Jacoby 2NT

[dickiegera]

Last night in a team game I was playing with someone for the first time.

 

The bidding with no interference went:

1♥ 2NT

4♣ 4♦

5♦ 5♠

7♥

2NT was alerted as 4+ Hearts and 12+ pts.

4 Diamonds, 5 diamonds & 5 Spades were all cuebids

 

The person on opening lead Doubled after asking about the 4♣ bid

I explained that we had never played together before and had not

discussed what 4♣ would be.

Opening lead was the Ace of♣ .Declarer was void ,result was 7♥ doubled

making for 1770. They complained to director that would not have doubled

if they knew that declarer was void in Clubs.

7 Hearts is cold on any lead. Director rolled the score back to

1510 saying that if at the other table they did the same she would

then allow the 1770 score. The other table was in 6 Hearts +1 for 1010.

Comments Thank you

[pran]

Last night in a team game I was playing with someone for the first time.

 

The bidding with no interference went:

1♥ 2NT

4♣ 4♦

5♦ 5♠

7♥

2NT was alerted as 4+ Hearts and 12+ pts.

4 Diamonds, 5 diamonds & 5 Spades were all cuebids

 

The person on opening lead Doubled after asking about the 4♣ bid

I explained that we had never played together before and had not

discussed what 4♣ would be.

Opening lead was the Ace of♣ .Declarer was void ,result was 7♥ doubled

making for 1770. They complained to director that would not have doubled

if they knew that declarer was void in Clubs.

7 Hearts is cold on any lead. Director rolled the score back to

1510 saying that if at the other table they did the same she would

then allow the 1770 score. The other table was in 6 Hearts +1 for 1010.

Comments Thank you

The player on opening lead doubled 7♥ in a teams game? What did he want to gain? I consider this double completely wild.

 

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

 

I don't think that I would have adjusted the table score at all.

[Vampyr]

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

This is standard, although in the UK a lot of people play it the other way round. I'm not sure why; it is not as good.

 

Had you and your partner any partners in common, or play at the same club, etc? Because if you had a reason to think that you and your partner would both assume shortness, then you should explain that fact.

 

Your partner's jump to 7♥ does strongly imply 1st round control though; perhaps this comes under the heading of "general bridge knowledge".

 

And by the way, this "conditional" ruling by the director has absolutely no basis in law. But I guess that is obvious to everyone.

[peachy]

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

Your common sense does not come into play at all, it is a matter of partnership agreement what 4C by opener shows when playing Jacoby 2NT.

 

Common agreements are that 4C shows 5+ card club suit, or that it shows club void; or it could be agreed as something else (but not a singleton) and that is up to partnership agreements. The singleton is showed by 3C, and if this is not the case, then they are not playing Jacoby 2NT.

 

Anyway, back to the OP question. This pair had not agreed what 4C is. This fact was made known to the opening leader so there is no MI or other infraction. No basis for adjustment. And as an aside though not part of any consideration in this case, the Double indeed was wild and gambling - gambling on the fact that the opponents did not have firm agreements.

 

Edit: On second reading, their agreement was maybe not Jacoby 2NT, just that 2NT was 4+ support and 12+ HCP. This makes the case even simpler = they had no agreement what opener's followup calls are.

[1eyedjack]

Result stands (that it to say inccluding the double). Defence only has redress if dummy had any more reason than defence to expect that declarer had a void. As far as I can tell so far there is no evidence to that effect. I agree with others that "common bridge knowledge" is not a factor in the equation.

[Vampyr]

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

This is standard, although in the UK a lot of people play it the other way round. I'm not sure why; it is not as good.

 

Had you and your partner any partners in common, or play at the same club, etc? Because if you had a reason to think that you and your partner would both assume shortness, then you should explain that fact.

 

Your partner's jump to 7♥ does strongly imply 1st round control though; perhaps this comes under the heading of "general bridge knowledge".

 

And by the way, this "conditional" ruling by the director has absolutely no basis in law. But I guess that is obvious to everyone.

Ooops, sorry, what is wrong with my reading today. Originally a four-level bid showed a second suit and I am sure that is still standard. I do not know why I keep misreading questions.

[jdonn]

Why does the director care what the other table did in making his ruling?

 

As an aside, anywhere I have ever been (in the US) it is standard for the 4♣ bid to show a second suit in a 5-5 hand.

[barmar]

So did you actually agree to play Jacoby 2NT, as suggested in the subject, or just that the 2NT response shows a 12+ points and 4+ support?

 

If you've agreed on a convention, and there are standard meanings to the continuations, shouldn't you explain them even if you haven't explicitly discussed them? In this case, if you're playing Jacoby 2NT, the meaning of 4♣ in the US is as Josh said.

 

The leader apparently knew this, and his double was presumably based on expecting declarer to have some clubs. A "correct" explanation wouldn't have changed this, so I don't see how he was damaged by the answer he was given.

 

But opener misbid or psyched, which isn't against any rules. There doesn't seem to be any implication that responder knew that he was showing shortness. Responder just bid normally, cue bidding his controls.

