2NT as a Forcing raise after 1M playing Precision

[jmc]

Playing Precision many pairs still use Jacoby 2NT as a forcing major raise. It seems that there are better options than the traditional Jacoby responses however. Some, including Bergn's and Rigal's, can be found at:

 

http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/...nal/conv/c.html

 

While theere are many different options for better responses, what would the forum suggest for Precision players. Bergen for example uses 3c as any shortness or a big balanced hand. Precision players can'y really have a "big" balanced hand.

 

While using 2NT as something other than a forcing raise in a major may be optimal, I am really just interested in alternative suggestions for responses to the 2NT. Thank you all in advance.

 

Jonathan

BBO: jmc

[awm]

Well here's what Sam and I play. It's complicated and takes some getting used to:

 

Over 1♠ there are two strong raises: 2NT and 3♣. The 2NT bid shows any game-forcing raise that doesn't want to start with a 2/1 or a fit bid, or a limit raise which includes side shortness. The 3♣ bid shows a balanced limit raise (three or four trumps ok). After 1♠-2NT:

 

3♣ = a minimum 1♠ opening, not interested in game opposite most limit raises

.... Now responder's 3♦/♥/♠ show shortness, kind of a counter-try. 3♠ is NF.

.... Responder's 3NT is rkc at the three-level

.... Responder's 4♣-4♥ are cuebids, showing serious slam interest despite the minimum

.... Responder's 4♠ is to play

 

3♦ = enough to accept a limit raise, but not very slammish hand (this can be even a 15-count, it just denies a freak one or two-suiter that wants to take control of the auction)

... Now responder's 3♥ shows any void (opener's 3♠ asks where it is)

... Responder's 3♠ demands a cuebid (this shows extras, more than limit raise for sure)

... Responder's 3NT is rkc at the three-level

... Responder's 4♣-4♥ show singletons, with at least a bit more than a limit raise

... Responder's 4♠ is to play (this shows a limit raise only)

 

3♥ = serious slam interest opposite a limit raise with the right shortness

... Now responder's 3♠ shows any void (opener's 3NT asks where it is)

... Responder's 3NT shows a balanced hand with extras and starts cuebidding

... Responder's 4♣-4♥ show singleton in that suit

 

3♠ = serious slam interest; opener demands a cuebid

 

3NT = rkc at the three-level

 

4♣-4♥ = void in that suit, this implies slam interest opposite the "right" hand

 

Why do we play this weird method? It was designed with several goals in mind:

 

(1) Conceal as much information as possible in hands that will bid game and no more.

(2) Allow responder (who will be dummy) to describe as much as possible, keeping opener's hand hidden.

(3) Mirror many of the effects of the Hardy raise structure (which used bergen raises, concealed splinters, jacoby, and inverted trump swiss) while compressing virtually all the raises into one call.

(4) Allow responder to show specific shortness and still stop in 3M (thus we have a potential "game try" over a limit raise).

 

For completeness, over 1♠-3♣ we play:

 

3♦ = 4+♥ side suit, looking for a potentially superior 4-4 fit game

3♥ = "game try" basically wanting game opposite 4-card raise but not 3-card raise

3♠ = to play, bad hand

3NT = rkc at the 3-level

4♣-4♥ = void in that suit, slam try opposite the right hand

4♠ = accept of limit raise; to play

 

Over 1♥-2♠ (GF raise or limit raise with shortness) and 1♥-2NT (balanced limit raise) we play basically the same stuff but everything is shifted down one step.

[csdenmark]

Playing Precision many pairs still use Jacoby 2NT as a forcing major raise.  It seems that there are better options than the traditional Jacoby responses however.  Some, including Bergn's and Rigal's, can be found at:

 

http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/...nal/conv/c.html 

 

While theere are many different options for better responses, what would the forum suggest for Precision players.  Bergen for example uses 3c as any shortness or a big balanced hand.  Precision players can'y really have a "big" balanced hand.

