[tgphelps]

I played bridge quite a lot 20 years ago, but got away from the game, and am now coming back again in my retirement. I played Standard American back then, but from my research, it looks like I should learn 2-over-1 Game Forcing.

So, I just read Audrey Grant's gook on the subject, and have read over Larry Cohen's postings on 2-over-1, and it looks good to me, EXCEPT:

Can someone explain to me, because I haven't seen it written anywhere, why I should be confident that there is a good game contract somewhere, when we have two opening hands facing each other. Yes, we may very well find a major suit fit or play in 3NT, but then, it seems to me, we may not. It seems like:
1. We may have a minor suit fit, but not enough strength to make 11 tricks, and 3NT is not feasible.
2. We may not have a fit anywhere, and 3NT is not feasible.

Are the advantages of 2/1-GF so great that we're just going to go ahead and commit to game, and hope for the best?
Does exxperience show that the percentage of game-forcing auctions that end badly is small enough that we don't worry about it?

I'm willing to "just go for it" if the odds of success are good enough. Can someone help me understand the reasoning that makes 2/1-GF "the thing to do"?

[paulg]

When I first started playing 2/1, over thirty years ago, we were allowed to let the auction die in 4♣ or 4♦ to address the problems that you mention.

However this is a small target and these days we just worry about it less we play 4m as forcing when not in competition as it helps on more hands than it hinders.

I think one thing that has changed during your hiatus is that everyone bids a lot more, so if no-one is bidding then 3NT is almost always feasible even if not good. In competition, it is easier to drop the game forcing aspect of 2/1 at the higher levels.

[tgphelps]

paulg, on 2023-October-03, 07:39, said:

...

I think one thing that has changed during your hiatus is that everyone bids a lot more, so if no-one is bidding then 3NT is almost always feasible even if not good. In competition, it is easier to drop the game forcing aspect of 2/1 at the higher levels.

Thank you for your reply. So, you're saying we rarely get into trouble, so "just do it".

I have a followup question, too: What about this 1NT forcing thing? From my reading, there seems be some good arguments for making that semi-forcing, and from my admittedly somewhat-beginner point of view, the semi-forcing option looks a little better to me.

Question: What percentage of 2/1GF players do you think prefer the 1NT truly-forcing option? Should I believe that that's the better way, and "just do it"?

[shyams]

tgphelps, on 2023-October-03, 07:54, said:

So, you're saying we rarely get into trouble, so "just do it".

I am not an expert, but even my limited bidding skills has given me a good indication that, on average, we gain more often and lose far less often by adopting the structure as-is.

I would hesitate to consider it as "rarely getting into trouble" OR "everyone else does it". Instead I would reframe the logic as "the gain-loss payoff is positive over a few sessions".

[paulg]

tgphelps, on 2023-October-03, 07:54, said:

Question: What percentage of 2/1GF players do you think prefer the 1NT truly-forcing option? Should I believe that that's the better way, and "just do it"?

I have no idea in the ACBL, except that it's rare when I've played at the Nationals, but others are better placed to comment: it is rare to find a forcing 1NT in Europe.

[P_Marlowe]

tgphelps, on 2023-October-03, 07:54, said:

<snip>
Question: What percentage of 2/1GF players do you think prefer the 1NT truly-forcing option? Should I believe that that's the better way, and "just do it"?

If I got it right, most expert in NA moved to semiforcing 1NT, which basically means you loose the garbage raise.
As it is, if you like Bergen, I am not sure it works really well with semiforcing NT, but I rarely play Bergen.
I would also assume, that other conventions assume that forcing NT is part of your responses to 1H / 1S opening.

In general I would say, that you adopt the complete system, preferably you have a regular partner, and start to
look at how it works for YOU in practice.
I am not sure which Audrey Grant book you are reading, but it cant be bad, there is one co authored by Eric Rodwell,
and he belongs to the small set of the best player of the last several decades, and he is a well known bidding theoretician.
The advantage of this approach: if the author is any good (we say yes) the system will be consistent and working.

