[m1cha]

I would appreciate comments about bidding in situations where advancer jumps(!) to the 3 level in opener's suit:
[A] (1x) 1y (p/1z) 3x
[B] (1x) 2m (p) 3x
[C] (1♠) 2♥ (p) 3♠
where x is any suit, y is any other suit and 1z may be anything up to 1NT.

In my homecountry's official bidding systems these jumps show a "power raise", a game-going hand promising 4-card support at least opposite partner's major suit. This almost never comes up. GIB plays a "mixed raise" in situation [A] which I find far more useful. Or far more annoying if played by the opponents.

So I wonder if it makes sense to play a mixed raise in [B] and [C] also. Many articles on the internet just mention [A]. One in particular (http://tommybridgebl...-overcalls.html) explains that the Law of Total Tricks is behind the mixed raise. I concluded that the mixed raise should not be played in [B] and [C] because partner is forced to the 4 level with a 9-card fit, which is not covered by the Law. Then this article by Larry Cohen (https://www.larryco....enter/detail/79) also refers to the Law but later gives an example of a mixed raise in situation [B]. To sum it up, I am confused, and in addition I wonder if it is a good idea to play a mixed raise after an opening of 1M, at least at IMPs, because they may bid 4M trying to defend against our 4m contract and happen to make it.

I'm also considering the "Western Cuebid" asking partner to bid 3NT with a stop in their suit. GIB doesn't play this but to me it seems a good idea particularly with [B], where partner bid a minor suit.

What is your choice in the three situations and why?

[MrAce]

A=mix raise

B&C=Splinter

Everything else with support starts with either of the below, depending on your hand

a-Support
b-Non jump cuebid
c-Jump Shift
d-Some play 2 NT response as support too. Some also play xfer reponses.

[The_Badger]

hi m1cha,

It's all up to partnership agreement what labels you wish to put on these bids, however, I'm more interested in how you are interpreting the Law of Total Tricks.

This all depends on the vulnerability, the shape and content of your hands and the quick tricks, honour cards and intermediates available. I personally n-1 a trick if vulnerable against non-vulnerable, and a 9 card trump fit is usually good for 9 or 10 tricks I feel, especially if you and your partner's hands are distributional.

The Law of Total Tricks is just a guide, and is not set in stone. Beyond the 4 level it loses its effectiveness. And there are plenty of hands where the Law goes haywire.

As Richard Pavilcek says: The Law of Total Trash http://www.rpbridge.net/8k65.htm

[mr1303]

2 and 3 struck me as obvious splinters, but I couldn't vote for that.

[kenberg]

I was looking at the Cohen article you cited, where the auction goes (1H)-2C-(X)-3H as a mixed raise in clubs. It's certainly true, and it is perhaps a problem, that this forces us to the four level. But often that 2C call will be on six cards, and LC presents a very nice hand:

7654
A987
6
QT87

There is nothing wasted, and you can pretty much imagine how it might go in 4C: Opening heart lead to dummy's Ace, two rounds of clubs, hopefully partner has six and they split 2-1. You take six clubs, one heart and two diamond ruffs if partner has nothing more than six clubs to the AK. Change the heart A to the K and I am much less happy, even if you change the spade 7 to the Q. Or even the K.

I guess the purpose of this 3H mixed raise is to help partner decide on how high to go. If I just wanted to jam the auction I could bid some number of clubs. This means some discussion is needed so that partner knows when he should bid 5C intending to make, and when he should not. A bit delicate, I think.

Bottom line: Like you, I am a bit confused.

[m1cha]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-11, 06:16, said:

It's all up to partnership agreement what labels you wish to put on these bids, however, I'm more interested in how you are interpreting the Law of Total Tricks.

I was thinking of the simplistic interpretation kind of "if you have 9 cards in trumps, bid on the 3 level". I am aware, of course, that it does matter if you are vulnerable or not when you go down 1 or 2 doubled, etc. But taking this into account here could mean that (B) would be a mixed raise if not vulnerable but GF if vulnerable. I am not ready to go to such details in my bidding system even if it could work out well in theory if played correctly.

BTW, I bookmarked your link.

[m1cha]

mr1303, on 2016-September-11, 07:32, said:

2 and 3 struck me as obvious splinters, but I couldn't vote for that.

Yes, it turns out I should have put down an option for this. I don't want to add it now because several others have already put down their marks for splinters at "others, strong with support". I suggest you do the same.

Thanks to all for answering and voting so far.

[kenberg]

Imo, The Law of Total Tricks is an extremely unfortunate name. The general concept can be useful, but the name suggests, or seems to suggest to some, that all we need to do is follow this Law and all will be well..

Pavilcek refers to the original formulation: Briefly: The total number of tricks equals the total number of trumps. He had a contest to find out how much deviation there could be. A lot. Or maybe a LOTT? But of course there is deviation, still it is a useful guide. Sort of.

I will go back to my earlier post where I took the hand from LC's site:
(1H)-2C-(X)-3H
The 3H is on
7654
A987
6
QT87

Ok, How many clubs do we have? Often a 2C overcall is on six. Not always. So we have 9 or 10, or perhaps 11, clubs. How many hearts do they have? Beats me. Spades? Dunno. Diamonds? No clue. Even if we take the shortened version of LOTT, if you have a total of x trumps then you bid to that level, we don't know if that means 3C or 4C. Or 5C. Add to this the fact that it only is a general guide, not a law, even if you know the trump lengths, and we have to be cautious.

Of course if, that's if, we have ten clubs then they have three clubs and therefore 23 non-clubs. So they either have two 8 card fits or one 9 card fit. Which? The actual LOTT, rather than the shortened version, says that it matters. And where? A 5C sac against 4H could be good. Against 4D it would not be so good.

I am not opposed to thinking about LOTT. I just think that it has, in some quarters, developed an air of authority that is undeserved and probably unintended by its early advocates.

[rmnka447]

I like to play that in competition all raises show approximately 5-8 and a specified number of trump. So, after 1 x - (1 y) - P - ?,

2 y= 5-8 and 3 trump
3 y= 5-8 and 4 trump
4 y= presumably 5-8 and 5 trump.

So in the first case where a 3 x advance still allows 3 y to bid, 3 x is used as a limit raise in y. But in the other cases, where the jump cue will force a preference back to the agreed suit at the 4 level (4 y), logically it has to show a stronger hand of some kind per partnership agreement. I'd think using it as a splinter would probably be what I'd opt for.

The other side of this issue is deciding how using the jump cue impacts or narrows what you are showing when you make a simple cue of opener's suit (2 x). If you use the jump cue as a limit raise, then a simple cue followed by a raise ought to show a stronger hand.

One very good player I play with prefers to use the first case jump cue as a mixed raise (7-9 and 4 trump), so a simple cue becomes a limit raise or better if we raise after it.