[kenberg]

---

Team match at imps, South must choose a call. I'm kibbing. At one table the call was 2♠, at the other table the call was 1♠. I believe that a wjs was available to him.

Of course if over 1♠ partner bids, say, 1NT everything is hunky dory but he might, and in this case will, bid 2NT over 1♠.
With that possibility in mind, here are some questions:

1♠ or, if the wjs is available, 2♠?
If you choose 1♠ do you have a way to stop in 3♠? And if you have it, would you use it, or would you simply hope to make 4♠?
If you are not playing a wjs, what is your plan?

Any change if you are vul? If it is matchpoints?

As with another hand I posted a few days back, I regard tihs as a close call. When I play a wjs, I don't play that I can exit over 2NT except by passing. If I want to play in spades, but short of game level opposite a 2NT rebid hand, now is the time to say so with a wjs. Close call, I think.

Any thoughts?

Btw, the players were, by my and most standards, fine players. The two South players came to a different conclusion on this hand.

[wyman]

Wolff signoff: 3C forces 3D (passable) with 3M now to play. 3D directly would be GF checkback.

I'd sign off with this hand with heart shortness.

edit: to be clear, I would auto respond 1S with this hand, but I'm not used to having a WJS available, so maybe I'm supposed to do that.

[Siegmund]

If I have WJS available I am using it. But I very often play my WJSes a bit heavier than most -- even 4-7 with some partners -- and hate light 1-level responses if there is any reasonable alternative.

I do not usually have WJS available, however, as the cheapest jump shift is an artificial raise with many partners.

Never used Wolff Signoff myself. But I can see where it comes in very handy for people who often respond light.

[the_clown]

I will never ever pass, either 1♠ or 2♠, depending on my agreements. If 2♠ is WJS then 1♠+2♠ should be invitational with 6 cards.
After 2N from partner I just bid 4♠ and hope I can make it.

[CSGibson]

If I were forced to play weak jump shifts (A method I personally don't like), I would use it on this hand - its perfect for it. If I instead was playing my preferred methods, and responded 1S, then I have the option of signing off at the 3 level opposite a 2N call, though I'd probably run through some 17-19 HCP hands with 5 hearts in my head before making a decision about whether to sign off or go to game.

[wyman]

the_clown, on 2013-March-09, 17:43, said:

I will never ever pass, either 1♠ or 2♠, depending on my agreements. If 2♠ is WJS then 1♠+2♠ should be invitational with 6 cards.
After 2N from partner I just bid 4♠ and hope I can make it.

So playing wjs, 1x-2s is any less than inv hand w 6+ spades? How do we tell Kxxxxx and out from Axxxxx/Qx/x/Qxxx?

[Trinidad]

I don't really see the problem. At IMPs I want to be in 4♠ opposite an 18-19 balanced with 5 hearts.

Rik

[lycier]

I'd like playing WJS, when the opener wanna to have a game try after 2♠ ,the opener maybe rebid 2nt as a Ogust,and then the responder's answer can be regarded as a Ogust rebid.
Whatever yes or not,WJS is an option of bidding style.

[fromageGB]

I don't have a weak JS available as I think the bids have better uses, so playing with a pickup will bid 1♠ and keep bidding ♠ until partner shuts up.

However, no problem with my partner. We play Kaplan Inversion where 1NT is 5+ spades, and 6+ hcp, and a 2♠ rebid is 6 with 11+ hcp. 1♠ would be 0-4 spades, or a weak2 type of hand. The bidding will therefore normally be 1♥ 1♠ 1NT(eg) 2♠ pass.

If partner has a stronger 15+ hand we play Gazzilli-like, and the bidding goes 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ pass. Of course, partner may go on to invite game in spades.

[fromageGB]

Post duplicated itself - I think I clicked twice.

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2013-March-10, 07:04

[kenberg]

---

Pretty much a textbook 2NT rebid I think. I mentioned vulnerability and scoring because while this is a less than 50% bet it is not so hopeless and maybe vul at imps you want to be in game. The scoring was imps, but non-vul.

