2/1 vs J2NT response

[ArcLight]

Playing 2/1

 

If partner opens 1 of a major, and you hold 4 cards in that major, and a good 5 card side suit, what do you respond?

 

Do you bid J2NT showing the 4 card support?

 

Do you make a 2/1 hoping to convince pard of your 4 card support later?

How will pard know that your suit is that good?

 

To make it even more complex, what if you are 4=3=1=5 and pard opens 1 Spade. Now you can splinter as well.

 

What criteria would you use in deciding?

1♠ - ?

 

♠ J 8 5 3

♥ Q x

♣ A x

 

a - ♦ A K T 9 6

b - ♦ A K J T 9

c - ♦ A K J x x x (4=2=1=6)

 

 

What about with better trump support?

♠ K 8 5 3

♥ Q x

♣ A x

 

a - ♦ A K T 9 6

b - ♦ A K J T 9

c - ♦ A K J x x x (4=2=1=6)

[Guest Jlall]

This question is very very tricky and comes up a lot. In a nutshell if you believe you should be taking control then your options are to bid jacoby 2N or to make a 2/1, you should not splinter. Deciding between those depends on what you hope to find out and how you hope the auction can time out. If you will be happy if partner shows you a singleton or you believe cuebidding will be successful, you should be bidding jacoby 2N. If you believe that you need to extract some other information, like a third round control of your AKxxx or whatever you can try making a 2/1. If you want partner to take control splintering is a good way to go. Another thing to keep in mind is that if some auction will leave you guessing you don't want to try that auction (such as 1M-2N-4M in standard jacoby). If you don't know what to bid over that then starting with a 2/1 may be the better option.

[Al_U_Card]

Often it comes down to side suit controls and who will do the ace asking. If you can be the one to ask, then organize your bids accordingly. If you have 2 quick losers in a side suit, then choose the option that will let pard ask. He will know that you have an issue, and if he too has one....you get to avoid the dreaded "Binsky" level.... ;)

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Splinters were not around in the early days of bridge. They coped quite well by 'bidding around the clock.' Bid two suits and support partner.

 

'If' you can jump support that shows 4 card support. Non jump support normally shows 3 card support.

 

Sometimes the space limits this method. It does work a large part of the time.

 

If you have a 'source of tricks' in a 5 card suit, I normally do not splinter. With a 4315 hand and a poor suit(Qxxxx) I like to splinter.

 

Regards,

Robert

[bid_em_up]

Playing 2/1

 

If partner opens 1 of a major, and you hold 4 cards in that major, and a good 5 card side suit, what do you respond?

 

Do you bid J2NT showing the 4 card support?

 

Do you make a 2/1 hoping to convince pard of your 4 card support later?

How will pard know that your suit is that good?

 

To make it even more complex, what if you are 4=3=1=5 and pard opens 1 Spade.  Now you can splinter as well.

Jacoby 2N was originally designed to describe a balanced game forcing hand when holding 4 card major suit support. These hands were considered to be:

 

4-3-3-3 and

4-4-3-2

 

Not 4-2-5-2 or 4-1-5-3 and certainly not 4-2-6-1. It was intended to describe a hand that you couldn't otherwise bid naturally.

 

Who am I to argue with Ozzie?

 

I realize that the modern tendency is to make a 2N bid on any game forcing hand with four card trump support, but I find in a 2/1 context you are usually better placed by describing a side source of tricks in your hand before the major suit raise so that partner can envision pitches from their hand, or count tricks when they also have a fit in the secondary suit. You will not be able to show the suit naturally later in the auction, as it will usually be taken as a cuebid.

[awm]

I'd say:

 

First consider the quality of the side five-card suit. Does it look like a possible source of tricks? If you have a holding like AQJxx or AKxxx where one honor from partner makes it possible to run the suit, it's usually better to start with a two-over-one. This will clue partner in that the missing honor is a huge card. Note that this doesn't apply if the suit is completely solid (AKQJx or the like) nor if the suit would require two top honors to run (Kxxxx).

 

Second, consider your controls outside partner's major and the side suit. If you have no outside first or second round controls (i.e. Kxxx xx xx AKQxx) then it's best to start with a two-over-one and follow it with a "picture jump" or the like.

