[Siegmund]

Lots of ideas to improve Jac2N in the thread, but...

~cough~cough~ you can hardly blame Jac2N for responder's inability to evaluate his hand. Quacky 4333s do not argue for bidding one more. Even if you believe "18HCP" rather than "7 losers" (or you upgrade the loser count for an extra ace and two jacks in combination) there are a LOT of minimum openers where slam is completely hopeless.

Find out who those two responders who passed 1S-2NT-4S were, and ask 'em to be your partner next time.

[awm]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-18, 13:28, said:

How would your system change if ♥were trump?
Because:
1♥- 2NT!
3NT - ?? no room for a ♠ cuebid below 4♥....

... or do you use
1♥ - 2S! as an artificial limit raise+ ?

Nope, no room for a spade cuebid in that sequence below 4♥.

Again, our methods are optimized a lot more for simplicity than for being theoretically best. But we still eliminated the ridiculous 4M jump.

[kenrexford]

Jacoby 2NT sucks. It really sucks with hands like this.

My methods:

1♠-1♣(real or fit)
2♦(waiting)-2♠(fit)

then cue

The club hole appears, sign off.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-18, 15:01, said:

Lots of ideas to improve Jac2N in the thread, but...

~cough~cough~ you can hardly blame Jac2N for responder's inability to evaluate his hand. Quacky 4333's do not argue for bidding one more. Even if you believe "18HCP" rather than "7 losers" .....

THX, Siggy...

Both partners had 7 loser hands eventho one has 13 hcp and the other 18.... which doesn't add up to slam...( 24 - 7 - 7 = 10 tricks .. maybe 11 tricks with a little upgrade, as you said ). I think the 18 hcp "blinded" the "thinking" about Loser Trick Count .

Even if Opener had a Cl Ctrl ( turn one of his RED Kings into a ♣K ), it's a bad slam :

K Q 10 9 x ...... A J x x
J x x .............. A 9 x
K J x ............. A Q x
K x ............... Q J x

[JLOGIC]

1S 2N
3C 3D
3H 3N
p

3C=min
3D=ask
3H=balanced

[mike777]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-18, 13:36, said:

Same question for you if ♥ are trump?
1H - 2NT!
?? What would show a Sp Ctrl ( or lack thereof ) and no shortness but enough for game ?

or does it start:
1H - 2S! ??

2nt Bergen is a slam try..not a game try for me...so not sure what your question is.

[Trinidad]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-18, 13:36, said:

Same question for you if ♥ are trump?
1H - 2NT!
?? What would show a Sp Ctrl ( or lack thereof ) and no shortness but enough for game ?

or does it start:
1H - 2S! ??

I play that with one of my partners. You need to get a little used to such a style of bidding systems but we have that philosophy in many parts of our system.
As an example: all our Bergen inspired raises are one bid lower for hearts than for spades (with the exception of 3NT).

Once you are used to it, it works very well: You will have as much bidding room for heart contracts as for spade contracts, as soon as the fit is established.

Rik

[fromageGB]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-18, 11:02, said:

Tabs : click on icon on upper right in the reply options -- it has the little bars... the 1st icon of the four.

Space: In the old forum there was an icon you could click on: space which appeared as enclosed in brackets [ ] for each space you desired.... and it still works here, but you have to type it out ( then highlight/copy( Ctrl-C ) and then paste ( Ctrl-V ) for each "space" you want)..... rather tedious.

It doesn't seem to work for me

The indent seems to throw to a new line, and when I string some bold spaces together they just appear in the preview as single spaces.
If you can do an example, I can quote it to see how it is done.

[fromageGB]

Trinidad, on 2010-December-19, 03:49, said:

I play that with one of my partners. You need to get a little used to such a style of bidding systems but we have that philosophy in many parts of our system.
As an example: all our Bergen inspired raises are one bid lower for hearts than for spades (with the exception of 3NT).

Once you are used to it, it works very well: You will have as much bidding room for heart contracts as for spade contracts, as soon as the fit is established.

Rik

Agree with this. In our methods,
1♥ 2♠ = Jacoby 2NT
2NT (ie the next step) = "I have no shortage, do you ?" or bid the shortage, with 3♥ being a spade shortage.
Over the 2NT shortage denial, responder will bid a shortage with the same bids. Any result, if there is a shortage anywhere, it is bid no higher than 3♥.

The next bid is always non-serious 3NT, or bypassing that is a serious cue bid, the cheapest first or second round control. With hearts as trumps, of course 3♠ is the "non-serious 3NT" and 3NT is a serious cue bid in spades.

• The idea of showing shortages in either hand is good because it enables partner to upgrade or downgrade his values, and see where tricks may be coming from;
  
• the idea of using the non-serious 3NT is good because it enables one hand with say 16/17 to be serious and yet be happy to stop in game, knowing he has shown his seriousness so partner can go on if he too is serious;
  
• the idea of bidding either first or second round controls below game is good, because it often enables you to find a suit is completely uncovered yet enables you to continue to ask ask when appropriate.

They all fit well together.

The idea of "shift the bids down one when hearts are trumps" is easy when you get used to it. I don't think of "Jacoby 2NT", but I think "the 2M+1 GF shortage asking bid". I don't think of "3♦" is Bergen moderate 4 card support, etc, I think 3M-2 and 3M-1.

Play 1♥ 1♠ as the forcing NT (Kaplan inversion) and everything is consistent.
And of course 4♠ is ace asking when hearts are trumps (Green Aces).

