[gurgistan]

I am thinking of using Jacoby 2N over Precision's 1M openers.

I searched this forum and read some of the threads.

It seems to me that: either the Jacoby 2N needs to be modified to 15hcp+ or the mimimum response by opener needs to be changed to 3M rather than 4M. Both these modifications are designed to prevent the partnership finding themselves in game without the required high card points.

In the threads, some argued that Jacoby 2N worked well enough without modification but it seems to me that an 11hcp opener with a 5332 shape could find itself in game with little chance unless modifications were made.

I am an aspiring player trying to think about the game so please throw light on my darkness.

All help appreciated.

[Mbodell]

It works well enough if you just adjust how strong it is based on how weak the 1M openers are. If you open all 10 counts maybe you need a good 14 count before you can use J2NT rather than the good 12 count you could use playing standard.

[PrecisionL]

My partner's and I play a modified Jacoby 2NT in a Precision context:

4-card support and Game Invitational values or better.

Opener rebids 3♣ with all minimums and now responder's 3M is a signoff.

Opener's 3♦ indicates a non-minimum with an unknown minor suit shortness, now 3♥ by responder asks where and 3♠ indicates ♣ shortness and 3NT indicates ♦ shortness. A rebid of the other Major (after 2NT) indicates a non-minimum and shortness in that major.

Max Hardy in his books recommended that 2NT be 15+ hcp, definite slam interest and opener's rebid follows classical Jacoby 2NT rebids.

[gurgistan]

PrecisionL, on 2011-February-13, 09:43, said:

Max Hardy in his books recommended that 2NT be 15+ hcp, definite slam interest and opener's rebid follows classical Jacoby 2NT rebids.

I think this is the way I am going to go.

[mtvesuvius]

I usually play 2N as an INV+ raise, then:

3♣ - Any Minimum
Then 3♦ asks more:
---- 3♥ - No Shortness
---- 3♠/NT/4♣ - Low/Middle/High shortness
3♦ - Non-Minimum without shortness
3♥/♠/NT - Non-Minimums with Low/Middle/High shortness
4m - 5/5s
4M - Does not exist

[gurgistan]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-13, 11:40, said:

I usually play 2N as an INV+ raise...

What is an "INV+ raise"?

Many thanks.

[mtvesuvius]

Invitational or better, so like 11+ HCP (or the equivalent) with 4 card or better support

[mycroft]

so, for those moving to INV+, do you still put the "balanced minimum game force, no slam interest" into 1M-4M (along with the distributional preempts)? And what are your single jump shifts?

[ArtK78]

Thought I would point out that Jacoby 2NT is a FORCING TO GAME raise of a major suit opening (hence the jump to game by opener showing a minimum in most variations of JAC2NT). Anything that you play that is not a forcing to game raise is not Jacoby 2NT. Call it what you will, it is not Jacoby 2NT.

I play JAC2NT in a weak opening structure (10+ opening bids). Needless to say, one needs enough to force to game opposite a possible 10 point opening hand to bid JAC2NT - 15HCP or the equivalent. Opposite a standard opening you need less, but you cannot use traditional JAC2NT without having enough to force to game.

[whereagles]

The best scheme I know of is the one below, but that is not meant for precision.

rom: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Martel-Stansby 2NT as game-forcing major raise
Date: 21 Jul 1993 02:22:53 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin


|From martel@cs.ucdavis.edu Mon Jul 19 18:44:41 1993
|
|You should feel free to post my 2N structure. It was also written up
|in Bridge Today. I don't remember Bergen's structure, but I remember thinking
|it was inferier to mine (I may be biased however).
|
|You may want to post a couple of comments with the system:

[Which I take as permission to post his comments verbatim. -- DV]

|I think playing that 3C shows ALL minimums is important and it is a good idea 
|to play that it shows a very minimum hand (NOT a very good 13 count if it has 
|a stiff, and not a good 14 with 5-4 or a 6 card suit). This allows you to often
|have the auction 1M-2N-3C-4M and give no information away.
|
|Note also that it is useful to think of the opening bidder's hand as being 
|split into three ranges of points (including distribution): very minimum 
|(12-15), middle (16-17) and strong (18+). With the strong hand opener will 
|drive to the five level, so when opener shows a non-minimum, responder 
|should assume the middle range hand (which has a fairly tight range), knowing 
|that opener will continue on over a 4M signoff.
|
|You should also post the stuff over interference. this is an important area
|since smart opponents will often bid over 2N and there is usually little 
|written on the subject. 
|
|One frill which might not have been in your version: After 1M-2N-3C: 3M says
|that slam is possible if opener has a maximum (minimum) with a stiff. Without
|such a hand opener signs off in 4M (thus again giving away no information
|or giving the opponents any bids to double).

