What *is* the argument for a 2/1GF system?

[Jinksy]

I've seen a lot of assertions that it's better, but very little reasoning to show it.

 

I recently read Bridge in the Enigma Club by Peter Winkler, which recommends non-forcing 2/1s; he's a cryptographer rather than a world class player, but I didn't find his arguments any less persuasive than those I've heard for the reverse.

 

I assume it's agreed that when playing 2/1 you gain vs the alt whenever you make a 2/1 bid (except on marginal hands where you have to force to game without knowing enough about P's hand to know if your values are working), and lose whenever you bid 1N (or canape as a result of insufficient strength). Most hands presumably fit into the latter category, so presumably the argument is that the gain is sufficient to outweigh this.

 

But it only seems to help significantly on slam-seeking hands, which are a pretty small minority. Sure, you might bid games more accurately on occasion, but that seems rare, and is offset partially by the fact that since the defence plays a greater role in games than slam, you're also helping them when your bidding is more detailed.

 

I'm not against 2/1 as a GF per se - I don't really have a view. But I'd really like to hear some decent arguments either way.

[whereagles]

2/1 GF has a slight advantage on some slam auctions. Classic 2/1 F1 has some advantages on lower level auctions.

 

 

Example of 2/1 GF advantages:

 

1M 2x

2y 3x <-- can get messy if responder has 12+ and 3x is not forcing.

 

 

Example of 2/1 F1 advantages:

 

1S 2H <-- done with 10-11 hcp.

raise

 

(In 2/1 GF it could go 1S-1NT-2x-2NT-pass and hearts would be lost.)

 

 

By the way, the auction

 

1M 2x

2M 3M

 

is forcing in BOTH systems. Why? Because an invitational hand with 3 card support usually bids 1M-3M in a 2/1 F1 system.

[aguahombre]

My argument is simple. I don't know all the theoretical reasons for one system or another. But I do know we have been playing 2/1 for a lot of years and have added good things, taken out awkward things, and developed so many specialized agreements (dependent on other parts of the system) that I am too old to start from scratch with something different.

 

I can imagine people doing the same thing with whatever basic approach they choose, so IMO for me to debate what is "better" would be silly (for me).

[Jinksy]

Where are the evangelists when I need 'em? :P

[nigel_k]

Slams and choice of game hands are important and swing a lot of IMPs. I wouldn't underestimate that.

 

But many people overestimate what 2/1 bidders lose when they respond 1NT. For example:

 

- If responder invites in NT and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 2NT.

- If invites in the major and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 3 of the major which is probably better.

- If responder has a rebiddable suit and less than GF, then the 2/1 bidders can respond 3 of a minor directly then that's a loss for 2/1 because those bids can't be used for something else. But game forcing hands with a strong minor are a real problem if rebidding the suit is not game forcing.

- If opener raises the response and responder passes, usually there will be a similar auction to three of a minor after 1NT, e.g. 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♦ vs 1♠-2♦-3♦.

[Jinksy]

I've been discussing with my regular P in particular whether it would help out with Fantunes sequences to have non-GF 2/1. It certainly seems like it would solve a lot of problems with the huge range in responder's hand. Neither of us can see whether it will cause even bigger problems elsewhere.

[awm]

I've been discussing with my regular P in particular whether it would help out with Fantunes sequences to have non-GF 2/1. It certainly seems like it would solve a lot of problems with the huge range in responder's hand. Neither of us can see whether it will cause even bigger problems elsewhere.

 

I'd say definitely not on this one. Playing 2/1 helps you when you have the GF hands and hurts you when you don't. Given that you are playing Fantunes-style (i.e. sound openings) responder's GF hands are going to be quite frequent, much more so than in a traditional system. With this in mind I think it makes very little sense to play non-GF 2/1 sequences in Fantunes.

 

It's not a coincidence that the rise of 2/1 as an "expert standard" method has happened at more or less the same time as IMP events have taken over from matchpoints in many tournament (and even some club) competitions. IMP events emphasize accurate slam bidding over delicate invitational or part-score auctions, which is a good thing for a method like 2/1 (which shines in slam bidding and sometimes struggles finding the best partial).

 

Perhaps the biggest advantages of 2/1 are not actually anything about the system itself. The fact is that most good players today have more experience with 2/1 than they do with any particular method that doesn't include non-GF 2/1 bids. In the context of a short-term partnership where one doesn't want to spend many hours discussing sequences, it is simply much easier to play 2/1. In addition, a great deal of the development of popular methods in the last decade or two has focused on mitigating some of the problems with the 2/1 system. Obviously similar fixes can/do exist for methods without GF 2/1s, but they are less widely-known, less has been written about them, and the follow-ups may be less fully developed.

