[oojah]

How do you continue after 1M:2nt?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

several peoble will tell you their favourite
methods after 2NT, but here come a
standard variant, may not be best, but it
works and is quite common.

#1 4M is the weakes response, and most peoble
play that 4M denies a shortage
#2 new suits on the 3 level show a shortage, and
promise a better than min. opener
#3 new suits on the 4 level are good suits,
5-5 maybe possible
#4 3NT shows a semibal. hand with 14/15-17
partner can pass, if he thinks 3NT is best
#5 3M is the strongest bid you have, it promises
+18,, the bid should also deny shortage
It requests Cue bids from the 2NT bidder

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Check google for martel's J2NT continuations. Martel's follow-ups are the only thing that makes sense. All others that I've seen are technically wrong.

[karlson]

I agree that what Marlowe wrote is standard (at least in the US). I also think it's not as bad as people make it out to be (I play it this way with a few regular partners, and have a more complicated structure with others).

Obviously you can have different agreements. I don't know your bridge level, or whether you're just looking for standard responses or someone's super-optimized structure. But I think that this is actually one area of bidding in which anything vaguely reasonable will work pretty well. So if it's the kind of thing that you find fun, try designing your own responses if you're unhappy with the way standard works.

[neilkaz]

whereagles, on Nov 13 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Check  google for martel's J2NT continuations. Martel's follow-ups are the only thing that makes sense. All others that I've seen are technically wrong.

I spent 5 minutes googling and couldn't find anything close to concerning what Martel uses. Can you link us please ?

The "standard" continuations are so bad IMHO, that I don't mind not playing this convention !

Better Bidding with Bergen has soem better, although complicated methods.

[whereagles]

Took a while, but I got it. Apparently, the original website where the stuff was was terminated. But a copy is here:

http://www.reginabri...ions/j2nmar.txt

Not sure how long you can find it here, so you better SAVE IT in your hard drive because this is just about the only good structure out there.

[skjaeran]

The most used structure in Norway:
3new = natural non-minimum
3M = extra lenght
3NT = 18-19
4new = void
4M = minimum (in effect balanced)

After 2M-2N-3new:
3x=singleton
3M=asks for singleton
3NT=ask for cuebid (some use 3NT as RKCB)

[mikeh]

My current method:

3♣ any non-minimum with a stiff somewhere, or any 18+

3♦: a 5422 with a non-horrible hand. The 4 card suit has texture: K10xx or better

3OM: a void somewhere

3M: horrible hand with a stiff (3N asks)

3N: balanced with a sound opening bid: 14+-17

4new suit: 5-5 with good texture in the second suit (KJ9xx or better) and a non-horrible hand

4M: horrible balanced hand

I like the idea of 3♣ as non-minimum: 3♦ asks for step responses for the stiff. 3♦ to show 5422 with a decent 4 card side suit allows for finding a second trump suit: the 4-4 side suit may well play a trick better than the 5-4 major, and most simple J2N structures lock the partnership into the major: arguably the worst feature of the convention for slam and grand slam purposes.

I have a partner trying to persuade me to a more complex structure, but I am semi-retired from bridge right now, so I can't remember the method well enough to describe it here.

As for how many good ways there are to play J2N: in my view, there are several that have strong features, but none that is 'perfect'. If you want perfect, go relay

[kenrexford]

My Response Structure to Jacoby 2NT:
For unbalanced hands, Opener can either jump to the four-level, bid Three Spades, or bid Three Clubs.
3S = Minimum, stiff or void somewhere. Responder can next bid 3NT to ask for the stiff. Opener bids a stiff minor. With a stiff in the other major, Opener bids 4H. If spades are trumps, 4S shows a void in hearts. Last train, if available, might be used. Thus, a "minimum" with a club stiff is more flexible than with a stiff in the other major. A diamond stiff is more flexible if spades are trumps.
4-bid = trick source, with a stiff or void in the lower of the two remaining suits. Thus, 4C shows a 5-5 hand, concentration of values in clubs and the major, and a stiff or void in diamonds; 4D shows 5-5, clubs and the major, and a stiff or void in diamonds. 4H, if spades are trumps, shows 5-5 with a stiff or void in clubs.
3C = other shortness. 3D asks. If Opener has a stiff or void, with extra's, he shows the stiff or void. The version I play needs fixed here. I use 3H for the other major, 3S for clubs, and 3NT for diamonds. However, I think this should be 3NT for clubs, 3S for diamonds, and 3H for the other major, because this maximizes the ability for Responder to use 3NT as Serious 3NT when Opener cannot himself distinguish "minimum" from "slightly better than minimum" through 3S and a positive reaction to Last Train.
If Opener has the 5-5 trick source with a stiff or void in the higher suit, he bids 3C and then jumps to the four-level after 3D. So, for example, 1S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3D-P-4C shows a club-spade two-suiter with shortness in hearts, ...4D a diamond-spade two-suiter with shortness in hearts, and ...4H a heart-spade two-suiter with shortness in diamonds.
With a balanced hand, Opener can bid Three Diamonds, Three Hearts, Three Notrump, or Four-of-the-Major.
Four-of-the-Major is weakest. Three Diamonds shows most non-minimums. 3H shows 5422 and just above a minimum. 3NT shows a sixth trump and just above a minimum. Cuebidding follows all.
Summary:
The structure helps to gain more definition to each call, but the approach is still quite similar to standard, in a sense. With balanced hands, Opener is making primarily a quantitative bash. With an unbalanced hand, Opener is making a more defined shape bash. With the trick-source hand, Opener is still making a Picture Jump, but with more definition to his call (as to the shortness).
Because of this structure, we have some improvement, but it seems apparent that Responder will want to have a hand that can handle both shape bash and quantitative bash bidding.

[P_Marlowe]

neilkaz, on Nov 13 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

whereagles, on Nov 13 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Check  google for martel's J2NT continuations. Martel's follow-ups are the only thing that makes sense. All others that I've seen are technically wrong.

I spent 5 minutes googling and couldn't find anything close to concerning what Martel uses. Can you link us please ?

The "standard" continuations are so bad IMHO, that I don't mind not playing this convention !

Better Bidding with Bergen has soem better, although complicated methods.

Hi,

please find a short description of Martels
2 NT version under the following link:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...1abdc88b573d23d

Most likely this is not the best thread at rec.games.bridge,
but as a starting point this should help you.

With kind regards
Marlowe