 

While using 2NT as something other than a forcing raise in a major may be optimal, I am really just interested in alternative suggestions for responses to the 2NT.  Thank you all in advance.

 

Jonathan

BBO: jmc

Normally nothing is used. Rarely to play conventions in Precision or any strong and well defined systems.

 

A rebid by opener of NewSuit(help-suit)/2NT(ask short) are both game try.

 

Thank heaven you don't play with me. Immediate 2NT response is 16+HcP, any. A slam try.

[awm]

As is often the case, csdenmark's response has me mystified.

 

In my experience, virtually all established partnerships have a way to make a strong raise of opener's major. This is true at every level, from near-beginner to world champion. It applies even to most pairs playing a relay method over 1M, since there is great value in announcing the fit right away and raising the level of the auction (preventing cheap interference with the relays).

 

Of course, we can debate which bid (or bids) should be used as raises, what the requirements should be for them, and how we should continue over them. For example I know Fred Gitelman likes to use the lowest suit jump as a raise and 2NT as natural and forcing. But claiming that "Normally nothing is used. Rarely to play conventions with Precision or any strong and well-defined systems" seems way off-base to me.

 

I think the question being asked here is: what is a good structure of strong raises to use when you play precision (or any other limited-opening five-card major structured system). This seems a very reasonable question to me.

[csdenmark]

As is often the case, csdenmark's response has me mystified.

 

In my experience, virtually all established partnerships have a way to make a strong raise of opener's major. This is true at every level, from near-beginner to world champion. It applies even to most pairs playing a relay method over 1M, since there is great value in announcing the fit right away and raising the level of the auction (preventing cheap interference with the relays).

 

Of course, we can debate which bid (or bids) should be used as raises, what the requirements should be for them, and how we should continue over them. For example I know Fred Gitelman likes to use the lowest suit jump as a raise and 2NT as natural and forcing. But claiming that "Normally nothing is used. Rarely to play conventions with Precision or any strong and well-defined systems" seems way off-base to me.

 

I think the question being asked here is: what is a good structure of strong raises to use when you play precision (or any other limited-opening five-card major structured system). This seems a very reasonable question to me.

I think the question being asked here is: what is a good structure of strong raises to use when you play precision (or any other limited-opening five-card major structured system). This seems a very reasonable question to me.

Me too - therefore I mixed into this.

 

I know Fred Gitelman likes to use the lowest suit jump as a raise and 2NT as natural and forcing

Fred don't play that kind of system. As far as I remember - but I haven't studied carefully yet - he plays 11-21 which is something like unlimited. Exactly what the conventions are created for to try to handle.

 

 

As is often the case, csdenmark's response has me mystified.

No need - I am always ready for deeper explanations - just ask.

 

 

In my experience, virtually all established partnerships have a way to make a strong raise of opener's major.

Certainly.

 

In Icelandic Precision(Baldurson/Jorgensen) and Viking Precision(Aa/Groetheim) - it is relay.

 

Belladonna/Garosso: It is limit 3+card raises. Else you for stronger hands bid something of your own.

 

Sontag/Weichsel(Power Precision): Same as Belladonna/Garozzo

Rodwell/Meckstroth(Meckwell Club): Same as Belladonna/Garozzo

 

None of above mentioned uses conventions. They apply to Game try and Splinter raises all.

 

Very similar for systems as Blue Club, Hamway Club, Quadri Italia, Quadri Livorno.

Roman Club and Arno Club both applies to Herbert Negative(0-9HcP). Then raises are always invite/GF.

 

 

I therefore think my statement 'use of conventions are rare' is justified.

 

------------------------------------

 

I just took a brief look into Fred Gitelman system. No specified opening range. He plays 2/1 style with 1NT(14/17) and 2NT(20-21) both allowing 5card major. As far as I noticed no references to conventions. He uses Jump suit as art. raise

[pbleighton]

According to their last BB cc, Meckwell play 1M-2NT as limit plus trump raise, usually with at least 4 cards.

