2 over 1

[jddons]

[hv=pc=n&w=s8hat972dq9ckqjt9&e=sajt942h53dj5ca52&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2hp2sp3cp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

 

I'm looking for some advice on the 2/1 system. The given auction got EW much too high. East claimed his hand was too strong for a weak 2 when NV and was fine as an opening bid. West said he should have passed initially rather than opening. East said that West was too weak to make a game force. What do you think?

[The_Badger]

I personally don't think either player was at fault, it is one of those loose misfits that cannot make game. Except if you are opening weak twos in the range 7-10 HCPs - and that rarely occurs these days - East is easily worth an opening bid, and West is worth a 2/1 response. It's more to do with system than anything else.

 

So what you lose on some hands with 2/1, you gain on others. C'est la vie. Both Acol and SAYC should be able to stop below game, but there's no guarantee that any part score at the three level will make either.

[akwoo]

Either East is not an opening hand, or West is not a 2/1 response.

 

I think this is a matter of partnership agreement, and this hand is right on the border that either choice is reasonable.

[mikeh]

There has been a strong trend, over the past 20+ years, to ever lighter openings, especially of a major, in a 2/1 context.

 

This has been, on the whole, a good idea, reflected in its popularity. However, few ideas are perfect, and there are very real downsides to this trend. It is for individual partnerships to decide whether the benefits are worth the costs, and what mechanisms, if any, can be used to minimize those costs.

 

Historically an opening bid opposite an opening bid meant we went to game, and usually had good play. With lighter openings, this is no longer the case.

 

We can deal with this in several ways.

 

One can require stronger, more traditional, openings. This goes against the trend. Imo, the benefits of opening, especially, 1S are such that I would not want to require the traditional 12+ hcp.

 

One can require a higher threshold for the 2/1 response. This superficially looks sensible. The problem is that it can then be very difficult to describe what one holds after a forcing 1N response (even worse if one also adopts another recent trend in which 1N is only semi-forcing). In traditional 2/1 1N included hands as weak as 5 hcp and as strong as a blah 12. Look at this OP hand....if we include 5-5 14 counts, we are going to have a terrible time on the next round, even if we play gadgets such as BART.

 

So that leaves us with the 3rd option: to accept that our methods will inevitably lead us to silly, no-play contracts when we respond 2/1 and find a misfitting weak opener opposite.

 

Personally, I play a method in which we tend to open virtually all 11 counts. We very slightly upgrade our 2/1 responses, and we play a complex BART approach should responder bid 1N, including allowing a 2C rebid by opener on xx (2D would be 4+). This allows us to show responding hands that are defined as being up to 12 hcp. We accept that we shall on occasion reach some no-play or very little play games.

 

In fairness, we are an imp partnership: we may play the occasional mp event, but that is not what we are about. On the other hand, the aggressive opening bid style is as good at mps, for slightly different reasons, as it is at imps. But I would suggest option 2 for mps and option 3 for imps, since one rarely loses long imp matches by overbidding a few games, but 2-3 -50 or -100 scores at mps may be 2-3 zeroes in a session.

[bravejason]

I guess I’m a conservative bidder because East’s hand does not look like a 1S bid to me. I see the hand strength as between a 1S opener and a weak 2S opener. So, I’d have passed initially as East.

 

I think West had enough for the 2/1 response.

 

As for the bidding, I think East should have bid 4C instead of 3S. If East had a second suit, it could have been shown on the re-bid instead of 2S, and thus West would have known that 4C only showed three clubs.

[helene_t]

Personally I would have opened 2♠ with East's hand. Rule-of-20 is my rule of thump. ♠T9 is an upgrade but the lack of a singleton and the non-working ♦J puts the hand back into the normal range for a 2♠ opening. This may sound old fashioned, but light openings in the majors don't mash well with the 2/1 system. If you must open light, consider a different system. You don't have to play 2/1 just because it is fashionable in some circles.

 

Some British juniors solve this problem by playing the 2M opening as sound, with the weaker 2-openings in "junk multi". This doesn't quite solve the problem, though, as you will still be tempted to open light with two-suited hand if you don't play Lucas (Muiderberg), and then you get too high on those hands.

 

Anyway, change ♠J to the Queen and you have the same auction with no blame to anyone.

 

West has a potentially misfitting 12-count with a small singleton in partner's suit and a dubious ♦Q. OTOH, they have T9 in both long suits, and besides, invitational hands with five hearts are awkward in mainstream 2/1 methods as West doesn't have a way to show the heart suit after

-1♠

1NT-2♦

?

or

-1♠

1NT-2♠

?

 

So I wouldn't blame West.

 

With the modern trend of very wide-ranging openings, you will always have hands where you get too high on a misfit, especially if you play a system like 2/1 that emphasizes game forcing hands. If not this particular hand, you will have similar problems elsewhere.

