From: geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Subject: Re: 2/1 question
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:00:54 GMT

About SJS:

Robert D. Silverman writes:
>> The strong jump shift does not come up sufficiently often to justify
>> wasting a call (3C) in this way.  


Greg Lawler writes:
>It is not a waste of bidding room if one ends up
>describing one's hand.  To bid
>3C and then support spades shows: a) a 5+ clubs suit which is semi-solid
>as a source of tricks; b) 4 card spade support; c) interest in slam.
>It is very hard to show all of these if one starts with 2C.
> [...]
>It is quite acceptable to play 2/1 and strong jump shifts.
> [...]
>I don`t jump shift a lot, I admit; but when I do I describe
>my hand very well and almost always get to a good contract.
> [...]
>It is true that by playing strong jump shifts, I give up other uses
>of 1S-3C.  By a passed hand I play that 3C is a strong limit raise in
>spades with club cards.  

You have your own reasons, and your justifications of SJS are sounds
(btw: the rules you define here are widely accepted in the SJS bridge
community).
Anyway, playing *2/1*, SJS gives you only the advantage to bid (at very 
high level) the 5+ cards side good suit with 4 card raise (the hands with 
strong responder suit and no opener suit raise are perfectly covered by 
the 2/1 approach - NOTE: not by SA! there the need of SJS is slightly
stronger!).

Once considered those simple facts, it's up to you to decide if to use
3C as SJS or use this bidding with an alternative meaning (for example
Bergen raises, WJS, solid minor suit, minisplinter, or whatever you want, 
of course remaining in *reasonable* meanings).


I personally prefer to use Bergen Raises, for mere statistical reasons:
they happened much more frequently than a SJS _with the meaning of
side suit with support_, and they allow a much better description of the
weak hands with raise (i.e. you specify immediately a 4 card raise)
and allow to play the direct double raise as preemptive.


I give you some numbers: As I told in a previous post, I have a conventional 
raise for the hands with 4+ trump support and a side suit source of tricks,
thus it's very easy for me to remember *when* this particular hand 
(and I repeat again, it's the *only hand* in which a SJS can take
advantage over a 2/1 sequence) happened.

 - In three (or more) years of use, that convention (that is *exactly* the
   *only* hand that you cannot describe with a plain 2/1 application) happened
   no more that 5/6 times (I played at least twice a week with my fixed 
   partner).
   You are spending *3* bids for such hand (the SJS in the three different 
   suits), that means that every bid is used with a frequency of less than
   once a year.

 - on the other side the 3C bergen raise happen in the average 1 time every 
   game, while the direct double raise with preemptive (well restricted)
   meaning happens about 1 time every 4/5 games (I don't consider the 3D
   Bergen raise, because it's solved with the direct double raise,
   playing plain 2/1). [furthermore I play 3H over 1S as generic splinter,
   and this is also a frequent bid].

With a simulation somebody can probably get the exact statistics of frequence
of Bergen Raises, SJS, WJS, solid minor, minisplinter or any other meaning.

Those number speaks for themselves and clarify the thesis of Bob, that:
>> The strong jump shift does not come up sufficiently often to justify
>> wasting a call (3C) in this way.  

Of course, if you don't like, for some personal reasons, Bergen raises or 
WJS or minisplinter or whatever, just ignore those statistics and compare 
them among the bidding you like.  And at the last point pick your preference 
for the particular 3C bid.


some more comment:
 
  - the psychological impact to miss a slam (because of the absence of
    a SJS) is much more greater than the impact of a missing competition
    or preempt. Anyway at MP both the two hands have the same weight.
    At IMP the hands have, yes, different weight, but the numbers that I gave
    you (based on my experience) are *far* from justify the use of SJS
    with respect of BR.

  - It's much more difficult that a journal publics a competition
    hand than a slam hand. Thus, if you read about the difficults given
    by the absence of a SJS, you'll very rarely read about the advantages
    of a BR (with limit or preemptive meaning).


Take all this into account when you decide which meaning to give to
the 3C and 3D bid.

Giuseppe.