[kgr]

I want to start playing 2/1 on BBO.
If someone on BBO mentions 2/1 in his profile on BBO can I then assume that he using certain conventions.
I did read:
- BBO advanced.
- Okbridge 2/1 (sorry for this)
- Improving 2/1 game forcing articles by Fred (VERY interesting! Couldn't resist to copy the url: http://www.bridgebas.../fg/2over1.html )
- other 2/1 articles on internet
But it looks like they all contain some conventions I would be surpised if they are logically included for most 2/1 players.
I can f.i. study BBO advanced, but I wonder if this is really played a lot on BBO. (with all the mentioned gadgets).
My question:
What do I have to read if I want to play 'standard' 2/1 on BBO?

[Flame]

I think you can assume nothing, I would assume 2/1 after major is GF but even this is far from sure there is the version that rebid the suit with less then GF.
In general you would be better the less you assume, if you like to assume things find yourself a serious partner.

[inquiry]

When I find a person who says they play 2./1, I ask if BBO-advanced CC is ok, and load that. Hopefully with that as a starting point, we can add/delete what my partner plays

When I find someone who plays SAYC, I guess I could do the same with BBO basic, but hardly worth it. I just play what I think an SAYC player would.

In the long run, it would be great if all 2/1 players on BBO became familiar with BBO advanced so that finding partners and having specific agreements would be great. Maybe we should hold BBO=ADVANCED only tournments (individuals I guess), to give people an opportunity and reasons to learn it.

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

Many 2/1 players play many different conventions with it.
All it means, that with most, a 2 over 1 response is GF.
With some it is GF unless they rebid the suit, mostly minors.

Your best bet, is letting pd know you want to play 2/1 and whatever conventions you want. Start out with not too many, since this only leads to confussion. If you find a pd that you want to play with for longer time you can add as you go. It's better to play few conventions that you both agree on and fully understand then many conventions, trying to impress the opps, which leads to confussion.

Mike

[DrTodd13]

I had a partner last night assume I played Wolff signoff in the
sequence 1D-1H-2N-3D. How many people would assume 3D
was forcing if you just said "we play 2/1?"

Todd

[Fluffy]

I think on most 5 card majors any 2NT rebid by opener is game forcing, that was one of the basis of the system I learned when I started playing.

[keylime]

When I learned 2/1, the biggest issues I had were the following sequences:

1. 1♣-2♦ follow-ons and agreeing whether this is unconditionally GF.
2. The rebid of 2NT by opener after a 2/1.
3. When a 2/1 is a 2/1...

I mention point 3 because at the local sectional we had a ton of 2/1'ers making a fundamental error. RHO held NINE clubs to the KQJT, and six HCPs, and bid 2♣, followed by 3♣, followed by 5♣ after the lovely Mrs. Keylime cracks 3NT demanding a spade lead (opener's major), which gets doubled. On the score sheet, almost everyone in my section went for the -500 except for one that managed to play at 3♣. Overall, we got a 23-24 out of a 38 top (cross-field scoring).

[keylime]

Oh yeah, almost forgot - west coast 2/1 and east coast 2/1 seems to be different in areas...

[xx1943]

DrTodd13, on May 14 2004, 01:16 PM, said:

I had a partner last night assume I played Wolff signoff in the
sequence 1D-1H-2N-3D. How many people would assume 3D
was forcing if you just said "we play 2/1?"

Todd

Playing inverted minors I cannot imagine any hand not bidding 3♦ in the first bid and afterwards wants to signoff in 3♦ after pd shows 18-19 HCP and maybe have only 3 ♦.
3 ♦ should be forcing in any system.

Al

[mishovnbg]

Fluffy, on May 14 2004, 11:12 PM, said:

I think on most 5 card majors any 2NT rebid by opener is game forcing, that was one of the basis of the system I learned when I started playing.

SAYC/BBO basic -> yes. 2/1/BBO advanced -> No. When you become advanced player you notice that despite 0 hcp you don't like anymore to pass 1♦ with void and 5 small cards in ♥ ...

I played with word class partner(not american) in stars tourney. My hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - 1♦
2♠ - 2NT(?)
?

---

1. We have no agreements with him except 2/1? How do you understand 2NT bid?
2. What you will bid with my hand?

Misho

[Fluffy]

Rebid 3♥ whatever 2NT means, if he thoug 2♠ wasn´t game forcing anyhting but pass or 3♣ after 2NT has to be forcing.

I would take it as natural bid, but mayeb he has no better bid than2NT with ♥10XX so don´t make conclusions that fast!

[luke warm]

mishovnbg, on May 15 2004, 09:56 AM, said:

Fluffy, on May 14 2004, 11:12 PM, said:

I think on most 5 card majors any 2NT rebid by opener is game forcing, that was one of the basis of the system I learned when I started playing.

SAYC/BBO basic -> yes. 2/1/BBO advanced -> No. When you become advanced player you notice that despite 0 hcp you don't like anymore to pass 1♦ with void and 5 small cards in ♥ ...

I played with word class partner(not american) in stars tourney. My hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - 1♦
2♠ - 2NT(?)
?

---

1. We have no agreements with him except 2/1? How do you understand 2NT bid?
2. What you will bid with my hand?

Misho

hi misho

i agree with fluffy, rebid 3♥... i think your 2♠ bid should be game forcing anyway, so 3♥ pretty much describes your hand

[McBruce]

I actually had a partner once who agreed to play 2/1 in a club game. We filled out a card and about an hour in this happened:

Partner: 1♥

McBruce: 2♣

Partner alerts. (This was in the days where you had to alert 2/1 repsonses in the ACBL.) Opponents ask. "2♣ is natural, showing clubs, but it is game forcing." So far so good.

