What *is* the argument for a 2/1GF system?
#1
Posted 2011-November-13, 16:36
I recently read Bridge in the Enigma Club by Peter Winkler, which recommends non-forcing 2/1s; he's a cryptographer rather than a world class player, but I didn't find his arguments any less persuasive than those I've heard for the reverse.
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). Most hands presumably fit into the latter category, so presumably the argument is that the gain is sufficient to outweigh this.
But it only seems to help significantly on slam-seeking hands, which are a pretty small minority. Sure, you might bid games more accurately on occasion, but that seems rare, and is offset partially by the fact that since the defence plays a greater role in games than slam, you're also helping them when your bidding is more detailed.
I'm not against 2/1 as a GF per se - I don't really have a view. But I'd really like to hear some decent arguments either way.
#2
Posted 2011-November-13, 16:46
Example of 2/1 GF advantages:
1M 2x
2y 3x <-- can get messy if responder has 12+ and 3x is not forcing.
Example of 2/1 F1 advantages:
1S 2H <-- done with 10-11 hcp.
raise
(In 2/1 GF it could go 1S-1NT-2x-2NT-pass and hearts would be lost.)
By the way, the auction
1M 2x
2M 3M
is forcing in BOTH systems. Why? Because an invitational hand with 3 card support usually bids 1M-3M in a 2/1 F1 system.
#3
Posted 2011-November-13, 16:48
I can imagine people doing the same thing with whatever basic approach they choose, so IMO for me to debate what is "better" would be silly (for me).
#4
Posted 2011-November-13, 17:00
#5
Posted 2011-November-13, 17:03
But many people overestimate what 2/1 bidders lose when they respond 1NT. For example:
- If responder invites in NT and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 2NT.
- If invites in the major and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 3 of the major which is probably better.
- If responder has a rebiddable suit and less than GF, then the 2/1 bidders can respond 3 of a minor directly then that's a loss for 2/1 because those bids can't be used for something else. But game forcing hands with a strong minor are a real problem if rebidding the suit is not game forcing.
- If opener raises the response and responder passes, usually there will be a similar auction to three of a minor after 1NT, e.g. 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♦ vs 1♠-2♦-3♦.
#6
Posted 2011-November-13, 17:39
#7
Posted 2011-November-13, 19:55
Jinksy, on 2011-November-13, 17:39, said:
I'd say definitely not on this one. Playing 2/1 helps you when you have the GF hands and hurts you when you don't. Given that you are playing Fantunes-style (i.e. sound openings) responder's GF hands are going to be quite frequent, much more so than in a traditional system. With this in mind I think it makes very little sense to play non-GF 2/1 sequences in Fantunes.
It's not a coincidence that the rise of 2/1 as an "expert standard" method has happened at more or less the same time as IMP events have taken over from matchpoints in many tournament (and even some club) competitions. IMP events emphasize accurate slam bidding over delicate invitational or part-score auctions, which is a good thing for a method like 2/1 (which shines in slam bidding and sometimes struggles finding the best partial).
Perhaps the biggest advantages of 2/1 are not actually anything about the system itself. The fact is that most good players today have more experience with 2/1 than they do with any particular method that doesn't include non-GF 2/1 bids. In the context of a short-term partnership where one doesn't want to spend many hours discussing sequences, it is simply much easier to play 2/1. In addition, a great deal of the development of popular methods in the last decade or two has focused on mitigating some of the problems with the 2/1 system. Obviously similar fixes can/do exist for methods without GF 2/1s, but they are less widely-known, less has been written about them, and the follow-ups may be less fully developed.
Personally I do prefer a structure with invitational-plus 2/1 bids in my serious partnerships, somewhat bucking the trend in the forums. There are a few reasons for this. First, with the tendency towards lighter and lighter openings, I find that frequency favors my approach (obviously this would not apply in Fantunes). If partner's opening lots of ten-counts, the somewhat icky forcing-notrump range gets wider (and more frequent) while the GF range becomes rarer. Second, I personally play a lot of matchpoint and BAM events, to the extent that I'd rather play a system that's more optimized for these events than one which is more optimized for IMPs. Third, I'm fond of tinkering with system and don't mind at all playing "non-mainstream" stuff that helps my methods.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#8
Posted 2011-November-13, 19:57
Frankly, I think the more important question at this point is "what do we do about the erosion in values required for the forcing 2♣ opening?"
