[JeffMorrow]

I am fairly new at playing 2/1.

One regular partner says 2/1 is forcing to games of 3N, 4H, 4S but not to games of 5C or 5D. For various reasons, that makes sense to me, but I do not know whether that is standard for 2/1 bidders.

My other regular partner was surprised that I passed out this auction. I was dealer. The auction was: 1S, (P), 2D, (2H), 2S, (3H), 4D, all pass.

Now my question is not whether I should have bid spades a third time. I did not like bidding 4S because I thought partner was warning me away from spades and ny high card strength was dead minimum (10 hcp and 2 quick tricks). I did not like bidding 5D because partner's 2D bid did not (and should not) promise strength to make a game at the five level. (In fact, 4S is a reasonable contract even though it fails by one trick against perfect defense. 5D fails by one trick against routine defense.) My question is whether, having judged that both 4S and 5D would probably go down, I am forced by 2/1 to bid one of those games. Or is the partner who insists that you are not forced by 2/1 to bid minor suit games against your better judgment correct?

Thank you.

[awm]

It’s more a question about partner’s possible hands than your judgement. If 2♦ is an absolute game force, partner can bid 4♦ to elicit a cuebid (or perhaps a 4♠ contract) without worrying about being passed. If 2♦ is only a force through 3nt, then partner cannot bid 4♦ with a rock crusher and must do something else (probably a total guess).

Your style wins when you cannot make any game despite holding game values (possible when your only fit is a minor, but generally rare); partner’s style wins when responder has a bit extra and needs to pick the right contract.

I think most 2/1 players prefer the approach where 2/1 is an absolute game force and accept the occasional loss when both players are very minimum and you can’t make a game.

[JeffMorrow]

awm, on 2025-August-16, 13:21, said:

It’s more a question about partner’s possible hands than your judgement.... {M}ost 2/1 players prefer the approach where 2/1 is an absolute game force and accept the occasional loss when both players are very minimum and you can’t make a game.

Thanks. That does make sense, and I will discuss with the partner who is not insistent on the opposite approach.

[akwoo]

The rule in most of my partnerships is that 4m is non-forcing if there is a reason for 3N to be non-viable, and forcing otherwise.

In this auction, 4D is non-forcing; 3N might be non-viable because you are missing a heart stopper.

I suppose if any of my partnerships were serious enough, we should have a more firm agreement, but all of my partnerships have had more pressing issues to worry about.

[awm]

It’s more a question about partner’s possible hands than your judgement. If 2♦ is an absolute game force, partner can bid 4♦ to elicit a cuebid (or perhaps a 4♠ contract) without worrying about being passed. If 2♦ is only a force through 3nt, then partner cannot bid 4♦ with a rock crusher and must do something else (probably a total guess).

Your style wins when you cannot make any game despite holding game valued (possible when your only fit is a minor, but generally rare); partner’s style wins when responder has a bit extra and needs to pick the right contract.

I think most 2/1 players prefer the approach where 2/1 is an absolute game force and accept the occasional loss when both players are very minimum and you can’t make a game.

[JeffMorrow]

akwoo, on 2025-August-16, 13:59, said:

The rule in most of my partnerships is that 4m is non-forcing if there is a reason for 3N to be non-viable, and forcing otherwise.

Thank you as well. Your answer also makes sense. The point of the other answer (as I read it) is the need to allow for the possibility that the 2D bidder is strong enough to play a minor-suit game or even a slam. The point of your answer (as I read it) is the certainty that a 2/1 bid does not necessarily promise the values for a minor suit game. Both are valid points.

Is there a way to reconcile these two sensible answers? There seems to be a way to do that in this specific auction, namely an understanding that a pass in a 2/1 auction while it remains below 3N is forcing. In this example, if the 2D bidder bids 4D that could say no heart stopper, a void or singleton in spades, minimum strength, and good diamonds. A forcing pass would say no heart stopper, a void or singleton in spades, but the strength to force to the five level. This is a sort of slow arrival type of call. But such an understanding works here only because there was intervention and a pass by the 2D bidder would not terminate the auction. So, I do not see a way, at least not immediately, to reconcile both answers when there is no intervantion. I shall think some more.

[mike777]

Way too complicated.. 🛑, 🥺
At least in North America
Make 2/1 100% game forcing


Or of course don't play 2/1.

In your OP example please remember
Opener did NOT have to rebid 2S and responder did not have to rebid 4D. That means something....

[akwoo]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-16, 15:18, said:

So, I do not see a way, at least not immediately, to reconcile both answers when there is no intervantion.

This one is easy. We do not worry about stoppers when there is no interference. Therefore, there is no reason to bypass 3N when there is no interference. Therefore, 4m is forcing.

Part of this is that I am mostly playing matchpoints, so, even when we are missing a stopper, if there is no interference, playing 3N hoping they don't lead (or continue) our stopperless suit scores better on average than playing 5m.

[blackshoe]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-16, 13:13, said:

The auction was: 1S, (P), 2D, (2H), 2S, (3H), 4D, all pass.

---

You didn't mention vulnerability so I just left it at none vul.

