J2N or a 2/1?

[mike777]

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

 

 

 

ditto

[blackshoe]

Just to throw some more hydrogen on the fire :P , I would bid 3NT with that hand, playing the admittedly non-standard Hardy Raise structure. The bid shows a good 12 to a bad 15 HCP, 4(+) spades, and a singleton or void in some side suit.

[jillybean]

Yuk ;)

all that room wasted...

[dwar0123]

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.

 

Ah thanks, another bad habit identified and understood. This does seem about 2 points weaker then what I remembered when I last played bridge a lot 20 years ago but it certainty makes sense.

[kenrexford]

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

 

 

I am not sure, but I would actually be surprised to find out that repeating a major with a 5-card suit is deemed "standard" in a 2/1 context. I understand that there is a lot of popularity to that approach, but "standard" seems to imply either majority or majority in the context of mainstream or at least expected in the context of "no discussion." In running a Google search on this, I ran into Larry Cohen claiming that a rebid promises 6 and Eric Rodwell saying that it promises six. If I recall correctly, the basic difference is between Hardy and Lawrence, with lawrence thinking being along the "nopt necessarily GF" strain and hence not 2/1. Something similar, but not true 2/1GF, as the lack of the GF makes it not GF.

 

My point, though, was not that Mike made an assumption (apparently a Lawrence assumption) but that my assumption (Hardy/Cohen/Rodwell?) was attacked as some sort of trolling or something.

 

That said, I remain questioning as to whether 5+ is in fact "standard" for 2/1. I would expect 6+ to be "standard."

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[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 ?

There have been a number of similar theads on this subject..... at least 2 or 3 this year.

I always used to be of the opinion to show a GF Support Raise ( such as Jacoby, but modified ) but

I'm leaning toward a 2/1 with a good 5 card suit ( perhaps as little as a good 4 cards ).

I'm not sure if it is mikeh or Ken's arguments in these threads that has "moved me " .

 

The thing is, you can find a double-fit with the following bidding:

1M - 2m!

3m - 3M ( eventho this only promises 3 cards, Responder may very well become Captain )

 

But you can't the other way around:

1M - modified Jac2NT

3D! ( artificial showing NO shortness, but extras ) - 4C or 4D now are cuebids , NOT a natural 4+ minor suit

 

With the double-fit auction, I would use 6 Ace-RKC .

 

If Opener cannot support your 2/1 suit, no matter... agree the Major and commence with the "Serious/Non-serious" and cuebids and LTTC ( Last Train... ) if needed.

[Cthulhu D]

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.

 

How do you get 2C to always show 5 after 1S? I play the others as 5, but 2C is clubs or balanced because otherwise I am doomed with hands like:

 

S: Ax

H: Axxx

D: Axxx

C: AKx

 

Or is it (4)5+?

[jmcw]

[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 ?

 

I very much doubt you'll get a convincing answer to your basic question. I wonder how one would go about "proving" their respective point of view.

 

FWIW I never 2/1 with 4 or more trumps and I never Jacoby with a stiff or void. This is clearly a splinter for me.

I've been playing that system for a long time. I think it works ok.

 

One think for sure. With 9+ card fit and the 3 top honors it would be unlikely to drop a trump trick, the same cannot be said if the trump length may only be 8.

Splinters show 4 or more trumps and are unlimited for me. I don't understand why folks apply a top limit "to make the bid effective". Perhaps, they will respond.

[Vampyr]

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 :)

 

I prefer to define them by number of controls; you are not going to get to the thin slams holding four queens. Well, you might get to them, but you won't make them!

[the_clown]

With a 6th♣, I would certaily bid 2♣+3♠. I dont feel this hand is good enough for it (The jump to 3S would show a 4card support and a pretty good side suit as a source of tricks). For me it is a 50-50 choice between a splinter and 2NT. If I have 3♦ available as splinter I would probably bid that, otherwise 2N

[blackshoe]

Yuk ;)

all that room wasted...

