[tgphelps]

I have two questions, one general and one specific. I'd appreciate your answer to either or both of them.

1. I'd call myself a lower intermediate player, but who knows. I watch a lot of Youtube videos by people who seem to be "experts" on bridge. Sometimes the rules for a certain bid/convention vary quite a bit (see question 2) depending on which video it is. And those videos often differ from what a bridge book by another "authority" (possibly more authoritative if s/he published a book). How do I determine who I should pay attention to? Perhaps there is no answer to this, and that the best I can do is ask questions here and see "what everyone is actually playing"? That's an acceptable answer, but I wonder if there is a better answer.

2. Specifically, videos on Jacoby 2NT differ quite a bit in their descriptions of opener's rebid after responder bids 2NT. They agree that opener shows a singleton by bidding at the 3-level, and he shows a "good" 5-card suit at the 4-level, but one persons says that 5-card suit should have 2 of the top 3 honors, and another one says the honor requirement should be maybe 2 of the top 4, because 2 of the top 3 will happen so rarely. Another big difference is that one of them says that if opener has no singleton or good 5-card suit, he bids 4M with a bare minimum, and 3M otherwise. The other "expert" says opener bids 4M with 13-15 points, 3NT with 16-18, and 3M with 19+. Question: What do you (American) good players do here?

[sfi]

tgphelps, on 2023-December-30, 13:31, said:

1. I'd call myself a lower intermediate player, but who knows. I watch a lot of Youtube videos by people who seem to be "experts" on bridge. Sometimes the rules for a certain bid/convention vary quite a bit (see question 2) depending on which video it is. And those videos often differ from what a bridge book by another "authority" (possibly more authoritative if s/he published a book). How do I determine who I should pay attention to? Perhaps there is no answer to this, and that the best I can do is ask questions here and see "what everyone is actually playing"? That's an acceptable answer, but I wonder if there is a better answer.

There is a huge amount of variation in skill level and teaching ability among the bridge social media, and it really is hard to work out who is giving good advice. Trends in bidding agreements also change over time, so information published in a book can sometimes be decades out of date, but you only really know whether the channel you're watching reflects current trends by comparing it to your own experience. So that doesn't help all that much. I would recommend finding a couple of people who explain the logic behind their lessons - bridge is a game of logic after all - so that you can follow why they make the choices they do. Once you're comfortable with that information, you can start comparing new sources to see whether they are likely to also be saying sensible things.

If you're looking for a specific recommendation, check out Peter Hollands on youtube. He's a pro who's represented Australia, so he brings a decent understanding of the game to his work.

Quote

2. Specifically, videos on Jacoby 2NT differ quite a bit in their descriptions of opener's rebid after responder bids 2NT. They agree that opener shows a singleton by bidding at the 3-level, and he shows a "good" 5-card suit at the 4-level, but one persons says that 5-card suit should have 2 of the top 3 honors, and another one says the honor requirement should be maybe 2 of the top 4, because 2 of the top 3 will happen so rarely. Another big difference is that one of them says that if opener has no singleton or good 5-card suit, he bids 4M with a bare minimum, and 3M otherwise. The other "expert" says opener bids 4M with 13-15 points, 3NT with 16-18, and 3M with 19+. Question: What do you (American) good players do here?

There is the "standard" Jacoby 2NT system, which you describe in a nutshell. People have different requirements, and that's fine because ultimately it comes down to what you and your partner agree and expect in the auction. The more standard agreements are a 4-level suit shows 2 of the top 3 honours and to use 4M, 3NT and 3M as three different ranges for balanced hands.

However, few top pairs use Jacoby in this form. You just don't get the right information often enough, so there are many improved conventions that start 1M-2NT. I'm not going to propose one of them (they're mostly equivalent and I don't have a strong feeling between them), but a really common feature is for the 3C response to show a minimum hand. After that, responder can ask more questions to find out shape. This change helps work out slam chances and gives room to investigate if the hands warrant it.

[jillybean]

1. There are so many ways to play this game, you will find many different approaches to "standard" conventions.
I found an expert who's opinion and approach I liked and stuck with that. Find a partner who is as intestered in the game as you are and experiement and agree to appraoches with them.

2. Your version of Jacoby is fine. When you and your partner are ready for more, there are more advanced systems.

[pescetom]

Adopting a convention is an important decision. Before doing so I always think whether it looks better than what we currently play or not, check out both the known authoritative sources and any other source I can find in internet, then decide on whether it is worth trying and if so in which version. Then I hammer out the details with partners and we play it for one year, then review.

FWIW Jacoby 2NT failed the first hurdle for me. You may well decide differently but don't feel obliged to follow the herd.

[mikeh]

tgphelps, on 2023-December-30, 13:31, said:

I have two questions, one general and one specific. I'd appreciate your answer to either or both of them.

