[fromageGB]

dickiegera, on 2015-February-22, 07:30, said:

Partner West said I was showing a 6-5 distribution and giving her a choice of a 4 Spade or a 4 Heart contract.
Comments appreciated.

Although you may not agree with it, this is a valid logical interpretation if 1NT denied 4 spades, I would think.

nekthen, on 2015-February-23, 07:22, said:

The idea that 3♠ could be a 5 6 hand that could play better in ♠ is laughable. A 63 fit is always going to play as well as a 54 fit so what is the point?

4333 opposite 5611
Assume they start with A then K of a minor.
Given a choice of fits and the top cards in the majors with normal breaks, the 6-3 gives you no useful discards and you lose a trick in both minors regardless. The 5-4 enables you to draw trumps in 3, and the 3 discards on hearts enables you to ruff whichever minor they have not lead. One extra trick.

[helene_t]

birtley1, on 2015-February-23, 15:39, said:

On the subject of jump shifts in a major at the 2 level, here is an extract fromm Eric Crowhurst's book "Acol Index", a comprehensive survey of English standard bidding at the time of writing.

It is commonly believed that a jump shift at the two level should show either (a) a powerful one suited hand, or (b) a hand containing primary support for the opener's suit. However there is no need to restrict such a useful response in this way. The responder should feel free to make a jump shift on a two suited 5-4 hand, for there is ample room in which to find a fit in the responder's second suit. (e.g. 1C-2H-2S-3S or 1C-2H-3D-4D).

I think a 6-4 hand fits this method too. Certainly one can argue that the two level forcing jump is less frequent than a preemptive jump and drop it on that account but arguments against its use on two suiters are simply invalid.

I find this surprising. The book is aparently from 2000 so not even very old. I have never heard about that treatment. As Rik says, the standard way of playing strong jump shifts (if one play those at all) is that the two unbid suits are not candidate trump suits. His use of 2♠ as a relay may not be standard everywhere, though.

Maybe Crowhurst's system has difficulties dealing with strong responders if not using the strong jump shift. For example, it could be that after
1♣-1♥
2♣,
3♥ would be nonforcing while 2♠ would force for only one round and 2♦ would ostensibly be showing diamonds (and maybe not even be forcing).

[Zelandakh]

The book might be from 2000 but from what I can tell it is based on material of 25 years ago. I also found some online discussion between Gordon and Nigel about some odd ideas being put forward as some kind of standard so it does not seem to me that the book is a good starting point for the average player to base their ideas on.

In any case, birtley, if you held a 4=3=3=3 weak NT hand as Opener, would you be rebidding 2♠ or 2NT? If 2♠, how do you think you are gaining when the pair needs to investigate slam in Opener's minor; and if 2NT how are you gaining in terms of finding a spade fit?

In general, experience has led to the idea that a strong jump shift should basically know where it wants to be playing because of the amount of space used up. In contrast, very strong hands without direction want to keep making relatively cheap forcing calls until they can get enough information to move forwards.

[Zelandakh]

As an aside, here is what Gordon had to say about the book:-

Quote

Since you are posting from England, I wanted to suggest a British
bidding book which is an up-to-date summary of modern Acol. I couldn't
think of one! Unfortunately, Crowhurst's recent "Acol Index" which
purports to be that book, is actually idiosyncratic polemic disguised as
description.

[Bbradley62]

Is it too early in 2015 to nominate this thread for "most hijacked thread"?