[Codo]

jogs, on 2012-November-07, 09:53, said:

I'm convinced fit showing is the most effective way of playing jump shifts. At least for 5-card major openings systems.
1M - 3m. Any 5+m hand with 4+M support worth forcing to game. Axxx x xxx AKxxx. Partner opens 1♠. Bid 3♣. This sequence occurs with relatively high frequency.

I am convinced that this is just true for competetive auctions.

Frequency is not all that matters. And hands like your example are easily bidden with standard tools.
Whether it it is worth to have Bergen as some more way to show different types of raises is another matter, but if I had to switch, it would be to some kind of non-fittig hands, like weak or interm. one-suiters.

[jogs]

Codo, on 2012-November-08, 07:12, said:

I am convinced that this is just true for competetive auctions.

Frequency is not all that matters. And hands like your example are easily bidden with standard tools.
Whether it it is worth to have Bergen as some more way to show different types of raises is another matter, but if I had to switch, it would be to some kind of non-fittig hands, like weak or interm. one-suiters.

Non-fitting hands are easy. Just bid less.

I like the Robson/Segal term 'contested auctions'.

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

Think few partnerships would find slam with this pair of hands.

[Codo]

Non fitting hands are Easy?
Okay, in a 2/1 contest, how exactly do you bid x,xx,xxx,KQTxxxx and x,Ax,xxx,KQJxxxx over 1 ♠ from partner? (If the first is a pass for you, add a jack or whatever fits your style, if the second is a 2/1 rebid, make it a little weaker.)

And with your example hands:

In a standard system, you may or may not reach slam. Both hands are borderline for bidding on. But Axxx xxx x AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx are the same hands- and here game is the limit.
So, why do you think reaching slam with fitjumps is easy? 1 ♠ 3 ♣ and now?
Am I obliged to show my control always? Or can I show minimum hands with or without a second fit too?

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-08, 05:55, said:

I love it when people disagree with or are offended by something someone else posts, so they call it an ad hominem attack, clearly without knowing what that means.

I thought it meant an attack by terrorists with long black beards.

[woefuwabit]

jogs, on 2012-November-07, 13:54, said:

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

11 opposite 12. Nearly cold for slam. Can only get there by playing fit jumps.

Expected tricks is more than just total high card points and total trumps.
It helps to have a double fit and a source of tricks.

I would say that Axxx x xxx AKxxx is too strong a hand for a FJS. With this hand I would bid 2♣ GF.

The way I play it, FJS shows a hand that is below a Limit Raise in HCP, but equivalent in playing strength. Most of the time it would be a 54 hand with 8 LTC, and less than 10 HCP. So this hand qualifies:

Axxx x xxx Kxxxx

Without a FJS, you will have to choose between making a mixed raise or normal raise which would be an underbid. If you choose to make a limit raise instead, you show the true playing value of your hand, but your partner is likely to make a wrong decision if he/she has to 1) decide on a game, 2) decide to attempt a slam, 3) decide to make a penalty double

Now take a look back at the opener hand that you mentioned earlier: KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

This hand would generally not accept a generic limit raise invite, nor make a game try over a normal or mixed raise.
However over a 3♣ FJS invite, it would be an easy accept and an easily made game.

Now imagine if you make a limit raise and opener has KQJxx AQJ AQxx x

You'd be lucky to stop in 5♠, which may not even make. With a FJS opener knows to avoid slam.

[jogs]

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-08, 11:38, said:

I would say that Axxx x xxx AKxxx is too strong a hand for a FJS. With this hand I would bid 2♣ GF.

The way I play it, FJS shows a hand that is below a Limit Raise in HCP, but equivalent in playing strength. Most of the time it would be a 54 hand with 8 LTC, and less than 10 HCP. So this hand qualifies:

Axxx x xxx Kxxxx

Without a FJS, you will have to choose between making a mixed raise or normal raise which would be an underbid. If you choose to make a limit raise instead, you show the true playing value of your hand, but your partner is likely to make a wrong decision if he/she has to 1) decide on a game, 2) decide to attempt a slam, 3) decide to make a penalty double

Now take a look back at the opener hand that you mentioned earlier: KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

This hand would generally not accept a generic limit raise invite, nor make a game try over a normal or mixed raise.
However over a 3♣ FJS invite, it would be an easy accept.

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

[aguahombre]

jogs, on 2012-November-08, 11:49, said:

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

If those esteemed folks defined a fit jump as that, and created a forcing pass with it, then wonderful for them. A lot of us use it as merely a tool to let partner decide what to do (a descriptive type of mixed raise). Apparently this is another example of why we shouldn't use names for treatments or conventions.

