Handbook - International Bridge Press Association

game), and use sequence (B) only with 8-9. Now,
each of the three sequences ending at three clubs has
a workable range. Furthermore, you risk playing in one
notrump less often-and when you do land there, responder
must have at least 8 HCP.
Second, suppose you are using a one-notrump response
forcing. You can still use WJR's as in the
previous paragraph, but you now have another, more
exciting, alternative. Instead of using the WJR to
straighten out sequences like (B), you can use it to
straighten out sequences like (A). This is important
because sequence (A) is badly needed as forcing.
You've seen this type of problem many times in the
Master Solvers' Club. You hold one of these:
(x) ♠ x x Q x J x x ♣ A K Q J x x
(y) ♠ x x A x x x ♣ A K J x x x x
(z) ♠ x x A x A x ♣ A J x x x x x
Partner opens one heart and you respond two clubs.
Partner now fixes you by rebidding (of all things) two
hearts. Quite a predicament! And things would be no
better if partner rebid two diamonds. The BWS solution
is two spades. At best this will confuse the auction;
at worst clubs will be rebid only in the postmortem.
These are strong hands, important hands. Game is
likely and we must pick the best one. Slam is possible.
With the forcing one-notrump response available, I
would much rather use sequence (A) as forcing, defining
(B) as invitational, and relying on a "wide-range"
WJR with the weaker hands, notwithstanding that
opener may occasionally face a tough decision. The
stakes are unlikely to be so high when responder is
weak.
Possible Losses
As before, we must consider what we may lose to get
the advantages of WJR's. Let's begin with the topics
covered previously:
— Making opener declarer in the suit of responder's
WJR is surely good, not bad; making responder declarer
at notrump is still bad, but opener will not move
towards game often enough to make this a serious
drawback.
— Bidding high with a weak hand will tend to hurt, not
help, the opponents. The transfer effect does not
increase enemy options in a significant way.
— We give up no additional bids to add WJR's.
There are at least two new dangers. First of all, we are
bidding to three-something with a weak hand that
might be bid to two-something. But even if this were a
big deal, which it isn't, are we losing that much?
With
♠ x J x x K x x ♣ K J x x x x x
we can't get to two clubs after partner's one-spade
opening anyway. And what about this:
OPENER RESPONDER
1♠ Pass 1NT 2
Pass 3 (!)
Sometimes it is cheap to bid three of your suit-at least
you get to mention it, allowing partner to compete with
an appropriate hand (to say nothing of possibly silencing
the opponents).
The second new danger is the potential ambiguity
of the TJR itself. If we can't distinguish an SJR from a
WJR, the whole method is insane. Partnerships using
TJR's should be prepared for all competitive situations,
and all cases in which opener does not complete
the transfer. Here are a few suggestions that
may be useful as the basis for discussion.
(1) When ambiguity still exists, the burden is with
responder to show which type of response he has;
opener acts under the WJR assumption until instructed
otherwise.
(2) If the transfer is doubled, opener can redouble
(very strong; forcing for one level if the opponents
compete), or Pass (game invitation, but does not
produce a force), to show strength. If opener completes
the transfer or bids higher, the bidding proceeds
as usual.
(3) If the opponents compete, and opener passes,
an immediate bid or (penalty) double by responder
shows an SJR. If opener acts, responder can show an
SJR by bidding Blackwood, making an uninvited bid,
cue-bidding the enemy suit, or pulling a penalty double.
(4) If opener rebids his own suit, it is correctional
but also mildly invitational. (If opener is willing to play
three of his suit opposite an unsuitable hand, he
should be willing to play four opposite a suitable
hand.) But the invitation is only in that suit, so if responder
does anything but Pass or raise, he shows an
SJR (even if he rebids in his own suit).
(5) If opener rebids in a new suit at the three-level,
it is forcing to three notrump. Responder should assume
temporarily it is a try for three notrump and bid
accordingly.
(6) A raise of responder's real suit by opener
should be constructive, not preemptive. Responder
may Pass or continue to game with a WJR; any other
action shows an SJR.
Clearly, the ambiguity of the TJR is potentially
dangerous, even if the frequency of disruption is low.
At the least, careful partnership agreement is required.
I do not have enough experience to be able to measure
the losses caused, but I suspect that they will be
well worth enduring in view of the many benefits.
IBPA Handbook 2010 109