[Al_U_Card]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 17 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Ok for the splinter objection but Jacoby would be my choice because

1-I get to see his shortness

2- with no 2nd round control issues, I want to ask for keycards

3- with 5 losers for S, the five level is still safe. (5+8=13, so 11 tricks)

[jdonn]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 18 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 17 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 17 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

KQxx x AQx Axxxx is too strong for a splinter and jacoby is mandated).

Definitely too strong for a splinter, but I strongly disagree with Jacoby on that hand. I prefer 2♣ because I have too much of a guess over partner rebidding 4♠. Lots of really boring minimums even with heart wastage like Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx can make for a great slam. The downside of partner encouraging us toward a bad slam with only the queen in clubs seems a minor concern by comparison.

Ok for the splinter objection but Jacoby would be my choice because

1-I get to see his shortness

2- with no 2nd round control issues, I want to ask for keycards

3- with 5 losers for S, the five level is still safe. (5+8=13, so 11 tricks)

The 5 level is not remotely safe. Give partners tons of hands with 3 clubs.

AJTxx AKx xx xxx

AJTxxx KQJ x Jxx

AJTxx KQx xx Qxx

And so on.

[whereagles]

ArcLight, on Apr 18 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

1. How often does a J2NT come up.  Is it once every 20 hands your side declares? 15? 25? 50?  That still seems frequent enough for a slam oriented convention to be considered.

2. What I'm curious about is if you took 100 J2NT sequences and compared the final contracts using Traditional and Martel J2NT, how much better is Martel.  Do you make 10 extra slams?  Avoid going down in 5 slams?  Give away information to the defense?

3. I'm not even sure how one would test this, other than by eyeballing some hands. Would 100 hands be sufficient to give a reasonable idea?

1. I'd say something like 1 out of 100 hands have a J2NT sequence. Maybe less. It just doesn't seem to pop-up that often. Unless you start bidding it with unsuitable hands, that is...

2. Martel is far better. If something, at least it WORKS. But be warned that you'll need some practice before playing it decently. But hey, normal J2NT sucks so bad I wouldn't use it even if had it agreed!

3. 100 hands should be ok to get a picture, but you'll have to bid those unbiasedly and with a live pard. Looking at both hands conditions your reasoning.

[pclayton]

If I'm playing a sensible forcing raise structure (NOT Jacoby), and treatments like frivolous 3N, I don't mind a Jacoby raise with KQxx, x, AQx, Axxxx because:

1. 2♣ isn't going to get me any useful information, and the 5th club probably won't come into play anyway. Give me ♦Axx, and it will. I also don't think 2♣ is all that useful for pard either.

2. I might find out about pard's stiff club, which is very good news. I might find out if pard has 5-5, which is also very useful.

3. We can immediately set trump and embark on cuebidding.

4. The club suit stays concealed from the opponents, which may help us on the opening lead.

I don't like "rules" like "never make a forcing raise with an outside 5 card suit". It all depends on the context of the entire hand.

[mikeh]

While I agree that simple J2NT has problems, they can be ameliorated by agreement, to the point that J2NT can be a very powerful approach: I know of at least two significant improvement methods, and the one I use is not too complex. I will outline it at the end of the post.

OTOH, splinters, if used indiscriminately, have all kinds of problems.

In my partnerships, we agree that a splinter is a severely limited hand.

In some partnerships, we use a jump to 3 of the other major as an unspecified splinter, with opener bidding the next step to ask.. this allows opener with a flat minimum to sign off without revealing to the opps where responder's shortness lies.. .this is safe because responder will not have a slam-suitable hand opposite a balanced minimum.

I certainly feel that KQxx x AQx Axxxx is a ridiculous splinter.

Splinters into the suit below game often end-play opener, who has to make a go-no go decision, at least as far as the 5-level is concerned, with very little relevant information. If you'd splinter with this hand, would you also splinter with QJxx x KJx AJxxx?

If the answer is 'yes', just how do you expect partner to make an intelligent decision? Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is that we catch opener with an in-between hand: one on which he wants to co-operate in case you have the big splinter but on which he can't bid if you have the lighter hand. So he tanks, and the partnership is doomed to a director call if it pushes successfully to slam.

Splinters that leave room for a last train bid can be played as wider range, altho even that concept is problematic.

In one partnership, we define splinters as no more than a really minimum opening bid (he splintered last week with Qxx AQxx QJxxx x.. which I personally thought and think was too weak, due to the lack of even one outside control). In others, it is either a minimum opener or so strong that it will always bid over a sign-off.

Going back to the 2/1 or immediate raise issue, I agree with Justin's early post.


