[Jinksy]

Over a 2N Jacoby (or rather in our case inv+) raise we play this:

3♣ = min
3♦ = non-min, no shortage (unless stiff honour)
3♥/♠/N = non-min, shortage in ♣s/♦s/other major

After 3♣, 3N is natural, otherwise it's frivolous. Also after 3♣, responder has the option to bid 3D as a shortage ask (with equivalent responses). Atm, anything else is a cuebid.

We're basically using this system as a default after someone suggested it to me in one partnership and I liked it enough to introduce it to others, but I'm wondering if there's anything of equivalent or lesser complexity that people would recommend over it (none of my partners would agree to anything more complex). Or, if people think it's a decent system, I have a couple of questions for people with more experience of it, in particular of the inv+ version (the only way we could have it as GF+ is if we have 3M as a limit raise, but I think it's marginally better preemptive):

• After opener's 3♦, would it be better to have responder show shortage analogously to above? (atm we have normal splinters at the 4-level, but otherwise he could be more or less any shape consistent with 4+ card support). It would occasionally cost us the Frivolous 3N, as above, but then, so do the responses above. That said, opener seems to be captaining the auction at that stage, which feels awkward.
  
• Once we're GFed, we're often left with 3M as a free bid. I haven't put much thought into what better use we could make of it. Any suggestions? It would need to be relatively intuitive again, or my Ps would never remember it. One option I've thought of is effectively Frivolous, allowing 3N to become natural. Another is allowing P to bid 3N just to deny shortage. Neither of these make much sense if P's just bid 3♥ to show ♣ shortage, though... The last is some kind of keycard ask/tell.

[trevahound]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-06, 06:01, said:

Over a 2N Jacoby (or rather in our case inv+) raise we play this:

3♣ = min
3♦ = non-min, no shortage (unless stiff honour)
3♥/♠/N = non-min, shortage in ♣s/♦s/other major

After 3♣, 3N is natural, otherwise it's frivolous. Also after 3♣, responder has the option to bid 3D as a shortage ask (with equivalent responses). Atm, anything else is a cuebid.

We're basically using this system as a default after someone suggested it to me in one partnership and I liked it enough to introduce it to others, but I'm wondering if there's anything of equivalent or lesser complexity that people would recommend over it (none of my partners would agree to anything more complex). Or, if people think it's a decent system, I have a couple of questions for people with more experience of it, in particular of the inv+ version (the only way we could have it as GF+ is if we have 3M as a limit raise, but I think it's marginally better preemptive):

• After opener's 3♦, would it be better to have responder show shortage analogously to above? (atm we have normal splinters at the 4-level, but otherwise he could be more or less any shape consistent with 4+ card support). It would occasionally cost us the Frivolous 3N, as above, but then, so do the responses above. That said, opener seems to be captaining the auction at that stage, which feels awkward.
  
• Once we're GFed, we're often left with 3M as a free bid. I haven't put much thought into what better use we could make of it. Any suggestions? It would need to be relatively intuitive again, or my Ps would never remember it. One option I've thought of is effectively Frivolous, allowing 3N to become natural. Another is allowing P to bid 3N just to deny shortage. Neither of these make much sense if P's just bid 3♥ to show ♣ shortage, though... The last is some kind of keycard ask/tell.

I use more or less exactly this (inv+) in all my non big club partnerships. It also allows splinters of two different strength levels (direct vs going through 2nt first). I think it's clearly far superior to regular J2nt.

[Zelandakh]

For a GF 2NT I use 3♣ = min + shortage; 3♦ = extras + shortage; 3♥ = min without shortage; 3♠ = extras without shortage; others = max. Over 3m, a new suit is natural because my system does not have the option of showing a secondary suit along the way and this is one way of recovering that sometimes. It is also more common to invert 3♣ and 3♦ to provide more bidding space to the stronger hand type - I prefer instead to give more space to the more common hand type but it is something to consider.

I think this structure would also work for an INV+ 2NT response, except that I would want it so that 3M = min without shortage and 3oM = extras without shortage. The structure you have is fine though. As an aside, I like to be able to split singletons from voids here so, for example, 1♥ - 2NT: 3♣ - 3♦; 3♥ shows a side void with 3♠/3NT/4♣ being specifically singletons. You could obviously also incorporate that into your system if you thought it was worth it.

[Jinksy]

One benefit we've had from putting our minimum bids through 3♣ is occasionally opener can show a minimum on marginal or control-poor but otherwise decent hands, planning to raise P's sign-off to game, but discouraging any thoughts of slam. I don't do this much myself, but one of my partners has been successful with it a few times.

Would you say the main benefit from yours is the min-w/shortage bid? It seems like that would take some pressure off such hands, and might include several of the 'raise-to-game-but-not-really' types.

[Zelandakh]

To be honest, to me this is about describing the hands and showing the features that can identify how well the hands fit for slam along with the general strength. Obviously Responder can often just bid game over min+shortage without identifying it but that is just as true of 3♣ as a general minimum. When you analyse it what you are actually gaining in comparison with the OP method is the ability to have a third (max) range using the 3NT, 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥ calls.

My ranges for min/mid/max are roughly 12-15/16-19/20+, again for a GF raise. And with openings capped at 17hcp, 20+ is guaranteed to have a shortage! For 2NT showing LR+ the mid range has to start at about 14. Assuming your openings are also unlimted that is giving a range of ~14-25 for extras, albeit that the top of the range would happily drive to the 5 level. This is actually the Achilles heel of the method - it stops you from splitting the ranges optimally. In this respect being able to split the range up usefully into an additional band would not seem like a bad idea. Serious/Frivolous can get you so far but if the range are too wide it is difficult to judge whether to move or not.

