[phil_20686]

The point is basically that you should gear your system towards which ever part of the bidding you lose the most imps on. As card play standards have risen and imps has taken over from MP we bid a lot more games than one would at MP, as a result, there is less and less value in invitational sequences.

Slams on the other hand have increased vastly in importance. You could win a MP tournament in a pretty good field without every bidding a slam with less than 32HCP between the two hands. I doubt you could do the same in a imps tournament. This is because for an expert in a good to mediocre field there is so much protection from people who basically never bid slams, and such a good gain from making the normal 12 tricks when there is a portion of the field managing a comical 11 or 10. If you bid a slam at MP you are giving up that gain, so slams need to be really pretty good.

At teams its always the same gain, the field is basically irrelevant as to your bidding decisions.

A good 2/1 system takes away a lot of slam decisions in teh sense that you can just find out what you want to know without having a problem, whereas in other systems you can struggle.


One might argue that precision has all the same advantages, and it does, but the difference then comes in competitive auctions, where the strong club opener is normally at a disadvantage when he has a 1C opener. In 2/1 you normally get a good deal of information about your hand across before the opponents realise you have a strong hand.

[Zelandakh]

The argument for 2/1 game forcing is exactly the same as the one I make for 2/1 non-forcing. In standard there are too many bidding sequences devoted to invitational hands which are only a narrow range and not enough for game-forcing hands. By arranging the responses to cater more to GF hands you optimise the available space more effectively. Since you are especially interested in Fantunes, I think playing 2/1s as invitational-plus in this system is close to madness.

[ggwhiz]

I have seen so many auctions when the response is 1NT and the opener goes into a brown funk with no idea if that is the right place to be.

I just don't buy that the forcing NT is a disadvantage when ♠x, ♥Jxx, ♦Qxx, ♣KQTxxx is a 1NT response to 1♠ in standard or SAYC.

The advantages of 2/1 as detailed by others are numerous when you get put enough time in to detail your follow up agreements.

[nige1]

The main argument for 2/1 is that so many people play it. Hence ...

• You can sit down opposite a random pick-up partner, and agree 2/1, with some hope that you have a fairly sophisticated mutual understanding.
• Paid professionals have invested a vast amount of time and effort in perfecting 2/1 (refining conventions like Bergen and Gazzilli). Hence, rather than wasting effort in searching for some chimerical better system, It is more productive to settle for 2/1 and hone your judgement and improve your partnership rapport (so John Matheson tells me).

OK, some of us prefer chasing chimeras.

[Yu18772]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-13, 22:17, said:

"2-way Bergen"? What's that?

1M-3♣ is either 4 card 6-9 or 3 card support with 10-11 (what you would bid through the NT), 1M-1NT denies support and can be passed by weak balanced opener.
1M-3♦ is at least invitational with 4+ support.

[Free]

nige1, on 2011-November-14, 14:03, said:

Paid professionals have invested a vast amount of time and effort in perfecting 2/1 (refining conventions like Bergen and Gazzilli).

Sorry, but mentioning Gazzilli as a convention to perfect 2/1 is nonsense. Mentioning the introduction of 1M-1NT as semi forcing however is a big improvement to 2/1 imo.

[mike777]

Free, on 2011-November-15, 00:09, said:

Sorry, but mentioning Gazzilli as a convention to perfect 2/1 is nonsense. Mentioning the introduction of 1M-1NT as semi forcing however is a big improvement to 2/1 imo.

good post
1) I play semint I think that is important
2) I dont see any improvement to basic bergen ...i see many revise it poorly.
3) gazzilli is beyond 2/1 even in 2011. But it has been discussed for several years here in the forums.

[blackshoe]

Yu18772, on 2011-November-14, 23:16, said:

1M-3♣ is either 4 card 6-9 or 3 card support with 10-11 (what you would bid through the NT), 1M-1NT denies support and can be passed by weak balanced opener.
1M-3♦ is at least invitational with 4+ support.

Thanks, but... yuck.

[fromageGB]

Yu18772, on 2011-November-14, 23:16, said:

1M-3♣ is either 4 card 6-9 or 3 card support with 10-11 (what you would bid through the NT), 1M-1NT denies support and can be passed by weak balanced opener.
1M-3♦ is at least invitational with 4+ support.

Interesting, but it is the old idea that extra length and extra strength are equivalent. I don't believe they are, in competition. When 4th seat bids something, opener with some holding in that suit may want to double if you were the short strong hand, but bid on if you were the long weak hand. Passing does not convey that information, and you will not know what to do.

[gwnn]

fromageGB, on 2011-November-15, 09:29, said:

Interesting, but it is the old idea that extra length and extra strength are equivalent. I don't believe they are, in competition. When 4th seat bids something, opener with some holding in that suit may want to double if you were the short strong hand, but bid on if you were the long weak hand. Passing does not convey that information in an ideal world, and you will not know what to do.

