[jillybean]

I know I should be studying play of the hand but I have to ask.

1m : 2M

Fast forward to 2023, how do you play this now ?
How do transfers/1♣ players handle a hand that would have bid a strong jump, and what do you use 1m:2M for ?

Thanks.

[mw64ahw]

For me playing transfers 1m-2M is 6+ ~3-7hcp
In my TW approach all GI hands go via 1♣-1♠. Then for example if opener is balanced responses are similar to those of a 1NT opening.

[paulg]

I used to play 1♣ (P) 2M as weak and still play 1♣ (Dbl) 2M as weak.

I now play 1♣ (P) 2M as 5♠, 4+♥, either weak (2♥) or invitational (2♠). The change was made easier by all the NBOs where I play removing the restriction on responses, so I can play 1♣ (P) 2♦ as a weak only multi.

I would not recommend this unless you normally play multi

[mikeh]

I don’t think that playing transfer responses to 1C change anything about what a jumpshift means

In one partnership, after 1C we play:

2D is 5S 4+H less than invitational
2H is 11+ to 13-, balanced, no 4 card major
2S is limit or better in clubs


In my other, we’re currently adding some extra science such that 1C 1N is 13+, gf opposite an 11 count, and can have a 5 card major, with relays thereafter

We put the balanced invite into our 1S response…diamonds or a non gf balanced hand, no major

2D is the same

2H is a mixed raise

2S is limit or better in clubs

We probably don’t need 2H and 2S because 1C is all balanced hands out of range for notrump and can be as distorted as 3=3=5=2, so one needs a lot of clubs to raise, but it seems to work ok.

But you don’t need to be playing transfers for any of this, imo.


1D 2H in my first partnership is the balanced invite. In the other, it’s Meckwell (5S 4+H).

In neither do we play either weak or strong jumpshifts. Strong come up rarely and can usually be handled quite well without the jumpshift. Weak tend, in our view, to generate more bad results than good.

However, after 1C (1D) we do play 2D as 6+ hearts, any strength, and 2H as spades. After 1C (1H) we play double as 4-5 spades and 2H as any 6 spades.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2023-April-14, 15:44, said:

In my other, we’re currently adding some extra science such that 1C 1N is 13+, gf opposite an 11 count, and can have a 5 card major, with relays thereafter

I recently looked into this, it turns out full shape resolution fits remarkably well after this start using a symmetric structure.

mikeh, on 2023-April-14, 15:44, said:

1D 2H in my first partnership is the balanced invite. In the other, it’s Meckwell (5S 4+H).

Isn't this simply reverse Flannery?

I'm writing a bit of a longer response to the actual question, but noticed these two remarks and wanted to comment.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2023-April-14, 15:37, said:

I would not recommend this unless you normally play multi

I am trying to move in this direction

1♣:2♦ weak only multi sounds good!
I know you play at a different level than I do but there so much lawlessness in the club games, I'm not too concerned what the regs say.

[DavidKok]

I'll include what I personally play near the end of my post (so feel free to skip ahead). Personally I think the reasons for choosing one treatment over another are almost more interesting and important than the particular treatment.

For starters there's at least two different ways to play weak jump shifts. There's the American/standard one, where a weak jump shows a hand that does not have the strength to respond at the 1-level (say, 0-5 or so). Those hands cannot safely respond at the 1-level playing standard for fear that opener will rebid 2NT or 3m, but passing while you have a 6cM on offer is also unpleasant. The main issue is that these hands are infrequent.
The other style is 'European' style (for the record: I have no idea which treatment is more popular in which region of the globe, I just think these are the commonly used names) where the weak jump shows approximately 4-7. This is higher frequency, and opener is allowed to look for game with a somewhat fitting 18-count. The upside is that the auctions 1m-1M; 2m-2M or 1m-1♥; 1♠-2♥ become at least mildly constructive, and this treatment relieves some strain from XYZ/CBS/etc. auctions.

Then there's intermediate jump shifts, approximately 8-11. Typically these work best in situations where this hand type is problematic for the rest of the system (especially if there's no good way to make a weak invite without going past 2-of-your-suit if partner rebids 1NT). By playing these bidding and rebidding a suit will be either weak or GF, so you avoid future rebid problems.

Then there's all the strong ones. I don't know much about these, but they are low frequency. If you place strict requirements on their strength and/or suit quality that cuts the frequency even more, while if you do not I am not convinced they're very helpful. Also jumping on strong hands sounds off to me - can you really learn more from the jump shift than through XYZ or the likes?

