modified jacoby 2nt

[phoenixmj]

Yesterday I played bridge and there was a guest speaker for 1/2 hour before the bridge began. She pointed out that it is now becoming more common for people to use Jacoby 2NT as a limit raise rather than a game force. This was the very first I had heard of this.

 

I did a couple of google searches today and I found an article by Robert Todd that said that today's experts do use Jacoby 2nt as a limit raise. The responses to the 2NT are very similar to the ones mentioned by Larry Cohen (although his article still says that Jacoby 2nt is a game force). None of these responses are the ones I learned as responses for Jacoby 2nt.

 

I am curious as to how many people play traditional Jacoby 2NT and how many play this modified version.

 

I had not realized that people were playing it differently. So - If I am at a table and the bidding goes 1M, 2N (alert) - I have been assuming game force without asking for an explanation. If the subsequent bid is 3c - I assumed shortness in clubs after the alert.

 

I am guessing that this is accurate 99 percent of the time - but now I wonder if we should be asking whenever these bids occur.

[Stephen Tu]

My impression is that GF is still very dominant in the U.S.; LR+ is much more common in Europe but starting to leak over. As for response structures there are a zillion permutations possible no matter whether you play as GF or LR+, I think advanced partnerships tend to roll their own.

[Vampyr]

Yesterday I played bridge and there was a guest speaker for 1/2 hour before the bridge began. She pointed out that it is now becoming more common for people to use Jacoby 2NT as a limit raise rather than a game force. This was the very first I had heard of this.

 

If you play 2NT as invitational or better, do not call it Jacoby. Convention names generally sow confusion, especially when the name of a convention is usurped and applied to another, different convention.

 

By the way, your suggested responses will not give you a full picture. For example, after 1♠-2NT my favourite method is 3♣ shows balanced non -minimum. Similarly 1♥-2♠-2NT (we use 2♠ as our GF heart raise).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

my impression is, that using 2NT to show a limit+ raise is usually played with 3 card support,

the limit raise with 4 going through 3M.

A limit raise with 3 cards is usually based on high card strength, and 2NT leaves more room for

finding out, if the high cards are well placed.

Also the 3M limit raise can be streched, allowing to also shut out some intervention.

 

Also on the raise is the usage of a 2C response, that can contain either a gf with clubs or a gf

3 card (bal?) gf raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

If you play 2NT as invitational or better, do not call it Jacoby. Convention names generally sow confusion, especially when the name of a convention is usurped and applied to another, different convention.

<snip>

I agree, altough weakening the requirement for using the bid wont confuse too much ..., and what it is also not certain,

that we both agree, what a gf raise should look like.

[Tramticket]

If you play 2NT as invitational or better, do not call it Jacoby. Convention names generally sow confusion

 

I agree. I don't think a convention name is ever an adequate response at the table to an enquiry about an artificial bid. Even if you play what you think is "normal" Jacoby, please describe what the bid shows rather than using a convention name.

 

We play a method suggested by Brian Senior in his book "Raising Partner" (published 25 years ago, so hardly a new method). 3C response is any minimum - that is a hand that would not accept an invitational raise. Other 3-level bids show shortage, with 3 of our major showing club shortage. 3NT is non-minimum with no shortage. After the 3C response, 3D is a further enquiry if responder is still interested in higher things opposite a minimum opener.

 

This works well in the context of our Acol system (no Bergen raises etc.).

[Tramticket]

The poll options seem to miss a lot of possibilities. In my experience on this side of The Atlantic a lot of players show a second suit at the three level and a jump to the four level to show shortage. A jump to 4 of our suit often shows a solid suit.

[pescetom]

My impression is that GF is still very dominant in the U.S.; LR+ is much more common in Europe but starting to leak over. As for response structures there are a zillion permutations possible no matter whether you play as GF or LR+, I think advanced partnerships tend to roll their own.

 

2NT as a GF is rare in Europe, particularly among those playing 2/1 GF who almost always play 2NT as LR+.

Some play that 2NT LR+ will always promise 4-card support, some always 3-card, some either (but 4-card following interference).

 

As for the name, Jacoby is clearly something very different; some call it Truscott but this is a misattribution too.

It seems to have originated in the Netherlands so I suggest "Dutch 2NT" if nobody can pin it down more precisely.

 

It leaves both minor suits available for artificial use and I agree with Stephen that there is little standardisation of response structures, although 3♣ as an ask with relay replies to show length of fit and/or shortages and 3♦ showing a hand close to accepting an invite are common treatments.

[pescetom]

I did a couple of google searches today and I found an article by Robert Todd that said that today's experts do use Jacoby 2nt as a limit raise. The responses to the 2NT are very similar to the ones mentioned by Larry Cohen (although his article still says that Jacoby 2nt is a game force). None of these responses are the ones I learned as responses for Jacoby 2nt.

 

I am curious as to how many people play traditional Jacoby 2NT and how many play this modified version.

 

I don't think it makes sense to consider this as a modification of Jacoby 2NT. It is a different convention with different scopes and the replies have nothing in common with Jacoby 2NT (so your poll makes no sense as it is written).

[Vampyr]

Hi,

 

my impression is, that using 2NT to show a limit+ raise is usually played with 3 card support,

the limit raise with 4 going through 3M.

 

I doubt this. If an artificial method shows an invitational raise, it is normal for 3M to be weak. Also there are other ways to show a 3-card forcing raise; above you mentioned putting it into 2♣, or you could start with some other 2/1, and don’t forget the “pudding raise”, which has not died out yet.

 

The poll options seem to miss a lot of possibilities. In my experience on this side of The Atlantic a lot of players show a second suit at the three level and a jump to the four level to show shortage. A jump to 4 of our suit often shows a solid suit.

 

I have seen this too, but “a lot” seems like an overbid.

[DozyDom]

I don't think it makes sense to consider this as a modification of Jacoby 2NT. It is a different convention with different scopes and the replies have nothing in common with Jacoby 2NT (so your poll makes no sense as it is written).

Nothing in common? I think that depends what you define as Jacoby - is it just the 2NT bid, or does it include a specific set of follow-ups. I would never bother playing a different set of responses to 2NT just because it shows limit+ rather than GF - but that is partly because I would never play 4M as showing the weakest hand variant for opener.

[phoenixmj]

The responses have been very interesting. I realize that I did not offer all possible responses, but I am really just trying to get a handle on how often the responses are not the "generally accepted" responses 1M, 2N.

 

This tells me that I NEED to ask after someone alerts a bid. I have been treating a 3c response as a singleton/void in clubs - and evidently this is an assumption that I should not make. If it will not affect the bidding - then I need to ask before my lead as otherwise, I am operating under a different premise.

 

I agree that if someone asks what the alert means, an answer of Jacoby is NOT acceptable without further explanation. Same thing regarding responses. I know in general I get answers like Jacoby and I had no idea this could mean something different.

 

When I googled modified Jacoby 2N and googled Jacoby as a limit raise - then I found these articles. So - I do think some people are likely calling it Jacoby.

 

My partner and I have been playing Bergen raises - so limit raise in our case is 1M, 3D (with 4 card support). We play 1M, 3M as weak preemptive bid.

 

This would allow 1M, 3d as a weak jump shift - preemptive in diamonds.

 

I see the main value of this "modified version" in the responses. The article I pulled from Larry Cohen has the modified responses over the 2N game force bid.

 

If we alert a 3c bid now, and the opps do not ask, are we obligated (or just should we) explain the bid before the opening lead? It does seem misleading to me now since 3c over the 2N bid traditionally means singleton/void in clubs. And now would have a different meaning under any of the modified responses. Is the responsibility on defenders to ask or declarer to disclose?

[Cyberyeti]

We use 2N as 4 card support limit+

 

We bid semi naturally over it, bidding length rather than shortness initially

[DozyDom]

The responses have been very interesting. I realize that I did not offer all possible responses, but I am really just trying to get a handle on how often the responses are not the "generally accepted" responses 1M, 2N.

 

This tells me that I NEED to ask after someone alerts a bid. I have been treating a 3c response as a singleton/void in clubs - and evidently this is an assumption that I should not make. If it will not affect the bidding - then I need to ask before my lead as otherwise, I am operating under a different premise.

 

I agree that if someone asks what the alert means, an answer of Jacoby is NOT acceptable without further explanation. Same thing regarding responses. I know in general I get answers like Jacoby and I had no idea this could mean something different.

 

When I googled modified Jacoby 2N and googled Jacoby as a limit raise - then I found these articles. So - I do think some people are likely calling it Jacoby.

 

My partner and I have been playing Bergen raises - so limit raise in our case is 1M, 3D (with 4 card support). We play 1M, 3M as weak preemptive bid.

 

This would allow 1M, 3d as a weak jump shift - preemptive in diamonds.

 

I see the main value of this "modified version" in the responses. The article I pulled from Larry Cohen has the modified responses over the 2N game force bid.

 

If we alert a 3c bid now, and the opps do not ask, are we obligated (or just should we) explain the bid before the opening lead? It does seem misleading to me now since 3c over the 2N bid traditionally means singleton/void in clubs. And now would have a different meaning under any of the modified responses. Is the responsibility on defenders to ask or declarer to disclose?

The fact that you're already thinking about the opps shows you're a more ethical player than most! You don't have any responsibility to disclose when they don't ask about the alert - just to make sure that they have seen that alert. That's why, as you correctly say, it's so important to ask about alerts. If at some point the opponents fail to ask, and are misled by their assumptions, try not to feel too guilty - know that the experience will teach them a valuable lesson about asking for explanations.

 

I play 1H-1NT as showing spades in one of my partnerships, and in the EBU a forcing 1NT is alertable, so we occasionally run into opponents who do not ask about the bid, assuming it is simply a forcing NT. At first we would seek to draw it to their attention; now, we don't. It is too difficult dealing with opponents who think you are being condescending rather than simply helpful.

[Vampyr]

Nothing in common? I think that depends what you define as Jacoby - is it just the 2NT bid, or does it include a specific set of follow-ups. I would never bother playing a different set of responses to 2NT just because it shows limit+ rather than GF -

 

You would have to, because some rebids will be unavailable.

 

 

This would allow 1M, 3d as a weak jump shift - preemptive in diamonds.

 

I am deeply dubious about the value of minor-over-major weak jump responses.

 

If we alert a 3c bid now, and the opps do not ask, are we obligated (or just should we) explain the bid before the opening lead? It does seem misleading to me now since 3c over the 2N bid traditionally means singleton/void in clubs.

 

I think that enough pairs play 3♣ as something else (any minimum is very popular) that the opponents will know to ask if they care.

 

The concept of giving an unsolicited explanation of a bid after the auction is interesting, but surely one of the reasons this is not done is because how would you decide which bids to explain to the opponents?

[DozyDom]

You would have to, because some rebids will be unavailable.

 

Which ones are unavailable? If you aren't jumping to game with a minimum hand opposite a GF 2NT - and I would say you shouldn't be - which rebids can you not make?

[pescetom]

The concept of giving an unsolicited explanation of a bid after the auction is interesting, but surely one of the reasons this is not done is because how would you decide which bids to explain to the opponents?

 

I do it routinely for unusual bids which either were not alerted (due to regulations) or were alerted but no explanation was requested.

Whether you can or should do so depends partly upon RA regulations: IIRC in ACBL it is obligatory to post-alert and explain conventional bids which were not alerted because at 4-level or higher, or something similar.

[mikeh]

The responses have been very interesting. I realize that I did not offer all possible responses, but I am really just trying to get a handle on how often the responses are not the "generally accepted" responses 1M, 2N.

 

This tells me that I NEED to ask after someone alerts a bid. I have been treating a 3c response as a singleton/void in clubs - and evidently this is an assumption that I should not make. If it will not affect the bidding - then I need to ask before my lead as otherwise, I am operating under a different premise.

 

I agree that if someone asks what the alert means, an answer of Jacoby is NOT acceptable without further explanation. Same thing regarding responses. I know in general I get answers like Jacoby and I had no idea this could mean something different.

 

When I googled modified Jacoby 2N and googled Jacoby as a limit raise - then I found these articles. So - I do think some people are likely calling it Jacoby.

 

My partner and I have been playing Bergen raises - so limit raise in our case is 1M, 3D (with 4 card support). We play 1M, 3M as weak preemptive bid.

 

This would allow 1M, 3d as a weak jump shift - preemptive in diamonds.

 

I see the main value of this "modified version" in the responses. The article I pulled from Larry Cohen has the modified responses over the 2N game force bid.

 

If we alert a 3c bid now, and the opps do not ask, are we obligated (or just should we) explain the bid before the opening lead? It does seem misleading to me now since 3c over the 2N bid traditionally means singleton/void in clubs. And now would have a different meaning under any of the modified responses. Is the responsibility on defenders to ask or declarer to disclose?

It is unethical to ask about the alerts only when you are considering an action other than pass. Either ask ALWAYS or never ask until the auction is over. By asking only if interested in bidding, you convey UI to your partner, whether you bid or pass, but especially if you ask then pass. I am sure you don’t mean to do this, but I’m also sure you can now see why it is bad practice to do so.

