Challenge to 2/1 GF advocates

[Vampyr]

Unless you have another way to show a balanced hand then a 2♣ response in standard is most likely to be balanced with four (three) clubs.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible; it's just that my experience has been different from yours. In many years of playing an Acol style with 5-card majors, I have never had to bid 2♣ on a 2-card suit, and I don't remember bidding it on 3, but it may have happened once in thousands of boards. Maybe playing weak NT helps, because there are many more 1NT openers and fewer 2/1s in general. I don't know.

 

 

 

The partscore battle is not improved simply because your auction was

 

1♠-2♣

2x-3♣

 

instead of

 

1♠-3♣

 

Well, in the first auction clubs have got in a round earlier, allowing opener to raise, and with the opponents bidding some other suit(s) the possibility of the club suit being shorter than expected is decreased. The second one may be too high on a misfit and gives up the possibility of playing Bergen Raises (maybe to many this is not a big cost, but I like them).

 

or

 

1♠-1NT

2x-3♣

 

 

My point about the partscore "battle" is that the opponents will be in the auction, so it may not be possible to bid the clubs at a convenient level; also, if "x" is a red suit, 3♣ may again be offering a suit at a high level in a possible misfit.

 

With 2/1 GF, the auction might start 1♠-1NT, 2♣. If it starts that way, then Responder could bid 2♦ artificially and find out more about Opener's shape and strength.

 

2/1 GF can really benefit from toys like you mention here and above, but I don't think they are part of the basic system and that most people use them.

 

When Opener lacks three hearts (where the partscore matters), he might play 2♥ on the 5-2 (which perhaps beats the non-GF folks), but he can also now afford to make that "high reverse," as his values were already limited by the 2♣ rebid.

 

I'm afraid I do not follow. What "high reverse"? 3♣? Is this wise when both partners are limited and may have no decent fit? Being able to stop in 2♥ on a hand like you describe is good.

[gnasher]

Ken, one of the defining characteristics of a battle is that there are two (or more) sides.

 

If it's a partscore deal, an auction that starts

1

♠

pass 2

♦

2

♥

is better for the opening side than

1

♠

pass 1NT 2

♥

[kenrexford]

Of course there are differences, depending upon what happens next. But, again, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Results determine whether the differences are costly or not.

 

I mean, sure. 1♠-P-2♦-2♥ looks worse than 1♠-P-1NT-2♥, because the diamonds have not been mentioned. However, is that clear?

 

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

 

Consider, though, the different issues for Responder. If his call was 1NT, he has the ability with a maximum to aggressively show patterns, whereas if the call was 2♦ he has a minimum and is somewhat compelled to slow auctions down, which limits his ability to show patterns.

 

Consider also the job for Opener. If Responder's call showed values, he is at liberty to bid with partner's values, but then his calls do not define his strength as well. In contrast, if Responder only bid 1NT, then Opener's calls are less enabled but conversely then more descriptive of held strength.

[Jinksy]

Given a sensible system, it is very hard to construct a pair of hands where you can't bid to the optimal spot seeing both hands. Adam's hand above is a good example where 2/1 makes it easier to bid the grand. But Jinsky, if you are stubborn and you want to convince yourself that your sensible NF2/1 system is better, it should be easy to find a sequence in your system where you would do just as well.

 

That's not what I'm looking for. I'm after a sense of the kind of hands on which 2/1 helps, and why. (and thanks to those who've provided them)

[Jinksy]

The way in which non-GF would in a theoretical discussion possibly have an edge over 2/1 GF would be in that sliver of hands appropriate for a 2/1 non-GF stuck into 2/1 GF's 1NT.

 

That's not true. Every time you have the auction 1M 1N you've benefited, since you now know more about responder's hand. So actually it's only on hands where responder does have a GF that you clearly benefit, which must be well under 50%.

[phil_20686]

That's not true. Every time you have the auction 1M 1N you've benefited, since you now know more about responder's hand. So actually it's only on hands where responder does have a GF that you clearly benefit, which must be well under 50%.

 

Your missing the key point - you are only losing where partner has a weak hand and the opponents cannot bid. This is really quite rare in expert bidding. In fact I would say that in over half on auctions where you have invitational auctions the opponents will get into the auction. If the opps get into the auction immediately, then both systems are the same. Talking about constructive methods when the opposition is silent is sensible when you and your partner hold the balance of points. When the points are close to 50-50 you are living in a dream world if you imagine you are having the auction to yourself.

