[jillybean]

A while ago there was a thread discussing a Modified+ Jacoby response which included, I think, no shortage but extras?
Anyway, it was better than the Modified J2nt I am currently playing.

I you remember which thread this was or know the modification, please provide the link or explanation.

Thanks

[mikeh]

Don’t know…or couldn’t find because I didn’t look….but here is the version I currently play. Over 1H it’s possible to use 2S and keep the same step responses, saving a bit of bidding space but we use 1H 2S for something else and don’t regret it

1S. 2N


3C minimum but not a hand we were embarrassed to open…we have a high embarrassment threshold, yours may vary.

3D. Extra values, say a king or more than a non awful minimum. Precisely 5 card major

3H. Extra values, 6+ major….the extra length is an extra trick which is why we differentiate

3S. Any hand with a void. Voids can be awesome for slam, but obviously that depends on the mesh

3N. Some 5332 17-19

4C/D/H. Extras, natural 5 card suit, no worse than KJ10xx

4M (so 4H if opened 1H) shows a truly awful opening hand…one you actively considered passing)


Over 3C responder will often just bid game, not giving away information to the opps when slam is unrealistic. With any interest at all, 3D asks for shortness (stiff). Step responses. NLMH, standing for none, lower suit, middle etc ( lower always clubs in these sequences but we use NLMH relays. In other auctions, so we use the acronym’

If responder likes what he hears, or is slam interested anyway, cue bidding leading, if appropriate either to keycard or signoff or jump to slam

Over 3D, 3H is NLMH ask, same step principle and subsequent bidding

Over 3H, 3S is NLMH ask, same idea

And over 3S, same thing…3N asks

We have some other wrinkles but this scheme is, imo, the best of about 5-6 I’ve tried


I think the biggest winner is the 3C bid. Unlike ‘standard’ J2N it does two things that are useful when responder has a minimum or only mild extras. Firstly it limits the hand. When 3C, say, says nothing other than I have club shortness, responder may struggle to decide how high to bid. Secondly it conceals opener’s shape, unless responder asks, making the defence harder

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-February-02, 17:17, said:

Thanks. That's a lot but significantly better than my J2nt

[mike777]

Fwiw, there is always Bergen's version of Jacoby 2NT.

For whatever reasons people who say they play Bergen raises don't seem to know
Bergen's raises, 😊.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-February-02, 18:03, said:

Fwiw, there is always Bergen's version of Jacoby 2NT.

For whatever reasons people who say they play Bergen raises don't seem to know
Bergen's raises, 😊.

Please elaborate !

[jdiana]

I've seen a lot of discussion about this on BW as well as here. There are a lot of approaches to this, including I think a lot of "homemade" systems (as opposed to a standard approach that many people play). One key question is whether you want to include invitational hands in your J2NT. (All of these modified approaches are too much for me to remember, so I'm just an interested observer on this one.)

It might help if you described what you currently play and what it is about that system you're unhappy with. There was a thread on here a while back and I thought you had adopted akwoo's structure, which I also copied and saved for future reference. I think he decided to call it "Seattle expert standard". Here's what I have saved:

1M - 2N

3C - all minimums, after which 3D asks for shortness
Responses:
3H=club shortness
3S=diamond shortness
3N=other major shortness
anything higher=no shortness
3D - extras, no shortness
3H - extras, club shortness
3S - extras, diamond shortness
3N - extras, other major shortness

There are variations incorporating limit raises and overstrength splinters into 2N. Some folks use 1H-2S for an extra step.

Answers to follow-up questions:

Anything higher=A/K (well - a control bid, but you're denying shortness). I've never thought about it too much, but I suppose control bids below 4M should be mandatory here, so 4M denies any side controls (well 1H-2N-3C-3D-4H could have a spade control).

Do keep in mind a 3D bid implies wanting to know about shortness for slam purposes, so it's a hand that could visualize a minimum hand opposite that would make slam.

I play the 4 level rebids as showing a good 5 card suit and 4M as showing a good 6 card suit, but both required to be minimums. (Well, I play 1S-2N and 1H-2S as including limit raises, so they are minimums that nevertheless want to be in game opposite a limit raise because of extra distribution.)

(from akwoo on BBO forums)

Is that what you're currently playing?

[jillybean]

This is what I was looking for, thanks

What is was playing was missing the 3D no shortage, extras step

[mikeh]

jdiana, on 2025-February-02, 21:53, said:

I've seen a lot of discussion about this on BW as well as here. There are a lot of approaches to this, including I think a lot of "homemade" systems (as opposed to a standard approach that many people play). One key question is whether you want to include invitational hands in your J2NT. (All of these modified approaches are too much for me to remember, so I'm just an interested observer on this one.)

