I’m Convinced – It’s Time to Dump Jacoby 2NT

[fred]

None of the J2NT solutions provided found the ♥ slam.

Hopefully you realize that this is not a good reason for dumping Jacoby 2NT. You will sometimes get to the wrong spot regardless of what methods you play.

 

I am not even sure what you mean exactly by dumping Jacoby 2NT. I can think of 3 possible interpretations:

 

1) Giving up on the notion of responder having *some* way to make a direct forcing raise of a major suit opening bid that suggests at least 4-card support

 

I would not recommend this.

 

2) Giving up on the notion of using the 2NT response to a major suit opening bid as a forcing raise that suggests 4-card support (and using some other bid instead)

 

I am indifferent about this.

 

3) Giving up on the "standard" Jacoby-style rebids by opener after a 2NT forcing raise

 

I would recommend this (as long as you have a regular partner and both of you understand and can remember whatever you agree to).

 

FWIW in my regular 2/1 partnerships we use the 2NT response as a balanced game force with 2 or 3-card support and use 1H-2S and 1S-3C as our forcing raises. In my regular Precision partnerships we use 2NT as our forcing raise, but opener's rebids are not Jacoby-style.

 

I am certainly not claiming that the methods I prefer are "best" - my preference for them is largely a matter of comfort and familiarity (which in my experience is more important than trying to arrive at "best").

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

That article is like 20 years old. It's very outdated. Ask Fred.

I haven't read it recently, but I think most of it has withstood the test of time pretty well.

 

Four changes that immediately spring to mind that I would make if I were to rewrite that article today (not likely to happen any time soon):

 

1) Suggest the possibility of using 3NT as frivolous instead of serious

2) Suggest the possibility of using 3S when hearts are agreed to say serious/frivolous and use 3NT as a spade cuebid

3) Suggest using 1NT as semi-forcing instead of forcing

4) Suggest some fancy rebid schemes for responder after 1M-1NT-2m

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[sasioc]

I strongly dislike opening the South hand 1NT, but sometimes one's system compels one to do unpleasant things. I'm not convinced that 1♥-1♠;2♣ is a better description. Maybe we should upgrade it to 18-19, though.

 

Anyway, a 1NT opening might actually work well on these two hands. Responder would use his systemic method to show game-going values with four hearts and five clubs, and opener would drive slam.

 

 

Playing my own system I would upgrade it to a 17-19 NT (not sure it even counts as an 'upgrade' on that hand) and be able to open it 1♥ - I definitely see your point about upgrading it to 18-19. I agree that it's a hand that is desperate to play in a suit and hate having to open it 1NT but that is what I feel I have to do, for the reason that I will run into rebid problems later as my p and I have no means to cater for having opened a flat 15-17 hand anything other than 1NT (or rather, did not when we played a strong NT). As you say, sometimes one's sytem requires one to make bids that are, for want of a better word, icky.

[xxhong]

After 1NT opening, I think 6H is still biddable.

 

1N(good 14 to 16) 2S(5+C suit with a side suit somewhere)

2N(C fit) 3D(4 H)

3H(accept H) 3S(cue)

4C(cue, serious slam interest) 4D(cue)

4S(RKC)...

[awm]

Vanilla methods and up-the-line cuebidding:

 

1♥(1) - 2N(2)

3N(3) - 4♦(4)

5♣(5) - 6♥(6)

 

(1) This hand is not very notrumpy with all the points in two suits. I like 1♥.

(2) Jacoby.

(3) Extras, balanced, good hand for slam.

(4) First or second round control; no first or second round club control.

(5) First round control; no outside control. (*)

(6) Partner has no control in either spade or diamond, yet showed extras and a good hand for slam. ♣A+♥AKJ+some queen is not enough; he should have the ♣AK.

 

(*) Since responder denied a club control, any bid by opener other than 4♥ should show a club control. Holding only one club card plus the diamond king, 5♦ would be a better call here.

 

Obviously this implies somewhat better cuebidding inferences than casual partnerships might make. But no special methods were in use here beyond basic jacoby and up-the-line cuebidding.

 

I do agree that more developed versions of Jacoby are "better" than the vanillia version, and that sometimes it's better to start with a 2/1 bid when holding a five-card suit to two honors.

[jdeegan]

:P An historical note: JTB was invented about 50 years ago after a Unit game in Dallas. During the session Jake and Mary Zita came to our table and announced they were trying out a new convention whereby 3NT was a strong major raise. I was a new player at the time, and the only system I knew was K-S which used the then novel 5-card major requirement.

After the two boards were completed and before the next round was called, I mentioned to Jake that if one played 5-card majors, the only use for a natural 2NT was if one held a doubleton in the bid major, three cards in the other major, and 4-4 in the minors. One could easily handle this hand by temporizing at the 2 level in one of the minors. The rest is more or less history. I think this analysis still holds true, although the newfangled 2/1 greatly improves slam bidding on non-JTB auctions.

