2/1 versus ALL

[Onedown]

I have been recently FORCED to play 2/1 at a club game and now on Bbase. I screamed and kicked all the way and still do not feel comfortable when playing with a new partner and they say 2/1 p?

 

Sure, but do you have 1/2 an hour to discuss all the gadgets???

 

I profile myself as an Expert due to teaching so long, winning some ACBL events in the last millineum and basically being a strong and solid player. But I also have my flaws and senior moments.

 

I am TOLD by "some" 2/1 players., that in a 2/1 GF auction there are no such things as a reverse or high level reverse. I also realized when I started writing this I wanted to make a statement about 2/1, I will get to the reverses later.

 

I have played bridge for almost 50 years, rubber money bridge, teaching SAYC and applications such as opening 4 card H suits. What I see over and over again is that many think that 2/1 is a superior system to Standard American, Goren and SAYC. This is like saying being a Christian is better than being a Buddist, Muslim or Jew.

 

From what I have read and researched, 2/1 was actually introduced for one reason. The ACBL at that time was losing players and needed something that would draw more people. It was a well know fact that the little old ladies were much more comfy with opening 5 card majors.

 

The system was developed (was it Ron Hardy?) incorporating plenty of gadgets (the same gadgets can be applied to SAYC) using the forcing NT and 2/1 game forcing bids.

 

This alleviated playing in 1NT (which is the ultimate contract at MPs) and found many playing in 3-3 minor fits at the 2 level. These are just a couple of flaws of 2/1 but every system has flaws and bridge is not perfect.

 

Bridge is a partnership game, a game of back and forth captaincy and takes more than the ability to blindly follow a system. In todays world, people would rather learn system than basics. This is the ONE reason many players get stuck at their level, they never learned basics.

 

Bridge takes creativity, logic and intuition so when it comes to reverses I am of the opinion those that say there is no such thing in a GF auction need to re-adjuet their thinking and stop being so myopic.

 

1. An auction such as 1d-p-2c-p-2h...I see this as a full reverse...if not then there was ample opportunity for opener to make other calls to limit his hand and the 2H bid may get the contract much too high.

2. I held KT8xx x Jx AKQxx...1S-p-2d---my hand is NOT worth a 3C bid...I bid 2S here as a better lie with a bad spade suit..pard now bids 3S...--I bid 4S and not 4C..p bids RKC and once I bid 5Hs he signs off in 5S..slam is on a spade hook as dummy has J9x of spades and we make 6..a 50% slam.

 

SO all you 2/1 officianados, I welcome all criticsm and comments but no tomatoes please...

[awm]

People were playing five-card majors long before they were playing 2/1. I don't think the "old ladies were more comfortable with five-card majors" has much to do with anything here.

 

Many 2/1 players do consider reverses and high reverses to show extras. This is somewhat a matter of style. It's probably more important to have an understanding as to what the expectation is for various calls than to choose one approach over another.

 

The possibility of playing in a 3-3 minor fit is really pretty miniscule. Partner doesn't normally pass the 2m rebid on three, since he will inevitably have either doubleton in opener's major (should correct) or a five-card suit of his own which he can suggest.

 

The auction 1♦-P-2♣ is somewhat problematic in general. Some 2/1 players don't even play this as game forcing, so I don't think it's a "2/1 problem" per se. If 2♣ is not game-forcing you pretty much have to agree to rebid 2♦ on balanced minimums (otherwise you have to rebid 2NT on balanced minimums and jump to 3NT on balanced maximums, which is awful). I don't think you're in much better shape playing "standard" in this sequence without further discussion.

 

It's true that a lot of 2/1 players play a lot of gadgets, and that it's worth discussing the gadgets. The methods which generally seem to "come with" the system are: forcing notrump, jacoby 2NT, fourth suit forcing to game, new minor forcing, inverted minors, drury. A lot of 2/1 players also use some version of bergen raises and/or weak (or invitational) jump shifts (strong jumps are not very necessary in 2/1).

