[junyi_zhu]

Poky, on Sep 26 2004, 05:45 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 26 2004, 05:51 PM, said:

Ditto Ben and Ron; 4♣ is FSNJ, although in theory I would like a 4th trump. Maybe the 6th club compensates.

You aren't a pased hand so is supposed that you play natural, it means:
Dbl= negative
3♥= forcing with hearts
3♠= simple raise, constructive
3NT= to play
4♣= forcing with clubs
4♦= good spade raise
4♥= to play, offensive hand (or FSJ if you like to play this way)
4♠= to play, offensive hand

Why should 4♣ by a unlimited hand be FNJ? Never heard of anybody that plays this way. In this scheme is 3♥ also a FNJ to 3♠ maybe? I presume I should dbl if I have GF with 6+♣ and no fit? Or not?... Makes no sense to me...

If you play thrumpt double(double asking for stopper), 4C should be treated as a fit showing bid which shows good clubs, because with club one suiter you can either bid 3NT with a stopper, double 3D without a stopper or bid 5C with a very distributional hand.

However, even if you play 4C as fit showing, you shouldn't bid 4C here, because this hand is defensive oritned, the control is bad, trump support is also bad. 4C should be reserved for some better hands, either very distributional or slam going.

[Flame]

whereagles, on Sep 27 2004, 04:00 AM, said:

It's all a matter of frequency, and actually both Rodwell and Robson have, in my perspective, got it wrong.

The Robson fit-bid is a very rare bird. I've been playing it for two years now and I made the bid exactly ONE time, and even then I had to bend my hand a bit to use it.

The weak jump shift in competition is also a rare bird, as it requires a weakish but SOLID suit and a very weak hand. Something like QJTxxxx x xxx xx for 1D (1H) 3S, or x KJTxxxxx xx xx for 1D (1S) 4H. If the suit is broken, you run the risk of going down on a situation where it's likely the points break 20-20. If the hand is any stronger, it's probably better to bid constructively. Actually, the WJS in competition works better playing strong club, since some of these requirements can be relaxed a bit. Still, in practice I played precision with WJS in comp in for 5 years and made the bid some... what.. 3 times?

So, for this reasons, I think bids like

1D (1S) 3C
1H (2C) 3D

are probably best used to show a type of hand that DOES show up a lot and which is hard to bid otherwise: the mixed raise. A 4-card defensive raise of 6-9 scattered points and mild defensive strenght.

My expirence wasnt too different from yours, and i felt i want to change it too, i wanted to change it to a more frequent hand, like a hand with a good suit but only minimal fit for partner, on these hands i know it might be better to play my long suit but support with support tell me to support when i can.
1SP (2C) 3H
xxx
KQJxxx
Kx
xx
Biding 3h here i dont mean partner i have a nice fit (4 card) and a hearts suit, and ask him to consider his move at the 4 level, what i mean is to give him a choice of trump.
The choice of trump hand come more, but the effectivness of the bid might be smaller.
Also i can tell you that it might be smarter to use a jump in suit as showing a fit instead of giving up the natural 2nt, true nat 2nt isnt very importent, but its still more importent then one of the jumps in suit.

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Sep 26 2004, 01:54 AM, said:

The bid for me is 4♣'s. I am not going to bid 3♠ and languish in part-score. Nor am I going to bid 4♠ and imply a weaker hand.

4♣ is a FIT NON-JUMP that shows spade support, and values in clubs. It promises nothing more (it is not a slam try) unless I take some other action later. It is meant to help partner decide to defend or bid on against a 5♦ bid by them. If he has club singlton or void, he will defend, for instance.

I like FSJ-FNJ BUT:

FSJ-FNJ should promise concentration of values in the 2 suits and TENDS TO DENY SIDE SUIT VALUES (wastage), helping pard to high level decisions.

This is extremely important when using FSJ/FNJ.

Here is it i not so. We have quacks wasted in their suit, and stiff KQ in hearts and no values in spades: all these factors suggest good defense values.
On the other hand we have a great club suit.
But the wasted honors in the red suits strongly suggest against superoffensive tactics.

Overall, I think double is better. If pard bids something, I'll support spades later, showing I am not preempting.

Things would be TOTALLY different if I had 4 card support for pard.
In that case, it would be of utmost important to express immediately the fit for pard.
Planning a delayed 3-card support is not so bad if u have defensive values and wastage(e.g. do not fear preemptive action by opps); but when having a 9 card fit, it is more important to show immediately support because the preempt creates much more damage when u have a 9 card fit thn when a 8 card fit.

Of course, you may construct hands where pad is distributional and slam is cold whilst 5D goes 1 or 2 off doubled, but on balance, i the long run, I think such a wastage suggests against that

[inquiry]

My hand has seemed to change from the initial reply (I have gained a club, lost a diamond), no matter...

I want to address the "frequency" of the fit nonjump (and I guess fit jump) issue. Several people have hammered that "fit jump didn't occur very often". Well, that maybe true per se, but there are a lot of hands where you did NOT make a fit a jump and that conveyed just as much, and maybe even more important information.

When I make direct raises, they are not encouraging, because I have fit jumps and Fit nonjumps available. On this hand, Free said, "I bid 4♠. I don't see immediate slam possibilities, unless partner has a really good ♠ suit and some ACES! And with such hand, he'll go for it, that's for sure..."

And opposite THIS hand, his partner's decision to "go for it" with some aces would be a winner...but opposite many hands were 4♠ is bid preemptively based upon LOTT, say... S-JTxxx H-xx D-xx C-Kxxx, or whatever your minimum leap to 4♠ would be on, if your partner "goes for it" he will not be quite so happy. If you are going to be wild and wooly with your direct raises, you SIMPLY have to have a mechanism to separate the trash raises from the raises with real values.

Ben