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#9
Posted 2011-November-13, 21:41
a. to investigate the right game,
b. to bid stoppers and get to 3NT played by the right side, or vouch out in 4-3/5-2 major when we dont have a stopper or even stop at 4 minor if no choice
c. Slam bidding is much more scientific - this can be a plus or mins, depends on you and p. we like it.
d. it is less precise in partscores, but not by far, imo.
However, its not one system fit all. Discussion of auctions and good understanding between us is WAY more important than natural or 2/1GF systems, and imo a well discussed natural system will outperform poorly discussed 2/1 on any account, given the same partnership.
The advantages also very much depend on what you add to the system - e.g. Bergen and J2NT work very well with 2/1GF, some other conventions less so. Also we much prefer playing semi-forcing 1NT, and 2-way bergen, which is very useful in MP, but these are personal flavors.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
#10
Posted 2011-November-13, 22:17
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2011-November-14, 00:22
There's also a big difference between forcing 1NT response and semi-forcing 1NT response. The first 2 advantages Nigel describes are typical for semi-forcing 1NT. Standard 2/1 doesn't have these.
#12
Posted 2011-November-14, 03:33
1M 2x
2M 3M
is forcing
#13
Posted 2011-November-14, 04:33
Free, on 2011-November-14, 00:22, said:
If you play 2/1 F1, I guess 1♠-2♦-2♥ is forcing, otherwise it seems unplayable to me.
Also 2/1 GF is easy in what's forcing and what's not. You (almost) never have misunderstandings about that.. what i particulary hate about 2/1 F1 is:
1M-2m
3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit, partner has to guess a lot now, you can miss game/slam easily or end up in wrong game..
#14
Posted 2011-November-14, 05:02
I've never seen much in the way of a compelling proof that method A is inherently superior than method B.
Look at the debates between weak and strong NT. People have been arguing that one for decades.
If I were forced to make an argument in favor of 2/1 GF, I'd focus on the following
2/1 GF is an extremely popular treatment among professionals. In turn
1. This suggests that the methods have some degree of merit
2. There is a large community actively working to improve / optimize the system
#15
Posted 2011-November-14, 05:10
Dutchdwang, on 2011-November-14, 04:33, said:
3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit, partner has to guess a lot now, you can miss game/slam easily or end up in wrong game..
You don't have to bid 3M with a reasonable 14/15 count and not a really good suit. (Unless you play 1M-2m; 2M as non-forcing, which is unplayable in my little opinion...)
George Carlin
#16
Posted 2011-November-14, 06:16
Ask yourself as a player who has used sayc and 2/1, if you were handed the basics of both isn't 2/1 just easier?
#17
Posted 2011-November-14, 06:57
#18
Posted 2011-November-14, 07:06
1♠-2♦
2♥/♠-2N
and this can make much more defined rebids by responder, e.g.
1♠-2♦
2♠-3♣=5-5
-3♦=very good 6 carder
if you don't play 2/1, your 3♣ will not even promise a 4-card suit, let alone a 5-5, and 3♦ will be non-forcing.
George Carlin
#19
Posted 2011-November-14, 07:11
gwnn, on 2011-November-14, 05:10, said:
Disagree with the contents of your parentheses. Playing 1M:2m, 2M as F1 is clearly wrong in my opinion, why would you design a system around stopping in 2NT?
The hands you really want to 2/1 on are 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit so you can split up the 4-10 range for auctions like 1S:1N, 2H:2S.
I agree with the assessments on having to bid 1S:2D, 3S with many hands and 1S:2D, 2S:3C as just a way to force; That is why I play 1S:2D, 2NT as GF single-suited and 1S:2D, 2S:2NT as GF [invites bid 1NT then 2NT].
#20
Posted 2011-November-14, 08:18
George Carlin