[Canuckstan]

One year into my own 2/1 learning curve, I'm interested in some of the differences in 2/1 that crop up between the various 2/1 authors: the late Max Hardy, Mike Lawrence's excellent 2/1 CD-ROM, and Paul Thurston's 25 Steps to Learning 2/1. Which of these is considered "standard" 2/1? Are there others of which I'm not aware? If you want to practice 2/1 here at BBO or elsewhere, how do you find 2/1 partners? Should BBO set up a 2/1 only subplaying area? I see a lot of people create 2/1-only tables: I often do this myself, but half the time SAYC and other players crash it anyway. To really become proficient at 2/1, is it necessary to completely abandon SAYC or other systems? Because of the frequency of people leaving BBO sessions, I often find myself making mistakes because I've forgotten that LAST partner was 2/1 and NEW partner is SAYC. Anyone have solutions to this?

[Flame]

Find a partner.
No matter how much you will try you wont find 3 people who play the same 2/1 or any other system. Pick up partners isnt the way to practice systems.

[Canuckstan]

Thanks. I do have some partners at another site who I've actually met in person but they're SAYC people and I just can't seem to convert them, even after giving them some of the above-named materials. In his book, Thurston describes the frustration of learning about 2/1 in theory but then being unable to find people to practice it with, either at a local club or online. Sure there are a lot of experts playing it online but they're already partnered with others. For now, my solution is to set up 2/1 tables at BBO and label them thus: 2/1 practice: int+/adv-. It may take 10 minutes to find action but it seems to work. If anyone reading this thread is at the same stage, hope to find you online.

[Kalvan14]

I play Hardy [not completely - in particular, I have modified the auction after 1N, and the 2-level openings]. OTOH, I play integrally the 2/1, IMR, NMF and FSF.
Hardy's is certainly the most integralistic approach to the system, but I like it.

Lawrence's version is not so bad, and certainly is targetted toward a wider audience. I find it a bit vanilla.

The best advice is finding a partner (or partners) willing to work on the system, and to set it accordingly to your needs and wishes. There is nothing written on the wall. Eventually, a system must become as comfortable as a pair of good old shoes.

Just one last thing: you may wish to have a look at the way Bergen shaped 2/1.

[Canuckstan]

Thanks. How exactly DOES Bergen shape 2/1? Thurston does have a chapter entitled "Bergen and Beyond" explaining Bergen raises (3C or 3D showing 4 trump support to a 1M opening). But apart from that, how else has Bergen shaped 2/1?

[Kalvan14]

Canuckstan, on Nov 6 2005, 07:38 PM, said:

Thanks. How exactly DOES Bergen shape 2/1? Thurston does have a chapter entitled "Bergen and Beyond" explaining Bergen raises (3C or 3D showing 4 trump support to a 1M opening). But apart from that, how else has Bergen shaped 2/1?

I confess not having read Bergen (while I read both Hardy and Lawrence). As far as I gathered, the main differences are the bergen raises and the 2♣ forcing check-backs.
Bergen raises are quite interesting (I play a different set of raises, but Bergen ones are quite well thought and organised). The 2♣ forcing check-back is not very attractive to me.

I did not read Thurston book, either. Had a peek on internet, but there was just the 1st chapter, and it was quite boring.

[mike777]

I think in Bergen 2/1 you basically get a Law version. Bid on lightish hands and get to lawfull level fast. Note if you are bidding lighter in Bergen compared to Lawrence or Hardy then your responses are often stronger. Your preempts come up more often and are lighter. Bergen has alot of conventions to find out your lawfull level, good/bad 2nt, DONT, etc. If you add in Barry Crane style lite openings you find yourself bidding very often compared to Hardy or Lawrence.
Bergen plays semi-forcing nt. You need to decide if 2/1 is 100% game force or not. In Hardy and Lawrence it is NOT!
Hardy wjs are common.
Lawrence sjs are common.
I think most Bergen players play neither and use j/s for raises and other type hands.

[ArcLight]

>You need to decide if 2/1 is 100% game force or not. In Hardy and Lawrence it is NOT!


I think in Hardy style a 2/1 is 100% GF, including 1♦-2♣.

[Kalvan14]

ArcLight, on Nov 6 2005, 11:15 PM, said:

>You need to decide if 2/1 is 100% game force or not. In Hardy and Lawrence it is NOT!


I think in Hardy style a 2/1 is 100% GF, including 1♦-2♣.

In Hardy, a 2/1 is 99% GF (you might stop in 4m, if there is no chance of playing 3N; it is more theoretical than practical, and I cancelled this caveat, since I find more useful to have 4m forcing and RKC).
Lawrence accepts that you can stop in 2N or 3 suit.

[Chamaco]

You might want to read Robinson's "Washington standard".

While I agree with all the posters that say that expecting pickup pard to comply to a "standard 2/1" is hopeless, well, this book seems to do a god job in putting together most of the treatments are commonly shared by 2/1 players I could meet on BBO.

In this task, the book appears superior to the books by Lawrence, Hardy, and so forth (although the comparison with Lawrence's books are a bit unfair: ML books wee written 15-20 years ago, and they stood the test of time; moreover, as I already wrote, I think that ML books are not books on system but rather on hand evaluation).

[luke warm]

another plug for roland's 2/1 site, and his intermediate/advanced 2/1 club on bbo... when you have time, go to www.2over1.com and register.. then click on the 'lessons' link on the left... he has several articles there

as for bergen, 2 of the best books i've ever read are his volumes 1 & 2 'better bidding with bergen' in which he discusses the 2/1 style he played with cohen... the best i can say about the lawrence and hardy methods (both of which i've read) is, they might be as good