[rbforster]

I've seen some people recommend replacing the traditional 1M-2N Jacoby game-forcing raise with an invitational or better raise. Then 3♣ might show a minimum for example, allowing invitational hands to stop in 3M or ask again with 3♦ and a good hand.

I'm looking for more feedback on something like this.

- what are the gains - freeing up 1M-3M to be preemptive, or playing a semiforcing NT somehow?
- what are the losses - problems in competition?
- what types of invitational hands are typically included? 3 vs 4 cards, balanced vs unbalanced?
- can anyone point me to a set of continuations, relays, etc?

Thanks.

[whereagles]

I've been playing one such inv+ J2NT. The experience is good, but I don't overload the bid too much. It mainly contains balanced hands in the inv range and a couple strongish variations which make up like 5-10% of the frequency.

[Feegle]

Klinger outlines a scheme in his book 'Five-Card Majors' (Master Bridge Series) where he calls it 'The Multi-2NT Response'. It combines Jacoby and Bergen into one bid i.e. 2NT.
The Multi-2NT shows 6+points and 4+trumps and is wide ranging.
It means that with 0-5 and 4 trumps you must obey The Law and raise to 3M, similarly with 0-5 and 5+trumps you must raise to 4M.
Briefly, opener bids:
3-original major, minimum opener and to play
3♣ game interest with around 14-17
3♦ game force with around 18+
3-other-major and 3NT are used to show slam interest and a singleton or void.
Of course this stuff runs to a few pages and deals with responders further bids.
One advantage (he says) of the scheme is that either player can use 3NT as RKCB and thus rest in 4M rather than 5M if slam is not on.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

To my knowledge, the method is part of the german standard system,
which is similar to the french stanard system SEF (?!).
The system is heavily LoTT based, i.e. there are lots of agreement to
differentiate between 3 and 4 card support.

Since they want the limit raise to show 4 card support, they need a way
to handle the inv. hands with 3 card support.
The system does not use the forcing NT for this purpose, they use the
2NT bid. They also use a 3NT response to a major suit openings as a
raise of openers major.

=> They are able to differentiate for inv. and gf hands 3 card and 4 card
support.

Before using this scheme, they used a more complicated scheme, invvolving
delayed raises, I never figured out, how it was supposed to work, but than
I never was forced to figure it out, since I dont play it.

You should be able to locate a sensible source on the net which descirbes
this part of the system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

If the opponents don't bid over the 2NT call, then there are virtually no disadvantages to playing it as limit-plus. The advantages are:

(1) It frees up the direct 3M for some other purpose.
(2) Sometimes you can get more information from opener to make better game decisions.

The main weakness of adding the limit raise hands to 2NT is when opponents bid over the 2NT call. Now there are often some issues about when/whether pass is forcing, and this can make some high level auctions more difficult (for example 1♥-P-2NT-4♠; if 2NT was GF then pass is obviously forcing, and opener can choose pass/double/bid based primarily on his shape and spade holding; if 2NT was only limit-plus then pass might not be forcing, in which case opener is under a lot of pressure not to pass with a non-minimum and will be required to make a lot more unilateral decisions). I'd expect this problem to get even more severe if you start adding weaker than invite hands to the 2NT response (i.e. Klinger's bergen raise compression).

I've tried a few different styles with regard to which limit raise hands to include and which follow up sequences to use. Elianna and I are currently using a method where 2NT is normally a game force four card raise or a three card limit raise. Some nice things about this approach:

(1) The limit raise hand is pretty defense-oriented, which tends to punish opponents who crash our auction. This reduces the main weakness described above.
(2) The hands that want to be in game opposite a three-card limit raise are typically worth exploring for slam opposite a four-card game force. This differs from a four-card limit raise, where there is less of a gap between the limit raise and game force hands, and a lot of fairly minimum openers with a bit of extra shape want to proceed to game.
(3) Because of 2, we can get away with playing some pretty simple follow-ups, because opener doesn't need to be able to say "I have a minimum, no slam interest opposite a GF" but then also bid game over a limit raise on the same hand.

While relay-style follow-ups are arguably better, they are a lot more complicated and we tend to do just fine using:

3M = minimum, would not accept 3-card LR, no shortage below 3M typically 12-14 (semi)-bal
-----> 3-card LR passes, GF hands can bid game or cue if serious extras
3-Suit = shortness in bid suit, if below 3M does not particularly promise extras
-----> 3M = 3-card LR not improved by the shortage, opener can bid on with extras
-----> 3N = GF hand, but not a good slam hand, opener is allowed to cuebid with extras
-----> 4M = 3-card LR upgraded for "no wastage"
-----> Suit = cuebid, GF hand, decent for slam, opener should cue
3NT = balanced or semi-balanced 15-17; no slam opposite limit raise, passable!
4-Suit = cuebid with 18+ and no shortness
4M = not a lot of values, but extra shape including 6+M, taking a shot at game

[Phil]

You just need to tweak the structure a little.

