[mike777]

There are so many other uses for jumps shifts besides playing them weak.

Playing wjs affects your entire bidding system.

For me I could not play:

Bergen raises
reverse flannery
show splinters at lower level
j/s to show strong minor suit raise.

[woefuwabit]

When choosing what to do with Jump Shifts over a Major opening, I decided that the most important factor to me is:

Does this particular system allow me to show hands that cannot be shown in another way, and is it actually useful to be able to show this kind of hand?

So let's look at the options.

Strong Jump Shift - Make a 2/1 bid
Very Weak Jump Shift - 1M is likely to play better
Weak Jump Shift - Forcing 1NT may even allow you to stop in 2m
Bergen Raises - Doesn't really offer more over normal raises of 2M or 3M, especially when major is ♠

So this leaves my favourite choice - Fit Showing Jumps (although a case can be made for mini splinters), showing a hand below limit raise strength, but with 9+ cards in the 2 suits and 8 LTC. This type of hand cannot be shown with any of the other systems, and gives the right type of information for opener to be able to make an informed decision to stop, play in a game or attempt for a slam.

[Zelandakh]

I have played FSJ too. They were ok but imho way below a full raise structure such as Bergen. I would also dispute that such structures do not offer more than normal raises. Quite aside from being able to reach the 3 level immediately with a 9 card fit and thus preempting the opponents, not to mention stopping in 2M with a 3 card limit raise some of the time, there is also the clear advantage of having a game try over the limit (and/or mixed) raise, thus increasing accuracy, plus simply having a mixed raise at all. More than that, as I have already pointed out it is possible to have mini-splinters or FSJ (but not both) in a condensed form and still retain the other advantages of a Bergen-like structure. Yes, the opps can preempt this sometimes. Nonetheless the advantages are considerably greater than FSJ or mini-splinters alone imho.

[woefuwabit]

I played Bergen Raises for a couple of years and from my experience, the preempt value is overrated.

The problem is especially bad with the mixed raise. It has given me many bad results when 2M makes while 3M goes down (which is very likely with a standard 9 LTC mixed raise opposite a 7 LTC minimum opener). Yes the opponents do have a makeable 3m partscore, but more likely than not if the opponents are unable to make a 2nd hand overcall, they will not be able to find the fit after a simple 1M-P-2M raise. AND even if 4th hand has a 6 card minor suit and bids it at the 3rd level after 2M, you can simply compete to 3M and you are no worse off than the pairs playing Bergen Raises. The mixed raise is a huge leak, no doubt about that.

Also, standard 1M-2M raises can make more accurate game tries than after a Bergen mixed raise.

The 1M-3M weak raise does win occasionally, and wins big if opponents have a game in the other major. This doesn't happen very often, and is balanced out by one problem I've encountered several times with the weak raise - occasionally (unless you play a strong club opening) opener will have a huge 1M holding that would go to game (or even slam) opposite the maximum of the 0-6 weak raise. How on earth is opener to make an informed decision opposite 0-6?

Being able to make a game try over a limit raise... somehow I don't think anyone is going to lose sleep over not having this bid.

3 card LRs are bid 1M-1NT-2x-3M, how do you stop in 2M?

Opportunities for Fit Jump Shifts don't come very often, but when they do happen I can be confident that the bid has given me an advantage. I can't say the same after making a Bergen Raise (especially mixed raise) where I will wonder if I'm already looking at a bad score.

If you like you can check out http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/B002RXTVNU where Max Hardy goes into a lot more details ripping into the mixed Bergen Raise. He does like the weak raise though, and it works well with the rest of his Hardy Raises structure that he advocates in his book.

[Zelandakh]

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

The problem is especially bad with the mixed raise. It has given me many bad results when 2M makes while 3M goes down

You need to stop playing against beginners. This is potentially similar to the discussion above about which way round to play splinters. Beginners let you play 2M here a lot; good intermediates do not, and Advanced+ will push you out of your comfort 2M nearly all of the time when it is right.