 

This leaves hands where the side suit is either relatively poor or completely solid, and you have at least one control in a side suit. With these hands your best call often depends on overall strength. If you have a pretty minimum game force, a side singleton, and scattered values it is often better to splinter. For example with KQxx x Kxx Kxxxx I would splinter. With substantial extras or with a side-suit holding of three small or ace-empty it is sometimes better to use jacoby (KQxx x Axx Kxxxx will make a good slam opposite diamond shortage and a bad one opposite club shortage, so jacoby might be a good option; KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

[mike777]

Playing 2/1

 

If partner opens 1 of a major, and you hold 4 cards in that major, and a good 5 card side suit, what do you respond?

 

Do you bid J2NT showing the 4 card support?

 

Do you make a 2/1 hoping to convince pard of your 4 card support later?

How will pard know that your suit is that good?

 

To make it even more complex, what if you are 4=3=1=5 and pard opens 1 Spade.  Now you can splinter as well.

 

What criteria would you use in deciding?

1♠ - ?

 

♠ J 8 5 3

♥ Q x

♣ A x

 

a - ♦ A K T 9 6

b - ♦ A K J T 9

c - ♦ A K J x x x  (4=2=1=6)

 

 

What about with better trump support?

♠ K 8 5 3

♥ Q x

♣ A x

 

a - ♦ A K T 9 6

b - ♦ A K J T 9

c - ♦ A K J x x x  (4=2=1=6)

If I am too good to splinter, 6 losers or better, then I very often just bid jacoby/bergen 2nt with 4 card support.

[jdonn]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

[cherdano]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Maybe we shouldn't be playing standard jacoby then, one of the worst follow-ups to a reasonable convention I know...

[mike777]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

That looks like a 5 ltc hand example? Assume 7 ltc for opener? 7+5=12.....24-12=12 tricks? Yes I would use Bergen/Jacoby, but agree with your main point we may still miss slam but I think I got to try once more even over 4s rebid.

[jdonn]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Maybe we shouldn't be playing standard jacoby then, one of the worst follow-ups to a reasonable convention I know...

I considered that but I don't really see what would help. You could play all the better rebids and further asks you want and find out partner is a balanced minimum, and even tell him you have short hearts, and it wouldn't help.

 

JTxxx Axx xxx Kx is a slam on pretty much a finesse.

AJTxx xxxx Kx xx could well make slam.

 

And so on. It's not a matter of Jacoby being bad though it may well be. It's a matter of realizing what this hand is worth.

 

Personally I think Jacoby gets a bad rap. Yes you can improve on the rebids, but it gives useful information very quickly and is easy to play. I think a lot of what people don't like stems from a combination of bidding it on the wrong hands, and following up terribly after opener's rebid.

[cherdano]

About KQxx x AQx Axxxx: I think with a sensible J2NT structure this hand is indeed possible to show. It starts 1S-2N-3C=minimum. Now if you can show heart shortness you will always get to slam when partner has 3 out of ♠A, ♥A, ♦K and ♣K because he will realize that that's a great minimum, opposite a hand that is too good for a splinter and strongly interested in slam opposite a minimum. I will gladly pay out to the perfect constructions where slam makes with only two of these cards, especially as I don't see how you can show the value of this hand below 4♠ AND tell partner that you prefer ♦K over ♥K if you start with 2♣.

[Guest Jlall]

About KQxx x AQx Axxxx: I think with a sensible J2NT structure this hand is indeed possible to show. It starts 1S-2N-3C=minimum. Now if you can show heart shortness you will always get to slam when partner has 3 out of ♠A, ♥A, ♦K and ♣K because he will realize that that's a great minimum, opposite a hand that is too good for a splinter and strongly interested in slam opposite a minimum. I will gladly pay out to the perfect constructions where slam makes with only two of these cards, especially as I don't see how you can show the value of this hand below 4♠ AND tell partner that you prefer ♦K over ♥K if you start with 2♣.

I think jdonn and i even play a structure like this :P

[ArcLight]

This is a side issue, but is the "traditional" J2NT response structure really THAT bad?

 

I've seen 2 versions, by Marty Bergens and Chip Martel.

Are they MUCH better in practice than "traditional" or just a little better?

 

 

 

(also please don't get side tracked by the splinter suggestion, I'd like to focus on the main issue 2/1 vs J2NT)

[cherdano]

This is a side issue, but is the "traditional" J2NT response structure really THAT bad?

 

I've seen 2 versions, by Marty Bergens and Chip Martel.