My current J2N structure is:

3♣ a non-minimum (need not be strong, just not a drop dead minimum) with a stiff somewhere or any 18+

    : 3♦ asks for stiff, with step responses

3♦ some 5422 hand: 3♥ asks for the side suit, step responses: we do not show weak suits: the idea is that the good 4=4 side fit sometimes plays a trick better than the 5-4 major

3Other Major: a void somewhere: next step asks

3Original Major: a minimum with a stiff somewhere. Responder needs a BIG hand to ask via the next step

3N: moderate hand, usually 6322 or 5332

4 new suit: KJ9xx or better, source of tricks, side suit more useful than showing shortness


This seems to work better than old-fashioed J2N, altho there are better methods I have not bothered to learn yet

[zasanya]

cherdano, on Apr 17 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

About KQxx x AQx Axxxx: I think with a sensible J2NT structure this hand is indeed possible to show. It starts 1S-2N-3C=minimum. Now if you can show heart shortness you will always get to slam when partner has 3 out of ♠A, ♥A, ♦K and ♣K because he will realize that that's a great minimum, opposite a hand that is too good for a splinter and strongly interested in slam opposite a minimum. I will gladly pay out to the perfect constructions where slam makes with only two of these cards, especially as I don't see how you can show the value of this hand below 4♠ AND tell partner that you prefer ♦K over ♥K if you start with 2♣.

Responder can bid 2♣ then 3♦ and finally 4♠?Shows his values and shape and lets opener decide?Isnt J2NT primarily meant for balanced game force with 4 card trump support?So that GF without J2NT denies that hand pattern and wouldnt that be important info for opener?
IMO The fact that the dog did not bark is as important as the fact that the dog did bark.

[cherdano]

zasanya, on Apr 21 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 17 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

About KQxx x AQx Axxxx: I think with a sensible J2NT structure this hand is indeed possible to show. It starts 1S-2N-3C=minimum. Now if you can show heart shortness you will always get to slam when partner has 3 out of ♠A, ♥A, ♦K and ♣K because he will realize that that's a great minimum, opposite a hand that is too good for a splinter and strongly interested in slam opposite a minimum. I will gladly pay out to the perfect constructions where slam makes with only two of these cards, especially as I don't see how you can show the value of this hand below 4♠ AND tell partner that you prefer ♦K over ♥K if you start with 2♣.

Responder can bid 2♣ then 3♦ and finally 4♠?Shows his values and shape and lets opener decide?Isnt J2NT primarily meant for balanced game force with 4 card trump support?So that GF without J2NT denies that hand pattern and wouldnt that be important info for opener?
IMO The fact that the dog did not bark is as important as the fact that the dog did bark.

This sequence doesn't show the 4th trump, nor does it show that much in strength I think.

What kind of hands Jacoby 2N is meant for depends a lot on your Jacoby 2N structure. If you reserve Jacoby 2N only for balanced hands, you have problems with hands too strong to splinter, with shapely hands that don't want to bid a bad suit, etc.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Apr 18 2007, 06:05 PM, said:

While I agree that simple J2NT has problems, they can be ameliorated by agreement, to the point that J2NT can be a very powerful approach

I doubt that. It's necessary to put the strong hand, i.e. opener, in charge. Most schemes, including yours, fail to do this and that's why, IMO, they are broken. Those schemes will only work well if opener is limited. However, if opener is unlimited, only Martel works ok (it's not ideal, though, but works).

I happen to have a pet scheme of my own, devised at dealing with the issue properly, but it's still under construction..

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 21 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 18 2007, 06:05 PM, said:

While I agree that simple J2NT has problems, they can be ameliorated by agreement, to the point that J2NT can be a very powerful approach

I doubt that. It's necessary to put the strong hand, i.e. opener, in charge. Most schemes, including yours, fail to do this and that's why, IMO, they are broken. Those schemes will only work well if opener is limited. However, if opener is unlimited, only Martel works ok (it's not ideal, though, but works).

I happen to have a pet scheme of my own, devised at dealing with the issue properly, but it's still under construction..

Why is opener the strong hand? Both players are unlimited, and both players have essentially the same minimum. If anything, opener is more limited than responder.

[whereagles]

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape + hcp combined)

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 21 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape+ hcp )

Uh, no lol. I do not know why you think that is true after responder forces to game.

Opener's approximate range = 12-21
Responder's approximate range = 12- infinity and beyond

This incorporates shape, hcp, playing strength, everything. What do you mean "statistically", do you have some statistics?

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 22 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

because statistically it is opener who rates to have the strongest hand, in terms of playing strength (e.g. shape + hcp combined)

Even if this were true, I suspect that the difference in strength between an opening hand and a gaming forcing major suit raise is marginal at best.

In the mean time, you're ignoring a much more important consideration: On average, a hand that makes a Jacoby 2NT type raise is going to be quite a bit more flat than your average opening hand. A hand that choses a J2NT has denied a number of different unbalanced hands types through the failure to make a Splinter, a 2/1, a Strong Jump Shift, what have you. In contrast, the opening hand has (typically) denied a number of balanced hand types (1NT openings, 2NT openings, etc)

In my experience, its a hell of a lot better for a balanced hand to ask rather than show. The balanced hand is much better positioned to appreciate whether honors complement partner's suits or are waste opposite partner's shortness.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Apr 21 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

1. On average, a hand that makes a Jacoby 2NT type raise is going to be quite a bit more flat than your average opening hand.  A hand that choses a J2NT has denied a number of different unbalanced hands types through the failure to make a Splinter, a 2/1, a Strong Jump Shift, what have you.  In contrast, the opening hand has (typically) denied a number of balanced hand types (1NT openings, 2NT openings, etc)

2. In my experience, its a hell of a lot better for a balanced hand to ask rather than show.  The balanced hand is much better positioned to appreciate whether honors complement partner's suits or are waste opposite partner's shortness.

