[Yu18772]

fromageGB, on 2011-November-15, 09:29, said:

Interesting, but it is the old idea that extra length and extra strength are equivalent. I don't believe they are, in competition. When 4th seat bids something, opener with some holding in that suit may want to double if you were the short strong hand, but bid on if you were the long weak hand. Passing does not convey that information, and you will not know what to do.

1♠-P-3♣-3♦
X= want to penalize, have something in diamonds responder may remove with very weak distributional hand.
3♥ = general invitation
3♠ = competitive, not inviting

1♠-P-3♣-3♥ (or 1♥-P-3♣-3♦)
X= general game invitation
3♠ = competitive, not inviting
Opener can not penalize ♥ directly, but strong 3♣ with 3 card suport is very likely to dbl at 3 or 4 level (almost automatic), which a sub-min opener may remove if really wants to.

They are not exactly equivalent, but for invitational purposes the 10-11 hand with 3 cards is strong, and it really helps with the semi-forcing 1NT. I find the tradeoff worth it even in IMP.

[Yu18772]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-15, 07:10, said:

Thanks, but... yuck.

You are welcome

[Yu18772]

gwnn, on 2011-November-15, 09:46, said:

FYP

(sorry Yu, not accusing you of anything!)

Np - sorry for ignorance, but what does FYP stand for?

[Mbodell]

FYP == Fixed Your Post

often used sarcastically when editing a post to say the exact opposite as it originally did.

[Yu18772]

Mbodell, on 2011-November-16, 00:37, said:

FYP == Fixed Your Post

often used sarcastically when editing a post to say the exact opposite as it originally did.

tx!

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2011-November-15, 19:30, said:

I think SA has the advantage at the vast majority of mp deals b/c it allows more intelligent control of the 3-level.

Really? It seems to me that GF or Acol-style 2/1s are easy to handle, but 2/1 that promises another bid or that is forcing to 2NT or whatever seems like it requires tons of discussion about what auctions are forcing, and maybe requires some relays to distinguish between a forcing and non-forcing sequence.

A number of good players play that 2m/1M is GF, but not 1♠-2♥ or 1♦-2♣. This eliminates some of the problem hands in 2/1 game-forcing. I think that this style, especially 1♠-2♥ not GF, is forced on people who play semi-forcing rather than forcing 1NT, to avoid invitational hands with hearts bidding 1NT and getting the dummy. Well, this is what I thought, but a poster above mentions invitational jumps. Are these reasonable though? Do you really want to be at the 3-level, with maybe a 5-card ♥ suit, with no guarantee of a fit or extra values opposite? The 2♣ relay Nigel mentions could help, and so could Gazzilli, but all of these things require discussion. This mitigates one of the advantages of 2/1 GF, its simplicity.

[shevek]

People extoll the virtues of the system they play.
I've never played 2/1 so I meanly look for poor auctions.

People have suggested that 2/1 tends to be good for games, great for slams, not so good on partials.
Our crude Acol style has proved effective on some slams like this one (slightly doctored):

---

2♦ is marginal - even in Acol - but worked a treat. 4NT was intended to show good trumps.
At the other table, the 2/1 pair bid badly
1♠ - 1NT
2♦ - 3♦?
no

3♦ was pusillanimous of course. He was dreaming of 3NT. Even if he had bid 4♦ or maybe 4♣(?) I don't think they would get there.

The problem I have with 2/1 is the need to make an early decision to GF. I've seen way too many hopeless 11+12 3NTs.

[Free]

nige1, on 2011-November-14, 14:03, said:

Paid professionals have invested a vast amount of time and effort in perfecting 2/1 (refining conventions like Bergen and Gazzilli). Hence, rather than wasting effort in searching for some chimerical better system, It is more productive to settle for 2/1 and hone your judgement and improve your partnership rapport (so John Matheson tells me).[/list]
OK, some of us prefer chasing chimeras.

Free, on 2011-November-15, 00:09, said:

Sorry, but mentioning Gazzilli as a convention to perfect 2/1 is nonsense. Mentioning the introduction of 1M-1NT as semi forcing however is a big improvement to 2/1 imo.

nige1, on 2011-November-15, 14:32, said:

Mike77 agrees with Free but "Sorry" doesn't cut it. IMO Playing 2/1 ...

• 1-openers have a wide range of strength and shape.
• 1N, forcing or not, tends to be a catch-all reply, because 2 level replies are mostly game-forcing.
• Whether or not the 1N reply is forcing, designating 2♣ as a kind of relay, mitigates bidding-space constraints.
• The Gazzilli convention enhances and complements the 2/1 framework.
• Hence many top players have adapted Gazzilli to play with 2/1.