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

The 1M-3M weak raise does win occasionally, and wins big if opponents have a game in the other major. This doesn't happen very often, and is balanced out by one problem I've encountered several times with the weak raise - occasionally (unless you play a strong club opening) opener will have a huge 1M holding that would go to game (or even slam) opposite the maximum of the 0-6 weak raise. How on earth is opener to make an informed decision opposite 0-6?

It is true that I do prefer to play a strong club and actually designed this raise structure specifically for it. However, it also works for standard and a nice rule would be that the preemptive raise wants partner to pass with 18-19 balanced. With a big unbalanced hand you probably belong in 4 even opposite shrott.

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

Being able to make a game try over a limit raise... somehow I don't think anyone is going to lose sleep over not having this bid.

This is a little like Drury. If you call a limit raise 11-12 then a game try is unnecessary but if you have a game try available then you want to increase the range by a point or so. Now not having the game try would be awkward.

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

3 card LRs are bid 1M-1NT-2x-3M, how do you stop in 2M?

There are a number of methods around. The most popular is to put it within the 2♣ response. My solution is to play 1M+1 as a relay and other bids weak and non-forcing. Thus 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣(min) - 2♠ and 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT(min) - 2♥ are 3 card limit raises. Any bid that takes Responder above the 2M rebid would be game forcing.

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

Opportunities for Fit Jump Shifts don't come very often, but when they do happen I can be confident that the bid has given me an advantage. I can't say the same after making a Bergen Raise (especially mixed raise) where I will wonder if I'm already looking at a bad score.

One of the things I have against them is precisely that they often are a disadvantage. It is not uncommon that Opener knows whether to bid game or not without knowing the side suit. Now that knowledge is simply helping the opening lead. Where FSJ are very good is in competition because judging the secondary fit there is a key factor in success. If opps bid over the FSJ then we are extremely well placed. Occasionally one can find a low hcp slam using them too. Overall I preferred to have them than not; but that is true of every serious option. If you were to play, say, that 1♥ - 2♠ was a FSJ with any side suit or a strong splinter, would that work for you or is the loss of the immediate side suit too important? It is easy to unwind if they do not bid (2NT asks):
3m = FSJ
3♥ = INV FSJ with spades
3♠ = GF FSJ with spades
3NT = strong spade splinter
4m = strong splinter

Obviously you are worse off than an immediate FSJ if they bid though.

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-06, 13:30, said:

If you like you can check out http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/B002RXTVNU where Max Hardy goes into a lot more details ripping into the mixed Bergen Raise. He does like the weak raise though, and it works well with the rest of his Hardy Raises structure that he advocates in his book.

I am familiar with Hardy Raises even without having read any of his books. Quite a lot of research into the various methods being played at high levels went into constructing the raise structure I suggest. One of the other BBFers came up with an almost identical structure independently. The biggest advocate of Hardy here is probably TWO4BRIDGE but I am not sure if even he plays his raises. Can you think of any current world class pair that does?

[jogs]

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-05, 10:33, said:

So this leaves my favourite choice - Fit Showing Jumps (although a case can be made for mini splinters), showing a hand below limit raise strength, but with 9+ cards in the 2 suits and 8 LTC. This type of hand cannot be shown with any of the other systems, and gives the right type of information for opener to be able to make an informed decision to stop, play in a game or attempt for a slam.

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.

[blackshoe]

Robson and Segal seemed to favor fit-jumps in their book on competitive auctions. They suggested that they would publish a book on uncontested auctions if there is enough interest, and I got the impression that fit-jumps would feature in that book as well.

[fromageGB]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-07, 10:04, said:

Robson and Segal seemed to favor fit-jumps in their book on competitive auctions. They suggested that they would publish a book on uncontested auctions if there is enough interest, and I got the impression that fit-jumps would feature in that book as well.

This was many years ago. I think I bought the book in 1993, and looked forward to the sequel, but it never happened. Is the partnership dead and buried now?

I agree with an earlier comment that while fit jumps are useful in competition (I play them in my methods) they are - as it theoretically seems to me, not having tried - much less useful without.

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2012-November-07, 10:11, said:

This was many years ago. I think I bought the book in 1993, and looked forward to the sequel, but it never happened. Is the partnership dead and buried now?

