[matmat]

EricK's thread got me thinking. I'm sure the following is not an original idea, and I'm too lazy to look if it's already been discussed, so if someone remembers reading something regarding this, they can just link and yell at me.

Does anyone play a hybrid SAYC-like and 2/1 system where some of the 2/1 bids are GF whereas others are not? would there be any advantage to this?

for instance,
1♠ - 2♥/♦ would be SAYC-like, but 1♠-2♣ would be GF? (possibly with 2♦ GF instead of F1)
same for
1♥ - 2♦ vs 1♥-2♣

[awm]

I've tried this. For a while Elianna and I played only the highest two-over-one bid as GF. The idea was that those auctions tended to be the most cramped, so we had the most to gain by reducing the frequency and making them game forcing. This also allowed us to use the jump shift just below 3M as an artificial raise, and we played that bidding 1NT and then showing an invitational hand showed five cards in the highest suit by inference. So for example:

1♠-2♥ was GF (natural)
1♠-3♥ was an artificial spade raise
1♠-1N-2x-2N was invitational and implied five hearts

This allowed us to find all 5-3 heart fits (a problem in two-over-one when responder is invitational) while giving us an extra way to show a limit raise (a problem in SAYC, since you rather need strong JS).

I've also seen several people advocate using 2♣ as a totally artificial game forcing relay (especially in response to light opening bids) in which case it makes sense to let the other two over one calls include invitational hands.

[ArtK78]

Two common variants of 2/1 or SAYC are 2/1 GF except when responder rebids his suit (e.g., 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣) and 2/1 GF except when either partner rebids his suit (I wasn't aware of this second variant until an unfamiliar partner in a regional pair event passed me in 2♠ on the auction 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠. I was then informed that this is not uncommon).

Other variations are that 2/1 is game forcing except for 1♦ - 2♣. If the auction starts 1♦ - 2♣, either partner can pass 2NT or 3 of a minor (except for 1♦ - 2♣ - 2x - 3♦, which is forcing).

I would bet that there are a host of other variations out there.

[kenrexford]

For a short period, in the context of a canape approach, a partner of mine and I played that a 2♥ response to a 1♠ opening was limited (10-12 or so) and passable, with 2NT not Jacoby but rather a GF with 5+ hearts. This actually worked out very well, but, again, in the context of a limited-opening canape style system. I'm not sure how well it would translate.

[whereagles]

matmat, on Mar 24 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Does anyone play a hybrid SAYC-like and 2/1 system where some of the 2/1 bids are GF whereas others are not? would there be any advantage to this?

There's an oldgadget called "monk 2♣" which is used on some 4-card majors systems. Monk 2♣ is either natural with clubs or the start of some GF sequence, usually with support. Other 2/1s are natural, 1 round forcing.

Whether that's superior or not remains to be seen. However, if you use monk with 5-card majors, there's certainly room for improvement.

[kenrexford]

There's also the Golady-Toddler combo.

Something like 2♣ as an artificial GF (Golady) and 2♦ as INV+ with 3+ diamonds, and some sort of rebid structure that I cannot remember. I played that with two guys way back when, and it worked OK, but also in a (different) canape approach.