Free disagrees. Hopefully, in a discussion forum, we are allowed to hold different opinions. Admittedly, other treatments are possible. Arguably, some may be better. But I wouldn't deride another's views as "nonsense", without supporting argument (if at all).

I didn't say Gazzilli isn't compatible with 2/1. I believe most forum members know I'm a big Gazzilli fan, and play it myself in a 2/1 framework. However, your first post seems to suggest that Gazzilli was invented to improve 2/1 which is simply not the case... I also haven't seen much refining of the standard Gazzilli convention either.

I didn't even want to mention this, but since you insist: Bergen isn't an improvement. The tendency of today is to play 1M-3M as mixed raise, invites with 4M go through 1M-2NT, and 1M-3m is natural INV. Even bidding 1NT with INV with 3 card fit seems to be acceptable, since opener will pass with minimums (so we play 1NT with 23HCP instead of 3M).

[Zelandakh]

awm, on 2011-November-15, 19:29, said:

Some examples where 2/1 is better.

(1) Partner opens 1♠; I have a big balanced hand without a fit, say 2335.
(2) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with 3-card support.
(3) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with a ton of clubs.
(4) Partner opens 1♠ with a 5332 pattern, and I have a weak hand with a ton of clubs.

All of your examples can also be strengths for non-forcing 2/1s. In 1 Responder will bid 1NT as a relay. Then (in my version) Opener bids 2D showing hearts and Responder relays again with 2H. This has the same effect as 2NT in 2/1 (patterning out) but with even more space.

For 2 it would start the same way (1S - 1NT; 2D) then Responder has the choice of 3S for a cue auction or 2H to continue patterning out. Again, there seems to be no disadvantage to non-forcing 2/1s.

In 3 there is a potential disadvantage in that you get to ask Opener's shape but not directly show how good your clubs are. Of course you still discover whether there is a fit or not but you do lose the 3 level for advanced cues.

4 is of course a strength for non-forcing 2/1s. You can bid 2C getting your suit immediately into play and putting pressure on LHO since Opener will often pass with a minimum and 3+ clubs.

awm, on 2011-November-15, 19:29, said:

Here are some examples where 2/1 is worse:

(1) Partner opens 1♠. I have an invitational 2434 hand.
(2) Partner opens 1♥. I have a 3244 hand with minimum responding values.
(3) Partner opens 1♠. I have a 1426 ten-count.
(4) Partner opens 1♠, I have a 2443 hand with less than game values.

Note that most of the above advantages are on invitational hands. The relative frequency and importance of invites versus GF hands depends on how light you open and on the form of scoring!

One way around one of the issues in 1 is to open 1C on all balanced hands outside of the 1NT range. Then 1S - 1NT; 2m promises a 4 card suit. This is obviously not to everyone's taste though. The non-forcing 2/1 auction is here equivalent or even slightly worse, 1S - 1NT; 2C (min without 4 hearts) - 2NT. The upside is that if Opener is not minimum then we can continue in relays, in effect reverting to the GF auctions that were a system plus. That is the primary trade-off for non-forcing 2/1s - you sacrifice part-score clarity for a minmimum Opener opposite an invitational Responder to maximise effectiveness in game and slam auctions, as well as occasionally having a slight edge when Responder is very weak.

2 is another positive for non-forcing 2/1s. Responder simply bids 2C and we either play there or happily pass 2 of either red suit.

3 too, is no problem for nf 2/1. If 1S - 1NT; 2D (4 hearts), we rebid 3H if we still only want to invite, or more likely we take a stronger action as we are now probably worth game. If Opener is minimum and does not have hearts they will rebid 2C over which we can either pass if we are really poor or bid 3C which shows an invitational hand with 6 clubs. If Opener is maximum without 4 hearts they will make some relay response and we can find out everything we need to pick the right game.

And also with 4. The 10-11hcp hand would have started with a 1S relay. When partner shows hearts with 2D Responder just bids 3H to invite. The 8hcp hand bids 2D and raises 2H to 3H. Simple.

The above makes it look that the non-forcing 2/1s with relay approach is much better than 2/1. This is not really true and there are other examples I can provide that would show the reverse. I hope it does show that non-forcing 2/1s are competitive with standard 2/1 however. The basic concept is to try and minimise the 'bad' hands to those where Responder is invitational and Opener is minimum without hearts. On these hands you are worse off than either of the other systems though. As Adam says, how important this is to some extent dependant on other parts of the system. His analysis also shows why playing invitational-plus 2/1s with Fantunes one bids is such a bad idea.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-16, 04:54, said:

The above makes it look that the non-forcing 2/1s with relay approach is much better than 2/1.

It looks from your post that when you say non-forcing 2/1 you are not using shorthand for non-game-forcing. I think that non-forcing 2/1 is so rare that using it as a comparison to, well, anything is not really that relevant.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-16, 10:21, said:

It looks from your post that when you say non-forcing 2/1 you are not using shorthand for non-game-forcing. I think that non-forcing 2/1 is so rare that using it as a comparison to, well, anything is not really that relevant.

