[steve2005]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-May-26, 21:06, said:

My impression is that GF is still very dominant in the U.S.; LR+ is much more common in Europe but starting to leak over. As for response structures there are a zillion permutations possible no matter whether you play as GF or LR+, I think advanced partnerships tend to roll their own.

We just switched to limit+ in Canada.

our responses aren't an option the form
from Standard Modern Precision by D Neill
3C=GF
3D=12-13
3M=10-11
higher bids are voids OM=OM, 3N=D, 4C=C
Dont show a singleton unless someone has extras

[rmnka447]

I use a home grown system of responses with my favorite partner. With other members of our team, we use Swedish responses where 3 ♣ shows any minimum. With most other partners, I just use the "standard" Jacoby 2 NT response structure.

I think using 3 ♣ as showing any minimum hand has a lot of merit. Whenever responder is simply interested in game, it can be bid directly over 3 ♣ giving the defenders the least information. If responder wants to find out about any shortness, a 3 ♦ relay can be made and opener can show shortness with step responses - 3 ♥ = ♣ shortness, 3 ♠ = ♦ shortness, 3 NT = OM shortness.

The other opener rebids are:

3 ♦ = balanced with extras
3 ♥ = ♣ shortness with extras
3 ♠ = ♦ shortness with extras
3 NT = OM shortness with extras
4 level new suits = good 2nd suit

Note opener uses the same bids to show where shortness exists whether a minimum or with extras.

With my favorite partner, we use a combination of "standard" responses with our own insertions. We do so to try to incorporate some ideas for Jacoby 2 NT outlined by the Granovetters in their book, "Bridge Conventions in Depth:

3 ♣= minor suit shortness. 3 ♦ asks which. Step responses - 3 ♥= ♣, 3 ♠= ♦
3 ♦ = any 17+ hand
3 OM = OM shortness
3 M = minimum hand. 3 NT by responder asks for more info. Opener rebids 4 M with less than 2 honors in M. Other suit bids show a concentration of values and 2+ honors.
3 NT = 15-16 value
4 level new suits = strong 2nd suit usually 5-5 or better
4 M = minimum with strong trump, typically AKQxx or similar

The 3 ♠/3 NT ask and 4 M rebids are straight out of Granovetter. But we especially like using 3 ♦ as showing the strong hand because responder can initiate cueing with a new suit bid or by making a waiting bid (trump suit or NT bids).

[pescetom]

Limit+ is the standard when playing 2/1 around here.
Typical responses are:
3♣ = asks fit_length + shortage, relay replies
3♦ = undecided about game, F1 (but some play it as invite to control-bid)
3M/4M = signoff
3oM = 4+ cards, NAT F1
3NT = balanced pass/correct, GF
other = control-bid, GF+.

[bravejason]

My first thought was ‘what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?’ A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I’m not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

[steve2005]

bravejason, on 2019-May-28, 11:56, said:

My first thought was 'what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?' A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I'm not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

The thing is Jacoby is so flawed needs a rewrite, so you can do Limit+ with little extra effort

[pescetom]

bravejason, on 2019-May-28, 11:56, said:

My first thought was ‘what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?’ A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I’m not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

I suggest you take a step further backwards to 2/1 GF and a clean sheet of paper - then ask yourself what (if any) need there is for an additional GF bid to show fit directly and whether this would be the best use for 2NT. Much of the world has already decided for no on both counts.

BTW it is not normal (although possible when circumstances demand it) to use a limit 2NT when you intend to play game - you already have 2/1, splinters and perhaps other gadgets to force to game. OTOH it can make sense to go through 2NT when you have slam interest so that 4NT is now RKCB, when a direct 4NT would be either plain Blackwood or quantitative in your system. Again, I suggest you are thinking about this from the wrong angle because conditioned by the idea that Jacoby 2NT is "proper" and that any other use must be a variant.

[rr9000]

bravejason, on 2019-May-28, 11:56, said:

My first thought was ‘what does a 2NT limit raise gain over other methods?’ A couple of the responses noted some of the benefits, though I’m not seeing enough value there to offset the loss of proper Jacoby 2NT. After a limit 2NT, opener has to delay and responder spends two bids explaining what could have been said in one bid. Perhaps you save some space in a limit raise auction, but it seems like you give it back in a game forcing auction.

