Anything is Better Than Jac2NT

[mike777]

Same question for you if ♥ are trump?

1H - 2NT!

?? What would show a Sp Ctrl ( or lack thereof ) and no shortness but enough for game ?

 

or does it start:

1H - 2S! ??

 

 

 

2nt Bergen is a slam try..not a game try for me...so not sure what your question is.

[Trinidad]

Same question for you if ♥ are trump?

1H - 2NT!

?? What would show a Sp Ctrl ( or lack thereof ) and no shortness but enough for game ?

 

or does it start:

1H - 2S! ??

I play that with one of my partners. You need to get a little used to such a style of bidding systems but we have that philosophy in many parts of our system.

As an example: all our Bergen inspired raises are one bid lower for hearts than for spades (with the exception of 3NT).

 

Once you are used to it, it works very well: You will have as much bidding room for heart contracts as for spade contracts, as soon as the fit is established.

 

Rik

[fromageGB]

Tabs : click on icon on upper right in the reply options -- it has the little bars... the 1st icon of the four.

 

Space: In the old forum there was an icon you could click on: space which appeared as enclosed in brackets [ ] for each space you desired.... and it still works here, but you have to type it out ( then highlight/copy( Ctrl-C ) and then paste ( Ctrl-V ) for each "space" you want)..... rather tedious.

It doesn't seem to work for me :( The indent seems to throw to a new line, and when I string some bold spaces together they just appear in the preview as single spaces.

If you can do an example, I can quote it to see how it is done.

[fromageGB]

I play that with one of my partners. You need to get a little used to such a style of bidding systems but we have that philosophy in many parts of our system.

As an example: all our Bergen inspired raises are one bid lower for hearts than for spades (with the exception of 3NT).

 

Once you are used to it, it works very well: You will have as much bidding room for heart contracts as for spade contracts, as soon as the fit is established.

 

Rik

Agree with this. In our methods,

1♥ 2♠ = Jacoby 2NT

2NT (ie the next step) = "I have no shortage, do you ?" or bid the shortage, with 3♥ being a spade shortage.

Over the 2NT shortage denial, responder will bid a shortage with the same bids. Any result, if there is a shortage anywhere, it is bid no higher than 3♥.

 

The next bid is always non-serious 3NT, or bypassing that is a serious cue bid, the cheapest first or second round control. With hearts as trumps, of course 3♠ is the "non-serious 3NT" and 3NT is a serious cue bid in spades.

 

• The idea of showing shortages in either hand is good because it enables partner to upgrade or downgrade his values, and see where tricks may be coming from;
  
• the idea of using the non-serious 3NT is good because it enables one hand with say 16/17 to be serious and yet be happy to stop in game, knowing he has shown his seriousness so partner can go on if he too is serious;
  
• the idea of bidding either first or second round controls below game is good, because it often enables you to find a suit is completely uncovered yet enables you to continue to ask ask when appropriate.
  

They all fit well together.

 

The idea of "shift the bids down one when hearts are trumps" is easy when you get used to it. I don't think of "Jacoby 2NT", but I think "the 2M+1 GF shortage asking bid". I don't think of "3♦" is Bergen moderate 4 card support, etc, I think 3M-2 and 3M-1.

 

Play 1♥ 1♠ as the forcing NT (Kaplan inversion) and everything is consistent.

And of course 4♠ is ace asking when hearts are trumps (Green Aces).

[fromageGB]

My methods:

 

1♠-1♣(real or fit)

2♦(waiting)-2♠(fit)

I always knew strong 1♣ methods were the best :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

I always knew strong 1♣ methods were the best :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, if no one bids and if Opener has extras.

 

When RESPONDER has the bigger hand, the strong club opening isn't used, you know.

 

If I was playing a natural strong club, the auction would be identical at the start, with these hands and my strong club methods.

 

Now, with my canape methods, the auction might start...

 

1D-2C

2H-2S

 

So, slightly different, I suppose. Same end point, same spade agreement, and same "sorta diamonds" from Opener.

[OleBerg]

As other posters have already hinted:

 

Anything that doesn't take you past 3NT with a minimum hand is vastly superior.

 

Generally bids that takes you past 3NT should be very well defined, showing a void and limited strength is my favourite, and 4♠ should either be very well-defined, or practically forbidden. (Which is technically almost the same.)

 

Furthermore, I strongly believe that hands with no shortness should be divided into three strength-cathegories, not two. If not, one of the ranges will be very ambigious.

 

These are some general priciples I believe to be sound. The net must be flooded with variants of 2NT support-structures.

[Trinidad]

As other posters have already hinted:

 

Anything that doesn't take you past 3NT with a minimum hand is vastly superior.

 

Generally bids that takes you past 3NT should be very well defined, showing a void and limited strength is my favourite, and 4♠ should either be very well-defined, or practically forbidden. (Which is technically almost the same.)

