[mohitz]

♠x ♥Txxx ♦K87xxx ♣xx

All vulnerable, IMPs, LHO deals

(1♠) - 2♥ - (X) - ?

[aguahombre]

Yeh, yeh. I know what fit jumps are. But, really I don't want to encourage pard or help the opps (giving them info or extra tools, such as double or cue). 4♥ will keep everyone just as much in the dark as I am.

3♥ if I am feeling like a wus.

[wclass___]

Just bash

not a problem

[jjbrr]

just 3 for me

[pooltuna]

mohitz, on May 26 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

♠x ♥Txxx ♦K87xxx ♣xx

All vulnerable, IMPs, LHO deals

(1♠) - 2♥ - (X) - ?

treat it like a constructive raise 3♥

[Phil]

4H is normal and respect pard's decision over 4S or 5C.

I'd rather bid 5 than 3.

[mikeh]

I have an easy bid to show a power raise, so my 4♥ bid should show playing strength, not scattered values. 3♥ strikes me as appallingly bad, leaving us wanting to bid 5♥ over their game...and we don't have the hand to be making that decision.

A fit jump overstates the defensive nature of the hand....if partner has, say, a stiff diamond, he will think he has defence, when in fact we may well have zero diamond tricks, to go with our zero tricks on the side.

We may end up going wrong but 4♥ seems to maximize the chances that partner will go right.

[rogerclee]

I would bid 4D, I agree with mikeh that 3H is appallingly bad. I don't know what he means by "overstating the defensive nature of the hand" though, I just play that this bid says I am interested in bidding 5 over 4 if we have a potential double fit, and it warns partner from bidding 5 over 4 with diamond shortness. That seems okay to me, even though I admit partner will sometimes double and it will be cold.

[mikeh]

rogerclee, on May 26 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

I would bid 4D, I agree with mikeh that 3H is appallingly bad. I don't know what he means by "overstating the defensive nature of the hand" though, I just play that this bid says I am interested in bidding 5 over 4 if we have a potential double fit, and it warns partner from bidding 5 over 4 with diamond shortness. That seems okay to me, even though I admit partner will sometimes double and it will be cold.

Hmmm....'even though I admit that partner will sometimes double and it will be cold'.

It seems to me that, contrary to how you began that post, you do understand why the fit jump 'overstates the defensive nature of the hand'

[rogerclee]

Maybe just a semantics issue, I took your post to mean that you played 4D promises values/defense. If you don't, then we are in agreement.

[Rodney26]

mohitz, on May 26 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

♠x ♥Txxx ♦K87xxx ♣xx

All vulnerable, IMPs, LHO deals

(1♠) - 2♥ - (X) - ?

4♥. 3♣ if we need a swing.

[aguahombre]

I think you both agree with the gadget, but disagree that it should be used here, where with 1,2,3,or four diamonds partner will have gained no information useful to the decision making process. However, if he can at least expect AH and length in diamonds, he might be better placed.

[karlson]

Sweet, I thought I was the only one that liked fit jumps to be super wide ranging in strength. I'd go 4♦ too.

I'm sure I'll regret this but

Quote

where with 1,2,3,or four diamonds partner will have gained no information useful to the decision making process.

What? It will be incredibly useful information.

[whereagles]

4♥. This isn't a command to stop; rather, it invites pard to take the push to 5♥.

An immaginative 3NT or 3♣ comes to mind as well