J2N or a 2/1?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj75hq75d8cak832&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

I know some players like to make a 2/1 2♣ bid with this hand rather than a J2N raise.

How important is it to show a 4card raise, what do you think of 2♣ rather than 2N ?

[broze]

I would always bid 2♣ (showing 5 in my partnership) with this hand. For me J2NT is more of a last resort than a go-to convention, ideally with a fairly balanced hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

J2N.

 

If you bid 2C, your next bid will be 3S, and you start the

slam exploration on the 4 level.

 

If you bid 2NT, you start a whole level lower.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[broze]

If you bid 2C, your next bid will be 3S, and you start the

slam exploration on the 4 level.

 

If you bid 2NT, you start a whole level lower.

 

You will start lower but your slam bidding will be less informed. How are you going to tell partner about your excellent club suit after J2NT? If p has Q♣ then all you need is controls and he won't value this as highly after 2NT.

[quiddity]

or a splinter?

[mikeh]

 

If you bid 2C, your next bid will be 3S, and you start the

slam exploration on the 4 level.

 

Wow...you know what partner's rebid is over your 2♣ already!!!

 

Most of us aren't quite so prescient.

 

As for what to bid, my preference is to bid 2♣ because I like auctions that involve both partners, and J2N usually degenerates into responder asking and opener telling...and on this hand I don't think that responder can find the club Q by using J2N...and the club Q is potentially important for reasons that are, I hope, obvious.

 

In case they are not.....give partner some innocuous hand such as AQxxx Ax xxx Qxx...a 5332 12 count, albeit with 2 Aces....now slam is excellent, but I doubt that you'd be able to bid it with confidence after J2N.

 

It's not easy after 2♣, but when the auction proceeds

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ 4♦

 

 

Opener is well worth a 4♥ cue and there is now a good chance that slam will be reached, whereas with say AQxxx Ax Qxx xxx, opener would have little reason to cue.

 

My rule of thumb is that when I have a potential trick source that would benefit from finding some help in partner's hand, I will usually show the suit and then show the support.

 

Btw, I agree that the choice is between J2N and 2♣: this hand is too strong, imo, for a splinter...not by much....I'd splinter with Kxxx Qxx x AQxxx

[Cyberyeti]

I much prefer to be able to bid 3♣ to show ♣HHxxx/♠Hxxx and GF values in one bid (H = AKQ)

[kenrexford]

So many concepts going on here.

 

When considering what to bid, one good rule of thumb if it is debatable is to predict a likely auction. Here, I think you have a fairly good shot at getting spade agreement at the two-;evel (if your methods alklow for this) for two reasons. First, with four trumps there is a reduced likelihood of partner rebidding spades, as that would require the existence of a 10-card net fit. Second, with a stiff diamond, the odds heavily favor a 2♦ rebid, which would be tremendous. Third, as your bid is clubs and as his major is spades, he also have the opportunity for a 2♥ rebid, or ideally you even play that Opener's 2♦ rebid is "diamonds or balanced" for this very reason. Thus, the auction is heavily favorite to run 1♠-2♣-2X-2♠, with spade agreement at the two-level. Contrast this with almost the exact hand but partner opening 1♥ and your minors reversed (long diamonds, stiff club). Now, after the start 1♥-2♦, you are assured that the auction will not start with agreement until at least 3♥, which cramps the cuebidding space.

 

(Aside -- this concern actually argues for a specialized 2NT call to show a fit with some difficult-to-describe pattern. For example, one might consider making a 2NT call show a fit, GF, and length in the suit immediately below Opener's suit. In other words, 1S-P-2NT as spades and five hearts; 1♥-P-2NT as hearts with five diamonds. But, I digress...)

 

The second concern is descriptive. A good 5-card suit that is not solid (missing the King or Queen especially) argues for cuebidding (if you can show missing honors like the Queen) or for description at least (if your calls will show where you live). I would much rather encourage an auction where partner can even cue the club Queen, or will know that his club Queen is working than an auction where the club situation remains a mystery, like with Jacoby 2NT.

