[mw64ahw]

What sort of auction do you have with?

---

Is this a straight jump to 4♠?

[akwoo]

I don't think 3♠ promises a solid suit - there are plenty of non-solid suits that will want to play in spades opposite a void (because a solid suit runs at NT but a non-solid suit doesn't) - but it does promise better than a 6 loser hand.

Unfortunately, 2♠ doesn't promise 6 for me, and I'm not playing Schuler Shift either - so I'm depending on responder going for it.

1♠-2♥
2♠-3♦ (note: most hands with 5 hearts and 4 diamonds and fewer than 3 spades will rebid 2N)
3♠-4♦ (note: 3♠ set trump, though it gives partner the option of playing in NT, so 4♦ shows a control)
4♠ (we do not show shortness in partner's suits)

Now, at this point, responder might decide he is good enough for another try, in which case 5♥ pinpoints the need for a club control quite well.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-June-05, 21:23, said:

I can't understand considering an initial jump to 3♠ at all - how does it "still do the job"? Won't partner pretty much force to slam with something like x-KJxxx-AQxx-Kx?

It's not something I would contemplate with a partner I trusted to bid accurately over 2♠.
But it does the job in the sense that it will still locate many reasonable slams and is unlikely to force us to overbid.
In this case you illustrate we would stop relatively safely in 5♠.
With the actual hand we would bid comfortably to 7♠ in either auction.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-June-05, 22:48, said:

I don't think 3♠ promises a solid suit - there are plenty of non-solid suits that will want to play in spades opposite a void (because a solid suit runs at NT but a non-solid suit doesn't) - but it does promise better than a 6 loser hand.

Unfortunately, 2♠ doesn't promise 6 for me, and I'm not playing Schuler Shift either - so I'm depending on responder going for it.

1♠-2♥
2♠-3♦ (note: most hands with 5 hearts and 4 diamonds and fewer than 3 spades will rebid 2N)
3♠-4♦ (note: 3♠ set trump, though it gives partner the option of playing in NT, so 4♦ shows a control)
4♠ (we do not show shortness in partner's suits)

Now, at this point, responder might decide he is good enough for another try, in which case 5♥ pinpoints the need for a club control quite well.

hi Alex,
how to you define your slow and fast arrival to 3♠ after 1♠ 2x ?

I feel like I am revisting the 1M 2x 2M debate with every new partner I sit down with.

[DavidKok]

Start with 'never jump', and after a few months/years of building partnership trust you can introduce an exception

People love to jump. Most hands aren't suitable for jumping. Consequently, a lot of jumps are bad. I've run into very few players who were able to accurately assess that their hand was imperfect for a jump bid, and many more players who are so eager to use their gadget. In all honesty I think you'll just have to take your losses sometimes.

As for 1M-2X; 2M being shape or minimum or something else - that's just a discussion on style. It exacerbates the issue of the jumps if the rebid is nebulous, but benefits elsewhere.

[mw64ahw]

If it helps my 2x+1 shows a minimum and anything 2x+3 and above is 14+HCP & 6.5 mod losers or better., not 12-14 balanced. The higher bids then resolve shape. On the hand above I trade the lower HCP for a better mod. loser count so 3♠ shows the self-sustaining suit. I don't need it to be solid as this can be easily resolved in any slam going auction

To fill in the gap 2x+2 shows the other Major after 2♣.

If I include invitational ♦/♥ hands in the 2♣/♦ response then any hand that will accept the invite follows through with shape.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-07, 01:15, said:

Start with 'never jump', and after a few months/years of building partnership trust you can introduce an exception

People love to jump. Most hands aren't suitable for jumping. Consequently, a lot of jumps are bad. I've run into very few players who were able to accurately assess that their hand was imperfect for a jump bid, and many more players who are so eager to use their gadget. In all honesty I think you'll just have to take your losses sometimes.

As for 1M-2X; 2M being shape or minimum or something else - that's just a discussion on style. It exacerbates the issue of the jumps if the rebid is nebulous, but benefits elsewhere.

You are preaching to the converted . Ever since being freed from "SAYC" and taking up 2/1, I hate jumps. 1y:2x 3nt being one of them.
I'm often surprised by players convictions of their 1M - 2X; 2M style being "right".

[DavidKok]

I think that's a consequence of the current standard being a kind of 'worst of all worlds', in my opinion. There are so many ways to improve on it, and I think it is quite common to become fixated with any one particular improvement.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2025-June-05, 20:42, said:

yes, if I could bid like Mike, there would be no hands to contribute.

I think you can but the intangible is a willing partner.