 

 

Sometimes you gain because partner kept the bidding lower when he has, for example, and invitational NT hand. When I open 1 spade and partner responds 2N with Qx KQx xxxx KJxx, as is common in old school acol, I am not well placed when partner has

 

AKxxx Axx - AQxxx

 

if partner bid 1N, and I could bid 3C GF 5-5 I am much happier.

 

A more common example is when you can play 1N instead of 2N when I open with KQTxx AJx Axx xx and it goes 1S-1N AP, when in std it might go 1s-2c-2s-2n AP.

 

 

 

[Flem72]

Another common situation: Hands where O has a max-below-jump shift rebid hand and R has a good game raise, and must jump to 4M to show it, stealing slam investigation space.

[aguahombre]

I mean, sure. 1♠-P-2♦-2♥ looks worse than 1♠-P-1NT-2♥, because the diamonds have not been mentioned. However, is that clear?

 

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

Did you say that backwards?

[Cascade]

Another common situation: Hands where O has a max-below-jump shift rebid hand and R has a good game raise, and must jump to 4M to show it, stealing slam investigation space.

 

What auctions are you talking about?

 

Is responder bidding a 2/1?

 

1♠ 2♣

2♦ 4♠

 

There is some loss of space on this auction but a good system should never or at least very seldom need to jump to game here. For example we play 3♠ is forcing.

[Vampyr]

Did you say that backwards?

 

No, he didn't... but I am not sure he is correct. Is there really a theoretical maximum for the forcing NT?

[Flem72]

What auctions are you talking about?

 

Is responder bidding a 2/1?

 

1♠ 2♣

2♦ 4♠

 

There is some loss of space on this auction but a good system should never or at least very seldom need to jump to game here. For example we play 3♠ is forcing.

 

Sure--good pairs will always recognize systemic problems and try to figure out ways around them. But that seems to be a bit beyond the OP question, which I think should be understood to address very basic structures, since both 2/1 and SA can be tricked-out in detail? And there is always 1S-2X/2S-? and 1M-2X/2N-?.

[aguahombre]

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

 

Did you say that backwards?

 

No, he didn't...

O.k. Let us start from the basics. 2/1 G.F. establishes a minimum for responder's game force (The short term is "min", not "max"). If the rest of the points in the deck are the maximim, then I guess it establishes a maximum also. For NGF people 1NT establishes a maximum of less than game force, the minimum is probably around 6 HCP.

 

If the above is not true on other planets, then Ken did not say it backwards.

[mike777]

One recent hand in the ACBL magazine bidding quiz was too much for us. It appears to be a hole for us that we live with.

 

 

opener has a minimum hand with spades and diamonds and 3h say 5341 and responder has a solid invite with 5h.

 

 

1s=1nt

2d=2nt

p

 

 

2nt was down off the top while 4h makes.

 

--

 

 

Some deals where responder is weak with a long minor can be an issue at times if the opp are silent which granted is rare.

 

--

 

I think there are some minor suit slams that are a bit easier bid in non 2/1 systems.

 

--

 

 

We play a sf nt where we throw alot of hands with quite a wide range into sf1nt combined where one level openings are often a bit light.

 

that means a basic auction such as:

 

1h=1nt

2m=2h can be pretty wide. so far this does not seem to be that big of an issue at the table but one you need to be willing to play

[aguahombre]

One recent hand in the ACBL magazine bidding quiz was too much for us. It appears to be a hole for us that we live with.

 

 

opener has a minimum hand with spades and diamonds and 3h say 5341 and responder has a solid invite with 5h.

 

 

1s=1nt

2d=2nt

p

It is a hole when opener is not accepting the 2NT invite; we play in 2N instead of 3H. It is not a hole if game is being accepted, because experienced players have learned to bid 3H while accepting.

 

IMO, it is no worse to live with than when people rebid 1NT after a 1H response with 4 in the spade suit and lose the spade partial or have to overburden checkback methods to recover.

[Vampyr]

O.k. Let us start from the basics. 2/1 G.F. establishes a minimum for responder's game force (The short term is "min", not "max"). If the rest of the points in the deck are the maximim, then I guess it establishes a maximum also. For NGF people 1NT establishes a maximum of less than game force, the minimum is probably around 6 HCP.

 

If the above is not true on other planets, then Ken did not say it backwards.

 

In the given auction, the 2/1GF pair bid 1NT, which establishes a maximum (though I wonder just what that is). The non-GF pair have bid 2/1, establishing a minimum of 9 or 10 points for responder.

