[32519]

Playing Jacoby 2NT, what is the recommended continuation bidding structure? I have seen different partnerships playing different structures. All have merit. But which one is recommended/optimal?

As a secondary question: What are the PROS/CONS of playing Jacoby 2NT?

Thanking you all in advance.

[barmar]

The SAYC booklet describes the most common rebids by opener:

• 3 of a side suit = singleton
  
• 4 of a side suit = good 5-card suit
  
• 4 of trumps = minimum (11-14 HCP), no shortness
  
• 3NT = medium (15-17), no shortness
  
• 3 of trumps = maximum (18+), no shortness

Since holding a side 5-card suit means you'll also have a short suit, you can choose which to show. That's why you only show the suit if it's a good one, i.e. a likely source of tricks. Otherwise, show the singleton.

Everything after this is cue bidding controls.

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2012-February-09, 17:33, said:

Playing Jacoby 2NT, what is the recommended continuation bidding structure? I have seen different partnerships playing different structures. All have merit. But which one is recommended/optimal?

Traditional (EDIT: as above) is fine; many pairs have made further refinements, but sticking with the basic structure when you are starting to play the convention is probably best.

Quote

As a secondary question: What are the PROS/CONS of playing Jacoby 2NT?

2NT as a limit raise or better is playable, especially if you prefer not to play Bergen raises. Natural and invitational is another possibility, but I have never seen it played outside of rubber bridge clubs, so I can't offer an opinion about it.

[Cthulhu D]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-09, 18:47, said:

2NT as a limit raise or better is playable, especially if you prefer not to play Bergen raises.

I'm curious about this option - is 3M then played as pre-emptive, or a mixed raise? It seems logical that you could play something like:

1M - 2NT;
3x - Showing a singleton, would accept a limit raise
4x - showing a side suit
3M - Rejecting the limit raise, so a balanced minimum (rather than showing extras Jacoby style, which I absolutely never have).

Do any expert pairs play this? Is it a common treatment? It feels good in that it costs very little over a jacoby 2NT, but lets you repurpose 3H as something else.

[Vampyr]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-09, 19:43, said:

I'm curious about this option - is 3M then played as pre-emptive, or a mixed raise? It seems logical that you could play something like:

I prefer preemptive, but mixed might work too.

Quote

1M - 2NT;
3x - Showing a singleton, would accept a limit raise
4x - showing a side suit
3M - Rejecting the limit raise, so a balanced minimum (rather than showing extras Jacoby style, which I absolutely never have).

Yes, something like this.

Quote

Do any expert pairs play this? Is it a common treatment?

I don't know.
Not that common, but I wouldn't call it rare.

[rogerclee]

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.

[32519]

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?

[Vampyr]

 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?

What alternative do you want it compared to?

Are you looking for other uses for 2NT? Well, if natural and invitational, it could be useful if you play 2/1 GF since you can't bid 2/1 and then 2NT to show this hand. But perhaps Forcing 1NT and then 2NT is covered by this? I don't know, as I don't play the system.

Or are you looking for other ways to make a GF raise? Bundling this and other hands into a 2♣ response might work, although it would be subject to interference. You could give up a natural 2♣ response and use it only for a raise; I'm not sure that would work well, but it would obviously give you more room. Or you can just do it the old-fashioned way and bid 2/1 followed by a "delayed game raise". With this approach, however, the fit might not be uncovered until game level, so it is a little high to start exploring for slam. A lower-level bid establishing a fit and GF values is nice to have for this reason, and the Jacoby 2NT provides this without giving up a valuable natural bid (assuming your system can show this hand another way).

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-09, 23:05, said:

What alternative do you want it compared to?

Or are you looking for other ways to make a GF raise?
You can just do it the old-fashioned way and bid 2/1 followed by a "delayed game raise". With this approach, however, the fit might not be uncovered until game level, so it is a little high to start exploring for slam. A lower-level bid establishing a fit and GF values is nice to have for this reason, and the Jacoby 2NT provides this without giving up a valuable natural bid (assuming your system can show this hand another way).

I am trying to establish whether A/E play Jacoby 2NT or not. If not, then why not?
1.) Do they have other methods for describing these hand types?
2.) Their bidding agreements don't have room for Jacoby 2NT?
3.) Something else?

Obviously the system played will be a massive deciding factor whether Jacoby 2NT can be incorporated or not. The more "Non-Natural" the system, the less likely will there be room for Jacoby 2NT. I'm thinking more in the line of Natural Systems.

Many B/I's I've encountered play Jacoby 2NT as described by ACBL. That is of little help in knowing whether the bid is GOOD or BAD.

Thanks again.

