2/1 vs J2NT response

[zasanya]

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♣.

Responder can bid 2♣ then 3♦ and finally 4♠?Shows his values and shape and lets opener decide?Isnt J2NT primarily meant for balanced game force with 4 card trump support?So that GF without J2NT denies that hand pattern and wouldnt that be important info for opener?

IMO The fact that the dog did not bark is as important as the fact that the dog did bark.

[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♣.

Responder can bid 2♣ then 3♦ and finally 4♠?Shows his values and shape and lets opener decide?Isnt J2NT primarily meant for balanced game force with 4 card trump support?So that GF without J2NT denies that hand pattern and wouldnt that be important info for opener?

IMO The fact that the dog did not bark is as important as the fact that the dog did bark.

This sequence doesn't show the 4th trump, nor does it show that much in strength I think.

 

What kind of hands Jacoby 2N is meant for depends a lot on your Jacoby 2N structure. If you reserve Jacoby 2N only for balanced hands, you have problems with hands too strong to splinter, with shapely hands that don't want to bid a bad suit, etc.

[whereagles]

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 doubt that. It's necessary to put the strong hand, i.e. opener, in charge. Most schemes, including yours, fail to do this and that's why, IMO, they are broken. Those schemes will only work well if opener is limited. However, if opener is unlimited, only Martel works ok (it's not ideal, though, but works).

 

I happen to have a pet scheme of my own, devised at dealing with the issue properly, but it's still under construction..

[jdonn]

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 doubt that. It's necessary to put the strong hand, i.e. opener, in charge. Most schemes, including yours, fail to do this and that's why, IMO, they are broken. Those schemes will only work well if opener is limited. However, if opener is unlimited, only Martel works ok (it's not ideal, though, but works).

 

I happen to have a pet scheme of my own, devised at dealing with the issue properly, but it's still under construction..

Why is opener the strong hand? Both players are unlimited, and both players have essentially the same minimum. If anything, opener is more limited than responder.

[whereagles]

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape + hcp combined)

[jdonn]

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape+ hcp )

Uh, no lol. I do not know why you think that is true after responder forces to game.

 

Opener's approximate range = 12-21

Responder's approximate range = 12- infinity and beyond

 

This incorporates shape, hcp, playing strength, everything. What do you mean "statistically", do you have some statistics?

[hrothgar]

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape + hcp combined)

Even if this were true, I suspect that the difference in strength between an opening hand and a gaming forcing major suit raise is marginal at best.

 

In the mean time, you're ignoring a much more important consideration: On average, a hand that makes a Jacoby 2NT type raise is going to be quite a bit more flat than your average opening hand. A hand that choses a J2NT has denied a number of different unbalanced hands types through the failure to make a Splinter, a 2/1, a Strong Jump Shift, what have you. In contrast, the opening hand has (typically) denied a number of balanced hand types (1NT openings, 2NT openings, etc)

 

In my experience, its a hell of a lot better for a balanced hand to ask rather than show. The balanced hand is much better positioned to appreciate whether honors complement partner's suits or are waste opposite partner's shortness.

[whereagles]

1. On average, a hand that makes a Jacoby 2NT type raise is going to be quite a bit more flat than your average opening hand.  A hand that choses a J2NT has denied a number of different unbalanced hands types through the failure to make a Splinter, a 2/1, a Strong Jump Shift, what have you.  In contrast, the opening hand has (typically) denied a number of balanced hand types (1NT openings, 2NT openings, etc)

 

2. In my experience, its a hell of a lot better for a balanced hand to ask rather than show.  The balanced hand is much better positioned to appreciate whether honors complement partner's suits or are waste opposite partner's shortness.

1. That's what I meant. Resp usually has a balanced hand, while opener is quite unlimited with respect to shape. Even more if you don't open NT on 5M332 hands.

 

2. It is true that it's better for the balanced hand to ask, but this is where the one important consideration that changes everything enter: an unbalanced hand requires way less hcps to be strong (in terms of playing strength) than a balanced.

 

In other words, because opener has a quite undefined shape and just about the same hcp strength as responder, it is OPENER who should be in charge because odds are he's the one with better playing strength.