[Finch]

 

 

A more common example is when you can play 1N instead of 2N when I open with KQTxx AJx Axx xx and it goes 1S-1N AP, when in std it might go 1s-2c-2s-2n AP.

 

If you are playing 2/1 GF you can't pass on this hand after 1S - 1N (unless you need a sound 13 HCP to open). You will miss boring solid 3NT games. And in fact on your 'std' auction I wouldn't be in 2NT, I'd be in 3NT. Take away the king of spades and you have a valid point.

[1eyedjack]

Here is a hand that I kibbed a few weeks ago. I think that slam should probably be reached even with a non-gf2/1 method (as was employed at the table). And yet I feel that it is easier to find, with greater confidence, playing 2/1:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj73hakt5d65cak72&n=sakt9642hqj62dtcj&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2cp2hp3dp3sp4sppp]266|200|IMP

3D = 4th suit[/hv]

[aguahombre]

Here is a hand that I kibbed a few weeks ago. I think that slam should probably be reached even with a non-gf2/1 method (as was employed at the table). And yet I feel that it is easier to find, with greater confidence, playing 2/1:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj73hakt5d65cak72&n=sakt9642hqj62dtcj&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2cp2hp3dp3sp4sppp]266|200|IMP

3D = 4th suit[/hv]

I don't believe that hand was bid by either school of thought. :rolleyes:

 

Meaning certainly not the 2/1 GF style, and not likely by the NGF people who have given any thought at all to followups and rebids.

 

That 4th suit 3D bid shouldn't have been necessary in either method, with support for both hearts and spades.

[jmcw]

Here are a few sequences that I play in GF 2/1 that MAY have advantages vs a NF approach. Other 2/1 advocates may have other preferred treatments.

 

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N = 12/14 OR 18/19.

1M>>2m>>2M>>3N = 15/17.

1M>>2m>>2N = As above.

1M>>2m>>3N = As above.

1M>>2m>>3M = A solid suit.

1M>>2m>>3m = A high honor in the m AND non minimum.

1M>>2m>>2any>>3M = Good trumps (KQx min) AND a "real" minor suit with 17+.

1M>>2m>>any>>4M = minimum values good trumps AND NO outside control in the unbids.

1M>>2m>>any>>2M = Often the start with a slam going hand when a M suit fit exists. Note that neither hand has been limited.

1M>>2m>>2new>>4th suit = Never needed as a force.

 

I'm not sure how std bidders handle these hand types perhaps they will comment.

[phil_20686]

If you are playing 2/1 GF you can't pass on this hand after 1S - 1N (unless you need a sound 13 HCP to open). You will miss boring solid 3NT games. And in fact on your 'std' auction I wouldn't be in 2NT, I'd be in 3NT. Take away the king of spades and you have a valid point.

 

Sorry this was meant to be a 12 count in a semi forcing set up.

[Cascade]

I will try and document the differences in my non-GF 2/1 system. There are a few variations since we play a weak NT.

 

Here are a few sequences that I play in GF 2/1 that MAY have advantages vs a NF approach. Other 2/1 advocates may have other preferred treatments.

 

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N = 12/14 OR 18/19.

1M>>2m>>2M>>3N = 15/17.

 

We play

 

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N as forcing

 

There are a some of variations here:

 

1. Our 2M is limited and therefore better defined since stronger hands need to jump. This would seem to give us an advantage on the weaker hands as we are in the some position with more information about opener's hand. There would be a disadvantage on the stronger hands that need to jump and therefore make our 3M rebid less well defined. Some of this disadvantage will be clawed back as the 2/1 players still need to resolve this uncertainty about the range after this start.

 

2. The difference between 2N and 3N depends not so much on our strength as on our desire for additional information. It would appear there are swings and roundabouts here. Sometimes our 3N will hide information from the opponents that the 2/1 players freely give away. Sometimes opener would rather have been giving some additional information and unsure what to do over 3N.

 

3. Occasionally with a balanced 12 count we will Pass, yes Pass 2S. It is very occasional. When we judge right obviously this is an advantage and when wrong a disadvantage. With those hands we also have the option of inviting game by raising spades. Again this will be advantageous when we judge to stay out of a bad game.

 

4. Some of these we handle with

 

1S>>2m>>3S>>?? at this point responder has more information than the corresponding 2/1 auction to 2S but at the cost of being a level higher. This information maybe helpful or we may regret having used the bidding space.

 

1M>>2m>>2N = As above.

1M>>2m>>3N = As above.