Partner: 2♦

McBruce: 3♣

Partner alerts. The opponents ask.

"No longer game forcing."






Another partner I had once decided that "five card majors" meant that the correct opening bid with ♠x ♥QJxxx ♦ void ♣ AKJTxxx was (you guessed it): 1♥! We played a cold club slam in 3NT. Between rounds I asked partner why she had opened 1♥ and expressed my opinion that "five card majors" did not demand this level of compliance. She disagreed. Back we went to the table.

Partner: 1♠

McBruce: Alert.

Opponents ask.

McBruce: May have as many as eight clubs or eight diamonds.

I have not been asked for a game from this player since.

MORAL: A 'general approach' is not a system.

[keylime]

I remember when Precision openings had to be alerted. When the ACBL (in one of their rare attempts at completed brilliancy) changed the bylaws, the Mrs. and I were quite happy.

We had an auction like this:

1♦(maybe short as zero) - X - 1♥ - P
2♥ - X - 4♥ - P
P - X - P - P
P

Guess what LHO had....eight diamonds to the AK and I had a void. Needless to say, we rolled it with an overtrick vulnerable and they were livid.

[mishovnbg]

Hi Jimmy and Gonzalo!
My p hand:

---

Bidding:
1♣-1♦
2♠-2NT
3♥(yes I bid that)-5♣
Pass
Rsult: -1, where 3NT is relative easy contract

My p, expert, told that took my 3♥ suit as 4th suit asking for stopper...
I also think that it can be, but my answer was that 2NT is for sign off here and I normally must bid 3♣, and he where he like to stop. As you can see he mean this too by his bid, despite we didnt have any agreements. Another story is final contract and continuations when breaking convention with exception.

Misho

[Free]

Yes, 2NT is usually some kind of Lebensohl or moderator after a reverse, to be able to sign off. So imo 3♥ should be natural with extra values, not 4th suit, since you are not the leader in this bidding any longer.

[Fluffy]

I wonder why people tend to exagerate the scope of conventions, if you a regular partnership there are a couple of thing I wish I didn´t had to play:

4th suit unless the bidding is suit-new suit-new suit-new suit.
Of course playing this way there is no 4th suit by opener, and that makes sense, opener is suposed to explain, not to ask.

Another 1 I really hate is this 1:

(1♣)-1NT-(X)-2♦ = transfer!!

Transfers where develped this way: [pass]-1NT-pass-2♦/♥, when did transfer become standard when opponents opened and we overcalled 1NT?. And when they double?


Why does this have to be transfer?, I usually only play transfer when BOTH opponents only passed, after many missunderstandings only I´ve begun to ignore if 1NT was opened or overcalled (still ahte it, but so I do with SAYC&capp and still paly it), but hell, after a double I cannot bid my minor at level 2?.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on May 19 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

I wonder why people tend to exagerate the scope of conventions[....]

Artificial bids are nice intellectual challenges, in particular if you're into information theory or linguistics. Also, they can boost your reputation as a bidding expert, which is a nice thing, in particular if it isn't true.

With my wednesday p, I play all kind of nonsense (T-Walsh, Raptor, 3-way-preempts). Very frequently, opponents get impressed (or even better: get scared) when looking at our CC. Whenever we happen to bid the right contract, we allways get remarks about our fantastic, scientific system.

With my tuesday p, I play Stayman, t/o-doubles, strong 2♣, and further everything natural. As for efficiency, it doesn't matter, of course. The major disadvantage, however, is that everybody consider us stupid blonds, and when we happen to bid the right contract it is sheer luck, or maybe it's good judgement, but it's certainly not the system.

[mishovnbg]

helene_t, on May 21 2004, 09:02 AM, said:

Fluffy, on May 19 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

I wonder why people tend to exagerate the scope of conventions[....]

Artificial bids are nice intellectual challenges, in particular if you're into information theory or linguistics. Also, they can boost your reputation as a bidding expert, which is a nice thing, in particular if it isn't true.

With my wednesday p, I play all kind of nonsense (T-Walsh, Raptor, 3-way-preempts). Very frequently, opponents get impressed (or even better: get scared) when looking at our CC. Whenever we happen to bid the right contract, we allways get remarks about our fantastic, scientific system.

With my tuesday p, I play Stayman, t/o-doubles, strong 2♣, and further everything natural. As for efficiency, it doesn't matter, of course. The major disadvantage, however, is that everybody consider us stupid blonds, and when we happen to bid the right contract it is sheer luck, or maybe it's good judgement, but it's certainly not the system.

To make opps think about you as stupid is great advantage imo. My favourite is "lucky rabbit" by Victor Mollo

P.S. Conventions are nessesary, because only limited language is available for bridge bidding. Usage of them can help, but can't improve level of play of course.
Transfers, include after double, give you more flexibility, typical for natural bidding and is probably more natural than direct naming of suit .
Misho

[arrows]

I wish we have no system at all.
Then bid ♥ shows hearts, bid ♣ means clubs. it's just that simple. :-)

Common sense bidding is more than enough for most cases. unless you are competing at world level.

BTW, I don't believe learning a so-called mordern 2/1 system will necessarily improve one's bidding skills.

imo, if you can still enjoy tournements with stayman the only convention, you are in the right track of improving your bidding techniques and doing pretty well.

Believe me, more than 90% of players cannot, because they learned some fancy systems or conventions before developing their logic and judgement skills of bidding.