Jacoby 2S/2NT variations

[mw64ahw]

Struggling to decide whether this is a 50%er.

Does you Jacoby2♠/2NT variation make this any easier?[hv=pc=n&n=saqj2hqj6532dqtc2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st97hkt98daj9cak7&n=saqj2hqj6532dqtc2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2s]266|200[/hv]

 

 

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry, what does 2♠ show? A weak jump shift in spades? A strong jump shift? In the former case you have a nice raise to 4♠, in the latter case stronger action is indicated.

[mw64ahw]

I'm sorry, what does 2♠ show? A weak jump shift in spades? A strong jump shift? In the former case you have a nice raise to 4♠, in the latter case stronger action is indicated.

Jacoby2NT, but using 2♠ instead of 2NT for ♥. The bid can be 2NT if that is your way

[DavidKok]

I don't play J2NT at all, I play De Maas.

 

Anyway, I assume you have a way to show shortness over a 2♠ Jacoby bid? I think it's a good idea to use that.

[mw64ahw]

I don't play J2NT at all, I play De Maas.

 

Anyway, I assume you have a way to show shortness over a 2♠ Jacoby bid? I think it's a good idea to use that.

I'm experimenting with various approaches (also considering your De Mass approach). One version does have that option, the other doesn't need it, but in either case I'm still looking for the decision making required to move beyond 4♥ on these hands. I'm struggling with the revaluation on the hand combination and how to show it.

[mikeh]

I’m not sure what the point is: are you suggesting that we want to be in slam on this hand? And, if so, which slam?

 

6H by north is less than 50%, although only by a tiny amount. That makes it a bad slam, but hardly a terrible slam.

 

It’s less than 50% because of the low but non-zero risk of a spade ruff even when the King is onside….opening leader holding x xx in the majors.

 

6N by south is purely 50%, so it’s one of those where the system getting you there or missing it is meaningless. Great for you for bidding it when the spade king is onside, terrible when it isn’t.

 

I play different structures with my two main partners. I’m not sure where we’d end up since I think each player has some judgement calls to make, so if both are aggressive, we’d get to 6H. If both are conservative, we miss it.

[DavidKok]

I'm experimenting with various approaches (also considering your De Mass approach).

I should point out that it's called 'Maas' after Anton Maas, not Mass.

[mw64ahw]

I should point out that it's called 'Maas' after Anton Maas, not Mass.

Auto spell check

[mw64ahw]

I’m not sure what the point is: are you suggesting that we want to be in slam on this hand? And, if so, which slam?

 

6H by north is less than 50%, although only by a tiny amount. That makes it a bad slam, but hardly a terrible slam.

 

It’s less than 50% because of the low but non-zero risk of a spade ruff even when the King is onside….opening leader holding x xx in the majors.

 

6N by south is purely 50%, so it’s one of those where the system getting you there or missing it is meaningless. Great for you for bidding it when the spade king is onside, terrible when it isn’t.

 

I play different structures with my two main partners. I’m not sure where we’d end up since I think each player has some judgement calls to make, so if both are aggressive, we’d get to 6H. If both are conservative, we miss it.

This one is a close call, but as it stands I end in 4♥ without a slam investigation. When it’s close to 50% I at least like to make the investigation. I’m wondering if there is any scientific approach that at least gets you to the investigation stage.

[Gilithin]

This one is a close call, but as it stands I end in 4♥ without a slam investigation. When it’s close to 50% I at least like to make the investigation. I’m wondering if there is any scientific approach that at least gets you to the investigation stage.

What do you mean by investigation stage? For me North shows a minimum with a singleton ♣ and South judges that that is not quite enough for slam. Is that an investigation or not? No idea. You only need to start checking for controls and key cards if you judge the hands to have enough for slam to be good absent the opps having 2 quick tricks.

