[jillybean]

---

This took me about 2 seconds to decide on a J2nt response. We have good methods over 2nt.
Given the aggressive openings nowadays, have you upgraded your j2nt range?

[jdiana]

I thought the trend was actually toward expanding the "range" lower, to incorporate 4-card limit raises. (I put "range" in quotes just because I don't really think of J2NT as having an upper limit.)

[mycroft]

As I said to my partner about 20 years ago, "I am *willing* to play 24 HCP games, if the alternative is missing 26 HCP games. That doesn't mean I *want to*."

Here, I think this is a minimum (13, but AJ tight, no trump honours); if partner has the okay 11 she might have, I doubt it is spade honour-less (and if it is, won't be the first time we lose three trump tricks and make 4♠). With my new Precision partner, especially NV, I'll back off a bit and see if he has a real opener.

But I'd rather have it go 1♠-2NT; 3♣ (any minimum)-4♠, and maybe not make, than 1♠-1NT; 3♣ and now I'll never catch up (or 1♠-1NT; 2♣ and not be able to work out that we're both (near-)max with a double fit, or be not quite enough of a near-max with a double fit and -1 in 5 or 6).

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-January-12, 15:53, said:

---

This took me about 2 seconds to decide on a J2nt response. We have good methods over 2nt.
Given the aggressive openings nowadays, have you upgraded your j2nt range?

You seem to be using "Jacoby 2NT" as synonymous with "2NT = forcing raise."

Rather than a specific set of responses to the forcing raise.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2025-January-12, 20:26, said:

You seem to be using "Jacoby 2NT" as synonymous with "2NT = forcing raise."

Rather than a specific set of responses to the forcing raise.

Have you upgraded your forcing major raise in response to more aggressive openings?

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2025-January-12, 16:14, said:

I thought the trend was actually toward expanding the "range" lower, to incorporate 4-card limit raises. (I put "range" in quotes just because I don't really think of J2NT as having an upper limit.)

When does your J2nt bid kick in, 10hcp?

[smerriman]

If you're not going to game force with a 13 count because partner might have an 10-11 count, then you probably shouldn't be playing 2/1; it's not like you could put those hands into 1NT. There are other systems entirely for light opening bids - playing 2/1, if you open light, you do so expecting partner to game force with normal hands and put up with the consequences.

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-January-12, 21:10, said:

When does your J2nt bid kick in, 10hcp?

I haven't actually jumped on that bandwagon myself.

[akwoo]

My Precision partnership, which opens almost all 10 counts, plays the 2N raise (well 2S over 1H) as invitational or better.

It has about the same range as a game-forcing J2N from a 2/1 player.

So this hand would bid 2N, but expect to stop in 3S if partner shows a not-particularly-shapely minimum (by bidding 3C).

[mw64ahw]

It's about shape as well as points. This is a poor 13 count with a basic 8 mod. losers which you can upgrade slightly with the Jacks and Tens. I play limit+ raises which includes 9+hcp, 8.5 mod. losers or any 12+hcp.

[awm]

Sam and I would force game on this hand (we don't actually play jacoby 2NT though).

Our typical minimum looks like ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦Axxx ♣x though (where game is quite good). We don't open so aggressively on balanced hands or hands where the points are slow cards outside opener's suits. If your style is different you may have to do something else of course.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we would force to game, but than we have not lowered our opening bid req., we play basically rule of 20.

As it is the hand is most likely overvalued, but than you should not cater for partner having always dead min.
If you regular do, upgrade your opening req.
It is similar, if you always try to cater for the fact, that a short 1C opening has less than 4 cards, if you
do, switch to Acol.

It would be more interesting, if you moved one spade towards a club, i.e. you only have known 5-3 fit.

We still would force.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Thanks. This hand is at the lowest end of a gf raise for me but, gf it is.
People start talking about loser count, modified loser count, support points, pearson points, rule of # and so on, it makes my head spin.

Our(my) hand evaluation making a GF raise has perhaps improved, as has declarer play so more aggressive openings are not causing problems.
I admire Adam's minimum opening, I still have a way to go.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-January-13, 09:15, said:

It would be more interesting, if you moved one spade towards a club, i.e. you only have known 5-3 fit.

We still would force.

With kind regards
Marlowe

good problem

---

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-January-13, 09:21, said:

good problem

---

Another variation would be to move another spade towards hearts, now you dont even
have a known spade fit.
Obv. it is system depend, but in a 2/1 framework you may now need to decide, if you
force to game or play a partial (selling the hand as inv. only).

As it is, those are the costs, if you start to get lower and lower, and you need to be
aware of those costs, pay up if you have to and cash in, if you can.

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-January-13, 09:18, said:

Thanks. This hand is at the lowest end of a gf raise for me but, gf it is.
People start talking about loser count, modified loser count, support points, pearson points, rule of # and so on, it makes my head spin.

Our(my) hand evaluation making a GF raise has perhaps improved, as has declarer play so more aggressive openings are not causing problems.
I admire Adam's minimum opening, I still have a way to go.

I think it's customary to add "dummy points" (aka support points) when valuing responder's hand for J2NT purposes (unless using LTC), so I would actually add 1 point for the doubleton. I think Bergen would subtract 1/2 point for the AJ combination. But still, playing a traditional J2NT, it's easily a 2NT bid for me too.

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-January-13, 09:21, said:

good problem

---

Now, obviously, it's no longer a J2NT problem since that requires 4-card support. Just an everyday hand evaluation problem. I'm not an expert on LTC (though I keep meaning to become better at using it) but I think LTC might shade this toward a LR. Still, again, I would treat it as GF and bid 2♣.

[awm]

jillybean, on 2025-January-13, 09:18, said:

Thanks. This hand is at the lowest end of a gf raise for me but, gf it is.
People start talking about loser count, modified loser count, support points, pearson points, rule of # and so on, it makes my head spin.

Our(my) hand evaluation making a GF raise has perhaps improved, as has declarer play so more aggressive openings are not causing problems.
I admire Adam's minimum opening, I still have a way to go.

Keep in mind that we would not open on any of the following:

♠QJxxx ♥QJx ♦QJxx ♣x (slow cards)
♠KQxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx (we are more conservative on balanced hands)
♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Axxx ♣K (singleton club king is not worth much)

So there's quite a bit of hand evaluation going into these decisions, and we are far from a general rule that we open nine-point hands.

[mike777]

jdiana, on 2025-January-13, 10:44, said:

Now, obviously, it's no longer a J2NT problem since that requires 4-card support. Just an everyday hand evaluation problem. I'm not an expert on LTC (though I keep meaning to become better at using it) but I think LTC might shade this toward a LR. Still, again, I would treat it as GF and bid 2♣.

Adjusted LTC treats 4 card trump hand as a solid limit raise
The 3 card trump hand worse, reluctantly
I would make a 3 card limit raise without high hopes.
I can differentiate

[jillybean]

awm, on 2025-January-13, 10:57, said:

Keep in mind that we would not open on any of the following:

♠QJxxx ♥QJx ♦QJxx ♣x (slow cards)
♠KQxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx (we are more conservative on balanced hands)
♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Axxx ♣K (singleton club king is not worth much)

So there's quite a bit of hand evaluation going into these decisions, and we are far from a general rule that we open nine-point hands.

Understood, this hand is a lot more appealing in texture and shape to open 1♦

♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦Axxx ♣x