[Bbradley62]

 leebca, on 2014-August-05, 12:11, said:

How, indeed, did 3NT become weaker than the lower bid 3♠. The responder is in the driver's seat and should have the option of setting the contract at 3♠ or 3NT if opener is weak. Leftover pre-1995 thinking in ACBL?

Neither opener nor responder "should have the option of setting the contract at 3♠". It is an integral part of Jacoby 2NT that you are in a game-forcing auction. If responder is not strong enough to force to game opposite a minimum opener (however the partnership defines that minimum), then responder should make a limit raise, not bid Jacoby 2NT.

[leebca]

I wouldn't dare do that, but bidding 7♣ without more knowledge of my partner's hand is not my game.

[leebca]

I disagree Bbradley. Only the responder here knows if his hand is opening or larger. The query to opener establishes the strength or the distribution of the opener's hand and then still, only the responder knows the bigger picture. Responder may retreat with low-side opener after learning partner may have 11 HCPs.

[Bbradley62]

 leebca, on 2014-August-05, 12:39, said:

I disagree Bbradley. Only the responder here knows if his hand is opening or larger. The query to opener establishes the strength or the distribution of the opener's hand and then still, only the responder knows the bigger picture. Responder may retreat with low-side opener after learning partner may have 11 HCPs.

But, according to your first post, you want your partner to respond 4♠ with a crappy total minimum; the only way you can stop below game is if she bids 3♠, which you say you want her to do with a better hand (whether it should be the "medium" or the "maximum" hand is apparently up for discussion).

[gszes]

 leebca, on 2014-August-05, 00:07, said:

gszes,

Neither conventions/tools are used by us. Unless I'm mis-understanding your suggestion. . .My partner, with the hand held, would pass my 5♣ thinking I bid game on my own, without any knowledge of a spade fit, only believing he had an opening hand and 5+ spades. Holding two clubs, my partner would proudly have put dummy down. We generally agree that the faster/higher we bid, the less we have.

The Jacoby 2NT seemed to me at the time the lesser of the evils -- two out of three requirements, a fit immediately agreed to, and conveying at least opening values. It seemed to me to be a springboard towards slam investigations with the conventions we utilize. It ran through my brain, albeit briefly, that all other bids by me and then by partner would likely miss a potential slam, with our conventions.

Bbradley62,

A 3NT rebid by partner would have worked, I think, but it would be a stretch for this partner having two doubletons, even though the hand might be considered medium. I would have bid pass 3NT for sure and we would go on to slam.

5♠ would be unlikely to make (from my perspective) with partner having 11-12 HCP (e.g., missing the ♠K). I couldn't muster bidding past the 4♠ facing the minimum: an 11-12 HCP hand with a 5-card spade suit. I appreciate your opinion that I should have bid on, though. That's the reply to the question.

My suggestion of 5c was over p 4s bid ie 1s 2n 4s 5c:))))

[leebca]

[Sorry for the delay in posting/replying. Had jury duty.]

Bbradley,

For sure, it is up discussion whether 4 or 3♠ is medium or weak. I would prefer the 3♠ to be medium so that game in NT is still possible (i.e., 3NT). The 4♠ would be drop dead. Yes. It means some games will be hard on the opener/declarer to play, but when opener chooses to open light in first or second seat, that is their risk (and/or the fault of SAYC v Precision for instance).

gszes,

I figured it out and posted my correction earlier in the thread. Thanks.

[neilkaz]

 leebca, on 2014-August-07, 12:27, said:

[Sorry for the delay in posting/replying. Had jury duty.]

Bbradley,

For sure, it is up discussion whether 4 or 3♠ is medium or weak. I would prefer the 3♠ to be medium so that game in NT is still possible (i.e., 3NT). The 4♠ would be drop dead. Yes. It means some games will be hard on the opener/declarer to play, but when opener chooses to open light in first or second seat, that is their risk (and/or the fault of SAYC v Precision for instance).

gszes,

I figured it out and posted my correction earlier in the thread. Thanks.

Lee, how often do you think it will be correct to play 3NT when there's at least a 9 card fit in a major and both sides have at least an opening strength hand? It sure seems better to me to have 3NT and 3♠ responses define ranges of strengths for opener's hand as the convention is written.

[leebca]

Not often, but the chance for 10 extra points should be allowed. Depends on scoring.

[frisbee]

If playing 2/1, bidding the slam is relatively easy ...

Responder must bid 2♣ instead of 2NT (Jacoby) to show the "source of tricks". Important to understand this concept.
1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 3♠
4♦ - 4NT etc.

2♣ establishes the game force.
2♥ shows 5+ ♠s and 4+♥. Any strength.
3♠ shows very good ♠ support and is slammish with a source of tricks in ♣s.
[2♠ would show 2-3 card ♠ support.
4♠ would show a minimum 2/1 hand.]
4♦ is a cuebid, cooperating with Responder.
Responder needs to hear no more to launch into an Ace or Keycard asking sequence.

As others have mentioned, the problem is that Responder should not bid Jacoby 2NT with such a powerful hand. You lose control of the auction when Opener shows the weak hand by jumping to 4♠. Do not fault the Jacoby 2NT convention for not finding this slam. The convention should not have been used.

As an aside, when playing 2/1, Opener is not supposed to open any 11-count that he wants to. You are playing 2/1, not Standard American. With ♠Axxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣Jx, you have a borderline 1♠ opening bid in StdAm which should be passed when playing 2/1. Heresy, I know ... but, again, you are not playing StdAm. If you insist that you can open this hand 1♠, then change your convention card to read StdAm instead of 2/1.