2/1 with reverses not showing extras

[mike777]

With 3235 shape I rebid 2NT. This is usually a balanced hand, so I don't see the problem. Partner will bid 3NT with the 5332 hand, and probably not with the 6322 shape.

Good Grief, if you rebid 2nt with 13 hcp after 1h=2c=2h then what does 3nt rebid show? I thought we bid slow with big hands and fast with minimum hands but....

 

I would think if responder rebids 2nt with second bid that is much stronger than rebid of 3nt but this thread seems to say no or is this just another point of confusion in 2/1? Note if bidding goes 1h=2d=2h=2nt( what does this mean compared to 3nt)? Or are we just making random nt rebids to go along with with our random shape 2h but minimum rebids?

[awm]

There are plenty of problem hands with both styles, regardless of whether high reverses show extras. To give some problems with the style where reverses do show extra:

 

KQxxx

x

KQxxx

Qx

 

I'm sure most of us open this hand. Suppose the auction begins 1♠-2♥. I'm sure someone will argue that this hand has extras; if you really open that light then change one or two of the pointed queens to a jack. Assuming you don't bid 3♦ with any 5-5 hand regardless of strength, this hand will rebid 2♠. Partner rebids 3♥. So now your choices are:

 

(1) Rebid your ratty five card spade suit for the THIRD time in the auction.

(2) Bid 3NT and pray partner doesn't have two small clubs.

(3) Introduce diamonds at the four level, bypassing 3NT and hoping pd doesn't take it as a cue.

(4) Raise partner's hearts on small singleton with quacky holdings in the side suits.

 

Playing that reverses don't show extras: 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♥-3♠. The three spade bid here doesn't show six, since we'd have bid 2♠ at first turn. It's basically a punt saying "I don't like your hearts, I have no clear club stopper for 3NT, please do something intelligent."

 

As another example:

 

AQTxxx

Kx

xxx

Ax

 

Auction starts 1♠-2♥-2♠-3♦. Now what? We haven't shown any of the following:

 

(1) The sixth spade. Should we bid 3♠ now to show it?

(2) The partial support for hearts. Should we bid 3♥ now? Will partner take that as a min with a real fit (or does a direct 3♥ at least not show extras)? Will partner bid 3♠ over 3♥ with five hearts and Kx of spades, or prefer to bid 3NT?

(3) The club stopper. Should we bid 3NT now?

 

It seems like whatever we pick, something can potentially be lost. If the 2♠ rebid had already shown the sixth spade, we could infer from partner's 3♦ bid that partner does not have honor-doubleton in spades. We can continue with 3♥ knowing that (1) and (2) have both been identified, and that partner can bid 3♠ as a punt to get us to call 3NT with a stopper.

 

Of course it's easy to come up with examples where the style of reverses NOT showing extras comes to grief. However, the majority of these examples will be slam hands (i.e. where opener DOES have extras, and you can't figure it out). This is a somewhat less frequent situation than two minimums looking for the right game.

 

On another note, many people seem to want the 2NT rebid to show exactly 5332 (doubleton in partner's suit) and stoppers in BOTH unbids. This seems kind of extreme -- this 2NT bid is extremely specific whereas 2♠ basically gives NO information. Playing this style, how do you consider:

 

1♠-2♥-2NT-3♦?

 

It seems like there's no reason for this to be a stopper probe -- opener already showed a club stopper with 2NT and there's no reason to pinpoint a weak suit for the opponents. So it must be some sort of slam try. But there's no reason to introduce a four card diamond suit, since 2NT rebid shows 5233 exactly. So it must be 5-5 or better in the reds with slam interest, despite the fact that partner has shown wastage in the blacks. In fact, some people insist that 2NT shows a minimum hand (not 18-19)! How frequent is a 5-5 or better slam try opposite a balanced minimum with wastage? It seems like these sequences will almost never occur, and perhaps might be put to better use.

 

Anyways, I know plenty of good players who prefer either of the two styles with regard to reverses. Hardy even mentions in the 2/1 book that high reverses showing/not showing extras are a matter of partnership choice and that both treatments are reasonable.

[Stephen Tu]

Good Grief, if you rebid 2nt with 13 hcp after 1h=2c=2h then what does 3nt rebid show? I thought we bid slow with big hands and fast with minimum hands but....

