1M - 2NT

[DWM]

Again playing a fairly basic 2/1 system which treatment of a 2NT bid over a 1 of a major opener would you recommend and why?

 

Choices are

 

Shows a raise to 3+ with 4 card support and 10+ points (just as after 1M (X) 2NT)

 

Shows a good opening hand with 4 card support and GF

[Quantumcat]

I don't know if this is normal but my partners and I play it as any game forcing hand that couldn't make a jump shift. Signing off in 4 by opener is a minimum hand while saying 3 of the major is a little bit extra values (say 15 and a balancedish hand, leaving it to responder to continue), or he can cuebid or use RKCB if that's appropriate.

 

If responder is game forcing but has a decent self-sufficient side suit he'll jump shift in that, then opener signs off in game if he is minimum balanced or in the jump shifted suit if his is pretty crappy and he has support for it and minimum balanced, or he can raise one level of either to say something similar to in the first paragraph.

 

A single jump shift after a minor is a splinter (e.g. 1C - 2H) since you're unlikely to have room for good support for the minor as well as your own self sufficient suit, and 2NT is 10-12 bal and 3NT is 13-15 bal.

 

This is just what my partners and I have agreed to play, I don't know if it's standard or not! It's come in useful in many hands though, feel free to adopt it :-)

[inquiry]

I prefer limit raise plus. You cna then still keep 1M=3M as four card "preemptive raise" without bungling up your methods with something awful like Bergen raises. Playing it as limit plus, you really, really need some response that allows opener to reject game try versus limit raise, I use 3C, but whatever the reject bid is you need one. Glen Ashton has a nice structure on his www.bridgematters.com website, and there are others out there as well.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy argues that using the Jacoby 2NT when you have only minimum GF values makes the wrong player captain. So he suggests you should only bid 2NT when you have a good 15+ HCP, and thus at least some slam interest. He suggests Trump Swiss for the balanced minimum hands.

 

OTOH, Romex using the "limit raise or better" approach, and Rosenkranz is no dummy. OTGH, perhaps that works better with limited opening bids (1X in Romex is limited to about 18 points).

[whereagles]

Max Hardy argues that using the Jacoby 2NT when you have only minimum GF values makes the wrong player captain. So he suggests you should only bid 2NT when you have a good 15+ HCP, and thus at least some slam interest. He suggests Trump Swiss for the balanced minimum hands.

Max has a point, but his suggested structure would

 

1. Make 2NT extremely rare

2. Swiss raises eat up a lot or bidding space

3. It's not completely true that responder should be capitain

 

Finally, there's a lot to be said for bidding a plain 2/1 when you have a GF hand with support.

[pclayton]

Learn Jacoby 2N first. Its a useful convention and will help you out develop your hand evaluation skills. In a few years, switch to another version.

 

In your development, you simply shouldn't be getting bogged down in details and the nuances between Jacoby and the other versions.

[EricK]

I like to play it as a raise to 3 or 5+ i.e invitational or more than just a GF. The raises to precisely game being done via splinters for unbalanced hands and 3NT for balanced hands.

 

Basically it's a hybrid of the methods mentioned by inquiry and blackshoe. And the reasons for playing it are a hybrid of the reasons they mention!

[whereagles]

Learn Jacoby 2N first. Its a useful convention and will help you out develop your hand evaluation skills. In a few years, switch to another version.

 

In your development, you simply shouldn't be getting bogged down in details and the nuances between Jacoby and the other versions.

Sorry. How do you expect to learn anything from a convention that is both broken and wrong?

 

The world would bid much better if no one had ever invented those silly follow-ups. Heck, even the concept of 2NT as a raise is silly if follow-ups aren't right.

[pclayton]

Learn Jacoby 2N first. Its a useful convention and will help you out develop your hand evaluation skills. In a few years, switch to another version.

 

In your development, you simply shouldn't be getting bogged down in details and the nuances between Jacoby and the other versions.

Sorry. How do you expect to learn anything from a convention that is both broken and wrong?

 

The world would bid much better if no one had ever invented those silly follow-ups. Heck, even the concept of 2NT as a raise is silly if follow-ups aren't right.

Its not that bad. A lot of very good pairs still play it.

 

Jacoby 2N is nearly as universal as jacoby transfers, negative doubles and forcing NT with run-of-the-mill intermediate and advanced 5 card majors players.

 

I strongly believe developing players should learn a basic system (even if flawed) as they develop more important skills.

 

Any time spent learning the Swedish or Bergen system is wasted IMO for a B/I.