 

The direct splinter option is not terrible, if this fits within the range for your splinters. The ability to make a LTTC call after a 4♦ splinter is not unremarkable, either. But, the imbalance in the rounded suits is remarkable and argues against a Splinter. Much better to hope for a delayed splinter, such as 1♠-2♣-2♠-4♦ or something similar.

 

(Again, there is something to be said, as an aside, for a direct splinter implying length in the one-under suit, as that is the difficult holding, but this argues against a splinter here. Make the pattern 3451, and a splinter in support of hearts has that advantage of assisting a difficult pattern.)

 

Much of the analysis, however, is driven by your agreements and how the likely auction will continue. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, you are much better placed if Opener can rebid 2♦ with balanced hands, if you can agree the major with a 2♥ rebid next, if cues are used rather than pattern bids, etc.

[mikeh]

I don't know why simple, straightforward questions, based on what one assumes is a fairly standard 2/1 framework, engender replies that advocate non-standard agreements. The OP wasn't asking for idiosyncratic methods...she was asking for opinions as to J2N or 2♣.

 

So we have a reply that contains the assumption that a 2♠ rebid by opener shows 6+ cards....while that is playable....and is played by a number of players.....it isn't 'standard' and the reply suggests that it is the only way it is played. And we have a reply that advocates a fit-showing jump: which is hardly standard, and (indeed) an unpopular treatment given the number of alternate uses to which 3♣ can be put.

 

Why can't we all just answer the question as posted rather than show off our brilliant alternatives? if you are convinced that your methods are the best, then suggest them as an alternative after answering the OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Wow...you know what partner's rebid is over your 2♣ already!!!

 

Most of us aren't quite so prescient.

 

<snip>

No, but unless opener bids 2S or 3C, we will be better of with 2NT.

 

In the end, I prefer to show the fit direct.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[phil_20686]

I don't know why simple, straightforward questions, based on what one assumes is a fairly standard 2/1 framework, engender replies that advocate non-standard agreements. The OP wasn't asking for idiosyncratic methods...she was asking for opinions as to J2N or 2♣.

 

So we have a reply that contains the assumption that a 2♠ rebid by opener shows 6+ cards....while that is playable....and is played by a number of players.....it isn't 'standard' and the reply suggests that it is the only way it is played.

 

One thing no one has mentioned is if 1s-2c is the go to option with a balanced hand with three spades. That is fairly standard, (in some parts of the world at least) and if it is then you cna get fit at 2S often, but you wont have shown clubs.

 

I generally believe that a splinter is the way forward with these hands. The aim is to help partner make a good decision, and its not like we are super focused on clubs here anyway. I mean partner has to take care of my heart losers aswell. Telling him cards outside diamonds are golden is enough imo.

[CSGibson]

I have a source of tricks and a 4 card spade fit and a singleton. The source of tricks is going to be hard to envision if I do not start off with a 2♣ call, so I think that's what I would prioritize. My plan, if possible, is to jump to 3♠ next to indicate that I have a 4 card fit with a club suit that could provide a source of tricks (the reason I wouldn't be using Jacoby/splintering). BTW, this is probably the worst holding I would have in the club suit for this approach - I prefer internal fillers for this kind of description - but since my hand is so pure, I think this brings my hand into focus best for partner.

[daveharty]

My rule of thumb is that when I have a potential trick source that would benefit from finding some help in partner's hand, I will usually show the suit and then show the support.

I think mikeh has identified the key here. With J2N, you have a tool at your disposal that immediately shows your trump support and approximate values; the reason to consider not using it is that you think another, more circuitous route will allow partner to evaluate her hand better. Here, you want partner to be bullish holding Qx(x) of clubs since it solidifies your side source of tricks. Change your hand so that the clubs are solid, and I think J2N has more going for it, because you don't really care what partner's club holding is.