 

Greco-Hampson, who play a similar system, play it as GF with 4 card support.

 

Peter

[awm]

Looking at their cards from Estoril (excluding those pairs who use wide-ranging 11-21 1M):

 

Australia:

Marston-Thompson (Mostico) use relay on most strong hands, but do use 2NT as a limit raise.

 

Italy:

Fantoni-Nunes (playing their unique methods) include 2NT as a major suit raise

Angelini-Sementa (strong club) use 2NT as a limit+ major suit raise

 

Netherlands:

Muller-Dewijs (Tarzan club) use relays, many artificial raises on unbalanced or non-GF hands.

Jansma-Verhees (Polish club variant) use 2♣ GF relay, but also 2NT as limit+ major raise.

 

Poland:

Jagniewski-Pazur (polish club) use 1NT as a relay with many hand types (including some GF support) and also 2NT as a limit+ raise (not very slammish)

 

Sweden:

Lindkvist-Fredin (three-way club) use 2♣ as a relay but also 2NT as 11-13 raise

Sylvan-Sunderlin (two-way club) use 2♣ as a relay but also 2NT as inv+ raise

Nystrom-Bertheau (strong club) use 2M-1 as an inv+ raise of the major (and 2NT as splinter)

 

USA:

 

Meckstroth-Rodwell (meckwell prec) play 2NT response to 1M as a limit+ raise with 4+ trumps.

Soloway-Hamman (hamway club) play 3♣ over 1M as a GF raise, as well as various splinters

Ekeblad-Rubin (ultimate club) use relay over 1M with GF raises, but also have splinters

Greco-Hampson (strong club) use 2NT over 1M as GF raise

 

So the upshot of this is: top modern pairs who do not base their constructive bidding primarily on relays universally have some bid to show a game-forcing raise of partner's major (okay sometimes it's initially limit-plus).

 

Pairs who base their constructive bidding primarily on relays still have a lot of bids to raise partner's major. Typically these include some way to show splinter bids, and limit raises, and often also "minimum game force" type hands. Whether there is a slammish game force raise of the major, or simply relay with these hands, is a matter of choice and some go in each direction.

 

I don't see any current top pairs who always temporize with a "natural game forcing" suit bid holding 4+ cards and a GF in partner's major.

[awm]

By the way, since I was reading all this stuff, here's what Sylvan-Sunderlin (a top Swedish pair playing a two-way club opening) use:

 

2NT = inv+ raise of opener's major

... 3♣ = minimum

...... 3♦ = asking

........... 3♥/♠/NT = short in ♣/♦/other major respectively

........... 4♣+ = cuebid with balanced minimum

...... 3M = invitational NF

...... 3oM/3NT = splinters

...... 4x = cuebid

... 3♦ = balanced maximum

...... 3♥/♠/NT = short in ♣/♦/other major

...... 4x = cuebid

... 3♥/♠/NT = extras, short in ♣/♦/other major

... 4♣/♦/♥ = void in ♣/♦/other major

... 4♠ = assuming spades are the agreed suit, this is a decent 6+ suit, 2-3 KC, 4-6 ctrls

[hrothgar]

For whats its worth, I had some fairly extensive discussions with Paul Marston on this topic when I was compiling my MOSCITO notes. Paul's position - which I strong agree with - holds that responder should avoid making a relay response with a good fit for opener.

 

Whenever possible, responder should strive to transfer captaincy to opener by making a descriptive rebid such as a splinter raise or a Jacoby type 2NT. The reason for this should be fairly obvious: If "we" have a fit, they have one as well. Making a relay response risks that LHO will be able to intervene with an overcall and jam our auctions. Coupled this with this, MOSCITO's relay response only shows game invitation values so we won't necessarily have a forcing pass available. Equally significant, if the relay response tends to deny a fit for opener, we're often well positioned to make low level penalty oriented doubles. If the opponentns are aware of this, we get better constructive auctions. If the opponents don't bother to pay attention, we collect some nice juicy penalties.