 

3nt would show extra values, but limited, ~16-17 or so. With 18-19 you would bid 2nt planning to bid 4nt next time. This is the standard approach recommended by almost every 2/1 system book I've read (Hardy, Lawrence, Robinson). Slow with big hands, fast with minimum hands only makes sense in situations where partner is limited & you are certain what strain to play. Otherwise jumps should show specific features. If you try to play the other way you are just handicapping yourself. If you jump to 3nt with a minimum GF, you are frequently taking this action, and removing the ability to explore for alternate superior games. Luckily most of the time you will survive it, but you are frequently giving up one of the benefits of 2/1GF, a forcing 2nt rebid. With the extra values 3nt is often the right spot even with an alternate strain available (adequate stoppers more likely, don't have to ruff winners), so the reduced ability to explore strain is less burdensome. Also your 2nt becomes this unwieldy wide 16-19 range, it is hard for partner to know how much to bid over this.

 

I would think if responder rebids 2nt with second bid that is much stronger than rebid of 3nt but this thread seems to say no or is this just another point of confusion in 2/1?

 

It's a misconception many people hold who have not studied the books on the matter, and have picked up misguided notions about the reasons for fast arrival from other players.

 

It's necessary to have a catchall. Rebidding the major on 5 is not a disaster. You still have the 3 level available to back in to a 6-2 fit. If you insist on having the major rebid show 6 (which can admittedly be helpful), then you have to do things like bidding 2nt off-shape & without side stoppers, which often fetches 3nt, down first 5-6 tricks, because of either no stopper or wrong-sided stoppers. I don't see many people using the Bergen 2nt catchall. More often I see the "only shape matters" people, who raise partner's minor, or high-reverse on their 10-11 HCP shapely opening. Then their partner is often put in a no-win situation when they have a little extra but not a lot extra. They'd like to explore for slam opposite partner's good hands, but 3nt will be the limit (or far superior esp. at MP to 5m) opposite his minimums. He signs off, opener can't do anything, good slams are missed. Or they take the aggressive view, opener has the minimum, they go down in 5m when 3nt makes.

 

I think opener can get away with a 2 level reverse without extras, with appropriate follow auction tools. But I definitely think high reverses/minor raises without extras are unplayable in a "natural" system. You could do it if you have some artificiality to deal with stronger hands, but not without serious discussion. Otherwise it's best to take a cheap rebid, limit your hand.

[Stephen Tu]

KQxxx

x

KQxxx

Qx

 

1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥-?

 

This sort of hand is the argument for rebidding side minor strength with an indifferent 6cd heart suit, knowing partner will take the preference on a doubleton not holding a great stopper in the other minor, having denied heart support from not raising. Rather than "must rebid 6 cd heart suit no matter what". So I would pass 3♥ if non-forcing, raise to 4♥ if forcing.

 

But in any case, compared to the alternate 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♥-?

auction, I think you are better placed. Responder has definitely shown 6

hearts, and he had options of rebidding 2nt/3m with mediocre hearts, whereas after 3♦ his options were quite limited.

 

Playing that reverses don't show extras: 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♥-3♠. The three spade bid here doesn't show six, since we'd have bid 2♠ at first turn. It's basically a punt saying "I don't like your hearts, I have no clear club stopper for 3NT, please do something intelligent."

But I think it's harder to do something intelligent, because both hands are unlimited, and 3♥ didn't really show anything. Is it supposed to show 6? Are you supposed to prefer 3♠ on doubletons? How to then distinguish hands that have real spade support? Are you supposed to raise diamonds past 3nt on mins even though partner can easily have the club stopper? And how about better hands, where you want to play 3nt opposite this min, but 6d opposite something better?

 

 

As another example:

 

AQTxxx

Kx

xxx

Ax

 

Auction starts 1♠-2♥-2♠-3♦. Now what? We haven't shown any of the following:

 

This is a clear 3♥ bid, shows doubleton since you would raise directly with a real fit.

 

(2) The partial support for hearts. Should we bid 3♥ now? Will partner take that as a min with a real fit (or does a direct 3♥ at least not show extras)? Will partner bid 3♠ over 3♥ with five hearts and Kx of spades, or prefer to bid 3NT?

He'll bid 3♠ with this and no club stopper, with club stopper, you are fine playing 3nt even with 6-2 spade fit.