[steve2005]

Audrey Grant and Eric Rodwell book is a good book.
My wide learned 2/1 from it.

[pescetom]

tgphelps, on 2023-October-03, 07:54, said:

Thank you for your reply. So, you're saying we rarely get into trouble, so "just do it".

I have a followup question, too: What about this 1NT forcing thing? From my reading, there seems be some good arguments for making that semi-forcing, and from my admittedly somewhat-beginner point of view, the semi-forcing option looks a little better to me.

Question: What percentage of 2/1GF players do you think prefer the 1NT truly-forcing option? Should I believe that that's the better way, and "just do it"?

You do get into trouble, but it's more likely that you misjudge in a game vs slam decision rather than game vs partial. And the field is there to protect you in any event.
Which brings us to truly-forcing, because the field plays semi-forcing, at least in Europe (also many pairs in recent BB). In your shoes I would go direct towards semi-forcing, not so much because of presumed advantages but because it's closer to what you know and probably where you will end up in any case.

[DavidKok]

A few thoughts:

I like semiforcing NT and 2/1 100% forcing to game (even 1♦-2♣). We may land in a poor game, and on one or two occasions even identified that this is likely what was going on on the auction. But I've also had partner drop me in a silly partscore with 18 opposite 13 after expertly identifying that this was a misfit situation when playing "99% GF". Having the extra room for choice of game or slam investigation more than compensates for the once-a-year occurrence where you might want to give up on game. Plus, bad games sometimes make, and it's not like partscore judgement was that accurate in the first place.

In the Netherlands most players grow up with 1NT showing 6-9 HCP, and then (usually somewhat reluctantly) move to the semiforcing 6-11 option later. Personally I think either option is fine - for it to really matter partner needed to have wanted to pass 1NT, which is pretty low frequency. I will say that SF combines poorly with putting a bunch of (3 card) raises in 1NT, though even this is still very manageable. I think having 1NT contain fit hands is a poor idea in the first place, and it seems that even some Americans are slowly moving some fit hands to 2NT instead. But if you want to conceal or slow down your raises I think forcing is a better fit for your style - the losses are small as 1M-1NT; P is an uncommon auction. Just make sure to disclose properly what hands are included in a forcing 1NT, there seems to be a sport to stretch the limits beyond what the opponents expect.

[mikeh]

Btw, the worry about not being able to stop short of poor contracts after a 2/1 response, when the auction reveals a poor mesh but the partnership is forced to game, may be legitimate but, amongst expert players, is largely considered irrelevant

As a long time reader of The Bridge World, which provides expert write ups of all major NA events, all WC events, and many other top level events, it’s become a truism that hands which might have been played in a low level partial or even passed out (!) are now pushes in a 22 or 23 hcp 3N down two….of course, they are sometimes pushes in a making game as well.

Watch top level bridge. While there are still some quite conservative pairs out there (Weinstein-Levin would be on anyone’s short list of best pair in the world), the great majority of top experts are hyper-aggressive. Why?

Because it’s proven to be winning bridge.

Most of us learned to look at contracts, to assess whether they are good, bad or borderline, on a double dummy basis. But defence is hard, and contracts that look ‘bad’ on paper often make…and when the bidding is aggressive it can be very difficult to work out what to do.

For example, there are good pairs who basically don’t use game tries…or use them very rarely….if they open 1S and partner raises, vul at imps, they bid game rather than make an information-leaking game try.

When I learned to play, the mantra was ‘don’t make mistakes…if we don’t make mistakes, we’ll win’

Now it’s ‘make the opps make mistakes….if they make mistakes, we’ll win’

And the way to make the opps make mistakes is to be very aggressive, whether in preempting or just forcing to game on marginal values and basically daring the defenders to defend well.

