[helene_t]

I have the pleasure of teaching two very bright students bridge since september. After three sesions of mini-bridge we just started with the bidding. I chose Standard American, as they are more likely to play on BBO than at a local club.

In Fred's notes, opener's rebids after a 2/1 follow the same scheme as after a 1/1, i.e. with extras opener must either jump or reverse. But in SAYC, responder's 2/1 promises a second bid which means that it is not necesary to jump or reverse. Especially the 2NT rebid causes headache since it effectively commits the partnership to 3NT even when both partners are minimal.

Mike Lawrence has a much more well-thought-through system, but it's quite complicated.

Defining the 2NT rebid as well as a simple raise of responder's minor as non-forcing would solve some problems, but I would much prefer to teach some standard (well, "standard") that allready has a name, instead of making up my own home-grown SA dialect.

If I really have to make it up myself, I would prefer to play 2/1 as 100% GF as this is at least simple. But for some reason, nobody is teaching 2/1 to beginners.

Then there's the option of not saying anything about developments after a 2/1 response since even if you have good "agreements" with yourself there's no garantee that a random BBO partner has the same understanding.

Any thoughts?

[Flame]

As you might figured out of my recent posts on the subject i share the same problem. I think if i had started it again i would have teach them 2/1 GF.
I dont think playing with picked up on BBO they will find understanding about what forcing on BBO.
I didnt understand what you said about fred's 2/1 isnt 1S-2H-3H a good bid with strong hand when playing 2/1 ?

[pclayton]

SAYC flows easier if certain low level rebids by opener are still forcing; whether it be a rebid of opener's suit, or 2N. It is the rare even that you want to play exactly 2♠ after 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠.

[kenberg]

It has been a while since I was a beginner. The following, I think, would have been an issue with me:

In SAYC, if partner opens a spade and you have a balanced hand with modest values you bid 1NT expecting you might well play 1NT. In 2/1 you bid 1NT expecting to play anywhere else but 1NT. As a beginner, and maybe even as not a beginner, I like the first way.

Systems arise because the game is so complex. A beginner should expect that as a beginner he will have hands he cannot handle well. But he may also expect that if he wants to bid 1NT to play he should be allowed to do so.


Personalities differ. Some can hardly wait to learn artificial gadgets, others approach them with fear or skepticism. Mostly I think it is easier, and more fun, to start with most bids natural and to work into gadgets than to go by the reverse route, but that's me. Your students may see things differently.

[Flame]

kenberg, on Oct 22 2006, 02:02 PM, said:

Systems arise because the game is so complex. A beginner should expect that as a beginner he will have hands he cannot handle well. But he may also expect that if he wants to bid 1NT to play he should be allowed to do so.

I dont understand this, why does a beginner feel better about bidding 1NT with unbalanced hand then not being able to play 1NT.
My expirence is the begginer doesnt think about where he can play, he think about his awn hand and what is the right bid to make.
Also its not nececarry to play forcing 1NT with 2/1.

[hrothgar]

Flame, on Oct 23 2006, 01:47 AM, said:

Also its not nececarry to play forcing 1NT with 2/1.

People certainly have the option of playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT.
People have the option of running a cheese grater over their face.

This doesn't mean that its a good idea, nor would I recommend it.

Seriously, can you point to any systems that describe themselves as 2/1 GF that don't use a forcing NT (Kaplan inversion doesn't count)

[sdoty]

helene_t, on Oct 22 2006, 12:33 PM, said:

Then there's the option of not saying anything about developments after a 2/1 response since even if you have good "agreements" with yourself there's no garantee that a random BBO partner has the same understanding.

Any thoughts?

I give my students the following guideline for handling 2/1 auctions in SAYC:

Opener should have extra values to rebid above 2 of his own suit. It doesn't have to be much extra, but enough to be in game if responder only has invitational strength ... roughly a good 14 or more. This does mean that they often have to rebid a 5 card major suit, but I usually find that they get used to that idea pretty quickly. It isn't too hard for them to see that if they bid 2NT with a minimum opening when responder is going to have to take another bid, there's no way for them to play in 2NT. (I teach them that a 2/1 response guarantees another call unless opener rebids game.)