My main pard and I have been playing 2NT as limit raise or better for a long time, and like it, but I wouldn't disagree with your suggestion that the gains and losses even out, in principle. (I agree with others who suggest that standard Jacoby 2NT has some shortcomings, so even though I think we're coming out ahead of Jacoby 2NT on constructive auctions, it's not clear we'd come out ahead of a good revised version.)

Where I feel like we have an advantage is in being able to bid a direct 3M preemptively. There are other ways to get there, but they're not my preferred methods. They let the opps get in lead-directing doubles or actions that can help to compete or get to sacs. And more importantly, in my opinion, they prevent other good uses for the jump shift(s) into 3 of a minor. In my 2/1 partnerships, I want that jump shift to show the invitational hands. And in my non-2/1 partnerships, I want that jump shift strong.

Just my $.02.

RR9000

[Vampyr]

rr9000, on 2019-May-28, 14:06, said:

They let the opps get in lead-directing doubles or actions that can help to compete or get to sacs.

Lead-directing doubles over Bergen raises? Really?.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2019-May-27, 11:52, said:

It is unethical to ask about the alerts only when you are considering an action other than pass. Either ask ALWAYS or never ask until the auction is over. By asking only if interested in bidding, you convey UI to your partner, whether you bid or pass, but especially if you ask then pass. I am sure you don’t mean to do this, but I’m also sure you can now see why it is bad practice to do so.

That something is "bad practice" doesn't make it unethical. Other than that, I agree with your recommendation.

[blackshoe]

phoenixmj, on 2019-May-26, 20:46, said:

I had not realized that people were playing it differently. So - If I am at a table and the bidding goes 1M, 2N (alert) - I have been assuming game force without asking for an explanation. If the subsequent bid is 3c - I assumed shortness in clubs after the alert.

The message you should be getting from an alert is not "this is whatever conventional meaning I'm most used to hearing", it's "there's something about this call about which I might wish to ask". The message you should get from a lack of alert is not "this is a natural bid" but "this has a meaning which is common enough in this jurisdiction that it does not suggest we need to ask about it".

Some points:
1. If an opponent alerts, ask what the call means.
2. If the explanation is the name of a convention, tell them you're not familiar with it (even if it's "Stayman*" ) and ask for further information.
3. If they drag their feet or otherwise indicate they don't know what you're asking, call the director.
4. It is always correct to ask for an explanation of the entire auction, not pinpointing any particular bid. They won't understand this request, so see #3 above.
5. Don't give explanations by naming a convention. Explain the meaning of the call. If there are alternative calls which could have been made but were not, explanation of which would refine opponents' understanding of the call made, give those explanations too. "That would take too long" is not an excuse for not doing this.

* I picked that name because "everyone knows" what Stayman is — which is why it's not alertable in the ACBL. However, I remember what Heinlein said: "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so."

[bravejason]

pescetom, on 2019-May-28, 12:18, said:

I suggest you take a step further backwards to 2/1 GF and a clean sheet of paper - then ask yourself what (if any) need there is for an additional GF bid to show fit directly and whether this would be the best use for 2NT. Much of the world has already decided for no on both counts.

BTW it is not normal (although possible when circumstances demand it) to use a limit 2NT when you intend to play game - you already have 2/1, splinters and perhaps other gadgets to force to game. OTOH it can make sense to go through 2NT when you have slam interest so that 4NT is now RKCB, when a direct 4NT would be either plain Blackwood or quantitative in your system. Again, I suggest you are thinking about this from the wrong angle because conditioned by the idea that Jacoby 2NT is "proper" and that any other use must be a variant.

You misunderstood my comment about proper. I meant that in the context of the definition. I used ‘proper’ to try to clarify that I was referencing the GF version, not the limit raise.

I’ve always understood that the reason for a direct game forcing raise, even in 2/1, is to differentiate trump support. 2/1 GF followed by support for opener is three card trump support. Jacoby 2NT shows four card trump support while also being game forcing. Similarly the direct raise is limited and shows four card support and the delayed raise via 1NT is limited and three card support.

Could 2NT used be used better? Possibly. Though I think that if I were to use it show something else, I’d use it to show a balanced, invitational hand.

