[mycroft]

Huge benefit of any of these J2N responses: 1M-2NT; 3♣-4M.

That's worth learning some artificiality, right there. The number of overtricks you will be given compared to those who had to show opener's shape make it worth it.

Having said that, if you're the type who has trouble remembering responder's rebids after 1NT-2red, or whose response to "what's 2♦?" is "weak, of course", then yeah, don't learn this - the bid doesn't come up enough. Be like R. Jay Becker - Stayman, Blackwood, good judgement, and excellent card skills. But you'd better be significantly better than the field on those last two.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-February-05, 12:08, said:

I think perhaps only system nuts and WC players use these complex systems.
To succeed at Club Bridge you only need to get to a decent contract and play your hand well.

A better Jacoby 2N is probably worth maybe 0.5%, and less in club bridge where the information hiding doesn't matter as much (and where you might not have the judgement to make use of the extra info you get).

I probably pitch around 5% on defensive errors, and that's just the ones I recognize.

On the other hand, I learned an improved Jacoby in an hour. I've been working on improving my defense for 5 years and have barely made a dent.

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2025-February-05, 12:08, said:

I think perhaps only system nuts and WC players use these complex systems.
To succeed at Club Bridge you only need to get to a decent contract and play your hand well.

I am lucky if I can remember basic standard Jacoby 2NT - I can almost remember it and probably work out what partner means I hope
Best or better for some of us mean different things - bad memory but understand a few basic principles and try to work out the rest
Jumpt game means sign off but the rest have some fairly obvious meaning
All my alerts/explanations are prefaced by I think or I hope
And as everyone knows I am very bad in using losers rather than number of trumps to determine when to use it
I usually have at least 3 and hopefully some good honours - you would usually have to check for the queen etc

[jillybean]

Don't get me wrong, I love systems. I play a modified J2nt and would like to modify it further, Seattle Standard. Maybe MikeH's version is a but much at the moment but if I get back into a serious, regular partnership I'd be happy to look at it.

[jdiana]

I like Seattle Standard precisely because it's the only modified J2NT that I think I could actually remember. So I wouldn't want to mess that up by asking too many questions, but I have been thinking about a couple of things (see below).

First, for convenience, I'm restating what I think is the whole structure:

"1M - 2N

3C - all minimums(but see 4M below*), after which 3D asks for shortness
Responses:
3H=club shortness
3S=diamond shortness
3N=other major shortness
anything higher=no shortness (control bid – ace or king)
4M=no shortness, minimum hand*
3D - extras, no shortness
3H - extras, club shortness
3S - extras, diamond shortness
3N - extras, other major shortness
4 new suit - minimum hand, good 5 card suit (standard would be 2/top 3 or 3/top 5; LC says “decent 5-card side suit (nat.--should have ace or king)”)
4M - minimum hand, good 6-card suit"

*I added this but I think it makes sense within the original structure as posted by akwoo.

Two questions:

1. What is the best use of 1M-2NT-4M?

awkoo describes it as a minimum hand, with a good 6-card suit. Larry Cohen describes it as "the absolute worst dreck imaginable (always 5-3-3-2)" https://www.larryco....fied-jacoby-2nt

Mike H. described it as "a truly awful opening hand…one you actively considered passing". This is all consistent with standard J2NT "fast arrival" type hand.

Should we keep the original/LC/MH meaning or use it to show a 6-card suit? Which is more useful?

Or adopt the Robert Todd approach, where that bid basically doesn't exist? https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/134

2. Can we (should we) do something to sort out the strength of our hands after 1M-2NT-3D?

In standard J2NT, we have two bids to differentiate opener's strength, with no other features to show - 3NT and 3M. There are various ways to use these bids. See https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/407

In Seattle Standard, both hand types are shown with opener's immediate 3D rebid. I can think of a couple of ways we might try to sort that out - we're in a game force and might be able to make use of nonserious 3NT in some way if we have that in our toolbag. But I also don;t want to over-complicate things and would be interested in your all's thoughts on whether that's worth doing. The concern is that you could have a 15-16 point hand opposite another 15-16 points hand, like sometimes happens in 2/1 auctions, and they can be hard to get right.

3. We should probably define what we mean by "extras". I'm assuming it's about a "king more" than minimum, so maybe a good 15+.

Anyway, those are my thoughts about Seattle Standard, which I would absolutely consider playing if ever get back to playing again. If we can tweak it a bit without ruining the (relative) simplicity of it, maybe it's worth doing.

As always, I note that I am not an expert and far from any kind of serious bidding theorist.

P.S. I tried indenting the responses to responder's 3D asking bid (by adding more spaces) but it didn't work, Any way to indent?

[akwoo]

My partnership that plays this (and probably around half the partnerships we know that play this) actually use 1M-2N (actually 1S-2N and 1H-2S for us) as a limit+ raise. That gives definition to 3C - it includes precisely the hands that want to play in 3M opposite a limit raise. This also explains our uses of 4 level bids - they are the hands that are accepting the limit raise invitation due to distribution rather than high card strength. (It's an old adage that you should basically always accept a limit raise invitation if you have 6 trump.)