[fromageGB]

kenrexford, on 2010-December-18, 18:59, said:

My methods:

1♠-1♣(real or fit)
2♦(waiting)-2♠(fit)

I always knew strong 1♣ methods were the best

[kenrexford]

fromageGB, on 2010-December-19, 06:32, said:

I always knew strong 1♣ methods were the best

Yeah, if no one bids and if Opener has extras.

When RESPONDER has the bigger hand, the strong club opening isn't used, you know.

If I was playing a natural strong club, the auction would be identical at the start, with these hands and my strong club methods.

Now, with my canape methods, the auction might start...

1D-2C
2H-2S

So, slightly different, I suppose. Same end point, same spade agreement, and same "sorta diamonds" from Opener.

[OleBerg]

As other posters have already hinted:

Anything that doesn't take you past 3NT with a minimum hand is vastly superior.

Generally bids that takes you past 3NT should be very well defined, showing a void and limited strength is my favourite, and 4♠ should either be very well-defined, or practically forbidden. (Which is technically almost the same.)

Furthermore, I strongly believe that hands with no shortness should be divided into three strength-cathegories, not two. If not, one of the ranges will be very ambigious.

These are some general priciples I believe to be sound. The net must be flooded with variants of 2NT support-structures.

[Trinidad]

OleBerg, on 2010-December-19, 07:44, said:

As other posters have already hinted:

Anything that doesn't take you past 3NT with a minimum hand is vastly superior.

Generally bids that takes you past 3NT should be very well defined, showing a void and limited strength is my favourite, and 4♠ should either be very well-defined, or practically forbidden. (Which is technically almost the same.)

I fully agree. This is why we play controls between 3M and 4M, rather than showing distribution (shortage/length). After all, distribution is possible in any suit. When I open 1♠, it will be just as likely to have a singleton ♣ as a singleton ♥: The situation is nicely symmetrical. However, when I show the singleton ♣ I will have more bidding room than when I show the singleton ♥.

When I show controls by cuebidding, the situation is not symmetrical. Now 4♣ only says that I have a ♣ control. But 4♦ says that I have a ♦ control and denies a ♣ control: The 4♦ bid is better defined than the 4♣ bid. The same goes for 4♥: It shows a control in ♥, but denies a control in both minors, which now makes it better defined than the 4♦ bid.

Rik

[TWO4BRIDGE]

JLOGIC, on 2010-December-18, 23:55, said:

1S 2N
3C 3D
3H 3N
p

3C=min
3D=ask
3H=balanced

Just curious...
....what are the replies ( to the 3D!-ask ) when the ( minimum ) Opener has shortness ?
I'm assuming:
3S! = ♥ shortness
3NT = ??
4C! = ♣ shortness
4D! = ♦shortness

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also, if you don't mind, what are your replies ( to 2NT! ) when Opener has "extras" ?

[olien]

I'm guessing that in Justin's structure:

3♥ = balanced (or no shortness)
3♠ = ♣ shortness
3NT = ♦ shortness
4♣ = oM shortness

Bids at 4♣ and above may also be cue-bids while also showing oM shortness, but I'm not totally sure of his structure.

[nige1]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-17, 21:14, said:

---

On a good day: 1♠ - 2N -; 3♣ - 3♦ -; 4♠ AP
2N = Flat raise to three or better.
3♣ = Trail bid for game.
3♦ = 0/3 keycards, counting both black kings as key-cards.
4♠ = Not enough.

[dake50]

First, a North K is in clubs.
Now we have a go at it.
Likely get one red finesse right.

My favorite peeve. Weak hand deciding 3xK won't make 6S???

[mycroft]

Yeah, I was thinking (because 4NT with QJx opposite minimum is - dangerous):

1S-2NT!
4S!-5D!
5S - Oh well.

I am being rapidly convinced in alternative structures for 2NT (especially in my Precision partnership).

[rduran1216]

You guys find some weird things to dislike. S has an almost obvious pass over 4S, I mean how clear is North's hand. He said 5332 or 5422 minimum, what're we doing heading to a flat slam with only 18, and not the world's best 18 at that, its 7 losers for goodness sake.

[xxhong]

The weakest link of J2nt is the 1S 2N 4S sequence. A simple cure is just to use 3NT to show balanced minimum and 3S to show balanced, extra. Therefore, you still have a whole 4 level to cuebid. Those who claim it is a simple pass over 4M certainly never encounter a hand like KQxxx Kxx Kxx Kx, where 6NT is cold. Or QTxxx xx Kx AKxx, where 6S is very decent. It is indeed a systemic issue, which can often be
solved.

Of course, if you want to improve more, you can design some better structures. For example, 3C to show weakness, 3D to show shortness somewhere and extra, balabla. Or 3C to show shortness somewhere. 3D to show balanced, extra. 3H to show balanced minimum. Of course, later
relays are needed for such structures.

Still, Jacoby 2NT is a very useful convention if it is revised a little bit. It's just like Stayman. When 2C was first used as stayman, it was certainly quite different from what experts are using nowadays.

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-17, 21:14, said:

Only 2 Responders showed restraint and passed 4S:
1S - Jac2NT!
4S ( minimum, no shortness) - pass

The rest went to 6S ( or 6NT ) :
1S - 2NT!
4S - 4NT!
5D ( 1 key ) - 6S/6NT

Down 1

---

North Dealer... MP scoring...
How would you bid it ?