[jillybean]

---

IMP Pairs from a Sectional

[smerriman]

Well, whether I'm playing the original or not, it seems you aren't, so I probably need to know what you're playing instead Is 2NT GF or inv+? What do other rebids show? If 3♦ is any strength, what are the standard followups?

[mikeh]

I don’t play the ‘orginal’. I’m not entirely sure what it is….I think it was invented before I knew much, if anything, about the game. Most conventions mutated early in their lifespan.

The first I learned, which may well be original, is that a new suit at the 3 level showed shortness.

It is not a good usage. Imo it is far more valuable for opener to limit his strength first, preferably via an economical action, over which responder, if still interested, asks for shortness. Without slam interest, responder bids game without the opps learning anything about declarer’s shape, which is often worth a trick.

Anyway, I’ve never heard of 3D as denying shortness while also saying nothing about strength (although if opener is supposed to bid 4S with a minimum, we can infer at least modest extras…I don’t play that either…4S is a hand that I sort of wish I hadn’t opened, so some 5332 dreck, definitely not two aces or an ace and two kings plus a card).

Also, I suspect I wouldn’t have bid J2N, especially if playing something like whatever it is that you’re playing. I would have bid 2C and then strongly supported spades, but this is, I think, a minority approach, so ignore my ‘not bidding 2N’ hobbyhorse😀

Anyway, given that I have very little clue about opener’s hand, I’ll bid 4C and over 4D bid 5C, telling him that he shouldn’t worry about spades, and that I have no heart control and no diamond ace (in case he cuebid, as he should, on QJxxxx Kx KQx Qx).

Over 4H, I sign off, hoping that we cuebid 1st and second round controls up the line. If our methods are so bad that he could bid 4H on QJxxx AQx KQx xx, too bad. Bad methods lead to bad results.

[jillybean]

 smerriman, on 2023-May-21, 22:36, said:

Well, whether I'm playing the original or not, it seems you aren't, so I probably need to know what you're playing instead Is 2NT GF or inv+? What do other rebids show? If 3♦ is any strength, what are the standard followups?

2NT is gf with 4+ spades

3♣ Shortage somewhere, no extras
3♦ Any hand, no shortage
3♥ Extras, King more than min, shortage in ♣'s
3♠ " shortage in ♦'s
3nt " shortage in the other major
4M sub min opener

Sorry, I say the "original" , what I was taught after J2NT seemed pretty standard here
3 level shortage
3M good hand
4M bad hand
4x second suit

[mw64ahw]

Nope - I moved to a strength based Limit+, 4+ approach. Initially opener shows their hcp count and responder then moves forward based on modified losers. In this case 3♠ (16/17 balanced, otherwise 15/16 hcp) is the bid. Responder assumes 6 modified losers and either places the contract or cue-bids to investigate the slam.

Partner finds the approach straightforward and I don't remember a time where we under/overbid.

[jillybean]

 mw64ahw, on 2023-May-21, 23:33, said:

Nope - I moved to a strength based Limit+, 4+ approach. Initially opener shows their hcp count and responder then moves forward based on modified losers. In this case 3♠ is the bid. Responder assumes 6 modified losers and either places the contract or cue-bids to investigate the slam.

Partner finds the approach straightforward and I don't remember a time where we under/overbid.

So you do not have a bid to show a gf raise in partner's major?
I'm interested but hesitant to ask what modified losers are, I have heard too many apologies after either a missed game or a game -1 "Sorry partner, I had xx losers"

[mw64ahw]

 jillybean, on 2023-May-21, 23:39, said:

So you do not have a bid to show a gf raise in partner's major?
I'm interested but hesitant to ask what modified losers are, I have heard too many apologies after either a missed game or a game -1 "Sorry partner, I had xx losers"

No immediate GF although openers rebid obviously puts you in that space.
Modified losers assigns 1.5 to a missing Ace, 1 for the King and 0.5 for the Queen; there are some more subtle adjustments for intermediates/tenaces. In this case opener has:
0.5
2.5
2.5
0.5 = 6
Responder can then cue-bid with 7 modified losers or 7.5 with good controls or raise to game otherwise. So 19-6-7=6-level.

Over 1♥ I use 2♠ to keep the steps symmetric and the memory load down.

Correction: As opener I bid 3♣ to show a minimum and then responder jumps to 4♣ to show a ♠ honour and ♣ control SI. Opener can upgrade their minimum and show an even number of keycards with controls in ♦ and ♥ with 4NT After that further cue-bidding leads to 6♠

[DavidKok]

 jillybean, on 2023-May-21, 23:39, said:

So you do not have a bid to show a gf raise in partner's major?
I'm interested but hesitant to ask what modified losers are, I have heard too many apologies after either a missed game or a game -1 "Sorry partner, I had xx losers"

For what it's worth I also don't have this, though my 1M-2NT ranges from limit raise to minimum GF. SI hands (starting at a good 14-count or so) have to bid 2/1 first and support next round, with 1M-2♣ being artificial. Being able to frequently rebid 2M to show slam interest is useful, it gives us maximum space for resolving shape, strength and controls.