 

The opponent should realize that something funny is going on. Responder never showed a club control, yet opener bid the grand all by himself, missing the ♣A. Did he think opener had lost his mind?

[dickiegera]

We had never played together before. We have both been playing for 20+ yrs. I am a Gold Life Master and he has 1000 pts. He has played very little in the past 15 yrs.

We agreed to Jacoby 2NT but did not discuss follow ups. He played quite a bit in the late 1980's

and I believe that at that time is was common to play 4 Clubs as a void.

Our opponents had 5 or 600 pts each. We were both subs in a Team game

[aguahombre]

A "correct" explanation wouldn't have changed this, so I don't see how he was damaged by the answer he was given.

 

But opener misbid or psyched, which isn't against any rules.  There doesn't seem to be any implication that responder knew that he was showing shortness.  Responder just bid normally, cue bidding his controls.

 

The opponent should realize that something funny is going on.  Responder never showed a club control, yet opener bid the grand all by himself, missing the ♣A.  Did he think opener had lost his mind?

Yep. (Oops, I mean yep I agree with the post --not yep that is what opening leader thought. I actually don't think opening leader thought.)

[Vampyr]

He played quite a bit in the late 1980's

and I believe that at that time is was common to play 4  Clubs as a void.

I am surprised to hear that, because when I played in the US in the late 80s, I never knew of anyone playing 4♣ as anything but length.

[blackshoe]

The US is a big place. What's common on the East Coast may be unheard of on the West Coast, and vice versa. Not to mention all the places in between. B)

[Siegmund]

I would characterize 4♣ showing a void as "heard-of, but much less common than 5-5", both 15 years ago and today, in the US.

 

As already noted, however, no agreement = no redress.

[bluejak]

No agreement, no misinformation, no redress, table result stands.

 

TD's actual ruling means TD does not understand basic Laws and should be replaced and retrained.

[jdonn]

The US is a big place. What's common on the East Coast may be unheard of on the West Coast, and vice versa. Not to mention all the places in between. :)

I have lived in New York (3 areas) and California, as well as now living in Nevada. Played plenty of bridge in all places. Still haven't come across anyone in person that thinks anyone but 5-5 is standard. Was there really a time the jump showed a void?

[aguahombre]

josh: actually, yes....but probably not the good players. When j2N first came out, it was kind of a barometer of the quality of the opps on the West coast. The ones who had thought about frequency and usefullness of the follow-ups used 5-5. The others used void.

[blackshoe]

The US is a big place. What's common on the East Coast may be unheard of on the West Coast, and vice versa. Not to mention all the places in between. B)

I have lived in New York (3 areas) and California, as well as now living in Nevada. Played plenty of bridge in all places. Still haven't come across anyone in person that thinks anyone but 5-5 is standard. Was there really a time the jump showed a void?

I have read of that agreement. I've not, so far as I recall, ever actually seen it at the table. Still, I haven't played everywhere in this country (not to mention Canada or Mexico). B)

[jvage]

josh:  actually, yes....but probably not the good players.  When j2N first came out, it was kind of a barometer of the quality of the opps on the West coast.  The ones who had thought about frequency and usefullness of the follow-ups used 5-5.  The others used void.

I would be a bit careful before using this as a "strength-barometer". 4x as voidshowing in this position is pretty standard among good players in Norway (I know you were discussing American players), to my knowledge it is played by all our recent Bermuda Bowl and European Champions (I only checked the CC of Brogeland - Lindqvist)...

 

John

[helene_t]

Dunno about J2N, but in general, club players tend to explain their calls in terms of convention names rather than explaining what it means, often without knowing what the standard version of convention is, or sometimes deliberately deviating from the standard. So like "SAYC" in practice refers to any 5533 or 5542-system with a strong 1NT, and "Muiderberg" in practice refers to any 2M-opening showing a 2-suiter, it is possible that among non-experts, "J2N" just refers to any use of the 2NT response as a raise.

 

Not sure what the sociological explanation for this is. Maybe people think that accuracy is not so important and it's more important to give brief explanation. I think this is reasonable in some cases: it may not be necessary to explain what "Stayman", "FSF" or "Multi" means, just naming the convention may be sufficient. As for J2N I would personally prefer "strong raise" if that is what the agreement really is, but I can imagine some people find naming the convention easier, both for the explainer and for the recipient of the explanation.

 

Another possibility is that it is "cool" to use bridge lingo. Like some physicians enjoy demonstrating their social status by referring to human body part using their Latin names, I think some bridge players enjoy demonstrating their "knowledge" by referring to agreements using cryptic convention names.

 

I think the non-offenders here should cater for sluggish explanation and ask what the agreement about the 4♣ bid is.

[Jboling]

The US is a big place. What's common on the East Coast may be unheard of on the West Coast, and vice versa. Not to mention all the places in between. B)

I have lived in New York (3 areas) and California, as well as now living in Nevada. Played plenty of bridge in all places. Still haven't come across anyone in person that thinks anyone but 5-5 is standard. Was there really a time the jump showed a void?