 

These considerations aren't peanuts... J2NT consumes a lot of bidding space and there's still a lot of talking to do before deciding what level to play. (Some variants, like Martel's, even leave the question of trumps open: they have ways to fetch the 44 side fit and play a slam there, using the major fit for discards.)

 

All in all I argue for J2NT to be truncated as to hcp and shape (say a flattish 11-14) and control to be given to opener afterwards. Stronger hands should be bid via a usual 2/1 because that uses up less space precisely when that's more important.

[whereagles]

What do you mean "statistically", do you have some statistics?

No, but see post above. Maybe that cleared it up.

[mike777]

1) if you think....opener will have a stronger hand 50%...or 45% ok...

2) In my style I expect responder to have the better hand....60+

 

I think this bias...effects bidding a bunch.

 

As usual opening bid style really affects your follow up bidding.....greatly.

[rbforster]

At some point after I learned the old school jump shifts (17+ good suit) and before I learned Bergen, I played* Soloway jump shifts over 1M to promising one of 3 hand types -

• 4+ support and a good side suit (the suit bid). A minimum GF is enough strength.
  
• the old school jump shift, very strong single suiter
  
• slam invitational balanced hand, without a fit (wishes 4N were quantitative)
  

All of the hands given by Arclight fall into the first category, and I would happily make a 3♦ bid with them. This will focus partner's hand evaluation on his fit for your good suit, which at worst should be something like KQJxx and more typically is AQJxx or AKxxx. I even had a partner make a jump with only AKJT and 5 trumps, allowed but definitely unusual.

 

After the jump shift, opener will usually bid the next step to inquire which hand type. 3NT shows the balanced slam try, rebidding your suit shows the strong single suiter, and the remaining bids show 4+ trump support hands, where new suits show shortness and returning to opener's major denies shortness. For example:

 

1♠-3♦ - 3♥ (relay) -

 

  3♠ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, no shortness, extras

  3N - balanced slam try, ~16-18

  4♣ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, ♣ shortness

  4♦ - very good ♦s, single suited, ~17+

  4♥ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, ♥ shortness

  4♠ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, no shortness, minimum GF

 

At this point, you've very precisely described your hand to partner, who can cue bid, Blackwood, or sign off as appropriate.

 

 

* I actually still play these together with Bergen, using 1♥-2♠ to show a Soloway jump shift in an undisclosed suit. The first relay asks which suit, and then the second shows shortness, etc, as above (it's a little complicated). Over 1♠-2N is the "compressed jump shift bid", and we move up J2NT and the Bergen bids up one step.

[counttrick]

I'm not sure my answer will help you that much because it is based on a convention that is not widely used called Compressed Bergen. Without boring you to tears, we respond 2NT to a major suit opening with 4+card support regardless of strength (the 9 card fit should make us "Law Protected"). The exception is splinters, but those now occur one level lower (1S - 3C, etc.). As a result, 4 level jumps are now available for new meanings, and the one I like (and it helps your dilemma) is fit-showing jumps. In your sample hand that held AKJT9 of diamonds, I would jump to 4D, promising 4+ card spade support, game values, and tricks in diamonds. I hasten to point out that the suit needs to be quite good in order to make such a bid. I would not bid 4D, for example, with AKxxx. A suit as good as AKT9xx is probably good enough, but I might be more comfortable if my spade support were better than xxxx or Jxxx. If you want more info on Compressed Bergen, you can ask for the complete file by e-mailing me at dgolds1946@aol.com.

 

Dennis Goldston

[ArcLight]

Dennis,

If you use Invitational Jump Shifts, you can't use the Splinters like you described (at the 3 level).

How would you show them in your system?

These are NOT fit showing jumps, they are independent suits, not strong enough to make a 2/1.

[whereagles]

Compressed bergen is indeed preferable to J2NT.

[counttrick]

"If you use Invitational Jump Shifts, you can't use the Splinters like you described (at the 3 level).

How would you show them in your system?

These are NOT fit showing jumps, they are independent suits, not strong enough to make a 2/1. "

 

You are correct that I cannot use both. Sadly, life is always about choices. I'll just have to live without Invitational Jump Shifts.

