General 2/1 Style

[mtvesuvius]

A hand came up today where arguably we could have avoided a bad grand slam, had we been able to know how many cards in the 2/1 suit, responder is showing.

 

What minimum length do you prefer to use for 2♣/2♦/2♥ in response to 1♠?

What minimum length do you prefer to use for 2♣/2♦ in response to 1♥?

 

This would be in a fairly standard 2/1 context without any relays etc. 14-16 NT opening if it matters.

[Echognome]

I personally prefer an artificial 2♣ where 2♣ shows clubs or balanced GF and you discuss the follow-ups, leaving 2♦ as 5+.

[uday]

Usually, people play 1M-P-2N as artificial. That limits the possibilities.

 

Fred G wrote a few articles a while back, trying to convince us all that 2N should be natural and suit responses should show length & quality.

 

But in a 1N-semi-forcing, 2N jacoby context, you're kind of stuck .

 

You wind up needing to bid 2c on 3 ( or 2H on 4, or 1N with megavalues ).

 

After 1S, for instance, with 3433 and 13 HCP , what can u do but bid 2C, lacking specialized agreements?

 

My partnership tries to solve these issues by allowing big raises on 3 trump. Another set of issues :)

[matmat]

Barring any agreements concerning 3 card gf raises in the majors,

1♠ - 2♣/2♦/2♥ 3/3.5/5 ( 3=4=(42) responds in the longer minor, 3=4=3=3 responds in clubs, with some discretion regarding suit quality.)

 

1♥- 2♣/2♦ - 3/3.5 ( ignoring any discussions of the merits of responding 2/1 holding four spades, 4=3=(42) responds longer minor, 4=3=3=3, clubs, again, with some concern regarding suit fragment quality)

 

I would not assume a 2♣ response as 2+, i.e. balanced GF or GF with clubs in an undiscussed pship, though I like the idea.

[gwnn]

2/5/5

2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)

[mtvesuvius]

Barring any agreements concerning 3 card gf raises in the majors,

1♠ - 2♣/2♦/2♥ 3/3.5/5 ( 3=4=(42) responds in the longer minor, 3=4=3=3 responds in clubs, with some discretion regarding suit quality.)

 

1♥- 2♣/2♦ - 3/3.5 ( ignoring any discussions of the merits of responding 2/1 holding four spades, 4=3=(42) responds longer minor, 4=3=3=3, clubs, again, with some concern regarding suit fragment quality)

 

I would not assume a 2♣ response as 2+, i.e. balanced GF or GF with clubs in an undiscussed pship, though I like the idea.

 

What would you bid with something like AKx Axxx Qxx xxx?

[matmat]

What would you bid with something like AKx Axxx Qxx xxx?

 

2♣ ;) (ask again tomorrow)

 

Axx Axx Jxxx KQT ?

[kayin801]

2/5/5

2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)

 

Prefer this, but would bid 1♠ with 4♠ and a balanced hand.

 

If you aren't playing 2NT as a forcing raise and are instead using it as nat balanced GF, then I think your club length increases to 4 or 5?

 

I would bid 2♣ on that last hand, partner knows I can have it and heck, sometimes it stops them from leading clubs against NT ;P

[andy_h]

2/5/5

2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)

+1. Although admittedly I have bid 1S-2C with 3541.

[bucky]

What would you bid with something like AKx Axxx Qxx xxx?

1NT followed by 4♠, in the context of absolutely forcing 1NT. This leaves 2/1 suit quality/length better defined.

 

I realize this is not ideal either. My preferred solution is to use 2NT as balanced GF hand, and use alternative bids for 4+ card forcing raise.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

The top player ( jobanjo ) in the old MSN Bridge Club always guaranteed at least 5 cards in the 2/1 GF suit.

 

Subsequently, she overloaded the 1NTF(orcing) response with as much as 18 hcp.

 

( I never did find out her follow-ups to that system ).

[Zelandakh]

The top player ( jobanjo ) in the old MSN Bridge Club always guaranteed at least 5 cards in the 2/1 GF suit.

 

Subsequently, she overloaded the 1NTF(orcing) response with as much as 18 hcp.

 

( I never did find out her follow-ups to that system ).

Overloading F1NT response is a bad idea imho - it is already a fairly difficult convention to use. Fred's method is much better. With J2NT I would assume 2/5/5, 2/5 with a random CHO. I think Dan Neill's 2/1 notes are as good as any and give a reasonable approximation of 'Standard'.

[paulg]

I prefer 2/5/5 but I would regard 3/4/5 as standard.

 

A year or two ago I asked about the response to 1♠ holding something like ♠Kx ♥AKQ10 ♦AQ10 ♣xxxx. This caused me a problem in a non-relay context as introducing four small in a potential slam auction did not seem ideal. So whatever you play there will always be hands that might lead you astray.

[Free]

I definitely prefer 1♥-2♦ and 1♠-2♦/♥ as 5+ cards. This makes the 2♣ response short and encompasses: hands with ♣, balanced hands, and some hands with support. This is much superior imo than just bid 4 card suits. Yes, the ♣ suit gets lost more and more each day, but the other suits work better. Best is to agree on continuations after 1M-2♣, but even without them you'll be able to manage easily.