[helene_t]

If a two-level response is GF except in a few situations, there's a risk of misunderstangs about when it applies. The 2/1 GF principle may not be technically optimal but cluttering it with exceptions would make it too complicated fra my taste.

[P_Marlowe]

Both styles exist.

The 100% GF variant seems to get the upper hand, but this may just be my impression.
It is a simpler rule set.

The problem is, which seq. are an attempt to get out in 4D, and which seq. want to set
trumps / ask for keycards, whatever.

[pescetom]

100% GF is just so much simpler to remember and play, and rarely costs - if you also have the safety that most opponents have the same agreement then it's a no brainer.

And a pass over 3H here is forcing in either style. Playing 100%, it tells partner we have a singleton in his spades and no stopper in their hearts: Do Something Intelligent please.

[JeffMorrow]

I want to thank everyone again for the thoughtful and sensible comments. I am going to summarize them.

(1) One of the major advantages of 2/1 is the simplicity it provides to auctions where the likely final contract is a slam, 4♠, or 4♥, or 3N. Try not to mess that up.

(2) 2/1 may occasionally force you into bad minor suit games. But no system is perfect. You need to tolerate the cost of the presumably infrequent bad results induced by the system in order to enjoy the benefits of the presumably much more frequent good results.

(3) Despite the foregoing, overcalls and two-suited take-out doubles provide additional information that may make 3N an obviously bad bet. It is not complicated to adopt the understanding that 4♣ and 4♦ are merely invitational to a minor-suit game, but ONLY after intervention. This understanding would take advantage of extra information to reduce bad results with no complication at all to normal 2/1 bidding.

[DavidKok]

The third point is not fully accurate. I think competitive agreements are more complicated than constructive ones, especially exceptions that only apply under these circumstances. It definitely is complicated to adopt such an understanding.
It also doesn't really 'take advantage of the extra information'. Making 4m not forcing comes with a cost of moving the stronger hands somewhere else - it's a tradeoff. It is not enough to declare that 4m is a runout, you also need to have a plan for the stronger hands. To me it is not clear that catering to holding a hand that wishes to bail out is on balance profitable, or that you need such a non-forcing bid more often after intervention than without intervention.

Over the years I lost a lot of points to partners passing my forcing 4m bids, and very few points to bidding 3NT when 4m would have been a better contract. I would not want to have any exceptions, no matter how simple or how niche, that risk partner passing me in a partscore after I made a game forcing bid.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-17, 11:35, said:

The third point is not fully accurate. I think competitive agreements are more complicated than constructive ones, especially exceptions that only apply under these circumstances. It definitely is complicated to adopt such an understanding.
It also doesn't really 'take advantage of the extra information'. Making 4m not forcing comes with a cost of moving the stronger hands somewhere else - it's a tradeoff. It is not enough to declare that 4m is a runout, you also need to have a plan for the stronger hands. To me it is not clear that catering to holding a hand that wishes to bail out is on balance profitable, or that you need such a non-forcing bid more often after intervention than without intervention.

Over the years I lost a lot of points to partners passing my forcing 4m bids, and very few points to bidding 3NT when 4m would have been a better contract. I would not want to have any exceptions, no matter how simple or how niche, that risk partner passing me in a partscore after I made a game forcing bid.

I fully agree with Davidkok and would never accept to play your third point suggestion. I moved to playing 2/1 as unconditionally game forcing 11 years ago and it was a liberation, would not dream of going back. I remember very few boards where we scored badly by playing somewhere other than 4m, tons of imperfect 4M and 3N that scraped home, plus the occasional 6m where the opponents helped take the plunge.

I would add that if you find this all so odd, maybe you have not yet given 2/1 a fair chance to show its merits and rethink your previous certainties. If you have not adjusted your opening strength requirements to the system or if partner is still bidding 2/1 more to show shape and hope than with a sure commitment to game (OP suggests both, even if you do not supply a diagram) then things are bound to go haywire and you no longer have the easy copout of passing when in trouble. That is not a problem of the system and will not be solved by agreeing a bailout in 4m, comforting though it may seem.

[mike777]

pescetom, on 2025-August-17, 15:17, said:

I fully agree with Davidkok and would never accept to play your third point suggestion. I moved to playing 2/1 as unconditionally game forcing 11 years ago and it was a liberation, would not dream of going back. I remember very few boards where we scored badly by playing somewhere other than 4m, tons of imperfect 4M and 3N that scraped home, plus the occasional 6m where the opponents helped take the plunge.

I would add that if you find this all so odd, maybe you have not yet given 2/1 a fair chance to show its merits and rethink your previous certainties. If you have not adjusted your opening strength requirements to the system or if partner is still bidding 2/1 more to show shape and hope than with a certain commitment to game (OP suggests both, even if you do not supply a diagram) then things are bound to go haywire and you no longer have the easy copout of passing when in trouble. With all due respect, that is not a problem of the system

2/1 is certainly a system with lots of problems, it requires lots of patches, lots of judgement. The good news is because it is so popular in NA a lot of theory has gone into building those patches. A lot of theory has gone into improving slam bidding, strong No trump openings, competitive bidding with a 2/1 framework.

Even now it continues to evolve at the top levels, watch the Bermuda Bowl starting Wednesday.