Simple 2/1 using 3/1

[Jboling]

When thinking about a simple 2/1-based system that could be taught to beginners, I came up with the following. It could also be useful for pickup partnerships, there's lot to be won by avoiding misunderstandings.

 

1. Natural openings

2. 2/1 response game forcing

3. 3/1 response invitational, promising a 6 card suit. Max Hardy uses this in his 2/1 version for 1♦-3♣, so that 1♦-2♣ can be game forcing. You can extend it to major openings.

4. 2NT response natural invitational

5. 1NT response natural non-forcing

6. Some basic conventions as Stayman, Blackwood, 2♦ negative after 2♣ opening, and probably 2NT asking after weak twos.

7. Everything else is natural.

 

Wouldn't that be simple but still quite effective? One could maybe call it 3/1, as it doesn't include 1NT forcing.

 

You need Fourth Suit Forcing, negative doubles, and some version of Checkback to bid effectively, but these are probably not for beginners. Inverted minor raises could also be added to that list, but it is probably not as important.

 

Note that it works together with both 5 card and 4 card major openings, as long as 1NT response is non-forcing.

 

Jari Boling, Turku, Finland.

[Gerben42]

Here's the catch. The trick works for 1♦ - 2♣ since you can always bid a 4-card major with invitational 5 - 4 shapes. However if you are invitational with 5♥ 4♣ after 1♠, 3♥ does not work well as a response! Guess you need 1NT semiforcing after all...

[lowerline]

Here's the catch. The trick works for 1♦ - 2♣ since you can always bid a 4-card major with invitational 5 - 4 shapes. However if you are invitational with 5♥ 4♣ after 1♠, 3♥ does not work well as a response! Guess you need 1NT semiforcing after all...

After a 1Major opening you can play 3minor as invitational. After a 1♠ opening you can reverse the meanings of 2♦ and 2♥. 2♦ shows 10+ and 5+ hearts and 2♥ is a GF with diamonds.

 

Steven

[foo]

If you are going to play 2/1 GF, you need to make a 1N response Forcing or Semi-forcing. There's really no way around it since at the least all the invitational hands w/o a 6+ card suit are going to need bids as well.

 

If you play 1N Forcing, you have the problems related to "the Flannery hand" =4522 w/ 11-15 HCP (ie not strong enough to reverse).

"Solutions" include:

a= ignoring the problem. OR

b= sometimes rebidding your 5 card H suit and having the agreement that CHO is not allowed to pass your perhaps 2 card C suit 2C rebid w/o 5 C's.

There are problems with both solutions.

 

If you play 1N Semi-Forcing, you will have problems with minimum GF hands w/o a good suit for a 2/1. All the Flat 12-14's or 15's come to mind. Fred has written some good articles on why 2/1ing on both 5432 and AKQxxx puts the partnership in an impossible situation. Solutions to this problem aren't easy or completely satisfactory either.

 

IMHO 1N Semi Forcing is better since

a= Sometimes 1N is the right contract

b= The Flannery hand seem to cause worse problems then the other situation

but the whole issue is controversial amongst the good 2/1 players I know. YMMV.

 

Hope this is useful,

Foo

[Jboling]

Thanks for the responses! The system was not supposed to be a perfect system, but a very simple one. And you will get problems with certain distributions. There are distributions that give problems when using semiforcing or forcing 1NT.

 

The invitational 3/1 does solve some problems too, for example 1♠-1NT(forcing)-2♥-oops, 3♣ and 3♦ are no longer invitational, have to bid 2NT.

 

Jari

[foo]

The invitational 3/1 does solve some problems too, for example 1♠-1NT(forcing)-2♥-oops, 3♣ and 3♦ are no longer invitational, have to bid 2NT.

Ummm, If the 3/1's are IJS (Intermediate Jump Shifts) showing invitational values and 6+ cards, wouldn't 1♠-1N;2♥-3m show an invitational hand and =5= cards?

 

Say something like x.xxx.KQxxx.AQxxx ?

 

2N could then show invitational hands that were less shapely, say something like

xx.Kxx.Kxx.Axxxx or Ax.Ax.Kxxx.xxxxx

 

Playing this style, your only options with a minimum responding hand after 1♠-1N;2♥-?? would be to pass or take a preference to 2♠

 

Since the Forcing or Semi forcing 1N response has the known problem of hiding Responder's shape on many occasions, IMHO the style I'm suggesting is better.