[mw64ahw]

What do you mean by investigation stage? For me North shows a minimum with a singleton ♣ and South judges that that is not quite enough for slam. Is that an investigation or not? No idea. You only need to start checking for controls and key cards if you judge the hands to have enough for slam to be good absent the opps having 2 quick tricks.

Looking at it from a pure MLT basis North has ~7.25 MLT and is Min with 13/14 total points depending on whether you count both an honour adjustment & 'Quack' adjustment. (I count one or the other).

With standard revaluation for the long suit (+3) this becomes 17 total points with possible extra value for the Q♦ & QJ♠ opposite a 12/13+hcp for standard Jacoby 2NT.

Looking at South's hand we have 7MLT with 15hcp + 1 for the 'Quack' adjustment and a flat shape which can work well opposite an unbalanced hand.

So with 17/18 +16 total points i.e. 34 total points max. We are in borderline slam territory.

I'm not quite sure how to adjust North's MLT yet, but possibly half the point adjustment works giving 6.5. South has an intermediate hand with 3 keycards so I call that 6.5; again slam territory.

As mikeh points out its close to 50% for North, but there may be times when you want to make the call.

The issue for AI machine learning is finding a s set of constructs that convey this information so that we can proceed to (say) Italian Q bidding and continue/stop

[Douglas43]

4♥. For a slam to be good here I need as a minimum ♠K, ♥AK, ♦A. If any of those cards is missing, I need ♣A and ♦K to compensate.

[Douglas43]

Jacoby2NT, but using 2♠ instead of 2NT for ♥. The bid can be 2NT if that is your way

 

If I used 2♠ for Jacoby I'd be worried about giving the opponents an opportunity to find a Spade sacrifice via a double. Presumably there is a benefit that you think makes it worth that risk, could you enlarge on it please?

[Winstonm]

Struggling to decide whether this is a 50%er.

Does you Jacoby2♠/2NT variation make this any easier?[hv=pc=n&n=saqj2hqj6532dqtc2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st97hkt98daj9cak7&n=saqj2hqj6532dqtc2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2s]266|200[/hv]

 

 

 

If I'm behind in the 4th quarter I probably want to bid slam. Otherwise, no. (Unless it makes, of course.) As for team play, I really think the team parameters should be discussed prior to playing - as a team, are we OK with 50-50 small slams?

[akwoo]

My favorite version is

 

1H - 2S (invitational+, 4+ hearts)

4H (minimum, 6 hearts) - P

 

Yes South has to take a long look to see what the odds are for a slam over the 4H bid, but I don't think they're very good unless you open very sound and hence have a sound definition of minimum. Without a ruffing value it's hard to count to 12 tricks.

 

As to why 2S instead of 2N, we've got a somewhat complicated structure after 2S that allows us to pack both the limit raise and the overstrength splinter in it. After 1H-2S-2N(nondistributional minimum), 3C asks partner for shortness, 3D shows the overstrength splinter, and 3H asks partner to pass. Needing to bid 1H-2N-3C-3S for the overstrength splinter just takes up too much room.

 

Yes it does give opps the possibility of doubling, but we really want the extra step.

[mikeh]

If I used 2♠ for Jacoby I'd be worried about giving the opponents an opportunity to find a Spade sacrifice via a double. Presumably there is a benefit that you think makes it worth that risk, could you enlarge on it please?

Using 2S as J2N in support of hearts conserves bidding space, which is always a good idea in game+ situations.

 

It also allows 2N to be natural and forcing, which can be useful on occasion

 

The fear of allowing them to find spades is, in my experience with the method, not a serious problem.

 

Many good players bid over 1M (p) 2N on any good suit, without much regard to length or hand strength.

 

Surprisingly few pairs have an easy time doubling the interference, especially when red v white, but also at equal.

 

After all, 1H (p) 2N (3S)…..they don’t know I have, as I might, KQJ10x xxx xxx xx or KQJ10xxx x xxxx x, and they do know that they have at least nine hearts and game values or better.