I any case, I judge either of these response structures considerably better than regular J2NT without being greatly more complicated...regardless of whether 2NT is GF or only limit+.

[mgoetze]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-07, 21:04, said:

One benefit we've had from putting our minimum bids through 3♣ is occasionally opener can show a minimum on marginal or control-poor but otherwise decent hands, planning to raise P's sign-off to game, but discouraging any thoughts of slam. I don't do this much myself, but one of my partners has been successful with it a few times.

You're thinking about it the wrong way. "Minimum" in this context should not mean "I would refuse an invitation", it should mean "I don't have significant extras". To put a number on it, about 11-15. 1♥-2NT; 3♣-3♥ is not a signoff, it simply means "I have an invitational hand", and 1♥-2NT; 3♣-3♥; 4♥ is a perfectly normal auction that should come up all the time.

[Jinksy]

Right, but it can't if your 'minimum' bid, or one of them is 3M, in which case with an inv hand, P just has to pass.

[Zelandakh]

Well there is no reason the min for hands with shortages has to be the same min as those without. You could combine these ideas with something like:

3♣ = min + shortage (~13-15)
3♦ = extras + shortage (~16-19)
3M = non-accept without shortage (~12-13)
3oM = min accept without shortage (~14-16)
3NT = max accept without shortage (~17-19)
4X = max + shortage (~20+)

[Jinksy]

Something I've forgotten to mention thus far is that we use jump rebids of a new suit at the four level (eg 1H 2N / 4D) specifically for showing (a non-min with) a decent 5-card side suit.

Again, I don't have a strong feeling about these. I have a general suspicion it's better to be able to show P exceptional shape than to get pedantic over a point or two and restrict yourself thereafter to cuebids, but as I say, not strongly held. Do you disagree?

[Zelandakh]

It is great to be able to show a side suit source of tricks when you have a two-suiter but it is comparatively rare. So I prefer to be able to show different ranges of shortage. If you have space for both, or do not think tightening the ranges of the other rebids is important, then by all means.

[Kungsgeten]

1M-2NT; 4X is usually used as void showing in Sweden (4H is void in oM).

After the 3D response I play with a partner that 3H asks for trump length. 3S shows 5, 3NT 6 and others are cues with 7222. After 3H you can relay with 3S in order to find out if opener has 18-19 bal or 5422 (and then also which side suit he has). 3NT directly over 3D is a choice of games and others are cue bids.

[Cthulhu D]

I like (and I nicked this method from BBF, but forgot to credit the author in my notes, so I expect someone to say 'you stole that bro' shortly)

1M-2NT:

3C: Any minimum (we define minimum as less than an ace more than a minimum opener)
3D: Extras with any shortage - ask for shortage by bidding 3M
3M: Extras with extra trump length
3oM or 4m: Good (5 card) 2nd suit
3NT: Extras in a 5332 (or, potentially, 5422) balanced (this is super important for my partner who hates to open 1NT with a 5 card major. I imagine if you had my moral philosophy of open 1NT erry day, it might matter less)

After 3C-3D is an ask, and you show shortage by bidding the suit or, 3H with extra trump length and 3NT with balanced minimum.

I like this because the symmetry in the method makes it easy to remember, and it's relatively natural if you can remember 3C and 3D are artificial. I'm not totally sold on 1M-2NT-4m as being the two suited because as you point out you can get some really cramped auctions after 1H-2NT-4D where respondent may basically have to guess.

[Kungsgeten]

Another Swedish variant developed by Mats Nilsland:

1M-2NT;
3C = Extras, GF
3D = Any minimum
3H = Extras, club side suit (4C changes trump, 3NT is a club cue bid)
3S = Extras, diamond side suit (4D changes trump, 3NT is a diamond cue bid)
3NT = Extras, side suit in other major
4X = Real suit, 1-1 in other suits (so 6-5 or 7-4)

1M-2NT; 3C-3D = ask, then:
1 step = No shortness
2-4 steps = Singleton
5+ steps = Void

1M-2NT; 3D---
3M = Invitational
3NT = Suggestion to play
3oM = Asking for shortness

[mgoetze]

Geez guys, I would have posted my preferred method a week ago if the OP hadn't explicitly stated that he's not interested in anything even slightly more complicated...

[mikestar13]

I think what the OP is plays is just fine as is. I myself prefer something more complex, but I wonder if I should prefer it. Maybe this method has 85% of the accuracy of a more "perfect" method with 50% of the memory load -- a clear win for simplicity.

If you choose to play Jacoby as limit+, you need to play 3♣=minimum means, "I would decline a slam try" rather than "I would pass a limit raise": The set of hands where you bid 3♣ is larger that way--which is a good thing, as this bid is both cheap and unrevealing to the opponents. Auctions like 1♠-2NT-3♣-4♠ and 1♠-2NT-3♣-3♠-4♠ should be common. A lot of hands are slam-negative but well worth getting to game, especially is you don't leak info along the way when game is the limit. In fact, I accept a limit raise on any hand with a stiff that I am not otherwise ashamed of, and I am not interested in slam opposite a minimum slam try on a majority of them--so perfect for the 3♣ rebid.

This is also the best interpretation for the 3♣ rebid if you play Jacoby as game forcing.