 

Personally I do prefer a structure with invitational-plus 2/1 bids in my serious partnerships, somewhat bucking the trend in the forums. There are a few reasons for this. First, with the tendency towards lighter and lighter openings, I find that frequency favors my approach (obviously this would not apply in Fantunes). If partner's opening lots of ten-counts, the somewhat icky forcing-notrump range gets wider (and more frequent) while the GF range becomes rarer. Second, I personally play a lot of matchpoint and BAM events, to the extent that I'd rather play a system that's more optimized for these events than one which is more optimized for IMPs. Third, I'm fond of tinkering with system and don't mind at all playing "non-mainstream" stuff that helps my methods.

[blackshoe]

It helps to define what you're talking about. "Is a simple two level response to a one level suit opening better if it's game forcing, or better if it's only invitational?" is one question. "Is 2/1 GF (the bidding system) better than <some other system in which 2/1 is not GF>?" is another question entirely. Comparing "2/1 GF" to "Standard American" where the 2/1 is only invitational, clearly both systems have their upsides and downsides. 2/1 solved a few of "Standard's" problems, and created new ones. On balance, it seems to me that the advantages (primarily in game and slam bidding) outweigh the disadvantages (primarily in part score bidding), but I haven't done a scientific analysis. Do consider that the game and slam bonuses are pretty huge, at least at IMPs.

 

Frankly, I think the more important question at this point is "what do we do about the erosion in values required for the forcing 2♣ opening?"

[Yu18772]

I had been playing 2/1 with my regular partner for ~2 years, before that we were playing natural system where 2/1 responses were invitational with 5 card suit. We are generally quite aggressive bidders, and our rule is "opening versus opening is a game". The reasons we like 2/1GF are - it creates a lot of bidding space which can be used

a. to investigate the right game,

b. to bid stoppers and get to 3NT played by the right side, or vouch out in 4-3/5-2 major when we dont have a stopper or even stop at 4 minor if no choice

c. Slam bidding is much more scientific - this can be a plus or mins, depends on you and p. we like it.

d. it is less precise in partscores, but not by far, imo.

 

However, its not one system fit all. Discussion of auctions and good understanding between us is WAY more important than natural or 2/1GF systems, and imo a well discussed natural system will outperform poorly discussed 2/1 on any account, given the same partnership.

The advantages also very much depend on what you add to the system - e.g. Bergen and J2NT work very well with 2/1GF, some other conventions less so. Also we much prefer playing semi-forcing 1NT, and 2-way bergen, which is very useful in MP, but these are personal flavors.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[blackshoe]

"2-way Bergen"? What's that?

[Free]

I prefer the auction 1♠-2♦-2♥ over 1♠-2♦-3♥ just to show my 4 card ♥ suit when I have 15HCP.

 

There's also a big difference between forcing 1NT response and semi-forcing 1NT response. The first 2 advantages Nigel describes are typical for semi-forcing 1NT. Standard 2/1 doesn't have these.

[whereagles]

Thinking about it, the greatest advantage of 2/1 GF is that pard won't forget that

 

1M 2x

2M 3M

 

is forcing :)

[Dutchdwang]

I prefer the auction 1♠-2♦-2♥ over 1♠-2♦-3♥ just to show my 4 card ♥ suit when I have 15HCP.

 

 

 

If you play 2/1 F1, I guess 1♠-2♦-2♥ is forcing, otherwise it seems unplayable to me.

Also 2/1 GF is easy in what's forcing and what's not. You (almost) never have misunderstandings about that.. what i particulary hate about 2/1 F1 is:

1M-2m

3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit, partner has to guess a lot now, you can miss game/slam easily or end up in wrong game..

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, bidding theory isn't particularly well advanced.

 

I've never seen much in the way of a compelling proof that method A is inherently superior than method B.

Look at the debates between weak and strong NT. People have been arguing that one for decades.

 

If I were forced to make an argument in favor of 2/1 GF, I'd focus on the following

 

2/1 GF is an extremely popular treatment among professionals. In turn

 

1. This suggests that the methods have some degree of merit

2. There is a large community actively working to improve / optimize the system

[gwnn]

1M-2m

3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit, partner has to guess a lot now, you can miss game/slam easily or end up in wrong game..

You don't have to bid 3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit. (Unless you play 1M-2m; 2M as non-forcing, which is unplayable in my little opinion...)

[mcphee]

The issue with a non game force 2/1 are all those 4-4 minor hands with 10-11, the 3 card major support hand in the 9-11 range. These hands are common enough that better methods are required. I do not agree that part score bidding suffers for 2/1 players either. The truth is that 2/1 is hands down better for reaching games and slams in uncontested auctions.Better for imps, you bet it is.

