[gwnn]

whereagles, on 2012-February-10, 10:17, said:

J2NT is ok... if you use the right strategy, which is to leave the unlimited hand - THAT IS THE OPENER - in control.

If you revert this and put responder in control, there's no telling what can happen. Or at least have tools that clearly define who's in charge.

Just because you write it in caps, it is not necessarily true. Both hands are unlimited. In practice, responder is more likely to be balanced than opener and as all relay players will tell you, it is better if the unbalanced hand does the describing and the balanced hand is doing the listening.

[jh51]

whereagles, on 2012-February-10, 10:17, said:

J2NT is ok... if you use the right strategy, which is to leave the unlimited hand - THAT IS THE OPENER - in control.

Of course, this ain't necessarily so.

Opener is certainly limited in that he did not make a game forcing opening bid. In fact, it is responder who has made a game forcing bid and has yet to limit his hand. Opener's rebid may further limit his hand. After opener's rebid, responder knows a lot more about opener's hand than opener knows about responder's hand.

[kenrexford]

I think the last two posts missed something. The Jacoby 2NT cvall often does limit the hand.

[phil_20686]

rogerclee, on 2012-February-09, 20:38, said:

It's becoming very common to play a variant where 3C shows any minimum hand. Here's an easy to remember version that jdonn and I played


1M - 2NT
3C: Min, 3D ask
3D: Extras, shortness, 3H ask
3H: Extras, 5422, 3S ask
3S: Extras, 6+ no shortness (3NT nonserious over this)
3NT: 18-19 bal
4lower: 5-5, extras
4M: Min, 6+ no shortness, good for slam

1M - 2NT - 3C - 3D
3H: any shortness, 3S ask
3S: 5422, 3N ask
3N: 12-14 bal
4lower: 5-5, no particular controls promised but not terrible side suit
4M: 6+ no shortness, bad for slam

That said there is nothing really wrong with the SAYC structure, playing an advanced version of J2NT should be very low on your priority list of things to improve.

A variant of this is basically ubiquitous among junior players in UK part of the world.

Except we play 1M-2N-3c-3h/s/N = shortage in steps, and 1m-2n-3c-3d-3h/s/N show shortage in steps (3d after 3c asked).

Another useful agreement is to say that whenever someone shows a shortage in a J2N auction, the next bid shows a "useful minimum", so that you have something to do when you don't want to sign off or cue. Showing roughly a minimum will all working cards, or a non minimum with some wastage.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on 2012-February-10, 10:53, said:

I think the last two posts missed something. The Jacoby 2NT cvall often does limit the hand.

I think you were the one who missed something Standard Jacoby 2NT versions (which is what whereagles was bashing) do not limit the hand.

[rogerclee]

gnasher, on 2012-February-10, 05:14, said:

I think there is: it's awful to have to jump to game with your most common hand-type opposite an unlimited partner. If you make no other change, you should play either 3NT or 3M as the 12-14 balanced type.

In pickup partnerships I usually play that 3M = 6 trumps non-min, 3N = min balanced, and 4M = terrible min balanced.

[barmar]

rogerclee, on 2012-February-10, 11:27, said:

In pickup partnerships I usually play that 3M = 6 trumps non-min, 3N = min balanced, and 4M = terrible min balanced.

So what do you use for the good hands with only 5 trumps? Or did you mean 3M = 6 trumps OR non-min?

[kenrexford]

One problem with Jacoby 2NT, BTW, is that it begs for intervention.

"We have nine trumps. You should be safe at the three-level in your fit. Please bid it, get your lead-director in, and interfere with our 16 pages of notes on what to do when you do not bid. Our discussion two years ago as to general principles for when you actually do intervene will surely be as sophisticated, and we will remember what we said back then."

[rogerclee]

barmar, on 2012-February-10, 11:53, said:

So what do you use for the good hands with only 5 trumps? Or did you mean 3M = 6 trumps OR non-min?

Yes, sorry, 6 trumps or balanced non-min. I tend to not worry about 17+-19 balanced and just force to slam for better or worse.

[barmar]

I can't remember the last time someone interfered in a J2N auction.

[P_Marlowe]

32519, on 2012-February-09, 22:46, said:

I don't yet see much on whether the Jacoby 2NT bid is good or bad.

1.) What are the arguments IN FAVOUR of Jacoby 2NT? (Law of total tricks and game forcing auction could possibly be the first two).
2.) What are the arguments AGAINST Jacoby 2NT?

Hi,

#1 you need a forcing raise for openers major to be able to establish a
game forcing aucton to allow the investigation, if the partnership
has enough strength so that slam has a reasonable chance, i.e. to verify
that the 5 level is safe.
Using a jump to 2NT as the forcing raise only gives up the ability to bid
a natural 2NT, usually this is a bal. 10-12 hand.
Those hands have usually a 4 card minor suit, which can be bid instead of the
immediate 2NT, i.e. giving up the the standard meaning to get the forcing raise
is considered cheap.
#2 If you have another bid for the forcing raise, than you dont need to play Jacoby
2NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

barmar, on 2012-February-10, 12:24, said:

I can't remember the last time someone interfered in a J2N auction.

This is an area in which I think the higher the level of expertise, the more likely it is that someone will compete.

Espcially at favourable, I think it a huge mistake not to bid at the 3-level, over J2N, with, say, a chunky 6 card suit. It often takes away bidding space, can serve as a lead-director, can allow partner to bounce, and can led to a save. And all but the most practiced partnerships will find themselves guessing as to what various calls mean by opener and responder....and since they know they have a vulnerable game bonus almost assuredly in view, it is difficult for them to settle for a penalty.

My experience is that one should strive to bid over J2N, without being insane.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy argued that the "standard" J2NT, where responder can bid it with as few as 12 HCP, often makes the wrong partner captain. He suggested 2NT only with a good 15 or more, usually but not necessarily balanced. With 12+ to 15- balanced, he suggested inverted trump Swiss: 4♣ with good trumps, otherwise 4♦. He doesn't need those bids for splinters; he used under jump shifts (3♦ in response to 1♥, for example) and over jump shifts (3NT in response to 1♠, for example), dividing the splinters into 9+ to 12- and 12+ to 15-. With the 4m "trump Swiss" bids, opener is still captain.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2012-February-10, 12:53, said:

My experience is that one should strive to bid over J2N, without being insane.

The same thing goes for strong ♣, and even 2♣. Unfortunately, the card gods don't always give you the nice suit to bid, and the vulnerability may be against you as well.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on 2012-February-10, 12:05, said:

One problem with Jacoby 2NT, BTW, is that it begs for intervention.

"We have nine trumps. You should be safe at the three-level in your fit. Please bid it, get your lead-director in, and interfere with our 16 pages of notes on what to do when you do not bid. Our discussion two years ago as to general principles for when you actually do intervene will surely be as sophisticated, and we will remember what we said back then."

In one partnership our notes on intervention after Jacoby are nearly as long as our notes on an uncontested auction. People come in all the time.