I agree with an earlier comment that while fit jumps are useful in competition (I play them in my methods) they are - as it theoretically seems to me, not having tried - much less useful without.

Oliver Segal is now a barrister and judge specialising in employment. No idea what happened to that Robson chap though. Robson doesn't play them (he plays a Bergen variant), but then he didn't write the book.

The trouble with fit jumps is that they are not a comprehensive system - you are stuck on scattered hands or end up making the bid when unsuitable. Also, they are a huge information leak when you just end up playing an uncontested game. The Bergen point/trump length oriented style at least has the merit of covering the entire range of hands without premature leakage, though I don't care for them myself.

[jogs]

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.

[mike777]

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.

lol you dont have 11 pts....fit jumps may be great but if you think this hand is only 11 that is just silly bridge.

It is nothing new to say double fits and source of tricks are important...geez...

but it is really silly to start a conversation saying 11 pts

If you can only get there by playing fit jumps..sorry to hear that...


with that said sure fit jumps do work just as you can find any toy works on cherry picked hands...

[jogs]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

----- 1♠
3♣ - 4♠
all pass

Easily would make only ten tricks with spades as trumps.
Opener knew immediately hands didn't fit.

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

----- 1♠
3♣ - 3♦
3♠ - 4♠
all pass

4♠ will probably fail. Hard to stop short of game.
Bidding game on momentum.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Thanks to "AWM" for the actual frequencies of
these types of hands.

Also thanks for all the comments and suggestions
about jump shifts and fit showing bids.

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my
partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens
one of a major.

jerdonald

[relknes]

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.

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

----- 1♠
3♣ - 4♠
all pass

Easily would make only ten tricks with spades as trumps.
Opener knew immediately hands didn't fit.

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

----- 1♠
3♣ - 3♦
3♠ - 4♠
all pass

4♠ will probably fail. Hard to stop short of game.
Bidding game on momentum.

On the first hand:
----- 1♠
- 4♥
and you are off to the races since opener knows the shortness is working

On the second hand:
----- 1♠
- 4♥ - 4♠
since opener can see that there are wasted values in hearts

On the third hand:
----- 1♠
- 3♠ - Pass

Or, if you are not playing 2/1, the third hand might go:
----- 1♠
- 2♣ - 2N
- 3♠ - Pass

so to say that fit showing jumps are the only way to bid these hands acurately seems like an exageration.

[PhilKing]

jerdonald, on 2012-November-07, 17:20, said:

BBO forum,
Thanks to "AWM" for the actual frequencies of
these types of hands.

Also thanks for all the comments and suggestions
about jump shifts and fit showing bids.

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my
partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens
one of a major.

jerdonald

Quite a few of the world's top pairs do more or less that, so it can hardly be all that bad.

[jogs]

relknes, on 2012-November-07, 17:55, said:

On the first hand:
----- 1♠
- 4♥
and you are off to the races since opener knows the shortness is working

Not hardly. Knowing the shortness isn't enough. Change the hands.

Axxx x KQJxx Kxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

The QJ is working in the jumper's suit. But is of unknown value
in a side suit.

Quote

On the third hand:
----- 1♠
- 3♠ - Pass

A huge underbid.

Quote

Or, if you are not playing 2/1, the third hand might go:
----- 1♠
- 2♣ - 2N
- 3♠ - Pass

Most players would rebid 4♠, not 3♠.
The values don't have to be wasted.

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

Change the ♥Q to ♣Q.

Axxx xx xx AKxxx facing KQxxx Jxx Ax Qxx

There aren't sufficient rounds of bidding for the partnership to exchange
all necessary info.

All current systems seem more interested in total points than
whether the points work together. Bidding systems should make
a greater attempt to determine if the partnership hands fit.
Fitting hands produce more tricks on fewer high card points.

[woefuwabit]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-07, 02:23, said:

You need to stop playing against beginners. This is potentially similar to the discussion above about which way round to play splinters. Beginners let you play 2M here a lot; good intermediates do not, and Advanced+ will push you out of your comfort 2M nearly all of the time when it is right.