 

Is it really? Do you know the whole system?

[jillybean]

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.

This is interesting and I will mention it to my partner.

 

 

There have been a number of similar theads on this subject..... at least 2 or 3 this year.

I always used to be of the opinion to show a GF Support Raise ( such as Jacoby, but modified ) but

I'm leaning toward a 2/1 with a good 5 card suit ( perhaps as little as a good 4 cards ).

I'm not sure if it is mikeh or Ken's arguments in these threads that has "moved me " .

 

The thing is, you can find a double-fit with the following bidding:

1M - 2m!

3m - 3M ( eventho this only promises 3 cards, Responder may very well become Captain )

 

But you can't the other way around:

1M - modified Jac2NT

3D! ( artificial showing NO shortness, but extras ) - 4C or 4D now are cuebids , NOT a natural 4+ minor suit

 

With the double-fit auction, I would use 6 Ace-RKC .

 

If Opener cannot support your 2/1 suit, no matter... agree the Major and commence with the "Serious/Non-serious" and cuebids and LTTC ( Last Train... ) if needed.

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.

I understand the reasoning for the 2/1 rather than the Jac2NT and I like it. We do play a modifed Jacoby and have discussed S3N but it has never come up, or we have missed it. I don't know 6 Ace-RKC and don't know the details of LTTC. They do sound interesting, whether I need them or not or if there is room on my CC is another thing.

 

 

FWIW I never 2/1 with 4 or more trumps and I never Jacoby with a stiff or void. This is clearly a splinter for me.

I've been playing that system for a long time. I think it works ok.

When I picked up splinters I would splinter on any hand that had a stiff or void. I think now my system is much better defined and effective since limiting splinters to specific, weaker hands. However what ever works for you is best, there are a multitude of ways to approach this game.

 

 

Is it really? Do you know the whole system?

I don't know a thing about the system, you may have missed the ;)

I do know that it seems preferable to agree to a fit as early as perhaps the 2 level and preserve one entire level as opposed to forcing partner to the 4 level.

[blackshoe]

I don't know a thing about the system, you may have missed the ;)

I do know that it seems preferable to agree to a fit as early as perhaps the 2 level and preserve one entire level as opposed to forcing partner to the 4 level.

 

Fair enough, but a splinter, particularly one with that much high card strength, is a slam try. I don't think it's out of line to use up a little space, particularly if lower level bids are allocated meanings looking for game or part score more than slam. Hardy Raises are perhaps not the theoretical best approach to major suit raises (frankly, I don't know what is), but they're better than some — including, IMO, Bergen.

 

How would you structure responses such that agreeing partner's major at the two level is game forcing or more? A natural 2/1 may be forcing to game, but it doesn't establish the major suit fit. And if you start with that, are you going to be able to show both the fit and the shortage later?

[the hog]

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

 

True, however your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣

2C is a far superior bid, (as is a splinter for that matter.) Mike commented that the hand was too strong for a splinter, however you can of course, play 2 ranges of splinter. (eg over 1S 3NT = 13-14 any, and 4? = 10-12). I still prefer 2C and think jacoby is a joke on this hand.

[jillybean]

How would you structure responses such that agreeing partner's major at the two level is game forcing or more? A natural 2/1 may be forcing to game, but it doesn't establish the major suit fit. And if you start with that, are you going to be able to show both the fit and the shortage later?

The method I play 1♠ 2♣* 2♦/♥ 2♠ shows a gf ♠ hand. Once the major fit is identified we start a cue bid sequence, allowing repsonder to show shortage. Admittedly, the usual sequence is 1S 2m 2S so we don't often find the fit at the 2level but when we do, we have exchanged a lot of information below the 2M level.

[blackshoe]

Point taken, and there are some hands I would take that approach, but I would rather have a better club suit. Hm. Maybe the hand with the better club suit should splinter. I'll have to think about that.