As it happens the Ace of clubs lies with West so there are five side suit tricks and it all comes down to getting five spade tricks. The good news is that it can be done, the bad news is that it won't be done except maybe by a Super-Rabbi. The KQ tight are with West. As near as I could tell, there are ten tricks if you lay down the ace, nine otherwise. Nine tricks were taken at both tables so +140 versus -50.

One thing crossed my mind that I may need to think about more. I thought I would perhaps bid 2♠ vul, but 1♠ not-vul. But at imps there is a bigger payoff for game when vul, so perhaps I actually have this backward.

I'll think about the suggestion to play Ogust over the wjs. On this hand North has no game interest and would, and did, pass 2♠. But give him a third spade and change the Jack of diamonds to a Q and he would be interested. I have always just played a raise of 2♠-3♠ of the wjs as invitational, not a further pre-empt, to cover that case. I figure, if I am North, that if my lho did not come in over 1♥ he probably is not coming in now over 2♠ either, so the further pre-empt is not needed. Thus 3♠ is invit. Seems to work.

I prefer strong jump shifts but most everyone I play with prefers weak. I'm easy. But playing wjs gives, I think, some opportunity to adjust the strong auctions. After 1x-1♠-2NT we need not worry that the 1♠ is on six card four or five count. That hand either passes or bids 2♠ on the first round. So sign off sequneces over 2NT are less needed. After 1♦-1♠-2NT, responder could have four diamonds, he could have five clubs, his strength has not yet been defined, so given that a Wolff sign-off is less needed it seems to me that playing 3m as natural is very desirable here. Maybe a detailed artificial system is better, but natural is certainly better than off the shelf new minor at this point.

[ggwhiz]

I don't play wjs but after 1♠ - 2nt 3♠ is intended to play. Responder has to go through 3♣ to force to game.

Opener is allowed to raise with something as control rich as here (and apologize if you go down) but if you change one K into a QJ it's an auto pass.

[kenberg]

Right. If not playing wjs, it seems that some way out after the 2NT is needed. The most obvious way is to simply treat the rebid of the suit as passable. A way out is less needed when playing wjs. Useful perhaps, but not as much, since the 1♠ will not (not often anyway) be ultra weak.

So I intend this as something of a "If you play wjs, then consider the effect that this has on 1x-1M-2NT continuations". Might as well get the maximum benefit out of aconvention if you are going to play it.
With the OP hand, this is on the border of a wjs (or so I think). So 1♠, if followed by 2NT, land us in 4♠. But we have the option of 2♠ right off, keeping us from this fate. Given that the North hand has only two spades and there is still a play for game, this is no disaster.

[Zelandakh]

wyman, on 2013-March-09, 21:07, said:

So playing wjs, 1x-2s is any less than inv hand w 6+ spades? How do we tell Kxxxxx and out from Axxxxx/Qx/x/Qxxx?

The term WJS means different things to different people. I have learned through BBF that Americans generally play WJSs very light. That was news to me, since most people I know play a WJS as something like 3-7 or 4-8. Another popular category of WJS is to play them as a hand that would have responded 1M and rebid 2M in traditional methods, that is something like 6-9(10). When someone writes: "If 2♠ is WJS then 1♠+2♠ should be invitational with 6 cards", you can be fairly confident that their understanding of WJS lies is in this last group. Therefore, the answer is likely to be that they would simply not make a WJS with Kxxxxx and out.

[wyman]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-12, 07:02, said:

The term WJS means different things to different people. I have learned through BBF that Americans generally play WJSs very light. That was news to me, since most people I know play a WJS as something like 3-7 or 4-8. Another popular category of WJS is to play them as a hand that would have responded 1M and rebid 2M in traditional methods, that is something like 6-9(10). When someone writes: "If 2♠ is WJS then 1♠+2♠ should be invitational with 6 cards", you can be fairly confident that their understanding of WJS lies is in this last group. Therefore, the answer is likely to be that they would simply not make a WJS with Kxxxxx and out.