 

So letting me double 2S rather than bid 3S is not optimal but, in the real world, my bidding 3S is more likely to disrupt their auction than would my double of 2S

[Gilithin]

If I used 2♠ for Jacoby I'd be worried about giving the opponents an opportunity to find a Spade sacrifice via a double. Presumably there is a benefit that you think makes it worth that risk, could you enlarge on it please?

Some very good players, including for example Fred Gitelman, like to use a 2NT response naturally. This means that 2/1 auctions become purer and that has advantages down the line, particularly for game vs slam scenarios. If you do this then the easiest adjustment is to use 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ as your GF raises.

[mw64ahw]

If I used 2♠ for Jacoby I'd be worried about giving the opponents an opportunity to find a Spade sacrifice via a double. Presumably there is a benefit that you think makes it worth that risk, could you enlarge on it please?

I'm aware of the opportunity for doubling. I've used 2♠ in this case as one of the versions I'm looking at needs the extra step to be symetric.

[Winstonm]

Some very good players, including for example Fred Gitelman, like to use a 2NT response naturally. This means that 2/1 auctions become purer and that has advantages down the line, particularly for game vs slam scenarios. If you do this then the easiest adjustment is to use 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ as your GF raises.

 

You can also use Bergen as an either/or bid. 3C is either limit or game force. 3D relays.

Bergen 3D becomes the mixed raise.

If you also eliminate the weak Bergen raise of 3M you can use that bid for a strong raise with no slam interest.

 

This frees 2N/3N as natural.

[Douglas43]

Some very good players, including for example Fred Gitelman, like to use a 2NT response naturally. This means that 2/1 auctions become purer and that has advantages down the line, particularly for game vs slam scenarios. If you do this then the easiest adjustment is to use 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ as your GF raises.

 

Thanks for that and to others who have replied on my question. It's interesting to see different emphasis players put on having Jacoby / natural 2NT / natural jump shift available

[mw64ahw]

If you're behind in the 4th quarter (no prizes for 2nd) and want to bid the slam - I've been experimenting with this strength based Lim+,3+ approach using ideas from the web

The mechanics are straightforward once a hand has been classified into Lim,LimX,Min,MinX,Int,IntX,Str+. Initial classification is based on an hcp range defined versus an unbalanced/balanced hand.

The T&P Jacoby 2♠/2NT (T&P = Tried & Played although mostly many simulated hands, but it has worked well in actual play)

 

After 1♥-2♠ bid increments are based on strength

2NT +1 Min

3♣ +2 MinX

3♦ +3 Int

3♥ +4 IntX

3♠-4♦ 5+ Str+ ITL Q Bids

Following the first step responder may be able to place the contract or move to slam investigation after hand revaluation. If not responder shows shows his strength based on MLT/TP. For example when opener is Min.

 

 

After 1♥-2♠--2NT

3♣ 7.5MLT or lower MLT/TP equivalent

3♦ 8MLT or lower MLT/12TP

3♥ >8 MLT/10-11TP

This time opener may be able to place the contract depending on revalued strength.

 

 

After 1♥-2♠--2NT-3♣

3♦ 8MLT (i.e. a balanced minimum)

3♥ 6.5.MLT/15-16TP 2+KCs/1KC & Q trumps

3♠-4♦ 6 or lower MLT/17+TP 2+KCs/1KC & Q trumps

4♥ anything else.

 

After 3♥/an Italian Q bid responder can place the contract or continue slam investigation.