I play mostly against advanced+, and mostly IRL, hardly playing online anymore, so I'm going to just ignore your uncalled for ad hominem attack.
The thing you have conveniently ignored, is that after a 1M-2M raise, you are still allowed to bid 3M if the 4th hand opponent suddenly choose to compete into 3m, in which case you are no worse off than if you had made a 3rd level mixed raise. Now, occasionally your opponent would decide that his/her holding is not worth a risk competing into 3m (especially against a 2M raise which could well have only 3 card support), and that is where normal raises win.

Quote

This is a little like Drury. If you call a limit raise 11-12 then a game try is unnecessary but if you have a game try available then you want to increase the range by a point or so. Now not having the game try would be awkward.

With Drury, the re-invite over a LR is necessary because opener's minimum opening range has been much reduced (often 8 LTC instead of 7 LTC), and can also be a 4 card opening. In normal cases, a LR is not required. In fact, I think a game try is more necessary after a mixed raise than a limit raise, since a LR will generally have 8 LTC whereas a mixed raise have 9-10 LTC. I've often questioned why Reverse Bergen (which allows for game tries over LR but not for MR) seem to be more popular than standard Bergen (which allows for game tries over MR but not LR).

Quote

One of the things I have against them is precisely that they often are a disadvantage. It is not uncommon that Opener knows whether to bid game or not without knowing the side suit. Now that knowledge is simply helping the opening lead. Where FSJ are very good is in competition because judging the secondary fit there is a key factor in success. If opps bid over the FSJ then we are extremely well placed. Occasionally one can find a low hcp slam using them too. Overall I preferred to have them than not; but that is true of every serious option. If you were to play, say, that 1♥ - 2♠ was a FSJ with any side suit or a strong splinter, would that work for you or is the loss of the immediate side suit too important? It is easy to unwind if they do not bid (2NT asks):
3m = FSJ
3♥ = INV FSJ with spades
3♠ = GF FSJ with spades
3NT = strong spade splinter
4m = strong splinter

Obviously you are worse off than an immediate FSJ if they bid though.

If I wanted to, yes, it's not too hard to design a sytem which combines any two of the raise structures (WJS, FJS, Mini splinter, Bergen Raises), if we don't mind messing the Jacoby 2NT up a little when you have to bid 1♠-3♣. I'm in between regular partners atm though, so would rather KISS. I played Moscito with my last regular partner, so it didn't really matter.

Quote

I am familiar with Hardy Raises even without having read any of his books. Quite a lot of research into the various methods being played at high levels went into constructing the raise structure I suggest. One of the other BBFers came up with an almost identical structure independently. The biggest advocate of Hardy here is probably TWO4BRIDGE but I am not sure if even he plays his raises. Can you think of any current world class pair that does?

I'm definitely not advocating Hardy Raises, just his views on mixed raises.

I've looked through the convention cards of most of the pairs playing in the knockouts of the 2011 Bermuda Bowl. Naturally, there is no consensus of what is the prefered raise structure, but I didn't see anyone using Bergen Raises. Some pairs do use Mixed Raises - most of them as 1M-3M instead of 1M-3m, and some pairs do play FSJ. Some even play both MR and FSJ, making 2NT LR+. Many pairs don't even mention a raise structure that they use - I presume they play WJS in this case.

[fromageGB]

jerdonald, on 2012-November-07, 17:20, said:

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens one of a major.

Certainly not uncommon. I play Berganesque after a major, and major suit WJS after a minor, and like the idea. You can do it whatever style of minor bids you use : I play transfer walsh and shortage/long diamond, but it works just as well with "natural" minors. You just have to make sure they fit in with the whole system so you don't miss out on being able to handle other hand types.

[Zelandakh]

jerdonald, on 2012-November-07, 17:20, said:

Is there anything wrong with using the WJS when my
partner opens 1 of a minor and Bergen when he opens
one of a major.

That's essentially what I do, although "Bergen" is not strictly right (see above). After a 1m opening, you might also consider Reverse Flannery - that can be quite valuable in Standard.

[Vampyr]

woefuwabit, on 2012-November-08, 01:24, said:

I play mostly against advanced+, and mostly IRL, hardly playing online anymore, so I'm going to just ignore your uncalled for ad hominem attack.

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.