[nullve]

[hv=pc=n&w=s82hat97dq9ckqjt9&e=sajt94hq53dj5ca52&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2cp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]

[ggwhiz]

It's a partnership agreement that you need to make and didn't have.

 

My partnership decided on sound openings with 12 counts opposite forcing to game and damn the torpedoes. We would still open 1♠ with a singleton somewhere and a 6-4 or at least some 109's outside (per Helene's take) with the east hand but 2♠ with that one.

 

Otherwise, take your lumps. If you can't game force with THAT 12 count you better not play for $$.

[nige1]

West is blameless and most players would open the East hand. Misfit with duplication. Rub of the green :)

[jddons]

Thank you all for a very helpful series of responses. In summary the consensus is that W always has a GF response and the partnership needs to consider its minimum opening bids. I am not convinced that nullve is really interested in part scores from his response! The star response goes to helen who somehow intuited we were playing a version of the England juniors system (without the gadget she mentioned). For the record, 4S was bid at 4 of 11 tables in a moderate standard club pairs event and was not quite the disaster I had thought. I will now look up BART.

[fromageGB]

Agree with Helene, and would like to emphasise her point : the E hand is not a 1♠ open for 2/1, unless you are happy with disasters. (If you compensated by strengthening the requirements for a 2/1 bid then 1NT is overloaded.)

 

However, even if you did have an extra hcp, or were stronger in some way, game is not always there but it will not be a disaster because the majority of the room will be with you.

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with Helene, and would like to emphasise her point : the E hand is not a 1♠ open for 2/1, unless you are happy with disasters. (If you compensated by strengthening the requirements for a 2/1 bid then 1NT is overloaded.)

 

However, even if you did have an extra hcp, or were stronger in some way, game is not always there but it will not be a disaster because the majority of the room will be with you.

 

Much of the room is going to be with you if they open 1♠, 1♠-2♥-2♠-3♣ with a new suit at the 3 level is GF in Acol, and is how we'd bid

[heart76]

May I come in late with an additional point?

After 1♠ - 2♥, responder would like to hear 2NT or 3♥, but gets the worst, 2♠.

In my 2/1 this promises 6 cards or a very weak opening with 5 that cannot rebid 3m.

But still W names a new suit and now E starts to see the problem: he would like to raise it but can't go beyond 3NT, which he would bid himself with a ♦ stop.

So he must find a descriptive bid for misfit. In this case I would bid 3♥, and please don't shoot me if you don't agree. But what else?

3♦ is ambiguous, maybe an asking bid in some agreements, but it surely denies 2 cards in ♥. Yes, W cannot have 6, but he can be void in ♠ and E has to show the minimum and the misfit. You end up playing 3M or 4♣.

 

BTW, 2/1 game force applies to majors and 3NT with stop(s) in the 4th suit. Does not apply to minors, where you can "safely" bid to the 4-level but need extras to be in 5. At least at MPs.

[rmnka447]

I'm opening 2 ♠ with the East hand. If you just count points ,it adds up to a 10 pointer. The doubleton J may have a little value, but nowhere near a full point. So I'm looking at a 9 point 2 QT hand and thinking that opposite a minimum range 2/1 response there's probably not enough for game unless a big fit is found.

 

I don't subscribe that the 2 ♠ rebid must necessarily showing 6 ♠, but am in the 2 ♠ as a default minimum hand. So, 3 ♠ in this auction, does now show 6. However, it also denies a ♥ fit plus didn't bid NT or make a move toward it by asking for a part ♦ stopper with 3 ♦.

 

With a minimum 2/1 GF response and no apparent fit, especially at MPs, this might be one of those very rare 2/1 auction hands where you choose to pass 3 of a major -- in this case 3 ♠. This may seem like heresy, but how many cover cards do you have for partner's hand 7 loser hand with 6 ♠. Even with AKQxxx, there's more chance of having a trump loser than not and not enough in the responding hand to cover enough losers for game.

[fromageGB]

With a minimum 2/1 GF response and no apparent fit, especially at MPs, this might be one of those very rare 2/1 auction hands where you choose to pass 3 of a major

This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as this rare hand; 2/1 sets up a GF to 4M or 3NT (or 5m for me, I guess others may drop out at 4m). If you are - even rarely - dropping the bidding, then your partnership is opening or responding too lightly. In this bidding, opener is unlimited *, so responder cannot pass. 4♣ is my bid, and then pass 4♥/4♠/5♣.

 

* (Edit) Well, not unlimited if the 2♠ is limited by agreement, but not for me.

[fromageGB]

So he must find a descriptive bid for misfit. In this case I would bid 3♥, and please don't shoot me if you don't agree. But what else?

"What else" is an obvious 3♠ to show the 6 card suit.

[wuudturner]

I have an easy rule. If I make a decision that I know to be right on the edge of being a good idea, and we then get into trouble, it is my fault. I accept the blame.

 

A corollary to rule #1 is that if partner makes a judgment call on the hairy edge of viability, I don't blame them.