 

On another note, many people seem to want the 2NT rebid to show exactly 5332 (doubleton in partner's suit) and stoppers in BOTH unbids.

I'm not this extreme. My feeling is that it should show something that looks like a stop in the unbids, and just that you think continuations over 2nt will lead you to the right contract more often than choosing some other rebid.

 

1♠-2♥-2NT-3♦?

 

It seems like there's no reason for this to be a stopper probe -- opener already showed a club stopper with 2NT and there's no reason to pinpoint a weak suit for the opponents.

 

Well, this is somewhat of a philosophy question. With a concentrated 5-5, even without slammish values, it might be right to introduce diamonds, 5d or a 5-2 . Opener is allowed to rebid 2nt on somewhat tenous stoppers, opponents who lead from their longest/strongest suits will tend to find your weak suit even if you didn't pinpoint it for them.

[whereagles]

i did, more or less... here's what i asked:

 

"your partner opens 1h and you bid 2c with a 3235 13 count... now he bids 2h with a 3613 11 count... your bid... change his hand to a 3532 12 count... he again bids 2h... your bid... "

Ok, with 3532 12 hcp I bid like this:

 

1H 2C

2NT

 

The 2NT rebid is 12-14 or 18-19 (follow up with a natural 4NT in the later case). A 3NT rebid would show 15-17 balanced. With a 3613 11 hcp the rebid is 2H:

 

1H 2C

2H

 

eventually followed by 3C, depending on what pard bids.

 

This is all book bidding, so where's the problem? ;)

[EricK]

Couldn't most of these auctions be improved by making the cheapest rebid by opener the catch-all (including all balanced hands) and swapping the other responses as appropriate?

 

Eric

[Chamaco]

Couldn't most of these auctions be improved by making the cheapest rebid by opener the catch-all (including all balanced hands) and swapping the other responses as appropriate?

 

Eric

 

Yes.

- 2NT would show 64 distribution with extras (5.5- losers or 15+ hcp), 3C by resp. asks side bagger;

- 3X would be natural 55 or better or semisolid single suiter (if jump rebid), with extras (same as above).

- suit rebid by opener would be the substitute of the waiting bid:

e.g.

1S:2D:2H (waiting, nothing to say, might have a featureless hand or extra length in spades but not good enough to jump to 3S)

1S:2D:2S = shows hearts (substitutes the 2H waiting)

[whereagles]

There's a lot of scope for maximization, but then you get into the usual problem of more precision = less mnemonics = much more memory B)

[luke warm]

i did, more or less... here's what i asked:

 

"your partner opens 1h and you bid 2c with a 3235 13 count... now he bids 2h with a 3613 11 count... your bid... change his hand to a 3532 12 count... he again bids 2h... your bid... "

Ok, with 3532 12 hcp I bid like this:

 

1H 2C

2NT

 

The 2NT rebid is 12-14 or 18-19 (follow up with a natural 4NT in the later case). A 3NT rebid would show 15-17 balanced. With a 3613 11 hcp the rebid is 2H:

 

1H 2C

2H

 

eventually followed by 3C, depending on what pard bids.

 

This is all book bidding, so where's the problem? B)

there is no problem, if that's your bid... i was replying to this from you:

 

One of the greatest problems of 2/1 GF is the misconception it naturally instills on players that you can just bid out shape and forget about points. This is bad strategy and will lead to poor results on the long run.

 

it seems to me that your 1h/2c/2nt is the 'catchall' they're talking about, tho most use 1h/2c/2h here... to me, 2h should show 6+ hearts, and you seem to agree

 

i tend to agree that 1h/2d/3c should show extras, but can make a case for it not

[Chamaco]

 

it seems to me that your 1h/2c/2nt is the 'catchall' they're talking about, tho most use 1h/2c/2h here...

 

Well, in Mike Lawrence's style of 2/1 (and whereagles' description seems very much like it is), 2NT has a very strict definition:

 

- must have 2+ cards in responder's suit. So featureless 5431 with singleton in pard suit cannot rebid 2NT.

- it must have all side suit stopped; so a 5331 with one suit Jxx is not allowed

 

 

There are plenty of hand types that won't be able to bid above 2M (showing xtras) nor bid 2NT, and all these hands rebid 2M.

 

Example 1: 1H:2D and you have Kxx-AQJxx-x-Qxxx. You cannot rebid 3C nor 2NT.