Perhaps my lack of understanding then lies in the nomenclature. It wouldn't even occur to me that someone showing a hand with 6-9(10) opposite an opener would refer to their hand as "weak." I'd offer "constructive J/S" as a far better description of that particular treatment.

My understanding (which, indeed, is not well-developed) of WJS has always been that it's worth less than a response (or alternately, less than a constructive response). OP's hand, to me, is probably WJS worthy by that definition due to the stiff heart and jack of diamonds, but change it to A109xxx / Jx / xx / xxx, and now I'm far more likely to bid 1S if those are my methods (we play IJS/fit, so they are not).

Either way, thanks for offering up an explanation for my misunderstanding; my question was not intentionally dense.

[kenberg]

For me, the hand that I posted is right on the edge. A little stronger is too strong for a wjs. This would appear to be the same as the players I was kibbing, since 1♠ was bid at one table and 2♠ at the other. Could be that they have different definitions, but I believe, also w/o much proof, that they both regarded it as borderline and one jumped one way, the other the other way.

I guess this shows that simply saying "weak" is not an adequate description.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2013-March-12, 09:56, said:

For me, the hand that I posted is right on the edge.

I guess this shows that simply saying "weak" is not an adequate description.

Indeed, this hand is an adequate description of the edge. I will take a picture of it for show-and-tell when an opponent at the table asks.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

My understanding (which, indeed, is not well-developed) of WJS has always been that it's worth less than a response (or alternately, less than a constructive response)

That's the "American std" WJS of ~0-5/0-4 HCP. As opposed to the style played in Europe of ~5-8. (I don't know if all of Europe, but seems at least popular in Britain and the Netherlands).

I was long ago convinced that the European style just makes a ton more sense. The American range:
1. Is exceedingly rare to begin with, it's more common to have a couple honor cards than 0-1.
2. Is even more rare after opponent pass over the opening bid.

The European style comes up a ton more often and puts pressure on 4th hand, it might be their hand, but less often than over super-weak wjs. Furthermore, the European style lets you play an invitational 2M on the second round of bidding (I think usu over responder's non-1nt rebids only), allowing a lower escape on declined misfitting invites, as well as a forcing natural 3M avoiding occasionally awkward/ambiguous 4th suit forcing sequences.

The only defect I see with European style is some occasional 6-4 hands with both majors, if you play 2M as inv on the second round, one may have to judge to bury either the other major or the sixth card on some auctions.

[rmnka447]

Thanks, Stephen, for clarifying the differences between WJSs in the US and Europe.

Either method should be playable provided you have a clear understanding of which way you're playing.

I'm bidding an American style WJS 2 ♠ with this hand. It pretty well gets bidding ♠ off my chest and describes my hand to partner in one bid. I think it's especially attractive given the apparent misfit with partner.

I'll admit part of my views on WJSs stems from playing weak opening NT (12-14) for many years. Because in this milieu, one of a minor openers tend to be stronger, restricting WJSs to the lighter variant avoids potentially missing games opposite a stronger WJS.

[Stephen Tu]

rmnka447, on 2013-March-12, 19:02, said:

I'll admit part of my views on WJSs stems from playing weak opening NT (12-14) for many years. Because in this milieu, one of a minor openers tend to be stronger, restricting WJSs to the lighter variant avoids potentially missing games opposite a stronger WJS.

Why would one miss games opposite the stronger WJS? The stronger WJS is essentially a minimum end weak two opener. If you aren't missing games opposite weak two openers, using a 2nt inquiry, why can't you get to those same games opposite an even narrower range, just because the strong hand opened first? Obviously over the stronger wjs opener is just going to have game interest way more often than over the lighter variety.

Stronger wjs may lose out on some awkward 6-4 majors and if you do pick up the 3 count wjs, but missing games doesn't seem like a flaw.

Playing wknt, maybe it's your hand more often, but I still think it's more comfortable auction 1m-(p)-2H-(2S)-? Than 1m-p-1H-(2S)-? when holding strong NT+ and partner can have only four hearts.