[1eyedjack]

Never having read a book on 2/1 I sort of cobbled together the methods that I play from a pick'n'mix bowl of conventions. And not surprisingly am running into problems, notably when responder has a strong balanced hand opposite 1M opener.

I used to play that a 2/1 new suit promised a 5+ card suit. A hand without a 5 card suit was treated as balanced (incl 4441 with singleton in opener). Such (balanced) hands were bid either by responding forcing notrump (with fewer than 16 points) followed by most likely correct game or by initially responding 2NT (with more than 15 points) (call it "Baron 2N"). Simple, but not very effective:

1♠-1N-2♣-??
Responder remains unsure of the best spot between 3N and 4♠ and now lacks forcing continuations to investigate

---

The problem appears to be exacerbated if you are playing Kaplan Interchange, otherwise known as Granville, whereby 1♥-1N shows 5+♠ and 1♥-1♠ shows 4 or fewer ♠:

1♠-1N-2♣-??
Responder remains unsure of the best spot between 3N and 4♠ and now lacks forcing continuations to investigate

---

The problem appears to be further exacerbated if you decide to do away with the Baron 2N response in favour of Jacoby 2N (GF with 4+ card support for opener). There then remains the problem of how to describe the hands originally slotted into Jacoby 2N. Forcing NT does not work as you cannot catch up and show your strength.

The solution seems to be to relax the minimum length requirements of a 2/1 response. I never really understood the benefit of insisting on 5 card suit. Theoretically the continuations should be more accurate if the response is more narrowly defined, but I have not seen an example of advantage being taken of this inference. Anyone care to post one?

Finally, there remains one matter to be addressed: Even those who allow 4+ card 2/1 responses appear (in my experience) to regard it as a cardinal sin to respond 1♠-2♥ with only 4 card [H] suit. Does that principle go by the wayside now? If not what do you respond with:

1♠-1N-2♣-??
Responder remains unsure of the best spot between 3N and 4♠ and now lacks forcing continuations to investigate

---

One solution may be to relax the definition of the Jacoby 2N response. Not sure why they insist on 4+ card support when an 8 card fit is guaranteed with 3 card support and there is substantial bidding space available should clarification be required.

[mishovnbg]

Hi 1eyedjack!

Ask Ben about his great work with bart,antibart, 2♣ relay and 2NT inv+ schemes in 2/1. He invented really best combination for lovers of 2/1 GF bids. If he accept probably will be nice to post them here, to be available more people to enjoy his achievements.

Misho

[slothy]

Yes Ben i would be interested....please post or provide link...

Would be interesting to know what you spend your time doing when you not moderating

Thx in advans Alex

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on May 15 2004, 04:53 AM, said:

Ask Ben about his great work with bart,antibart, 2♣ relay and 2NT inv+ schemes in 2/1. He invented really best combination for lovers of 2/1 GF bids. If he accept probably will be nice to post them here, to be available more people to enjoy his achievements.

I suspect my approach is not for everyone, and I have posted bits and pieces of it all over this website, in threads like:

1st and 2nd hand drury

Unloaded Forcing 1NT..., Downstream effects of funny 2CL response

And a few other threads. The basic appoach I took, Jack, was to deal with the problems you mentioned and a few others. Like sometimes without a fit, 1NT might be the best contract, like the fact that I like to raise to support so with very weak hands and three card support I don't feel like passing my partners one of a major too often, and like I open lighter than many people and I hate to be in three of major going down one on auctions like 1M-1N-2m-3M showing 10/11 hcp and three card support when the hand was passed out at other tables.

The solution to these problems seemed obvious to me, and was something akin to what Barry Crane use to play in matchpoint events. It starts with using 2♣ response after a one-of-a-major opening bid as "drury". Immediate effect on forcing notrump is obvious, all the good support hands are now removed. But if 2♣ is forcing and artificial, and if your partner is going to let you know if he is minimum or not for his bid, why limit 2♣ to just hands with support? Could it also not also be balanced hands as well. Say all balanced hands with good 10 or more hcp excluding those that would jump to 3NT or maybe 4NT directly? So I added the goodish or better balanced without 3 card support to the 2♣ response (4441 and 5431 short in partners suit is "considered" balanced). Finally, what do you do with true 2/1 GF hands that happen to hold 5+ clubs? No reason not to bid 2♣ with those as well. Turns out you can easily seperate between the three types of hands. With support hands you pass your partners weak rebid of 2 of his major, with balanced hands you can pass your partners weak rebid of 2 of his major, or you can rebid 2NT/3NT depending upon stregth. With a real 2/1 with clubs, you can rebid any suit, including raise to 3 of your partners major (with also fit, which is now game force).