 

I agree with you about 2/1 being to some degree a matter of "faith" and that a lot of people overemphasize system over judgment. People also make a lot of unfair comparisons between 2/1 with every gadget under the sun and extremely vanilla versions of other systems. And obviously it's important to discuss conventions and sequences in detail when forming a serious partnership regardless of the overall basic approach. But honestly I'd rather sit down with an unknown expert and agree "2/1" than sit down and agree "standard american" -- in the former case at least I know that I will not be summarily dropped in what I think is a forcing auction (there is some dispute among "standard" bidders as to whether sequences like 1♠-2♥-2NT are forcing) and I have some idea what methods partner will probably play (standard bidding, I have no idea whether 1♦-P-2♦ is weak or forcing as it seems to be pretty evenly divided -- virtually all 2/1 players play this as forcing).

[mike777]

I have been recently FORCED to play 2/1 at a club game and now on Bbase. I screamed and kicked all the way and still do not feel comfortable when playing with a new partner and they say 2/1 p?

 

Sure, but do you have 1/2 an hour to discuss all the gadgets???

 

I profile myself as an Expert due to teaching so long, winning some ACBL events in the last millineum and basically being a strong and solid player. But I also have my flaws and senior moments.

 

I am TOLD by "some" 2/1 players., that in a 2/1 GF auction there are no such things as a reverse or high level reverse. I also realized when I started writing this I wanted to make a statement about 2/1, I will get to the reverses later.

 

I have played bridge for almost 50 years, rubber money bridge, teaching SAYC and applications such as opening 4 card H suits. What I see over and over again is that many think that 2/1 is a superior system to Standard American, Goren and SAYC. This is like saying being a Christian is better than being a Buddist, Muslim or Jew.

 

From what I have read and researched, 2/1 was actually introduced for one reason.  The ACBL at that time was losing players and needed something that would draw more people. It was a well know fact that the little old ladies were much more comfy with opening 5 card majors.

 

The system was developed (was it Ron Hardy?) incorporating plenty of gadgets (the same gadgets can be applied to SAYC) using the forcing NT and 2/1 game forcing bids.

 

This alleviated playing in 1NT (which is the ultimate contract at MPs) and found many playing in 3-3 minor fits at the 2 level. These are just a couple of flaws of 2/1 but every system has flaws and bridge is not perfect.

 

Bridge is a partnership game, a game of back and forth captaincy and takes more than the ability to blindly follow a system. In todays world, people would rather learn system than basics. This is the ONE reason many players get stuck at their level, they never learned basics.

 

Bridge takes creativity, logic and intuition so when it comes to reverses I am of the opinion those that say there is no such thing in a GF auction need to re-adjuet their thinking and stop being so myopic.

 

1. An auction such as 1d-p-2c-p-2h...I see this as a full reverse...if not then there was ample opportunity for opener to make other calls to limit his hand and the 2H bid may get the contract much too high.

2. I held KT8xx x Jx AKQxx...1S-p-2d---my hand is NOT worth a 3C bid...I bid 2S here as a better lie  with a bad spade suit..pard now bids 3S...--I bid 4S and not 4C..p bids RKC and once I bid 5Hs he signs off in 5S..slam is on a spade hook as dummy has J9x of spades and we make 6..a 50% slam.

 

SO all you 2/1 officianados, I welcome all criticsm and comments but no tomatoes please...

LOng post but my feeling was you play after 2/1

 

 

2 of major =random weakness or

6 cards minimum.....but 100% game force

 

 

I grant this is a huge huge issue on bbo and in bridge

-------------

 

 

 

what does a "reverse" or 3 level bid after a 2/1....

 

again this is a huge huge debate... on the forum.....and in bridge.

 

 

 

 

1h=2c

 

2h?

=-------

 

 

`1S=2H

3C?

[straube]

I agree with awm.

 

I also think that 4-card majors are much too preemptive. You presumably have a good hand, so why preempt yourself? Some people who play a strong club argue that they preempt their opponents more than themselves, but their opening hands are also much more limited in strength than is the case for Standard American. Btw, I think 1S=5 and 1H=4 is a lot more workable and Barry Crane used it to good effect.

