[jvage]

Jari, on Feb 15 2010, 06:40 AM, said:

In the swedish version of Jacoby 2NT, commonly referred to as Stenberg 2NT, openers jump to the 4-level shows a void. Stenberg is common in Scandinavian countries, and I have seen people stating that they play J2NT when they in fact play Stenberg. In Stenberg 3-level rebids shows side-suits. Sounds suboptimal to have all suit rebids showing shortness.

In Norway most people also call the 2NT raise "Stenberg". But this it is more confusing than just mixing Stenberg and Jacoby 2NT. Here almost everyone call the way they play Stenberg, this includes invitational+ and GF 2NT and promising 3+ or 4+ support. The name is also used for versions with both side-suit and short-suit rebids (or even relays) and for all of 3♣, 3M or 4M as the minimum rebid

The "expert standard" referred to above is GF with 4+ support, side-suit rebids and 3M as minimum.

John

[axman]

pran, on Feb 13 2010, 08:45 AM, said:

dickiegera, on Feb 13 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

Last night in a team game I was playing with someone for the first time.

The bidding with no interference went:
                            1♥  2NT
                            4♣  4♦
                            5♦  5♠
                            7♥
2NT was alerted as 4+ Hearts and 12+ pts.
4 Diamonds, 5 diamonds & 5 Spades were all cuebids

The person on opening lead Doubled after asking about the 4♣ bid
I explained that we had never played together before and had not
discussed what 4♣ would be.
Opening lead was the Ace of♣ .Declarer was void ,result was 7♥ doubled
making for 1770.  They complained to director that would not have doubled
if they knew that declarer was void in Clubs.

Comments  Thank you

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void.

I don't think that I would have adjusted the table score at all.

I was about to take issue with these assertions [particularly about common sense] when a bout of education took hold- Thank you Sven.

According to Kearse about 20 years ago [BCC '90] the three level was for stiffs and 4 level for voids.

But it never occurred to me to believe that there was any sensible value of finding out pard had a void when it also meant the possibility of 4-6 side suit losers when minimum- while leaving only 2 or 3 bidding steps to find out if the 5 level is safe.

[personally, I prfer strongly the 3-level for shortness and the 4-level for at least AKQ+]

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Feb 15 2010, 04:38 AM, said:

Dunno about J2N, but in general, club players tend to explain their calls in terms of convention names rather than explaining what it means, often without knowing what the standard version of convention is, or sometimes deliberately deviating from the standard. So like "SAYC" in practice refers to any 5533 or 5542-system with a strong 1NT, and "Muiderberg" in practice refers to any 2M-opening showing a 2-suiter, it is possible that among non-experts, "J2N" just refers to any use of the 2NT response as a raise.

Not sure what the sociological explanation for this is. Maybe people think that accuracy is not so important and it's more important to give brief explanation. I think this is reasonable in some cases: it may not be necessary to explain what "Stayman", "FSF" or "Multi" means, just naming the convention may be sufficient. As for J2N I would personally prefer "strong raise" if that is what the agreement really is, but I can imagine some people find naming the convention easier, both for the explainer and for the recipient of the explanation.

Another possibility is that it is "cool" to use bridge lingo. Like some physicians enjoy demonstrating their social status by referring to human body part using their Latin names, I think some bridge players enjoy demonstrating their "knowledge" by referring to agreements using cryptic convention names.

I think the non-offenders here should cater for sluggish explanation and ask what the agreement about the 4♣ bid is.

I have found that many players, particularly beginner/intermediates, will, if you explain partner's call by saying what it means, ask you what the name of the convention is. I find this particularly odd in view of the ACBL regulation that says specifically that "explaining" partner's call by naming a convention is not adequate disclosure. Maybe, as you suggest, it's a "comfort" or "coolness" thing.

[peachy]

jvage, on Feb 15 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Feb 14 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

josh:  actually, yes....but probably not the good players.  When j2N first came out, it was kind of a barometer of the quality of the opps on the West coast.  The ones who had thought about frequency and usefullness of the follow-ups used 5-5.  The others used void.

I would be a bit careful before using this as a "strength-barometer". 4x as voidshowing in this position is pretty standard among good players in Norway (I know you were discussing American players), to my knowledge it is played by all our recent Bermuda Bowl and European Champions (I only checked the CC of Brogeland - Lindqvist)...

John

Perhaps it is not called Jacoby 2NT. Much of Scandinavia calls similar 2NT forcing raise Stenberg.

[bluejak]

I have a partner who insists on calling what we play Jacoby. Ok, under pressure from me, has changed slightly to "Jacoby style". Since we play it as a raise to 3+, with vastly different rebids, I object to any use of the word Jacoby.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Feb 15 2010, 04:38 AM, said:

Dunno about J2N, but in general, club players tend to explain their calls in terms of convention names rather than explaining what it means, often without knowing what the standard version of convention is, or sometimes deliberately deviating from the standard. So like "SAYC" in practice refers to any 5533 or 5542-system with a strong 1NT, and "Muiderberg" in practice refers to any 2M-opening showing a 2-suiter, it is possible that among non-experts, "J2N" just refers to any use of the 2NT response as a raise.

But for purposes of explaining the meaning of the 4♣ bid, it doesn't matter how he explained 2NT. What matters is what the pair agreed to play. So if they agreed to play Jacoby 2NT, as opposed to Stenberg 2NT, 4♣ shows a second suit and responder should explain it that way.

[richlp]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

The US is a big place. What's common on the East Coast may be unheard of on the West Coast, and vice versa. Not to mention all the places in between.

I have lived in New York (3 areas) and California, as well as now living in Nevada. Played plenty of bridge in all places. Still haven't come across anyone in person that thinks anyone but 5-5 is standard. Was there really a time the jump showed a void?

Yes, there was such a time. There still is, especially among weaker players. I play rarely nowadays, and almost always with a pick-up partner at local clubs. Part of my 10 minute system discussion is "Jacoby 2NT?" "Yes." "What are your four-level responses?" The results are about 50% suit, 25% void, and 25% "HUH????" (Remember, pick-up partner at club)