[Statto]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-11, 05:46, said:

Presumably you'd get to the five-level when responder has Ax Qxxx Axxx QJx. That seems a poor idea.

I think responder should sign off in 4♥ with that, unless the spots are good. But I like how you are discussing how J2NT could work even on this hand

In response to the OP, if you were to ditch J2NT, what would you use the 2NT bid for instead? Here's a quote from the other thread:

 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.

This seems to be a popular treatment in the UK (even from some who play Bergen raises). On grounds of frequency, you're much more likely to be wanting to discover if game is on than slam. Like mini-splinters, the bid is dual-purpose: either looking for game or looking for slam. (I wouldn't like to speculate how it fits into a 2/1 structure; I thought mini-splinters would slot in nicely but several posters pointed out how wrong I was about that.)

1♥-3♥ as a limit raise is of course old hat: it's much better played as a pre-emptive raise if 4th seat has not yet had an opportunity to bid.

[Zelandakh]

These hand types, where Responder has support and a side suit, come up often on these forums. Very often the solution is to start with a 2/1 and support later, even though this hides the 4th trump. My own methods do not have this option since a 2/1 is non-forcing. That is why new suits are natural wnere space allows. The flip-side is that a 1M opening is guaranteed to be unbalanced so the responses without shortage are automatically 5422 shape. Another aspect of the methods I posted that you missed is that 3NT is a spade cue after 3♠ in the given sequence - it is not necessary to start with 4♦. But I also use denial cue bids so the correct bid would have been 4♣ to ask for a club control. Obviously I chose not to go into such detail - I thought the important thing was the structure condensing the shortage-showing bids and also getting some strength limits into the auction, an area badly lacking in standard J2NT.

For the record I would expect my auction on the given pair of hands to be:-

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 1NT = hearts and clubs or hearts, GF
3♥ = 15-17 bal with 5 hearts
... - 3♠ = slam try
3NT = accept, no spade control
... - 4♣ = have you got a club control?
4♦ = yes, but no diamond control
... - 4♠ = RKCB
5♥ = 0 or 3
... - 6♥

but I would also expect the opponents to be bidding with 9 spades and 8 diamonds.

[han]

 jdeegan, on 2012-February-10, 23:18, said:

An historical note: JTB was invented about 50 years ago after a Unit game in Dallas. During the session Jake and Mary Zita came to our table and announced they were trying out a new convention whereby 3NT was a strong major raise. I was a new player at the time, and the only system I knew was K-S which used the then novel 5-card major requirement.
After the two boards were completed and before the next round was called, I mentioned to Jake that if one played 5-card majors, the only use for a natural 2NT was if one held a doubleton in the bid major, three cards in the other major, and 4-4 in the minors. One could easily handle this hand by temporizing at the 2 level in one of the minors. The rest is more or less history. I think this analysis still holds true, although the newfangled 2/1 greatly improves slam bidding on non-JTB auctions.

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".

[fromageGB]

 han, on 2012-February-13, 04:49, said:

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".

You would prefer to dump JDeegan ?

[32519]

For those who were listening to the voice commentary Monaco versus Sweden, on board 10 David Bird made a classic comment regarding Jacoby 2NT. His comment “Making a game forcing Jacoby 2NT bid is pretty useless on its own. It’s all about the continuation bidding. Showing distribution is not enough. Opener needs to be able to convey a minimum hand or a hand containing extras.”
He suggested a follow up bid of 3♣ to show a minimum with opener. Anything else would show extras.

What do others feel about this suggestion?

[phil_20686]

 32519, on 2012-August-19, 04:34, said:

He suggested a follow up bid of 3♣ to show a minimum with opener. Anything else would show extras.

When you mentioned jacoby, it never occured to me that you might be playing the original responses. I like:

1M-2N = limit+raise,

3c= min, then 3d = asks for shortage, 3h/s/N responses= c/d/OM shortage, 3h.s.N directly show shortage and slam interest.
3d = no shortage, extras,
3h/s/n = show shortage, extras.
4x = 5-5, and not sub minimum. (not extras, but would not bid if opened some crappy ten count, or if values soft).

Finally, after every shortage showing bid, sign off = you made my hand worse, cue = you made my hand better, but the first bid over the shortage shows a kind of inbetween bid. E.g. a minimum hand that has all values working, or a fourteen count with a small amount of wastage.

[Cyberyeti]

We'd bid 1♥-2N (limit or better)-3♣ ostensibly natural and this would wake partner up. If the club honours were distributed to give responder more of the honours then we could bid 1♥-3♣ GF but it shows a better suit than QJxxx along with Hxxx of partner's for us.

[Flem72]

 32519, on 2012-August-19, 04:34, said:

What do others feel about this suggestion?

Indispensable.

[Quantumcat]

 Flem72, on 2012-August-19, 06:35, said:

Indispensable.

I made up a bergen/jacoby system that means you don't ever need to show extras as opener (you either sign off or investigate slam yourself). If you want to use it, I am calling it Quantum Bergen:

1♠:
- 2♣ = includes 3-card limit raise
(all the following are 4-card raises)
- 2NT = 13-14
- 3♣ = 9-12
- 3♦ = 7-8 or 17+
- 3♥ = 5-6 or 15-16
- 3♠ = 0-4

Over 1♥ 4-card raises are all the same except moved down one step.