 

I like 1N forcing because it 1)takes advantage that we have something of an anchor suit (in opener's major) to support further fit finding and 2) lets opener have the first crack at continuing to show his pattern. Even if he's only showing a 3-card suit, that's probably better than responder showing a 5-card suit with <GF values. I don't remember the last time I played a 3-3 fit though I've occasionally had to play a 5-1 fit. With 1-5-2-5 and I hear partner open a spade and rebid 2D, the systemic rebid with a weak hand is 2S here (though with great texture I might pretend my heart suit is a 6-card suit).

 

I think you're missing out on the fact that 2/1 GF grants opener the license/obligation to show his pattern...at least at the 2-level. 1H-2C, 2S should not be considered a reverse (promising extra) here. It's more important for opener to show shape at these levels than extra values because we're already in a GF. Plus my feeling (not all agree) is that responder should make a 2/1 with 4 spades and a balanced hand and not respond 1S here because 1) of the difficulty it poses establishing a GF after 1H-1S, 2D and because 2) if one bids spades first and then makes a GF later, the GF simultaneously then shows a fifth spade. I.e. responder is very likely to be interested in knowing of a fourth spade.

 

But while a 2/1 gives opener license to show his shape, he ought to show restraint doing so at the 3-level. Most people will show a 5/5, but if your understanding is to suppress minimum 5/5s then at least your 3-level bids will be more meaningful when you make them. Space is much tighter there.

 

I would think you would like being able to rebid 2H with Ax KQxxx xx AJx after hearing partner's 2C bid without fear of being passed. If it were a SA 2/1, I'm not even sure what I would do with this. Rebid 2N? Should be forcing but many play not. Raise 3C? Very directional. Should be forcing but many play not.

 

And after 1H-2C, 2H you might hear partner rebid 2N (13-14 or 18-19) and then you can happily rebid 3C. You can add meaning to your bids because you're allowed to temporize.

[whereagles]

personal view:

 

2/1 + little or no discussion of subsequent bidding = recipe for disaster/divorce (delete where appropriate)

[gordontd]

Some 2/1 players (the majority I think) play that reverses after 2/1 response do not show extra. This allows them to bid out their shape, and it allows them to insist on six-card suits when opener rebids their suit. However, it also makes it harder for them to divine when opener has extra values.

 

Others play that reverses & high reverses in 2/1 auctions do show extra. They find it easier to assess extra strength, but they have to allow simple rebids on five-card suits and/or 2NT rebids on imperfect hands.

 

One (minority) way to try to have your cake & eat it is to reverse the meanings of 2NT & 2M rebids in 2/1 auctions: a 2NT rebid shows a 6+ card suit, and a 2M rebid shows a 5 card suit in a balanced hand or in an unbalanced hand without extras.

[Onedown]

Straube hits the nail on the head...1S with 5, 1H can be 4..and if all time MP player Barry Crane had succsess with it, then why not?

 

I agree allowing patterns to be shown is the way to go, but so is HCP size....so 2/1 sometimes takes the "extra values" bids a bit too far...again the reverses..

 

With the club/spade hand, I play with pards, we open a club here and over 1d or 1H a spade bid now shows 4 VERY good spades or 5 spades...subsequently if P pushes on, 2S on my next bid patterns my hand.

[mcphee]

The camp is split on the opportunity to reverse. I happen to strongly prefer that you have extra values as it permits you an easier way to reach slams in a minor. This is not just my opinion, but there are a ton of players who do not feel this way.

 

As for opening 5 card S and 4 card H I was always a lover of this particular method, but cares. As for losing the ability to play in 1NT the answer is quite easy, just play 1NT semi forcing, how hard can that be? There are plenty of players who already have adopted this. With todays rather skinny openings it is not such a bad idea.

 

Methods evolve. As one person once said, I have a ranch so large it takes 2 days to drive across, to which the other person replied, oh, we gave up those cars years ago.