As for distinguishing between medium and stronger hands with no shortage, note that 3M by responder after 3D by opener is completely idle (even playing 2N as limit+), and (non)-serious is a good use.

We also include intermediate strength splinters in our Jacoby 2N (so that immediate splinters are either a minimum game force or a slam drive); there is a scheme for showing these but I won't complicate things.

jdiana, on 2025-February-05, 21:01, said:

I like Seattle Standard precisely because it's the only modified J2NT that I think I could actually remember. So I wouldn't want to mess that up by asking too many questions, but I have been thinking about a couple of things (see below).

First, for convenience, I'm restating what I think is the whole structure:

"1M - 2N

3C - all minimums(but see 4M below*), after which 3D asks for shortness
Responses:
3H=club shortness
3S=diamond shortness
3N=other major shortness
anything higher=no shortness (control bid – ace or king)
4M=no shortness, minimum hand*
3D - extras, no shortness
3H - extras, club shortness
3S - extras, diamond shortness
3N - extras, other major shortness
4 new suit - minimum hand, good 5 card suit (standard would be 2/top 3 or 3/top 5; LC says “decent 5-card side suit (nat.--should have ace or king)”)
4M - minimum hand, good 6-card suit"

*I added this but I think it makes sense within the original structure as posted by akwoo.

Two questions:

1. What is the best use of 1M-2NT-4M?

awkoo describes it as a minimum hand, with a good 6-card suit. Larry Cohen describes it as "the absolute worst dreck imaginable (always 5-3-3-2)" https://www.larryco....fied-jacoby-2nt

Mike H. described it as "a truly awful opening hand…one you actively considered passing". This is all consistent with standard J2NT "fast arrival" type hand.

Should we keep the original/LC/MH meaning or use it to show a 6-card suit? Which is more useful?

Or adopt the Robert Todd approach, where that bid basically doesn't exist? https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/134

2. Can we (should we) do something to sort out the strength of our hands after 1M-2NT-3D?

In standard J2NT, we have two bids to differentiate opener's strength, with no other features to show - 3NT and 3M. There are various ways to use these bids. See https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/407

In Seattle Standard, both hand types are shown with opener's immediate 3D rebid. I can think of a couple of ways we might try to sort that out - we're in a game force and might be able to make use of nonserious 3NT in some way if we have that in our toolbag. But I also don;t want to over-complicate things and would be interested in your all's thoughts on whether that's worth doing. The concern is that you could have a 15-16 point hand opposite another 15-16 points hand, like sometimes happens in 2/1 auctions, and they can be hard to get right.

3. We should probably define what we mean by "extras". I'm assuming it's about a "king more" than minimum, so maybe a good 15+.

Anyway, those are my thoughts about Seattle Standard, which I would absolutely consider playing if ever get back to playing again. If we can tweak it a bit without ruining the (relative) simplicity of it, maybe it's worth doing.

As always, I note that I am not an expert and far from any kind of serious bidding theorist.

P.S. I tried indenting the responses to responder's 3D asking bid (by adding more spaces) but it didn't work, Any way to indent?

[DavidKok]

akwoo, on 2025-February-05, 22:37, said:

My partnership that plays this (and probably around half the partnerships we know that play this) actually use 1M-2N (actually 1S-2N and 1H-2S for us) as a limit+ raise.

[..]

We also include intermediate strength splinters in our Jacoby 2N (so that immediate splinters are either a minimum game force or a slam drive); there is a scheme for showing these but I won't complicate things.

If changes of this magnitude are on the table I will once again recommend the Maas 2NT, showing a limit raise or minimum game force with at least three card support. It is easy to play, well documented, comes up often, plugs a real system gap (limit raises in 2/1 having to go through 1NT, and 4 card limit raises being awkward), solves a bunch of the "do I respond 1♠ or 1NT or upgrade to a game force opposite partner's 1♥" questions, and improves slam auctions on 2/1 starts. The downsides are twofold: if you are slammish (say, 15+) with four card support you can't show the fourth card - 2/1 then raise shows (at least) 3-card support, and you are committed to 3M with a limit raise (though in a system where the limit raise is shown with 1NT-then-3M, you would be commited to this too a high percentage of the time).
At the higher levels in the Netherlands and also among the juniors here Maas is extremely common. I would prefer not to go without, and I consider Jacoby, Stenberg and limit+ 2NT variants (whether 4-card or 3-card) less effective. Putting limit raises in 2NT is a good idea, but limiting the bid from above even more so.

[jdiana]

@David - Maas looks good but is probably too much for me to remember.

@akwoo - If you make J2NT LR+, and responder just has a limit raise and gets a non-minimum rebid from opener, he will usually just bid game, right? So, something like 1♥ - 2NT - 3♥ (extras, club shortness) - 4♥? It seems to me that we're back to leaking information about declarer's hand, which is the problem we were trying to solve in the first place.