 

Ask yourself as a player who has used sayc and 2/1, if you were handed the basics of both isn't 2/1 just easier?

[EricK]

Judging from the replies, one of the perceived problems with 2/1 non-GF (and hence one of the advantages of 2/1 GF) is that there is sometimes no clear idea as to what level 2/1 is forcing. By judicious use of 4th suit forcing, 3rd suit forcing (Bourke relay?) after opener rebids his suit, opener not rebidding 2NT on a balanced minimum, and playing 2/1 forcing to 2NT or 3m/M, you should be able to get the best (or nearly the best) of both worlds.

[gwnn]

Either way, in 2/1 you have a handy 2N waiting bid for responder in auctions like:

 

1♠-2♦

2♥/♠-2N

 

and this can make much more defined rebids by responder, e.g.

 

1♠-2♦

2♠-3♣=5-5

    -3♦=very good 6 carder

 

if you don't play 2/1, your 3♣ will not even promise a 4-card suit, let alone a 5-5, and 3♦ will be non-forcing.

[MickyB]

You don't have to bid 3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit. (Unless you play 1M-2m; 2M as non-forcing, which is unplayable in my little opinion...)

 

Disagree with the contents of your parentheses. Playing 1M:2m, 2M as F1 is clearly wrong in my opinion, why would you design a system around stopping in 2NT?

 

The hands you really want to 2/1 on are 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit so you can split up the 4-10 range for auctions like 1S:1N, 2H:2S.

 

I agree with the assessments on having to bid 1S:2D, 3S with many hands and 1S:2D, 2S:3C as just a way to force; That is why I play 1S:2D, 2NT as GF single-suited and 1S:2D, 2S:2NT as GF [invites bid 1NT then 2NT].

[gwnn]

I stand corrected. That (<- the system you described) might be a playable system :)

[phil_20686]

The point is basically that you should gear your system towards which ever part of the bidding you lose the most imps on. As card play standards have risen and imps has taken over from MP we bid a lot more games than one would at MP, as a result, there is less and less value in invitational sequences.

 

Slams on the other hand have increased vastly in importance. You could win a MP tournament in a pretty good field without every bidding a slam with less than 32HCP between the two hands. I doubt you could do the same in a imps tournament. This is because for an expert in a good to mediocre field there is so much protection from people who basically never bid slams, and such a good gain from making the normal 12 tricks when there is a portion of the field managing a comical 11 or 10. If you bid a slam at MP you are giving up that gain, so slams need to be really pretty good.

 

At teams its always the same gain, the field is basically irrelevant as to your bidding decisions.

 

A good 2/1 system takes away a lot of slam decisions in teh sense that you can just find out what you want to know without having a problem, whereas in other systems you can struggle.

 

 

One might argue that precision has all the same advantages, and it does, but the difference then comes in competitive auctions, where the strong club opener is normally at a disadvantage when he has a 1C opener. In 2/1 you normally get a good deal of information about your hand across before the opponents realise you have a strong hand.

[Zelandakh]

The argument for 2/1 game forcing is exactly the same as the one I make for 2/1 non-forcing. In standard there are too many bidding sequences devoted to invitational hands which are only a narrow range and not enough for game-forcing hands. By arranging the responses to cater more to GF hands you optimise the available space more effectively. Since you are especially interested in Fantunes, I think playing 2/1s as invitational-plus in this system is close to madness.

[ggwhiz]

I have seen so many auctions when the response is 1NT and the opener goes into a brown funk with no idea if that is the right place to be.

 

I just don't buy that the forcing NT is a disadvantage when ♠x, ♥Jxx, ♦Qxx, ♣KQTxxx is a 1NT response to 1♠ in standard or SAYC.

 

The advantages of 2/1 as detailed by others are numerous when you get put enough time in to detail your follow up agreements.

[nige1]

The main argument for 2/1 is that so many people play it. Hence ...

• You can sit down opposite a random pick-up partner, and agree 2/1, with some hope that you have a fairly sophisticated mutual understanding.
• Paid professionals have invested a vast amount of time and effort in perfecting 2/1 (refining conventions like Bergen and Gazzilli). Hence, rather than wasting effort in searching for some chimerical better system, It is more productive to settle for 2/1 and hone your judgement and improve your partnership rapport (so John Matheson tells me).

OK, some of us prefer chasing chimeras.

[Yu18772]

"2-way Bergen"? What's that?

 

1M-3♣ is either 4 card 6-9 or 3 card support with 10-11 (what you would bid through the NT), 1M-1NT denies support and can be passed by weak balanced opener.

1M-3♦ is at least invitational with 4+ support.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif