Jacoby 2NT

[mikeh]

What one does is (for me) dependent on my methods.

 

If playing that a 3S bid is a limit raise, I’d bid 2N. The problem is, then, that any pair playing 3S as the limit raise probably plays a very basic 2N structure. Since J2N may overly excite partner, I’m not happy with that choice. However, no way am I not going to game, and a jump to 4S, except in a big club method, is silly.

 

My preference would be to be playing bergen. I’d show a 4 card limit raise And then bid game over a sign off.

 

One needs to be a little worried about partner’s tempo. Were he to hesitate and Then sign off, your opps might be annoyed when you go onto game, but you have to carry throuGh with this plan, since otherwise you are letting partner’s tempo influence your bidding. Note that you may then have to live with a ruling.

 

An alternative would be, if available, to bid a forcing 1N then 4S. Such is more likely to avoid opposition upset, since (firstly) 1N is so weird with six card support that the opps should believe that you were always bidding game and (secondly) partner’s hypothetical break in tempo won’t be as clearly suggestive as would be a hesitation over Bergen, followed by 3S.

 

However, I prefer Bergen because partner may have a good hand, with slam possibilities, and such will be far easier to bid after you show 4+ support than if you bid 1N. Also 1N makes it easier for the opps to get into the auction.

[sfi]

One needs to be a little worried about partner’s tempo. Were he to hesitate and Then sign off, your opps might be annoyed when you go onto game, but you have to carry throuGh with this plan, since otherwise you are letting partner’s tempo influence your bidding. Note that you may then have to live with a ruling.

The problem is that the laws actually require you to be influenced by partner's tempo in these situations. It contains a stronger restriction than simply ignoring it, so it's pretty hard to avoid an adjustment if partner does break tempo.

 

As someone who directs and sits on appeals committees (or did until we moved away from them), I would suggest you include this tendency in your notes. Even better, I would add wording that describes the types of hands you would do it with. E.g., "flattish seven loser hands with good trumps and soft values," or whatever. Maybe even an example or two. Documentary evidence would go a long way to protecting you.

[mikeh]

The problem is that the laws actually require you to be influenced by partner's tempo in these situations. It contains a stronger restriction than simply ignoring it, so it's pretty hard to avoid an adjustment if partner does break tempo.

 

As someone who directs and sits on appeals committees (or did until we moved away from them), I would suggest you include this tendency in your notes. Even better, I would add wording that describes the types of hands you would do it with. E.g., "flattish seven loser hands with good trumps and soft values," or whatever. Maybe even an example or two. Documentary evidence would go a long way to protecting you.

I also used to sit on appeals back in the day. I have no issue with having to accept a ruling, if need be. I expressly said so in my post. Personally, I will never consciously allow partner’s tempo to affect my bid. Say I made a Bergen limit raise, and partner hesitated then signed off. I know I was going to game. Say I allowed the hesitation to influence me into passing 3S, and that was all we could make. I would feel awful about that. I’d feel much happier bidding 4S and hoping that the TD or, more l8keky, the opps would accept that I was acting ethically. If they call, and the TD ruled against me, then so be it. Unhappy as I would be, I’d feel a lot better than in the scenario where I passed 3S due to the hesitation and saw partner held to 9 tricks

 

I understand the opposite point of view and would not accuse those who hold to it of doing anything wrong. It’s just not something I could bring myself to do.

 

Obviously this ONLY applies in those very rare situations where I have intentionally set out on an unusual sequence. Another, for me, fairly common (tho that is a relative term) situation is a balance 13 count with 4 card support for partner’s major. Since I like J2N to carry mild (very mild) slam interest I will occasionally bid a forcing 1N then bid game.

 

The good news, for me, is that both my current serious partners almost always take the aggressive route when confronted with a close decision, probably because our style is very much imp oriented so

I’m rarely in the awkward situation I describe

[smerriman]

It contains a stronger restriction than simply ignoring it, so it's pretty hard to avoid an adjustment if partner does break tempo.

Would a poll really find enough players giving serious consideration to passing this out in 3♠?

[sfi]

I also used to sit on appeals back in the day. I have no issue with having to accept a ruling, if need be. I expressly said so in my post. Personally, I will never consciously allow partner’s tempo to affect my bid.

I'm not really trying to change your mind, since I know you understand the laws. But I do think it's worth pointing out the subtle but important distinction between what you are saying and what the laws actually require, for others who may be reading.

 

To quote Law 16B:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

 

We have the agreed hesitation that provides UI. As a director, I need to be satisfied the action either was not "demonstrably suggested" by the UI or there was not another logical alternative that was not suggested. Otherwise we're looking at adjusting the board.

 

As a player, I need to consider that as well. Sometimes that's easy to work out - partner hesitated over a cue bid so now I need to have a really clear reason to lead that suit. Sometimes it's not, and the situation you are talking about is one where it can easily appear to be controversial. My suggestion about editing notes is basically designed to provide evidence that the other option (passing 3M here) is not a logical alternative.

 

And then there are the times when the UI actually impacts the decision. For example, you have a hand that might or might not invite in the auction 1S - 2S. If partner's 2S bid was slow, I suggest it is clear partner was deciding whether or not to invite. Now you are required by 16B to choose the alternative not suggested by the UI, so you are obligated to not invite even if you think most of the time you would have.

 

So it's not as simple as just ignoring the UI altogether. And it even makes sense to not do so from the point of view of the score. If you get to 4S and it makes, you're not keeping your score. But if it goes down you are, so there's no upside in inviting (under these conditions and assumptions). Basically the UI means you can no longer take inspired views in close decisions.

 

(You might disagree with my specific example. Even so, I'm sure you can come up with another one that fits the point.)

[sfi]

Would a poll really find enough players giving serious consideration to passing this out in 3♠?

Probably not in this case. But to conduct a poll you would need to find people who would choose the invitational bid in the first place - everyone who would simply game force or jump to game should be immediately excluded. When you find those people you have to ask what they would do when partner signs off. Remember, the choice of invitational action is an indication that you actually meant it as invitational.

 

Now you're in a range of murky outcomes. The director may find some people who simply aren't good at hand evaluation. You then have to raise the point that they aren't your peers, so the poll is invalid. Or that this is your style, which is where documentary evidence helps. The people judging the top players are almost certainly not as good as the players. Now we have reviews rather than appeals committees, the only ways to get views of top players are polling or for the director to consult directly. So there is less ability to have top-level considerations brought to the table.

 

And directors will far more frequently hear this argument from someone who actually was influenced by partner's hesitation. It happens all the time, and you don't want to rely on standing out from the crowd when you don't have to.

[mycroft]

Remember that for it to matter, there has to be a (less successful) LA to the UI.

 

Showing "10-12, 4c support" and having 11 with *6* card support but no shortness, find someone who won't say "oh, I'm not passing 3♠". Even if it takes 40 seconds to reject the invite. Sure, acknowledge the hesitation, bid 4♠ anyway, if they call the TD fine, if they wait until dummy comes down and then calls the TD, fine (but I'd be surprised).

 

Now, where the border is where partner's hesitation is going to hang you certainly exists. AJ862 J97 T62 KQ is much closer, for instance, and you might find someone who won't go to game. And then, if you still truly believe this is an absolute game force that you have to "fake" to stop partner from getting too excited, and it turns out that partner is really not too excited, you bid it, and if it turns out that your peers disagree about alternatives, you accept the ruling and go on.

 

"flat game forces on shape" are hard in natural systems. You want the 19s to look for slam, but not be at the 5 level with the 15s. I've seen "1♠-1NT(F); x-4♠", I've seen "1♠-3NT" showing something like that (my agreement with that is more AJ8xx xx Axx xxx, but I might fake it with this hand), I've seen "Bergen raise and jump to game" (here and elsewhere), there will be many others.

[kgr]

Yes, good enough for 2nt

No, too good for 4S

No, I don't consider other bids