 

As noted we open these hands 1NT in the first case and the 18-19 hands we go through a Mexican 2♣. The 15-17 hands we would open our major and rebid 2NT. Responder's hand would be less well defined but this is hardly a disadvantage as responder is in control. Responder is at an advantage over your 2/1 auction as we are one-level lower. We do play four-card majors so there is occasionally an unresolved issue about the major suit length.

 

Given that we might have uninformative auctions like 1NT 3NT or 2♣ 2♠; 2NT 3NT with these hands we will at times have an advantage. Occasionally we may miss a good fit by this strategy.

 

There are other times suited to our methods where we may have an advantage of the 2/1 auctions.

 

However there are also times where with these hand types we will have disadvantages by having not bid our suits.

 

1M>>2m>>3M = A solid suit.

 

We bid these hands identically but have less information as the 3M rebid also caters to non-solid suits with extra values.

 

 

1M>>2m>>3m = A high honor in the m AND non minimum.

 

I am not exactly sure what hands you have in here.

 

With a diamond fit and extra values we can splinter - more information at a small cost to bidding space.

 

Without a shortage we bid 3NT or 4m. These show extra values at a cost of bidding space. So unless your 3m raise denies a singleton we are at a definite disadvantage here.

 

Its not clear to me what happens with a minimum and without a high honour. Obviously these hands will be adding a load to one of your lower rebids, presumably 2NT or 2M.

 

1M>>2m>>2any>>3M = Good trumps (KQx min) AND a "real" minor suit with 17+.

 

Same auction but responder delivers less information. We are at a disadvantage.

 

1M>>2m>>any>>4M = minimum values good trumps AND NO outside control in the unbids.

 

Identical auction and information.

 

1M>>2m>>any>>2M = Often the start with a slam going hand when a M suit fit exists. Note that neither hand has been limited.

 

You say often the start with a slam hand but it must also be the start with a game force hand that does not fit a more descriptive bid like the previous one.

 

Most of these hands we have to bid 3M. This costs us bidding space.

 

1M>>2m>>2new>>4th suit = Never needed as a force.

 

Used as a force.

 

1M>>2m>>2new>>3m is NF

1M>>2m>>2new>>3new(raise) is NF

 

Therefore this needs to handle forcing single suiters and forcing raises of opener's second suit as well as other hands with no clear direction.

 

I'm not sure how std bidders handle these hand types perhaps they will comment.

 

To me it appears there are obvious wins and losses for your style of these hands. It is unclear whether the wins out number and out perform the losses.

 

Some of the losses for our style may be diminished in that there is still two levels to investigate slam and we may well be able to exchange sufficient information in that space to bid to the best contract.

[JLOGIC]

Given a sensible system, it is very hard to construct a pair of hands where you can't bid to the optimal spot seeing both hands.

 

This is an excellent point is overlooked when people compare systems. I used to call kenrexford out on this when he was promoting his style, knowing both hands you can make a reasonable auction to the right contract in 2/1 auctions no matter what system you play. He always claimed not to cherry pick hands, and I agree that he didn't, you could give him any slam hand and he could find the right spot in his system, and explain why if you changed the hnd a little the auction would be different. He was doing nothing wrong, other than ignoring the fact that many times you have some judgement calls/guesses, and knowing what contract you're trying to bid to, you'll never get those wrong.

 

In the real world, sometimes a player will sometimes have to guess, and will sometimes go wrong. A better system will make this happen less often.

[kenrexford]

This is an excellent point is overlooked when people compare systems. I used to call kenrexford out on this when he was promoting his style, knowing both hands you can make a reasonable auction to the right contract in 2/1 auctions no matter what system you play. He always claimed not to cherry pick hands, and I agree that he didn't, you could give him any slam hand and he could find the right spot in his system, and explain why if you changed the hnd a little the auction would be different. He was doing nothing wrong, other than ignoring the fact that many times you have some judgement calls/guesses, and knowing what contract you're trying to bid to, you'll never get those wrong.

 

In the real world, sometimes a player will sometimes have to guess, and will sometimes go wrong. A better system will make this happen less often.

 

Yeah, well I still have the last laught from that 2-slams round in Philadelphia! :rolleyes: I think you got 8% for your small slam and 8% for our small slam. LOL

[Vampyr]

 

Occasionally with a balanced 12 count we will Pass, yes Pass 2S. It is very occasional. When we judge right obviously this is an advantage and when wrong a disadvantage. With those hands we also have the option of inviting game by raising spades. Again this will be advantageous when we judge to stay out of a bad game.

 

 

After 1♠-2m-2♠? We pass this all the time.

[dburn]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?