If I were going to try it, I think I would keep it as game forcing and try to keep it as simple as possible (which, again, is my favorite thing about it ). I'd just need to think through some of the other bids.

[DavidKok]

jdiana, on 2025-February-06, 02:58, said:

@David - Maas looks good but is probably too much for me to remember.

This has come up a few times, and I apologise if it really is too much and I'm just too familiar with it. I think, especially compared to even the simple Jacoby 2NT structures suggested here, that Maas is simple. On 1M-2NT, the options are as follows:

• Minimum: bid 3M, sign-off. Partner bids game with the 'minimum game force' option and passes with the limit raise.
  
• Extras but no slam (keep in mind responder is limited to about a bad 14, so any hand in the 14-17 range after re-evaluation fits this description): bid 4M.
  
• Slight extras but not enough to bid game: 3♦, asking partner to re-evaluate their limit raise. Partner will bid 3M (min) or 4M (max limit raise or minimum GF).

This is 80-90% of the convention, if not more.
We don't want to leak info, so the other options are rare. But they exist, and if you want to learn them they are:

• Jump shift (to the 4-level, or 1♥-2NT; 3♠): slam try splinter. Keep in mind that responder is limited to about a bad 14, so this requires a very strong hand.
  
• 3NT: an offer to play, by both opener and responder, also over the signoff 3M and re-invite 3♦. This is optional, but experts looking for 3NT in the presence of a known 8(+)-card M fit can make use of this option.
  
• 3♣: A generic slam try, promising about 18+ no-splinter. This can get complicated, and on frequency grounds you can also ignore this mostly.

Maas also uses 2NT always, not 1♥-2♠. I think that helps keep it less complicated.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-06, 02:14, said:

If changes of this magnitude are on the table I will once again recommend the Maas 2NT, showing a limit raise or minimum game force with at least three card support. It is easy to play, well documented, comes up often, plugs a real system gap (limit raises in 2/1 having to go through 1NT, and 4 card limit raises being awkward), solves a bunch of the "do I respond 1♠ or 1NT or upgrade to a game force opposite partner's 1♥" questions, and improves slam auctions on 2/1 starts. The downsides are twofold: if you are slammish (say, 15+) with four card support you can't show the fourth card - 2/1 then raise shows (at least) 3-card support, and you are committed to 3M with a limit raise (though in a system where the limit raise is shown with 1NT-then-3M, you would be commited to this too a high percentage of the time).
At the higher levels in the Netherlands and also among the juniors here Maas is extremely common. I would prefer not to go without, and I consider Jacoby, Stenberg and limit+ 2NT variants (whether 4-card or 3-card) less effective. Putting limit raises in 2NT is a good idea, but limiting the bid from above even more so.

I would keep to 4-card lim+ raises only. There are ways to avoid putting 3-card limit raises through 1N

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-06, 03:09, said:

This has come up a few times, and I apologise if it really is too much and I'm just too familiar with it. I think, especially compared to even the simple Jacoby 2NT structures suggested here, that Maas is simple. On 1M-2NT, the options are as follows:

• Minimum: bid 3M, sign-off. Partner bids game with the 'minimum game force' option and passes with the limit raise.
  
• Extras but no slam (keep in mind responder is limited to about a bad 14, so any hand in the 14-17 range after re-evaluation fits this description): bid 4M.
  
• Slight extras but not enough to bid game: 3♦, asking partner to re-evaluate their limit raise. Partner will bid 3M (min) or 4M (max limit raise or minimum GF).

This is 80-90% of the convention, if not more.
We don't want to leak info, so the other options are rare. But they exist, and if you want to learn them they are:

• Jump shift (to the 4-level, or 1♥-2NT; 3♠): slam try splinter. Keep in mind that responder is limited to about a bad 14, so this requires a very strong hand.
  
• 3NT: an offer to play, by both opener and responder, also over the signoff 3M and re-invite 3♦. This is optional, but experts looking for 3NT in the presence of a known 8(+)-card M fit can make use of this option.
  
• 3♣: A generic slam try, promising about 18+ no-splinter. This can get complicated, and on frequency grounds you can also ignore this mostly.

Maas also uses 2NT always, not 1♥-2♠. I think that helps keep it less complicated.

Thanks David.

I think it was just my knee-jerk reaction to seeing all the bids on the bid72 article, plus my familiarity with J2NT that made Maas seem like a lot. But it might be doable. Of course, playing any of these things would require a partner willing to go along.

[jdiana]

A new entry in the building a better J2NT contest - https://bridgewinner...-of-jacoby-2nt/

and an older one - https://bridgewinner...t-2-y3k2ujge2k/

[mw64ahw]

Thanks for the reminder. My approach is based on the McCallum 2N, but I swap in mod. losers for losers, play 2M-2M+1 for symmetry and exclude the mixed raises. This is the only approach I could get partner to remember.