Two No Trump Jacoby

[Lovera]

The use of this convention has been addressed at other times also with critical aspects about this regard. In the meantime, I want to give some suggestions for those who wish to search: you can insert the term "Jacoby" (having 4 pages in reply) in the search box of the home .If you go to "Non-Natural System Discussion (Frequency of slam after Jacoby 2NT)(1)" you should find a topic that reports both the Pavliceck site and the Bridgewinners site where this convention has been discussed in detail(3) even in a complex way (something you should try to avoid in order not to transform your system into tendly to be artificial), you can also directly visit A. Gumperz in "http://Limited bidding :Reenginnering Jacoby 2NT". This convention is also obviously present in the "Conventions" section in bridgeguys.com being used in conjunction with the limitative bids. Another good site to see (and you can access it from my topic "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD on page 3) is that of the pattayabridge club.com always through the "Jacoby 2NT" home / convention(2) where examples of hands are given to be declared by combining them with the Swiss keycard and splinters.

(1):https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry970060

(2):https://www.pattayab...m/convindex.htm

(3)BridgeWinners:http://bridgewinners...iew/jacoby-2nt/

Edited April 5, 2019 by Lovera

[Lovera]

In fact the use of this jump bidding in response to an opening in a major suit denotes little support in suit bidded by opener with force distributed in the other three suits in a balanced hand and with a different meaning was my belief that it could alter the system I used. But now I am reconsidering this aspect: in this case, with the same meaning, we can delay the response proceeding via 2x-2NT 12-14 points (delaying a direct 2NT) and reteining 3NT instead as a direct jump on 1M with 15-17 points.

[Lovera]

The point of view for the use of 2NT as Jacoby, however, is different as this statement is used by me in conjunction with the strong support of 14-18 points in an unbalanced hand (including also the 5-4-2-2) while with the hands balanced (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, 5-3-3-2) should be bidded directly to jump to level three (1M-3M).The answers to 2NT are: 3 aside of the trump suit as shortness (0/1 cards), 3NT balanced13-15 points even in just three colors, 4 in trump minimal hand is excluding the slam, 3 in the suit of trump as good balanced hand.The respondent is alert for the slam if he has a control in the suit of the shortness or if the opener answer 3M and begins the sequence of cue bids with maximum hand if he/she does not have covered all the suits otherwise it proceeds with RKB. The off-scale declaration is reserved for the Exclusion meaning jump at the fourth level and this declaration also together with the cues but in this case the Exclusion is with a jump to interrupt the sequence of cue bids.

[Lovera]

It's also interesting to read this about:http://www.districts...%202006-06.aspx

[Lovera]

I've inserted directly two url in post #1; in Pattaya Bridge Club, in Convention, you click on "Jacoby 2NT" and when you are into, at the bottom of that page, see also "Raising Partner's Major with a big hand".

Just as indicated (with the editing) now there is also the Bridgewinner content as third url.

[Lovera]

Having provided, for my part, various information sources and this topic being dealt with on Bridgewinners also by our BBFs, as you can see, I believe that here too the discourse can open up for the purpose also of a fruitful informative and sharing discourse even if for different ways management of this, considering that this is also a good convention currently used.

[Lovera]

Don't let me alone to talk, i want to have your thinkings about this topic.

[pescetom]

Don't let me alone to talk, i want to have your thinkings about this topic.

 

Sorry, but I am not interested in the topic. It makes little sense to worry about fixing a convention that is superfluous anyway. I prefer to play 2NT as Jordan which occurs much more frequently and fits better in a modern 2/1 context.

[Lovera]

I ask that others BBFs intervene to expand the talking about the "Jacoby 2NT" remaining from what I indicated in my first posts.

[Stephen Tu]

There is a language barrier; it is not clear exactly what questions you are asking about the convention, exactly what you want discussed, that is why you have been posting by yourself.

 

I think most experts agree that it is useful to have a low level forcing raise of a major. If you look at convention cards for something like say the Rosenblum, you find that almost everyone is using 1M-2nt as some sort of raise. Normally it promises 4+ trumps, but is more often balanced than unbalanced; as unbalanced hands often want to describe themselves (by splinter raise, or 2/1 in a suit followed by support), rather than enquire.

The main variance I see is whether it is game force, or also includes invitational hands (in which case it probably no longer qualifies as "Jacoby").

 

Everyone agrees that the "standard", original Jacoby 2nt response structure is very inefficient, revealing too much about opener shape when both parties minimum and slam will not be reached, and being space inefficient otherwise. So many improved structures have been devised and you can search either here or bridgewinners or internet in general to find better ones.