[gwnn]

Most experts do play 2NT as a good raise+. Some allow 3 cards, some allow limit raises to be included, so it is not strictly Jacoby2N but yes most people play something like it. Nice structure:

3C minimum (i.e. less than an ace above a minimum, now 3D asks and we have the same structure except 4M shows a 5332/5422)
3D non minimum, no shortness
3H short clubs
3S short diamonds
3N short other major
4x=5-5
4M min, 6M, no shortness.

[blackshoe]

I may be mistaken, but I think J2NT came about as a (partial) answer to the "there aren't enough ways to raise partner" lament. I would certainly expect that when partner opens 1M, I'm more likely to have a hand that wants to show support than one that wants to invite game in NT. I would expect that's part of the rationale for using 2NT as a raise.

Possible downsides to J2NT: describing the distribution of the closed hand in the bidding, opener getting over excited with a semi-decent hand (and responder has a bare minimum), "forgets" (unlikely once you've had it come up a time or two), failure to understand the follow-ons. The upside is that you have a way to bid hands that might otherwise be difficult. Overall, I've found it to be a useful convention. If you insist on an answer to "is it good or bad?" I'll say "good, but it could probably be improved". However, as someone said upthread, one step at a time. Learn the basic method first.

[Zelandakh]

Fred posted an excellent structure which is available on BBO. An optional part of Forum D+ contains responses which are quite good - I think it is called Stenman but cannot remember for sure. My own responses, originally designed for openings limited to 17 but usable with unlimited openings, are:

1♥ - 2NT
========
3♣ = min with shortage (3♦ asks, 3♥ forces cues + frivolous, new suit natural)
3♦ = mid with shortage (3♥ asks, 3♠ forces cues, 3NT spades, 4m natural)
3♥ = min without shortage (frivolous and cues)
3♠ = mid without shortage (cues)
3NT/4m = max (you can choose between cues or shortage-showing bids here, cues are probably better as these hands can effectively take control)

The same over 1♠ except that my GF raise here is 3♣ so everything is 1 step higher. There is probably some advantage in reversing the order too, that is mid-min rather than min-mid, as the Forum D+ method does but I find the above easier to remember and the minimum hands are alot more common.

[32519]

 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.

1.) What is regarded as minimum? I presume 12-14 HCP. Therefore extras would be 15+?
2.) When responder continues with the 3♦ asking bid after a 3♣ minimum response by opener, obviously responder must hold the extras and is still interested in slam?

Thank you.

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2012-February-10, 03:39, said:

1.) What is regarded as minimum? I presume 12-14 HCP. Therefore extras would be 15+?
2.) When responder continues with the 3♦ asking bid after a 3♣ minimum response by opener, obviously responder must hold the extras and is still interested in slam?

Thank you.

1. Up to 15 including distribution is minimum; ~16-19 is mid-range. Obviously that means a maximum has a shortage somewhere when playing limited (to 17) openings.
2. Yes, you only ask about the shortage (or indeed show a suit) if slam is possible. After the relay the first step shows a void (any suit) and other bids show a singleton. Obviously other schemes are possible; popular with many are methods which allow Opener to show extra trump length. Fred's scheme incorporates this feature and is a recommended read if this is an important aspect for you.

[gwnn]

Playing a structure like rogerclee's, a very common auction will be

1M-2N
3♣-4M. That is nice because you know next to nothing about either hand. It is basically a 1M-4M auction but with responder checking whether opener is strong.

Note that even if you play that 2N may be a limit raise, opener should often bid 3♣ even if he would accept a limit raise and then you will have auctions like

1M-2N
3♣-3M(limit raise! you can pass p)
4M (I accept your invitation but was not interested in slam, i.e. if you like points so much, it's something like 14-15 or so)

Obviously when you are looking at your hand and want to decide if you want to bid 3♣ (minimum) or something else (extras), you should upgrade aggressively for controls (A, K).

[gnasher]

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

That said there is nothing really wrong with the SAYC structure

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.

[kenrexford]

 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?

My opinion might not be mainstream, and it is governed by an assumption of methods, but I suppose my best argument AGAINST Jacoby 2NT is that I wrote a book on cuebidding methods where I never even mentioned Jacoby 2NT, and no hands came up where not playing Jacoby 2NT cost anything. Hence, if your 2.1 structure is good enough, then Jacoby 2NT is probably not needed.

When I play Jacoby 2NT, I keep it to primed-out hands, meaning all Aces and attached Kings on the outside, relatively flat.

In thinking about this more, perhaps Jacoby 2NT works well when you have expectation of problems if you are unable to agree Opener's major at the two-level. For instance, with 3451 shape, after a 1♥ opening, Jacoby 2NT might have some merit, because you cannot ever agree hearts at the two-level otherwise. But, that decision also depends on where values are, as a Splinter also comes to mind. It gets complicated.