I've spent a lot of time teaching sayc and working with the system, and I've never found another way to make the 2/1 auctions work. (Correction: you can go the other way and say that a rebid of 2M or 2NT by opener is non-forcing, but I don't consider that in keeping with the original system.)

This guideline also clears up a lot of the confusion about which subsequent bids are forcing or not. If opener's second bid was above 2 of his major they have to reach game, because opener has said he has enough to be in game opposite an invitational strength partner.

It's true that a random BBO partner might not be on the same wavelength, but that's a potential problem no matter what you teach them.

Susan

[the hog]

"People certainly have the option of playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT.
People have the option of running a cheese grater over their face."

Excuse me while I clean the blood of my face. Seriously though, Richard is right. I think it is practically impossible to play 2/1 gf without a forcing 1NT.

[Flame]

The_Hog, on Oct 22 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

"People certainly have the option of playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT.
People have the option of running a cheese grater over their face."

Excuse me while I clean the blood of my face. Seriously though, Richard is right. I think it is practically impossible to play 2/1 gf without a forcing 1NT.

You guys got to be kidding me, i think 85% of the 2/1 players i know dont play 1NT as forcing but as what they call semi forcing. (ever heard of WJ2000/2005 ? )
1NT is 6-11 so opener with 12-13 balance hand can pass.
offcourse he can find a very non balance hand on the other side that would play much better in a suit contract but it could happend with sayc too. about the 3 card limit, many of them dont bid 1NT with that.
In fact my prefered system is to play this kind of 1NT response with 14-16 1NT opening so opener is suppose to pass bal hand below 17 hcp.

[gwnn]

1M-2x (x<M)=GF
1M-1NT=6-11 (bad 12) any, fit only if weak and flat (~5-7 or 6-8) NF
1M-2M=any non GF constructive raise (ie ~8-11) NF
1M-3M=preemptive NF

over 1M-1NT with 12-14 5332 opener just passes. This makes 1M-1NT-2x 100% natural. Of course with 45xx minimum passing seems awkward but remember p doesn't have 4 spades. If u hate passing with 14 pts, bring down NT range 1 point.

Where's the problem?

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Oct 23 2006, 06:09 AM, said:

Ive never understood this sentiment. No game forcing hands are recommended to go through a forcing NT in 2/1 anyways as far as I know, so having opener passing when they wouldn't accept any invite seems to make sense to me. Sure partner may have a 3 card limit raise, but it's not even clear which is more likely to make in that case, 1N or 3M?

The problem with playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT isn't about game forcing hands, or even the limit raises. Its about light distributional hands that want to explore for the best part score. If you don't play a forcing NT, you're going to be going down in a lot of 1NT contracts when 2♦ or 2M would have scored overtricks.

As I tried to note through my analogy, there's no requirement that you play a forcing NT in conjunction with 2/1 GF. People have the right to play a bad system. Hell, if it makes them happy to do so, more power to them. But this doesn't mean its a good idea.

I'll note in passing the following quote from the Encyclopedia of Bridge:

Two-over-One Game Force: A method of bidding in which a two-level simple new-suit response to an opening bid is forcing to game, e.g. 1♠ - 2♣ or 1♥ - 2♦. When using this system it is necessary to use the FORCING NT response to handle certain intermediate hands.

I understand that this is an appeal to authority (its entirely possible that the Encyclopedia is wrong). I am simply adding this to note that the position that Ron and I are advocating is far from controversial.

[helene_t]

Hmmm .... "far from controversial" is a little exagerated. Fred and Brad play 1NT as semi-forcing. Marty Bergen recommends it. It is semi-forcing in Bridge World Standard. (Then again, BWS is not strict 2/1, it is like Lawrence's style).

Anyway, I don't care so much if 1NT is forcing or not. I can live with both. The problems are opener's rebids after a 2/1.