I don't understand pescetom's comment about Jordan 2nt. Jordan 2nt usually refers to 1M-dbl-2nt as opposed to 1M-p-2nt. Here most play this as LR+ even if without double they play 2nt as GF.

 

[Winstonm]

Players who use Bergen raise structure can change the 1M-3M from weak to strong and thus free 2NT for alternate bids.

[pescetom]

I don't understand pescetom's comment about Jordan 2nt. Jordan 2nt usually refers to 1M-dbl-2nt as opposed to 1M-p-2nt. Here most play this as LR+ even if without double they play 2nt as GF.

 

I mean 1M-(p)-2NT showing a sound raise and 1M-(interference)-2NT showing the same but precisely 3-card, in a scheme where a bid of 3M is pre-emptive. Often referred to as Jordan or Truscott, although wrongly as you say; if there is a more precise name I would be grateful to know it.

[Lovera]

There is a language barrier; it is not clear exactly what questions you are asking about the convention, exactly what you want discussed, that is why you have been posting by yourself.

 

I think most experts agree that it is useful to have a low level forcing raise of a major. If you look at convention cards for something like say the Rosenblum, you find that almost everyone is using 1M-2nt as some sort of raise. Normally it promises 4+ trumps, but is more often balanced than unbalanced; as unbalanced hands often want to describe themselves (by splinter raise, or 2/1 in a suit followed by support), rather than enquire.

The main variance I see is whether it is game force, or also includes invitational hands (in which case it probably no longer qualifies as "Jacoby").

 

Everyone agrees that the "standard", original Jacoby 2nt response structure is very inefficient, revealing too much about opener shape when both parties minimum and slam will not be reached, and being space inefficient otherwise. So many improved structures have been devised and you can search either here or bridgewinners or internet in general to find better ones.

I don't understand pescetom's comment about Jordan 2nt. Jordan 2nt usually refers to 1M-dbl-2nt as opposed to 1M-p-2nt. Here most play this as LR+ even if without double they play 2nt as GF.

 

 

 

What I did (and then I discovered to have been thought of also by A. Gumperz: see this answer in Limited bidding ....:"Hendrik SharplesI've been using 3C as stiff / void 11 + -14- or 17+, 3D stiff 14+ - 17, and 3H as minimum, figuring we need room to sort out the shortness, and rarely need delicate tools 4 out of the major show 6 to AKQ or at least one out of control. We can't use 2NT as LR plus with this structure Have you had any experience with using a higher step for the minimum balanced?

 

May 11, 2012

 



Andrew Gumperz

 

I have not. When it is clearly the limit. I specifically want to separate the balanced and unbalanced mins with my first response for that reason.

 

I agree with you that you are less balanced, delicate tools have less value - you are going to require either a stiff or a mountain from responder. I also like the idea of ​​4M as a picture bid - a trump heavy opener

 

May 11, 2012") is to separate the hands between balanced and unbalanced. In this way: both for the one and the other distribution the response range is 14-18 1M-3M forcing only for the three balanced ones while for the unbalanced (1M-2NT)ones also including the 5-4-2-2 the answer is used 2NT Jacoby and the four basic answers.

[Stephen Tu]

I mean 1M-(p)-2NT showing a sound raise and 1M-(interference)-2NT showing the same but precisely 3-card, in a scheme where a bid of 3M is pre-emptive. Often referred to as Jordan or Truscott, although wrongly as you say; if there is a more precise name I would be grateful to know it.

Jordan/Truscott term should only apply to 1M-dbl-2nt as LR+.

1M-(p)-2nt "sound" ... well define "sound". I think for most American/English authors "sound" = "constructive" = ~8-10-. Using 2nt for this seems high; most just raise to 2 with this range (and include weaker raises unless agreement is "constructive raises", weaker raises going through 1nt).

If you mean 1M-p-2nt = invitational or better, good 10+ unlimited, I don't think it has any specific name attributable to anybody. Swedish perhaps? Though probably the idea independently invented and used in many places, with different response structures.

 

1M-(overcall)-2nt = 3cd raise ... again no name, but I think much more common is this 2nt still = 4 cd raise, cue = 3 cd raise, on theory that if 3 cd raise, more often may want to try 3nt but with overcaller on lead, whereas with 4 cd support declaring 3nt much more rare and slam more common which might better utilize the extra space.

 

[Lovera]

Players who use Bergen raise structure can change the 1M-3M from weak to strong and thus free 2NT for alternate bids.

