Challenge to 2/1 GF advocates

[kenrexford]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

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

 

That's a huge question. It depends on methods, and there are a lot of vcariations here.

 

For me, for example, 2♠ establishes a fit. So, I'd bid 3♥ (two of the top three in both hearts and spades, no diamond controls, none of the top three clubs, no stiff or void in clubs, and assuredly not three of the top four hearts) and probably show almost all of my hand in one bid. The exsact pattern would be known to be 5422, with the only questions remaining being whether I have a third top spade or the diamond Queen.

[mike777]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

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

 

 

 

2s is a slam try for me so easy 3h now.

 

this is not some random 5-2 fit for me.

[Jinksy]

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. 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.

 

But we're only talking about auctions where you don't have a primary fit, which is going to reduce the amount of competition by a fair bit. And about auctions which specifically start with 0-2 passes, a bid and a direct overcall. While I agree you'll see a lot of competition on part score auctions, a lot of that is balancing, and maybe 1/4 is after bid-pass-bid.

 

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.

 

You seem to be comparing best with worst. Does anyone still play 1M P 2N as natural? When I'm playing 2/1 NGF, I'd bid 2C on that hand, and opener has a simple 3D splinter. Meanwhile I don't know what system allows you to have 3C as 5-5 GF in 2/1, but it's more sophisticated than anything I play (the Gazz variants I've read have 3C as a 5-5 limit bid)...

 

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.

 

You might - though why doesn't the 'opps compete in part score auctions' logic apply here? I'll bet you get to play in 1N more often with NGF - 1M with the actual hand you gave rather than the one you meant, 1N all pass.

[han]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

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

 

I think most here would bid 2NT, showing exactly 5-4-2-2 shape. This is assuming that 2S shows 3-card support, I don't dare to say anything about a style where it does not.

 

I play that 3m shows 3-4 cards in the bid suit, 3H shows 5-5, 3S shows 6-4 and 4m shows a void with six spades. I don't have an agreement about what 3NT shows.

[gnasher]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

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

I don't often play 2/1, but I think this should be a 3♠ bid. I'd expect that with 5431 you bid the fragment, with 6-4 you either splinter or bid 3♠; with 5422 and a hand that might want to play notrumps you bid 2NT.

[aguahombre]

Suppose that your hand is:

 

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

 

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

I think most here would bid 2NT.

I think this should be a 3♠ bid.

I believe you are both correct. 3S is a good idea with that hand; everything is in the majors with no control in the minors. Quite picturesque, leaving partner room to sign off in 3NT or take over for spades at whatever level.

[mike777]

I would rebid 3s without the KH so easy 3h as I said.

 

AKJxx..QJTx..Qx..xx

 

I like my hand as I have more than a minimum so 3h but as we see 3 different responses to a very common auction.

 

This may have something to do with some play 2s as a slam try while others are thinking 3nt as a choice of game contract.

[phil_20686]

But we're only talking about auctions where you don't have a primary fit, which is going to reduce the amount of competition by a fair bit. And about auctions which specifically start with 0-2 passes, a bid and a direct overcall. While I agree you'll see a lot of competition on part score auctions, a lot of that is balancing, and maybe 1/4 is after bid-pass-bid.

 

 

 

You seem to be comparing best with worst. Does anyone still play 1M P 2N as natural? When I'm playing 2/1 NGF, I'd bid 2C on that hand, and opener has a simple 3D splinter. Meanwhile I don't know what system allows you to have 3C as 5-5 GF in 2/1, but it's more sophisticated than anything I play (the Gazz variants I've read have 3C as a 5-5 limit bid)...

 

 

 

You might - though why doesn't the 'opps compete in part score auctions' logic apply here? I'll bet you get to play in 1N more often with NGF - 1M with the actual hand you gave rather than the one you meant, 1N all pass.

 

We are talking about auctions where your primary fit is not in the suit you open. That is hardly uncommon. Minor suit slams are among the biggest gains in 2/1 where I can have 1s-2m-3m as a forcing raise. Also, you would 2/1 in many cases with 3 card support (a primary fit) and many people advocate a style where on some hand you 2/1 with four or more card support - a hand like Jxxx x xx AKQxxx would be a 2/1 in clubs in many styles of 2/1,

 

You have a point regarding 2N invitational. its a terrible bid in that structure, but many people would bid it. Most structures can be made playable if you are willing to have a high degree of sophistication. A system like precision is basically unplayable without artificial follow ups. 2/1 works reasonably well with a basically natural follow up structure - doubtless one reason for its popularity, while allowing increased sophistication in GF hands, and an increased role for judgement in delicate auctions. I play 1M-1N-2N as GF.