Example 2: 1H:2C and you have Kx-AQJxx-xx-Qxxx. You cannot support directly 3C because it should show extras, cannot bid 2NT , unstopped diamonds.

Example 3: 1H:2D and you have Kxxx-AQJxx-x-Qxx. You cannot support 3C because it should show extras, can't reverse to 2S,can't bid 2NT.

 

The "waiting bid" tells that the hand is more or less featureless, except occasionally extra length in spades OR support for responder suit, but in that case with a weakish opener.

It does help limiting the hand, because when you DO support immediately responder's suit, you promise a good hand, and slam investigation is greatly improved.

Using 2NT as catchall is bad when you have unstopped suits (wrongsides contract), and I hate to bid it with a singleton in pard's suit.

 

to me, 2h should show 6+ hearts, and you seem to agree

i tend to agree that 1h/2d/3c should show extras, but can make a case for it not

 

In his book "The uncontested auction", ML shows that in his system opener should rebid 2M even on a suit like 87654, when he has no alternative rebid.

I personally would not go as far (I would not open 87654 1M because to me it is a 4 bagger), but it does show that 2M rebid has no implivations of extra length/strength in the suit.

 

But of cours ML style is not the only one on this planet :-)

[whereagles]

Well, in my way of bidding (and I stress it's only my way), the auction

 

1H 2D

2H

 

shows one of the following

 

1. 5-4 with 4 spades or clubs OR DIAMS, and a min hand 12-14

2. 6 hearts and nothing better to say, probably around the 11-14 range

3. Eventually a 12-14 balanced hand without tenaces, hoping pard will bid NT. (Very rare, and a bit of a mastermind I agree.)

 

If opener has 4 diams and a min, he will support later, e.g.

 

1H 2D

2H 2NT/3C

3D <-- honest support, 3 or 4 cards, and most importantly, a MIN hand.

 

The advantage of not bidding shape right away is more visible for slam bidding. Suppose opener is min with 4522 and responder has 4153 and slam ambitions. Then it will go

 

1H 2D

2H 2S

3S

 

now responder knows opener has 5-4 but also that he has a min. Now resp can use a serious/frivolous 3NT if he wants to ask opener whether his min is fit for slam or not.

 

Compare with bidding shape right away:

 

1H 2D

2S 3S

 

now opener can be anywhere from 12 to 20 points!! The difference in precision is striking. On the 1st case you're in the 12-14 range and in the second a 12-20 range is possible.

[Chamaco]

Well, in my way of bidding (and I stress it's only my way)

 

That's pretty much Mike Lawrence's style described in "2/1 Workbook" and "Uncontested auction quizbook".

[mike777]

Well, in my way of bidding (and I stress it's only my way), the auction

 

 

1H 2D

2H 2S

3S

 

now responder knows opener has 5-4 but also that he has a min. Now resp can use a serious/frivolous 3NT if he wants to ask opener whether his min is fit for slam or not.

 

Compare with bidding shape right away:

 

1H 2D

2S 3S

 

now opener can be anywhere from 12 to 20 points!! The difference in precision is striking. On the 1st case you're in the 12-14 range and in the second a 12-20 range is possible.

Thanks for discussing perhaps the number one worry about rebids of shape over hcp. I would go further and say opener may have 10-20.

 

Neither method is fully satifactory in resolving the main problem of 2/1, level vs strain. I put forward for discussion the thesis that shape solves more problems than it creates.

 

BTW I assume in your methods with 6-4 and minimum, most of the time your rebid is 2h not 2s but perhaps not.

 

In your wonderful example 1H=2D=2S=3S

Opener has shown very often 5H and 4S around 11-13 with hcp in suits. But opener could be 10-20 yes. Must admit in our style it seems opener having unbalanced 14 hcps and the opp being silent and responder having 14 hcp seems rare so we cater more to weakish hands.

Responder very often has 5D-4S and 14+hcp(not 12).

 

As responder this is not an issue for me that I do not know if p has 11 or 15 or 18pts. I get the impression in this thread it is for most. If I understand the discussion this seems to be the number one issue, yes there may be other issues.

 

I would put forth for discussion if you feel comfortable you know what you want to do now over 3S given these parameters try shape as it is more natural and less catchall, if not play hcp.

[whereagles]

BTW I assume in your methods with 6-4 and minimum, most of the time your rebid is 2h not 2s but perhaps not.