I also heard (second hand) that Jake once defended me by commenting that 'well, he may not be much of a player, but he has a good head for bidding theory'.

One thought does occur to me on the example hand. The SAYC maxim was that one should jump shift if slam is a laydown opposite the right minimum. This assumes that the 'right' min is not too farfetched on the bidding. Here we have a near laydown six opposite AK, AK in the round suits. This well above a minimum, but not enough to cause opener to think slammish. Maybe playing 2/1 the idea is the same. Bid the second suit rather than JTB if the right minimum or min+ will produce six.

I know this is essentially what our earlier commentators said. I'm just trying to generalize a bit and put his (whereagles and some others) acute analysis in some historical context.

[fromageGB]

The idea of the 1♥-2♣-3♣-3♥ auction seems poor to me. Sure, Opener has a COV in hearts and clubs, where it seems natural and logical to raise clubs. But, although this is not a classic high reverse auction, it technically is a high-reverse auction if the 2♣ call includes a balanced or a fit-only option, and it is functionally similar to a high reverse sequence if partner can hold 3-4-3-3 (or similar) shape.

 

Because of this, I really dislike raising what is often a 4-card suit with only 3-card "support" when another option stands out, especially if the raise gets us to the three-level, and especially if the "fit" is a minor-suit fit. You have preempted the auction, your bids likely are geared toward probes, and Opener's range is wide as can be. This spells disaster.

 

Much as I feel reluctant to take issue with Ken on this (or anything) I feel the need to defend opener's 3♣ rebid. 2♣ is a bid made with a normal 5+ GF, and even if you do play that a strong responder with no 5 card suit (eg 2443) can also bid 2♣ and you have a 2♦ relay available so responder can bid his shape, on this hand opener has no interest in finding anything out about responder's possible hand. Moreover, he has a highly descriptive bid of 3♣ available. This conveys where his strength is perfectly. This does not stop responder bidding any suit or NT.

 

I will agree that opener will commonly have 4 cards for the 3♣ bid, but it is not guaranteed, and even if responder does have 4 himself it would be a strange decision to prefer the club game to a major or NT.

 

As Ken says, 3♣ is somewhat preempting the auction but with this hand your are not concerned about that. And opener's range is defined as 15/16, so hardly "wide as can be" : I would say it is a pretty descriptive bid. Of course if you did not play the version where an opener rebid above 2M was strong, then it would not be my choice either. But if it is 15/16, rather than spelling "disaster" I think it spells "accurate description to let responder decide where to go".

[gnasher]

Vanilla methods and up-the-line cuebidding:

 

1♥(1) - 2N(2)

3N(3) - 4♦(4)

5♣(5) - 6♥(6)

Presumably you'd get to the five-level when responder has Ax Qxxx Axxx QJx. That seems a poor idea.

 

Your opener doesn't have anything more than his original "Extras, balanced, good hand for slam", so I think he should sign off after 4♦. Responder will, of course, make another move with the originally-posted hand, because QJ9xx is worth five tricks opposite ♣AK, and opposite one club honour the five-level should be reasonably safe. The auction will still be a bit guessy, though, because opener doesn't know how much more useful club honours are than spade honours.

 

Furthermore, we can't cope with the difference between Axx Qxxx Ax QJxx (excellent slam) and Ax Qxxx Axx QJxx (very poor). But not many people could do better on those in a natural framework.

Edited February 11, 2012 by gnasher

[whereagles]

I haven't read it recently, but I think most of it has withstood the test of time pretty well.

 

My main criticism of the 2/1 style of those articles is that there's too much emphasis on shape and little on strength. Little or nothing is said about opener's strength in auctions like

 

1M 2x

2M

 

1M 2x

3x

 

which can be made from a junkish 12 to a super-duper 18 or so. (Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you see, I haven't read it in a while too lol.) I prefer a style where openers 2M rebid can be made on a 5 carder, but is limited to 14 or so.

[fromageGB]

My main criticism of the 2/1 style of those articles is that there's too much emphasis on shape and little on strength. Little or nothing is said about opener's strength in auctions like

 

1M 2x

2M

 

1M 2x

3x

 

which can be made from a junkish 12 to a super-duper 18 or so. (Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you see, I haven't read it in a while too lol.) I prefer a style where openers 2M rebid can be made on a 5 carder, but is limited to 14 or so.

 

... Of course if you did not play the version where an opener rebid above 2M was strong, then it would not be my choice either. But if it is 15/16, rather than spelling "disaster" I think it spells "accurate description to let responder decide where to go".

 

Exactly.

[blackshoe]

That article is like 20 years old. It's very outdated. Ask Fred.

I haven't read it recently, but I think most of it has withstood the test of time pretty well.

