Posted 2008-May-31, 21:37
Question: "Is a fit non-jump a conventional treatment or an inference?"
Any call, at any time, suggests something about the hand, a description. However,all bids are also made in the context of a few general rules. One of those general rules is that you have a point, a reason to make a bid. A second general rule is that you have a reasonable assessment that your reason will lead to a good result more often than not. A third general rule is that any call has a greater likelihood of success if partner understands the call and knows what to do about it. A fourth general rule is that actions in the future are limited and defined, in part, by the history of the auction leading up to it. A fifth general rule is that a good partnership tends, in situations where two or more irreconcilable options are available, to select that which seems more often to be needed or the loss of which more often is less costly.
If you have any auction, where at a certain point a call is "natural," then, there must be more to it. It is interesting that a lot of folks who object to the idea of a bid that is described as a "fit non-jump" provide no alternative than "natural." Well, a fit non-jump is a natural call. So, what do people who decline this idea have for their "natural" calls? What expectations are there?
If the call that might otherwise be made in a situation appropriate for the call known as a fit non-jump has a different definition, then presumably that different definition can be provided more specifically thn "natural." After so defining this mysterious call, presumably then one could assess whether the partnership needs that call more or less than average by assessing the opening bid style, or some other systemic parameter. Some might have a greater need for some other call; others less so. Upon making that assessment, one could then weigh the relative merits and deficits to each option, alternatives available if each option is declined, and the like to assess what makes sense for the partnership.
However, deciding that you just don't like the bid and want no more definition than "natural" seems really dim. Surely this "natural" meaning cannot be all. Surely one wopuld not, for instance, take a 4♣ call here as just showing a bunch of clubs and less than opening strength. If you cannot get anywhere past that point, in this "it's natural" definition, then your partnership bidding, IMO, is in trouble. Your partnership is either living on a set of definitions, a large amount of which is unavailable, or on inference without any talent for gathering inference.
I doubt that this is the case. My assumption is that there actually is some sort of assumed definition. And, guess what? The definituion could be called something. "A distributional non-fit non-jump" ("DNFNJ"). The DNFNJ will often, in many sequences, by force of logic show the bid suit and length in the unbid suit, or the unbid major. (If there is no unbid suit, then not playing fit non-jumps would be impossible.)
So, the DNFNJ is also artificial. It shows two suits, but people just do not want to admit this when debating theory, or they do not recognize this (which is frightening). There could be some rare exceptions where suit quality agreements for preempts messed things up earlier, or similar systemic definitons. But, the call shows two suits. The sole question, then, in many of our minds, is why there is a preference for showing the two unbid suits over the suit and support.
I myself play some DNFNJ bids, as of recently. E.g., P-P-1♠-P-2♥ shows hearts and a minor, strangely. But, I consider the DNFNJ bid to be the unexpected agreement and the FNJ the default.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
Help