Play 3♣ as catchall minimums. 3♥ by responder shows the LR, and 3♦ over 3♣ says tell me more.

3♦ and up are all normal Jacoby calls with extras (3M = club shortness with extras).

[Echognome]

This topic seems to be one of those that gets revived from time to time. I doubt I was the first to post on the topic here, but here's a link to a thread on this topic four years ago now. There were some very good suggestions there.

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=7920

[Winstonm]

I am all in favor of replacing Jacoby 2NT - Ozzie got it right with his transfers but must have been drinking when he came up with his 2N brainstorm.

[peachy]

I think it is well worth it to tweak the major suit raise structures. If using 2NT for "invit or better raise" then IMO it is best to have opener's 3C rebid cover all good hands, to leave max room for investigation and exchange of information.

[Mbodell]

In one partnership we use mini-splinters, and preemptive 3M opposite our limited 1M openings. We also play 2/1 gf. We thus need some where to put the semi-balanced or balanced limit raise, and thus we play 2M+1 as either J2NT or limit raise with a relay to sort out which is which.

[Tomi2]

Winstonm, on May 18 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

I am all in favor of replacing Jacoby 2NT - Ozzie got it right with his transfers but must have been drinking when he came up with his 2N brainstorm.

nice post, 100% agree to that,
bidding 2nt on good hands with fit steals you lots of usefull biddingspace

[EricK]

I've been thinking about the situation where responder has support for opener's major suit and my thoughts run like this:

Opener can give his hand a grade of 0,1,2,3 etc, where 0 is a minimum, 1 is one trick better than minimum, 2 is two tricks better etc.

Similarly, responder can grade his hand as 3,4,5 etc where 3 is invitational, 4 is one trick better than that, and so on.

Now, the level at which the pair should try to play is, to a first approximation, equal to the sum of those grades. But because of the relative size of the bonuses for game and slam and the penalties for going down, and because some hands fit better than others, we want to explore game possibilities if we can, even if this grade sum suggests the 3 level, and we should also explore for slam if the grade level suggests 5 or more, all the while trying to stay at the 4 level if slam isn't there. But also, we don't want to needlessly explore for slam (giving away information to the defense) if it is very likely that game is the limit of our hands.

To me this suggests a number of things:

1. Where responder is invitational, he needs to leave room for opener to explore for game, without going above the 3 level. Using 2NT as inv+ (ie grade 3 or more) is a good start

2. To make it easier for opener to gauge whether slam exploration is profitable, it is best to split responder's ranges, so that eg 2NT is grade 3 or grade 5+, and grade 4 hands use a different approach

3. to leave maximum room for exploration, it is probably best to use 2♠ instead of 2NT when opener's suit is ♥

4. Opener's responses to the 2♠/2NT bid should give some idea of his grade, so that responder knows when to explore for slam, but the partnership also needs a way to see if the hands fit well for game, even if both are minimum.

Can we do all that? I believe it should be possible, and I will write up my first bash at a method later. But I have to leave for work now

[rbforster]

What do people think the priority should be for these methods - is it more important to make accurate invite vs game decisions, or game vs slam?

If you start with 1♥-2N, there's not much space for showing different weak hands if you put them all in 3♣ (you just get one re-ask with 3♦). If you're willing to accept this rough determination of whether to play game or not by just having opener answer "range", you can get a lot of space for relays about all the hands when responder is interested in slam. This style emphasizes more the "responder asks, opener tells" approach typical of Jacoby 2N.

On the other hand, you could allocate most of your cheap responses, 3♣♦♥ to showing various hands too weak to force to game opposite an invite and show 3-4 different classifications which might allow responder to make a good judgment (specific shortness maybe, or extra trumps). Slam bidding would likely suffer some, how much is less clear.

Perhaps a better question is whether it's right for responder with some sort of limit raise to be the one asking the questions of opener. Are certain types of limit raises more suited to this (and others should be handled elsewhere)?

[hanp]

I'm going to play that 2NT is either invitational or a minimal GF. What kind of structure would people play over that?

At the moment we are just playing the following:

lower ranking suit: natural, game or slam try.
3M = minimum NF.
3NT = Strong balanced, NF.
higher ranking suit: shortness, slam interest.
4M = to play.

Is this really bad?

Would including 3-card limit raises be a good idea?

[gnasher]

Rob F, on May 19 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

What do people think the priority should be for these methods - is it more important to make accurate invite vs game decisions, or game vs slam?

Game vs slam. The benefits of exchanging information on the partscore vs game hands are offset by the help you give them with the opening lead.

Suppose that you play 1S-2NT-3D as some specific minimum. You gain when responder is invitational and this helps him to evaluate. You give away information not only when responder is invitational, but also when he has a minimum game-force, and doesn't actually care about opener's distribution.