 

I know people who put their GF hands without a biddable 5 card suit in their forcing 1NT response. This way, a 2/1 always shows 5+ cards in that suit. However I don't like the way they have to bid with balanced GF hands, because opener's 2m rebid is hardly natural (1♥-1NT-2♣ can easily be a doubleton in a 4-5-2-2).

[Flameous]

I like 255 and I respond in that style even without agreement about it, cause it pretty much never causes any problems and gives more space on most of the hands. I like it even though my partner doesn't actually get the advantage of knowing red suit bids are always 5.

In my new regular partnership 2C is relay, so it can be potentially done with even more hand types although still defined as 255.

 

About overloading F1 NT, I don't see it as a really big problem, although it depends a bit on the context. With limited openings you are practically never harmed with 1NT including a flat raise to 4M, at least I don't know about any other definition for 1S - 1NT - 2x - 4S that you might want to use. You are unlikely to come to any harm by it in natural system if you use Gazzilli, as you can dedicate one response showing exactly that. Without gazzilli you have problems after jumpshifts though as opener won't exactly play you for that handtype.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Overloading F1NT response is a bad idea imho - it is already a fairly difficult convention to use. Fred's method is much better. With J2NT I would assume 2/5/5, 2/5 with a random CHO. I think Dan Neill's 2/1 notes are as good as any and give a reasonable approximation of 'Standard'.

 

I just happen to have DANIEL'S 2/1 Structure in my files....

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/

[Phil]

I prefer a natural 2N + 2♣ = 4+, 2 red = 5+

 

I also think Flannery works well with this approach.

[mgoetze]

I personally prefer an artificial 2♣ where 2♣ shows clubs or balanced GF and you discuss the follow-ups, leaving 2♦ as 5+.

 

Indeed I even like to stick my 3-card invitational raise in there.

 

1♠-2♣-2♦: Any minimum

1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠: I had a 3-card invite, but hey we can stop at the 2-level

1♠-2♣-2♦-2NT: Balanced GF

1♠-2♣-2♦-anything else: GF with clubs

[mtvesuvius]

I'll have to dig up Fred's writeup about playing 2N as Natural and Forcing. That seems like a really good idea, and having 1M-Cheapest J/S as the GF raise works pretty well it seems. Is there really any good way to sort out the minor suits after 1M-2♣ as 2+♣? It seems like most of the time they are hopelessly lost.

 

Also, when showing a Balanced GF with 3M, how do you do that but keep 3N in the picture, such as a hand similar to the one I posted in the "Play 4S" thread:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat853hajtdtca876&n=sk42h9752dakjcqj4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2cp3cp]266|200[/hv]

 

Or is this something that you choose to give up on by playing this way? I am also assuming you are using 1M-3N as a good 1M-4M call, otherwise I suppose you could try 3N with the North hand above...

[bucky]

I just happen to have DANIEL'S 2/1 Structure in my files....

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/

Except that geocities web site has closed...

[bucky]

I'll have to dig up Fred's writeup about playing 2N as Natural and Forcing. That seems like a really good idea, and having 1M-Cheapest J/S as the GF raise works pretty well it seems.

It depends on the rest of your system preferences. For pairs that use 1♠-3♣ as Bergen raise, this works great -- they only need to adopt a simple change of using 3♦ and 3♥ as Bergen raises. But if they use 3♣ for something else (one popular treatment is to show invitational hand with clubs and no spade support), they would have to find another bid for forcing raise.

[Zelandakh]

Except that geocities web site has closed...

It is now here. Fred's notes for 2/1 structure are available on BBO. At least they are there for the downloaded client version, not sure about the new Flash window as I can never find links to anything there.

[bucky]

It is now here. Fred's notes for 2/1 structure are available on BBO. At least they are there for the downloaded client version, not sure about the new Flash window as I can never find links to anything there.

Thank you.

[fromageGB]

In principle, a 2/1 guarantees a 5 card suit. However ...

 

I think you need a bid to show a 16+ count that has no 5 card suit to make a genuine 2/1, and for me this is 2♣. So 2♣ is either a 13+ 5+ card suit, ar a 16+ without necessarily having clubs, and 2♦ finds out what it is.

A 2♦ response to 1M has to be a 5+ card suit.

 

I think it makes it much easier when you know the length of the suit.

 

Simple hands like the quoted ♠Kx ♥AKQ10 ♦AQ10 ♣xxxx go 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ (showing 16+ with exactly 4 hearts) and the quoted ♠K42 ♥9752 ♦AKJ ♣QJ4 goes 1♠ 3♣ to show 13-15 with 3 card support.

 

This is in the context of a Bergen raise environment where the 4 card major raises are 3M-1 and 3M-2, and 2M+1 is a 4 card support GF shortage inquiry (Jacoby), so we use 2M+2 for a 13-15 3 card support, with 16+ 3 card support going into the 2♣ 16+ options.