Lastly there are hosts of artificial treatments.
Reverse Flannery (5(+)♠, 4(+)♥, a narrow strength range) solves hands that would otherwise be problematic(?). I was told this helps guarantee that 1m-1♠; 2m-2♥ is GF, but with modern tools this auction is not particularly problematic. I've played Reverse Flannery for a bit over a Precision 1♦ and it worked fine, but I'm not sure it helped compared to just bidding the suits in order.
Artificial bids showing balanced hands of a certain range, or one or both minors. These are mostly popular over a completely artificial 1♣ (e.g. strong club systems), but they probably work fine over (quasi-)natural openers too. Again the goal is to reduce pressure on other parts of the system by removing some of the difficult-to-show hand types right away. I think a good way to identify such hand types is to ask which hands are uncomfortable if opener rebids 1NT or 2m. Keep in mind that whatever you put in a jump shift has to have a desire to not play 1NT opposite a weak balanced hand, so two-suited or long single suiters are a natural choice.

In unbalanced diamond, balanced club systems I think there are good reasons for playing different jump shifts over 1♣ and 1♦. I play versions of weak jump shifts over both, but there is an important difference. If you play weak jump shifts over 1♣ you need agreements for when opener holds 17-19 balanced. In my case I played 2♦ mini-multi with game chances opposite 17-19, while 2♥ and 2♠ were drop-dead (though opener is allowed to raise with a good fit and strong hand, just not with an average balanced 19-count).
Over an unbalanced 1♦ you are going to bid partners short suit very often with a jump shift. I like the European style weak bids, shouting to partner 'I did not want to pass but this is our last chance to get out at a reasonable contact'. 1♦-1X; 2♦ is more difficult to handle than the clubs equivalent anyway, so relieving pressure here is valuable. Without this agreement opener can feel compelled to bid one more on e.g. 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♥ with a nice 17-count and a singleton while we are very weak (and with this agreement it is simply right to bid on with that hand type, while you can comfortably pass 1♦-2♥ in your singleton).

Optionally you can also combine the ideas above. In Michael Goetze's version of T-Walsh over a 2+ 1♣ you can find a 2♦ intermediate jump shift (since that hand type is difficult to show in T-Walsh) with 2♥ and 2♠ artificial (mini-splinters with both minor suits), while over 1♦ he has a multi and a non-invitational reverse Flannery.
Transfers over 1♣ are already good at handling single-suited major hands regardless of strength, since most jump responses show a fit. This eliminates the need for weak jump shifts and strongly suggests playing something artificial.

Regardless of your choice, make sure you discuss the continuations. If your jump shifts are going to contain weak(ish) hands, discuss which opening hands are supposed to pass them. Especially the strong hands where responder bid opener's short suit, or big balanced hands. Also discuss the impact on the rest of your system. Almost all of the jump shift agreements above are designed to tackle some potential bidding problem further down the line in standard sequences, so make sure opener knows that that particular problem is now solved.

P.S.: In modern style 1m-1♥; 1NT does not deny a 4c♠. I've always wondered if a 'reverse reverse Flannery', where responder shows 5(+)♥4♠ with less than invitational values immediately, would make sense.

[the hog]

Fast forward to 2023, how do you play this now ?
1m - 2H = reverse Flannery, 6-9, 4H and 5S1m - 2S = 11-12 no Major.

[sfi]

In my 2/1 partnerships most jump shifts are invitational, showing something like 9-12 with a decent 6-card suit. It helps clarify auctions like:

1C - 1H; 1S - 2H, where 2H is clearly weaker than invitational.

1C - 1S; 2C - 3S is slam interest, since invitational hands aren't possible and boring game-forcing hands can use other tools.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2023-April-14, 15:37, said:

I used to play 1♣ (P) 2M as weak and still play 1♣ (Dbl) 2M as weak.

I now play 1♣ (P) 2M as 5♠, 4+♥, either weak (2♥) or invitational (2♠). The change was made easier by all the NBOs where I play removing the restriction on responses, so I can play 1♣ (P) 2♦ as a weak only multi.

I would not recommend this unless you normally play multi

Paul, what is the limit of your 1♣ openings? Is 1C 2D 2N an inquiry?

[akwoo]

This isn't one I want to put a lot of work or memory in - I think in all my partnerships it's weak.

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2023-April-14, 17:10, said:

Paul, what is the limit of your 1♣ openings? Is 1C 2D 2N an inquiry?

Like mikeh, our 1♣ is 11+, either clubs or balanced outside the no trump range. It is non-forcing.