They are mentioned in the OP and therefore somewhat on topic.

[flametree]

There is one case where a forcing no-trump can help in low-level contracts.

Opener has 13 points, 5=2=3=3
Responder has 6 points, 1=4=6=2.

1S - 1NT
2C - 2D
all pass

Playing S/A the auction would end at 1NT.

[aguahombre]

flametree, on 2011-November-16, 14:11, said:

There is one case where a forcing no-trump can help in low-level contracts.

Opener has 13 points, 5=2=3=3
Responder has 6 points, 1=4=6=2.

1S - 1NT
2C - 2D
all pass

Playing S/A the auction would end at 1NT.

This is one of a genre of cases.

[mike777]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-16, 14:24, said:

This is one of a genre of cases.

1s=1nt
2c=2d!


of course alot of people play that as BART convention.

Responder having a weak hand with a long minor is a bit of a system hole for many including me when i play 2/1. There are partial solutions but none that are perfect.

Bidding minor suit slams I think are a bit harder in 2/1 than other systems such as strong club.

Another genre of cases that can cause issues are two suited roughly 14-16 range hands that cant be opened 1nt.

Thankfully these type of hands seem to come up more often in magazine/forum bidding quizzes than at the table. Also in practice the opp are more silent in these quizzes than they seem to be at the table.

[Zelandakh]

flametree, on 2011-November-16, 14:11, said:

Opener has 13 points, 5=2=3=3
Responder has 6 points, 1=4=6=2.

Playing S/A the auction would end at 1NT.

Unless you open 1C on all balanced hands outside of range. Then the auction might run

1C - 1H (or 1D xfer)
1NT - 2C
2D

[FrancesHinden]

It's not as simple as saying 2/1 is better for slam bidding; sometimes a lighter style of 2/1 is better because responder can bid a suit naturally rather than bidding 1NT, or because the hand strengths get clarified early and quickly. Lighter 2/1s can be better for bidding game, because responder can show a suit when he has an invite, and opener can judge better based on his holding. But 2/1 works better when responder has a strong flexible hand and needs to find low-level forcing bids; it works better when opener wants to describe his hand after 1M - 1NT and loses spade after 1M - 2H.

I play in two partnerships with pretty complex agreements. One of them plays 2/1 and semi-forcing 1NT. The other plays a very light style of 2/1s. Both work. Both have gains and losses. I'm in no hurry to change either one to the other.
The worst thing about the second one is that when we play on Vugraph we have to suffer the commentators being rude about our auctions (e.g. 1S - 2D - 2S - P "oops responder has passed a forcing bid... they are really lucky that nothing is making..")

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-16, 12:06, said:

[non-forcing 2/1] are mentioned in the OP and therefore somewhat on topic.

OK. Probably the OP has been edited, because it is not there now. Anyway, perhaps I am wrong that 2/1 forcing at least one round is almost universal. I personally have played maybe two or three pairs who could pass a 2/1 by an unpassed hand.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-17, 19:15, said:

OK. Probably the OP has been edited, because it is not there now. Anyway, perhaps I am wrong that 2/1 forcing at least one round is almost universal. I personally have played maybe two or three pairs who could pass a 2/1 by an unpassed hand.

Oh, it's there right at the top. But, it isn't clear whether Winkler's non-forcing 2/1 means not forcing at all.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-17, 19:22, said:

Oh, it's there right at the top. But, it isn't clear whether Winkler's non-forcing 2/1 means not forcing at all.

Gosh, I can't read AT ALL. I'm sure non-forcing means non-forcing; but I think that the OP should have told us more about the arguments since I don't think that most of us are that familiar with NF 2/1.

On the other hand, perhaps 2/1 GF players have it all wrong. If you are playing a 1NT response as forcing, why not play NF 2/1s?

[MickyB]

Jinksy, on 2011-November-13, 16:36, said:

I assume it's agreed that when playing 2/1 you gain vs the alt whenever you make a 2/1 bid (except on marginal hands where you have to force to game without knowing enough about P's hand to know if your values are working), and lose whenever you bid 1N (or canape as a result of insufficient strength).

Actually, no. Starting with 1NT works well on balanced invites, you can leave room for partner to describe his hand before deciding what strain to invite in. The downside is that you have to arrange for partner to take another call whenever he has a 14-count, which is less of a problem when playing 14-16 NT.

The hands that do best playing lighter 2/1s are invitational single-suiters and hands that can show some values but stop in a safe two-level partial [eg 1S:2D, 2H:2S, pass].

BTW, most non-2/1ers play 1H:2m, 2H:2S as GF, so the canapes are kinda irrelevant.