[jillybean]

Hi. I have always, and so far will only play 2D waiting, 2H bust responses to partner's strong 2C openings.

Step responses showing points seem to be popular at the club level.

2Diamond - 0 to 3 HCP
2Heart - 4 to 6 HCP
2Spade - 7 to 9 HCP
3Club - 10 to 12 HCP
3Diamond - 13 to 15 HCP

Can anyone tell me where , which 'expert' this treatment originated from, and how long it has been in use?

[smerriman]

According to Wikipedia:

Quote

The origin of this convention is uncertain. Some players have attributed it to Oswald Jacoby, of Jacoby Transfer and Jacoby 2NT fame, while others refer to it as "Castlebury" (or "Castleberry"?), but the present author is not aware of any source that would verify either attribution.

.. which totally doesn't answer your question, but..

[mike777]

This method championed by Oswald and Jim Jacoby in Jacoby Modern system from sixties.

Per Encyclopedia of Bridge p.320, 7th edition

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-October-25, 13:53, said:

Hi. I have always, and so far will only play 2D waiting, 2H bust responses to partner's strong 2C openings.

Step responses showing points seem to be popular at the club level.

2Diamond - 0 to 3 HCP
2Heart - 4 to 6 HCP
2Spade - 7 to 9 HCP
3Club - 10 to 12 HCP
3Diamond - 13 to 15 HCP

Can anyone tell me where , which 'expert' this treatment originated from, and how long it has been in use?

Doesn't it seem odd that four-jacks-and-out is better than a-king-and-out?

[jillybean]

Thanks, I was struggling to trust the Wiki link to Jacoby.

And yes, I'm happy to get JJJJ playing poker.

[mycroft]

Anecdata supporting the above: This method is known as "Jacoby Steps" where I learned it. I hear it now just as "Steps". It's common enough that there's a checkbox for it on the new ACBL card (which could also be used for controls, there's a small "explainer" textbox after).

It's easy, and it uses a hand evaluation tool that players already know and use, so it's popular among players whose analysis skills match "easy and one tool". And for them, it's probably better than anything else, because it's information they can use.

I prefer the Losing Trick Count and Cover Card analysis myself for 2♣ openers(*).

(*)

Spoiler

...where a 2♣ opener is assumed to be "4 losers", so "one cover card" - say an Ace or a King - should make game :-)

Spoiler

Now to see how many people take one or the other elements of this post at face value

[mikeh]

I am not embarrassed to say that I played this method for a year or two. I was only just past the beginner stage.

As I recall, this being in the mid to late 70’s, it was then said to be an invention of a Oswald Jacoby, one of the most creative bidding theorists of his day. Think Jacoby transfers and Jacoby 2N, which ideas proved more durable than step responses.

The main problems with step responses are that on many slammish hands it’s not how many hcp one holds but which hcp one holds and with what shape. Plus when responder has a decent hand, the response consumes valuable bidding space while not addressed the ‘what useful cards do you hold and what’s your shape’ issues.

Btw, calling this an ‘expert’ treatment was probably never valid. This was, iirc, something devised to help average players. I’m not even sure Jacoby actually played it in his serious partnerships. Now, back then I didn’t play against many strong experts…at best I’d be cannon fodder in a pairs game or the first round of a regional KO…back then the first round was about as far as we got, lol.

[jillybean]

I am staying clear of LTC and probably thanks to forums, I have never had to play Jacoby's steps.
I have always followed the mantra, keep out of the way of the strong hand and let them describe their hand.

[paulg]

This method also has far more club players playing it than it justifies in the UK, so someone must have written something about it in one of the English magazines in 1980s otherwise it would never have gained a following.

It has the great advantage of being simple for a club player - results are less important because you only remember the good ones.

Dr John Matheson, one of the strongest players produced by Scotland, was a great advocate for step responses that showed controls, not points. But it never caught on in Scottish clubs because it was not as simple as points although it is a lot better method.

Added
John's method was:

• 2♦ = ART. A king or less.
• 2♥ = ART. 2 controls (A or KK).
• 2♠ = ART. 3 controls (AK)
• 2N = ART. 3 controls (KKK)
• 3♣ = 4 controls

This post has been edited by paulg: 2025-October-27, 08:42

[pescetom]

Interesting to know.
Here in Italy many people play step responses showing the total holding of half controls (A=2,K=1).
Nobody plays steps to show HCP, although some beginners will make the dreaded 2NT response with 8 HCP or whatever.
But the prevalent response scheme is 2D with anything except a strong suit, which bids naturally.
With a consenting partner, I play that 2H denies a King, 2S is any strong single suit, 2NT upwards are various twin suited, 2D is none of these.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2025-October-26, 09:51, said:

I am not embarrassed to say that I played this method for a year or two. I was only just past the beginner stage.

It was also the first method I learned, in the mid 80's. But when I started playing with more experienced duplicate players, they taught me 2D waiting, and I've never looked back. Originally I used cheapest minor as a 2nd negative, but eventually adopted 2H as an immediate negative with most partners. I've occasionally played control steps.