-3♣: JS in ♥, either weak or strong

1♥-2♠: JS in ♣, either weak or strong
1♥-3♣: JS in ♦, either weak or strong
1♥-3♦: JS in ♠, either weak or strong

1♠-3♣: JS in ♦, either weak or strong
1♠-3♦: JS in ♥, either weak or strong
1♠-3♥: JS in ♣, either weak or strong

You could tweak this by including the jumps in NT and in the trump suit in the transfer structure, and perhaps in other ways.

Again, very interesting but as I said above, too much load at this stage. I will be filing it for future use though.
Many thanks,

Simon

[S2000magic]

Is there an official definition of an intermediate jump shift (IJS)? If so, what is it, please.

[RMB1]

S2000magic, on 2012-January-11, 12:18, said:

Is there an official definition of an intermediate jump shift (IJS)? If so, what is it, please.

I doubt it.

Might I suggest a 6 card suit and strength that is worth Acol 2/1 but not worth 2/1 GF.

[S2000magic]

RMB1, on 2012-January-11, 12:23, said:

S2000magic, on 2012-January-11, 12:18, said:

Is there an official definition of an intermediate jump shift (IJS)? If so, what is it, please.

I doubt it.

Might I suggest a 6 card suit and strength that is worth Acol 2/1 but not worth 2/1 GF.

Thanks, Robin!

[P_Marlowe]

SimonFa, on 2012-January-11, 10:51, said:

You're right, very interesting but far too much load on our new partnership which still gets the odd advanced Stayman wrong.

Thanks anyway,

Simon

In this case my advice is simple - forget completly that there exists
the possibility to make a jump shift response to a 1 level suit opening.

This will work.

For whats it worth, I like SJS, but agreed to play WJS, defined as
6 card suit 4-7HCP.
I am not fond of this agreement, but it is ok, and it is simple.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[S2000magic]

daveharty, on 2012-January-10, 08:57, said:

. . . SJS are great for slam bidding when they come up, which is almost never.

If you wait for a 19-point, practically-forcing-to-slam SJS, you're correct.

Because a SJS is forcing only to game, I've found it useful to lower the strength requirement - a good 15 or 16 is fine - and to restrict their use to hands that can be described with two bids: a strong rebiddable suit of my own, strong support for partner's suit, or a strong notrump; no two-suiters. It seems to work well.

[Vampyr]

SimonFa, on 2012-January-11, 10:45, said:

I read some now play it as semi-forcing. I don't want to complicate matter anymore than they need to be so we are sticking to a forcing 1NT.

I think that if 1NT is semi-forcing, you need to either play that 1♠-2♥ and 1♦-2♣ are not game-forcing, or play some form of invitational jump shifts.

[S2000magic]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-January-11, 12:31, said:

For whats it worth, I like SJS, but agreed to play WJS, defined as 6 card suit 4-7HCP. I am not fond of this agreement, but it is ok, and it is simple.

And, most important, it's an agreement.

But it's not as much fun for the opponents as, for example, when one player thinks that his 4NT (over partner's 4♣ cue bid) is Blackwood (and his partner's 5♣ response shows 0 or 3 aces), while his partner thinks that his 4♣ is Gerber (and his partner's 4NT shows 3 aces).