 

Four changes that immediately spring to mind that I would make if I were to rewrite that article today (not likely to happen any time soon):

 

1) Suggest the possibility of using 3NT as frivolous instead of serious

2) Suggest the possibility of using 3S when hearts are agreed to say serious/frivolous and use 3NT as a spade cuebid

3) Suggest using 1NT as semi-forcing instead of forcing

4) Suggest some fancy rebid schemes for responder after 1M-1NT-2m

 

I just re-read it and the two follow-on articles. I'm no expert, but they made sense to me, and I tried to keep these four changes in mind while I was reading it.

 

It also occurs to me that twenty years isn't necessarily all that long a time in bridge, especially considering the number of people around who are still playing methods even older than that. :P

[the hog]

Thanks for informing us. But maybe you should tell your partner instead.

 

Eine unglaubliche intelligente Antwort.

[awm]

Presumably you'd get to the five-level when responder has Ax Qxxx Axxx QJx. That seems a poor idea.

 

Your opener doesn't have anything more than his original "Extras, balanced, good hand for slam", so I think he should sign off after 4♦. Responder will, of course, make another move with the originally-posted hand, because QJ9xx is worth five tricks opposite ♣AK, and opposite one club honour the five-level should be reasonably safe. The auction will still be a bit guessy, though, because opener doesn't know how much more useful club honours are than spade honours.

 

Furthermore, we can't cope with the difference between Axx Qxxx Ax QJxx (excellent slam) and Ax Qxxx Axx QJxx (very poor). But not many people could do better on those in a natural framework.

 

This depends on exact methods a bit. There is actually an upper limit to the 3NT bid in standard jacoby (3♥ would've been stronger). I'd hope that a balanced 13 with no source of tricks like the example you gave might bid 4♥ instead of 4♦ opposite what is normally a 15-17 notrump with five hearts. Of course, it's conceivable that the last two hands you gave might bid 4♥ also (missing a good slam on Axx Qxxx Ax QJxx). But I think this is more likely than reaching the five-level with your first example.

 

In my view the 5♣ cue is basically mandatory. We have a nine-card fit and some 30+ hcp with both partners having shown extras (responder only mildly so).

[bluecalm]

I prefer a style where openers 2M rebid can be made on a 5 carder, but is limited to 14 or so.

 

While I play it with almost everybody as it's standard in my country I think it's bad.

At least in my country openings are usually limited to 17hcp so it's not that awful.

 

The reason is that you don't want to jump to 3M just because you have 15hcp and 6carder. You eat away all the space which is needed if anything for finding a fit for responder's suit.

I think there are two good solutions for this:

a)playing completely artificial scheme with one bid being minimum (say 2D) and then relay for shape to the end

b)playing that 2M is either up to 14-15hcp or strong one suited. Then relays for fit in responders suit and strenght. For example like this:

 

1S - 2C

2S - 2N ®

3C = exactly four clubs (then relay for shortness)

3D = exactly 3 clubs (then relay for 6th spade)

3H = 6 spades, at least 14-15hcp

3S = 6 spades but the weakest hand

3N = 5-3-3-2 exactly 12-14

 

After:

1S - 2C

2S - 2N

3H - 3S

3N = non serious, say 14-16

cuebid = 17+

 

Imagine you have AQ8xxx Ax xx AQx. What do you bid after 2C in your style ?

Imo anything but 2S is just godawful (unless it's part of some artificial scheme).

[Raff90]

Well with that hand i prefer to bid 2♣ instead of 2NT.

Just because with our jacoby NT we wouldnt find the second suit fit.

And anyways we only play jacoby nt when no opps interfere or over double and 1♠ by opponent.

Here is our system:

1M-2NT

3♣ = any 5/5 or 633(1) minimum

3♦ = maximum single or any strong balanced hand

3♥ = any void

3♠ = single minimum

3NT = 6 card Major any strentgh

4lvl = cuebid minimum balanced

Always next step relay asking and answer in steps

[Statto]

Presumably you'd get to the five-level when responder has Ax Qxxx Axxx QJx. That seems a poor idea.

I think responder should sign off in 4♥ with that, unless the spots are good. But I like how you are discussing how J2NT could work even on this hand :rolleyes:

 

In response to the OP, if you were to ditch J2NT, what would you use the 2NT bid for instead? Here's a quote from the other thread:

 

2NT as a limit raise or better is playable, especially if you prefer not to play Bergen raises.

This seems to be a popular treatment in the UK (even from some who play Bergen raises). On grounds of frequency, you're much more likely to be wanting to discover if game is on than slam. Like mini-splinters, the bid is dual-purpose: either looking for game or looking for slam. (I wouldn't like to speculate how it fits into a 2/1 structure; I thought mini-splinters would slot in nicely but several posters pointed out how wrong I was about that.)