The effect of removing all the strong hands from 1NT and all fitting hands from 1NT converts 1NT to semi-forcing. Opener with a weak major suit, and high cards elsewhere, may now pass for instance. This has been very successful for me so far when the pass occurs. This also allows responder a host of artificial rebids after opener's response to the semi-forcing 1NT. For instance, 2NT is no longer needed in the "natural" sense since the balanced hands were removed from the possible holdings with the available 2♣ initial response (see above). So 2NT can be used by responder to differentiate between "Good 1NT" and "bad 1NT" responses. I use this as a reverse good/bad 1NT. How does this work? Let's compare some auctions

1)    1S-1NT-2D-3D
2)    1S-1NT-2D-2N-3C-3D
3)    1S-1NT-2D-3C

Auction one is a weak raise of diamonds. On auction 2, 2NT was reverse good/bad 2NT. Opener's 3C rebid suggested willingness to stop if responder had ♣ and good hand (but not good enough for initial 2/1 GF 2♣ type response). Responders 3♦ bid now shows nice hand with ♦ support (weaker would be pass or direct 3♦ raise. And auction three shows weak hand with ♣'s.

If Bart or anti-bart are available (opener rebid 2♣), then responder has two ways to differentiate between good hands for the 1NT response (remember, never has three card support for the major).

i could post a long detailed write up if anyone is interested, but a lot of this stuff is already here in the two links given above.

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

I only play 5 card or better response to 1 level opener with 5♥, 2 ♦ can be 4, 2♣ can be 3 ( with 3 card ♠ support then ). Never had any trouble with it.
Of course You can play a whole relay system, with many pages of notes with a pd who might forget it half the time. But if you have a pd you play with all the time and are interested in long term succes it might be something to look into.
But I can guarntee you I'll be in 90+% of the same contracts and the few were I am in a contract I should not make I will still make it most of time since opps make mistakes too.
Wasn't it one of the best players in the World who said ; When you are not sure bid 3NT ?

Mike

[1eyedjack]

Thanks for all the answers.

Actually I am interested in both "standard" solutions and home-grown improvements. As I said at the outset I have never read a book on the subject and I was worried that the problems that I had identified resulted from my lack of understanding of standard methods, rather than flaws in the standard methods themselves.

I posed the question because I sometimes play with an elderly player who is also new to 2/1. With this player I do not really want to go off on an evolutionary tangent with complex methods, as I would want my partner to be able to sit down with other 2/1 players and be able to play a reasonable game without too much discussion or changes in system. For this purpose I quite like Trpltrbl methods for simlicity and elegance.

With a serious regular/long term partner I would prefer Inquiry's methods I think (or Moscito, heheh)

A problem that I have with a "semi-forcing" 1N response is that it is fine if responder as reasonably balanced. But if responder has a weak distributional hand (without a fit for opener's initial major) and opener passes 1N to show a balanced opener, then you are playing in 1N on the one occasion when you are assured of a fit in responder's suit. I suppose that you can still make 1N absolutely forcing without disturbing the rest of the system. Which is better is unclear in my mind.

[helene_t]

I play Lawrence's 2/1, in which a 2/1 response is 5+ or occasionaly a fourcard (4441 or a preparing for a delayed game raise, showing concentration of strength). As for the 1♥ opening, it is not a problem since you can use the Garozo raise (2♠) instead of Jacoby.

However, as for the repsonse to 1♠ I'm afraid there's no free lunch. Natural is natural, if 2♣ is supposed to be a natural bid you should not bid on a bad 4-card (or even a 3-card when 3433).

[Fluffy]

When you bid 2/1 GF, you don´t expect opponents to bid, that means ýou are in the standard 'paradigma' of bidding:

-opener explains.
-responder asks and decides.

So if you bid 2♣ GF what you mean is: I want to know your strenght if balanced, and if you have any 4 cards suit besides your major, and maybe later I will ask you specifically about your lenght/honors in ♣.
Note that it promises nothing.

If you bid 2♦ its almost the same, just that opener can´t show hsi 2♣ suit now if he is weak.

2♥ tend to be raised and become the trump even when you don´t want them to be, so its better to have 5 cards when you bid, if you have ♠ fit you may want to still bid 2♥, but don´t think it will give you anything better than 2♣.

[arrows]

2 over 1 with a minor, only promises 4 cards. 2H over 1S should promise 5.

50 year ago, this is no problem at all. These days people just good at creating trouble for themselves. IMHO.

I think 2 over 1 promise 5 cards is just nonsense.
BTW, with 4 card ♣ and 4 card ♠, GF value, over a 1♦ or 1♥ open, I always response 2♣ instead of 1♠, unless my ♣ suit is too weak to bid.

I can't see any advantage of responsing 1♠ , but many people keep doing it...

By responsing 2♣, one has clear benefits
1. no need to make a silly and confusing artificial call later just for keeping the auction alive. the forcing situation is already naturally set up.
2. no major fit would be lost when one has game going value. it just simply won't happen at all.
3. minor fit tends to get lost because people like to bid NT even it's not technically correct.