 

Earlier versions of MOSCITO did use the auction 1M - 2N as an artifical bid (constructive with 5-5 in the minors was one popular treatment), however its been a while since I've seen this considered standard...

[csdenmark]

Jansma-Verhees (Polish club variant) Jagniewski-Pazur (polish club)

Lets exclude these above. They don't play limit major openings and have other problems.

 

Else I think we agree. The top pairs rarely use standard conventions. Occasionally they use methods inspired from conventions but else not.

 

2NT as a reference to Jacoby, Bergen etc. is not used.

 

I initially stated that 2NT by me would mean 16+HcP, slam try. So it is in Belladonna/Garozzo. Thats the version I prefer for Precision/SUPERprecision.

 

Looks very much too me like we agree. Those playing limit openings are in no need of standard methods.

 

It is also so that after a limit raise they normally - not all those you mentioned I have been looking into - apply to game try.

 

I think it is worth mentioning that top pairs in general rarely uses ordinary conventions for initially phases. Later they can do so, fx. Smolen, RKCB, Lebensohl etc.

[Gerben42]

With my Relay Precision partner we use minisplinters but no "general GF raise". If we just want to play game we bid 1M - 4M and with slam interest we either make a normal splinter, maxisplinter (minisplinter and bid again) or start with the GF relay. If opps then get loud we bid 3M: Slam interest in the major.

[csdenmark]

By the way, since I was reading all this stuff, here's what Sylvan-Sunderlin (a top Swedish pair playing a two-way club opening) use:

 

2NT = inv+ raise of opener's major

... 3♣ = minimum

...... 3♦ = asking

........... 3♥/♠/NT = short in ♣/♦/other major respectively

........... 4♣+ = cuebid with balanced minimum

...... 3M = invitational NF

...... 3oM/3NT = splinters

...... 4x = cuebid

... 3♦ = balanced maximum

...... 3♥/♠/NT = short in ♣/♦/other major

...... 4x = cuebid

... 3♥/♠/NT = extras, short in ♣/♦/other major

... 4♣/♦/♥ = void in ♣/♦/other major

... 4♠ = assuming spades are the agreed suit, this is a decent 6+ suit, 2-3 KC, 4-6 ctrls

Very impressive - it is such kind of auctions I am missing when we see the top players plays in tournaments where they need to play with other partners.

 

------------------------

This is a delayed response to another thread.

[Trinidad]

Playing Precision many pairs still use Jacoby 2NT as a forcing major raise. It seems that there are better options than the traditional Jacoby responses however. Some, including Bergn's and Rigal's, can be found at:

 

http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/...nal/conv/c.html

 

While theere are many different options for better responses, what would the forum suggest for Precision players. Bergen for example uses 3c as any shortness or a big balanced hand. Precision players can'y really have a "big" balanced hand.

 

While using 2NT as something other than a forcing raise in a major may be optimal, I am really just interested in alternative suggestions for responses to the 2NT. Thank you all in advance.

 

Jonathan

BBO: jmc

My partner and I have played 2/1 for years. But after a while we got fed up with some of the weaknesses of the system and changed to a strong club system.

 

We have, however, always felt comfortable with quite a bit of the 2/1 structure and kept what we liked in tact. We used to play Bergen Jacoby 2NT and we still do. For us the 3♣ rebid still means extra's, (semi)balanced or extra's with a singleton. It just means that "extra's" is roughly 14-16 instead of 17-21. Combined with the fact that a lot of hands that used to bid 2NT now bid 4♠, I can only see that as an advantage.

 

I can understand that there may be more to get by switching to other methods. But if you get such an increase in accuracy in your slam bidding, compared to what you used to do, without having to learn anything new at all I don't consider it urgent to improve on this improvement.

