standard american

[whereagles]

gerber = EVIL

 

DONT LEARN IT

[ArtK78]

gerber = EVIL

 

DONT LEARN IT

That is just plain silly.

[Stephen Tu]

That is just plain silly.

 

I don't think it's silly. Comparing the frequency of times I pick up a hand suitable for Gerber vs. the frequency I see weaker players abuse Gerber and create disasters, I think it's a big win if they never learn it. When's the last time you bid Gerber? I don't play a lot, granted, but I've trotted it out maybe twice in six years?

[mikestar13]

Never had a Gerber disaster with a non-beginner. For those partners who insisted on playing it, this is the rule I insisted on using: 4♣ asks for aces if and only if bid directly after a 1NT or 2NT bid which is our first natural bid of the auction. The opponent must be silent except for (1x)-1NT-(P)-4♣. GERBER IS OFF IN ALL OTHER SITUATIONS. Don't need it even then, but it lets Gerber-lovers scratch their itch once or twice a year without much potential for harm. I believe this is similar to the rules Mr. Gerber himself had when he invented this thing.

[mycroft]

Note that out of all of akwoo's list, the only thing that is new to 2/1 GF (over a standard system, not over YC) is:

 

"1NT forcing and 2/1 Game Forcing"

 

This is the point behind "learn a good standard system and you won't unlearn much"

[perko90]

There's no doubt most players playing a natural system in NA play 2/1 and, as a general rule, without any other info to go on, 2/1 players tend to be better than those that only play Standard American. That being said, the 2/1 system - at it's worst - can create some lazy bidders and presents some inconvenient problems some people forget they have because "everyone plays it." For ex., 1♥-2♦; 2♥ is used as a "default" bid so much that it really says nothing more about the heart suit, which could still be a moth-eaten 5-card suit. 1♥-2♣; 3♣ doesn't have universal agreement on when the raise can be only 3 cards and whether it shows extra values. The forcing 1NT can also lead to some awkward choices, as well.

 

Std Am certainly has its warts, but the worst ones have the easiest fixes. Make sure if you play Std Am that you have the simple rule that the auction after a std 2/1 can't end below 2NT. Also, don't be too quick to learn Jacoby 2NT, even though it's taught to beginners. 1M-2NT as a natural GF simplifies a number of auctions. And, you can't do it fast enough, get the 3-card limit raise out of the 2/1 structure!! It's the source of many misunderstandings and limits slam exploration sequences. Just about anywhere else is better. The simplest solution is to include it in a limit raise along with the 4-card version. Novices won't notice the difference much. A better solution is to include it with 1NT and make that semi-forcing. My preference is to put it into a Bergen Raise structure in place of the "mixed" raise, but that requires you to give up strong jump shifts in Std Am (not hard to do).

Whatever you choose, enjoy. It's a wonderful game!

[Vampyr]

Std Am certainly has its warts, but the worst ones have the easiest fixes. Make sure if you play Std Am that you have the simple rule that the auction after a std 2/1 can't end below 2NT.

 

It seems to me that 2/1 forcing to 2NT is the worst of both worlds. Also more complicated because you have to list auctions that are/aren't GF.

 

A better solution is to include [3-card invitational raise] with 1NT and make that semi-forcing.

 

Semi-forcing means that opener will pass with a weak NT, right? So the fit will often be missed with this method.

[Bbradley62]

Semi-forcing means that opener will pass with a weak NT, right? So the fit will often be missed with this method.

It means that you will sometimes play in 1NT rather than 3M with a 5-3 fit and not enough strength for game.

[fromageGB]

As it is not forcing, I prefer to call it non-forcing 1NT. I believe the idea is that opener passes with a 12/13- count balanced hand, but will bid - who knows what - with 14, because responder could have an 11/12 count.

 

Having said that, I would have thought when playing non-forcing you can still have an invitational 3-card support start with 2♣, and you will end in the major part score.

[blackshoe]

As it is not forcing, I prefer to call it non-forcing 1NT. I believe the idea is that opener passes with a 12/13- count balanced hand, but will bid - who knows what - with 14, because responder could have an 11/12 count.

 

Having said that, I would have thought when playing non-forcing you can still have an invitational 3-card support start with 2♣, and you will end in the major part score.

I haven't double-checked it, but iirc, that's not legal in North America (including the invitational 3-card support hand in 2♣), at least not under the GCC.

[Vampyr]

It means that you will sometimes play in 1NT rather than 3M with a 5-3 fit and not enough strength for game.

 

Yes, probably for a worse score.

 

As it is not forcing, I prefer to call it non-forcing 1NT. I believe the idea is that opener passes with a 12/13- count balanced hand, but will bid - who knows what - with 14, because responder could have an 11/12 count.

 

11/12 count for a 1NT response seems pretty high when 2/1 is not forcing to game. Surely the upper limit of the 1NT should be no higher than 10.

 

As for calling it non-forcing, that will normally be understood as a traditional 1NT response, not one that could contain 12 HCP.

[perko90]

Wow, looks like I stirred up a lot of responses. Let me clarify a few things, that may explain my original response more fully.