1. That's what I meant. Resp usually has a balanced hand, while opener is quite unlimited with respect to shape. Even more if you don't open NT on 5M332 hands.

2. It is true that it's better for the balanced hand to ask, but this is where the one important consideration that changes everything enter: an unbalanced hand requires way less hcps to be strong (in terms of playing strength) than a balanced.

In other words, because opener has a quite undefined shape and just about the same hcp strength as responder, it is OPENER who should be in charge because odds are he's the one with better playing strength.

These considerations aren't peanuts... J2NT consumes a lot of bidding space and there's still a lot of talking to do before deciding what level to play. (Some variants, like Martel's, even leave the question of trumps open: they have ways to fetch the 44 side fit and play a slam there, using the major fit for discards.)

All in all I argue for J2NT to be truncated as to hcp and shape (say a flattish 11-14) and control to be given to opener afterwards. Stronger hands should be bid via a usual 2/1 because that uses up less space precisely when that's more important.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2007, 10:56 PM, said:

What do you mean "statistically", do you have some statistics?

No, but see post above. Maybe that cleared it up.

[mike777]

1) if you think....opener will have a stronger hand 50%...or 45% ok...
2) In my style I expect responder to have the better hand....60+

I think this bias...effects bidding a bunch.

As usual opening bid style really affects your follow up bidding.....greatly.

[rbforster]

At some point after I learned the old school jump shifts (17+ good suit) and before I learned Bergen, I played* Soloway jump shifts over 1M to promising one of 3 hand types -

• 4+ support and a good side suit (the suit bid). A minimum GF is enough strength.
  
• the old school jump shift, very strong single suiter
  
• slam invitational balanced hand, without a fit (wishes 4N were quantitative)

All of the hands given by Arclight fall into the first category, and I would happily make a 3♦ bid with them. This will focus partner's hand evaluation on his fit for your good suit, which at worst should be something like KQJxx and more typically is AQJxx or AKxxx. I even had a partner make a jump with only AKJT and 5 trumps, allowed but definitely unusual.

After the jump shift, opener will usually bid the next step to inquire which hand type. 3NT shows the balanced slam try, rebidding your suit shows the strong single suiter, and the remaining bids show 4+ trump support hands, where new suits show shortness and returning to opener's major denies shortness. For example:

1♠-3♦ - 3♥ (relay) -

  3♠ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, no shortness, extras
  3N - balanced slam try, ~16-18
  4♣ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, ♣ shortness
  4♦ - very good ♦s, single suited, ~17+
  4♥ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, ♥ shortness
  4♠ - 4+♠s, good ♦s, no shortness, minimum GF

At this point, you've very precisely described your hand to partner, who can cue bid, Blackwood, or sign off as appropriate.


* I actually still play these together with Bergen, using 1♥-2♠ to show a Soloway jump shift in an undisclosed suit. The first relay asks which suit, and then the second shows shortness, etc, as above (it's a little complicated). Over 1♠-2N is the "compressed jump shift bid", and we move up J2NT and the Bergen bids up one step.

[counttrick]

I'm not sure my answer will help you that much because it is based on a convention that is not widely used called Compressed Bergen. Without boring you to tears, we respond 2NT to a major suit opening with 4+card support regardless of strength (the 9 card fit should make us "Law Protected"). The exception is splinters, but those now occur one level lower (1S - 3C, etc.). As a result, 4 level jumps are now available for new meanings, and the one I like (and it helps your dilemma) is fit-showing jumps. In your sample hand that held AKJT9 of diamonds, I would jump to 4D, promising 4+ card spade support, game values, and tricks in diamonds. I hasten to point out that the suit needs to be quite good in order to make such a bid. I would not bid 4D, for example, with AKxxx. A suit as good as AKT9xx is probably good enough, but I might be more comfortable if my spade support were better than xxxx or Jxxx. If you want more info on Compressed Bergen, you can ask for the complete file by e-mailing me at dgolds1946@aol.com.

Dennis Goldston

[ArcLight]

Dennis,
If you use Invitational Jump Shifts, you can't use the Splinters like you described (at the 3 level).
How would you show them in your system?
These are NOT fit showing jumps, they are independent suits, not strong enough to make a 2/1.

[whereagles]

Compressed bergen is indeed preferable to J2NT.

[counttrick]

"If you use Invitational Jump Shifts, you can't use the Splinters like you described (at the 3 level).
How would you show them in your system?
These are NOT fit showing jumps, they are independent suits, not strong enough to make a 2/1. "

You are correct that I cannot use both. Sadly, life is always about choices. I'll just have to live without Invitational Jump Shifts.