 

 

I fully agree. This is why we play controls between 3M and 4M, rather than showing distribution (shortage/length). After all, distribution is possible in any suit. When I open 1♠, it will be just as likely to have a singleton ♣ as a singleton ♥: The situation is nicely symmetrical. However, when I show the singleton ♣ I will have more bidding room than when I show the singleton ♥.

 

When I show controls by cuebidding, the situation is not symmetrical. Now 4♣ only says that I have a ♣ control. But 4♦ says that I have a ♦ control and denies a ♣ control: The 4♦ bid is better defined than the 4♣ bid. The same goes for 4♥: It shows a control in ♥, but denies a control in both minors, which now makes it better defined than the 4♦ bid.

 

Rik

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S 2N

3C 3D

3H 3N

p

 

3C=min

3D=ask

3H=balanced

Just curious...

....what are the replies ( to the 3D!-ask ) when the ( minimum ) Opener has shortness ?

I'm assuming:

3S! = ♥ shortness

3NT = ??

4C! = ♣ shortness

4D! = ♦shortness

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, if you don't mind, what are your replies ( to 2NT! ) when Opener has "extras" ?

[olien]

I'm guessing that in Justin's structure:

 

3♥ = balanced (or no shortness)

3♠ = ♣ shortness

3NT = ♦ shortness

4♣ = oM shortness

 

Bids at 4♣ and above may also be cue-bids while also showing oM shortness, but I'm not totally sure of his structure.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj63ha94daq7cqj8&n=skqt92hkj5dkj3c32]133|200

North Dealer... MP scoring...

How would you bid it ?

Only 2 Responders showed restraint and passed 4S:

1S - Jac2NT!

4S ( minimum, no shortness) - pass

The rest went to 6S ( or 6NT ) :

1S - 2NT!

4S - 4NT!

5D ( 1 key ) - 6S/6NT

Down 1[/hv]

On a good day: 1♠ - 2N -; 3♣ - 3♦ -; 4♠ AP

2N = Flat raise to three or better.

3♣ = Trail bid for game.

3♦ = 0/3 keycards, counting both black kings as key-cards.

4♠ = Not enough.

[dake50]

First, a North K is in clubs.

Now we have a go at it.

Likely get one red finesse right.

 

My favorite peeve. Weak hand deciding 3xK won't make 6S???

[mycroft]

Yeah, I was thinking (because 4NT with QJx opposite minimum is - dangerous):

 

1S-2NT!

4S!-5D!

5S - Oh well.

 

I am being rapidly convinced in alternative structures for 2NT (especially in my Precision partnership).

[rduran1216]

You guys find some weird things to dislike. S has an almost obvious pass over 4S, I mean how clear is North's hand. He said 5332 or 5422 minimum, what're we doing heading to a flat slam with only 18, and not the world's best 18 at that, its 7 losers for goodness sake.

[xxhong]

The weakest link of J2nt is the 1S 2N 4S sequence. A simple cure is just to use 3NT to show balanced minimum and 3S to show balanced, extra. Therefore, you still have a whole 4 level to cuebid. Those who claim it is a simple pass over 4M certainly never encounter a hand like KQxxx Kxx Kxx Kx, where 6NT is cold. Or QTxxx xx Kx AKxx, where 6S is very decent. It is indeed a systemic issue, which can often be

solved.

 

Of course, if you want to improve more, you can design some better structures. For example, 3C to show weakness, 3D to show shortness somewhere and extra, balabla. Or 3C to show shortness somewhere. 3D to show balanced, extra. 3H to show balanced minimum. Of course, later

relays are needed for such structures.

 

Still, Jacoby 2NT is a very useful convention if it is revised a little bit. It's just like Stayman. When 2C was first used as stayman, it was certainly quite different from what experts are using nowadays.

 

Only 2 Responders showed restraint and passed 4S:

1S - Jac2NT!

4S ( minimum, no shortness) - pass

 

The rest went to 6S ( or 6NT ) :

1S - 2NT!

4S - 4NT!

5D ( 1 key ) - 6S/6NT

 

Down 1

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj63ha94daq7cqj8&n=skqt92hkj5dkj3c32]133|200[/hv]

North Dealer... MP scoring...

How would you bid it ?

[mycroft]

rduran: QT9532 K8 KJ3 K2? And that's taking away the (admittedly useless) HJ. Giving back that point, we get KT9532 K8 KJ3 K2, which is an excellent slam. The problem is a) that the hands are essentially mirrored, and b) that there's no club control. In standard a) you can't do much about, but the danger of b) should be screamingly obvious after 1S-2NT; 4S, and a better tool then Ole Black should be used to stay out of this bad slam. Staying off the 5 level is an argument for better tools, but I said what I was going to above.

[dake50]

North or South needs a believable 4C =Zia Q or C-void showing. Or sanely 4S quit.

[whereagles]

Jacoby 2NT in itself is just fine. It's the classic follow-ups that suck beyond belief.

