[jillybean]

As the title says, when was 2/1 introduced to the bridge world?

[Stephen Tu]

jillybean, on 2024-June-14, 19:43, said:

As the title says, when was 2/1 introduced to the bridge world?

If you mean 2/1 GF, developed later 1960s, started getting published/popularized in mid 1970s I think.

[paulg]

Mike Lawrence's Two Over One Workbook was first published in 1987 (at least according to my copy).

[jdiana]

And then it took about 30 years for this system to really spread to the club level! It still hasn't completely supplanted "standard American" among older, casual players.

The speed at which new ideas are picked up within the group of expert players and, separately, how long it takes for some of those ideas to be popularized among club players (and what gets lost in translation when they filter down) is interesting to me. Surely it's faster now than it used to be, with more online material available. Things are probably somewhat less localized than before, but I also think there's still a lot of regional variation because certain methods are taught by popular teachers, or played by good players, in one area vs another.

[jillybean]

Interesting, the system has been around for a lot longer than I realized.
While it is definitely more popular, I'd imagine it is standard in most clubs, new players learning the game are seemingly obliged to learn "STD" (NA), ACOL (NZ) before ever hearing of the most popular, widely played approach. This is often justified by saying "we are teaching you what everyone else plays at your level".

[jdiana]

I can't speak to other jurisdictions but, in North America, I think there are two things going on. First, there's some logic to learning "standard American" first then moving to 2/1 GF given that, in competition, we "revert to standard bidding". Teaching 2/1 from the beginning would require teaching two different sets of bids for constructive and competitive auctions.

I think that would be the better approach but the second factor is that the teaching materials that are probably used by most teachers at clubs (many of whom, I think, are probably somewhat advanced players who are performing a service for their clubs, as opposed to folks who are really teachers first) are geared toward standard bidding. I'm thinking of, e.g., the Audrey Grant books and the materials provided by the ACBL.

[Stephen Tu]

It's only been fairly recently (maybe 10 years?) that some teachers have started advocating just starting with 2/1 for beginners. For a lot of duplicate bridge classes, the vast majority of the clientele are like converted rubber bridge players, or retirees who might have dabbled in their youth 50/60 years ago, so what familiarity they have is with the older systems. It also takes a while for beginner texts to start to cater to starting with 2/1.


BTW "Acol" is a name not an acronym so it shouldn't be written as all caps.

[helene_t]

jdiana, on 2024-June-15, 11:59, said:

I can't speak to other jurisdictions but, in North America, I think there are two things going on. First, there's some logic to learning "standard American" first then moving to 2/1 GF given that, in competition, we "revert to standard bidding". Teaching 2/1 from the beginning would require teaching two different sets of bids for constructive and competitive auctions.

This.

Also, passed-hand bidding is different from responding to 1st/2nd hand bidding. 2/1 may have some appeal, but it is a paradigm that applied only when we have a 1♦/♥/♠ opening in 1st/2nd seat, partner has a gf hand without a 4-card in a higher-ranking suit and without primary support, and opps don't interfere. Maybe some 3-4% of all hands. It is hardly worth to clutter an already confusing bidding system with yet another paradigm when that paradigm caters to so few hands.

In Acol, it is not uncommon to agree that the following auctions
1♥-2♣
2♦

p-1♥
2♣-2♦

1♥-1♠
2♣

1♥-(1♠)-2♣-(p)
2♦

(1♣)-1♥-(p)-1♠
(p)-2♦

1♥-(x)-2♣-(p)
2♦

all have the same forcing character. The only exception beginners have to learn is that

1♥-(1NT)-2♣
is non-forcing.

Of course if everyone at the local club plays 2/1 then we will have to teach it to beginners, but given the choice I would prefer almost any other bidding system to 2/1.

[shyams]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-June-15, 12:18, said:

BTW "Acol" is a name not an acronym so it shouldn't be written as all caps.

https://acolbridgecl...om/club-history

The above website may be of interest to a few.

[pescetom]

We moved to teaching 2/1 directly a few years ago, the only real problem has been teaching the teachers (decent teaching materials were available from the Federation and in internet).

helene_t, on 2024-June-16, 00:30, said:

2/1 may have some appeal, but it is a paradigm that applied only when we have a 1♦/♥/♠ opening in 1st/2nd seat, partner has a gf hand without a 4-card in a higher-ranking suit and without primary support, and opps don't interfere. Maybe some 3-4% of all hands. It is hardly worth to clutter an already confusing bidding system with yet another paradigm when that paradigm caters to so few hands.