First, it's true that the GCC of the ACBL does not allow 2♣ to be a 3-card invitational raise of the major, unless it also promises 3+ clubs. So, regardless of its merits, let's save that for a different discussion. As I previously stated, my preference is to have the 3-card invitational major raise as it's own separate bid. But, considering Std Am includes strong jump shifts (the Soloway kind, I hope, not the super old-fashioned 19+ kind), I'll assume that's off the table and go for my alternate suggestion, which I'll get to in just a sec.

 

Let's get back to 2/1 vs Std Am. One key difference is what the go-to "default" rebid is for opener with a non-descript minimum. 2/1 (at least the flavor that Hardy and Lawrence advocate) favors a rebid of 2M that doesn't really show anything more than the original 1M bid and reserves 2NT for promising stoppers in the unbid suits. Std Am treats the 2M rebid as highly suggestive of a 6-card suit and lets the 2NT rebid serve as the default minimum, regardless of stoppers. I favor the in-between, where 2NT promises partial stoppers in the unbid suits (so you at least don't wrong-side 3NT) and 2M is allowed on a "chunky" 5-card suit. Either way, in Std Am, 2NT is a common rebid. If the 3-card invitational raise is left in the 2/1 structure, it can muddy up many sequences. After something as common as 1♥-2♦; 2NT-? If 3♥ = an invite and 4♥ = a sign-off, there's no way to explore for slam while agreeing hearts. It doesn't take long to think of other muddy examples.

 

As for my suggestion of making the auction forcing to at least 2NT, it protects against hands like this: AKx KJxxxx xx Ax. After 1♥-2♦, this is an easy 2♥ rebid for 2/1 players, but a tough decision if the Std Am responder is allowed to pass a 2♥ rebid. Making sure the auction reaches 2NT at least, takes the pressure off the Std Am opener.

 

Essentially, my point is that Std Am bidders, by having 2/1 serve for both invitational and GF hands, put a lot of pressure on 2/1 auctions and can lead to "is it forcing?" scenarios or "how do I explore for slam?" dilemmas. My suggestion is for the 2/1 bid and the 1NT bid to share the load for invitational hands.

So:

1M-3M = a 4-card invite or a good 3-card invite (side singleton or a nice 12 pointer)

1M-1NT = 6-11 HCPs, with the 11 pointers being either a balanced 3-card invitational raise (intending to rebid 3M) or a balanced 11 pt hand (intending to rebid 2NT). Opener will pass 12-13 pt balanced hands (often ending in a superior 1NT contract at MPs). Even when a 5-3 major fit is missed, a good result can come from +90 or +120 vs a -50 or -100 from the field (or even +150 vs +140). Anyway, I'm not saying that part is a strength, but this is: Pulling out the green card after 1♥-1NT holding KQx Qxxxx Axx JT feels pretty good!

 

As for the 2/1 bid, it gets a little strengthened and disciplined.

Invitational only strength only comes in a few packages (never including the 3-card limit raise):

10-11 HCP and a nice 6-card suit (intending to rebid it)

10-12 HCPs and 5 H's over a 1♠ bid (intending to rebid 2NT)(because 1NT handles this holding even worse!)

11-12 HCPs with a 5-card suit (usually intending to rebid 2NT or raise a 2m rebid by opener to 3m)

12 HCPs and balanced (intending to rebid 2NT)

 

Now bidding for both partners is better and simpler.

Opener has 3 ways to show a minimum:

- rebid major w/ 6 or a "chunky" 5-card suit (but still forcing, so can include stronger hands)

- rebid 2NT

- rebid 2X below opening suit (forcing, of course, so can include stronger hands)

 

2/1 Responder has 3 ways to show a minimum:

- rebid 2/1 suit at 3 level

- rebid 2NT

- raise opener's 2m rebid to 3m

 

Notes:

Supporting opener's major on 2nd rd is strong and GF!

Any bid past a 2NT "caution flag" is GF

 

Anyway, that's my suggestion. I'm not claiming to fix all the holes, but if you can make Std Am simpler and better at the same time, why not? As a bonus, this is a little bit of a hybrid, so if you choose to convert to 2/1, there will be less "unlearning."

[Vampyr]

After something as common as 1♥-2♦; 2NT-? If 3♥ = an invite and 4♥ = a sign-off, there's no way to explore for slam while agreeing hearts. It doesn't take long to think of other muddy examples.

 

You can distinguish between different strengths by checking back or not.

 

As for my suggestion of making the auction forcing to at least 2NT, it protects against hands like this: AKx KJxxxx xx Axx. After 1♥-2♦, this is an easy 2♥ rebid for 2/1 players, but a tough decision if the Std Am responder is allowed to pass a 2♥ rebid.

 

This depends a lot on which card you remove.

[rhm]

Hi boshay

 

2/1 comes in many flavours just like sa does so it is quite possible that two sa players, or two 2/1 players, have more trouble understanding each other than a 2/1 player and an sa player.

 

Besides, in contested auctions the 2/1 principle doesn't apply so even if you are eventually going to play 2/1 you will need to know traditional approach forcing principles anyway .