Playing 1M-2NT;3C as any minimum, you leak information about opener's shape only when he has extra values, or when responder is strong enough to ask opener about his shape. With a minimum game=force opposite a minimum opening, you bid 1M-2NT;3C-4M.

[awm]

Here's what I play with several regular partners. It basically fits EricK's ideas, as well as concealing shape information from the defense when possible. This is designed for a strong club system but it's not obvious that it won't apply in more standard methods. Note that when someone shows shortness, it is usually responder, who will not end up declaring the hand.

Both the cheapest two jump shifts are used as raises. The cheapest jump shows either a shapely limit raise (i.e. mini-splinter) or any game-force raise (except those which might go via a 2/1 bid). The second jump shows a (semi)-balanced limit raise (three or four cards). Over the second jump:

1♠ - 3♣
---> 3♦ shows a heart suit and suggests that a 4-4 heart fit maybe superior game
---> 3♥ is a counter-try (basically "bid game if you have 4-card LR")
---> 3♠ is a signoff
---> 3NT is choice of games
---> 4-level are splinter slam tries (in strong club system, no balanced slam try possible)

Over the first jump things are more complicated. Opener's priority is to show strength in steps.

1♠ - 2NT
----> 3♣ shows a minimum, maybe not enough for game
----> 3♦ shows game values, but not a super hand
----> 3♥ shows slam interest even opposite limit raise, and requires partner to describe
----> 3♠ shows slam interest and requires a cuebid
----> 3NT is RKC
----> 4-level is void showing slam try

1♠-2NT-3♣
----> 3♦/3♥/3♠ show shortness with 3♠ being specifically a game try
----> 3NT is RKC
----> 4-level are cuebids, denying the ability to show shortage with 3♦/3♥
----> 4♠ is to play, fairly minimum game force not interested in slam opposite min

1♠-2NT-3♦
----> 3♥ shows an unidentified void (3♠ asks)
----> 3♠ shows extras and requires a cuebid
----> 3NT is RKC
----> 4-level show splinters with enough extra to be interested in slam
----> 4♠ is to play (normal on any shapely LR hand, concealing the shortage)

1♠-2NT-3♥
----> 3♠ shows any void
----> 3NT shows balanced GF (starts cuebids)
----> 4-level shows singleton

Over 1♥, 2♠ is the "unbalanced limit raise or GF raise" and things are basically shifted down a step.

[rbforster]

Here's a quick idea for the start of an inv+ Jacoby relay system:

1♥-2N: inv+ Jacoby

3♣ min with ♦ or no shortness; or max with ♠ or ♣ shortness
3♦ min with ♠ shortness; or max with ♦ shortness
3♥ min with ♣ shortness (NF)
3N max with no shortness
3♠/4m natural max with a good suit

Game tries work in the obvious way. For example:

1♥-2N-3♣: min with ♦ or no shortness; or max with ♠ or ♣ shortness

3♦ relay. if invitational, would accept game opposite ♦ shortness
-----> 3♥ no shortness (NF)
-----> 3♠+ various strong hands
-----> 4♥ min with ♦ shortness
3♥ declining game opposite either minimum (max bids game or tries for slam)
3♠+ slam tries
4♥ no slam interest

In general, the idea of playing different hand types for the minimums vs the maximums is that responder will typically have a GF hand. If responder can rule out slam opposite either hand type he can just bid game and leave the opponents in the dark (as opposed to a more natural system where you bid your shortness with any hand, and maximums bid again if responder tries to sign off).

[rbforster]

Here's a symmetric relay version focusing more on slam bidding than catering to the invitational hands. We seek to show the following features:

1) range in 3 buckets (min/medium/max, medium=accepts the invitation)
2) shortness, separating singletons and voids
3) good side suits
4) extra trump length

1♥-2N(inv+ Jacoby):

3♣ min, or the worst medium (no shortness, no extra trump)
3♦ medium strength hands
3♥ max, with extra length or a singleton (3♠ asks; then 3N= extra length, others shortness with 4♥=stiff ♠)
3♠ max, with a good side suit (3N asks, 4♥=♠)
3N max, semibalanced (no shortness or extra length)
4♣♦♥ max with a void (4♥=♠ void)

After 3♣ showing a minimum and 3♦ asking, the 3♥+ responses are almost exactly the same as above:

1♥-2N-3♣(min)-3♦(GF ask):

3♥ min, with extra length or a singleton
3♠ min, with a good side suit
3N min or medium, semibalanced (4♣ asks for range)
4♣♦♥ min with a void

1♥-2N-3♦(mid)-3♥(GF ask):

3♠ mid with a singleton
3N mid with extra length
4♣♦♥ mid with a void

Good suits are only able to be shown in 2 ranges (min/max), but otherwise you get fairly accurate shape information as well as good range resolution. The cheapest step keeps asking questions, while other bids by responder are either cue bids or signoffs (3♥ over 3♣ is to play).