[keylime]

East, 100%. They have a big hand and need to uncork it since they are 4441. I can't fathom any response but 2D to start. Once a diamond fit, and heart rebid is found, now you have much more information to make a slam try with when a club cuebid is tendered.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on May 12 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

What you are saying, Ken, is that the tools used should not replace judgment.

I agree that most players have only a vague idea of when to use Jacoby 2NT, when to splinter, and when to bid naturally.

Having said that, our job on this hand was just to assess the blame. I think it is quite clear that East should have bid again over 4♥. And I don't think that Jacoby 2NT was at all to blame. It was East's bidding judgment that was at fault.

I think you are placing too much on late judgment and not enough on early judgment.

Responder's 2NT was sick. Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool. It is an asking bid. It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength. Period.

Responder does not, in any way whatsoever, want to start an asking bid series. The result of his selection of a 2NT start (undoubtedly because of the single assessment that "I have four trumps") was that he learned useless information and had to then revert to a meaningless 3♦ cuebid, having no idea what Opener would do about that. Nor did Opener know what to do about the 3♦ cuebid, a very strange development.

So, I did assess the blame. Responder's 2NT was unwise and was the cause of the bidding failure.

Sure, I could suggest that Opener maybe should cuebid 3♥ after 3♦ to show two top trumps. But then, after Responder cues 3♠, Opener has a problem. Does 4♣ show the stiff King, or does it show a void? Stiff Ace? How about 4♦ -- does this show one of the top two diamonds, or one of the top three?

Responder knew that he wanted a club honor to help him, not shortness. 2♣ starts the discussion in the right direction. He also is not sure how to describe the stiff spade Ace. A natural start and cuebidding is more flexible better suited for that problem, as well.

One might also suggest that Responder should move anyway after Opener signs off. Why? Does Opener lack, as he suggests, two top hearts? Does Opener not seem to deny the club Ace? Why ask for Aces if the answer is known to be worse than "Two with the Queen?"

I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster. Opener's 4♥ call was a bad call that boxed Responder in and away from his one chance of escaping his own trap. Responder's pass of 4♥ was clear for this reason. Opener's 3♣ call was a difficult judgment call. So, my grades are...

2NT = F
4♥ = D
3♣ = C
3♦ = A
P = A
1♥ = A

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 13 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

Responder's 2NT was sick.  Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool.  It is an asking bid.  It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength.  Period.

That may be the way that many people play it, but it doesn't have to be so. When I bid Jacoby 2NT it initiates a conversation. That appears to be what East was attempting on this hand, before West's abrupt termination of the conversation.

Quote

Responder does not, in any way whatsoever, want to start an asking bid series.  The result of his selection of a 2NT start (undoubtedly because of the single assessment that "I have four trumps") was that he learned useless information and had to then revert to a meaningless 3♦ cuebid, having no idea what Opener would do about that.  Nor did Opener know what to do about the 3♦ cuebid, a very strange development.

So, I did assess the blame.  Responder's 2NT was unwise and was the cause of the bidding failure.

Sure, I could suggest that Opener maybe should cuebid 3♥ after 3♦ to show two top trumps.  But then, after Responder cues 3♠, Opener has a problem.  Does 4♣ show the stiff King, or does it show a void?  Stiff Ace?  How about 4♦ -- does this show one of the top two diamonds, or one of the top three?

Responder knew that he wanted a club honor to help him, not shortness.  2♣ starts the discussion in the right direction.  He also is not sure how to describe the stiff spade Ace.  A natural start and cuebidding is more flexible better suited for that problem, as well.

One might also suggest that Responder should move anyway after Opener signs off.  Why?  Does Opener lack, as he suggests, two top hearts?  Does Opener not seem to deny the club Ace?  Why ask for Aces if the answer is known to be worse than "Two with the Queen?" 

I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster.

I don't understand this conclusion. You've just given us a list of problems resulting from the players' not knowing what anything would mean after 1♥-2NT-3♣. If you're right about this, I agree that it was unwise to bid 2NT, for the same reason that I avoid bidding 2NT-3C when I can't remember whether it's Puppet Stayman or not. However, that makes the root cause of the problem the lack of discussion, rather than that 2NT is intrinsically unsuitable for East's hand.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 13 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 13 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

...Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool.  It is an asking bid.  It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength.  Period.

