[mycroft]

Forever, I played "2/1 forcing to game, but can stop in 4♣ or 4♦ *if we've tried for 3NT and decided against it*." I loved it, still do.

I have come to the realization that not everybody can "feel" those auctions like I can, and *any misunderstanding* leads to a hopeless game/+150 or +170 for the same double-digit IMP loss/clear bottom.

So now, in almost all partnerships, I play 2/1 unilaterally forcing to game (okay, one is "GF unless suit rebid". But that doesn't apply to this question). It's just more comfortable. Sure you get more hopeless 5m contracts, but Cost of Doing Business, and we get it back with the security of our other auctions and thinking energy available for the next hand. I certainly would recommend it for anyone learning 2/1 or trying to "understand it".

Frankly, one of the huge benefits of 2/1 is all the agreements the "promises a rebid" or "forcing to 2NT" or whatever Acol does required to survive not getting passed in a slam investigation - just go away (replaced by all the system after the forcing 1NT, and potentially the judgement over the semi-forcing 1NT). Same thing here. Determine how much "more simple, but will cost on a few hands" vs "better on those few hands, but complicated" you want to go, and learn and practise it.

One strong suggestion, on the above axis, just in general - if you don't know *why* you're being complicated, choose simple. When you notice the problem is the time to decide if adding complexity is worth it, not before.