What 2/1 Conventions do you prefer?

[Elyk25]

Hi all. Just wondering which 2/1-specific conventions do you find over and over again to be the most important to getting you into the best contracts. For example, I'm partial to inverted minors, bergen raises, and 2-way reverse drury due to their very powerful descriptions they provide. What bids do YOU like to make? Do you find any common conventions overrated and prefer some other alternative? Let's discuss!

[Stephen Tu]

I don't see how any of those conventions are 2/1 specific. Maybe your question is simply "what set of conventions do you prefer"? Or maybe "what conventions do you prefer in the context of a natural (e.g. not strong or multi-way forcing club) 5 cd major system?". So then this is kind of a "what are your favorite conventions" thread, which might be an overly broad topic.

 

There's really not much conventionally required in 2/1 other than 5 cd majors, and a forcing or semi-forcing NT, and high requirements for a 2/1. Every other convention is pretty much optional and can be played in a lot of other different systems.

[Vampyr]

Don't like 2/1GF, but a convention I find very useful is this one: 1NT-2♣-2M-3OM where 2♣ is Stayman and 3OM is a hand too good for a raise to 4M. Much the simplest way to deal with this hand-type.

[gwnn]

1M-2C should have a bunch of hands because it's the lowest GF bid. My preference is GF with clubs or GF balanced. Don't forget to bid it with 4 spades and a good hand when you have a balanced hand, such as AKxx Qxx Axx xxx. It's tough to show a good flat hand with a fit otherwise.

 

Similarly, since it is the lowest rebid by opener, you should use

1M-2C

2D as something other than 4+ diamonds. Many artificial structyres I've seen use it as "minimum, without 4 cards in the other major" but I think it's worth playing something like that even if you don't want to learn a big relay structure. Say, "diamonds or a minimum balanced hand unsuitable for 2NT."

 

These are 2/1 specific and fairly widespread among experts as far as I can tell.

[Vampyr]

1M-2C should have a bunch of hands because it's the lowest GF bid.

 

......

 

These are 2/1 specific

 

Not necessarily. You could play that 2♣ is an artificial GF, and all other 2/1s are not GF (or even non-forcing).

[gwnn]

Ok I meant:

 

1M-2C clubs or balanced, GF

2D 5+ diamonds, GF

2H 5+ hearts, GF

 

True, you play this also as 2H=10+ so technically it's still not 2/1 specific. Also some people add invitational hands with 3 cards in the major to 2C so it's not even a GF.

 

To make matters even worse, 1M-2C; 2D as a waiting bid is also useful for 2/1 non-GF, viz. awm's "Standard American" writeup.

 

Therefore, I hereby solemnly retract my mistaken assertion that any of my previous post was specific to 2/1. I apologize for the misleading and hasty generalizations perpetrated and I hope that the damage done to bridge theory and the credibility of this forum can be partially amended due to this clarification. I will also set up a committee that will find and severely punish the reponsible parties, ensuring that such grave errors will never be committed again by anyone in this administration.

[helene_t]

I like invitational jump shifts. Not 2/1 specific but more useful in 2/1 since it is a bit awkward if 1NT followed by 3♣ is 5-11 points.

 

Drury is also very good. Not 2/1 specific but it is particularly easy to remember playing 2/1 since a natural 2/1 response by a passed hand is impossible.

[mcphee]

Doubles, and lots of them. I feel that if more players had a stronger understanding in their partnerships how to use doubles you would see a big improvement in results for those pairs.

[nullve]

My favourite would be a good hcp evaluator. Bad hcp evaluators, e.g. Milton Work, make hcp ranges look smaller than they really are, and sometimes hcp ranges will look adjacent when they really are overlapping. So e.g. while the standard NT ladder, using Milton Work, is

 

1x, then 1N = 12-14

1N = 15-17

1x, then 2N = 18-19

2N = 20-21

2C, then 2N = 22-24

etc.,

 

from the perspective of a good hcp evaluator, calibrated so that aces, kings, queens and jacks are still worth a total of 40 hcp, the ladder might look more like

 

1x, then 1N = 11-15

1N = 14-18

1x, then 2N = 17-20

2N = 19-22

2C, then 2N = 21-25

etc.,

 

which everone understands is bad. Also, because the ranges are wider than they have to, people tend to play a lot of invitational bids that would otherwise be pointless, e.g. invitational 2N and 3M bids after a prima facie 15-17 NT.