It might help if you described what you currently play and what it is about that system you're unhappy with. There was a thread on here a while back and I thought you had adopted akwoo's structure, which I also copied and saved for future reference. I think he decided to call it "Seattle expert standard". Here's what I have saved:

1M - 2N

3C - all minimums, after which 3D asks for shortness
Responses:
3H=club shortness
3S=diamond shortness
3N=other major shortness
anything higher=no shortness
3D - extras, no shortness
3H - extras, club shortness
3S - extras, diamond shortness
3N - extras, other major shortness

There are variations incorporating limit raises and overstrength splinters into 2N. Some folks use 1H-2S for an extra step.

Answers to follow-up questions:

Anything higher=A/K (well - a control bid, but you're denying shortness). I've never thought about it too much, but I suppose control bids below 4M should be mandatory here, so 4M denies any side controls (well 1H-2N-3C-3D-4H could have a spade control).

Do keep in mind a 3D bid implies wanting to know about shortness for slam purposes, so it's a hand that could visualize a minimum hand opposite that would make slam.

I play the 4 level rebids as showing a good 5 card suit and 4M as showing a good 6 card suit, but both required to be minimums. (Well, I play 1S-2N and 1H-2S as including limit raises, so they are minimums that nevertheless want to be in game opposite a limit raise because of extra distribution.)

(from akwoo on BBO forums)

Is that what you're currently playing?

I’ve played pretty much that method. I (much) prefer the one I set out. There is a huge difference, for slam purposes, between a 5 and 6 card suit. For example, with a 10 card fit the odds favour not worrying about the trump queen. Unless you know about the extra trump (opener will but responder won’t) a ‘we’re missing the queen’ keycard respknsevwill result in underbidding. Also, any method that discloses the shortness, or lack thereof, is sub optimum unless that info helps in go-no go for slam. There are hands where opener has ‘extras’ but responder is minimum. Had one today in our seniors team trials…I had extras…KJxxx xxx AKQ10 x. 1S 2H 3D…extras with only 5 trump. Partner held a mediocre 13 count and jumped to game. I made an overtrick because they didn’t know I had a stiff club.

Plus showing the void…in last years senior trials we reached a slam because I could show my void.

[mw64ahw]

I play a simplified low information 1M-2M+1 4+, lim+.i.e. 9+hcp, <=8.5mlt which is an upgraded version of an article previously published on BW which focused on losing tricks.


First step opener shows their hcp count with 2M+2 being a minimum and bids above 3M being Italian cue bids. This is important as it can help to avoid low hcp slams.

Second step responder indicates their mod. loser tricks.

For example
1M-2M+1
2M+2 10-12hcp
.. 2M+3 <= 7.5 mod. losers
.... 2M+4 <= 6.5 mod losers i.e. shapely min.
.... 3M 8 mod. losers i.e. balanced min.
.... 3N COG
.... 4M to play
.. 2M+4 8 mod. losers
.. 3M 8.5 mod. losers

2M+3 BD 13-14hcp, 13hcp
etc.

Notes:

• The approach is systematic and symmetrical so helps with memory load.
• The mod. loser approach aims for greater precision in judgement of level. 3M/3N/Game/Slam/Grand
• Certain bids imply certain shapes, but unless looking for a slam are not specific minimising information available to opponents.
• Responder with a void and a slam going hand takes an alternative route
• Other voids are shown via Italian cue bidding and Kickbo
• I don't bother showing an alternative 5-card suit. You rarely want to switch with an identified 9-card fit
• There is no need for opener to show a 6-card suit. Partner with the long suit will factor this in when appropriate.
• Including lim+ hands frees up 1M-3M for preempts

[jdiana]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-03, 03:58, said:

I play a simplified low information 1M-2M+1 4+, lim+.i.e. 9+hcp, <=8.5mlt which is an upgraded version of an article previously published on BW which focused on losing tricks.


First step opener shows their hcp count with 2M+2 being a minimum and bids above 3M being Italian cue bids. This is important as it can help to avoid low hcp slams.

Second step responder indicates their mod. loser tricks.

For example
1M-2M+1
2M+2 10-12hcp
.. 2M+3 <= 7.5 mod. losers
.... 2M+4 <= 6.5 mod losers i.e. shapely min.
.... 3M 8 mod. losers i.e. balanced min.
.... 3N COG
.... 4M to play
.. 2M+4 8 mod. losers
.. 3M 8.5 mod. losers

2M+3 BD 13-14hcp, 13hcp
etc.