I already use a system with a strong raise (1M-3M) and want ultheriorly define it changing the 2NT answer at a major suit opener as indicate in my post #2.

[hrothgar]

I already use a system with a strong raise (1M-3M) and want ultheriorly define it changing the 2NT answer at a major suit opener as indicate in my post #2.

 

All well and good, however, I would be shocked if a system that is predicated on an aberrant definition for 1M - 3M is of general interest

[Lovera]

All well and good, however, I would be shocked if a system that is predicated on an aberrant definition for 1M - 3M is of general interest

Is it only indicate here briefly the strong raise.

[pescetom]

If you mean 1M-p-2nt = invitational or better, good 10+ unlimited, I don't think it has any specific name attributable to anybody. Swedish perhaps? Though probably the idea independently invented and used in many places, with different response structures.

I mean that. With various response structures it is used in most of mainland Europe, as you say probably in Scandinavia first.

It deserves a name.

[Lovera]

It you get the Pattaya Bridge.com in Convention and click on Jacoby 2NT and then in " Raising Partner's major with a big hand " you can find 11 hands termed with letters from A to L.The Hands D,E,G,J,L are the hands bidded with the answer 2NT (and where you can splinter or use Keycard Swiss there) whilest the other ones those raised with 3♥/♠ .

[Stephen Tu]

Lovera,

Vast majority of strong players gave up on using 1M-3M as strong and forcing a long time ago. They did the same for Swiss raises. The problem is just that these bids are too high. There's not enough room to exchange enough information below 4M to make an accurate assessment of slam potential. Ideally you want at least one hand to be able to show both distribution and high card range generally. The better response structures to the 2nt raise do that, and can also conceal if both opener and responder are minimum. (Typical: 3c = min range, responder with min GF can just sign off at 4M, but bid 3d to enquire further).

 

3M as F raise isn't quite as bad as Swiss since it's several steps lower, but given that 2nt can reasonably handle the entire range of forcing raise hands, you don't really need to also have 3M as forcing; it's more useful to have 1M-3M available as some sort of preempt/mixed raise or some such.

 

The pattaya web site argument in favor of Swiss (reserving Jacoby for stronger hands only) for me is logically weak. They claim is that it is better for weaker responders (min GF) to Swiss. This is wrong IMO because there isn't room for opener to show shortness. Even if responder has min GF hand opener needs a way to say "if your values aren't in my short suit, we should be in slam". Can't do that with only a couple bids left. They claim that it's a problem that opener doesn't know how strong responder is and responder should not take captaincy. It's really not a problem. Responder with non-fitting minimums will simply sign off frequently and stop cue bidding. Opener can simply assume that responder who stops cooperating is on the minimum end. Even in the std inefficient Jacoby structure one can do things like use 3M or 3nt as waiting bids to differentiate stronger from weaker holdings.

 

So experts generally use a combo of splinter raises (sometimes with multiple ranges, or perhaps distinguishing between singletons/voids, or maybe both), and 2nt sequences to cover their raises, with a few hands with a good side suit choosing to go through 2/1 (or perhaps relay sequence starting with 2c if available).

 

[Lovera]

Lovera,

Vast majority of strong players gave up on using 1M-3M as strong and forcing a long time ago. They did the same for Swiss raises. The problem is just that these bids are too high. There's not enough room to exchange enough information below 4M to make an accurate assessment of slam potential. Ideally you want at least one hand to be able to show both distribution and high card range generally. The better response structures to the 2nt raise do that, and can also conceal if both opener and responder are minimum. (Typical: 3c = min range, responder with min GF can just sign off at 4M, but bid 3d to enquire further).

 

3M as F raise isn't quite as bad as Swiss since it's several steps lower, but given that 2nt can reasonably handle the entire range of forcing raise hands, you don't really need to also have 3M as forcing; it's more useful to have 1M-3M available as some sort of preempt/mixed raise or some such.

 

The pattaya web site argument in favor of Swiss (reserving Jacoby for stronger hands only) for me is logically weak. They claim is that it is better for weaker responders (min GF) to Swiss. This is wrong IMO because there isn't room for opener to show shortness. Even if responder has min GF hand opener needs a way to say "if your values aren't in my short suit, we should be in slam". Can't do that with only a couple bids left. They claim that it's a problem that opener doesn't know how strong responder is and responder should not take captaincy. It's really not a problem. Responder with non-fitting minimums will simply sign off frequently and stop cue bidding. Opener can simply assume that responder who stops cooperating is on the minimum end. Even in the std inefficient Jacoby structure one can do things like use 3M or 3nt as waiting bids to differentiate stronger from weaker holdings.