After a 2♦ response, we largely forget that we opened 1♣. Aside from 3♣/3♦, continuations follow the normal multi response so 2NT is our normal multi relay.

[Cyberyeti]

We play 1m-2M as a SJS either

a) GF 5+ cards in suit to 3 of the top 5 but not QJ10, AK will also do, 4 of the suit opened to at least the Q
b) Slam interested huge single suiter

We bid 2N over this with a small singleton or void in responder's suit, any bid above 2N shows at least Q/xx, any bid other than responder repeating his major or bidding NT second time shows the fit type, over 2N repeating the major shows a suit prepared to play a slam opposite a small singleton, and is suit setting and asking for cues, 3N shows a suit that isn't prepared to do this but still with some slam interest, 4N is a bigger 3N.

Our minors are 4+ cards though

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-April-14, 16:16, said:

Transfers over 1♣ are already good at handling single-suited major hands regardless of strength, since most jump responses show a fit. This eliminates the need for weak jump shifts and strongly suggests playing something artificial.

Opener: 18 hcp, 1435
Responder: 3 hcp, 6232

Your T-Walsh auction?

[pescetom]

My partnerships are all 2/1 and currently not open to funny stuff, although one beginner is promising (first year of bridge and asks questions like "how could I have shown a void?").
I get away with:
1♣-2♦ = INV, 6 cards
1m-2♥ = 0-7 HCP, 6(5) cards
1m-2♠ = 0-5 HCP, 5+ cards
which is not great but at least more logical than their usual "European" style.
I need the eggs in more important areas.

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2023-April-15, 12:29, said:

Opener: 18 hcp, 1435
Responder: 3 hcp, 6232

Your T-Walsh auction?

1C 1H 2H 2S 2N

Whether responder continues with 3S or passes depends on his hand (K1098xx in spades may well continue. Jxxxxx xx Qxx xx easy pass

I suppose you have a magic ability to know to pass your weak jumpshift

In any event, you’re doing the typical thing when you personally don’t play a method. You come up with very low frequency holdings on which the treatment you dislike doesn’t shine.

I’ve played t-Walsh in serious competition for many years now…I started playing it in 2006. I have yet to encounter your scenario. Now, I don’t play much and took some years off after a dismal BB performance, but I’m not going to worry about a scenario that hasn’t happened in several thousand hands.

You Iike WJS? Go ahead…there are hands where they work and ones where they don’t, like any gadget. My experience is that, within the context of a detailed method, I have other uses for the bids, which uses my experience, judgement and biases tell me are net more effective.

But criticizing a bid simply by making up hands that don’t fit the method well is not a convincing argument. Show common hand types where problems arise, contrast those to your preferred method and now you’re starting a serious debate.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2023-April-14, 16:16, said:

can you really learn more from the jump shift than through XYZ or the likes?

No.

But you can _tell_ more. How else can you show 16-18 or so, then hand over the captaincy below 3NT?

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-April-15, 14:57, said:

No.

But you can _tell_ more. How else can you show 16-18 or so, then hand over the captaincy below 3NT?

If I understand you correctly, you can do both with XYZ, and obtain a better description of opener's hand besides.
Maybe you could give some example to clarify your point.

[mikeh]

bluenikki, on 2023-April-15, 14:57, said:

No.

But you can _tell_ more. How else can you show 16-18 or so, then hand over the captaincy below 3NT?

Give us an example of a hand where you think this is an issue

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2023-April-15, 13:05, said:

I suppose you have a magic ability to know to pass your weak jumpshift

?

mikeh, on 2023-April-15, 13:05, said:

In any event, you’re doing the typical thing when you personally don’t play a method. You come up with very low frequency holdings on which the treatment you dislike doesn’t shine.

I’ve played t-Walsh in serious competition for many years now…I started playing it in 2006. I have yet to encounter your scenario. Now, I don’t play much and took some years off after a dismal BB performance, but I’m not going to worry about a scenario that hasn’t happened in several thousand hands.

You Iike WJS? Go ahead…there are hands where they work and ones where they don’t, like any gadget. My experience is that, within the context of a detailed method, I have other uses for the bids, which uses my experience, judgement and biases tell me are net more effective.

But criticizing a bid simply by making up hands that don’t fit the method well is not a convincing argument. Show common hand types where problems arise, contrast those to your preferred method and now you’re starting a serious debate.

DavidKok claimed that T-Walsh eliminates the need for weak jump shifts. I then gave what to me looks like a counterexample. That's all.