 

East had a 10 count. Yes, a 6 card suit. But the diamond jack is arguably not pulling even the 1 point of weight assigned to it. So 1♠ is marginal at best. Yes, I might decide to open 1♠, because the JT9 of spades are all pulling more than their weight. It is arguably near the hairy edge between the two. Pass, and listen to the bidding is an option also. East does hold the boss suit, and can come back into the bidding later.

 

West made reasonable choices afterwards, all down the middle.

 

So, by my logic, East picked a marginal choice to start. The bad result at the end? I would shoulder the blame as East, and certainly would not be defending the initial choice that got us into trouble.

 

Personally for my style when playing 2/1, not vul in first seat, 1♠ is just barely my choice. If vulnerable, or in second seat, I'd open 2♠. And if partner made any of those choices at the table, I'd accept them as all reasonable judgment calls.

[heart76]

"What else" is an obvious 3♠ to show the 6 card suit.

 

If your 2♠ has not shown that already, which was my first comment.

This is one good reason why I play that 2♠ promises 6.

[fromageGB]

If your 2♠ has not shown that already, which was my first comment.

This is one good reason why I play that 2♠ promises 6.

Maybe I misinterpreted you when you wrote "or a very weak opening with 5 that cannot rebid 3m" because I play that a "weak" opening of 12-14 hcp cannot bid higher than 2M and that does not show 6. Now at my 3rd bid, I can rebid spades to show 6. If you do play that "2♠ always shows 6 except when it shows 5", I do not understand. If you are saying any strength 6 card suit can immediately bid 3♠, ie 1♠ 2♥ 3♠, then I think you taking up room unnecessarily and depriving yourself of a chance to discover the best contract. That bid is in my view best reserved to show a hand that is not quite good enough to open 2♣, has self-sufficient spades, and is requesting a cue bid.

 

Alternatively, if you are saying that a rebid of 2♠ is subminimum and may be passed, then you are not playing 2/1 GF, which the OP is discussing.

[heart76]

Maybe I misinterpreted you when you wrote "or a very weak opening with 5 that cannot rebid 3m"

 

That was probably misleading :)

My 2♠ promises 6 and the "weak" bid is 2NT, but I believe I would ponder a 2♠ rebid with say AKQJx - xx - Qx - xxx.

[fromageGB]

That was probably misleading :)

My 2♠ promises 6 and the "weak" bid is 2NT, but I believe I would ponder a 2♠ rebid with say AKQJx - xx - Qx - xxx.

Ah, yes, I am with you now!

If you have already shown 6 spades, then your 3rd bid is difficult, and while you might like 4♣ you can't do that if responder might have only a 4-card suit. 3♥ is probably best.

[rmnka447]

This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as this rare hand; 2/1 sets up a GF to 4M or 3NT (or 5m for me, I guess others may drop out at 4m). If you are - even rarely - dropping the bidding, then your partnership is opening or responding too lightly. In this bidding, opener is unlimited *, so responder cannot pass. 4♣ is my bid, and then pass 4♥/4♠/5♣.

 

* (Edit) Well, not unlimited if the 2♠ is limited by agreement, but not for me.

 

Sorry, but we can disagree about a 2/1 GF being absolutely cast in stone and unchangeable. There are always exceptions. In the case of 2/1, they are very rare and usually involve misfit hands where neither player can bid NT or support partner's suits. Hands like this come up maybe once every couple of years.

 

Opener's hand is limited by the failure to make other possible bids. Opener has shown 6 ♠ and didn't jump rebid 3 ♠ showing 16-18 or make a jump shift which shows an even stronger hand. If you play 2 ♠ must be a 6 card suit, then 3 ♠ must be a limiting bid. If you play 2 ♠ as a default with minimum hands, then the 3 ♠ must a 6 card suit in a minimum hand. So, being limited, opener is unlikely to have better than a 7 loser hand.

 

I criticized East's opener and said I'd bid 2 ♠ with it. But given the auction through 3 ♠, West has several things to consider. First of all, the ♠ stiff is a problem because it may add an extra loser into opener's hand unless opener has solid ♠. Even then, if opener holds something like ♠ AKQ543, odds are there is a loser increase. In the remaining suits, West has maybe 3 and a fraction cover cards (♥ A, ♣ KQ plus the fraction for ♦ Qx). Opposite a 7+ loser hand, bidding 4 ♠ doesn't look like a winning continuation.

 

Oddly, I agree with your 4 ♣ continuation as West's proper continuation. But then East has some considerations to make. First of all, it would be foolish to bid 4 ♠ with a stiff ♠ or less in West's hand as you can no longer pick up the ♠ suit with one loser. Second, since there is a ♣ fit, 5 ♣ might be a continuation, but opposite West's hand, East has only 2 cover cards possibly 3 if East can ruff a heart, that isn't enough to bid 5 ♣ unless responder's hand has 5 or less losers. So, at this point pass seems right.