I think you are missing the point here. 2/1 GF (like any other system) determines the way you bid *all* combinations of hands, not just the few specific combinations where a 2/1 GF actually takes place. It's just as different in almost all the other sequences where a 2/1 response was possible but did not take place, thanks to the inferences from this fact plus the artificial forcing 1NT response (not to mention other artificial responses that are not intrinsic to 2/1 GF but widely played here and not in older "standard" systems).

I think 2/1 GF with strong NT is quite sufficient as the only system a beginner knows. What he also needs is an understanding of "natural" bidding, but that can be explained without pretending it is a system.

[jdiana]

@pescetom - Just wondering, where are you located and which Federation are you referring to?

[pescetom]

jdiana, on 2024-June-17, 07:34, said:

@pescetom - Just wondering, where are you located and which Federation are you referring to?

Near Turin, FIGB.
So Italian, which is also the language of the material unfortunately

[jdiana]

pescetom, on 2024-June-17, 08:58, said:

Near Turin, FIGB.
So Italian, which is also the language of the material unfortunately

So another good reason to move to Italy.

[pescetom]

jdiana, on 2024-June-17, 09:06, said:

So another good reason to move to Italy.

I think the ideal place from this point if view would be Turkey, which early this century made the illuminated choice of 2/1 GF as the standard national system at all levels - and it shows when you pick up an unknown Turkish player on BBO.
The FIGB made a good job of standardizing systems in the past, but has struggled to do the same with 2/1 GF except in terms of teaching materials for beginners. Various attempts at a national standard have failed because of inconsistencies and excessive complexity. The De Facto national standard of 2/1 GF is BBOITA, which was written for BBO Italia by Mario Martinelli (unfortunately it is no longer maintained).

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2024-June-17, 06:33, said:

I think 2/1 GF with strong NT is quite sufficient as the only system a beginner knows. What he also needs is an understanding of "natural" bidding, but that can be explained without pretending it is a system.

This reminds me of a Moscito book I once read which was entirely about continuations after 1st/2nd seat openings, except for the last paragraph of the book which bluntly stated "when opening in 3rd/4th seat, we play Precision". So the reader is assumed to know Precision already, which begs the question why we don't just play Precision throughout. Moscito is supposed to be a simple system which it sort-off is, but if it doesn't replace the need to learn Precision but rather adds another system on top of Precision, it can hardly be simpler than Precision.

Maybe the ideal beginner system would be something like Phantom Club so that beginners wouldn't have to learn different systems for constructive and defensive bidding. When they progress to the improver state we could let the Phantom Club system evolve towards Polish club. But OK, beginners obviously need to learn something which is popular among their future partners and for which good teaching material is available in their native language.

I guess my point is that I would prefer to teach beginners as little system as possible, in particular I would prefer to avoid conventions and treatments which cater to very specific circumstances, so that there is a need to know what we do when the system is off.

In Acol, you don't need to discuss what you do when the system is off because the system is never off. Or, as you may prefer to put it, we don't play a system, we just play "natural".

[DavidKok]

I think not teaching (much) system is important when showing people bridge, and at our local student clinics I try to show as little system as possible. That being said if we do want to introduce a system I prefer 2/1. There is a discrepancy between competitive and uncontested auctions in that system, but I think the constructive system is easier to learn, and the competitive goals are more limited (e.g. we are fine with blasting game or having fewer invitational sequences on contested auctions, and all round more prepared to take risks. Also of course the expected HCP and shape distributions change a lot conditional on the auction being contested). Also 2/1 is the default system of most strong players, so it helps the students find future partners.

Both Moscito (in all four seats) and Precision can be simpler, and while I am a fan of one and not the other I think neither is suitable for true beginners. The systems themselves can be simple - easier than 2/1 even, I think - but it will significantly hurt the ability to find a partner in the future. Also playing a system that is so different from what the field is doing makes it more difficult to learn how to defend and draw inferences from the opponents' actions.

[barmar]

There was a series of articles some years ago in the ACBL Bulletin where Frank Stewart and Larry Cohen debated whether new players should be taught Standard American or 2/1 Game Forcing. There were good arguments on both sides.

I think the vast majority of expert partnerships use systems where a 2/1 response is game forcing, but not necessarily the 2/1 GF system (e.g. you can use this with Precision, Polish Club, etc.). This tends to make it easier to bid slams since you know immediately that you have at least game values, and have lots of room to explore for slam. Novices are less concerned about finding close games and slams.

[blackshoe]

Let me guess. Stewart took the SA side, Cohen the 2/1 side. :-)

Both the books I've seen lately on versions of "Meckwell Lite" (Standard Modern Precision and Santa Fe Precision) assume that the reader has a good grounding in 2/1 GF, saying basically "anything we don't talk about here reverts to 2/1".