 

1♥-3♥ as a limit raise is of course old hat: it's much better played as a pre-emptive raise if 4th seat has not yet had an opportunity to bid. B-)

[Zelandakh]

These hand types, where Responder has support and a side suit, come up often on these forums. Very often the solution is to start with a 2/1 and support later, even though this hides the 4th trump. My own methods do not have this option since a 2/1 is non-forcing. That is why new suits are natural wnere space allows. The flip-side is that a 1M opening is guaranteed to be unbalanced so the responses without shortage are automatically 5422 shape. Another aspect of the methods I posted that you missed is that 3NT is a spade cue after 3♠ in the given sequence - it is not necessary to start with 4♦. But I also use denial cue bids so the correct bid would have been 4♣ to ask for a club control. Obviously I chose not to go into such detail - I thought the important thing was the structure condensing the shortage-showing bids and also getting some strength limits into the auction, an area badly lacking in standard J2NT.

 

For the record I would expect my auction on the given pair of hands to be:-

 

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any

... - 1NT = hearts and clubs or hearts, GF

3♥ = 15-17 bal with 5 hearts

... - 3♠ = slam try

3NT = accept, no spade control

... - 4♣ = have you got a club control?

4♦ = yes, but no diamond control

... - 4♠ = RKCB

5♥ = 0 or 3

... - 6♥

 

but I would also expect the opponents to be bidding with 9 spades and 8 diamonds.

[han]

:P An historical note: JTB was invented about 50 years ago after a Unit game in Dallas. During the session Jake and Mary Zita came to our table and announced they were trying out a new convention whereby 3NT was a strong major raise. I was a new player at the time, and the only system I knew was K-S which used the then novel 5-card major requirement.

After the two boards were completed and before the next round was called, I mentioned to Jake that if one played 5-card majors, the only use for a natural 2NT was if one held a doubleton in the bid major, three cards in the other major, and 4-4 in the minors. One could easily handle this hand by temporizing at the 2 level in one of the minors. The rest is more or less history. I think this analysis still holds true, although the newfangled 2/1 greatly improves slam bidding on non-JTB auctions.

 

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".

[fromageGB]

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".

You would prefer to dump JDeegan ?

[32519]

For those who were listening to the voice commentary Monaco versus Sweden, on board 10 David Bird made a classic comment regarding Jacoby 2NT. His comment “Making a game forcing Jacoby 2NT bid is pretty useless on its own. It’s all about the continuation bidding. Showing distribution is not enough. Opener needs to be able to convey a minimum hand or a hand containing extras.”

He suggested a follow up bid of 3♣ to show a minimum with opener. Anything else would show extras.

 

What do others feel about this suggestion?

[phil_20686]

He suggested a follow up bid of 3♣ to show a minimum with opener. Anything else would show extras.

 

When you mentioned jacoby, it never occured to me that you might be playing the original responses. I like:

 

1M-2N = limit+raise,

 

3c= min, then 3d = asks for shortage, 3h/s/N responses= c/d/OM shortage, 3h.s.N directly show shortage and slam interest.

3d = no shortage, extras,

3h/s/n = show shortage, extras.

4x = 5-5, and not sub minimum. (not extras, but would not bid if opened some crappy ten count, or if values soft).

 

Finally, after every shortage showing bid, sign off = you made my hand worse, cue = you made my hand better, but the first bid over the shortage shows a kind of inbetween bid. E.g. a minimum hand that has all values working, or a fourteen count with a small amount of wastage.

[Cyberyeti]

We'd bid 1♥-2N (limit or better)-3♣ ostensibly natural and this would wake partner up. If the club honours were distributed to give responder more of the honours then we could bid 1♥-3♣ GF but it shows a better suit than QJxxx along with Hxxx of partner's for us.

[Flem72]

What do others feel about this suggestion?

 

Indispensable.

[Quantumcat]

Indispensable.

 

I made up a bergen/jacoby system that means you don't ever need to show extras as opener (you either sign off or investigate slam yourself). If you want to use it, I am calling it Quantum Bergen:

 

1♠:

- 2♣ = includes 3-card limit raise

(all the following are 4-card raises)

- 2NT = 13-14

- 3♣ = 9-12

- 3♦ = 7-8 or 17+

- 3♥ = 5-6 or 15-16

- 3♠ = 0-4

 

Over 1♥ 4-card raises are all the same except moved down one step.

 

Now over Jacoby you simply sign off if you don't think there is a slam on, and only move if there is. You never need show extras when it turns out there is no slam because responder was minimum.

[fromageGB]

My 2NT is unlimited, so of course there is a need for both parties to be able to show extras, having discovered a shortage if there is one, but I am happy using non-serious 3♠/NT

 

Of course, those playing quantum bergen have no problem, but then identifying opener's distributional features beneath the ace asking level may be tricky, when you have the stronger 3 bid replies.