If you mean a 6-4 spades/hearts, I can point out that there is a trend of bidding in SAYC that bypasses hearts if the 6-4 is weak. I learned this from a book of Frank Stewart.

 

In 2/1 it is even simpler to implement this trend, since there's no worry of stopping short of game. Something for serious partnerships to consider. At the moment I'm rebidding hearts regardless of strenght, but will give the matter some consideration at some stage.

[mike777]

BTW I assume in your methods with 6-4 and minimum, most of the time your rebid is 2h not 2s but perhaps not.

If you mean a 6-4 spades/hearts, I can point out that there is a trend of bidding in SAYC that bypasses hearts if the 6-4 is weak. I learned this from a book of Frank Stewart.

 

In 2/1 it is even simpler to implement this trend, since there's no worry of stopping short of game. Something for serious partnerships to consider. At the moment I'm rebidding hearts regardless of strenght, but will give the matter some consideration at some stage.

I meant 6 hearts and 4 spades minimum I assume you rebid 2h most of the time but ok.

[whereagles]

Ah, ok. Yes rebid 2H if min.

[han]

This thread shows that 2/1, just like sayc and most likely any other generic system, has many subtle auctions that leave casual partnerships guessing. Regular partnerships that have discussed these subtleties have an edge over casual partnerships, but no matter which style they choose, there will always be hands or auctions that give them problems.

 

When playing with someone like Luke Warm, I would be happy to agree to their style, even though it is of course inferior ( :blink: ). This seems like a topic that many partnerships don't take as seriously as they should.

[Stephen Tu]

I put forward for discussion the thesis that shape solves more problems than it creates.

 

You have made this claim, but you really haven't shown any good example hands to show your side of the argument. Can you give a hand where shape first solves a real problem?

 

The argument for using a low level catchall with hands unsuitable for other action is that one still has a fair amount of room to search for strain, and that by the critical decision making level, typically 3nt (since that is often the last making contract), one usually has enough information about distribution, strength, and honor location to make a reasonable decision. Even though the catchall bid loses definition, all the other bids gain definition & presumably lead to better contracts on average than a looser approach. And hands that bid the catchall, after one more round of bidding, have often passed more information across at the same level as a "shape first" auction, because one hand may have limited itself & the other hand had more bidding options available at a safe level.

 

On the other hand, if you are bidding shape without regard to strength, you accelerate the auction, you are making expensive bids (high reverses, raises), that rob bidding room. Why is this better? Generally the more bids the partnership makes before reaching a given level, the more information can be passed & a more accurate decision can be made. You are almost certainly losing ground on all these hands.

 

All this just so that 2M can guarantee 6? Where's the examples of this great gain that can be had from 2M guaranteeing 6?

[luke warm]

When playing with someone like Luke Warm, I would be happy to agree to their style, even though it is of course inferior ( :blink: ). This seems like a topic that many partnerships don't take as seriously as they should.

hehe... we've played enough where you know i don't *have* a style ;)

 

anyway, it isn't that big a deal to me, in the one really serious p'ship i had we made a concious decision that 2nt would show the balanced minimum, 5 cards only in the major... that's all

 

by the way, i much prefer to show the spades (say 4/5 or 4/6) with a min opener, once partner has bid 2c or 2d, but can live with rebidding hearts and letting responder show his, if he wants... i just haven't seen a lot of necessity, playing serious 3nt and fred's cue bidding style, with using a reverse when minimum

[awm]

AQTxxx

Axx

Ax

xx

 

Kx

xx

Kxxx

AKxxx

 

Playing 2♠ as a catch-all, I'd expect the following auction with the top hand dealing:

 

1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦

 

Surely the spade suit is not good enough to rebid 3♠ at first turn. Since the spade rebid is quite often five, a 3♠ bid by responder over it should show three-card support and set spades as trump. With no heart stopper, responder makes a natural 3♦ bid. Now north is in something of a bind. He could rebid 3♠, but if partner holds:

 

x

Jxx

KQJx

AKxxx

 

You will now be unable to stop in 3NT. Most likely will play 4♠ which has some chances, but I suspect 3NT will be a superior contract.