[Jboling]

Ummm, If the 3/1's are IJS (Intermediate Jump Shifts) showing invitational values and 6+ cards, wouldn't  1♠-1N;2♥-3m  show an invitational hand and =5= cards?

Sorry, I was unclear, this was an example of where a 3/1 would be more accurate than standard 2/1, where you bid 1NT with the IJS hand. Then a non-jump bid in a new suit on the 3 level is weak (at least in the systems I have seen), and you would have to bid 2NT also with a 6 card suit to show your strength.

 

My personal preference is also semi-forcing 1NT. But my aim with this system was primarily beginners, who could gain from a system with little conventions and intuitive and well limited bids. They could then focus on improving bidding logic instead of remembering conventions. Game forcing 2/1 is definetely simpler than 10+ 2/1, and 2/1 GF is a good base for practicing your bidding logic, when all you have to remember is to not pass a bid below game. And a nonforcing 1NT is also simpler than forcing or semiforcing 1NT. And you can fill in the gap in between with 3/1 as IJS and 2NT covering the rest; it has its flaws but so has all systems. The main problem is probably as Gerben said the invitational hands with 4-5 hearts after 1♠ opening, and it is probably best solved by bidding 1NT instead of 2NT. But that can wait until one are ready to add Jacoby 2NT to ones system. On the other hand, you could also gain something by having sequences like 1♠-2NT-3NT, when you get a unbid-major-lead into your 5 card suit. And you also gain in competive situations when 1NT is better limited. And most important, beginners will gain a lot if they avoid misunderstandings.

 

PS. I was not my intention to add two-level IJS to the system, its easier if they are strong IMO. So you would need the term invitational 3/1 to distinguish it from IJS.

[MickyB]

- Playing IJS at the 3 level only is quite common with 2/1 GF. I've heard of people referring to their system as "3 over 1 constructive"

 

- 2/1 GF may help beginners reach games in the short term, but I'm not convinced it will help them progress. It isn't teaching them logic, it is giving them a safety net - the knowledge that their partner won't pass. In my experience, most beginner/intermediate 2/1ers don't know how to show extra strength on a lot of handtypes, which will be a problem when they want to start finding their slams.

 

- The invitational 2NT isn't really needed - 1NT then 2NT does the job just fine if you put 5M332 with 14 points into your 1NT opener, although I guess you probably don't need 2NT for anything else in a beginner system.

[Fluffy]

When thinking about a simple 2/1-based system that could be taught to beginners, I came up with the following. It could also be useful for pickup partnerships, there's lot to be won by avoiding misunderstandings.

 

1. Natural openings

2. 2/1 response game forcing

3. 3/1 response invitational, promising a 6 card suit. Max Hardy uses this in his 2/1 version for 1♦-3♣, so that 1♦-2♣ can be game forcing. You can extend it to major openings.

4. 2NT response natural invitational

5. 1NT response natural non-forcing

6. Some basic conventions as Stayman, Blackwood, 2♦ negative after 2♣ opening, and probably 2NT asking after weak twos.

7. Everything else is natural.

 

Wouldn't that be simple but still quite effective? One could maybe call it 3/1, as it doesn't include 1NT forcing.

 

You need Fourth Suit Forcing, negative doubles, and some version of Checkback to bid effectively, but these are probably not for beginners. Inverted minor raises could also be added to that list, but it is probably not as important.

 

Note that it works together with both 5 card and 4 card major openings, as long as 1NT response is non-forcing.

 

Jari Boling, Turku, Finland.

I really love this one for beginners

[ArcLight]

In Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD and books, he covers a large number of bididng sequences, and discusses the subtle differences between two auctions that were bid differently, but end up in the same contract. I took 11 pages of notes.

I personally this 2/1 is far too complex to teach a beginner.

 

A beginner lacks very basic skills, and using a complex (even somewhat scaled down) system is unlikely to help them. I think its very likely there will be all sorts of bidding disasters. I think they would be better off with the simplest system you can teach, and let them play cards for a while.

 

>You need Fourth Suit Forcing, negative doubles, and some version of Checkback to bid effectively, but these are probably not for beginners. Inverted minor raises could also be added to that list, but it is probably not as important.

 

I wouldn't teach a beginner any convention other than perhaps:

Stayman

Takeout Double

maybe Blackwood? (forget slam bidding for now)

 

Gerben has a simple system called "The Big NT" system.

 

How simple is "Standard American" compared to "Acol" or something else?

 

4 Card Majors require a lot of judgement, but I think they its supposed to be simpler than 5 Card Majors.