Notes:

• The approach is systematic and symmetrical so helps with memory load.
• The mod. loser approach aims for greater precision in judgement of level. 3M/3N/Game/Slam/Grand
• Certain bids imply certain shapes, but unless looking for a slam are not specific minimising information available to opponents.
• Responder with a void and a slam going hand takes an alternative route
• Other voids are shown via Italian cue bidding and Kickbo
• I don't bother showing an alternative 5-card suit. You rarely want to switch with an identified 9-card fit
• There is no need for opener to show a 6-card suit. Partner with the long suit will factor this in when appropriate.
• Including lim+ hands frees up 1M-3M for preempts

Another one that's too complicated for me. My only minor comment is that, if I were to include LR+ hands in J2NT, I would use 1M-3M as a mixed raise, rather than preemptive. Maybe you have another way to show that.

Just a general FYI for those who might be interested, here's another approach for a LR+ J2NT - https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/134

[mw64ahw]

jdiana, on 2025-February-03, 07:05, said:

Another one that's too complicated for me. My only minor comment is that, if I were to include LR+ hands in J2NT, I would use 1M-3M as a mixed raise, rather than preemptive. Maybe you have another way to show that.

Just a general FYI for those who might be interested, here's another approach for a LR+ J2NT - https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/134

Yep - I do have other bids for the mixed raises.
I actually went this route because I find it the least complicated and most precise approach which could be implemented in a bidding tool. That's not to say it doesn't take a bit of time to get your head round it, but you can systematically work out from the 2 steps what each bid is and what level to bid to without the need to memorize specifically.

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-03, 03:58, said:

I play a simplified low information 1M-2M+1 4+, lim+.i.e. 9+hcp, <=8.5mlt which is an upgraded version of an article previously published on BW which focused on losing tricks.

Interesting, thanks for sharing this. I don't play modified loser count so it won't fit with my system.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2025-February-03, 08:20, said:

Interesting, thanks for sharing this. I don't play modified loser count so it won't fit with my system.

It's just another evaluation tool which I use in conjunction with point evaluation. I credit it with significantly improving my scores and something I feel should be taught to beginners instead of LTC.

[jdiana]

mikeh, on 2025-February-02, 22:24, said:

I’ve played pretty much that method. I (much) prefer the one I set out. There is a huge difference, for slam purposes, between a 5 and 6 card suit. For example, with a 10 card fit the odds favour not worrying about the trump queen. Unless you know about the extra trump (opener will but responder won’t) a ‘we’re missing the queen’ keycard respknsevwill result in underbidding. Also, any method that discloses the shortness, or lack thereof, is sub optimum unless that info helps in go-no go for slam. There are hands where opener has ‘extras’ but responder is minimum. Had one today in our seniors team trials…I had extras…KJxxx xxx AKQ10 x. 1S 2H 3D…extras with only 5 trump. Partner held a mediocre 13 count and jumped to game. I made an overtrick because they didn’t know I had a stiff club.

Plus showing the void…in last years senior trials we reached a slam because I could show my void.

There's always a trade off between additional utility and complexity/memory load. akwoo's system is about at the limit of my ability to memorize well enough to confidently play it in tempo. I don't generally like conventions with artificial step responses. They're hard for me to remember and they sometimes allow the opponents to interfere more easily (including with lead-directing doubles) but I'm willing to do it if the convention is useful enough. This might be such a case.

[Flem72]

There's always Compressed Bergen: 1M-2N shows 4cdM and that's it. Fun to play, continuations aren't difficult and reserves 1M-3m for whatever you like.

[mycroft]

Last time you brought this up, AKWoo mentioned the Seattle default J2N responses

And I 100% stole them; partner said she understood them!

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-February-03, 11:25, said:

Last time you brought this up, AKWoo mentioned the Seattle default J2N responses

And I 100% stole them; partner said she understood them!

Yes, thank you, This is exactly what I was looking for.

akwoo, on 2024-October-11, 10:21, said:

Seattle expert standard is:

1M - 2N

3C - all minimums, after which 3D asks for shortness, responses 3H=club shortness, 3S=diamond shortness, 3N=other major shortness, anything higher=no shortness
3D - extras, no shortness
3H - extras, club shortness
3S - extras, diamond shortness
3N - extras, other major shortness

There are variations incorporating limit raises and overstrength splinters into 2N. Some folks use 1H-2S for an extra step.

[jdiana]

One other thing to consider is that, with traditional J2NT responses, opener has 3 bids to show hand strength with no shortness, i.e., 3M/3NT/4M. So, 4M is usually a dead minimum, fast arrival-type hand. 3NT can be 14-15 or so, 3M can be 16+, or vice versa. "Seattle expert standard" compresses the 3NT and 3M bids into 3♦. So, we gain by giving the opponents less information about opener's (declarer's) hand when we have a minimum, but we lose precision when we have extras.

(mikeh's system does a better job of retaining those bids but is more complicated.)