[jillybean]

655321, on Apr 20 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Yes, what else besides the 6♠ bid is unusual? 1♥, 4♣ and 5♥ are all 100% actions IMO.

We have 4 people bidding here, not just me.

655321, on Apr 20 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Jacoby 2NT guarantees 4 trumps, no ifs, no buts. North cannot consider 2NT with Jxx support.

Some play it with 3 card support, I am not saying this neither good or bad.

[CSGibson]

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

655321, on Apr 20 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Jacoby 2NT guarantees 4 trumps, no ifs, no buts. North cannot consider 2NT with Jxx support.

Some play it with 3 card support, I am not saying this neither good or bad.

If you play 2/1, there is no reason to make a Jacoby 2NT with 3 card support. You can actually show your hand type by GF then giving delayed support.

This is often important; partner, with 6 cards in the major, will often not care if you have the Q of trump opposite 4, but will care opposite 3, as one minor example. Many more ending positions also require trump in both hands, more likely with 4 cards in dummy, so having 4 opposite often gives you a better play for slam. This is just like people who make an immediate limit raise with 3 card support; one of the strengths of 2/1 is that the bid is unnecessary, you have ways of differentiating between a 3 and a 4 card limit raise.

I have more sympathy for the undisciplined approach if you are playing SAYC, although I would never actually do it myself.

[matmat]

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Some play it with 3 card support, I am not saying this neither good or bad.

this is wrong.

I know that the SAYC limit raise is routinely made with 3 card support (i don't like that much), but jacoby 2nt is 4+ by definition of convention. whoever allows 3 card fit for jacoby 2nt, is not playing jacoby 2nt but rather some other convention.

[655321]

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

655321, on Apr 20 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Yes, what else besides the 6♠ bid is unusual? 1♥, 4♣ and 5♥ are all 100% actions IMO.

We have 4 people bidding here, not just me.

Ah, OK. Well, again I find myself agreeing with Ken (I hope this doen't continue! ). North could respond 2♣ instead, planning to make a forcing heart bid next, but 1♠ is OK. Everything else seems normal enough to me.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 20 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Quote

Learn from certain principles and move outward?

Yes, and the first principle is to define a splinter bid - should it be a strong hand with a feature or a slightly weaker hand with chances for game?

xxxx, xx, KJx, KJxx opposite the proposed hand does not produce even a play for game - is it still a good splinter bid?

Jxxx is the most overrated support holding in bridge - it is not much better than xxxx - basically Jxxx helps when a stiff honor pops onside, otherwise, the J isn't of much use - call it roughly 10% better than xxxx.

What you have is a hand that is about the equivalent of: xxxx, AKQxx, AQx, x - is that still a minimum splinter?

Huh?

Jxxx is a lot better than xxxx. It wildly improves partner's AQxx, AQ10x, K10xx, K109x, Q10xx, Qxxx, Kxxx, and many other holdings.

KQxx, AKTx, T9xx, Txxx, ATxx, AT9x. Oh and we forgot five card holdings

Heck, it improves AKQT, especially if that hand wants to ruff a thing or two.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the bidding was fine.

One may or may not convert 6H to 6S,
but I would not worry to much about this.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

matmat, on Apr 20 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Some play it with 3 card support, I am not saying this neither good or bad.

this is wrong.

I know that the SAYC limit raise is routinely made with 3 card support (i don't like that much), but jacoby 2nt is 4+ by definition of convention. whoever allows 3 card fit for jacoby 2nt, is not playing jacoby 2nt but rather some other convention.

Call it whatever you want, I call it Jacoby 2NT,
but we alert it with the words "gameforcing mayor
suit raise, could be based only on 3 card support".

Playing a 2 NT response to a major opening as a
game forcing raise is quite common, and as someone
pointed out on this forum, this artifical raise is part of
SAYC, but nowhere in the revised booklet is written
that 2 NT promises 4 card support.

Playing with a pickup partner, I would not read to much
in using / not using 2NT, ... my partner may even think
that a direct 2 NT response shows 10-12 bal.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

4C looks right, I don't understand Winston's objections. The alternative is 3S which might cause you to miss decent games. 4C is the most descriptive bid.

Both 6H and 6S seem wrong, perhaps partner felt guilty about not showing heart support earlier.

2NT shows 4-card support.

[kenrexford]

han, on Apr 21 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

Both 6H and 6S seem wrong, perhaps partner felt guilty about not showing heart support earlier.

You don't see any merit in a conclusion that the big issue may be protection of the diamond suit from a lead through partner? I thought that was a reasonable concern, myself.