2/1 GF or Jacoby2NT

[whereagles]

Mauro,

 

> This argument is overrated: it indeed applies to 90% of the most

> common conventions.

 

I don't think so. Conventions that appear in mainstream textbooks usually have sound follow-ups. J2NT doesn't.

 

 

> Think of it, for an occasional pair, even the followup after a negative

> double is not really defined according to a standard... :angry:

> Just to mention a few other instances, this applies for most doubles,

> 2 suited overcalls, inverted minors, and even 1NT forcing sequences,

> and many more occasions...

 

Sorry, I disagree. Most of these are reasonably well covered in textbooks. (I will agree on the inverted minors though.. the standard follow-ups became mainstream, but are unsound in my opinion.)

 

 

> This does not mean we should play without conventions (...)

> it just means we should know our stuff.

 

Yes, we should. But most don't. So it's better not to play conventions.

 

 

> There is a urgent need for a balance-of-power raise that

> IMMEDIATELY signals the presence of a 9 card fit.

 

I disagree again. There would be such a need if you antecipate opps are going to butt-in. But since RHO passed and we have a fairly strong hand, there is a good chance that LHO won't be bothering our side if we fail to convey our good support immediately. There is, of course, some risk in not doing it, but that's overrated.

 

Suppose you're playing 1M-2NT as something else, and are "forced" to show your 12+ 4-card support by temporizing with a 2/1 bid. Now compare

 

1♥ (pass) ..?

 

with

 

1♥ (1♠) ..?

 

In the 1st case, if you bid, say 2♣, LHO won't even know you have an undisclosed fit. After 2♣ we will only bid what's in front of him.

 

In the 2nd case LHO won't be quiet, so you obviously can't insist on bidding a forcing 2♣. You have to make some support bid right away. Big difference.

 

This isn't just academic. This style works, and the proof is the french team of Chemla et al. beating the USA nickell team in the 1997 bermuda bowl.

[barmar]

> This does not mean we should play without conventions (...)

> it just means we should know our stuff.

 

Yes, we should. But most don't. So it's better not to play conventions.

You could probably fill a book with discussion of misused conventions. Chapter 1 would probably be Blackwood, arguably one of the most abused conventions. Yet it's practically universal, and few would advocate giving it up.

[Chamaco]

Mauro,

 

> This argument is overrated: it indeed applies to 90% of the most

> common conventions.

 

I don't think so. Conventions that appear in mainstream textbooks usually have sound follow-ups.

 

....Sorry, I disagree. Most of these are reasonably well covered in textbooks. (I will agree on the inverted minors though.. the standard follow-ups became mainstream, but are unsound in my opinion.)

 

 

Nor really.

In most textbooks Michaels cue and U2NT followups are dismissed rather quickly.

Inverted minors- you said it.

 

Even 1NT forcing sequences are not standard at all.

 

And the level of details at which the followups of a negative double are discussed is akin to the level of detail (poor) of the discussion of J2NT sequences.

 

This applies for the vast majority of textbooks on "standard" 5 card major bidding.

 

> This does not mean we should play without conventions (...)

> it just means we should know our stuff.

 

Yes, we should. But most don't. So it's better not to play conventions.

 

This is like saying "we should all know how to drive. But most people don't. So better of not having a car".

As I said, it's a paradox: we should learn to drive, and we should learn the conventions we think are useful.

 

So the real question is how useful is a treatment, in this case the artificial 2NT raise.

 

This isn't just academic. This style works, and the proof is the french team of Chemla et al. beating the USA nickell team in the 1997 bermuda bowl.

 

If we attempt to support our views with examples, we can also view things the other way around: e.g. most world class pairs have an explicit, immediate artificial forcing raise (no matter if 2NT or other), so that might suggest they have a reason for this AND the results witness it works :angry:

[whereagles]

Mauro:

 

"Not really. In most textbooks Michaels cue and U2NT followups are dismissed rather quickly.

Inverted minors- you said it. Even 1NT forcing sequences are not standard at all. And the level of details at which the followups of a negative double are discussed is akin to the level of detail (poor) of the discussion of J2NT sequences. This applies for the vast majority of textbooks on "standard" 5 card major bidding."

 

Hum.. well, maybe it has to do with the books we've read. Some have stuff well organized. Others don't. Most books I read were fairly competent.

 

 

"This is like saying "we should all know how to drive. But most people don't. So better of not having a car". As I said, it's a paradox: we should learn to drive, and we should learn the conventions we think are useful."

 

That's not really what I meant. It was more like this: the world would be better off if people didn't insist on playing conventions with unsound follow-ups.

 

If you wanna translate that into the 'traffic language', this is it: 'better not to drive cars that are unsafe.' I guess we would agree on that :angry:

 

 

"If we attempt to support our views with examples, we can also view things the other way around: e.g. most world class pairs have an explicit, immediate artificial forcing raise (no matter if 2NT or other), so that might suggest they have a reason for this AND the results witness it works wink.gif"

 

That's not the point. The point is that it certainly is PLAYABLE to scrap J2NT altogether, and use the bid for something more constructive and frequent.

[pigpenz]

yes most conventions suffer from miss use than the flaw in them.

[luke warm]

> maybe you can give an example of a few hand types w/ 4 card support and show how you bid

> them... then we'll see what the hardy bid would be, compare, etc

 

What exactly do you have in mind?

i meant example hands of varying strength/shape that all contain 4 card M trump support... i've done this some with bridge browser, to see how my favorite treatments work out... so far i've not seen any disadvantage to them

[Double !]

FWIW, getting back to the question of south initial response, I strongly recommend 2 clubs followed by a simple spade raise (still forcing). As far as I know, Jac 2NT (a convention that i really don't like) promises 4+ card trump support. A 2/1 response followed by a jump to 4M is a shape bid, something like a good 6-4 with no outside A or K. I play 2/1 followed by a simple raise as showing 3-card support.

 

Why rush the bidding on this hand. You want to give P as much of a chance of showing some form of club control at some point. Go fast and this is less likely to happen. You will always have RKC available to check the trump suit. What one needs to due is create an auction that will give P a chance to advise you that there aren't 2 club losers on the hand.

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

DHL