Counterintuitive

[Masse24]

Counterintuitive



Another in the “What means what” series. I saw this auction while kibbing a recent IAC Spur Team Match. North/South were playing a standard 2/1 system with a forcing notrump. At both tables, North opened a heavy 1 . (Some may choose to open this hand 2 , but I am fine with 1 ).
South responded 1NT, intending to show a three-card limit-raise over partner’s rebid. But opener threw a wrench in the works by jumping to 3 , unequivocally a game-force. So how does responder now show what he initially intended to show?

We all learn the following early on in developing our bridge knowledge—once a game force has been established, to show more, go slowly. But there are exceptions. This is one of them.
Assume that, as responder, you have this hand:
Q8
9742
32
KQT83

The common default here is that 3 merely shows preference. It DOES NOT even promise three of partner’s suit! So with very little in the way of strength, and even less in the way of support, the “expert standard” call with the above responder’s hand is 3 . Counterintuitive!

The responder in the IAC Spur Match, with a 3-card limit-raise, correctly jumped to 4 . Again—counterintuitive! Unfortunately, even with the massive hand that north had, 4 was passed. My guess is that north was not aware of what it showed.

I believe continuations after opener’s jump-shift to be a very difficult area of bidding, and one that is often undiscussed. With discussion, I believe a viable overloading of responder’s 3M bid could be accomplished, including both the “showing preference” garbage bid and the 3-card limit-raise. But knowing the “expert standard” continuation is where the discussion begins.

Any ideas?

[Masse24]

I do suppose that, logically, in the following jump-shift auction, 3 should be artificial, ostensibly an “Impossible 3 ,” showing a good raise of opener’s second suit.

1 – (P) – 1NT – (P)
3m  - (P) – 3  

But does it (should it) promise a control as well?

Probably just a partnership agreement. Or does anyone have authoritative opinions on this?

[wackojack]

I do suppose that, logically, in the following jump-shift auction, 3 should be artificial, ostensibly an “Impossible 3 ,” showing a good raise of opener’s second suit.

1 – (P) – 1NT – (P)
3m  - (P) – 3  

But does it (should it) promise a control as well?

Probably just a partnership agreement. Or does anyone have authoritative opinions on this?

No authoritative opinion but my instinct says that 3  should show Ace or King  with of course at least 4 in partner's minor.  If opener was weighing up slam possibilities this would be invaluable information.  I am trying to construct a hand where opener has a low doubleton spade and responder has  QJ10 and the best contract is 3NT where 3  would show a spade stop rather than a control.  The best I can come up with is:
 Opener: xxx,  AKQJx,  AJxx,  A   Responder:  QJ10,  xx,  KQ10x,  ! C xxx.  Even with these 2 hands 5 would be unlucky to fail. 

[kenberg]

My thoughts, also without any authority to back it up:

On the  first hand, after 1S-1NT-3H, I think 3S could be an either/or bid. Perhaps it's just a minimal hand, doing the best he can. Or, it could be a hand with a good spade fit, say Hxx, and a side A that will be shown next time. So here, the auction would continue 3H-3S-4S (allowing for the 3S being on not much)-5C. If opener has a jump shift and responder has Hxx and a side A we should be reasonably safe for 5S. Maybe H should be a Q or better. On the given hand, the 5C would encourage opener, 5D would discourage opener.

On 1H-1NT-3m I think that 3S should be the spade A and a fit for m. Also 1H-1NT-3C-3D and 1H-1NT-3D-4C  should be on an A  and a fit. If responder has a fit but no side A he can choose between 3NT and 4m depending on his hand. Or of course 3H on some hands with maybe Kx, planning to pass 4H on a hope and a prayer.

And I agree that the bidding over a jump shift is a neglected area.

It seems to me this approach would often work well even if the pair has not had, or don't recall,  a detailed discussiom.