[whereagles]

IJS suck anyway :)

 

SJS (splinter jump shifts), starting with invitational strength and up to infinity, are preferable and strategically correct because they folow the "shape first, hcp later" principle of bidding priorities.

[jdonn]

IJS suck anyway :blink:

 

SJS (splinter jump shifts), starting with invitational strength and up to infinity, are preferable and strategically correct because they folow the "shape first, hcp later" principle of bidding priorities.

Lol

 

unlike IJS, which show shape AND hcp at once?

[whereagles]

Yes, unlike IJS because an IJS hand still has a lot to say, like extra length, degree of fit for opener's major, side singletons, location of high cards, etc. All this remains to be said while squandering bidding space.

 

An SpJS sets fit for good and shows shape. All that remains to be said is hcp strength, which is like a step or two more. A much more precise bid.

[jdonn]

Yes, clearly a bid that is like 10-20 and shows partner 5 cards in your hand (4 card support and a singleton) is more precise than a bid that is like 10-11 and shows partner 6 cards in your hand.

 

It sounds from your comments about it like you have no idea how to play an invitational jump shift response.

[whereagles]

And it sounds from your comments that you don't know that jumping around without fit is a rather risky business, but ok. There's a world of a difference between jumping with a good fit and squandering bidding space on potential misfits.

[jdonn]

So weak, invitational, and strong jump shifts are all bad because they all don't show a fit? It's dumb to play any jump as natural, they all have to promise a fit, got it.

 

Anyway I thought the objection was they aren't precise enough, now it's that they are too risky? :P Why the change? Or is it just that you are making assumptions and generalizations about a convention you have never played. But maybe I'm wrong and you have played it, in which case I'm sure you'll tell us about a few of those times it came up and worked disasterously.

[whereagles]

I played IJS for like 3 years and hated it. It annoyed me because I seemed to always have another way to bid the hand that was preferrable. Pure IJS hands, where making the bid was both correct and safe, were very rare. Somehow there was always a flaw. Either the suit was broken or that void in opener's suit didn't look good or there was a 4-card side suit or the IJS didn't honor the hand's extra shape or what not.

 

In a nutshell, either the hand is very pure, say,

 

x

KQJxxx

Axx

xxx

 

or it's preferable to bid the hand in some other way.

 

As for jump shifts that don't show a fit being bad bids, yeah that's a bit how I feel. If you want to bid a hand that's a possible misfit by jumping around, you gotta be pretty sure that's the right way to bid it. I.e. the bid must be very pure, very precise and relatively safe. Kinda like the hand above (for IJS purpose, that is).

 

On the other hand, jump shifts with fitted hands are quite ok. They show a good fit, so they're safe. The hand type is also usually well-defined, so that leaves opener in charge (which I think it's correct when he's unlimited). I seem to see everything right with them and little wrong...

[jdonn]

I played IJS for like 3 years and hated it. It annoyed me because I seemed to always have another way to bid the hand that was preferrable. Pure IJS hands, where making the bid was both correct and safe, were very rare. Somehow there was always a flaw. Either the suit was broken or that void in opener's suit didn't look good or there was a 4-card side suit or the IJS didn't honor the hand's extra shape or what not.

 

In a nutshell, either the hand is very pure, say,

 

x

KQJxxx

Axx

xxx

 

or it's preferable to bid the hand in some other way.

 

As for jump shifts that don't show a fit being bad bids, yeah that's a bit how I feel. If you want to bid a hand that's a possible misfit by jumping around, you gotta be pretty sure that's the right way to bid it. I.e. the bid must be very pure, very precise and relatively safe. Kinda like the hand above (for IJS purpose, that is).

 

On the other hand, jump shifts with fitted hands are quite ok. They show a good fit, so they're safe. The hand type is also usually well-defined, so that leaves opener in charge (which I think it's correct when he's unlimited). I seem to see everything right with them and little wrong...

I'll give you credit, that is your best post that I can remember. You are much better off when you try logic and bridge arguments than pointless incorrect generalizations :P Even though you did change your mind another time, from not precise enough, to too risky, to now too infrequent.

 

Anyway, have a nice day.

[whereagles]

doh! those generalizations are just the outcome of lengthy reasonings like the above.. lol

 

cheers :P