[jillybean]

---

[Cyberyeti]

The way we play, this is a 3♥ rebid leading to 7♥, but it won't be for most.

Also with all the heart intermediates, I'm prepared to be in 4♥ opposite a void, so over 1♥-1♠-2♥-3♣ I bid 4♥ rather than 3N as it's a much better contract opposite AKxxxx, x, xx, AQxx and similar

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2025-July-25, 16:39, said:

Would they really jump on this hand? For me SJS requires specific features so that we can show them in less space - the next bid either setting spades as trumps, showing heart support, or promising the sort of 18-19 balanced that's hard to show later, and definitely rules out playing a side suit. None of them apply here.

That's one possible agreement, but hardly the only one. I would expect and prefer something less quirky, such as a game force with 6+card spades. It depends partly as you said earlier upon whether 1H-1S; 2H-2S is forcing or not, as there should not be duplication between the two sequences.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I think I, also prefer 4H instead of 3NT, but I dont think that 3NT is wrong.
The heart suit is not running, after the marked diamond attack, if p does not have the Ace of hearts,
you are dead, so 4H rates to be the better contract.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[WasWinM]

I normally don’t splinter in a top 2 honor but make an exception with strong hands but what can partner bid over 4D
with KQ10xxx, KJ, QJx, xx? I think I’ll try 3C and see if I can get belated spade support.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-July-26, 02:07, said:

The way we play, this is a 3♥ rebid leading to 7♥, but it won't be for most.

I like it, it makes sense, but I'm not going to try it.

[mikeh]

After 1H 1S 2H 3C I think opener has a clear 3D bid. 3N is wrong since a diamond lead may make the heart suit inaccessible but it’s fine if partner has diamonds stopped. In addition, 3D buys time for responder to clarify (although imperfectly) why he bid 3C.

So 1H 1S 2H 3C 3D 3H…..that’s pretty straightforward, showing that responder has a gf hand with adequate heart support. It doesn’t promise short diamonds (picture 5=3=3=2 as one example, with 3C being the catch-all way to establish the gf).

Now opener shouldn’t be merely counting hcp. Look at the texture of the heart suit. Look at the side cards being an ace and a king…no soft values. Plus responder didn’t jump to 4H, so has a GOOD hand with at least mild…possibly very mild but still definitely non-zero slam interest.

So over 3H opener cues. My preference is bidding first and second round controls up the line, so 4C for me.

Even the mildest firm of cooperation should get responder very excited. I’d keycard over a cue bid of 4C. Personally, I like kickback but it doesn’t matter here so let’s assume 4N.

1H 1S 2H 3C 3D 3H 4C 4N 5S 5N. Over 5N, opener knows they have all the keycards and he hasn’t yet shown that he has zero risk of a trump loser….compare to KQxxxx.

Opener could bid 7H based on his solid suit, but assume he doesn’t, he bids 6C to show the club King.

That’s enough for responder to bid 7H. He can assume that he has 6 heart tricks, usually two top diamonds and a ruff (or opener has AQx), three or 4 clubs and a spade and, should all else fail, a black suit squeeze or opener being able to ruff out spades or in the very low chances that nothing good appears, he’ll have a black suit finesse to fall back on. There is some real risk of opener having weaker hearts…KQxxxx facing a bad break…but when grand can’t be much worse than 68.5% and may be 100% one can’t bid scared.

So I’d expect most expert pairs to sail into 7H without having to engage in cyber’s very idiosyncratic 3H rebid by opener. Heck, even in the original Acol method,
one needed 7 or more tricks to jump rebid one’s 6 card suit, and this hand isn’t quite that strong.

[smerriman]

 pescetom, on 2025-July-26, 06:42, said:

That's one possible agreement, but hardly the only one. I would expect and prefer something less quirky, such as a game force with 6+card spades.

Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing how it works though; when you have no idea whether you want to be in hearts, spades, clubs, game, or slam, it feels like this much wasted space would be impossible to recover from.

[mikeh]

smerriman, on 2025-July-26, 13:04, said:

Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing how it works though; when you have no idea whether you want to be in hearts, spades, clubs, game, or slam, it feels like this much wasted space would be impossible to recover from.

Back in the day, bidding theory was relatively undeveloped: in particular artificial ways to create forces, one round or game, were thin on the ground. SJS stem from an era when fourth suit forcing hadn’t yet been invented, no form of new minor forcing was used, and a 2/1 response may have promised a rebid, in NA, but didn’t even do that in Acol (nor in some pre-Goren NA methods).

As bidding theory advanced, some played, and presumably some still play, Soloway Jumps…a Soloway jump promised either a self sufficient suit or a good suit plus a good fit for opener. It meant that one was always playing either opener’s suit or responder’s (although one could play notrump on rare hands where one could count tricks). In turn this meant that neither partner bid second suits to suggest a trump suit. New suits were cuebids. Responder was always one suited or fit opener ‘s suit. This hand definitely wasn’t a Soloway jumpshift.

But time marches on. There are so many possible uses for jumpshifts that one would need to be persuaded that one couldn’t adequately handle the vast majority of good hands without dedicating the jumpshift to that infrequent occurrence.

For example, there’s a good theoretical basis for using 1H 2S as a Jacoby 2N equivalent, reserving 1 H 2N for a strong balanced hand while simultaneously saving a little bidding space for what is often a slam oriented auction.

So while discussions of strong jumps remain somewhat relevant, you’re not going to encounter them in any strong game (with the real possible exception of rubber, but rubber bridge is almost as dead as are SJS’s).

[WasWinM]

Something to keep in mind is that in approach forcing systems creation of game forces takes precedence and false suits have to be bid. Rarely is a fourth suit or an unbid suit a genuine attempt to find a fit, especially in a minor suit.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-July-26, 08:29, said:

I like it, it makes sense, but I'm not going to try it.

The reason that it's a 3♥ rebid for us is the really good 3♥ rebids go thru an artificial GF 2N, 6.5 tricks is the minimum

[Huibertus]

WasWinM, on 2025-July-26, 14:31, said:

Something to keep in mind is that in approach forcing systems creation of game forces takes precedence and false suits have to be bid. Rarely is a fourth suit or an unbid suit a genuine attempt to find a fit, especially in a minor suit.

Just give up 2NT. It's a contract you never want to stop at anyway. So a 2NT rebid by opener is forcing. Good approach. It allows for the 3♥ rebid on this hand. But for instance it also allows to differentiate between an unbalanced 4♠ raise with 4♠ support and good hearts and a 18-19 HCP balanced hand with 4♠ support that would start with 2NT and rebid 3♠.

[WasWinM]

 Huibertus, on 2025-July-28, 03:14, said:

Just give up 2NT. It's a contract you never want to stop at anyway. So a 2NT rebid by opener is forcing. Good approach. It allows for the 3♥ rebid on this hand. But for instance it also allows to differentiate between an unbalanced 4♠ raise with 4♠ support and good hearts and a 18-19 HCP balanced hand with 4♠ support that would start with 2NT and rebid 3♠.

Never is too strong. Rarely is better. Sometimes the cards don’t cooperate with your bidding system.