[thepossum]

I would likely be kicked out of any club

I tend to use it with any balanced hand with 3 or more trumps, 13-15+ points or so and game forcing (in my simple brain around 7 losers) - if not gf I use limits and other bids

I don't think its let me down yet

[sfi]

 DavidKok, on 2023-May-22, 01:03, said:

For what it's worth I also don't have this, though my 1M-2NT ranges from limit raise to minimum GF. SI hands (starting at a good 14-count or so) have to bid 2/1 first and support next round, with 1M-2♣ being artificial. Being able to frequently rebid 2M to show slam interest is useful, it gives us maximum space for resolving shape, strength and controls.

Just as long as you can show a game-forcing hand with 4+ support in some way - that fourth trump is really important in giving declarer flexibility. I am reminded of my claim that the Dutch lost the last Bermuda Bowl because one pair didn't distinguish between 3- and 4-card raises on board 29 in the last set. Here's the vugraph archive.

[TMorris]

I still play the original mainly becase I haven't found a partner who is interested in changing. They all play the same withother partners & don't want to do something different with me.

[DavidKok]

I don't have a way to distinguish between 4- and 3-card SI raises.

[sfi]

 DavidKok, on 2023-May-22, 03:24, said:

I don't have a way to distinguish between 4- and 3-card SI raises.

I would not be willing to play without that option, but as usual YMMV.

[DavidKok]

I'm willing to play many agreements that I think are poor if my partner insists, and a J2NT falls in that category. I think it's not a good use of bidding space and even the "3♣=min, other bids are descriptive in some specific way and show a non-min" rebids leave a lot to be desired, but thankfully it doesn't come up often and doesn't win or lose much when it does. So why not?

[AL78]

I play J2N as described in various sources which I believe is the original version. Someone once put me on to an improved version but the problem is remembering it when it hardly ever comes up. Is it worth spending hours practicing online for a convention that is very rarely used, or is it better to use that time studying and improving one's judgement and partnership agreements in competitive auctions to try to reduce the number of sub 50% results in mixed club fields?

[DavidKok]

 AL78, on 2023-May-22, 03:46, said:

I play J2N as described in various sources which I believe is the original version. Someone once put me on to an improved version but the problem is remembering it when it hardly ever comes up. Is it worth spending hours practicing online for a convention that is very rarely used, or is it better to use that time studying and improving one's judgement and partnership agreements in competitive auctions to try to reduce the number of sub 50% results in mixed club fields?

It's far more important to have good competitive agreements. Most of these don't even look like agreements, such as "what is the range for a 1/1 overcall, a 2/1 overcall, a 2/2 overcall, which bids in competition are forcing and which are not, when (if ever) do you not raise partner with support?".

[jillybean]

---

I was sitting East, our opps auction, playing regular J2nt was 1S 2NT 4S.
Only 2 pairs of the 19 got to 6, one pair went to 7.

I don't know if we would have bid to 6 but I on review I think this hand is a good candidate for 1♠:2♣ (art. any gf), although South has an awkward rebid? I am not ready to give up my 4 card gf raise just yet, mainly because my partners would never entertain the idea and I'm hanging onto the concept of the 9th trump being key to bidding slams.

[DavidKok]

I don't think 2♣ any GF helps. If you have the hand for a J2NT it's hard to do better with a more generic sequence. The GF relay approach wins on other deals, where the freed up auctions can be used to show different hands. On the example auction I don't think we'd get there. Opener shows a balanced minimum and responder might make another try, but probably won't insist on slam.

[mikeh]

here's a better method, that isn't too complicated

1S 2N

3C any non-horrible minimum -I'm ashamed I opened - minimum
3D asks: 3H stiff club, 3S stiff diamond, 3N stiff heart, 4S no stiff, 4C/D/H 5 card suit, KJ10xx or better
3D extras, with 5 spades. 3H asks, 3S no stiff, 3N stiff club, etc
3H extras, 6+spades, 3S asks, 3N no stiff, 4C stiff club, etc
3S any side void, 3N asks
3N balanced, 17-19 (even if you play 15-17 1N, many 17 counts with 5 card major ought to upgrade out of 1N)
4C/D/H extras, good 5 card suit (KJ10xx or better)


What defines extras is for partnership agreement, but imo it is an error to focus too much on hcp. sfi referred to a surprising (to me) board from the finals of the BB wherein both pairs missed an easy slam. I won't, can't, comment on their auctions because I don't know their methods but I assume the hands hit a seam in whatever they were. My point is that opener held Axxxxx x x KQJxx

If my partner bid 2N in response to that, I'd consider this to be an incredibly strong hand, despite it being 'only 10 hcp'. While the LTC is usually, for me, about the last metric to which I refer, and thus only in close cases, here I think it is a very useful guide. We had an LTC of 5 when we opened, but it went down to 4 after a 4 card J2N response (which is apparently where one of the pairs got derailoed because 2N didn't promise 4+). To put this in context, many 2C opening bids have an LTC of 4!

I'd have rejected 4N by opener because one can construct hands on which we probably don't want to be in slam or even the 5 level...Qxxx AKQx Kx xxx is a quick example

But it is an easy, in the above methods, 4C bid...extras with 5 good(ish) clubs. Now west keycards into slam.