Edit: On second thought, having not read those references either, could it be that Robson/Segal and then Manfield were writing about a fit-jump method of first response in uncontested auctions ---and that since we only use them in competitive situations we are really discussing apples and oranges?

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-November-08, 12:49

[woefuwabit]

jogs, on 2012-November-08, 11:49, said:

Have you read the Robson/Segal book? Have you read the Ed Manfield articles in TBW in the seventies? The fit jump establishes that our side holds the balance of power. We will declare or double opponents if they declare.

Are you suggesting that my preferred treatment is inferior just because I did not read read the articles and the book?

[jogs]

Codo, on 2012-November-08, 09:33, said:

Non fitting hands are Easy?
Okay, in a 2/1 contest, how exactly do you bid x,xx,xxx,KQTxxxx and x,Ax,xxx,KQJxxxx over 1 ♠ from partner? (If the first is a pass for you, add a jack or whatever fits your style, if the second is a 2/1 rebid, make it a little weaker.)

I have no idea what are the expected tricks with clubs as trumps with either of those hands opposite a 1♠ open.
Probably no one else knows either. No system can cater to all hands. The idea is to attempt to maximize our expected score. No system is capable of collecting the best result on every board. While you are concern with finding the ideal spot with possible misfit hands, I'm more interesting in catering to hands that fit. Manfield explains that when playing fit jumps partner will know immediately whether our hands fit. This will assist him in 4 and 5 level decisions on whether to double, bid on or pass.

Codo, on 2012-November-08, 09:33, said:

And with your example hands:

In a standard system, you may or may not reach slam. Both hands are borderline for bidding on. But Axxx xxx x AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx are the same hands- and here game is the limit.
So, why do you think reaching slam with fitjumps is easy? 1 ♠ 3 ♣ and now?
Am I obliged to show my control always? Or can I show minimum hands with or without a second fit too?

Not easy, the fit jump shows the possibility of 5 tricks in a side suit in addition to the 5 tricks in the trump suit. Most players seem to think a 12-3 hand is always minimum for opening. While this is true at the time of the opening bid, during a slam auction any hand with four controls is better than minimum.
1♠ - 3♣

KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

This hand has the ♦A(2 controls), ♠KQ(1 1/2 controls), and the ♣QJ. The ♣QJ is known to be working. That's why it is worth a 3♦ cuebid.

KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

This hand is not worth cuebidding. The ♥QJ is of unknown value.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-08, 11:59, said:

Edit: On second thought, having not read those references either, could it be that Robson/Segal and then Manfield were writing about a fit-jump method of first response in uncontested auctions ---and that since we only use them in competitive situations we are really discussing apples and oranges?

Robson/Segal only deals with competitive auctions. A follow-up book on uncontested auctions was planned but never published. As for forcing passes, R-S had a very simple rule for when they apply over a FSJ:

Quote

A fit-jump or splinter-jump only sets up a forcing pass if you are at ‘red’ and are raising to the four level (or higher)

The reason for this is very simple - a FSJ does not say we hold the balance of power. It says that we hold the offensive strength for the level we are raising to. They go into the details of this in the book, essentially saying that the "balance of power" requirement being suggested restricts the usage too much against the trade-offs. Without reading the book, the other posters seem to have come to much the same conclusion.

[aguahombre]

Thank you. That sounds like "We declare or double the opponents if they declare." was not an accurate summation of R/S' method, and that they actually treated the fit jump pretty much like most of us do.

[jogs]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-09, 02:25, said:

Thank you. That sounds like "We declare or double the opponents if they declare." was not an accurate summation of R/S' method, and that they actually treated the fit jump pretty much like most of us do.

You're right. R/S seem to recommend fjs with about a king lighter than Manfield. Although with 6-4 and 5-5 I would make a fjs with all his examples. Manfield used the fjs to set up the singleton rule on the 5 level.

[Antig2]

Weak jump response is probably ok to use. What is the idea to use this way of bidding. If you want to create difficulty to opponents you also create difficulty to your partner. Such situations are usually hard to handle. In this way partner has no chance for rebid. It is better to have as many bids as possible if the opponents win the contract which is often the case with long suits even if they have less points. Lets look this example.
1♦-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥.
(Jump response and standard sequence.).Both auctions describe the same hands.

In such auctions the points are often equal and the opponents often bid 2♠. In the second auction the defenders have more information and may organize a better defence.

Of course such auctions are usually complicated and even experts have a problem to find the right bid. In my opinion it is better to use the second way, but this is a matter of personal choice.In this way it is much easier to bid the slam hands (if jump response of 2♥ shows a possibility for slam) and slams often decide team matches. I think a novice/beginner should try to bid constructively. While destructive bidding may have some advantages it is for experts only and not a prefered way to play in bbo.