 

One area of consistent weakness in NGF 2/1's is auctions after 1S-2H; now I would argue that even in 2/1 you need sophisticated follow ups here, but if you want to bid 3H as NF, you are giving up a huge number of sequences.

 

I strongly beleive that uncontested auctions that end in 1N are an irrelevance in the long run. The number of imps traded are miniscule. I like to be well placed in 3/2 and 3/3 auctions. For me that means openeing suits, so I play a 5551 opening structure. It means giving partner a good mix of preemptive mixed and constructive raises. I think the number of imps traded in uncontested partscores, which is basically what you are suggesting are important, are miniscule compared to the hands where I can have a delicate forcing auction to a 5-2 major fit. Or where I can locate a good minor suit fit and avoid 3N, or where I can locate a good slam. 2/1 makes all of those things easier. The downside is that I lose a imps in accuracy on invitational hands, and I lose imps occasionally if partner has an 9-11 with a suit in which we have a good fit and for some reason this would be impossible to locate after a forcing NT. Or at least more difficult to bid accurately. I really dont think many imps are traded on these losses.

[jogs]

Slam bidding is better defined in 2/1.

 

1M - 2m, 2M

 

In SAYC it's not clear whether this auction is forcing. In 2/1 it's forcing.

 

1M - 2m, 3M

 

In 2/1 good suit, good hand. In SAYC good hand, may or may not be good suit.

Responder doesn't know if xx is sufficient support in SAYC.

[aguahombre]

1M - 2m, 3M

 

In 2/1 good suit, good hand. In SAYC good hand, may or may not be good suit.

Responder doesn't know if xx is sufficient support in SAYC.

You are getting beyond the difference in concepts, and into your preference for partnership agreements in the two styles.

[jogs]

You are getting beyond the difference in concepts, and into your preference for partnership agreements in the two styles.

 

Don't think so.

 

♠ Q65432 ♥ AKJ ♦ AKJ ♣ 3

 

1♠ - 2♣, 2♠

 

Playing SAYC with a regular partner, we may agree that this auction is forcing.

Playing SAYC with a pickup, would you dare rebid only 2♠. This partner

may pass. Forced to rebid 3♠.

Playing 2/1 with a pickup, you can safely rebid 2♠.

[Zelandakh]

You can also rebid in diamonds (style), or use transfer rebids (system), or use an artificial 2D (gadget), or ... (etc). Thus the follow-up methods and general style matter here just as much as whether 2C was GF or not.

[Cascade]

Don't think so.

 

♠ Q65432 ♥ AKJ ♦ AKJ ♣ 3

 

1♠ - 2♣, 2♠

 

Playing SAYC with a regular partner, we may agree that this auction is forcing.

Playing SAYC with a pickup, would you dare rebid only 2♠. This partner

may pass. Forced to rebid 3♠.

Playing 2/1 with a pickup, you can safely rebid 2♠.

 

The problem with this sort of example is that it is extremely low frequency.

 

I dealt 10000 hands with 18 hcp and 6331 distribution.

 

Just over 6% of the time partner had a 2♣ GF response.

 

Less than 1% partner had a Qxxxxx suit - even less if you excluded suits like Q109xxx or Q108xxx.

 

Around 2% partner had one particular red suit AKJ (4% for either red suit).

 

Not once in 10000 hands did partner have both red suits AKJ.

 

I don't think these low frequency hands are the reason many think that 2/1 has an advantage over non GF 2/1 systems.

[EricK]

Don't think so.

 

♠ Q65432 ♥ AKJ ♦ AKJ ♣ 3

 

1♠ - 2♣, 2♠

 

Playing SAYC with a regular partner, we may agree that this auction is forcing.

Playing SAYC with a pickup, would you dare rebid only 2♠. This partner

may pass. Forced to rebid 3♠.

Playing 2/1 with a pickup, you can safely rebid 2♠.

But the advantage you are talking about here comes about from simply having an agreement over how far 2/1 is forcing rather than on the specific merits of one agreement over another. Actually, in "true" SAYC, the sequence is forcing (a 2/1 bid promises a rebid over opener's minimum replies). But anyway, you still need some agreements even playing 2/1GF with a pick-up partner, which you don't need if playing 2/1NGF. Are you forced to game or just 4m? Is responder's rebid of a suit forcing or not? What is 1M 3m?

[aguahombre]

Focus :angry:

 

Jinsky started this thread to discern the merits of a "sensible" 2/1 NGF system versus a "sensible" 2/1 G.F. system.