[Stephen Tu]

bravejason, on 2019-May-29, 11:38, said:

I've always understood that the reason for a direct game forcing raise, even in 2/1, is to differentiate trump support. 2/1 GF followed by support for opener is three card trump support. Jacoby 2NT shows four card trump support while also being game forcing.

That's not really the reason. There are hands with a good 2/1 suit and 4 cd support that one would rather 2/1 rather than use J2nt. The real difference is that with J2nt, responder takes captaincy temporarily and gets opener to describe their hand, then decides how high to go. While with a 2/1 sequence you are trying to describe your hand to opener. So it is more a choice of whether you want to find out what partner has, or tell partner what you have, you have to decide who will be better placed to make decisions based on each path. Generally balanced hands are better asking with J2nt, because you can find partner's shortages and find out whether balanced hands honors are in the right spots or not. Distributional hands typically describe unless really strong, to let opener know of potential source of tricks from a long suit, or shortages in the responder's hand.
4cd support vs 3 is really minor compared to the describe/ask captaincy issues.

One doesn't J2nt with 3 because when there is only 8 cd fit, sometimes there is a different trump suit that is superior for slam purposes; it's hard to get to other trump suits after a GF M raise.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-May-29, 09:08, said:

The message you should be getting from an alert is not "this is whatever conventional meaning I'm most used to hearing", it's "there's something about this call about which I might wish to ask". The message you should get from a lack of alert is not "this is a natural bid" but "this has a meaning which is common enough in this jurisdiction that it does not suggest we need to ask about it".

I understand that ACBL crossed that Rubicon some time ago and that EBU is half way there, but many RAs in Europe are still aligned to WBF Systems Policy which says that in lack of alert it is a natural bid. So it depends where you are playing, at least in terms of regulations. Of course when some artificial meaning is very common locally then it's difficult to enforce alerting whatever the regulations say, so some onus remains on players to defend themselves (and to attempt to improve the situation).

blackshoe, on 2019-May-29, 09:08, said:

* I picked that name because "everyone knows" what Stayman is — which is why it's not alertable in the ACBL. However, I remember what Heinlein said: "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so."

Never more true than in the case of Stayman, which everyone knows but quite often has no idea even how partner will bid with a given hand, let alone opponents

[nige1]

Over a 1M opener, simple, consistent raise structures are possible that feature:

• Pre-emptive raises.
• Constructive raises, distinguishing 3 card from 4+ card raises.
• Game-try, game, and slam-try raises.
• Balanced and Splinter-raises, distinguishing singletons from voids.
• Concealment of opener's (declarer's) hand
• Some concealment of responder's hand if opener doesn't inquire.

1♥ -

• 2♣ = ASK. Then 2♦ = Sound opener. Other rebids weak.
• 2♦ = TRF. Good 3 ♥ raise
• 2♥ = NAT. Weak 3+ ♥ raise. 0-8 HCP.
• 2♠ = ART. 4+ ♥ raise to 3 or 5. 2N asks. Then 3♣/♦ = SPL (singleton). 3♥ = BAL.
• 2N = ART. ♠ SPL. 4+♥ raise to 3 or 5. 3♣ asks: Then 3♦ = Singleton ♠, 3♥ = void ♠.
• 3♣ = SPL. (Void) 4+ ♥ raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♦ = SPL. (Void) 4+ ♥ raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♥ = PRE.
• 3♠ - 4♥ = Similar 4+ ♥ raise to 4.

1♠ -

• 2♣ = ASK. Then 2♦ = Sound opener. Other rebids weak.
• 2♦ = TRF. 5+ ♥s.
• 2♥ = TRF. Good 3 ♠ raise.
• 2♠ = NAT. Weak 3+ ♠ raise. 0-8 HCP.
• 2N = ART. 4+ ♠ raise to 3 or 5. 3♣ asks. Then 3♦/♥ = SPL (Singleton). 3♠ = BAL.
• 3♣ = ART. ♣ SPL. 4+♥ raise to 3 or 5. 3♣ asks: Then 3♥ = Singleton ♣, 3♦ = void ♣.
• 3♦ = SPL. (Void) 4+ ♠ raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♥ = SPL. (Void) 4+ ♠ raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♠ = PRE.
• 3N - 4♠ = Similar 4+ ♠ raise to 4.