Are they MUCH better in practice than "traditional" or just a little better?

Here are some of the bad things about standard Jacoby:

• The jump to 4M on all minimal balanced hands.
  
• Shortness showing bids say nothing about strength.
  
• No way to show shape when you don't have a singleton.
  
• Responder's bids are not defined, nor any follow-ups.
  

I think the first one is really bad, the others wouldn't be so bad if you add agreements about follow-ups.

 

Are they MUCH better in practice than traditional? Well, it depends on what you want, Jacoby 2N is unlikely to come up in any single session, so choosing a better structure won't make much of a difference; I don't think it is as important as knowing what you do after an inverted minor raise. But when it does come up, I would think e.g. Martel's version is substantially better.

[whereagles]

This is a side issue, but is the "traditional" J2NT response structure really THAT bad?

 

I've seen 2 versions, by Marty Bergens and Chip Martel.

Are they MUCH better in practice than "traditional" or just a little better?

Classic J2NT: horrible follow-ups

 

Bergen J2NT: not much better

 

Martel J2NT: the only version that makes sense but it doesn't come up too often :)

 

Other J2NT variants that I've seen: good for nothing but a headache and arguings in the post mortem.

[ArcLight]

>Martel J2NT: the only version that makes sense but it doesn't come up too often

 

Then by definition, not a really worthwhile convention. :)

 

HOWEVER!

I don't think thats true. The Martel structure comes into play every time the J2NT is bid, hence its frequency is 100% of J2NT hands. Hence its probably a good but complex convention.

 

How often does a J2NT come up. Is it once every 20 hands your side declares? 15? 25? 50? That still seems frequent enough for a slam oriented convention to be considered.

 

What I'm curious about is if you took 100 J2NT sequences and compared the final contracts using Traditional and Martel J2NT, how much better is Martel. Do you make 10 extra slams? Avoid going down in 5 slams? Give away information to the defense?

 

I'm not even sure how one would test this, other than by eyeballing some hands.

Would 100 hands be sufficient to give a reasonable idea?

[inquiry]

When I hold a game-force hand with four card support and a five card side suit, I will "always" bid my five card suit unless

• What I really wanted to do was bid 4NT (which I play as natural). In this case, I will bid 2NT (jacoby) followed by 4NT whihc is NOW blackwood
  
• If my five card suit is something like xxxxx or Jxxxx--which I treat as four card sutis anywa, in which case I bid jacoby and would love to hear partner say he is short in this suit.
  

[mike777]

When I hold a game-force hand with four card support and a five card side suit, I will "always" bid my five card suit unless

• What I really wanted to do was bid 4NT (which I play as natural). In this case, I will bid 2NT (jacoby) followed by 4NT whihc is NOW blackwood
  
• If my five card suit is something like xxxxx or Jxxxx--which I treat as four card sutis anywa, in which case I bid jacoby and would love to hear partner say he is short in this suit.
  

Really, wow, interesting. I guess I fail to see the big, at the table problem, with almost never bidding the 5 card suit. I will need to keep this in mind and see what my at the table results are in the future.

[BillHiggin]

IMHO

If you are using Serious or Frivolous 3N, there is a simple patch to Jac2N that takes care of its ugliest drawback (the jump to 4M). It may not make things perfect, but simplicity is not always bad.

 

Simple fix: let 3M show either minimum or maximum (say 12-14 / 18-19) balanced hands (use 3N for 15-17). This can be sorted out via Serious/Frivolous 3N. You can either define some picture meaning for 4M based on your choice of 3N, or just not include that possibility.

 

My real choice would be some version of Swedish Jacoby 2N (I believe Martel is one such), but this is easier to explain to a partner that likely is not all that interested in learning yet anther convention.

[Al_U_Card]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Ok for the splinter objection but Jacoby would be my choice because

 

1-I get to see his shortness

 

2- with no 2nd round control issues, I want to ask for keycards

 

3- with 5 losers for S, the five level is still safe. (5+8=13, so 11 tricks)

[jdonn]

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Ok for the splinter objection but Jacoby would be my choice because

 

1-I get to see his shortness

 

2- with no 2nd round control issues, I want to ask for keycards

 

3- with 5 losers for S, the five level is still safe. (5+8=13, so 11 tricks)

The 5 level is not remotely safe. Give partners tons of hands with 3 clubs.

