[perko90]

6+ months ago, we switched to Swedish Jacoby 2NT raises (showing a 4 pc raise with invite+ values) in a 2/1 context.
For reference, we are using the following (standard?) Swedish rebids after 1M-2NT*:
3♣* = any minimum (may or may not have enough for game opposite an invite)
-- 3♦* by Responder can ask for shortness, if any
3♦* = extras (we play K better than min) and no shortness
3♥*/3♠*/3NT* = extras (K better), and shortness in ♣/♦/OM, respectively

It's been working pretty well. And in general, we play that Responder, with only an invitational hand, jumps to game after any extra-showing rebid.
The problem is that sometimes Opener may still be interested in slam opposite an invite, but now has to start exploring above 4M.

Don't get me wrong, it's a minor issue and in general, I really like this Swedish approach. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if it's worth redoing Opener's rebids a bit.
Here's my suggested attempt at an improvement. After 1M-2NT*:
3♣* = extras with shortness
-- Responder continuations: 3♦* asks; 3M says I only have an invite; others are control showing w/ at least opening values
3♦* = extras, no shortness
-- Responder continuations: 3M says I only have an invite; others are control showing w/ at least opening values
3M = bare min, can't accept an invite
3OM* (and possibly 3NT*) = 1 or 2 flavors of respectable minimum, at least enough for game opposite an invite.
You can use your imagination for how to divide the 2 bids (w/ or w/o shortness, 5 or 6+ trump, or whatever)

The advantages of the above structure are:
1) Minimal feature disclosure when the limit of the hand is game
2) Both sides can show minimums right away (but below game)
-- Never jumps to 4M when the other partner is unlimited (a common criticism of standard Jac 2NT)
3) Both sides can cooperate below game with modest extras when slam may be possible
4) Not too complicated
The main disadvantage vs our current structure is that the shortness ask when opener is a minimum has to start higher or just forego it.

So, please let me know if you like my suggestion or if you have a favorite suggestion of your own, or if you believe I'm over-thinking the weakness of our current structure.

[dsLawsd]

I like the Swedish style but I like 2 NT to be a bit stronger with limit raises showing 4 trumps and a singleton.

I am not sure I want to waste 3M and 3 NT in your structure due to thinking the frequency is too low to be useful.

Brogeland has recommended using 4 level bids to show shortness by opener so it might be useful to read his examples and see how your ideas would work in that version.

Nice work here.

[kreivi68]

It is almost standard to play 2NT response after a major opening as INV+ raise in Finland where I live. We and the swedes call it Stenberg, though.
As you noticed, there are some difficulties in continuations. Even if opener shows extras, both players are still unlimited and responder has hard times
when he has just a limit raise. That may lead to useless cue bidding or space eating jump to game. Furthermore, opener reveals short suit (or lack of it)
even with some 14 points which leaks information to the opponents, if there is only game.

My solution is to split opener's strength in three ranges. After 1M-2NT:

3c= 11-13 -> 3d asks for short suit; 3M= limit raise; 3NT= choice of games; new suit= strong splinter (15+ or so)
3d= 14-16 -> 3h asks, other= see above
3h= 17+ -> 3s asks
3s= Unidentified void, not absolute minimum -> 3NT asks; 4m/h= limit raise and weak side suit (accepts slam try only if opener has void in this suit)
3NT= 18-19 balanced
4m/h= Jump in new suit shows good 5-card side suit, not absolute minimum
4M= 6-card M, minimum (expects to make facing INV)

[kreivi68]

More information about Stenberg in english: http://www.acblunit3...on/Stenberg.htm

[pescetom]

kreivi68, on 2019-November-05, 11:01, said:

More information about Stenberg in english: http://www.acblunit3...on/Stenberg.htm

I removed a comment I made because I now see that Stenberg is different from the (as yet unnamed) 2NT INV+ played in some other european countries. We play that 2NT is essentially a substitute of a natural 3M response. Of course as it is forcing it might occasionally come from a game-worthy hand with some reason not to raise 2/1, but the standard developments are not optimised for this. Given this scenario it makes more sense for opener to use the minors to interrogate responder about his hand and then decide the contract himself.

[Zelandakh]

For anyone that speaks German, Stenberg is also part of Forum D+, or was the last time I checked. I quite like the very simple and easy to remember:-

Step 1 = shortage, min
Step 2 = shortage, extras
Step 3 = no shortage, min
Step 4 = no shortage, extras
Steps 5-8 = shortage, max

There is an argument for switching Steps 1/2 and 3/4.

It is also well worth looking up Fred's method that differentiates between specific hand types such as 6-4s. As there is so much space available after a 2NT raise, it is not surprising that many different playable structures are available.

[manudude03]

Serious or non-serious 3NT should solve most issues where the responder is only invitational (define serious as being a full GF opposite extras), the only issue may be after the start 1M-2NT-3NT in which case you could try inverting the meanings of 4♣ and 4M (i.e 4♣ is invitation, 4M=♣cue). True it only gives the opener 1 or 2 extra bids, but it's better than nothing.

[perko90]

Thanks for the replies so far. I'm still listening