That may be the way that many people play it, but it doesn't have to be so. When I bid Jacoby 2NT it initiates a conversation. That appears to be what East was attempting on this hand, before West's abrupt termination of the conversation.

Quote

...I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster.

I don't understand this conclusion. You've just given us a list of problems resulting from the players' not knowing what anything would mean after 1♥-2NT-3♣. If you're right about this, I agree that it was unwise to bid 2NT, for the same reason that I avoid bidding 2NT-3C when I can't remember whether it's Puppet Stayman or not. However, that makes the root cause of the problem the lack of discussion, rather than that 2NT is intrinsically unsuitable for East's hand.

Here's the problem, IMO.

Let's suppose you use 2NT as a start of an auction that will become cooperative. Let's also assume that Opener will make the lowest answer possible (maximal space) to the Jacoby 2NT call, namely 3♣. Let's compare that start, then, with the natural start.

In the J2NT auction, Responder cues 3♦. What do we know at this point?

1. Opener has 5+ hearts and shortness in clubs
2. Responder has 4+ heart support and a diamond control.

In this scenario, we have laid down no parameters for what cues mean. Could they be shortness OR honor? A/K, or even Q? One honor, or two? Plus, you see that Opener will have difficulty (albeit rare) with a stiff King.

In the natural auction, trumps are agreed at 2♥. Again, Opener cues 3♣ (immediately solving the stiff King problem, BTW), and again Responder cues 3♦.

What do we know at this point?

1. Opener has two of the top three trumps, plus the Ace or King (or Queen) of clubs (a value established as more important than the shortness by preparation of partner's natural 2♣ call), and at least a diamond fragment (establishing that his diamond cues will be initially two of the top three honors, later a third or a control as governed by his first cue/bypass).

2. Responder has a diamond card (A/K/Q, a value also established by prep) and spade support, with at least a club fragment (technically a doubleton is possible, but clubs have been established as a held suit for cue purposes by either side).

3. Hearts is a control-only suit.

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void). General feel can be accomplished, but that resorts to quantitative/shape bash (I have a well-placed stiff and good controls with the right HCP range). Q/S Bash works best when one partner has Aces-and-Spaces and no need to show slow values or to find specific complementary values.

Now, I'll gant that 2NT is, therefore, a "descriptive tool" for me, as well. However, the description that makes the most sense, IMO, is "Aces-and-Spaces Outside." The description is not so much for the J2NT sequence, as this is largely captaincy-Responder biased, but rather when a non-J2NT auction (a natural auction) occurs, where Opener can expect that Responder will likely not have or will tend to not have Aces-and-spaces externally.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 13 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void).

I agree that this would be a problem, and I am sure that there are many partnerships that have this problem. Are you saying that playing Jacoby 2NT compels you to play such inadequate methods on the next round of the auction? And if so, why?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 13 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 13 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void).

I agree that this would be a problem, and I am sure that there are many partnerships that have this problem. Are you saying that playing Jacoby 2NT compels you to play such inadequate methods on the next round of the auction? And if so, why?

No. Not at all. In fact, I myself play a rather complicated set of agreements for Jacoby 2NT sequences. But, the fact remains that J2NT preempts the partnership substantially, in that it takes away room to start up general parameters needed for effective late auctions.

If I were to compare the cuebidding sequence through 3♦ with my sequence through 3♦ using a better J2NT approach, the results would be worse, actually. If Opener started this way, focusing the stiff club, then 3♣, to gain space, would be a collapse of splinters into one bid, with 3♦ asking. Nothing would be explored yet, other than the fact that there is a stiff somewhere.

Technically, that is not correct. By not bidding 3♠ to show a weak splinter, 3♣ would have shown an average+ splinter. Plus, by not bidding at the four-level immediately, Opener has limited his hand type to either very strong or not a side five-card suit with shortness in the lower other suit. So, some parameters are about to be established by some prep work.

However, that changes little in the overall analysis. The prep work done below two of the major, and the cues available before you reach Opener's next call after J2NT, are often invaluable and not duplicated in J2NT sequences.

J2NT has its place. Its place is not with this hand for Responder, is my point.