FYP

(sorry Yu, not accusing you of anything!)

[fromageGB]

Free, on 2011-November-14, 00:22, said:

There's also a big difference between forcing 1NT response and semi-forcing 1NT response. The first 2 advantages Nigel describes are typical for semi-forcing 1NT. Standard 2/1 doesn't have these.

Never having played it, I can see the advantages of the conventional 1NT being able to be passed with a 12/13 count (I HATE the description "semi-forcing"), but at the moment this bid for me includes a very weak pre-emptive 3 card raise, and also a 13-15 balanced hand. I suppose if I were to adopt a non-forcing 1NT I could give up the former, but what would I do with the latter hand? I don't seem to have any spare bids other than 3NT !

[aguahombre]

A lot of people use the ambiguous 2C as possibly the balanced G.F. in NT. Others don't use J2N. They might have a bid to show the 4-card major raise, but they still reserve 2NT for the balanced game hand without support for the major.

[MickyB]

I've never understood the merit in starting with 1NT on 13-15 balanced. Let's say partner bids a minor suit that you hold four cards in. Won't you normally need to find out his residual shape in order to decide whether 3NT is the spot or not? 2m then 2NT on these hands feels perfect to me.

[aguahombre]

MickyB, on 2011-November-15, 10:08, said:

I've never understood the merit in starting with 1NT on 13-15 balanced. Let's say partner bids a minor suit that you hold four cards in. Won't you normally need to find out his residual shape in order to decide whether 3NT is the spot or not? 2m then 2NT on these hands feels perfect to me.

The thread is wandering a bit from the theoretical merits of 2/1 versus something else, and getting into those tweaks which make 2/1 better or worse.

However, your point about 1NT(forcing) with 13-15 balanced is valid. Forcing NT is at its best when it begins an attempt to describe something, and let opener take over Captaincy. It is less effective when used as a forcing bid to gain information from opener.

Our forcing NT followed by 3NT is a describer with 3-card support for the major AND giving opener a choice to pass or play 4M. Other G.F. hands with 3 of the major start with 2/1.

[whereagles]

Indeed. As a rule, it's bad strategy to try and ask stuff to an unlimited hand. Thus semiforcing is preferrable.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-November-14, 14:03, said:

The main argument for 2/1 is that so many people play it. Hence ...

• You can sit down opposite a random pick-up partner, and agree 2/1, with some hope that you have a fairly sophisticated mutual understanding.
• Paid professionals have invested a vast amount of time and effort in perfecting 2/1 (refining conventions like Bergen and Gazzilli). Hence, rather than wasting effort in searching for some chimerical better system, It is more productive to settle for 2/1 and hone your judgement and improve your partnership rapport (so John Matheson tells me).

OK, some of us prefer chasing chimeras.

Free, on 2011-November-15, 00:09, said:

Sorry, but mentioning Gazzilli as a convention to perfect 2/1 is nonsense. Mentioning the introduction of 1M-1NT as semi forcing however is a big improvement to 2/1 imo.

mike777, on 2011-November-15, 01:41, said:

good post

Mike77 agrees with Free but "Sorry" doesn't cut it. IMO Playing 2/1 ...

• 1-openers have a wide range of strength and shape.
• 1N, forcing or not, tends to be a catch-all reply, because 2 level replies are mostly game-forcing.
• Whether or not the 1N reply is forcing, designating 2♣ as a kind of relay, mitigates bidding-space constraints.
• The Gazzilli convention enhances and complements the 2/1 framework.
• Hence many top players have adapted Gazzilli to play with 2/1.

Free disagrees. Hopefully, in a discussion forum, we are allowed to hold different opinions. Admittedly, other treatments are possible. Arguably, some may be better. But I wouldn't deride another's views as "nonsense", without supporting argument (if at all).

[Cascade]

mcphee, on 2011-November-14, 06:16, said:

The truth is that 2/1 is hands down better for reaching games and slams in uncontested auctions.

I am willing to concede that 2/1 has an advantage in bidding slams because of the early space saving game forcing response. Although there are some problem situations where simple natural quantitative bids work better in a non 2/1 context.

I can also see that 2/1 might give you more room in some choice of game situations.

However in bidding light distributional games the overloaded 1NT response seems to me to be a serious hindrance compared with being able to make a natural suit bid with lighter values in non 2/1 systems.

[awm]

Some examples where 2/1 is better.

(1) Partner opens 1♠; I have a big balanced hand without a fit, say 2335. The auction starts 1♠-2♣-2♥ in either method. In 2/1 I can now bid 2NT which is very descriptive and gets partner to pattern out, which will be quite helpful in my search for a slam. In a system where 2/1 is not GF, my next call will have to be either 3+NT (which destroys our space to explore) or 3♦ 4th suit GF (which is still more space-consuming than 2NT, and very non-specific about my shape).