[jcreech]

I found the following discussion on Bridge Winners - still not very satisfying:  https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/responding-to-a-strong-jump-shift/

[wackojack]

On the first hand Gazzilli was mentioned in the Bridge Winners discussion.  A Gazzilli auction would also go 1  -1NT-2  -2  3 . (I think)  Where a jump in the other major would show 16+ and 4 card support.  I am not sure if Zia plays Gazzilli with Rodwell.  The difference between the natural and Gazilli auction is that responder natural = say 5+ and gazzilli 8+.  Will this make a difference to what 3  and 4 means.    This sort of disussion is too rarified for me. 

[Masse24]

On the first hand, Ken, if the auction begins 1 – 1NT – 3 – 3 , although it’s not the out-of-the-box “expert standard,” I can see a two-way either/or treatment for 3 . It could simply be showing preference, presumably with at least two cards (Qx or better?), or the 3-card limit-raise in the example hand above. Opener can then show slam interest with a control bid. If responder has garbage, he sign off in 4 . However, if responder has the limit raise and opener expresses slam interest he can cooperate. Obviously, because of the space constraints due to the jump-shift, having Last-Train in the arsenal could potentially come in handy.

The text below, pulled from The BWS 2017 Poll Results and changes, a non-jump of four of a new suit is “a control-bid ostensibly in support of opener's second suit.”

1426. After a one-notrump response and a jump-shift, a non-jump bid of four of a new suit by responder [e.g.: one spade -- one notrump -- three diamonds -- four clubs] should be . . .
A. a control-bid ostensibly in support of opener's second suit [78]
B. natural [22]
System addition: After one of a major -- one notrump -- two of a lower-ranking suit -- ? or a one-notrump response and a jump-shift, four of a suit ranking below opener's second suit is a control-bid supporting opener's second suit.

But note the failure to mention a 3-level non-jump, which could happen with the other auction we mentioned above: 1 – 1NT – 3 – 3 .
Could this 3 , as Jack mentions, be a grope for 3NT? Obviously it is limited to no more than three due to the initial 1NT response. Maybe that’s why it is not mentioned in the BWS 2017 poll—because 3NT is still in play? 

[Masse24]

Searching Bridgewinners, I found a several discussions of jump-shift auctions. In one of them, Bob Heitzman discussed a portion of his method. I’ve included it below, which I think looks very good and not too terribly complex. Heitzman, by the way, wrote two articles, both published in The Bridge World pertaining to these auctions.
They are:

• “Clarifying After Opener's Jump-Shift” February 2011, and
• “Superstrong Raises by Opener”  June 2011

Unfortunately, I was a new player then and had not yet subscribed to The Bridge World. (Anyone have back issues?)

In "expert standard", the jump to 4 shows a 3-card limit raise. This has come up in several MSC problems in the Bridge World. That doesn't mean it is the only way to play, or perhaps even that it is best, although I think it is best.

Continuations after opener's jump shift rebid are among the most controversial in standard bidding. If you follow the MSC, every time this situation comes up you will see that every panelist has his own idea of what the various bids should mean (although the jump to 4 is one of the few non-controversial issues).

That's the main reason I wrote a recent Bridge World article about this situation. I'm not saying my suggestions in the article are the only way to go, and certainly not that they are accepted by all experts, but I think they are a good starting point for discussion.

On this particular auction, I suggest in the article that 3S should show a doubleton honor in spades (Qx or better). 3N should show a hand with stoppers in the unbid suits and less than enough to jump to 4N, which is quantitative with around 11-12 hcp (it also implies little slam potential in either of opener's suits). A raise to 4 should show a decent hand with 4-card support (higher raises are barred since the jump shifter may not have real diamonds).

The meaning of 4 and 4 depend on what 1N is--in the usual case where it is either semi-forcing or forcing but limited, these should be cue-bids in support of diamonds. If 1N is unlimited and responder might have 3 spades with 12+ support points, the 4-level cues should be in support of spades, not diamonds (this would be the case for 1 – 1 - 3m, since the 1 bid is unlimited).

All other hands are shown with a "punt" of 3 , including hands with 3-card support that were deemed too weak for an initial raise to 2 (this hand will usually bid 4 next).

