[Cyberyeti]

I don't see the damage really, surely they went for more 50s than 5♣(maybe x)-1 which is where I suspect they'd end up if he bid again.

1♦-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-5♣ or 1♦-3♣-3♦-4♣-5♣ seem plausible. Nobody has a heart control so why bid a slam.

[phil_20686]

When I played these methods, you basically played in 3C unless partner had a good hand and was thinking about 3N. I dont think 3d is forcing, but it would be obigatory to bid a major if I had an A,K, or Q outside. Partner should have some club tolerance. With the given hand 3N is obvious, I have no outside cards but much better clubs than partner could reasonably expect. If he has a small doubleton club and some stops I will basically be cold.

3N should be good clubs with nothing extra in the major.

Also, I think this 3c is typical, for a "preemptive" 3c, you shouldnt be doing it on rubbish.

I dont't really think pass is a LA.

With david burns hand I think its obvious to bid 3N. Partner can have something useful in spades, like JTx. Or they might not lead a spade. 3D should be more a hand like AQx Ax Kjxxxx xx looking to play in 3N if the clubs are running or if partner has a heart card. It is not an attempt to play in 3d really. Partner can pass with a pile and some diamond tolerance, but he should not be expecting a great diamond suit necesssarily.

[phil_20686]

 Cascade, on 2012-January-26, 13:58, said:

Partner's hand was:

---

Ok, so the auction should have gone 3d-3N-4c AP

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-27, 04:37, said:

Surely weak jump shifts are popular enough that there must be a standard meaning for continuations. Does anyone know what this is?

If no one, or only a few, know the answer, is it really "standard"?

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-27, 06:41, said:

I don't see the damage really, surely they went for more 50s than 5♣(maybe x)-1 which is where I suspect they'd end up if he bid again.

1♦-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-5♣ or 1♦-3♣-3♦-4♣-5♣ seem plausible. Nobody has a heart control so why bid a slam.

For the first sequence you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-5♣-5♦-....
For the second you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-4♣-5♦

Remember that opener thinks that responder has diamonds, rather than clubs. Why would opener switch to clubs when he "knows" of the diamond fit and doesn't have any indication that there might be a club fit?

Rik

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-27, 04:37, said:

Surely weak jump shifts are popular enough that there must be a standard meaning for continuations. Does anyone know what this is?

Heck, I'm just waiting for a standard meaning of WJS.

On at least two other threads, I have argued that one of the major benefits of Bergen Raises and Fit Jumps, is that partner can't make a weak jump shift, so I don't have to figure out if he *can* play anywhere else or not.

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2012-January-27, 14:39, said:

For the first sequence you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-5♣-5♦-....
For the second you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-4♣-5♦

Remember that opener thinks that responder has diamonds, rather than clubs. Why would opener switch to clubs when he "knows" of the diamond fit and doesn't have any indication that there might be a club fit?

Rik

My understanding was that 3♣ was announced as a fit jump so he was expecting 5-7 clubs and 4 diamonds, hence playing in clubs. This appears to be wrong. I don't know if something's been edited since I first looked, but I could have sworn it just said "fit".

On the second auction, if 4♣ is just shaping out I can see 5♣ still being bid.

[nigel_k]

I just about laughed out loud at this one.

After reading the OP I assumed that partner had bid 3♦ slowly and this hand took further action. I was going to post that maybe pass is a logical alternative for a sufficiently poor class of player, but you would have to look quite hard to find an expert who thinks 3♦ is an attempt to improve the part score.

Obviously (a weaker version of) DBurn's example could exist but it's just so wrong to use 3♦ to cater to that rare hand type. We are in essentially the same position as if we opened 3♣ and partner responded 3♦, i.e. partner is inviting further action and our hand is huge for a weak 3♣.

So obviously 3♦ cannot stand. Unless you take a very literal interpretation of the laws and decide that pass is not a logical alternative so the player didn't choose from among logical alternatives etc.

[mjj29]

 dburn, on 2012-January-26, 21:32, said:

♠A32 ♥AK2 ♦KQJ10987 ♣None

You open 1♦. Partner bids 3♣, a weak jump shift. What call do you make?

Surely you should open it 2♥ though - you have a straight flush

[Cascade]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-27, 16:50, said:

My understanding was that 3♣ was announced as a fit jump so he was expecting 5-7 clubs and 4 diamonds, hence playing in clubs. This appears to be wrong. I don't know if something's been edited since I first looked, but I could have sworn it just said "fit".

On the second auction, if 4♣ is just shaping out I can see 5♣ still being bid.

No editing on this one

[AlexJonson]

 nigel_k, on 2012-January-27, 17:03, said:

...

Obviously (a weaker version of) DBurn's example could exist but it's just so wrong to use 3♦ to cater to that rare hand type. We are in essentially the same position as if we opened 3♣ and partner responded 3♦, i.e. partner is inviting further action and our hand is huge for a weak 3♣.

...

So what does 3D show and what do you think is the frequency of that hand + a suitable weak jump opposite?

I don't mind giving up rare scenarios, if the replacement is worth anything.

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-27, 16:50, said:

 Trinidad, on 2012-January-27, 14:39, said:

For the first sequence you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-5♣-5♦-....
For the second you mean: 1♦-3♣-3♦-4♣-5♦

Remember that opener thinks that responder has diamonds, rather than clubs. Why would opener switch to clubs when he "knows" of the diamond fit and doesn't have any indication that there might be a club fit?

Rik

My understanding was that 3♣ was announced as a fit jump so he was expecting 5-7 clubs and 4 diamonds, hence playing in clubs. This appears to be wrong. I don't know if something's been edited since I first looked, but I could have sworn it just said "fit".

On the second auction, if 4♣ is just shaping out I can see 5♣ still being bid.

Here is the meaning that Wayne gave:

 Cascade, on 2012-January-26, 06:49, said:

At the table south's 3♣ was alerted and described as invitational or better with diamond support.

I interpret that as 3♣ was artificial and invitational or better with diamond support, a so called criss-cross raise. It only tells about the diamonds (and the values) but says nothing about clubs.

I obviously think that my interpretation is the only correct one , but I do understand why you interpreted it differently. And this led to different results in the assignment of an AS (and the answer to the question whether there was damage).

Rik

[Vampyr]

 nigel_k, on 2012-January-27, 17:03, said:

Unless you take a very literal interpretation of the laws and decide that pass is not a logical alternative so the player didn't choose from among logical alternatives etc.

I think that this interpretation has been discredited.

[bluejak]

 Cascade, on 2012-January-25, 06:15, said:

---

I had various opinions on this one.

What call do you make?

What other calls do you seriously consider making?

There was no further description to 3♣ other than pre-emptive.

The class of player is International player.

Pass. None.

This reply is without looking at the rest of the thread!

The only snag is that if I really did play it as pre-emptive I could imagine having an agreement that a 3♦ rebid was forcing.

Now I shall look at the rest of the thread and find out that 3♣ was alerted as a splinter/natural game force/limit raise in diamonds/heart suit/impossible bid.

[bluejak]

 Cascade, on 2012-January-26, 06:49, said:

At the table south's 3♣ was alerted and described as invitational or better with diamond support.

Told you so!

[lamford]

Perhaps the TD should ask South if he plays 3C as weak with clubs with anyone else, and how he plays a rebid of opener's suit. Deciding on how one should play 3D is irrelevant. It is relevant what South thought 3D would mean.