[phil_20686]

I think mikeh has identified the key here. With J2N, you have a tool at your disposal that immediately shows your trump support and approximate values; the reason to consider not using it is that you think another, more circuitous route will allow partner to evaluate her hand better. Here, you want partner to be bullish holding Qx(x) of clubs since it solidifies your side source of tricks. Change your hand so that the clubs are solid, and I think J2N has more going for it, because you don't really care what partner's club holding is.

 

I have never really felt these arguments have that much weight. Normally when partner splinters he is 4(531) as that is the most common type for a splinter, admittedly your 5 card suit is better than average, but not so much better. I have long thought that these arguments make more sense to bid when your long suit is worse. The same hand with AKx H and QJxxx clubs seems to do much better after a club bid. Now i really do care about his clubs. Here my club suit is good opposite stiff, xx which partner will not like opposite my club bid.

[dwar0123]

This is an obvious 4♦ bid to me, it sets trumps, describes my hand and lets partner know how to evaluate diamond honors, which with my hand is very crucial.

 

Reading these forums, I was led to believe 2nt was reserved for flat hands with nothing left to describe. Yet here it is being advocated with lots left to describe.

 

From this thread, I am gathering that splinter bids are for hands that are flat in the other 3 suits?

[ArtK78]

Agree with 2♣ rather than 2NT.

 

Use Jacoby 2NT on hands where you will be able to place the contract if you are given information about opener's hand. On a hand like this one, partner will be better placed to place the contract if you give information about your hand to him.

[broze]

I have never really felt these arguments have that much weight. Normally when partner splinters he is 4(531) as that is the most common type for a splinter, admittedly your 5 card suit is better than average, but not so much better.

 

 

This is an obvious 4♦ bid to me, it sets trumps, describes my hand and lets partner know how to evaluate diamond honors, which with my hand is very crucial.

 

No, the main reason mikeh dismissed the splinter bid is because the hand is too strong. To make the bid effective you need to place a limit on HCP and the standard range is about 9-11. Otherwise, I would just about prioritise the splinter over the 2/1.

[daveharty]

From this thread, I am gathering that splinter bids are for hands that are flat in the other 3 suits?

No, it's just that splinters are very expensive, so a lot of people like to play them as strictly limited (say, 10-12 HCP or whatever), and use another route when the hand is stronger than that.

 

EDIT: Sorry broze, you're too quick for me.

[kenrexford]

I don't know why simple, straightforward questions, based on what one assumes is a fairly standard 2/1 framework, engender replies that advocate non-standard agreements. The OP wasn't asking for idiosyncratic methods...she was asking for opinions as to J2N or 2♣.

 

So we have a reply that contains the assumption that a 2♠ rebid by opener shows 6+ cards....while that is playable....and is played by a number of players.....it isn't 'standard' and the reply suggests that it is the only way it is played. And we have a reply that advocates a fit-showing jump: which is hardly standard, and (indeed) an unpopular treatment given the number of alternate uses to which 3♣ can be put.

 

Why can't we all just answer the question as posted rather than show off our brilliant alternatives? if you are convinced that your methods are the best, then suggest them as an alternative after answering the OP.

 

When you have two mainstream approaches (2♠ can be bid with 5; 2♠ promises six) but the OP does not state which approach is used, I think it to hardly be idiosyncratic or brilliant to comment that responding 2♣ probably will allow for a simple second call of 2♠ because the odds of a 2♠ rebid is lower when you have four cards, especially when I caveated at the end that all of this requires an analysis of methods, which were not stated.

 

In other words, lighten up Francis. In my honest opinion, you are WAY off base with your comments.

 

 

 

I mean, your own comments assume a response structure to 2NT that was not stated, assume that 4♦ is a splinter if Opener rebids spades, assumes for that matter that Opener would rebid spades with your proposed hand (which assumes the opposite treatment without the OP claiming that), and assumes that 4♥ after a splinter is a true cue and not LTTC, which also was not stated. Where do YOU get the right to assume methods not stated but others cannot even with caveats given?

