University of IAC > 2/1 Talk

Counterintuitive

(1/3) > >>

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 !S. (Some may choose to open this hand 2 !C , but I am fine with 1 !S).
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 !H , 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:
!S Q8
!H 9742
!D 32
!C KQT83

The common default here is that 3 !S 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 !S. Counterintuitive!

The responder in the IAC Spur Match, with a 3-card limit-raise, correctly jumped to 4 !S . Again—counterintuitive! Unfortunately, even with the massive hand that north had, 4 !S 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 !S should be artificial, ostensibly an “Impossible 3 !S,” showing a good raise of opener’s second suit.

1 !H – (P) – 1NT – (P)
3m  - (P) – 3 !S 

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

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

wackojack:

--- Quote from: Masse24 on June 25, 2019, 04:56:31 PM ---I do suppose that, logically, in the following jump-shift auction, 3 !S should be artificial, ostensibly an “Impossible 3 !S,” showing a good raise of opener’s second suit.

1 !H – (P) – 1NT – (P)
3m  - (P) – 3 !S 

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

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

--- End quote ---

No authoritative opinion but my instinct says that 3  !S should show Ace or King  !S 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  !S QJ10 and the best contract is 3NT where 3  !S would show a spade stop rather than a control.  The best I can come up with is:
 Opener: !S xxx,  !H AKQJx,  !D AJxx,  !C A   Responder:  !S QJ10,  !H xx,  !D KQ10x,  ! C xxx.  Even with these 2 hands 5 !D 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/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page