 

SAYC is designed as a practical thing for people to play with pickup partners and has nothing to do with the OP. Regular partnerships will sensibly adopt gadgets/tools to create a workable style, no matter what basic premise they have. SAYC is a rigid set of agreements with very few of those tools.

 

I have the opinion that NGF requires more artificial gadgets and more hard work by a partnership to cover the holes than does GF. But, I am prejudiced in this regard because I haven't tried to make a NGF style workeable and have done so with GF.

 

Specific hands, as requested by the OP, won't really illustrate the advantage of one choice over the other. They will merely identify an area which needs refinement in one style or the other.

[awm]

It's hard to give examples without specific systems in place. Most particular problem hands (in either style) can be "fixed" by adopting some conventional method, which in turn hurts you on other hand types.

 

However, the following general statement will always apply. Playing 2/1 GF gives you many more forcing sequences! If 2/1 is not game-forcing, there will be at least some sequences after 1M-2x that are not forcing. Having more forcing sequences will help you when you have a hand that wants to force. This is a big advantage when partner opens 1M and you hold a game-forcing hand, and typically the wins will show up in slam bidding.

 

The flip side is that playing 2/1 GF means you have fewer non-forcing sequences. This inevitably makes it harder to bid (some) hands where responder does not have enough for an immediate game force.

 

So why is 2/1 GF "better" or is it? One line of reasoning is that the wins (responder has immediate GF) are usually high-scoring hands which produce slams (or at least games). The losses are quite often part-score hands. At IMP scoring, the magnitude of wins/losses is important, so playing in the wrong partial occasionally is nowhere near as bad as occasionally missing a good slam or playing in the wrong game. The second argument is that the 13-20 point range for responder (where 2/1 GF has an advantage) is more frequent than the 11-12 point range (where 2/1 non-GF has an advantage). Of course you must adjust these point ranges based on your opening style!

 

Given the above, why do some good players choose to play 2/1 non-GF? First, if you play a sizable amount of MP or BAM scoring, the magnitude of wins doesn't matter so much. Second, the lighter you open 1M (and light openings are all the rage these days) the less often you can bid 2/1 GF (so frequencies start to swing the other way). Third, there are arguments that most of the strong hands are biddable in 2/1 non-GF, albeit with a bit more guessing involved.... whereas certain invitational responder hands are almost impossible to communicate in 2/1, at least without special gadgets (an example of this is a hand with long clubs after 1♠-1NT!-2♥).

 

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

 

The problem of what to play in a "pickup" partnership without a lot of discussion is almost totally unrelated to the question of what to play in a serious pair. This often revolves around the two players' level of experience/comfort with methods, and in the US most advanced-expert players have more experience with 2/1 GF than otherwise. This could easily be the opposite in other countries. A secondary concern is that you are unlikely to be able to conduct delicate slam auctions in a pickup partnership regardless of your general approach (because you have not discussed cuebidding style in detail or which actions show extras) but playing 2/1 GF at least guarantees that you will never be dropped in an auction that you thought was forcing.

[mike777]

Perhaps the biggest plus of 2/1 gf vs nongf is there are alot more software updates to improve the system.

 

Same thing playing strong nt vs weak nt...just more software updates...

[Vampyr]

But the advantage you are talking about here comes about from simply having an agreement over how far 2/1 is forcing rather than on the specific merits of one agreement over another. Actually, in "true" SAYC, the sequence is forcing (a 2/1 bid promises a rebid over opener's minimum replies).

 

I think that it is very true that having an agreement is the main thing.

 

I honestly do not know how SAYC can be played in anything but a serious partnership who have discussed a lot of auctions. 2/1 non-GF is fairly simple to understand and play, 2/1 GF even more so. But a halfway house where 2/1 promises another bid, or is forcing to 2NT etc seems much more difficult, since forcing and non-forcing auctions are not clearly defined.

 

The above probably explains, to some extent, the popularity of 2/1 GF in the US -- there is a tradition there of strong 2/1s, so strengthening them that little bit extra and making them GF resolved a lot of ambiguity.

[myprac]

The Grant/Rodwell book 2 Over 1 Game Force discusses at some length the potential advantages of GF with sample hands in various categories (finding the best game, exploring for slam) and compares alternatives (why GF works better than FSF in some situations, for example). I imagine some here would consider it too basic, but it's an excellent book and directly responds to the OP.

[han]

The problem with this sort of example is that it is extremely low frequency.

 

I dealt 10000 hands with 18 hcp and 6331 distribution.

 

Just over 6% of the time partner had a 2♣ GF response.

 

Less than 1% partner had a Qxxxxx suit - even less if you excluded suits like Q109xxx or Q108xxx.