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

The problem with playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT isn't about game forcing hands, or even the limit raises. Its about light distributional hands that want to explore for the best part score. If you don't play a forcing NT, you're going to be going down in a lot of 1NT contracts when 2♦ or 2M would have scored overtricks.

This may or may not be true, but I don't see how it applies any more to 2/1 GF than Standard American - the same light distributional hands are responding 1NT and having to play there.

I prefer a semi-forcing NT, because I'm yet to be convinced that rebidding 2♣ on a minimum 4522 tends to lead a better spot than 1NT would have been.

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Oct 23 2006, 05:32 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

The problem with playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT isn't about game forcing hands, or even the limit raises.  Its about light distributional hands that want to explore for the best part score.  If you don't play a forcing NT, you're going to be going down in a lot of 1NT contracts when 2♦ or 2M would have scored overtricks.

This may or may not be true, but I don't see how it applies any more to 2/1 GF than Standard American - the same light distributional hands are responding 1NT and having to play there.

Shocking to see this comment coming from a Brit. Does no one play Acol any more?

The simple answer is to point out the following: The requirements for a 2/1 response playing standard are considerably more relaxed than for a 2/1 that establishes an absolute GF.

(Acol provides an even more extreme example)

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

Does no one play Acol any more?

In modern Acol, a 2/1 shows 9+ HCP or some such. So Acol shields you from the 12+11 HCP 1NT contracts, not from the 12+7 ones. Which is more important may depend on the scoring and vulnerability.

[kenberg]

It never crossed my mind that my reply would lead to a discussion of whether 2/1 does or does not require a forcing nt. Had I realized the possibilities, I would have been more careful. Yes, you could play 1NT semi-forcing. However, if playing 2/1 then I cannot bid 2D over 1S unless I want to commit to game. It seems to follow that 1NT, forcing or semi-forcing, can be a fairly decent hand. From this it would appear that opener, holding a typical 14 count, doesn't often pass even though he could.

This seems to be borne out by experience. Players alert 1N, describe it as semi-forcing and then they bid. Not always, but often enough so that in teaching beginners the distinction is not vital.

So yes, it could be semi-forcing, not forcing. I accept the correction.

I emphasize that I was only speaking of what I believe I would have liked (SAYC rather than 2/1) as a beginner, and a bit about why. I am the World's Foremost Authority on saying what my likes and dislikes are, and I certainly recognize others have other preferences.

Ken

[mike777]

As one who plays semiforcing NT. I pass with balanced 11-12 or less hands.
Of course this throws an entire junkyard of bids into 1nt.
As I have mentioned in other posts one of the system holes it creates is the long minor 10-11 hcp type hands. So far this seems to be a theory hole than one that comes up at the table but...

Often you can rebid 2nt or something with the 12-13 long minor suit hands that are not worth a game force.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 23 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

As one who plays semiforcing NT. I pass with balanced 11-12 or less hands.
Of course this throws an entire junkyard of bids into 1nt.
As I have mentioned in other posts one of the system holes it creates is the long minor 10-11 hcp type hands. So far this seems to be a theory hole than one that comes up at the table but...

Often you can rebid 2nt or something with the 12-13 long minor suit hands that are not worth a game force.

Its not just the 6331s with a long minor that cause trouble...

There's also all sorts of three suiters where you'd prefer to avoid NT

The classic example would be a 1=4=3=5 hand after a 1♠ opening. As a more extreme example, consider a 0=4=4=5 after the same 1♠.

You also run into a variety of two-suiters. Bidding 1NT to play with a 1=5=5=2 pattern after partner's 1♠ opening always felt weird.

[mike777]

I guess I view those hand types as less of a problem but sure you can end up playing 1nt if partner has opened a junky 11-12 hcp balanced hand. That seems to be the penalty of playing 2/1 you may play 1nt rather than a 5-3 heart fit or play in a 5-1 major fit rather than a 5-3 minor suit fit.

If this is too big a price then you are going to hate semiforcing nt responses and some forcing nt responses.