[kenrexford]

Uncontested, Jacoby (GF) seems better than 10+, IMO. Add in interference, and things change.

[goobers]

I agree, just learn Jacoby 2NT for now. So-and-so's esoteric form of 2/1 is a better system than SAYC, but that is not to say that SAYC is worthless to learn. If you sit down with a random pickup, let alone a B/I, you are going to play SAYC, not someone else's superior bidding system.

 

Jacoby 2NT is so widely played that you may as well learn it.

[barmar]

Whether or not the convention is "broken and wrong", chances are that many of the players you partner with will want to play it if it's part of the standard system in your area. It's a good idea to be fluent in the standard conventions so you can pick up partners easily.

 

In your regular partnerships, though, you can customize to your heart's content (consistent with local convention regulations).

[whereagles]

I strongly believe developing players should learn a basic system (even if flawed) as they develop more important skills.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I cannot believe it's right to teach wrong stuff just because it's simple. Sorry :)

[Quantumcat]

No one says that running isn't faster than walking, but: You have to learn to walk before you can run. If you learn to run first without ever learning walking, what do you do in a 3-legged race with someone who can only walk? You fall over ... and a pair who both only know how to walk will beat you :-)

[whereagles]

I'm not saying you should learn a complicated, but correct, J2NT variant as a beginner. I'm saying you should learn 1M-2NT as NATURAL :P

 

Later, at some stage, you move on to a correct J2NT variant.

[blackshoe]

I think modern theory holds that over 1M, at least playing a 2/1 variant, jump shifts, double jump shifts, and either 2NT or 3NT, or both, are best used to show some kind of raise, and (forcing) 1NT can have some raises included as well. Direct jump raises (3 or 4 level) should be weak. But explaining all that to the beginner who's just had it drilled into his head that jump raises are invitational and jumps in new suits or NT are natural is not easy. Maybe they could follow the logic of modern bidding theory if it was explained to them from the git-go, but bridge teachers don't do that - they seem to think it's hard enough to tell 'em "this bid means thus and so, and this other one means such and such. Memorize this," without getting into why those bids should have those meanings. I would think even beginners are more capable than that, but what do I know? As the Martian said, "I am only an egg." :P

[DWM]

Rather than focusing on a general pick up partner and focusing more on a regular partnership, albeit B/I. I would have thought it was less memory strain to treat 1M - 2NT as 10+ card support with or without interference.

 

So far looking into this I can see the main difference between 3+ and GF is the repeat of the major at the 3 level bid. In one situation its slam interest and the other its min. I am just not sure if I am missing a trick here or not. That is with the condition that we are both B/I and have a lot of areas to improve on before we look at adding lots of memory straining complex artificial bids into our system.

[glen]

Rather than focusing on a general pick up partner and focusing more on a regular partnership, albeit B/I.  I would have thought it was less memory strain to treat 1M - 2NT as 10+ card support with or without interference.

The frequency of 10 card support for partner's 5 card major opening is very low, even in B/I bridge. However I agree with the intention, and wish that Jacoby 2NT would stop being taught, or included in SAYC.

 

We need a simple scheme like:

2NT: Limit Raise in major

3NT: Game raise in the major, no singleton/void, not lots of extras

Double jump suit bids: Splinters, not lots of extras

3M: Weak raise, 4 or longer in partner's major

4M: To play, 5 or longer in partner's major, has a trick (or two) somewhere

2/1: Handles raises with extras -> learn how to bid out hands to explore for slam

 

Easy to learn, easy to play, develops bridge skills.

[goobers]

Rather than focusing on a general pick up partner and focusing more on a regular partnership, albeit B/I.  I would have thought it was less memory strain to treat 1M - 2NT as 10+ card support with or without interference.

The frequency of 10 card support for partner's 5 card major opening is very low, even in B/I bridge. However I agree with the intention, and wish that Jacoby 2NT would stop being taught, or included in SAYC.

 

We need a simple scheme like:

2NT: Limit Raise in major

3NT: Game raise in the major, no singleton/void, not lots of extras

Double jump suit bids: Splinters, not lots of extras

3M: Weak raise, 4 or longer in partner's major

4M: To play, 5 or longer in partner's major, has a trick (or two) somewhere

2/1: Handles raises with extras -> learn how to bid out hands to explore for slam

 

Easy to learn, easy to play, develops bridge skills.

2NT: natural, balanced!

 

Otherwise, this is actually what I play (well, 3M is still a limit raise). I don't know what the next step forward is, but I don't care too much, at the moment this suits me fine.