 

Around 2% partner had one particular red suit AKJ (4% for either red suit).

 

Not once in 10000 hands did partner have both red suits AKJ.

 

if this a serious post could you give us a specific hand that is high-frequency?

[mycroft]

I play 2/1 and like it.

I play K/S (with 2/1 GF unless suit rebid) and like it.

I play Precision (with "open all 10s that look like 11) without 2/1 and like it.

I have played K/S with 2/1 "promises a rebid" and liked it.

I have played Standard with 4 or 5 card majors, and with the appropriate gadgets assumed in 2/1 to fill in the holes, and like it (but not as much, because usually I'm playing with people who don't know how to re-evaluate their hand. When I do play Standard with decent players, it's much more fun).

 

They each have different strengths and weaknesses, and when I get a hand that plays to the system's strengths, I'm very happy, especially if it isn't the field system; when I get a hand that preys on the system's weaknesses, I do my best to deal with it, and hope that I can claw my way to average.

 

Whether one is "better" or not, I don't know. 2/1 is great in the ACBL because you don't want to play with the players that can't play 2/1 (and if you're the weak(er) player, you won't get good players to play with you if you don't play 2/1); conversely, given the homogenous(*) nature of ACBL bridge, it's fun playing *anything else*, just to watch the run of the mill's brains explode when you bid "wrong" (or watch them panic over our strong club when we play Precision, and not even think about our 1M and 1♦ bids, frankly more important to be able to deal with).

 

I will say that the hands where the system is your judgement playing GF 2/1 that you do playing NGF 2/1 are more spectacular and more obvious than the hands where playing NGF 2/1 gives you a "system advantage"; that's also an advantage for "average" pairs who don't want to miss slam, but don't notice as much when they get out-competed for the part score.

 

It looks like I'm denigrating 2/1, and I'm not. It looks like I'm saying "it's a crutch for the flight B players" - which is in fact true (and a "stepup" for new/pickup partners, no matter their strength), but not the point. Experts with expert judgement will be able to play any system (including 2/1) that both players are compatible with, and will put the work into that system to iron out the wrinkles - so the choice there doesn't boil down to "what's better" as much.

 

* (edit to add missing footnote) "I know a lot of people are going to think, that's not 'homogenous', that's 'homogeneous'. But that isn't what I mean, I mean 'homogenous' as in milk." -- Anna Russell.

[Cascade]

Are you trolling as usual, or is this a serious post? If you meant it seriously, could you give us a specific hand that is high-frequency?

 

Serious.

 

In answer to your question - No.

 

However in case you have not noticed Qxxxxx, AKJ, AKJ, x is not a specific hand. Yes the poster who I quoted posted a specific hand. My numbers were clearly not based on that specific hand but a generic one where the spot cards were not specified. That is I just looked at the more specific honour combinations and ignored the relatively insignificant spots.

 

My point wasn't that Q65432 AKJ AKJ 3 was an unlikely hand. I am fully aware that every specific hand is equally likely a priori. But that Qxxxxx AKJ AKJ x is a relatively unlikely hand and something like AKQxxx AQx Kxx x is more likely

 

With 18 hcp it is highly unlikely that your honour strength will be concentrated into two short (three card suits) and your long suit will be weak.

 

With 18 hcp and six spades in a 6331 hand the simulation delivered these frequencies (I can probably calculate the true values rather than simulate if I needed to - I think i have a spreadsheet somewhere for this):

 

xxxxxx	10
Jxxxxx	27
Qxxxxx	69
Kxxxxx	131
Axxxxx	280
QJxxxx	143
KJxxxx	287
AJxxxx	472
KQxxxx	537
AQxxxx	827
AKxxxx	1385
KQJxxx	521
AQJxxx	936
AKJxxx	1394
AKQxxx	1872
AKQJxx	1109

 

and for the three card suits (actually one of the three card suits but its symmetrical and i didnt bother to record the other one)

 

xxx	373
Jxx	336
Qxx	651
Kxx	1139
Axx	1985
QJx	288
KJx	478
AJx	701
KQx	774
AQx	1085
AKx	1438
KQJ	117
AQJ	173
AKJ	203
AKQ	259

 

The average hcp in each suit was approximately

 

spades 7.2

hearts/diamonds 4.6 each

clubs 1.7

 

(there are some rounding errors)

 

My point is that I think it is unlikely that big gains from 2/1 come from catering to strong hands with very weak long suits. These are very low frequency hands.

[Cascade]

These are the calculated not simulated expected values of high card points in each suit in an 18 hcp hand with 6331 distribution

 

 

7.188678192	4.523218063	4.523218063	1.764885682