Continuations after 1M-2NT GF

[DWM]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sj543ha93dkj93ca8&s=sakq72hk52dacq954]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

We have decided to play 1M - 2NT as GF for now, and have the following agreements.

 

1M - 2NT

 

3M = 17+

3NT = 15-16

4M = 12-14

new suit at 3 level = shortage

new suit at 4 level = 5-5

 

With these agreements and hands above should we be in slam?

 

More generally, when we have agreements such as above when does it become more important to show shape rather than strength?

 

When we show shortage or 5-5 should we have more than a min?

[BillHiggin]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sj543ha93dkj93ca8&s=sakq72hk52dacq954]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

The South hand is strong enough to insist on slam opposite a game forcing raise unless there are two quick losers (either North has no club honor or more unlikely, no aces).

 

To determine that takes some experience or good hand evaluation. Losing Trick Count certainly works with this hand (South has a 4 loser hand, and that should suggest that a grand slam is possible opposite a forcing raise). Not everyone loves LTC, but other hand evaluation techniques should give the same answer.

 

Slams depend on a combination of strength, fit and controls. Bidding slams accurately requires evaluation and communication.

Strength - If we classify strength by approximately King size steps, we can say that opener and responder (having made a game forcing raise) each might have minimum, extra strength or maximum hands. Minimum opposite minimum are worth 10 tricks (i.e. game). If either player has a maximum, then 12 tricks are likely (assuming the opponents do not take 2 first). If both have extra strength, then that also should be worth 12 tricks. Of course, I chose fuzzy words deliberately - there are no hard boundaries. You might want to consider examining "Serious 3N" as a way to communicate extra strength to partner (but that is a rather advanced convention).

 

Fit - In addition to a trump fit, how well placed the other cards are has a great deal to do with your trick taking ability. Take the North hand and change the ♣A into a small card and change small red cards into queens - the strength remains fairly constant, but now there is too much diamond strength opposite the shortness and slam does not work. But exchange the ♦K with the small ♣ and 13 tricks are virtually certain (little wasted strength opposite the shortness).

 

Controls - RKC and cue bids will answer those questions if you have good methods. Again, this gets into advanced techniques. Try studying Fred's articles on improving 2/1 for good ideas.

 

The rebids you have outlined for the 2N forcing raise are the standard Jacoby 2N agreements. You definitely need to know those, but be aware that most experts consider them to be flawed (especially the jump to 4M with a minimum - that is a slam killer).

 

Also, note that singleton ace or king is a difficult holding. The singleton honor is not worth as much as if it were in a long suit (where you have choices about when you play it), and showing the singleton may cause your partner to downgrade honors in that suit when that is not appropriate (the ♦K will seem less valuable to responder if opener shows diamond shortness, but it will actually still be worth a trick). With a singleton king, it is likely to be correct to not show the shortness - a singleton ace requires more judgement.

[kgr]

BillHiggin,

Interesting answer. Only open question that remains:

Is it standard in Jacoby 2NT for opener to show shortage and 5-5 always or only with extra's?

[BillHiggin]

BillHiggin,

Interesting answer. Only open question that remains:

Is it standard in Jacoby 2NT for opener to show shortage and 5-5 always or only with extra's?

Now we are into real judgement issues (standard is in the eye of the beholder).

 

The side suit showing rebids eat up a lot of space, and tend to leave responder facing a "go / no go" decision immediately. This creates problems if we ask opener to always show such a side suit without regard to strength. In my opinion (note that is quite a different thing than "standard") one should restrict the side suit show to hands with near minimum strength that is concentrated in the two suits. Warning - i repeat - that is my personal opinion and is not to be considered any sort of standard. The issue is less when your major is spades and the second suit is clubs (there are two cue bids available to responder, zero or one cue bid is not enough to constitute a "discussion" between partners). Other two-suited hands do have the option of showing the shortness instead of the side suit.

 

I really think that once you get ready to fine tune Jacoby 2N agreements in your partnership that you will do better to start examining some of the alternative rebid strategies (but that discussion does not belong in "Beginner and Intermediate".

 

I have a tendancy to spend time "inventing" treatments that attempt to cover weaknesses in the standard treatments. In this case, I have a fairly large collection of Jacoby 2N alternatives that nobody uses. I will sell them cheaply ;)

[DWM]

With the 4M bid being a slam killer I take it with a min you should make a shape showing bid wherever possible. With a 17+ point hand bid 3M almost regardless of shape as we are 90% slam after that bid. With a good 14 to a bad 17 ????

 

AJxxx

AJxx

x

AJx

 

KQJxx

AKQx

x

xxx

 

I am not sure if the two hands above make the point I am trying to make or not. Both hands have 15 points 5-4-1-3 shape, but one has 7 losers and the other has 5. After 1S - 2NT should they both bid 3D or 3NT(15-16) or one each way.

[whereagles]

DWM: classic J2NT structure is very incorrectly built. Check this out for a better one:

 

http://www.reginabridge.com/conventions/j2nmar.txt

[skjaeran]

Here's how we bid after 1M-2NT GF raise:

3♣ = any minimum (up to bad 14)

3♦ = 14+, some singleton

3♥ = 15-17"NT" (5422/6322)

3♠ = 14-16, some void => 3NT = relay => 4♣=♣, 4♦=♦, 4M=OM

3NT = 18-19NT

4m = 17+, void

4M = 17+, void in OM

 

After 3♣, 3♦ is a relay:

3♥ = 11-12 BAL

3♠ = some singleton => 3NT = relay => 4♣=♣, 4♦=♦, 4M=OM

3NT = 13-14 BAL

4m = void

4M = void OM

 

After 3♦, 3♥ is a relay:

3♠ = singleton ♣

3NT = singleton ♦

4m = lowest cue, singleton OM

4M = singleton OM, no sidesuit control

 

After 3♥, 3♠ is a relay:

3NT = 6322 => 4♣ relay => 4♦=3♣, 4♥=3♦, 4♠=3OM

4♣ = 2524

4♦ = 2542

4M = (54)22

[BillHiggin]

With the 4M bid being a slam killer I take it with a min you should make a shape showing bid wherever possible. With a 17+ point hand bid 3M almost regardless of shape as we are 90% slam after that bid. With a good 14 to a bad 17 ????

3C or 3D leave lots of room to sort out strength and control issues. 3 of other major is not too cramped. So I suggest showing singletons near automatically (exceptions: when the hand is better described by showing the second suit OR when the singleton is an ace or king and the strength is appropriate for 3M or 3N).

 

If your agreement is that 4M shows a hand with no shortness and 12-14 HCP, then you are pretty much required to make that bid when appropriate (but as your partnership moves more towards advanced, consider alternatives to that agreement).

 

How to show the strength is another issue. I think that Serious 3N is a concept that can be understood by at intermediate players (Last Train is tough for many advanced players).

 

With both of the example hands, I would bid 3D. The first one is much better than a 7 loser hand (upgrade LTC for aces not balanced by queens, and the jacks in the long suits are worth something - I would consider it a good 6 loser hand - I always try to be extra aggressive with 3 ace hands since partner will be unenthusiastic about his lack of aces).

 

Note that cue bidding style definitely enters into these auctions and I am trying to not overly push my own preferences. Have some agreement, even if it is not the "best possible" - that is always better than disagreement or no agreement.