 

Rik

[csdenmark]

My partner and I have played 2/1 for years. But after a while we got fed up with some of the weaknesses of the system and changed to a strong club system.

 

We have, however, always felt comfortable with quite a bit of the 2/1 structure and kept what we liked in tact. We used to play Bergen Jacoby 2NT and we still do. For us the 3♣ rebid still means extra's, (semi)balanced or extra's with a singleton. It just means that "extra's" is roughly 14-16 instead of 17-21. Combined with the fact that a lot of hands that used to bid 2NT now bid 4♠, I can only see that as an advantage.

 

I can understand that there may be more to get by switching to other methods. But if you get such an increase in accuracy in your slam bidding, compared to what you used to do, without having to learn anything new at all I don't consider it urgent to improve on this improvement.

 

Rik

We used to play Bergen Jacoby 2NT and we still do.

Nothing wrong with that of course Rik.

 

The main reason why it is not necessary is that playing limit 5card major openings they are non-forcing. This means you pass unless some kind of perspectives or preemptive.

 

For canape' systems(4+card majors) the opening is forcing for 1 round.

[Adebisi]

After limide 1H/S opening i recently changed all " conv raises" into natural, coz these art 4 card raises, 3card raises, minisplinters etc happen so rare and they

give lots of info to defending side.So what i play now is:

1S -: 1NT semiforcing, opener passes only with (11)12-13 bal, could have bal

3card supp

2NT FG with 4+ trumps, usually with mild slam try, Swedish responses like

someone already mentioned: 3C=min, 3D=max no shortness, 3H/S/NT

max spl in C/D/OMaj, 4C/D non min 5+side suit, 4S=bal min max 1KC

3C/D=9-11 6+card INV

3H=(14)15+ 6+H

3S=INV nat(this gives deffence no information about hand: to lead trump

or try to make active lead whatsoever,and after limited opening u may raise 1S into 2S with hand like Qxxx, xx, xxxx, xxx, nothing happens.Once in online bridge i played with pd to who was impoosible to explain why i dont like Bergen raises: why go down 1 in 3S(especially when u have spade suit!) when u could stay in 2S.Then after o/c or DBL 3 of openers MAJ is pre-emptive, but without interrupting i believe very easy stuff is best.I used to play

2NT as 4+card INV raise, and jumps in new suits as inv fit bids with 3card supp and 5 card suits, but they happen so rare, and u still may make wrong decision to bid game or not, so i abandoned them.

[Trinidad]

Claus,

 

I'm not sure whether I made this clear, but of course, I am aware that Jacoby 2NT (whatever version you are playing) is a slam tool and not just an alternative way to bid game. Of course, you will have the equivalent of 16+. With less you just bid 1♠-4♠. To bid 2NT just to show that you have a raise and can play game is daisy picking.

 

Rik

[csdenmark]

Claus,

 

I'm not sure whether I made this clear, but of course, I am aware that Jacoby 2NT (whatever version you are playing) is a slam tool and not just an alternative way to bid game. Of course, you will have the equivalent of 16+. With less you just bid 1♠-4♠. To bid 2NT just to show that you have a raise and can play game is daisy picking.

 

Rik

Exactly so it is. Many don't know. They see Precision simply as a club opening system. Then they create, roughly spoken, quite standard like for rest. This is more clear in Belladonna/Garozzo version than in most else.

 

In fact it is so, as mentioned by Benito Garozzo, the greatest asset of strong club systems are the limit openings. It is not asking bids - thats the funny cream. The advantage of limit openings are the ability to play part-score contracts in low-level, 1 or 2. In standard you have problems to stop in 2.

[hrothgar]

For canape' systems(4+card majors) the opening is forcing for 1 round.

1. Yet another definitive/absolutist statement from Claus

2. Yet another example where Claus is wrong

 

Blue Club is a 4 card major system that makes extensive use of canape. And yet, somehow, the 1M openings aren't forcing.

 

MOSCITO uses a major's first opening style. The TRANSFER openings aren't forcing.