One important caveat, especially if you’re playing opps who are better than you are….you need to be able to declare extremely well to bid the way these guys do😀


As for forcing/semi forcing…I’ve not played semi forcing but I have looked into it. It requires some adjustments….those who play forcing are able to include some major suit raises

For example, I play that 1S 2S is ‘semi-constructive’, which basically means 7-9 hcp. With 4-6 I bid 1N and then bid 2M. It’s dangerous, especially at mps, to risk 1N semi-forcing with say Qxx xx Kxxxx xxx, but bidding 2S on that as well as, say, Qxx xx AQxxx Jxx makes opener’s next action a bit of a guess.

Same for limit raises…in standard 2/1 3 card limit raises go through 1N. Some semi-forcing pairs lump those hands into a 2C response, but that complicates things when the partnership has to sort that out.

So there are, as always in bridge theory, pluses and minuses to either forcing or semi forcing and imo it comes down to how much work you’re willing to put into it (you and partner) and how it meshes with your style.

[mw64ahw]

I'm a bit of a contrarian, no expert and still prefer a 2/1 game invitational approach. I have no issue with stopping in a part-score if neither player can force to game. . I did look at switching to GF, but you still have various styles where stopping in 3/4 minor is OK. I can also open with as little as 10hcp on distribution so GF with 12hcp causes problems if you have a misfit.

I played 1NT as forcing (I think this was the original Goren style I learnt), because as mikeh pointed out you probably don't want to be in 1NT having 3-card support or even if you have a long minor that needs to be played at the 3-level.

I now avoid this issue over 1♥ openings by playing Kaplan Inversion and have recently switched to a transfer based approach for ♠ so that 1NT no longer has to be forcing for a weak NT and does not contain 3-card support.

Finally, in a 1M-1NT-2Y auction if you have 5-5 in the other suits or a long minor then 2NT can be used to show this rather than being reserved for a game invite

[RuffTimes]

tgphelps, on 2023-October-03, 06:01, said:

I played bridge quite a lot 20 years ago, but got away from the game, and am now coming back again in my retirement. I played Standard American back then, but from my research, it looks like I should learn 2-over-1 Game Forcing.

So, I just read Audrey Grant's gook on the subject, and have read over Larry Cohen's postings on 2-over-1, and it looks good to me, EXCEPT:

Can someone explain to me, because I haven't seen it written anywhere, why I should be confident that there is a good game contract somewhere, when we have two opening hands facing each other. Yes, we may very well find a major suit fit or play in 3NT, but then, it seems to me, we may not. It seems like:
1. We may have a minor suit fit, but not enough strength to make 11 tricks, and 3NT is not feasible.
2. We may not have a fit anywhere, and 3NT is not feasible.

Are the advantages of 2/1-GF so great that we're just going to go ahead and commit to game, and hope for the best?
Does exxperience show that the percentage of game-forcing auctions that end badly is small enough that we don't worry about it?

I'm willing to "just go for it" if the odds of success are good enough. Can someone help me understand the reasoning that makes 2/1-GF "the thing to do"?

[RuffTimes]

My duplicate partner and I don’t play 2/1 but most of our other club members do. I am not 100% sure 2/1 would be as effective in rubber bridge. I do know that technically the team can bail out if it really appears the only choice is a minor suit contract and bidding suggests there’s less than the 28-29 points needed for 5 in a minor. NT gives 30 points per trick and it’s a lot easier to make 9 tricks than 11, so if you want to maximize points (goal in duplicate) you want to play NT if possible. Sometimes NT is better even if you have a major suit fit because you get 40 for the first trick.

The game bonus is worth the risk of occasionally falling on your face in 3NT because partners have doubletons without stoppers. My duplicate partner and I always try for game or more with 25 points, and I’d say that’s true of most of the top players…it was 26 points when I learned Bridge but after a 30 year hiatus I learned it’s 25 now.

I suspect I haven’t adequately answered your inquiry but perhaps my poor response will prompt a better response from someone else to your inquiry.