[1eyedjack]

arrows, on Jun 15 2004, 03:12 AM, said:

I always response 2♣ instead of 1♠, unless my ♣ suit is too weak to bid.

I can't see any advantage of responsing 1♠ , but many people keep doing it...

I expect it is to distinguish the hand from those that contain 4x♠ and 5x♣.
Not saying it is any better, just speculating on why it is done.

[arrows]

Quote

expect it is to distinguish the hand from those that contain 4x♠ and 5x♣.
Not saying it is any better, just speculating on why it is done.

yeah, that's the primary objection people have. I agree it's common sense that one bids 2 suit out, his hand shape tends to be unbalanced.

But they failed to explain why bid spade first and club later(I wish they had an easy way to do that at all)doesn't have the same problem. i.e. it looks like 5 ♠ and 4 ♣.

it could be either 5 ♠ and 4 ♣ or 4 ♠ and 4 ♣.
But, they will tell you, it doesn't matter, since parnter will later show 3 card ♠ support if she has, and they can retreat to NT if no 8 card major fit found.

They didn't realize the deficiency of their approach because most of the time, bridge is game of majors, or more radical, game of spades. Therefore, ignore minor fits won't hurt them much, usually.

if I bid 2C first and spades later, I may have either 44 or 54, but I can't see
why I am worse off than they are on this issue. on the contrary, at least, I 've done something they couldn't .

1. I can bid my 2 suits naturally, which they may not be able to do it.
2. I set up a GF situation natrually, which they couldn't do it either.
3. in some cases, if bid S first, they have to show their clubs at 3 level, making it harder for their partner to decide whether to raise it or not, since a raise would pass 3NT.
4. I will have a clearcut advantage when there comes some subtle hands, which can't be played in NT or majors, or worth a slam try.

[1eyedjack]

I think perhaps that if you bid 1S and partner does not rebid 2C then there is a fairly strong inference that you do not have a Club fit, so you probably give up on the Club suit if opener does not rebid it.

[the hog]

"2 over 1 with a minor, only promises 4 cards. 2H over 1S should promise 5.

50 year ago, this is no problem at all. These days people just good at creating trouble for themselves. IMHO.

I think 2 over 1 promise 5 cards is just nonsense"

Well, personally I think the above comment is just nonsense and is made by someone who has no understanding of 2/1!

Unless your 2/1 bids show a decent suit, you are wasting your energy playing 2/1. 2D over 1M should always show a decent 5+ carder, headed by KJ at worst. What really is a nonsense is to totally distort the nature of your hand by bidding 2C over 1H with 4C and 4S.

Now lets come to 2C. Yzerman posted a nice 2C structure which can be natural or artificial; and then of course, there is Ben's structure.
The Poles play that 2C can be based on xx with hands difficult to bid. The real nature of the 2C bid is shown on the second round of the auction - suffice to say, opener rebids naturally, with 2M showing a minimum. 2N by resp is now GF - an excellent treatment.

"BTW, with 4 card ♣ and 4 card ♠, GF value, over a 1♦ or 1♥ open, I always response 2♣ instead of 1♠, unless my ♣ suit is too weak to bid."

Again there is no reason in the world why you should bid this way. ALL of arrow's arguments regarding the disadvantages of Mafia or Walsh are spurious. A Mafia bidder has easy ways of showing a longer minor in weak, invit or GF hands after an auction such as.
1C 1M
What I would like to know arrows, is how you find your 4-4 S fit if the bidding proceeds 1H 2C 3C. Good luck!

To bid this way, (Mafia or Walsh), requires work with partner, but the advantages of inferences obtained in the bidding when partner bids a 2/1 denying a 4 card Major are well worth the effort. If you don't like using these methods, thats fine - everyone is entitlesd to play what they feel comfortable with. I have played both methods and both have advantages. Bidding 2C on 4 with a 4 card S suit is absurd, however. Many fine partnerships use Mafia, so please before people comment and criticise, ensure that you know what you are talking about.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on May 28 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

[.....] -opener explains.
-responder asks and decides.
So if you bid 2♣ GF what you mean is: I want to know your strenght if balanced [....]
Note that it promises nothing.
If you bid 2♦ its almost the same[......]

This seems strange to me: Two responses that both mean nothing. Just like the 1♣ and 1♦ openings.
You could play 2♣ as a phoney suit (sometimes a 3-card), or you could play it as a relay. You could even play 2♣ and 2♦ as different relays that technically both don't promise anything but ask different questions.

When playing SAYC at matchpoints, I play 2♣ and 2♦ as phoney suits, both meaning "tell me if you have extra length in in spades and/or a 4-card hearts and/or a stopper in the other minor". Many people frequently bid 2♣ or 2♦ on xxx to avoid that suit being lead.

