[neilkaz]

Free, on May 13 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

brianshark, on May 13 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

I am going to assign almost all of the blame to north. South's 4♦ bid is very descriptive and north has a crap minimum with poor trumps and almost all of his points in partner's short suits. He should have just signed off instead of bidding 4♥.

So next time opener has AKQxx-xx-AKJxx-x he won't try for slam because you lack a ♥ control. Or with AKQxx-x-AKJxx-xx he'll try and go -1 in slam on a ♣ lead because he thought you had ♣A (failing to cuebid 4♥)...

Opener has shown a lot of his distribution, you're right about that, but he hasn't shown anything about his strength. He will (should) do that after you cuebid out of courtesy with 4♠.

Agreed !

But the 4♦ takes up so much room, and perhaps should be reserved for a slightly better hand that S holds ? ie...one with a bit better looking trumps. But if 4♥ shows the ace, it is really hard to stop, if its just LTTC, then 4♠ is clear, and if it is any control, well...if could be a stiff and then 4♠ is clear.

Anyhow, I suspect that I would often be in 5♠ -1 with these cards as I can see S stopping in 4♠ and missing slams when N is unable/willing to continue.

100% South blame here...for again being blinded by love..as usual not the love of another, but the love of his hand. I must admit that if 4♥ shows the ace, it is hard to not RKC, but you need to find pd with 3 key cards to have play for slam and if he has just 1 as here, you get 10 tricks.

The real blame goes to South for being so mindlessly in love that he forgot to s/off in 5♠ just in case PD didn't have 4 keys...LOL he makes a grand slam try

The jump to 4♦ takes too much room and should be reserved for a hand not needing as much extra help for slam as South's does. 4♦ is poorly judged here, IMHO (but then J2NT classic responses are rather poor to put in mildly) since the info South needs here for slam is trump strength and round suit controls. I would go slowly and show my stiff and somewhat above a min with 3♣.

I would hope (playing std J2NT) that the auction at my basic 2/1 table would go..

1♠-2N-3♣ (stiff and not a sub-min) and now North hates his K of ♣ and signs off in game, and if he decides to cooperate 3♥ (I clearly wouldn't) I cooperate 4♦ and hope I can find a pass after his 4♠ showing that he's not impressed with my 4♦ and hand shown so far to try for slam.

Anyhow, by starting with 3♣, South would likely have curtailed this hand in 4♠ rather than taking up too much room with 4♦ and failing to realize the trap of weak trumps and 3 key cards needed for slam.

[kenrexford]

Just out of curiosity, since there are some advocates to the idea that J2NT is OK for this hand, let's forget all of the possible problems that might occur if Opener makes any call other than 4♦ as his next call. The permutations of problems is too difficult to cover all at once, so let's focus on the one problem.

What, precisely, do people expect for a 4♦ call?

According to Karen's Bridge Library, it shows nothing more than a second five-card "decent" suit (QJxxx+). No more information.

According to Bridge Buys, this shows at least two honors (KJ10xx provided as an example) and "the values for attempting slam," whatever that means.

From this, I cannot decipher whether the standard treatment is to expect a Rule-of-Twenty 5-5 10-count opening, or a monster almost 2♣ opening, hand type.

No discussion of control count seems to be provided. Five losers? Better? Worse? What does LTTC (if available -- not so after 4♥) seek?

Some of the comments here suggest vague thoughts about whatever 4♦ must show.

[helene_t]

Thanks, Ken. It sounds as if we should blame the system after all. Or maybe the lack of system, rather.

[neilkaz]

Ken wrote: According to Bridge Buys, this shows at least two honors (KJ10xx provided as an example) and "the values for attempting slam," whatever that means.

Neil replies: The hand given at bridge guys is a monster and certainly has the values to be attempting slam, whereas the hand shown here by the OP isn't much more than a good min opener. Again, I feel that 4 level jumps should be reserved for hands with good 5 card suits and good trumps....ie something where fitting suit cards from PD are huge for slam, and therefore PD won't be too impressed if he holds minor honors in the other suits and won't be concerned if missing AK in trumps. I guess we can say 4 level jumps should at least be somewhat of a picture bid, but should the need for at least some help from PD to complete the picture.

Hmm... sounds like a rather rare bird to me..neilkaz ..who'd clearly reply 3♣ to J2NT here and likely stay out of trouble.

[mikeh]

I have played 4♦ as a 'goodish' 5 card suit for years, in various partnerships, altho my serious partnerships generally use different forcing raise structures so this doesn't come up there. I have never had any discussion about the overall hand type shown (just the suit) and I suspect that this is common in casual partnerships.