[wank]

As a beginner you don't want to devote too much time to conventions. Concentrate on bidding judgment.

[mgoetze]

I don't see how any of those conventions are 2/1 specific.

Yes, I've seen people want to play Bergen Raises without playing 2/1. Then you ask them how they show an invitational hand with 3-card support and they look at you with this empty stare...

[Vampyr]

Yes, I've seen people want to play Bergen Raises without playing 2/1. Then you ask them how they show an invitational hand with 3-card support and they look at you with this empty stare...

 

Normally you start with 2/1 and then jump to 3 of opener's suit. With or without Bergen Raises (I don't see the relevance of the latter).

[akwoo]

Normally you start with 2/1 and then jump to 3 of opener's suit. With or without Bergen Raises (I don't see the relevance of the latter).

 

In fact, that's the old fashioned way - how all invitational raises were made back in the days of Goren when the jump raise was game forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

Normally you start with 2/1 and then jump to 3 of opener's suit. With or without Bergen Raises (I don't see the relevance of the latter).

 

If you are playing Acol. In SA, pre-2/1, 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ was always considered forcing, at least according to all the old Goren books I read back in the day, and other sources like Root. Invitational 3 cd raises just supported the major at the lowest level the next round. Sometimes giving responder a judgment call between bidding a flawed invitational 2nt on the 2nd round, or giving a major preference on 2 cds where opener might expect 3 most of the time.

 

Also, it is possible to play 2/1 not GF, and a forcing NT & thereby get your 3cd inv raises through 1nt. BWS was like this for a long time, might still be that way. Eastern Scientific based systems.

 

Bergen raises actually to me are *harder* to play with 2/1 GF, because you lose the ability to make invitational jump shifts in the minors. So then you have the choice between:

- play old "Lawrence style" as per his workbook, with rebid of 2/1 suit inv in most situations, which some would argue is no longer 2/1 GF.

- just overbid all the time with these hands and force to game, hope it works out

- have a way too wide range for 1M-1nt-2x-3m auctions

[sfi]

Yes, I've seen people want to play Bergen Raises without playing 2/1. Then you ask them how they show an invitational hand with 3-card support and they look at you with this empty stare...

 

It's pretty common around here to play a jump in the other major as a three-card limit raise, in both SA and 2/1 contexts. Not saying this particular approach is brilliant, but there are any number of ways to deal with it.

[sfi]

1M-2C should have a bunch of hands because it's the lowest GF bid. My preference is GF with clubs or GF balanced. Don't forget to bid it with 4 spades and a good hand when you have a balanced hand, such as AKxx Qxx Axx xxx. It's tough to show a good flat hand with a fit otherwise.

 

I've been using 1M-2C like this for a while, but throwing in the major suit raises in as well. It is a clear enough win that two regular partnerships have switched to 2/1 (in various strong club contexts) just to add this.

 

Advantages:

- you can invite in the major and stay at the two level

- a 1NT response never includes the invitational hand with three-card support

- jump shifts are freed up for something more useful than Bergen (we use them as nat/inv)

- other two-level responses show real suits

- it provides a good way to bid flat hands with support

- it reduces to Drury by a passed hand, so the transition is easy

 

It's only legal in mid-chart and higher events in the ACBL, but I believe it's fine everywhere else.

[wank]

i saw your list in the other thread

 

roman keycard gerber - everyone plays roman keycard blackwood, but only experts have expanded the principle to include gerber. i can honestly say that i can't remember the last time i played standard 4 ace gerber with any of my partners. RKCG is often superior to RKCB because you have space to ask for kings without committing to slam and check for aces without passing game.

 

 

for example, let's say partner opens 1 spade and you have [hv=pc=n&s=saj4hqj32dqj54ckq&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

omg. you have 16 points opposite an opening bid. slam is very likely but you don't want to bid blackwood. you could be forcing to the 5 level missing 3 aces. better to bid 4 clubs, RKCG, and then check for kings if you have the requisite aces.

[awm]

Here's a few that I like:

 

1. Invitational jump shifts by responder. Really valuable at the three-level (otherwise these hands are unbiddable); I like them at the two-level also.

2. Two-way checkback (a.k.a. XY-NT); simultaneously better and simpler than playing NMF.

3. Transfers after opener's 2NT rebid.

[mgoetze]

Don't drink and post, wank. ;)

[fromageGB]

One does not use the last of those three conventions playing with two over one, but more commonly when playing solo.