1. I'd call myself a lower intermediate player, but who knows. I watch a lot of Youtube videos by people who seem to be "experts" on bridge. Sometimes the rules for a certain bid/convention vary quite a bit (see question 2) depending on which video it is. And those videos often differ from what a bridge book by another "authority" (possibly more authoritative if s/he published a book). How do I determine who I should pay attention to? Perhaps there is no answer to this, and that the best I can do is ask questions here and see "what everyone is actually playing"? That's an acceptable answer, but I wonder if there is a better answer.

2. Specifically, videos on Jacoby 2NT differ quite a bit in their descriptions of opener's rebid after responder bids 2NT. They agree that opener shows a singleton by bidding at the 3-level, and he shows a "good" 5-card suit at the 4-level, but one persons says that 5-card suit should have 2 of the top 3 honors, and another one says the honor requirement should be maybe 2 of the top 4, because 2 of the top 3 will happen so rarely. Another big difference is that one of them says that if opener has no singleton or good 5-card suit, he bids 4M with a bare minimum, and 3M otherwise. The other "expert" says opener bids 4M with 13-15 points, 3NT with 16-18, and 3M with 19+. Question: What do you (American) good players do here?

Check out the ‘expert’s’ bridge resume. Have they played, preferably successfully, at a high level?

If not, he or she may still be a good teacher, but the odds shift against them. It’s difficult to teach at an expert level if one doesn’t play at an expert level.

Larry Cohen, for example, has a very good website and decades of experience as one of the best players in the world. His website material is very good. While he mostly played a forcing club method when winning his (multiple) championships, he writes authoritatively on 2/1.

As for J2N, in its basic form (which you’ve described, albeit with slight variations in terms of bidding a lower ranking suit at the 4 level) it’s better than what it replaced….back then, ne might well have played 1M 3M as a forcing raise! But it’s a kludge…it’s better than what came before but it’s not very good.

Here’s one I’ve played with a couple of expert partners (what I play now in my main partnership is quite a bit more complicated):

1S 2N

3C. All minimums other than a hand that I almost didn’t open
3D. A balanced max
3H/S/N. extras, stiff club/diamond/heart (could be void)
4C/D/H extras, 5 card suit, at least KJ10xx.

The important aspect of 3C is that responder just jumps to game with an average hand, thus leaving the defenders relatively in the dark. With any slam interest, responder bids 3D and now 3H balanced, 3S/N/C shortness in clubs/diamonds/hearts

[P_Marlowe]

Audrey Grant is a pretty good choice.
She may not have won as much as Larry Cohen, but she has a long career as a bridge teacher, and is respected
for her teaching skills. Teaching Skill is as much important than subject skill, but only a few experts are
also good teachers, Larry Cohen is certainly also a great teacher, but there are other experts, who wont be
quite as good as Grant, even if they are better / stronger players.

With regards to a response structure to 2NT:
The classical version: new suits on the 3 level show shortage, new suit on the 4 level show a source
of tricks, 3NT showes a semi bal. hand with a the strength of a strong NT opener, 15-17, or 16-18,
a strong NT range played in the old days, ... for memory sake I find 15-17 simpler,
rebidding the major is the strongest response, 18+, or for memory sake, too strong for a strong NT opening.
Bidding 4 of the majors denies shortage, and will be most of the time a weak NT.

The question that arises: if a new suit on the 4 level is a 5 carder, what suit quality do you need to show
the suit instead of the singleton.
A simple solution would be to always show the shortage, making the 4 level bid only on 5422 hands.
The 4 level bid should be very precise, it burns a lot of space, and due to this will be very rare.

MikeH gives you an alternative structure.
The main issue with the classical version, most of the time responder has no slam interest, unless opener has (lots)
of extras, but the classical version will force opener, who will also be declarer, to reveal shape information,
that will only help the defenders.
MikeH version adresses this point, ... and most likely a couple of others, but this point is simple to explain.

Now my final comment: Does it matter? As long as you are considering yourself below expert level and as long as
you will play at most 50 bords a week, the answer is No, it wont matter a lot, so pick a version, most likely the one
described in your book and stick with it.

[jdiana]

I also consider myself a lower intermediate level player, so take this for what it's worth. I don't watch a lot of YouTube videos but I have watched some of Peter Hollands's videos and agree that he does a nice job. I think the problem with YouTube in general is that the videos are all over the place, both in terms of quality and in terms of getting random ideas out of context.

I'm repeating some of what's been said already but finding one teacher/writer/expert that you respect, and who fits your philosophy, is a good way to go. For almost every convention, there are numerous treatments but, at our level and especially for constructive bidding, almost any of them will be fine if remembered and applied correctly. One advantage of starting with one trusted source is that the recommended treatments will be internally consistent.