 

I'm still simulating the optimal revalued TP ranges to combine with the MLT so the above are initial indications

 

The advantage of this approach is that the contract can often be placed in 3/4M with little clue being given as to what to lead. I tend not to use the approach when I have an alternative 5+ card suit and a 3 card trump suit without honours and enough for a 2/1 bid.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st97hkt98daj9cak7&w=sk6h4d8732cqjt654&n=saqj2hqj6532dqtc2&e=s8543ha7dk654c983&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2sp2np3cp3sp4cp4hp5cp6h]399|300|The way to a slam (and yes it depends on the K♠ sitting with West) via the

T&P Jacoby 2♠/2NT

Italian Q bids

Kickbo

 

2♠ (3+♥, Limit+)

2NT (Min)

3♣ (Min+ MLT/revalued TP based)

3♠ (♠ctrl, 6 or lower MLT/17+TP w. at least 1♥ honour & 2KC/1KC & Q♥)

4♣ (♣ctrl & ♥ honour since 3NT is bypassed)

4♥ (no ♦ ctrl)

5♣ (AK♣,♦ctrl & 3/5 KCs)

6♥ (5 of 6 keycards) [/hv]

 

Comments/questions welcomed.

[Gilithin]

Comments/questions welcomed.

I would fairly strongly recommend that you make your first 2 steps min/int with shortage rather than the first 2 being min and divided by shape. Balanced and semi-balanced hands need less room to show salient features than unbalanced hands with a shortage so you want the latter to be shown as cheaply as possible. If you really want the first step to be (semi-)balanced then it is probably better not to include a range at all and have Responder describe their hand instead, thus allowing min/int hands with shortages to take steps 2 and 3.

[mw64ahw]

I would fairly strongly recommend that you make your first 2 steps min/int with shortage rather than the first 2 being min and divided by shape. Balanced and semi-balanced hands need less room to show salient features than unbalanced hands with a shortage so you want the latter to be shown as cheaply as possible. If you really want the first step to be (semi-)balanced then it is probably better not to include a range at all and have Responder describe their hand instead, thus allowing min/int hands with shortages to take steps 2 and 3.

Thanks for the comment

I've tried this similar approach Modified Jacoby 2NT - Bridge Articles - Bridge with Larry Cohen, but found that partner struggled to remember the various options.

This strength only based approach in its simplest granular form relies on basic MLT addition to reach a suitable contract. Naturally playing strength is affected by card distribution, but this approach is ambivalent about shape, apart from knowing that there is an 8 card fit.

[HardVector]

This one is a close call, but as it stands I end in 4♥ without a slam investigation. When it’s close to 50% I at least like to make the investigation. I’m wondering if there is any scientific approach that at least gets you to the investigation stage.

There is a way to investigate, but it would probably involve playing some other system than 2/1. For instance, I am currently playing GUS which is a relay system. We would have bid it as follows:

 

1h (11-15, unbalanced) - 2c (GF, relay)

2n ("bad" 6/4 hand) - 3c (relay)

3n (6 hearts/4 spades, shortness in clubs)

 

This hand I judge to be bad because of all the soft honors plus the dubious diamond Q. The relayer doesn't care, however, and finds out about the spades. The bad descriptor may cause no further exploration here, but if they should continue, they would find out about the missing heart A and spade K and stop. The minors are covered, but the majors are a problem.

 

I am sure there are other systems out there that could do this as well, but it involves the ability for someone to take charge. Jacoby attempts that, but the information you gain is limited to just shortness or 5/5 and 6/5 descriptors.

[mw64ahw]

There is a way to investigate, but it would probably involve playing some other system than 2/1. For instance, I am currently playing GUS which is a relay system. We would have bid it as follows:

 

1h (11-15, unbalanced) - 2c (GF, relay)

2n ("bad" 6/4 hand) - 3c (relay)

3n (6 hearts/4 spades, shortness in clubs)

 

This hand I judge to be bad because of all the soft honors plus the dubious diamond Q. The relayer doesn't care, however, and finds out about the spades. The bad descriptor may cause no further exploration here, but if they should continue, they would find out about the missing heart A and spade K and stop. The minors are covered, but the majors are a problem.

 

I am sure there are other systems out there that could do this as well, but it involves the ability for someone to take charge. Jacoby attempts that, but the information you gain is limited to just shortness or 5/5 and 6/5 descriptors.

Thanks another system for me to investigate when I get round to buying the book.