Obviously, this is a drawback to the method.. but I don't know anyone who argues that 'standard' variants of J2N (where 4 new suit is played as a void by some and as a 5 card suit by others) are optimum methods.

Given the limitations of the method, it is my view that N was correct in bidding 4♥, since his diamond Q had grown in value, and he was not committing the partnership beyond game.

It is also my view that in unlimited auctions of this nature, where neither partner has been able to limit his hand, the player who goes beyond game must hold some extras, in the context of the auction. Please note that last phrase.

In this case, look at S's hand. He has described an opening hand with 5-5 or better in his suits, and has promised a fairly strong diamond suit. How, then, can he think that he has 'extras'?

Some would argue that the stiff club shows extras... and so it might... but it is only one factor, and the rest of the hand screams 'minimum'.

S should also consider the hand types that N requires for slam to be good... spend some time doing this and you will soon see that there are very few hands on which slam is good and North will pass 4♠. That is not the same as saying there are no such hands... but bridge is a game of percentages. As the actual auction showed, when we strain to NEVER miss a good slam, we will often end up minus on a hand that belonged to us.

In the context of the auction, S had a minimum and it was his duty to limit his hand, and to trust his partner to move when right.

Finally, of course S erred when he assumed partner held 4 keycards. This highlights the lunacy of using keycard. Yes, I know that the standard treatment when partner shows 1/4 or 0/3 is to sign off and partner moves with the higher number... In all the many, many years I have used keycard I have NEVER not known how many partner held. In my view, bidding keycard when one cannot tell 1 from 4 or 0 from 3 is a very strong signal that the use of keycard was inappropriate. I would go so far as to suggest, as a rule of thumb, that if you are considering keycard and realize that you will be facing this situation, make some other call..... keycard is almost certainly not the best call available to you at this point.... btw, this is not a prompt for people to create unusual hands where keycard is the best call.... I said and stress 'almost certainly'.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

In all the many, many years I have used keycard I have NEVER not known how many partner held. In my view, bidding keycard when one cannot tell 1 from 4 or 0 from 3 is a very strong signal that the use of keycard was inappropriate. I would go so far as to suggest, as a rule of thumb, that if you are considering keycard and realize that you will be facing this situation, make some other call..... keycard is almost certainly not the best call available to you at this point.... btw, this is not a prompt for people to create unusual hands where keycard is the best call.... I said and stress 'almost certainly'.

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic, but there is a class of hands - not that unusual - where the confusion can arise quite sensibly. It is the ones where the partnership is making grand, usually with a trick to spare, opposite (say) 3 key cards, and small slam with an overtrick on a finesse opposite 2 key cards.

The last time I had this auction, with spades agreed, it finished...

............................4NT
5C (0 or 3)............5S sign-off (in case of 0 opposite)
7NT

it had 16 top tricks and in practice the blackwood responder could have bid a grand as soon as he heard the 4NT bid opposite.

I fully agree that you shouldn't be bidding a small slam after a 0/3 or 1/4 confusion. If you need all those key cards for the 6-level, how are you going to make at the 5 level with 3 fewer?

[jdonn]

mikeh, on May 13 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

In all the many, many years I have used keycard I have NEVER not known how many partner held. In my view, bidding keycard when one cannot tell 1 from 4 or 0 from 3 is a very strong signal that the use of keycard was inappropriate. I would go so far as to suggest, as a rule of thumb, that if you are considering keycard and realize that you will be facing this situation, make some other call..... keycard is almost certainly not the best call available to you at this point.... btw, this is not a prompt for people to create unusual hands where keycard is the best call.... I said and stress 'almost certainly'.

I have seen it happen twice. In both cases someone opened a minor and had a major suit response, and they were 5-6 with that major and no keycards and jumped to 4, partner bid blackwood, and disaster ensued. I think the fault lies with the bid of 4 on such a hand, if you bid less then partner definitely has enough to keep going anyway since the opponents haven't bid despite you holding just two cards in the other suits.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic, but there is a class of hands - not that unusual - where the confusion can arise quite sensibly.  It is the ones where the partnership is making grand, usually with a trick to spare, opposite (say) 3 key cards, and small slam with an overtrick on a finesse opposite 2 key cards.

The last time I had this auction, with spades agreed, it finished...

............................4NT
5C (0 or 3)............5S sign-off (in case of 0 opposite)
7NT

it had 16 top tricks and in practice the blackwood responder could have bid a grand as soon as he heard the 4NT bid opposite.

I fully agree that you shouldn't be bidding a small slam after a 0/3 or 1/4 confusion.  If you need all those key cards for the 6-level, how are you going to make at the 5 level with 3 fewer?

