assess the blame to the closes 10%

[kenrexford]

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void).

I agree that this would be a problem, and I am sure that there are many partnerships that have this problem. Are you saying that playing Jacoby 2NT compels you to play such inadequate methods on the next round of the auction? And if so, why?

No. Not at all. In fact, I myself play a rather complicated set of agreements for Jacoby 2NT sequences. But, the fact remains that J2NT preempts the partnership substantially, in that it takes away room to start up general parameters needed for effective late auctions.

 

If I were to compare the cuebidding sequence through 3♦ with my sequence through 3♦ using a better J2NT approach, the results would be worse, actually. If Opener started this way, focusing the stiff club, then 3♣, to gain space, would be a collapse of splinters into one bid, with 3♦ asking. Nothing would be explored yet, other than the fact that there is a stiff somewhere.

 

Technically, that is not correct. By not bidding 3♠ to show a weak splinter, 3♣ would have shown an average+ splinter. Plus, by not bidding at the four-level immediately, Opener has limited his hand type to either very strong or not a side five-card suit with shortness in the lower other suit. So, some parameters are about to be established by some prep work.

 

However, that changes little in the overall analysis. The prep work done below two of the major, and the cues available before you reach Opener's next call after J2NT, are often invaluable and not duplicated in J2NT sequences.

 

J2NT has its place. Its place is not with this hand for Responder, is my point.