 

So experts generally use a combo of splinter raises (sometimes with multiple ranges, or perhaps distinguishing between singletons/voids, or maybe both), and 2nt sequences to cover their raises, with a few hands with a good side suit choosing to go through 2/1 (or perhaps relay sequence starting with 2c if available).

 

 

What you say is interesting but I'm trying to put the 2NT Jacoby in my system without changing much the structure is therefore keeping 1M-3M forcing (with range 14-18 and balanced hands) in this way still partly and using 2NT for the remaining unbalanced hands. The indication of the site of Pattaya Bridge is made to widen the "turn of horizon" presenting other declarative eventualities and for the examples of hands. The answers to the 2NT Jacoby are therefore: 3x is shortness in unbalanced minimum hand, 4M minimum hand without slam vision, 3M undefined shortness in good maximum hand and 3NT idem w / o shortness trying to avoid, by balancing all this, to complicate a system that I tend to keep it as natural as possible.

[Stephen Tu]

If you are going to retain 3M as forcing, I'd suggest you have this completely backwards (2nt = unbalanced, 3M = balanced). With the balanced hands, you want to use 2nt, because this gives max room to tease out both opener's shape + strength and figure out if the values of the balanced hand are working or not working. Use 3M as some splinter range (since you wanted to keep 3nt = natural 15-17) instead, different from 1S-4c. e.g. 1S-4c = 12-14 hcp, 1s-3s = 9-11 hcp any shortness (opener bid 3nt to ask where).

 

2nt = balanced or semi-balanced (with good side cd 5 suit normally 2/1), or too strong to splinter.

 

[Vampyr]

Have you heard of the “pudding raise”? This is a bid of 3NT showing 4-card support in a balanced, minimum GF (13-15, give or take, depending on your opening style. This bid may allow you to change your other raises to a more effective scheme.

 

Also, a bid of 2NT as a high-card raise to 3 or better is very playable. In fact I used to play it with my mixed pivot team (someone suggested it once and you don’t do much system revision with people you play 9 boards with once a year.)

 

Finally, splinters have been mentioned since they take up so much space they need to be very specific. My strong preference is to play them as 3-4 controls (A=2, K=1) in a hand not strong enough for a high-card GF raise, or a monster that is going to go on after partner’s signoff. The reason for the emphasis on controls rather than point-count (some people say, eg 8-11) is that you are not going to find the thin slams with 10 points in Jacks and Queens. And if you are not trying to find thin slams, you needn’t bother to play splinters,

[hrothgar]

The indication of the site of Pattaya Bridge is made to widen the "turn of horizon" presenting other declarative eventualities and for the examples of hands. The answers to the 2NT Jacoby are therefore: 3x is shortness in unbalanced minimum hand, 4M minimum hand without slam vision, 3M undefined shortness in good maximum hand and 3NT idem w / o shortness trying to avoid, by balancing all this, to complicate a system that I tend to keep it as natural as possible.

 

The Pattaya bridge club should not be taken as an authoritative source regarding best practices for bidding.

 

They've been involved in a lot of weird stuff over the years... (Not just wrt bidding)

[nullve]

In Scandinavia, the forcing 2N raise usually goes under the name of 'Stenberg' (after its inventior, the Swedish player Alvar Stenberg). Most Scandinavian players seem to prefer a version where 2N is only INV+, though, and that version is also called 'Invitt-Stenberg' (Eng.: 'Invitational Stenberg).

 

Natural continuations after (Invitt-)Stenberg are probably still dominant, but the following structure seems to have become quite popular recently:

 

1M-2N; ?:

 

3♣ = lower half of 1M range

...3♦ = GF relay

......3♥ = singleton/void in clubs

......3♠ = singleton/void in diamonds

......3N = singleton/void in the other major

......4♣+ = cuebidding w/ no singleton/void

...3M = INV

...4M = to play

3♦ = upper half of 1M range, no singleton/void

...3♥ = singleton/void in clubs

...3♠ = singleton/void in diamonds

...3N = singelton/void in the other major

...4♣+ = cuebidding w/ no singelton/void

3♥ = upper half of 1M range, singleton/void in clubs

3♠ = upper half of 1M range, singelton/void in diamonds

3N = upper half of 1M range, singelton/void in the other major

 

Some also play

 

4m = 5+ m, values concentrated in M and m

4♥(M=♠) = 5+ hearts, values concentrated in the majors

 

The above responses to 2N are sometimes called 'Swedish responses' to Jacoby/Stenberg, I believe.