In the swedish version of Jacoby 2NT, commonly referred to as Stenberg 2NT, openers jump to the 4-level shows a void. Stenberg is common in Scandinavian countries, and I have seen people stating that they play J2NT when they in fact play Stenberg. In Stenberg 3-level rebids shows side-suits. Sounds suboptimal to have all suit rebids showing shortness.

[jvage]

In the swedish version of Jacoby 2NT, commonly referred to as Stenberg 2NT, openers jump to the 4-level shows a void. Stenberg is common in Scandinavian countries, and I have seen people stating that they play J2NT when they in fact play Stenberg. In Stenberg 3-level rebids shows side-suits. Sounds suboptimal to have all suit rebids showing shortness.

In Norway most people also call the 2NT raise "Stenberg". But this it is more confusing than just mixing Stenberg and Jacoby 2NT. Here almost everyone call the way they play Stenberg, this includes invitational+ and GF 2NT and promising 3+ or 4+ support. The name is also used for versions with both side-suit and short-suit rebids (or even relays) and for all of 3♣, 3M or 4M as the minimum rebid :rolleyes:

 

The "expert standard" referred to above is GF with 4+ support, side-suit rebids and 3M as minimum.

 

John

[axman]

Last night in a team game I was playing with someone for the first time.

 

The bidding with no interference went:

                            1♥  2NT

                            4♣  4♦

                            5♦  5♠

                            7♥

2NT was alerted as 4+ Hearts and 12+ pts.

4 Diamonds, 5 diamonds & 5 Spades were all cuebids

 

The person on opening lead Doubled after asking about the 4♣ bid

I explained that we had never played together before and had not

discussed what 4♣ would be.

Opening lead was the Ace of♣ .Declarer was void ,result was 7♥ doubled

making for 1770.  They complained to director that would not have doubled

if they knew that declarer was void in Clubs.

 

Comments  Thank you

 

 

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

 

I don't think that I would have adjusted the table score at all.

I was about to take issue with these assertions [particularly about common sense] when a bout of education took hold- Thank you Sven.

 

According to Kearse about 20 years ago [bCC '90] the three level was for stiffs and 4 level for voids.

 

But it never occurred to me to believe that there was any sensible value of finding out pard had a void when it also meant the possibility of 4-6 side suit losers when minimum- while leaving only 2 or 3 bidding steps to find out if the 5 level is safe.

 

[personally, I prfer strongly the 3-level for shortness and the 4-level for at least AKQ+]

[blackshoe]

Dunno about J2N, but in general, club players tend to explain their calls in terms of convention names rather than explaining what it means, often without knowing what the standard version of convention is, or sometimes deliberately deviating from the standard. So like "SAYC" in practice refers to any 5533 or 5542-system with a strong 1NT, and "Muiderberg" in practice refers to any 2M-opening showing a 2-suiter, it is possible that among non-experts, "J2N" just refers to any use of the 2NT response as a raise.

 

Not sure what the sociological explanation for this is. Maybe people think that accuracy is not so important and it's more important to give brief explanation. I think this is reasonable in some cases: it may not be necessary to explain what "Stayman", "FSF" or "Multi" means, just naming the convention may be sufficient. As for J2N I would personally prefer "strong raise" if that is what the agreement really is, but I can imagine some people find naming the convention easier, both for the explainer and for the recipient of the explanation.

 

Another possibility is that it is "cool" to use bridge lingo. Like some physicians enjoy demonstrating their social status by referring to human body part using their Latin names, I think some bridge players enjoy demonstrating their "knowledge" by referring to agreements using cryptic convention names.

 

I think the non-offenders here should cater for sluggish explanation and ask what the agreement about the 4♣ bid is.

I have found that many players, particularly beginner/intermediates, will, if you explain partner's call by saying what it means, ask you what the name of the convention is. I find this particularly odd in view of the ACBL regulation that says specifically that "explaining" partner's call by naming a convention is not adequate disclosure. Maybe, as you suggest, it's a "comfort" or "coolness" thing.

[peachy]

josh:  actually, yes....but probably not the good players.  When j2N first came out, it was kind of a barometer of the quality of the opps on the West coast.  The ones who had thought about frequency and usefullness of the follow-ups used 5-5.  The others used void.

I would be a bit careful before using this as a "strength-barometer". 4x as voidshowing in this position is pretty standard among good players in Norway (I know you were discussing American players), to my knowledge it is played by all our recent Bermuda Bowl and European Champions (I only checked the CC of Brogeland - Lindqvist)...

 

John

Perhaps it is not called Jacoby 2NT. Much of Scandinavia calls similar 2NT forcing raise Stenberg.

[bluejak]

I have a partner who insists on calling what we play Jacoby. Ok, under pressure from me, has changed slightly to "Jacoby style". Since we play it as a raise to 3+, with vastly different rebids, I object to any use of the word Jacoby.