 

AJTxx AKx xx xxx

 

AJTxxx KQJ x Jxx

 

AJTxx KQx xx Qxx

 

And so on.

[whereagles]

1. How often does a J2NT come up.  Is it once every 20 hands your side declares? 15? 25? 50?  That still seems frequent enough for a slam oriented convention to be considered.

 

2. What I'm curious about is if you took 100 J2NT sequences and compared the final contracts using Traditional and Martel J2NT, how much better is Martel.  Do you make 10 extra slams?  Avoid going down in 5 slams?  Give away information to the defense?

 

3. I'm not even sure how one would test this, other than by eyeballing some hands. Would 100 hands be sufficient to give a reasonable idea?

1. I'd say something like 1 out of 100 hands have a J2NT sequence. Maybe less. It just doesn't seem to pop-up that often. Unless you start bidding it with unsuitable hands, that is...

 

2. Martel is far better. If something, at least it WORKS. But be warned that you'll need some practice before playing it decently. But hey, normal J2NT sucks so bad I wouldn't use it even if had it agreed!

 

3. 100 hands should be ok to get a picture, but you'll have to bid those unbiasedly and with a live pard. Looking at both hands conditions your reasoning.

[pclayton]

If I'm playing a sensible forcing raise structure (NOT Jacoby), and treatments like frivolous 3N, I don't mind a Jacoby raise with KQxx, x, AQx, Axxxx because:

 

1. 2♣ isn't going to get me any useful information, and the 5th club probably won't come into play anyway. Give me ♦Axx, and it will. I also don't think 2♣ is all that useful for pard either.

 

2. I might find out about pard's stiff club, which is very good news. I might find out if pard has 5-5, which is also very useful.

 

3. We can immediately set trump and embark on cuebidding.

 

4. The club suit stays concealed from the opponents, which may help us on the opening lead.

 

I don't like "rules" like "never make a forcing raise with an outside 5 card suit". It all depends on the context of the entire hand.

[mikeh]

While I agree that simple J2NT has problems, they can be ameliorated by agreement, to the point that J2NT can be a very powerful approach: I know of at least two significant improvement methods, and the one I use is not too complex. I will outline it at the end of the post.

 

OTOH, splinters, if used indiscriminately, have all kinds of problems.

 

In my partnerships, we agree that a splinter is a severely limited hand.

 

In some partnerships, we use a jump to 3 of the other major as an unspecified splinter, with opener bidding the next step to ask.. this allows opener with a flat minimum to sign off without revealing to the opps where responder's shortness lies.. .this is safe because responder will not have a slam-suitable hand opposite a balanced minimum.

 

I certainly feel that KQxx x AQx Axxxx is a ridiculous splinter.

 

Splinters into the suit below game often end-play opener, who has to make a go-no go decision, at least as far as the 5-level is concerned, with very little relevant information. If you'd splinter with this hand, would you also splinter with QJxx x KJx AJxxx?

 

If the answer is 'yes', just how do you expect partner to make an intelligent decision? Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is that we catch opener with an in-between hand: one on which he wants to co-operate in case you have the big splinter but on which he can't bid if you have the lighter hand. So he tanks, and the partnership is doomed to a director call if it pushes successfully to slam.

 

Splinters that leave room for a last train bid can be played as wider range, altho even that concept is problematic.

 

In one partnership, we define splinters as no more than a really minimum opening bid (he splintered last week with Qxx AQxx QJxxx x.. which I personally thought and think was too weak, due to the lack of even one outside control). In others, it is either a minimum opener or so strong that it will always bid over a sign-off.

 

Going back to the 2/1 or immediate raise issue, I agree with Justin's early post.

 

 

My current J2N structure is:

 

3♣ a non-minimum (need not be strong, just not a drop dead minimum) with a stiff somewhere or any 18+

 

    : 3♦ asks for stiff, with step responses

 

3♦ some 5422 hand: 3♥ asks for the side suit, step responses: we do not show weak suits: the idea is that the good 4=4 side fit sometimes plays a trick better than the 5-4 major

 

3Other Major: a void somewhere: next step asks

 

3Original Major: a minimum with a stiff somewhere. Responder needs a BIG hand to ask via the next step

 

3N: moderate hand, usually 6322 or 5332

 

4 new suit: KJ9xx or better, source of tricks, side suit more useful than showing shortness

 

 

This seems to work better than old-fashioed J2N, altho there are better methods I have not bothered to learn yet :D