[straube]

I am not sure, but I would actually be surprised to find out that repeating a major with a 5-card suit is deemed "standard" in a 2/1 context. I understand that there is a lot of popularity to that approach, but "standard" seems to imply either majority or majority in the context of mainstream or at least expected in the context of "no discussion." In running a Google search on this, I ran into Larry Cohen claiming that a rebid promises 6 and Eric Rodwell saying that it promises six. If I recall correctly, the basic difference is between Hardy and Lawrence, with lawrence thinking being along the "nopt necessarily GF" strain and hence not 2/1. Something similar, but not true 2/1GF, as the lack of the GF makes it not GF.

 

My point, though, was not that Mike made an assumption (apparently a Lawrence assumption) but that my assumption (Hardy/Cohen/Rodwell?) was attacked as some sort of trolling or something.

 

That said, I remain questioning as to whether 5+ is in fact "standard" for 2/1. I would expect 6+ to be "standard."

 

I think 1S-2C, 2S is almost certainly a 6-cd suit but 1S-2D, 2S and even more so 1S-2H, 2S may easily be 5-cd suits. The tighter the space, the more care one should take using it.

 

For example, 1S-2H, 2S leaves responder a temporizing bid of 2N. 1S-2H, 2S-3N can be used to show a strong NT strength.

[32519]

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.

 

Jacoby 2NT: Recommended Continuation Bidding Structures

 

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

 

The second thread picked up a lot of flack.

[P_Marlowe]

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+

The meaning of a 2C response has an effect, and also to be taken into account is your J2N response

structure.

 

Bidding 2C is providing information to partner, bidding J2N is asking for further information.

 

So the strength and weakneses of the involved players has also an effect.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Flameous]

I don't have way to show 4th trump after 2/1 so I don't use it unless I know the fourth trump is close to meaningless.

 

Here the fourth trump is really relevant so I must let partner know about it. I'm lucky playing fitjumps so I'd go with 3♣. I think I'd prefer appropriate strength splinter before J2NT with this hand.

[broze]

How do you get 2C to always show 5 after 1S? I play the others as 5, but 2C is clubs or balanced because otherwise I am doomed with hands like:

 

S: Ax

H: Axxx

D: Axxx

C: AKx

 

Or is it (4)5+?

 

For balanced GF hands over 2♠ specifically, we use 2NT as 13-15 HCP balanced (or 19+ - as in the hand you post) and 3♦ as 16-18 balanced, both with relay continuations. Over 2♥ we use 2♠ and 3♣ respectively. Some might call this wasteful and no doubt the 2♣ bid covering all balanced hands is better, but this has worked very well for us, and as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 

True, however your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣

2C is a far superior bid, (as is a splinter for that matter.) Mike commented that the hand was too strong for a splinter, however you can of course, play 2 ranges of splinter. (eg over 1S 3NT = 13-14 any, and 4? = 10-12). I still prefer 2C and think jacoby is a joke on this hand.

 

Out of curiosity, do you bother with reading the whole thread before your post. Everything you've written has been said already (almost verbatim).

[phil_20686]

Re splinters:

 

It seems that there are several competing concerns here. Firstly, if they are unlimited, they are poorly defined, and its hard for partner to judge intelligently what to do. If they are too narrowly defined they become uncommon. Even if narrowly defined, one should ask what range will most commonly lead to good slams. I would imagine most slams occur with points roughly evenly balanced, so for a narrow range 12-14 is probably the most helpful. Further, if you are shortening the splinter range, you must put a bunch of those hands into jacoby.

 

I would guess that the 9-12 range arises out of a desire to keep jacoby as 12+. However, in this part of the world, many have moved to playing jacoby as invitational+, this treatment has many advantages, as the opponents find it more difficult to interfere over 2N when it is an invitation, as they need to keep constructive over calls. Moreover it fits naturally into the style of having 3c=minimum. It raises some difficulties when partner shows extras, as you have a wider range to differentiate, but since his most common bids show shortage and those shortages might generate wastage, you have to deal with these strength of hands anyway.