 

So north could well rebid 3NT. This will end the auction, because opener could certainly hold:

 

AJxxx

KQx

xx

Qxx

 

Even if north does bid 3♠ now, can responder really set spades in a forcing way? Rebidding a minor would presumably be natural (and, if minimum, denying a heart stop). Perhaps you could argue that a 3♥ bid by opener somehow shows this hand, but you can just reverse the hearts and diamonds (in both the two hands) and such a bid will be unavailable.

 

Anyways it seems as though this slam is very likely to be missed. Playing a style where 2♠ shows six:

 

1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠...

 

now that spades have been set as trump it should be straightforward to get to the excellent slam.

 

As another example:

 

AKxxx

Axx

x

Jxxx

 

xx

xx

AKxx

AKQxx

 

Playing a style where raises show extras:

 

1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦

 

Should opener now bid 4♣? Certainly on the example hands above, this will be right. However, it seems like bypassing 3NT on a minimum could easily be wrong. If opener rebids 3NT the auction is likely to end there, and a good slam will be missed. After a club raise and two cuebids, finding slam would have been trivial.

 

Of course, perhaps you can argue that south should bid 2NT at second turn with both hands. But then, why is it okay for south to bid 2NT with a suit (hearts) wide open and with off-shape hands, whereas north is not supposed to do so? Can't this "wrong-side" the 3NT? If south should bid 2NT with basically any hand lacking a fit for opener's suit, you will solve some problems in exchange for others.

[Chamaco]

Playing 2♠ as a catch-all, I'd expect the following auction with the top hand dealing:

 

1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦

 

Many 2/1 players use the cheapest step by responder as "Bourke-relay" type, asking opener to clarify his hand, exactly to avoid being squeezed after a 3D rebid.

 

So 2NT would be the*artificial* rebid, opener would clarify his hand, and many troubles you quote in all your hands would be avoided.

Basically the idea is always t keep the bidding low.

 

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

 

By the way, all these example show that it seems better for opener, to use *cheapest step* as catchall instead of major suit rebid, as someone already mentioned.

This way bidding stays low and responder has much more room to show/ask features.

 

In the present case:

 

1S:2C:?

....-2D =catchall , may have long spades or features unbiddable at the 3 level

....-2H =natural

....-2S= diamonds (substitutes the waiting bid)

 

1S:2D:?

....-2H =catchall , may have long spades or features unbiddable at the 3 level

....-2S= hearts (substitutes the waiting bid)

 

1S:2H:?

...- 2S catchall (what else ? :blink: )

[Flame]

Serious/nonserious 3NT can help.

[Chamaco]

Serious/nonserious 3NT can help.

Sure serious/unserious 3NT helps when we found a major fit;

however here the discussion is on 2/1 misfit auctions

[beatrix45]

:(

A lot of good postings on this topic, but there is one perspective I didn't see: ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES ASAP. Yes, we are in a game force, but is our main objective now just to bid the right game or is slam still in the wind? I think this is why opener's rebids that use up bidding space w/o confirming a useful trump fit are best defined as showing extras.

 

Prior to 2/1, an auction like 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♥ didn't promise extras, but a high reverse like 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♣ did. This still makes sense to me. Similarly, auctions like 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦ also suggested extras because (esp. at matchpoints) finding a minor suit fit doesn't necessarily confirm a place to play at the game level when 3NT is an option (9 tricks vs 11 for the same score), but this isn't nearly as important a consideration for slams. Minor suit contracts score almost as much as NT contracts at the slam level.

 

It would be nice if 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ promised a 6 bagger, but that makes 2NT an overworked 'catch all' bid. Remember, that with a game force established and only at the 2♥ level, you still have lots of room to investigate, and you have done something very important by advertising a minimum with your simple 2♥ rebid even if your suit length is still ambiguous. ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES ASAP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN TELLING YOUR STORY.

 

The principles underlying the basic structure of 2/1 seem to be pretty much the same as those of SAYC. The early game force of 2/1 (a prime example of the benefit arising from the early establishment of objectives) frees up a lot of subsequent bids that can then be given special meanings. The earlier trend was to use them for preemptive bids like WJS or for 'picture' bids like splinters. More recently, we are starting to see them used as an introductory portal for relay sequences - e.g. the 'serious' 3NT. Indeed, why use all double jumps as splinters (tying up two or three bids) when you can pick just one of them as a portal and reveal the short suit on the next round (see, also, the 'multi-2D' opening bid).

 

That's why I really, really want to preempt and otherwise jam your auction.