Even the methods you spoke of with regard to 5S and 4H evolved when players did not see the value of opening 1S with 4-4 majors.

 

2/1 is just more accurate than sayc. Do you think for a nano second that the majority of high level players would use it if it wasn't? I learned about 2/1 in a 5 min phone chat with fred G, it was worth it. For me, I threw away fishing nets with less holes than sayc.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Having played four main types of relatively natural bidding (standard, 2/1, KS, and Precision), I don't see all that much difference between any of them. I mean, sure. Each has it pros and cons, and each caters more to one type of sequence and one type of goal that the other, and each has tweaks necessary to resolve problems. But, the four archetype natural systems (and I consider Precision very natural as to major openings) all seem relatively workable.

 

One thing I do see, however, is that snatural approaches seem to me to be much more oriented to control description in the slam zome than pattern. What I mean is a bit different than may be read. You can show pattern with a natural approach, but a natural approach seems to put the partnership at an early disadvantage when it comes to pattern completion.

 

Maybe comparison explains better.

 

Suppose that natural sequences end up with relatively equal lines at a certain point, whether the sequence converts to control-based or pattern-based. This is debatable, but let's assume this.

 

Canape sequences reaching a similar point are less suited structurally for (or less able to capitalize on) pure control description but are better placed than natural at that point for pattern development.

 

I mean, if you think about developments in standard or 2/1, there are a lot of responder-side canape-inspired actions (like Walsh, two-way NMF, etc) that provide ideal solutions for pattern-based problems, at the possible cost of control description. This principlealso works, therefore, in the non-slam situations.

 

If you want to have system enhance pattern description, then, I think more canapes are the way to go. If you think that pattern description is fairly good but want to stress more control description, but not at the cost of pattern management, a natural (perhaps 2/1) approach works, with some canape-type tweaking adding substantially to the cause.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

What is the problem? If you do not like 2/1, do not agree to play it.

 

That being said, do you really think that playing Goren or some other system will suddenly turn your newfound partner into a good bidder? :)

 

I like to have extra values to bid a reverse or a high reverse, some 2/1 players do not.

 

The legendary Blue Team of old walked into a late session(with a huge lead) and stated that they would be playing standard american.

 

If you have a reasonable system, you should get good results. If you do not have good agreements, you will get some interesting stories to tell.

 

Several decades ago I agreed to play with a new club player from England. I did not know Acol and he did not know Standard American. As we were filling up a convention card, I mentioned that I played an assortment of major opening styles.

Blue Team 4M with Q10xx biddable suits. My new partner tore up the convention card and filled out another card with Blue Team Club at the top.

 

An Englishman and an American first played together using an Italian system.

No misunderstandings and we also placed first.

 

I very much dislike playing with a new partner without some time to fill out a card and discuss style. 30 minutes will barely cover the high points.

 

Regards,

Robert

[PrecisionL]

2. I held KT8xx x Jx AKQxx...1S-p-2d---my hand is NOT worth a 3C bid...I bid 2S here as a better lie  with a bad spade suit..pard now bids 3S...--I bid 4S and not 4C..p bids RKC and once I bid 5Hs he signs off in 5S..slam is on a spade hook as dummy has J9x of spades and we make 6..a 50% slam.

 

SO all you 2/1 officianados, I welcome all criticsm and comments but no tomatoes please...

With a minimum hand consider opening 1C and rebidding Spades to avoid distorting the strength.

[glen]

... From what I have read and researched, 2/1 was actually introduced for one reason. The ACBL at that time was losing players and needed something that would draw more people. It was a well know fact that the little old ladies were much more comfy with opening 5 card majors.

 

The system was developed (was it Ron Hardy?) ...

what did you read and research to give you this misguided view?

[kenrexford]

Ron Hardy is Max's secret squirrel theorist brother, who is well-known to have launched 2/1 GF in an attempt to corrupt american bidding back into the lazy days when the Italians ruled the world.