So, as a general observation, I do not see that much value in Jacoby 2NT. The problem is that few have great alternatives. so, although it might not be fabulous, not much beats it. There are some ideas, but everything I have thought of are just OK. Plus, Jacoby 2nNT is best, IMO, if either limited to primed hands or used to handle awkward-expectation hands, and that call is determined by whatever your normal, usual approach is in 2/1 auctions.

Of course, if 2/1 is not GF, that also changes things a lot.

[whereagles]

My advice would be to stay away from J2NT unless you use some decent follow-ups. The standard ones are horrible and most other schemes are bad as well (as in, no one knows who's in charge). The only scheme I've seen that's ok is Martel's. (See below)

From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Martel-Stansby 2NT as game-forcing major raise
Date: 21 Jul 1993 02:22:53 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin


|From martel@cs.ucdavis.edu Mon Jul 19 18:44:41 1993
|
|You should feel free to post my 2N structure. It was also written up
|in Bridge Today. I don't remember Bergen's structure, but I remember thinking
|it was inferier to mine (I may be biased however).
|
|You may want to post a couple of comments with the system:

[Which I take as permission to post his comments verbatim. -- DV]

|I think playing that 3C shows ALL minimums is important and it is a good idea 
|to play that it shows a very minimum hand (NOT a very good 13 count if it has 
|a stiff, and not a good 14 with 5-4 or a 6 card suit). This allows you to often
|have the auction 1M-2N-3C-4M and give no information away.
|
|Note also that it is useful to think of the opening bidder's hand as being 
|split into three ranges of points (including distribution): very minimum 
|(12-15), middle (16-17) and strong (18+). With the strong hand opener will 
|drive to the five level, so when opener shows a non-minimum, responder 
|should assume the middle range hand (which has a fairly tight range), knowing 
|that opener will continue on over a 4M signoff.
|
|You should also post the stuff over interference. this is an important area
|since smart opponents will often bid over 2N and there is usually little 
|written on the subject. 
|
|One frill which might not have been in your version: After 1M-2N-3C: 3M says
|that slam is possible if opener has a maximum (minimum) with a stiff. Without
|such a hand opener signs off in 4M (thus again giving away no information
|or giving the opponents any bids to double).

So here's the system:

UNPASSED HAND

2NT: Game force, 4-card support; opener assumes balanced but could have a
     singleton.
Opener's rebids:
3C = Minimum.
3D = No splinter, some extra values, suitable for slam.
3H = Other Major splinter, extra values. | In general, when showing
3S = Diamond splinter, extra values.     | splinters, steps are high, middle,
3N = Club splinter, extra values         | low (or high, low if only 2)
4X = 5-card suit to A or K, extra values.

After 1M-2NT-3C, 3D asks.  Opener's rebids:
   3H = some splinter.  3S asks: high, middle, low;  4D = club splinter,
        slammish, 4H = club splinter, bad.
   3S = 6322    |
   3N = 5332    | Not bad for slam.
   4C, 4D, 4H/1S = side suit in 5422 hand (note that 4-5-2-2 is not
        possible because of Flannery).
   4M = No splinter, bad for slam.
1M-2NT-3C-3M = Slam interest opposite max + splinter.  Show splinter
   (H, M, L) with max (AKxxx,x,xxx,KQxx) else bid 4M.

After 1M-2NT-3D, 3H asks.  Opener's rebids:
   3S = 6322.
   3N = 5332.
   4C, 4D, 4H = side suit in 5422 hand (4H after 1H = 4522 [Note: too
       strong for Flannery -- DV]).

Subsequent cue-bidding normal except early signoffs show unsuitable or
minimum hands and do not deny specific controls.  3NT = cue bid similar
to DI 4NT.  

[Note: In general in Martel-Stansby when a major has been agreed and 
3NT is not a reasonable contract, a bid of 3NT by either partner shows 
a hand not entirely unsuited to slam, while a cuebid shows definite 
slam interest.  This is called "Frivolous 3NT".  A similar idea of 
Rodman is that the cuebids are "courtesy", while real slam interest
is shown by bidding 3NT.  This is called "Serious 3NT". -- DV]

When opponents compete after 2NT:
Ignore double except RDBL to look for penalty.
After 1M-(P)-2NT-(3X): P = Shaped minimum, X asks for clarification
                           (opener's 3NT = shaped, no stiff, 4M = 5332,
                           slammish; 3/our M = splinter in opponent's suit).
                       X = penalties (not of 3S).
                       Bid splinter or 3NT with extra (3/our major =
                           splinter in opponent's suit).
                       4/Major = balanced minimum.
1H-(P)-2NT-(3S): X  = stiff spade, 11-15 HCP.
                 3N = 15+ HCP, no stiff.
                 4S = stiff, very slammish (15+ HCP).

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

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

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

I've seen this quoted before:
" ANYTHING ..... is better than ( regular ) Jac2NT ".

[whereagles]

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.