 

Roman Club does indeed use canape and the openigs are indeed forcing. However, Roman uses three card majors.

 

I'm also quite confused regarding his core proposition: Its not readily apparant why limited opening systems don't require a forcing major raise, esepcially given the fact that most of these systems use one.

[csdenmark]

For canape' systems(4+card majors) the opening is forcing for 1 round.

1. Yet another definitive/absolutist statement from Claus

2. Yet another example where Claus is wrong

 

Blue Club is a 4 card major system that makes extensive use of canape. And yet, somehow, the 1M openings aren't forcing.

 

MOSCITO uses a major's first opening style. The TRANSFER openings aren't forcing.

 

Roman Club does indeed use canape and the openigs are indeed forcing. However, Roman uses three card majors.

 

I'm also quite confused regarding his core proposition: Its not readily apparant why limited opening systems don't require a forcing major raise, esepcially given the fact that most of these systems use one.

Richard - I prefer to END our conversations here.

[hrothgar]

Richard - I prefer to END our conversations here.

Promises, promises...

[Trinidad]

In fact it is so, as mentioned by Benito Garozzo, the greatest asset of strong club systems are the limit openings.

It might be more accurate to call these systems "limited opening systems" instead of "strong ♣ systems".

 

We changed to strong ♣ for the limited openings and absolutely not for the strong 1♣ opening. We see the 1♣ opening as the weak spot in the strong 1♣ systems. But fortunately we never get any good cards. ;)

 

Rik

[csdenmark]

In fact it is so, as mentioned by Benito Garozzo, the greatest asset of strong club systems are the limit openings.

It might be more accurate to call these systems "limited opening systems" instead of "strong ♣ systems".

 

We changed to strong ♣ for the limited openings and absolutely not for the strong 1♣ opening. We see the 1♣ opening as the weak spot in the strong 1♣ systems. But fortunately we never get any good cards. ;)

 

Rik

You have a point here Rik - you have a really good point.

 

Poles calls Pass-systems WOS(Weak Opening Systems). I am not sure whether they do so in Poland too or only in an international forum. I am not sure whether WOS refers to pass opening or to limit 8-12 openings.

[jmc]

I appreciate all the suggestions and I like many of your ideas. I have also been reading Mr. Gitelman's improving 2/1 articles and think having a forcing balanced raise could be useful. Right now we use bergen raises, jacoby, 2nt, 1M-3OM as a mini-splinter, 1M-3NT as 13-15 bal with 3 cd support, 1M 4C as 16+ bal 3 cd support, and 1M 4D as a 5 card support sub limit raise 8-11 or so.

 

Unfortunately, this does not give us a true balanced forcing raise. We have considered using 1H-2S for this meaning but we still need something over 1S. I know its possible to give up one step of the Bergen raise to make room, but I'd rather not. Any suggestions?

 

Jonathan

[pbleighton]

"I appreciate all the suggestions and I like many of your ideas. I have also been reading Mr. Gitelman's improving 2/1 articles and think having a forcing balanced raise could be useful. Right now we use bergen raises, jacoby, 2nt, 1M-3OM as a mini-splinter, 1M-3NT as 13-15 bal with 3 cd support, 1M 4C as 16+ bal 3 cd support, and 1M 4D as a 5 card support sub limit raise 8-11 or so.

 

Unfortunately, this does not give us a true balanced forcing raise. We have considered using 1H-2S for this meaning but we still need something over 1S. I know its possible to give up one step of the Bergen raise to make room, but I'd rather not. Any suggestions?"

 

Finish reading Fred's articles. You can play 1M-2NT as a balanced raise. You use all three jump shifts as 4 card raises. The lowest jump shift (1S-3C, 1H-2S) is Jacoby, and the other two are the invitational and constructive raises.

 

This has always struck me as better than Bergen (I don't like Bergen, though - I play WJS when I play 2/1).

 

Peter