Jacoby 2NT with no void or 1 suit from original bidder

[arepo24]

If partner opens 1 heart and I have 4 H and 13 or more points I will bid 2NT.(Jacoby

If my partner doesn't have a void or 1 bid suit, what is their next step please?

Thank you.

[Stephen Tu]

The standard Jacoby response structure (which is quite inefficient, and should be replaced by serious partnerships that can handle extra memory load) divides the balanced/semi-balanced opening hands into 3 ranges, which bid 4M/3nt/3M, with higher bids being weaker than lower bids. Exact ranges are up to partnership agreement to some extent, I tend to use approx 12-13/14-15/16+.

[LBengtsson]

It is good to tell partner that you have 4♥/4♠ support by bidding 2NT but I think that using Jacoby 2NT is not always the best bid to use, especially in 2/1. Nine card fits in a major suit are good information but using Jacoby 2NT can take away bidding space.

If I had a hand such as ♣AKQJx ♦xx ♥Qxxx ♠xx I would rather bid 2♣ (to a 1♥ opening bid) instead of 2NT in 2/1. Bidding 2NT here might prevent the opps. competing in the ♠ or ♦ suit, but as we have the majority of the points I would rather take the bidding slowly. That is just my opinion. It might not suit everyone, but I like a 2NT call by my partner to tell specific information beyond that we have a good trump fit.

[Stephen Tu]

It is good to tell partner that you have 4♥/4♠ support by bidding 2NT but I think that using Jacoby 2NT is not always the best bid to use, especially in 2/1. Nine card fits in a major suit are good information but using Jacoby 2NT can take away bidding space.

If I had a hand such as ♣AKQJx ♦xx ♥Qxxx ♠xx I would rather bid 2♣ (to a 1♥ opening bid) instead of 2NT in 2/1. Bidding 2NT here might prevent the opps. competing in the ♠ or ♦ suit, but as we have the majority of the points I would rather take the bidding slowly. That is just my opinion. It might not suit everyone, but I like a 2NT call by my partner to tell specific information beyond that we have a good trump fit.

IMO it's the wrong way to think about it, that you want 2nt to "tell specific information". Instead, the way I think of it, you bid 2nt when you want to ask partner what they have. You do something else when you want to tell partner what you have. Asking vs describing. In the most common cases, generally balanced hands should ask, unbalanced hands should describe, though some very strong unbalanced hands are better off asking if you won't be able to completely describe your hand to partner then give up at 4M comfortably.

 

With your example hand you'd rather describe your hand which 2c followed by picture bid 4S shows precisely, this I'd agree with.

 

When you bid 2nt partner only knows negative inferences about your hand (prob not a good side suit that would improve with help, not a hand suitable for whatever splinter scheme you are playing, not a "picture bid" type hand). He shouldn't try to figure out though, J2nt is the asker and the captain, generally, although you can devise schemes where 2nt bidder can sometimes switch to describing the second round if opener is balanced or min or whatever.

 

[sfi]

Showing four-card support can be extremely important. Just to give one data point, we would have a different winner of the Bermuda Bowl if the Dutch pair had a four-card game-forcing raise of a 1S opening (board 29 of the last set - the open room). This is only one example, but having to hide this information often makes it hard to judge slams.

[nullve]

we would have a different winner of the Bermuda Bowl if the Dutch pair had a four-card game-forcing raise of a 1S opening (board 29 of the last set - the open room).

Why?

[sfi]

The hand

 

The bidding was:

 

1S - (P) - 2C - (2D)

3C - (P) - 3S - (P)

4C - (P) - 4H - (P)

4S - all pass

 

2C was a FG relay, so 3S showed 3+ spades. 4C and 4H were cues. At this point 4S is hard to justify, but if East asked for keycards he would find the queen was missing. Now East should probably bid the slam (opposite Kxx or xxx it's 40% and a fourth spade or the SJ make it over 50%), but many people wouldn't. The 9-card fit leaves room for doubt though. However, if East knows they have a 10-card fit, signing off is very poor valuation IMO. I bet he's going to have nightmares about that hand for years.

[mikeh]

The hand

 

The bidding was:

 

1S - (P) - 2C - (2D)

3C - (P) - 3S - (P)

4C - (P) - 4H - (P)

4S - all pass

 

2C was a FG relay, so 3S showed 3+ spades. 4C and 4H were cues. At this point 4S is hard to justify, but if East asked for keycards he would find the queen was missing. Now East should probably bid the slam (opposite Kxx or xxx it's 40% and a fourth spade or the SJ make it over 50%), but many people wouldn't. The 9-card fit leaves room for doubt though. However, if East knows they have a 10-card fit, signing off is very poor valuation IMO. I bet he's going to have nightmares about that hand for years.

I’m surprised slam was missed in both rooms

 

Sitting east if my partner responded 2N I think there’s a good argument for 4N. He surely has one keycard…obviously if it’s just the spade king, we’re down off the top. Equally obviously he’ll usually have at least two keycards, in which case the 5 level will almost always be safe, and if he has three (as he does here) slam has to be very good indeed.

 

I’d expect most expert norths to bid 3D over 2N.

 

Now, for me, double by opener shows shortness, and we should be able to cuebid to slam or, more likely, use keycard after a 3H cue by responder.

 

I’ve played relay methods in the past. I well understand the temptation to use such methods even if 2N were available.one can sometimes reach almost impossible to bid contracts using relay, but relay is always subject to disruption on very shapely hands.

[nullve]

The systems used in this year's Bermuda Bowl final:

 

Muller - de Wijs

van den Bos - van Lankveld

van Prooijen - Verhees

Brink - Drijver

Gawrys - Klukowski

Piedra - Zimmermann

 

As you can see, only Gawrys - Klukowski were playing

 

* 1M-2N as what superficially looks like Jacoby 2N

* neither 1M-[1M+1] nor 1M-2♣ as some kind of GF relay

 

.

[Gilithin]

As you can see, only Gawrys - Klukowski were playing

 

* 1M-2N as what superficially looks like Jacoby 2N

Both of the other Dutch pairs are playing a 2NT response to 1♠ as "mixed raise+". In my world, that includes a GF raise but perhaps you know better.

[nullve]

In my world, that includes a GF raise

In mine, too.

 

But at least they don't always show support with GF values and 4c+ support. Board 3 here is an example from the Bermuda Bowl finals where de Wijs responded 1N (GF relay) on

 

T932

AQ2

3

AKQ92

 

to Mullers (1st seat NV vs V) 1♠ opening.

 

Verhees - van Prooijen seem to play the exact same system, so presumably the response would have been 1N in their partnership, too.