(2) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with 3-card support. I respond 2♣ (my longest side suit) and the auction starts 1♠-2♣-2♥. In 2/1 I can now bid 2♠ to express my fit and slam interest and we have all the space in the world to explore pattern and/or cuebid. If 2/1 is not GF, it's likely that 2♠ would be NF and I will have to bid 3♠. In fact, some even use 3♠ as NF (to distinguish between a 2-card preference and 3-card limit raise) and will have to go through 3♦ 4th suit GF. Either way, I have lost a lot of space and description.

(3) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with a ton of clubs. In 2/1, I can bid 2♣ and then 3♣ which totally describes my hand. If 2/1 is not GF, I either have to start with 2♣ and then temporize with some artificial strength-showing call (which leaves partner in the dark as to the nature of my hand) or perhaps I can use a strong jump shift to 3♣. But even after the strong jump, I have used up some space to describe my hand and it may be less clear whether partner's next call is a cuebid or natural.

(4) Partner opens 1♠ with a 5332 pattern, and I have a weak hand with a ton of clubs. I can now bid 1NT (forcing) followed by 3♣; assuming I play the popular invitational jump shifts this will exactly describe my hand (without INV jumps, it has a ridiculous range of 5-11 which is a massive loss for 2/1, but let's assume I don't play that way). If 2/1 is not GF (and 1NT is not forcing) then I would risk playing in 1NT with a big club fit on this sequence.

Note that almost all the above advantages are in game-forcing auctions. It follows that the sounder your openings, the better 2/1 will treat you. Here are some examples where 2/1 is worse:

(1) Partner opens 1♠. I have an invitational 2434 hand. In 2/1, the auction will start 1♠-1NT-2m and I pretty much have to bid 2NT. After all, preferencing to 2♠ is a weaker hand, and raising partner's clubs (if he bids them) on four is risky since he could have a three-card suit. This sequence could easily miss a superior partial (2♠ or 3♣) and could also wrong-side 3NT if my diamond holding is weak. If 2/1 is not GF, the auction starts with 1♠-2♣. If partner rebids 2♦, I can bid 2♠ and play there opposite a minimum, having shown my values. If partner has a club fit we should be able to land in 3♣ without too much trouble. Partner also has the opportunity to bid notrump first if his hand is suitable for it.

(2) Partner opens 1♥. I have a 3244 hand with minimum responding values. Playing 2/1, I bid 1NT and partner rebids 2m. Now I basically have to correct to 2♥, because partner's minor suit could easily be a 4-3 fit (or even a 4-2, without flannery). This gives partner the chance to bid again with mild extras (likely getting us too high). Even if partner passes 2♥, it will often be a worse partial than 2m on a 4-4 fit or 1NT on a pair of flat hands. If 2/1 is not GF, I can bid 1NT and partner can pass... and if partner does bid 2m I can pass knowing we have found a real it.

(3) Partner opens 1♠. I have a 1426 ten-count. Playing 2/1 with invitational jumps, I should respond 3♣. But now we could easily miss a heart game if partner has a fit there. If I had responded 1NT, partner will often rebid 2♦ over which 3♣ won't really show my values. If 2/1 is not GF, this is a non-problem as I respond 2♣ and then raise a heart rebid to game or otherwise rebid 3♣ having shown my hand accurately.

(4) Partner opens 1♠, I have a 2443 hand with less than game values. Whatever I respond, partner rebids 2♥. Playing 2/1, my first call was 1NT and now that I hear 2♥ I want to raise. But do I really want to make the same raise on an 8-count that I make on an 11-count? It seems that just bidding 4♥ on a flat hand could easily be too much, yet if I bid 3♥ on both how will partner know what to do? And if I pass on the 8-count we could easily miss game if partner is 5/5 or has 16/17 points (or both). If 2/1 is not GF, the 8-count can bid 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥ and the initial response limits me to about 8-9. The 11-count bids 2m followed by 3♥, which clearly shows 10-11.

Note that most of the above advantages are on invitational hands. The relative frequency and importance of invites versus GF hands depends on how light you open and on the form of scoring!

I'll note that there are many conventions or versions of these systems and perhaps some of them deal with some of these issues. In general I've assumed that 2/1 includes invitational jump shifts (but not Gazzilli or BART) and a forcing notrump. Obviously not everyone plays this way, but switching things around creates other pluses and minuses.

[Flem72]

Jinksy, on 2011-November-13, 16:36, said:

But I'd really like to hear some decent arguments either way.

I like tricked-out 2/1 at IMPs, and for finding slams that top the field at mps, but I think SA has the advantage at the vast majority of mp deals b/c it allows more intelligent control of the 3-level.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[losercover]

The only 2/1 sequence we play as game forcing is when a major suit is supported.We play principle of fast arrival. Generally a rebid of the major shows 6 and we don't play high reverses. My partner has nightmares about hands that are short in openers major and there is a jump to after a 1NT response.