But I thought the philosophy of 2/1 is different. First, it's not a relay system, it's a natural system. Second, reaching 6♣ or 6♦ should be possible.

[luke warm]

hi helene.. some people (ben, aka inquiry, and misho among them) have started using a multi-purpose 2C response to 1M, based (i think) on the ETM system... the bid has 3 possible meanings:
1) gf with clubs
2) balanced hand with 10+ points, exact range to be shown on next bid
3) at least constructuve (8 or so) raise in the M with 3 card support.. can go from 2M to 4M, depending on opener's rebids

so 2C is in effect a drury-like bid that can also be a natural game force with clubs.. and they play this within a 2/1 system framework.. a big side effect was to unload the forcing 1nt response, making it now semi-forcing... now any auction that ends in 2M after having gone thru 1nt pretty much guarantee responder has 2 card support only, max

if i've made any errors above, ben will correct me.. it's a decent system, and one i've been reading thru as i have time

[Fluffy]

helene_t, on Jun 16 2004, 07:33 AM, said:

Fluffy, on May 28 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

[.....] -opener explains.
-responder asks and decides.
So if you bid 2♣ GF what you mean is: I want to know your strenght if balanced [....]
Note that it promises nothing.
If you bid 2♦ its almost the same[......]

This seems strange to me: Two responses that both mean nothing. Just like the 1♣ and 1♦ openings.

Hi helene!

I didn´t say they mean nothing, I said they promise nothing, there is slight difference.

When you start with 2/1 you expect partner to raise you on second round if possible with 3 cards, or on first with 4, you haven´t promised anything on that suit, but have shown an emphasis on investigate partner´s holding on it at least.

6 in a minor is easilly reached regardless of how many cards you have on it because 2/1 lets the 2/1 bidder rebid 2NT almost always he wants (forcing of course!) wich is expected to be followed by 3 card support if it exists.

[arrows]

Quote

Well, personally I think the above comment is just nonsense and is made by someone who has no understanding of 2/1!

Yeah, maybe I do not understand the so-called 2/1, I am not even talking about 2/1 whatsoever, I am talking about NATURAL bidding.

Quote

Unless your 2/1 bids show a decent suit, you are wasting your energy playing 2/1. 2D over 1M should always show a decent 5+ carder, headed by KJ at worst. What really is a nonsense is to totally distort the nature of your hand by bidding 2C over 1H with 4C and 4S.

LOL. 50 years ago, people had no idea what is NMF, and what is checkback stayman, so hold this hand, they have to think more deeply than those "modern" players like you. if response 1S, it's not possible for them to make a descriptive rebid later, therefore 2C stands out. I can't see why it distorts the nature by bid more NATURALLY. and why it didn't distorts the nature of your hand by response 1S and later have to use a artifical piece of junk just for keeping the auction alive.
Don't just make a comments, show your prove.

Gadgets are not generally bad things, what bad is people tends to use it as a substitute for judgement, and not mention at the same time they usually have a illusion that they are doing better than their ancesters.

Quote

Again there is no reason in the world why you should bid this way. ALL of arrow's arguments regarding the disadvantages of Mafia or Walsh are spurious. A Mafia bidder has easy ways of showing a longer minor in weak, invit or GF hands after an auction such as.
1C 1M

Well, what can I say, is there any reason why I shouldn't bid this way? please.

Quote

What I would like to know arrows, is how you find your 4-4 S fit if the bidding proceeds 1H 2C 3C. Good luck!

I surely was expecting much tougher challenge than this.
the obvious answer is you just bid 3S if you want, anything wrong? bid your suit is just as natural as the sun always rises in east. why it's so hard?
oh, let me guess, that must confuse a "modern" mind, who says "west" could
means south, north, east, heaven or hell, or even nowhere at all

[the hog]

"I surely was expecting much tougher challenge than this."


I see, and how do you investigate a D stopper after this auction, (1H - 2C - 3C- 3S)? You appear to be totally snookered in the auction. With no D stopper, opener is forced to bid 4C. Now if responder happened to have a D stopper, you have by -passed the best contract of 3N. Perhaps you don't investigate stoppers and just bash the likely game.

Furthermore if you don't believe the standard of the average player's bidding has made a quantum leap in the last 30 years or so, then you really have no idea. Most good club players today could outbid the experts of the 50's easily.

"Well, what can I say, is there any reason why I shouldn't bid this way? please."

You can do whatever you like as far as I am concerned. However don't make fatuous comments about what you do not understand.

"Yeah, maybe I do not understand the so-called 2/1, I am not even talking about 2/1 whatsoever, I am talking about NATURAL bidding"

Finally as this thread was about 2/1, it is difficult to see what relevance, if any, your comments have.