 

I mean, look into this guy Max, himself. His business history suggests possible contacts with unsavory types. Ron, however, was the darker, less respectable brother, who learned his bridge primarily while playing at the Havanna Whist Club. Some even think that Papa Hardy was tied in with the conspiracy to get back at JFK, for a reason that has been buried by the press.

 

You see, Papa Hardy and his main partner at the time, Fidel, used to play bridge with Jack and Bobby, until Bobby failed to alert 2NT after Stayman as possibly not having a 4-card major. When Fidel decided to lead a club, walking straight into what is now called the Havanna Coup, Jack laughed while Bobby and Papa Hardy argued about the failure to alert. This resulted in an ugly mess, with eventually Fidel jumping in, which resulted in a strange argument, then, between Papa and Fidel. The whole thing ended the Thursday-night game, and the partnership ended.

 

Strangely, though, Ron took Fidel's side, somewhat because of his rebelllious nature and problems with his father, Papa Hardy. This resulted in his idea, with Fidel, to try to ess with American bridge theory, using the ruse of "expert practice" to lure first the pros and then the intermediates. Of course, anything called "Standard American" would be despised by Fidel (who had ironically had his very foundational ideas for SAYC stolen by a young player at the time, Chuck G.).

 

The "yellow card" idea, BTW, is well-known to have originated as the card of the "yellow journalists" (also journalist leads, for that matter) during the early days of Cuban bridge. That idea surfaced again during the early Bush years, because of the number of players in Guantanamo Bay.

[babalu1997]

Ron Hardy is Max's secret squirrel theorist brother, who is well-known to have launched 2/1 GF in an attempt to corrupt american bidding back into the lazy days when the Italians ruled the world.

 

I mean, look into this guy Max, himself. His business history suggests possible contacts with unsavory types. Ron, however, was the darker, less respectable brother, who learned his bridge primarily while playing at the Havanna Whist Club. Some even think that Papa Hardy was tied in with the conspiracy to get back at JFK, for a reason that has been buried by the press.

 

You see, Papa Hardy and his main partner at the time, Fidel, used to play bridge with Jack and Bobby, until Bobby failed to alert 2NT after Stayman as possibly not having a 4-card major. When Fidel decided to lead a club, walking straight into what is now called the Havanna Coup, Jack laughed while Bobby and Papa Hardy argued about the failure to alert. This resulted in an ugly mess, with eventually Fidel jumping in, which resulted in a strange argument, then, between Papa and Fidel. The whole thing ended the Thursday-night game, and the partnership ended.

 

Strangely, though, Ron took Fidel's side, somewhat because of his rebelllious nature and problems with his father, Papa Hardy. This resulted in his idea, with Fidel, to try to ess with American bridge theory, using the ruse of "expert practice" to lure first the pros and then the intermediates. Of course, anything called "Standard American" would be despised by Fidel (who had ironically had his very foundational ideas for SAYC stolen by a young player at the time, Chuck G.).

 

The "yellow card" idea, BTW, is well-known to have originated as the card of the "yellow journalists" (also journalist leads, for that matter) during the early days of Cuban bridge. That idea surfaced again during the early Bush years, because of the number of players in Guantanamo Bay.

this is well documented in the Amnesty international website.

 

the pictures of people playing bridge in abu grahb have been censored and that is why google is leaving china.

 

2/1 has led, among other things to current financial crisis because freddiemac gave loans to people who could not repay because the houses were built so as to prevent people from sitting with the bathtub while playing at bbo.

 

scary.

[Onedown]

... From what I have read and researched, 2/1 was actually introduced for one reason.  The ACBL at that time was losing players and needed something that would draw more people. It was a well know fact that the little old ladies were much more comfy with opening 5 card majors.

 

The system was developed (was it Ron Hardy?) ...

what did you read and research to give you this misguided view?

How should I know...60 years on this planet and buzzing through the 60s years I have trouble remembering what century this is!

[Jlall]

Ron Hardy is Max's secret squirrel theorist brother, who is well-known to have launched 2/1 GF in an attempt to corrupt american bidding back into the lazy days when the Italians ruled the world.

Love those Hardy boys!