In auctions where there is no unbid suits available at the 3-level, rebidding 3 of opener's first suit becomes the punt, and no longer shows Qx or better. If there are two unbid suits available (e.g., 1 - 1N - 3 ), then 3 of the lower is the pure punt, while 3 of the higher unbid suit (by responder or by opener after responder's punt) shows a stopper in that suit and asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper in the other unbid suit.     

[Curls77]

Unsure if it is relevant to this discussion, but let's not forget in IAC most pardships are new and do not have any specific agreements.
Assuming vanilla 2/1 or Joe's IAC standard, best they could do is play fast arrival principle, in which jump to 4S would show hand forced to game, that choose least of evils in their opinion. Which would leave 3S to show nice natural raise of spades, not necessarily Hxx, awaiting cues from p.

Is it not similar auction of:
2C-any positive answer as 2N or 3C for example
3H-?
Bid of 4H would show wish to sign of, right?

[Masse24]

Unsure if it is relevant to this discussion, but let's not forget in IAC most pardships are new and do not have any specific agreements.
Assuming vanilla 2/1 or Joe's IAC standard, best they could do is play fast arrival principle, in which jump to 4S would show hand forced to game, that choose least of evils in their opinion. Which would leave 3S to show nice natural raise of spades, not necessarily Hxx, awaiting cues from p.

Sanya, it's entirely relevant to the discussion. And the concept of "fast-arrival" is partially the reason for my post. Significantly, not because it does apply here, but because it does not. Remember, a suit has not been agreed. Responder must be able to show simple preference or, because of the forcing NoTrump, the 3-card limit raise. The jump to 4 is the widely recognized "expert standard."

Roughly two years ago, I emailed a handful of world-class players about the above auction. I received a handful of responses. They all agreed. Marty Bergen, giving one of his usual cryptic responses wrote, "Responder's 3 bid is a preference; assumed to be a doubleton. His jump to 4 is a lim raise. Many players don't know the above.
Regards,
Marty"

Some of the ideas above by Ken, Jack, and the quoted material from Heitzman would require careful discussion. If I had a regular partner, I would explore some of those methods. But opposite a random partner I would expect (or hope for) the bog standard method that Bergen wrote about.



 

[kenberg]

Unsure if it is relevant to this discussion, but let's not forget in IAC most pardships are new and do not have any specific agreements.
Assuming vanilla 2/1 or Joe's IAC standard, best they could do is play fast arrival principle, in which jump to 4S would show hand forced to game, that choose least of evils in their opinion. Which would leave 3S to show nice natural raise of spades, not necessarily Hxx, awaiting cues from p.

Is it not similar auction of:
2C-any positive answer as 2N or 3C for example
3H-?
Bid of 4H would show wish to sign of, right?

Let me address  your example.

2C -  3C
3H -  4H

No, I don't think that would be a sign off. After 2C -3C-3H nobody knows what strain we will be playing in. If responder has heart support, he needs to say so.

After

2C -  2NT
3H -  4H

you could make more of a case for 4H being a sign off since the 2NT bid showed a balanced hand and so you could say, perhaps, that the 3H bid set the trump suit but I would not be too confident of that interpretation. It might depend on exactly what the 2NT call shows. Often it is a pretty narrowly defined call. Flat with no ace and a narrow hcp range, for example, so there is not really all that much more to say.

Fast arrival has to take a back seat to selecting the strain. So 2C-3C-3H-4H is needed to set hearts as trump, thus it cannot also show minimum values. Actually, opener would know quite a bit: Partner has a positive response and whatever suit quality  is agreed upon in clubs, and the raise to 4H shows that he is at least content, maybe not enthusiastic but content, with hearts.

Ok, now back to the 1S-1NT-3D-3S  auction.  The issue here is that the 3S cannot really set spades unequivocally.   Sometimes, and in fact fairly often, responder will have two cards in spades, maybe Qx. Well, that's better than xx or just x, so the 3S is needed so he can say, "well, we probably can play this in spades, not great but possible".

Briefly: Setting trump has to take preference over fast arrival.

[wackojack]

Quote Ken "Setting trump has to take preference over fast arrival"

Agree entirely.  If both sides of the partnership keep this principle in mind, they will not go far wrong.