[jillybean]

I would always bid 2N with this hand, never 2♣ so this is a very interesting discussion. I would not splinter here, my hand is a little too strong.

 

As phil_20686 touches on, I play 2C/1M as gf clubs or balanced, most often a 3 card M raise and this is not a hand I would have made a gf 'clubs' bid on. How does this agreement affect this appraoch? Partner does not know I have clubs until later, 2♣/1M I could be as few as 2. (yes, we alert)

 

Ken , fwiw I play 1M 2m 2M as 5+

[kenrexford]

I would always bid 2N with this hand, never 2♣ so this is a very interesting discussion. I would not splinter here, my hand is a little too strong.

 

As phil_20686 touches on, I play 2C/1M as gf clubs or balanced, most often a 3 card M raise and this is not a hand I would have made a gf 'clubs' bid on. How does this agreement affect this appraoch? Partner does not know I have clubs until later, 2♣/1M I could be as few as 2. (yes, we alert)

 

Often it develops through the auction. If, for example, you show unbalanced, then clubs are natural.

 

Consider 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-4♦ as a simple example. If 4♦ is a splinter (caveat for Mike), you cannot have started with a balanced hand. Therefore, the club call must be natural.

 

If the auction takes longer, like 1♠-2♣, 2♦-2♠, 3♣-4♦(splinter assumed -- for Mike), you might still get the message sent.

 

There can be auctions where it gets difficult to handle, but then that also is a reason to consider alternatives. Here, none of the majority of rebids from Opener will cause a problem, so 2♣ seems easy. With different structures, or different patterns, the hand might foretell a problem and argue for an alternative like a Splinter or Jac2NT (if OK with Mike).

 

 

 

BTW -- since you now established that 2♠ rebids promise 5+, the same principles apply that I mentioned earlier. Opener still is very likely to respond 2♦ or 2♥. But, I would recommend in this specific auction adding in 2♦ by Opener as "diamonds or balanced," both because a lot of good players are doing this now (apparently) and because it just makes life easier in the long run. But, that's just a proposal.

[phil_20686]

No, it's just that splinters are very expensive, so a lot of people like to play them as strictly limited (say, 10-12 HCP or whatever), and use another route when the hand is stronger than that.

 

EDIT: Sorry broze, you're too quick for me.

 

Think std is about 10-14, at least in this part of the world. Appreciate the reasons for a smaller range, but if you make them to narrow you never use them :)

[mikeh]

When you have two mainstream approaches (2♠ can be bid with 5; 2♠ promises six) but the OP does not state which approach is used, I think it to hardly be idiosyncratic or brilliant to comment that responding 2♣ probably will allow for a simple second call of 2♠ because the odds of a 2♠ rebid is lower when you have four cards, especially when I caveated at the end that all of this requires an analysis of methods, which were not stated.

 

In other words, lighten up Francis. In my honest opinion, you are WAY off base with your comments.

 

 

 

I mean, your own comments assume a response structure to 2NT that was not stated, assume that 4♦ is a splinter if Opener rebids spades, assumes for that matter that Opener would rebid spades with your proposed hand (which assumes the opposite treatment without the OP claiming that), and assumes that 4♥ after a splinter is a true cue and not LTTC, which also was not stated. Where do YOU get the right to assume methods not stated but others cannot even with caveats given?

Ken, let's not get involved in another tedious, boring flame war.

[cherdano]

I mean, your own comments assume a response structure to 2NT that was not stated, assume that 4♦ is a splinter if Opener rebids spades, assumes for that matter that Opener would rebid spades with your proposed hand (which assumes the opposite treatment without the OP claiming that), and assumes that 4♥ after a splinter is a true cue and not LTTC, which also was not stated. Where do YOU get the right to assume methods not stated but others cannot even with caveats given?

 

I am shocked, truly shocked, that Mike would assume that the OP has standard agreements until the OP indicated otherwise.

[MrAce]

I dont mind either 2♣ or 2 NT, but i think direct splinter with that hand is a joke.