BTW…my partner only likes to play with physical cards and I am looking for an online partner. I want to play 2/1 and possibly also inverted minors

[thepossum]

I did wonnder why there was such a spohisticated discussion in the NB forum, which is the only one I feel safe even showing my face in

But it takes me back to when you learn beginner Bridge where you need 13 points (HCPs I think) to open and if responder has 13 too they consider game.
As you progress (just a little) you realise you do not need 13 HCPs to open and there are other ways of judging hands as openers and as responders

I realise for some even 13+13 does not seem enough

This is NB though so lets keep it at that level

I am in the almost no bid is 100% forcing - pass should always be there as an option
There are even situations where situations may have arisen where you can bail out of game or slam forcing situations-not often

But 10 or 11 HCPS times two does not mean game to avoid being picked on

This is the only forum feel qualified to talk in

What are the stats on points requred for 3NT though - and for many in many forms of the game it appears the most preferred target bid - I'm more interested in bidding every hand on its merits and being flexible - old rubber bridge philosophy perhaps - apparently also better players than me can nearly always find a play for 3NT where maybe I can't. I score reasonably well on average in 1NT or 2NT plus

[Dinarius]

What do you play 1M-3M as? Is it invitational and 4 card support? If yes, then what do you do with garbage opposite 1M, but holding lots of opener's major? E.g. five or six card support and nothing else?

The reason I ask is this: (We don't play Bergen.)

With a non-passed hand, we play 1NT as forcing. So, 1M-1NT, 2m-3M is invitational. But, it can be 3 or four card support.

With a passed hand, we play 1M-2C as Reverse Drury. So, we can get to an invitational 3M using it with a similar hand to the one where we begin with a 1NT reply. But, again, this hand may be 3 or 4 card support.

My partner argues that in standard 2/1, 1M-3M is four card invitational (in effect, the 3♦ Bergen bid, if we were playing Bergen.) My problem with this is that I can't make a barrage 1M-3M bid to try and shut out the fourth seat.

Any views on 1M-3M?

Thanks.

D.

[pescetom]

We play 1M-3M as barrage and put all (in absence of interference) invites with fit through 1M-2NT. No Drury, no Bergen, no Jacoby 2NT.

This would be considered eccentric in US but is quite common in Europe and works well enough.

[DavidKok]

These days it is common at higher levels of play to reserve 1M-3M for some weakish bid. Some people prefer a mixed raise (approximately 6-9 HCP with distributed values and 4-card support), some prefer preemptive (approximately 0-6 HCP with 4-card support, 'approximately a useful king in the hand').

Personally I play Maas, where 1M-2NT shows a hand with 3+ trump support and invitational or minimum GF values. This solves all problems with invitational raises. I think internationally it is more common to put this limit raise in a forcing NT, or in the Jacoby 2NT (playing this as invitational+ with 4+ support, rather than forcing to game), or in a semiforcing NT (with obvious downsides). As a passed hand some flavour of Drury is very popular (you can even play 2-way Drury, P-1M; 2♦ showing 4(+) support, if you wish). Also note that the purpose of Drury is to show your extra values and support below 2M, so you really shouldn't be getting to 3M on that start very often.

I think the raise structure that is popular in certain parts of the world, with 1NT containing a range of fit hands, is a strange system design choice and possibly a quirk of history. But it is standard and a decent entry point into 2/1.

[bluenikki]

Dinarius, on 2023-November-09, 06:52, said:

My problem with this is that I can't make a barrage 1M-3M bid to try and shut out the fourth seat.

D.

Non-vulnerable at least, you could hitch up your pants and raise to four.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-November-09, 09:04, said:

Non-vulnerable at least, you could hitch up your pants and raise to four.

We play the raise to four as a similar barrage but with a presumed 10 card fit, on the basis of LoTT.
Although with spades NV it is more nuanced as we were probably willing to go to 4♠ over 4♥ anyway.