Now over Jacoby you simply sign off if you don't think there is a slam on, and only move if there is. You never need show extras when it turns out there is no slam because responder was minimum.

[fromageGB]

My 2NT is unlimited, so of course there is a need for both parties to be able to show extras, having discovered a shortage if there is one, but I am happy using non-serious 3♠/NT

Of course, those playing quantum bergen have no problem, but then identifying opener's distributional features beneath the ace asking level may be tricky, when you have the stronger 3 bid replies.

[jogs]

Dump both J2NT and Bergen raises. Play fit showing jumps both in contested and uncontested auctions.

1♥ - 3♣

3♣ is fit showing, 5+ clubs and 4 hearts. Then maybe the partnership would be able to count the 12 tricks.

[jdeegan]

 han, on 2012-February-13, 04:49, said:

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".

It is time to dump JDeegan 2NT. Who can deny it? There are so many better uses for the 2NT bid. One of my faves is to make it a limit raise or better.

[rsteele]

 32519, on 2012-February-10, 10:25, said:

From the feedback in this thread “Jacoby 2NT” http://www.bridgebas...099-jacoby-2nt/ , kenrexford, whereagles and TWO4BRIDGE all advise to steer clear of Jacoby 2NT. When this hand occurred I was looking for ways on how to find the slam using Jacoby 2NT with a combined 28 HCP count in a natural 2/1 system. Unable to find the slam using Jacoby, I am now convinced that kenrexford, whereagles and TWO4BRIDGE are all correct. It’s time to dump Jacoby 2NT!

---

Trying the different methods suggested in the above thread, I came up with this:

Method 1: SAYC Booklet
• 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

OPENER...RESPONDER
1H............2NT
3NT...........?

How would the auction continue? Neither partner knows about the ♣ fit, a place for declarer to dump losers on.

Method 2: Suggested by Roger Clee
• 1M - 2NT
• 3♣: Min, 3♦ asks
• 3♦: Extras, shortness, 3♥ asks
• 3♥: Extras, 5422, 3♠ asks
• 3♠: Extras, 6+ no shortness (3NT non-serious over this)
• 3NT: 18-19 bal
• 4 lower: 5-5, extras
• 4M: Min, 6+ no shortness, good for slam

1H............2NT
3C............?

After a minimum response, responder will most likely signoff in 4♥. Again, the ♣ fit is not discovered.

Method 3: Suggested by gwnn
• 3♣ minimum (i.e. less than an ace above a minimum, now 3♦ asks and we have the same structure except 4M shows a 5332/5422)
• 3♦ non minimum, no shortness
• 3♥ short clubs
• 3♠ short diamonds
• 3NT short other major
• 4x=5-5
• 4M min, 6M, no shortness.

1H............2NT
3C............?

Same result as method 2. Again, the ♣ fit is not discovered.

Method 4: Suggested by Zelandakh

• 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)

1H..................2NT
3S..................4D (cue)
4S(Kickback)..5H (2 with the queen)
?

With 2 ♦ losers (1 taken care of with the Ace) and 1 ♠ loser, opener must gamble on bidding the slam. The gamble works here because of the ♣ fit. However, I don’t believe that top flight players take these sort of gambles. Should the gamble fail, you have cost your side plenty of IMPS.

Method 5: Bog standard 2/1 as suggested by Vampyr
• Or you can just do it the old-fashioned way and bid 2/1 followed by a "delayed game raise".

1H............2C (2/1 GF)
3C (fit)......3H (double fit, ♥ and ♣)
4NT (6-card Blackwood)

With bog standard 2/1 the ♣ fit is found and now the slam can be safely bid.

[rsteele]

Try 1H - 2NT (Jacoby)
3H - 3S (cue bids follow)
4C - 4D
5C - responder count now count 12 tricks. 5 hearts, 5 clubs and two side aces. Why is this hand a Jacoby problem?

[fromageGB]

While on this hand I would prefer a 2♣ 2 over 1 response, I have no trouble with J2N either. The key point is that South has to show extra strength, and North checks for aces. If your methods don't allow extra strength to be shown, then it is not so easy. For example, in my methods we use non-serious 3NT. (When hearts are trumps, spades takes the place of NT.)

1♥ ... 2♠ (4 card support, 13+ hcp, ie Jacoby )
2NT (no shortage, how about you?)
... 3♠ (no shortage either. Non-serious, ie no significant extra strength)
4♣ (serious cue bid, very good hand for the hcp. More like a 17/18 than a 16, with those aces and kings)
... 4♦ control
4♥ (OK, said my bit. Pass if you like, I can't go further.)
... 4♠ (Ace ask. The doubletons may provide ruffs, clubs may be set up, I have the top spade.)
4NT (1 KC, or 3 without)
... 5♣ (Formality, really, given the strength, but which?)
6♣ (3, and this is my cheapest king (ie denying ♠K))
... 6♥ (12 tricks visible, 13 if opener has 6 hearts, but can't find out, and anyway a possibility that one of the clubs may need to be ruffed on a very bad break)
... (If opener had bid 5♠ with the ♠K, I'd bid 6♣ to ask about that one, with 13 tricks in the bag if it's there, and 6♥ on the club finesse if not. Or safe 6 without a diamond lead.)