[junyi_zhu]

I have been recently FORCED to play 2/1 at a club game and now on Bbase. I screamed and kicked all the way and still do not feel comfortable when playing with a new partner and they say 2/1 p?

 

Sure, but do you have 1/2 an hour to discuss all the gadgets???

 

I profile myself as an Expert due to teaching so long, winning some ACBL events in the last millineum and basically being a strong and solid player. But I also have my flaws and senior moments.

 

I am TOLD by "some" 2/1 players., that in a 2/1 GF auction there are no such things as a reverse or high level reverse. I also realized when I started writing this I wanted to make a statement about 2/1, I will get to the reverses later.

 

I have played bridge for almost 50 years, rubber money bridge, teaching SAYC and applications such as opening 4 card H suits. What I see over and over again is that many think that 2/1 is a superior system to Standard American, Goren and SAYC. This is like saying being a Christian is better than being a Buddist, Muslim or Jew.

 

From what I have read and researched, 2/1 was actually introduced for one reason. The ACBL at that time was losing players and needed something that would draw more people. It was a well know fact that the little old ladies were much more comfy with opening 5 card majors.

 

The system was developed (was it Ron Hardy?) incorporating plenty of gadgets (the same gadgets can be applied to SAYC) using the forcing NT and 2/1 game forcing bids.

 

This alleviated playing in 1NT (which is the ultimate contract at MPs) and found many playing in 3-3 minor fits at the 2 level. These are just a couple of flaws of 2/1 but every system has flaws and bridge is not perfect.

 

Bridge is a partnership game, a game of back and forth captaincy and takes more than the ability to blindly follow a system. In todays world, people would rather learn system than basics. This is the ONE reason many players get stuck at their level, they never learned basics.

 

Bridge takes creativity, logic and intuition so when it comes to reverses I am of the opinion those that say there is no such thing in a GF auction need to re-adjuet their thinking and stop being so myopic.

 

1. An auction such as 1d-p-2c-p-2h...I see this as a full reverse...if not then there was ample opportunity for opener to make other calls to limit his hand and the 2H bid may get the contract much too high.

2. I held KT8xx x Jx AKQxx...1S-p-2d---my hand is NOT worth a 3C bid...I bid 2S here as a better lie with a bad spade suit..pard now bids 3S...--I bid 4S and not 4C..p bids RKC and once I bid 5Hs he signs off in 5S..slam is on a spade hook as dummy has J9x of spades and we make 6..a 50% slam.

 

SO all you 2/1 officianados, I welcome all criticsm and comments but no tomatoes please...

Well, to achieve certain bidding accuracies, one has to incorporate the high reverse concept. Also, to my knowledge, I don't know any top level 2/1 players who don't play a high reverse showing extra, please correct me if I am wrong. 1NT doesn't have to be forcing in 2/1. The general idea of 2/1 is to make better slam bidding in the sacrifice of the accuracy of partials, which is a very sound principle in IMP scoring format IMO.

[bftboy]

As a longtime standard player, I'd add that there are 3 big areas you must agree on with P to play 2/1 effectively. First, are all 2/1 auctions truly game forcing? If not, which ones aren't and what do you do with them. 2nd, does a simple rebid of my major after a 2/1 promise 6 trumps or does it show a minimum balanced hand? and 3d, do we play reverses after a 2/1? To me, the answers are no, balanced, and yes, followed by suitable discussion. Also, IMO, 1NT forcing is the cornerstone of 2/1 and I wouldn't play 2/1 without it.

 

If you have these agreements in place, then I believe 2/1 will obtain better long-term results at any form of scoring than SAYC or standard with comparable agreements in place. I agree that the emphasis in 2/1 in in reaching biddable games and slams is esp. valuable at IMPs. :)

[hanp]

If 4-card majors were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for me.

[kenrexford]

If 4-card majors were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for me.

Yeah, but that guy could get all 13 tricks from three queens and a jack.

[hanp]

<joke about criss-cross squeeze deleted.>

[cherdanno]

<joke about criss-cross squeeze deleted.>

The moderators.