So here's the system:

UNPASSED HAND

2NT: Game force, 4-card support; opener assumes balanced but could have a
     singleton.
Opener's rebids:
3C = Minimum.
3D = No splinter, some extra values, suitable for slam.
3H = Other Major splinter, extra values. | In general, when showing
3S = Diamond splinter, extra values.     | splinters, steps are high, middle,
3N = Club splinter, extra values         | low (or high, low if only 2)
4X = 5-card suit to A or K, extra values.

After 1M-2NT-3C, 3D asks.  Opener's rebids:
   3H = some splinter.  3S asks: high, middle, low;  4D = club splinter,
        slammish, 4H = club splinter, bad.
   3S = 6322    |
   3N = 5332    | Not bad for slam.
   4C, 4D, 4H/1S = side suit in 5422 hand (note that 4-5-2-2 is not
        possible because of Flannery).
   4M = No splinter, bad for slam.
1M-2NT-3C-3M = Slam interest opposite max + splinter.  Show splinter
   (H, M, L) with max (AKxxx,x,xxx,KQxx) else bid 4M.

After 1M-2NT-3D, 3H asks.  Opener's rebids:
   3S = 6322.
   3N = 5332.
   4C, 4D, 4H = side suit in 5422 hand (4H after 1H = 4522 [Note: too
       strong for Flannery -- DV]).

Subsequent cue-bidding normal except early signoffs show unsuitable or
minimum hands and do not deny specific controls.  3NT = cue bid similar
to DI 4NT.  

[Note: In general in Martel-Stansby when a major has been agreed and 
3NT is not a reasonable contract, a bid of 3NT by either partner shows 
a hand not entirely unsuited to slam, while a cuebid shows definite 
slam interest.  This is called "Frivolous 3NT".  A similar idea of 
Rodman is that the cuebids are "courtesy", while real slam interest
is shown by bidding 3NT.  This is called "Serious 3NT". -- DV]

When opponents compete after 2NT:
Ignore double except RDBL to look for penalty.
After 1M-(P)-2NT-(3X): P = Shaped minimum, X asks for clarification
                           (opener's 3NT = shaped, no stiff, 4M = 5332,
                           slammish; 3/our M = splinter in opponent's suit).
                       X = penalties (not of 3S).
                       Bid splinter or 3NT with extra (3/our major =
                           splinter in opponent's suit).
                       4/Major = balanced minimum.
1H-(P)-2NT-(3S): X  = stiff spade, 11-15 HCP.
                 3N = 15+ HCP, no stiff.
                 4S = stiff, very slammish (15+ HCP).

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

[Zelandakh]

Fred's scheme using 1H - 2S or 1S - 3C is also very good and I would not consider it inferior to the one above, especialy without actually having gone through this in detail. My own method, designed specifically for unbalanced 1M openings limited to 17hcp, is (imho) simple to remember but nonetheless workable...

1H - 2NT (or 1S - 3C but with all bids 1 step higher)

1st step/3C = min with shortage (3D asks, then 3H shows void)
2nd step/3D = mid with shortage (3H asks, then 3S shows void)
3rd step/3H = min without shortage (usual cue/friv/serious structure)
4th step/3S = mid without shortage (3N spade cue, 4m normal cue)
5th - 7th steps/3N - 4D = max with shortage, 3N showing spade shortage
8th step/4H = super-min

What this method lacks compared with more complex systems is a way to show extra length. Within a precision context, where 3 ranges would be overkill, utilising steps to show length is recommended. If your 5M332 hands are causing you headaches then you always have the option to move them into your 1NT opening and use a puppet-based response scheme.

[olien]

When I play precision, and I play 2NT as an INV+ raise, it ends up being approximately an INV raise or 15+ raise. The in-between raises just bid 4M usually. The re-bids are geared to assuming the INV hand, and are as follows.

3♣ artificial, game force opposite INV
3♦ artificial, game try opposite INV
3M worst possible hand
3oM oM void, slam interest opposite INV
3NT ♦ void, slam interest opposite INV
4♣ ♣ void, slam interest opposite INV


After 1M-2NT// 3♣:
3♦ relay
........3♥ no short
........3♠ oM short
........3NT ♦ short
........4♣ ♣ short
3♥ oM short, too strong for initial splinter
3♠ ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter
3NT ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter
4M we have arrived


After 1M-2NT// 3♦:
3M sign off
3oM relay
........S1 no short
........S2 oM short
........S3 ♦ short
........S4 ♣ short
3NT oM short, too strong for initial splinter
4♣ ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter
4♦ ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter
4M we have arrived


1M-2NT// 3M: (3M is 95% of the time without shortness)
S1 no short, slam interest
S2 oM short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam
S3 ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam
S4 ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam
4M we have arrived


This structure is simple, and doesn't reveal much info on hands without slam interest. This structures gain over one with 3♣ showing all minimums is that when you have a non-min, you don't reveal any distributional info to the opps in case responder only has an INV raise, while if playing 3♣=any min, when you have a non-min you have to reveal some distributional info to the opps. However, this structure works much better in a precision context than in a standard context.