Larry Cohen and Audrey Grant are both solid choices. I also think Robert Todd has some very good materials that can help you build a system. See https://www.advinbridge.com/ That website can be a little difficult to navigate but even the free "Clubs" membership gives you access to some great materials. Gavin Wolpert's lessons are also good IMO - https://wolpertbridg.../temporary-home

Once you have a solid basic system, then you can always consider ideas from other sources - Michael Lawrence bridge books, columns in the ACBL Bulletin, posts here and on Bridge Winners, etc. - and see if they fit with your system. For a quick lookup, Bridgebum is pretty good - https://www.bridgebu...conventions.php I also look at Bridge World Standard sometimes - https://www.bridgewo...letesystem.html

Are you working with a partner? One of the advantages of a regular partnership is being able to dive more deeply into some of the bidding stuff, especially in some of the more difficult areas like bidding in competition. Good luck!

[helene_t]

I don't think it matters so much in itself which J2NT style the book recommends. Most of your partners won't confidently expect you to play a specific style undiscussed anyway.

What I personally value in a textbook is that:
- The author does not recommend something weird that goes against the consensus.
- The author makes a logical argument for the recommendations so that you can understand under which assumptions the recommendations apply, and how important they are
- The author makes the scope of each recommendation clear. For example:
- - You have to follow suit. This is bridge law.
- - You can't play coded signals. This is the local regulations in the author's jurisdiction
- - 2NT is (almost) never a contract improvement. This is common sense.
- - Third hand high. That is a rule of thump that is often common sense but sometimes wrong.
- - Open the higher of two five-card suits. This is a matter of partnership agreement, and a simple rule that has justification in natural bidding systems but has exceptions in some bidding systems
- - Transfers apply after direct-seat 1NT overcalls but not after balancing overcalls. This is a matter of partnership agreement and it's just the authors' personal preference. The author should state if this is near-universal in the author's own area (and what that area is).

[thepossum]

tgphelps, on 2023-December-30, 13:31, said:

I have two questions, one general and one specific. I'd appreciate your answer to either or both of them.

1. I'd call myself a lower intermediate player, but who knows. I watch a lot of Youtube videos by people who seem to be "experts" on bridge. Sometimes the rules for a certain bid/convention vary quite a bit (see question 2) depending on which video it is. And those videos often differ from what a bridge book by another "authority" (possibly more authoritative if s/he published a book). How do I determine who I should pay attention to? Perhaps there is no answer to this, and that the best I can do is ask questions here and see "what everyone is actually playing"? That's an acceptable answer, but I wonder if there is a better answer.

2. Specifically, videos on Jacoby 2NT differ quite a bit in their descriptions of opener's rebid after responder bids 2NT. They agree that opener shows a singleton by bidding at the 3-level, and he shows a "good" 5-card suit at the 4-level, but one persons says that 5-card suit should have 2 of the top 3 honors, and another one says the honor requirement should be maybe 2 of the top 4, because 2 of the top 3 will happen so rarely. Another big difference is that one of them says that if opener has no singleton or good 5-card suit, he bids 4M with a bare minimum, and 3M otherwise. The other "expert" says opener bids 4M with 13-15 points, 3NT with 16-18, and 3M with 19+. Question: What do you (American) good players do here?

If you can find two players of any level who agree on anything good luck to you
There do not appear to be many conventions other than possibly Stayman and Blackwood that are well defined - even then watch out lol

[akwoo]

The answer is that it doesn't matter much whom you listen to as long as you and your partner are listening to the same person.

There is NO standard on these things. Different partnerships play them different ways. If you have an ongoing partnership, you discuss these with your partners and remember. If you have a pickup partnership, you discuss as many of these things as you can in the 10-15 minutes you have before gametime (and this means you have to learn to be flexible and adapt on the fly), and hope that the things you didn't have time to discuss don't come up or at least don't matter when they come up.

I once played 4 fundamentally different bidding systems in a week (at a Regional) with 4 different partners (one of them a pickup, 3 of them regular).

As far as Jacoby is concerned - almost all experts play even more complicated versions of Jacoby than the popularly known one you described - at a minimum what mikeh suggested. If playing standard simple Jacoby (which I prefer not to), I prefer that 3M is stronger than 3N is stronger than 4M at IMPs, but, at matchpoints, I prefer that 3M is a maximum and 3N and 4M are both minimums, one suggesting playing in NT (despite the 5-4 fit) and one suggesting playing in 4M.

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2024-January-03, 01:20, said:

If you can find two players of any level who agree on anything good luck to you
There do not appear to be many conventions other than possibly Stayman and Blackwood that are well defined - even then watch out lol

Almost any convention is open to multiple valid definitions, including the (overrated) big two that you name.
That does not mean that two players of any given level cannot agree on a definition or have any excuse for not doing so.

[blackshoe]

"Standard bridge", at least in North America, died with Charles Goren.

The most important thing about bidding methods (and defensive carding methods for that matter) is that whatever they are, you and your partner are on the same page. Practicing your agreements (BBO is pretty good for that) until you're sure you've both got it is a good idea. *Then* you can add it to your card.