 

So I wouldn't worry too much. As long as they don't teach you strong twos :)

Sorry, but I consider this nonsense.

I am not claiming that 2/1 solves all problems, nor that you can not have disagreements what certain murky bidding sequences mean, which happen to be totally irrelevant for beginners.

I am in strong agreement with Larry Cohen that torturing beginners with sa and letting them remember which sequences are forcing thereafter and which can be passed is only to the benefit of the teacher.

By the way 2/1 evolved out of systems like sa and I am pretty sure sa will die a natural death, just like Goren or Culbertson.

What this thread confirms is that standard american is even in the US no standard anymore already.

The same holds true by the way for SEF and Forum D. They will die a natural death.

Beginners get taught these systems, because the teachers are familiar with them and need not revise their old class notes, not because these systems are predominantly played or particularly well suited for beginners.

By the way I am not claiming that there are no advantages of sa, SEF or Forum D compared to 2/1, only that these systems are much more difficult to play well than 2/1 and of course there are also many disadvantages even if you play well.

That is why average players prefer 2/1 even more than experts. 2/1 is less error prone and subject to misunderstandings.

SA, SEF and Forum D is played predominantly by the old and grey.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

OK, if the objective is to chose a well-defined system, then IMO:

WJ2000: 10. SEF: 9. Forum-D: 9. 2/1: 2. SA: 2. Acol: 1. Precision: 0

 

I don't agree with this list. If "well-defined" means "there is a precise document describing as many sequences as possible" then maybe yes. But if it means "how rare will two experts who agree to play this system have a misunderstanding" then 2/1 would do very well - I'd guess better than any system on the above list other than WJ2000.

That's partly because noone has read the Forum-D description. (Ok, some have, but most of them aren't experts.) But more importantly, there is such a strong culture of discussions based on 2/1 that a 2/1 partnership will win hands-down in any sequence that is not defined in the Forum D document.

[awm]

There are a number of auctions in 2/1 where you basically revert to playing standard:

 

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦: After the overcall, the 2♦ bid is not necessarily game forcing.

 

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - Pass - 2♥: As a passed hand, the 2♥ bid is not game forcing.

 

1♦ - Pass - 2♣: Since there is no forcing 1NT response to 1♦, not all 2/1 players consider this game forcing.

 

1♣ - 1♠ - Pass - 2♦: Some style differences, but certainly 2♦ reply to an overcall is not game forcing.

 

In all these situations it helps to know "standard american" bidding in order to know what's forcing, what shows extras, etc. This gives a reasonable incentive for bridge teachers to start with standard american.

[fromageGB]

This doesn't seem to be an argument for teaching standard american, as isn't this the same in any natural system? Does knowing SA help you any more that knowing acol or SEF? Bidding after passing, or after an overcall, can and should be taught in conjunction with any basic system.

[awm]

This doesn't seem to be an argument for teaching standard american, as isn't this the same in any natural system? Does knowing SA help you any more that knowing acol or SEF? Bidding after passing, or after an overcall, can and should be taught in conjunction with any basic system.

 

The point is that standard american (or acol, or SEF) gives you a structure you can use in these auctions. 2/1 GF does not. So if you are going to learn 2/1 GF, you basically have to learn standard american (or acol, or SEF... i.e. a system where 2/1 is NOT always GF) as well. Thus it's simpler to teach one of these systems first.

 

In fact most modern bridge teachers (in the US anyway) are more familiar with 2/1 GF than with any form of standard american. They teach standard american first because it gives you these structures that you'll need in many auctions.

[rhm]

The point is that standard american (or acol, or SEF) gives you a structure you can use in these auctions. 2/1 GF does not. So if you are going to learn 2/1 GF, you basically have to learn standard american (or acol, or SEF... i.e. a system where 2/1 is NOT always GF) as well. Thus it's simpler to teach one of these systems first.

 

In fact most modern bridge teachers (in the US anyway) are more familiar with 2/1 GF than with any form of standard american. They teach standard american first because it gives you these structures that you'll need in many auctions.

A strange argument and I do not believe it to be true either. It sounds to me it is long time you last played more than a couple of boards with a beginner.

 

Competitive bidding is different and beginner need first a sound foundation in constructive bidding they can handle reasonably.

For example where I play, negative free bids at the two level are in vogue, so there is no relationship to either 2/1 or any other natural system still played today.

I won't go into the merits of this approach here compared to what is played in the US predominantly, only even if new suits are played as forcing the analogy with SA is superficial.

Different sequences are considered forcing after constructive bidding in SA than in competitive sequences, jump shifts are usually not played as strong after an overcall when new suits are considered forcing, hands bidding 2♥ after 1♠ and an overcall of 2♣ differ often from what is required for a 2♥ bid over 1♠ even in SA.

I could go on...

 

Yesterday I played with a player at BBO, who called himself an expert. Of course he was no expert, but no beginner either.

The bidding went

 

1♥--2♣

2♥--3♦

3♥--4♣

Pass

 

I made 12 tricks.

Now 4♣ is considered forcing in any natural system I know, but the point is in 2/1 such disasters just do not happen as frequently.

 

Rainer Herrmann