 

A decent set of follow-ups is that of Martel-Stansby. See e.g. http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/KeyLimePrecision/Chapter4.pdf

 

I have my own home-grown tools, but I confess it would be hard to stay out of slam.

[OleBerg]

Jacoby 2NT in itself is just fine. It's the classic follow-ups that suck beyond belief.

 

A decent set of follow-ups is that of Martel-Stansby. See e.g. http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/KeyLimePrecision/Chapter4.pdf

 

I have my own home-grown tools, but I confess it would be hard to stay out of slam.

 

Sorry, nothing personal, but:

 

If you:

 

- Have the bidding to yourself.

- Establish a nine-card major fit on responders first bid.

- Gets to slams with an unstopped suit.

 

Then you do not have decent follow up's.

 

Merry and Happy to all.

[whereagles]

Sorry, nothing personal, but:

 

If you:

 

- Have the bidding to yourself.

- Establish a nine-card major fit on responders first bid.

- Gets to slams with an unstopped suit.

 

Then you do not have decent follow up's.

 

Agree, but there's a very good reason for it. The tools I devised focus on giving capitaincy to OPENER (because his hand is more undefined than responder's), whereas here we would like responder to be in charge. Obviously this philosophy doesn't work out well here, but is adequate for many other situations.

 

Most J2NT schemes leave responder in charge and I firmly believe that's very wrong. It's opener who must be in charge.

 

In any case it's way easier if you skip J2NT altogether for a simple 2/1:

 

1♠ 2♣

2NT 3♠

4♠ pass

 

4♠ = bad hand in context, with poor minor suit controls.

[OleBerg]

Agree, but there's a very good reason for it.

 

Again, nothing personal, but:

 

No.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S 2N

3C 3D

3H 3N

p

 

3C=min

3D=ask

3H=balanced

I'm still intrigued by Justin's ( J-LOGIC's ) method.

 

It is similar to the Swedish-2NT! in that it allows Opener to show 1 ) "extras" or 2 ) minimum -- with or w/o shortness in either case.... so at least Responder knows the overall strength situation.

 

But Justin's seems preferable ( superior ) in that the "balanced" hand for a "minimum" Opener is announced EARLY ( at the 3-level, 3H! ) whereas in Swedish, it is announced ABOVE 3NT ( as a courtesy 4-level cuebid) -- a little better than the 4M Jacoby minimum, but not much better . And then ....

 

... using Swedish you LOSE the Jacoby 4-level, "2nd 5 card suit" replies for Opener.... ( which I dislike losing ).

 

Sooo, this is my guess for Justin's complete structure ( but it is a bit taxing on the memory cells ):

 

1) Extras for Opener are shown with direct bids ABOVE 3C! :

1M - 2NT!

??

3D! = balanced

 

3H! = Cl shortness

3S! = Diam shortness

3NT! = other-Major shortness

 

4C! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Cl )

4D! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Diam )

[ 4H! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Hts ) when Sp are trump ]

 

2) Minimum for Opener :

1M - 2NT!

3C! ( any minimum ) - 3D! ( asks ):

??

3H! = balanced

3S! = Cl shortness

3NT! = Diam shortness

4C! = other Major shortness

 

4D! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Cl )

4H! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Diam )

[ 4S! = 2nd 5 card suit ( Hts ) when Sp are trump ]

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If this is NOT your structure, Justin, you can use it anyway -- free of charge .

 

Also, my apologies to Bill Higgins, who has spent a great deal of time refining the Swedish-2NT method.

[gszeszycki]

this is not hard hand you have all the information you need to pass 4s as the % way to go.

 

You have 18 true but fair amount of quacks and spade J is almost surely useless

 

so your partnership has a combined total of around 31 max and no shortness and

a fair amount of quacks (and thats just your hand). These are all warning signs that slam is unlikely and depending on how light you p might open 31 might be optimistic.

 

Pass 4s should be easy to do. Do not blame a system when it works properly.

[han]

"4S bid ( in plain Jacoby ) is a slam killer".

 

It's nice to have good methods but it is far more important to have good judgement. As Matmat, Franceshinden, Siegmund, Oleberg and many others have pointed out, playing only simple Jacoby is no excuse on this hand for reaching this slam. You can continue to talk about how bad the method is, but these pairs would be better off learning how to use the methods they already know than to learn new gadgets that are probably too complicated for them anyway.

[fromageGB]

Agree, but there's a very good reason for it. The tools I devised focus on giving capitaincy to OPENER (because his hand is more undefined than responder's), whereas here we would like responder to be in charge. Obviously this philosophy doesn't work out well here, but is adequate for many other situations.

 

Most J2NT schemes leave responder in charge and I firmly believe that's very wrong. It's opener who must be in charge.

 

This is where I think you are wrong. After 1♠ 2NT, both hands are known to be "opening values", one hand has 5+ spades and one hand has 4+ spades. Unless you want to quibble about one vacant space, both hands are undefined. That is why neither hand should have captaincy, and both hands should be able to show a shortage (or long good side suit if that is your preference).