[mikeh]

None of your poll options reflect my agreements. I don’t (yet) play 2N as limit or better, but use 3C as any non-horrible minimum, with responder being able to ask about shortness via a 3D relay, 3D as extras, balanced, next 3 bids show shortness (clubs, diamonds, other major) and 4M says I am embarrassed to have opened.

 

I think it important that opener limit his hand as soon as possible, and that he conceal shape with a minimum unless responder is still interested in slam. The traditional response structure is very bad, because opener, with shape, can’t limit his hand conveniently, and in addition gives the defenders too much information when both opener and responder are minimum.

[pescetom]

I agree that if someone asks what the alert means, an answer of Jacoby is NOT acceptable without further explanation. Same thing regarding responses. I know in general I get answers like Jacoby and I had no idea this could mean something different.

 

Unfortunately people do often give names of conventions instead of explaining the meaning of the bid. A correct explanation for 2NT as Jacoby would be something like "game force with 4-card fit" and for 2NT as "Dutch" something like "limit raise with x-card fit".

 

I've learned to make an exception for Stayman, as "enquiry for majors, does not promise any particular holding or strength" gets odd looks plus the inevitable question "do you mean Stayman?" and then "why didn't you just say so". The irony is that everyone is happy with the reply "Stayman" and nobody seems interested in what it means, which varies enormously from partnership to partnership - can it be weak, does it promise a 4-card major, u.s.w.

[steve2005]

My impression is that GF is still very dominant in the U.S.; LR+ is much more common in Europe but starting to leak over. As for response structures there are a zillion permutations possible no matter whether you play as GF or LR+, I think advanced partnerships tend to roll their own.

We just switched to limit+ in Canada.

 

our responses aren't an option the form

from Standard Modern Precision by D Neill

3C=GF

3D=12-13

3M=10-11

higher bids are voids OM=OM, 3N=D, 4C=C

Dont show a singleton unless someone has extras

[rmnka447]

I use a home grown system of responses with my favorite partner. With other members of our team, we use Swedish responses where 3 ♣ shows any minimum. With most other partners, I just use the "standard" Jacoby 2 NT response structure.

 

I think using 3 ♣ as showing any minimum hand has a lot of merit. Whenever responder is simply interested in game, it can be bid directly over 3 ♣ giving the defenders the least information. If responder wants to find out about any shortness, a 3 ♦ relay can be made and opener can show shortness with step responses - 3 ♥ = ♣ shortness, 3 ♠ = ♦ shortness, 3 NT = OM shortness.

 

The other opener rebids are:

 

3 ♦ = balanced with extras

3 ♥ = ♣ shortness with extras

3 ♠ = ♦ shortness with extras

3 NT = OM shortness with extras

4 level new suits = good 2nd suit

 

Note opener uses the same bids to show where shortness exists whether a minimum or with extras.

 

With my favorite partner, we use a combination of "standard" responses with our own insertions. We do so to try to incorporate some ideas for Jacoby 2 NT outlined by the Granovetters in their book, "Bridge Conventions in Depth:

 

3 ♣= minor suit shortness. 3 ♦ asks which. Step responses - 3 ♥= ♣, 3 ♠= ♦

3 ♦ = any 17+ hand

3 OM = OM shortness

3 M = minimum hand. 3 NT by responder asks for more info. Opener rebids 4 M with less than 2 honors in M. Other suit bids show a concentration of values and 2+ honors.

3 NT = 15-16 value

4 level new suits = strong 2nd suit usually 5-5 or better

4 M = minimum with strong trump, typically AKQxx or similar

 

The 3 ♠/3 NT ask and 4 M rebids are straight out of Granovetter. But we especially like using 3 ♦ as showing the strong hand because responder can initiate cueing with a new suit bid or by making a waiting bid (trump suit or NT bids).

[pescetom]

Limit+ is the standard when playing 2/1 around here.

Typical responses are:

3♣ = asks fit_length + shortage, relay replies

3♦ = undecided about game, F1 (but some play it as invite to control-bid)

3M/4M = signoff

3oM = 4+ cards, NAT F1

3NT = balanced pass/correct, GF

other = control-bid, GF+.

[bravejason]

My first thought was ‘what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?’ A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I’m not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

[steve2005]

My first thought was 'what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?' A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I'm not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

The thing is Jacoby is so flawed needs a rewrite, so you can do Limit+ with little extra effort