You are being over-pedantic

I did stress 'almost certainly', and I am willing to bet that in your auction either the keycard responder had not yet revealed her strength or that the keycarder 'knew' that the response showed 3 but 'signed off' only as a matter of partnership discipline. And, as you recognized, the rule I was suggesting really applies to small slam decisions... few grand slam sequences will ever possess the degree of ambiguity that is required before the keycarder can't tell 0 from 3 or 1 from 4.

[whereagles]

J2NT = a reasonably decent convention that got broken beyond repair by idiotic standard follow-ups

[skjaeran]

Just another hand showing the huge problems with the response structure to Jacoby as played in the US (and maybe lots of other places).

I don't know anyone here in Norway playing that structure. The normal structure here is to show side suits at the 3-level if you're non-minimum and 3M if minimum. Over a new suit 3M (or 3NT over 3♠) is a shortness ask. Direct jumps to 4-level over 2NT show voids.

I've played the above structure with regulars and pick-ups for more than 20 years now - with good results.

With my most regular partner I play a complex structure, not comparable to the above or the US standard. I've published it here on the forums at least once before - maybe half a year ago.

[skjaeran]

As for the auction here:

Over 4♦, 4♥ would be last train to me, and not promise a heart control.

I can't understand not signing off over 4♦ though, with 9 hcp in partners short suits - of which ♥Q normally is of no value at all and the ♣K dubious. So I'd blame north 50%, south 25% and system (or lack thereof) 25%.

[jdonn]

Yes the system sucks but it's common so it is what it is. I blame north more than south although both were guessing to some extent. North needs AK AK just to be on a finesse for slam, he certainly won't miss a cold one by signing off. South at least bid on where north could be passing 4♠ on a hand that makes slam, like AKxx Axxx xx xxx which is better than a 60% slam.

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on May 13 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pedantry

[jdonn]

Echognome, on May 13 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 13 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pedantry

I believe the correct word is www.dictionary.com

[Winstonm]

Quote

Another Jacoby 2NT Hater!!! 

(Jacoby 2NT = Gerber???)

Hadn't thought of that Gerber/Jacoby relationship but it's a good one.
My original thought when seeing this thread was that anyone who plays Jacoby 2NT gets what he deserves.

[kenrexford]

The discussion of "what next?" after J2NT (aka "the Other Gerber") seems to me to "prove" a point that I have been trying to make.

If Responder tends to have Aces-and-Spaces outside, then he will tend to have a manageable hand after Opener's next call, assuming of course a reasonably logical rebid structure.

As a simple example, consider a typical Aces-and-Spaces collection, after a 1♠ opening. Something, perhaps, like ♠QJxx ♥AKx ♦Axx ♣xxx. Fairly nice and average.

Suppose, now, that Opener shows a 5-5 hand with spades and clubs. Responder knows that he has the side suits completely covered. The critical inquiry, then, is whether Opener has enough in his suits to avoid two losers. Range is important, of course, but this should be manageable.

Suppose that Opener shows, instead, a 5-5 hand with spades and a red suit. Now, the slam looks to depend on one issue. Where's Opener's stiff? Of course, the normal techniques leave that frequently critical question unanswered, which seems dumb. Hence a tweak I use. An immediate 4-level call shows 5-5 with shortness in the lower other suit (here, short clubs), whereas 3♣ (ostensibly just a stiff) and then a bid of a 5-card suit at the four-level after the 3♦ asking bid (3♥ --> 3NT show stiffs) shows that the stiff is in the higher other suit.

Suppose that Opener shows a stiff, generally. Again, easy to handle. Same thing for general quantitatives, however you play these.

J2NT can be useful, IMO, with two caveats. First, you need a better structure, as many here have suggested. Second, IMO, Jacoby 2NT sequences (if playing 2/1 GF and if using decent cuebidding techniques) should be limited to hands that tend to be Aces-and-Spaces on the outside.

[Winstonm]

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT. I happen to agree.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on May 13 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT. I happen to agree.

I am not going to argue against this position, as it is likely correct, but i do find it kinda annoying when a convention gets the blame for someone abusing it.

[kenrexford]

matmat, on May 14 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 13 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT.  I happen to agree.

I am not going to argue against this position, as it is likely correct, but i do find it kinda annoying when a convention gets the blame for someone abusing it.

The convention is not getting the blame, as I understand it.

The abuse of the convention (using it at the wrong time) or the overuse of the convention (relying too much on the convention rather than alternatives) or the underuse of the convention (not having sufficient follow-up to the start of the convention) is getting the blame.