 

Thus, I think that the splinter is best used to remove the weaker hands with shortage from jacoby completely, and play it as 10-14 ish, so hands which always want to be in game, but not so strong that they can largely take control of the auction.

 

Re 2C vs 2N/splinter

 

I am not a huge fan of the positions put out onthis thread about a "trick source" and bidding 2C when you have a really good suit. It seems to me that AKxxx plays well opposite just about any holding except xxx, and partner will not be ecstatic about xxx in any suit where I have not shown shortage. It seems much more logical to go the suit then support route when you have a broken suit like KJxxxx where you really want partner to devalue x and xx, and upgrade Qx Ax AQx in your suit. I think a hand like Axxx x Ax KJxxxx is perfect for a 2C bid then support.

 

Bidding two clubs will only help partner make a good decision if it gets him to correctly value his holding. There are no bad holdings opposite AKxxx(x) except xxx which he will always devalue, so what am I achieving? If he signs of because he has a stiff in my suit will I be happy? Qx is a great holding in a side suit opposite a splinter. so is QJx, you are happy if partner splinters has he has turned soft values into cards that are always working. Same with KJx heart. If partner holds Axxxx AKJ xxxx x why will will he realise he has a great hand after 1S-2c-2d-2S? Surely he has a clear downgrade as both people have shortage in their partners suits, Axxxx trumps opposite three card support doesnt seem great. This auction could easily go 1S-2c-2d-2s-4s from opener to show a minimum (if that is allowed in your system). Is that unlucky?

 

It just seems to me that bidding 2C with a suit that plays well opposite almost any holding will not improve partners decision making.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

(snip)...... your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣

2C is a far superior bid....

This is another good point for 2C on this hand:

 

I don't know all of the nuances in KenRex's cue bidding, but even if there is NOT a double-fit auction ( my post # 31 ), if Opener cue bids Clubs, it shows 1 of the top 3 in partner's suit; or if Responder cue bids Clubs it shows TWO of top 3 .

 

1M - 2C!

2NT - 3M

4C! ( 1 of top 3 )

 

or

1M - 2C!

2NT - 3M

3NT - 4C! ( 2 of top 3 )

[Flem72]

Seems funny to me that no one has mentioned this typical form of (unopposed) 2/1 major-suit auction:

 

1S-2C/2D or 2H-3S, 1S-2D/2H-3S, 1H-2C/2D-3H

 

usually defined as 5+C, 4+ good M, therefore either 2-2 or 3-1 or 4-0. I realize that these forms

 

1M-2m/2M-3M

 

are now cloudy with respect to shape and quality of support, but 1M-2m/2M-4short is also possible here. Further, I really like the traditional "bid around the stiff' approach with unbalanced hands with strong support; this is a problem with 2/1 structures where responder denies primary support if s/he doesn't bid it at the rebid. Other forms, something like

 

1M-2m/2M-3om/3N-4M, 1H-2C/2H-2S/2N-4H,

 

can also be used to show this hand type. On the main issue, I would rather reserve J2NT for balanced, HCP kinds of hands; show source-of-trick suits with the 2/1 response; and splinter with less robust side-suits with good support and a control in the 3rd suit.

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Jilly asked:

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.

Here is another one from January which also has a "double-fit" in ♣ :

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50210-splinter-jacoby-2nt-or-what/

 

Opener

KJ6

K9843

A

KJ52

 

Responder

void

AQ62

K865

AQ974

 

1H - 2C!

3C - 3H

 

Although Zelandakh is "big on relays" ( to say the least ) and also has a Splinter system for this type of hand,

he also showed the use of 6 Ace-RKC , Exclusion ( ♠-void ) for the above sequence ... to reach 7H.... in his post # 20 .

( Meckwell uses 4S! as kickback when ♥ are trump and 4NT! as Voidwood - ecluding ♠ )

 

After - 3H

3S - 4NT (X6KCB of course :) )

5D - 7H