[ArcLight]

What are the strengths (and weaknesses) of 2/1 compared to other systems, like Precision, Acol, etc.

2/1 seems popular in the US. Is it because "everyone uses it" (i.e. force of habit), or because its got real benefits? If its that good, then why do many good pairs use other systems?

(Note: Im not saying 2/1 is bad, Im just curious about what its stengths are vs Precision. Should I play 2/1 or Precision once I improve?)

[hrothgar]

Strengths of 2/1:

The primary strength of 2/1 is its popularity. This means that

(A) Its relatively easy to find partners
(B) Its relatively easy to find study materials
© You normally won't run ino trouble with systems regulators or cranky opponents

Secondarily, like most 5 card majors based systems, 2/1 stresses rules over judgement.

Weaknesses:

2/1 requires relatively sound openings, meaning that you don't get to open all that often

I don't think that 2/1 is theoretically sound. There is a reason why system regulators are constantly trying to protect standard methods like 2/1 against more "diabolical" treatments.

[skorchev]

Everything depend of the counrty where you practice.

The first system which you should know is that which is most popular in your country. In Bulgaria the most played system is Precision Club(but I first was taught to play natural system ).


Stefan

[Free]

2/1 is imo good for slam bidding, better than any natural system. However, precision is even more accurate for that purpose, but it has some major problems you have to deal with (strong 1♣ with intervention, nebulous 1♦, and perhaps a crappy 2♣ opener).

[pbleighton]

"2/1 is imo good for slam bidding, better than any natural system"

I agree, for pairs who play it right (BTW, I don't) but not for most pairs who play it. At my club, almost all LM pairs play 2/1, but most play the auctions as totally natural and shape showing, with no way to show extra strength. This is nice and easy, and there are certainly some auctions which are superior to Standard American. However, IMO, this doesn't make up for the loss of the natural 1NT response to 1M.

Richard's point about light openings is valid. I tried 2/1 with light openings, and quickly switched back to "forcing for one round".

If you are content to play sound openings (no lighter than Rule of 20), then 2/1 can be good if:
1) You are in a serious partnership, and are willing to learn how to use its slam-bidding strengths, and
2)You play a lot of IMPs

Otherwise, I think you are better off with modern Standard American - but not SAYC

Peter

[EricK]

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

[Free]

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

I disagree. If you can bid 1M-2m NON-forcing, it's a much bigger gain. Using relays to investigate full distribution is still a better slamapproach as well...

[EricK]

Free, on Sep 5 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

I disagree. If you can bid 1M-2m NON-forcing, it's a much bigger gain. Using relays to investigate full distribution is still a better slamapproach as well...

I am not saying that a precision 2/1 GF is better than relaying. I am saying that a Precision + 2/1 GF is better than SA + 2/1 GF.

Eric

[jtfanclub]

Ummm...it's the closest you can come in the U.S. to playing a relay system that's actually legal in kiddie land, er GCC?

That's about the only thing I can think of in favor of it.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2004, 04:09 PM, said:

Weaknesses:

2/1 requires relatively sound openings, meaning that you don't get to open all that often

I don't think that 2/1 is theoretically sound. There is a reason why system regulators are constantly trying to protect standard methods like 2/1 against more "diabolical" treatments.

richard, in your opinion does playing a mini or weak nt help alleviate this particular weakness? it does imo

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Sep 5 2004, 10:35 PM, said:

richard, in your opinion does playing a mini or weak nt help alleviate this particular weakness? it does imo

2/1 game forcing response structures require "sound" opening bids. You don't need to go as far as Roth Stone, but you still need a conservative opening style. Consider the alternative: If you are opening light then your partner needs a rock-crusher to establish a game force. As a result, you'll almost never have 2/1 sequences and your forcing NT gets completely overloaded. Not good things. There are ways arround this: For example, Ben combines a 2/1 game forcng style with light opening bids, however, he has adopted a set of specialized treatments like an artifical 2♣ response. From my perspective, this system really doesn't qualify as 2/1 any more.

Switching between a 15-17 and a 12-14 NT really doesn't have much impact on opening frequency. Adopting a 10-12 NT certainly allows you to increase your opening frequency, however, it places enormous pressure on the rest of your system. one choice is to have your NT rebids show a wide range (13- 17 or some such). Alternatively, you can open 1♣ with any balanced hand with 13-14 and 1♦ with any balanced 15-17. Personally, I don't like either of these styles.

[flytoox]

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 04:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

100% agree.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2004, 09:57 PM, said:

Switching between a 15-17 and a 12-14 NT really doesn't have much impact on opening frequency. Adopting a 10-12 NT certainly allows you to increase your opening frequency, however, it places enormous pressure on the rest of your system. one choice is to have your NT rebids show a wide range (13- 17 or some such). Alternatively, you can open 1♣ with any balanced hand with 13-14 and 1♦ with any balanced 15-17. Personally, I don't like either of these styles.

while i think you're right that 12-14 nt doesn't increase the frequency of opening, i do think it is superior in a 'normal' (read LM field of 2/1 players) because it should lead to more anti-field boards...

i don't share your dislike for the 2-way minor bids (with a mini nt), tho i think it's better to give 1C more than one meaning than to use both 1C and 1D as artificial

[paulg]

ArcLight, on Sep 5 2004, 02:03 PM, said:

What are the strengths (and weaknesses) of 2/1 compared to other systems, like Precision, Acol, etc.

2/1 seems popular in the US.  Is it because "everyone uses it" (i.e. force of habit), or because its got real benefits?  If its that good, then why do many good pairs use other systems?

If you look at the systems used in the World Championships then you will see a lot of variety. This alone suggests that there is not one all conquering system.

I think that many experiment with different systems and then find one that suits their style. And this is what is important - not the system itself but whether you feel comfortable when playing it.

It is clear that the ageing US bridge playing population is stagnating (with only 13% of ACBL members under 54 is this a surprise!) and hence resistant to change so 2/1 prevails, but here in the UK there is a definite increase in the number of 5-card major and strong club players (playing in tournaments) at the expense of Acol. I think that online sites are playing a major role in change, since they are exposing us to different methods and letting us compare and contrast them.

Personally we used to play Precision until the competition got too much that the value of the 1♣ was lost - changed to Acol but found we were never happy opening a 4-card major, so switched to 5-card majors. We now play what Richard is describing as an ex-2/1 system, i.e., 2/1 base with very light openings and some gadgets.

We play a 14-16 NT - this means that the other balanced hands, 11-13 and 17-19, can easily be distinguished (and we lump them into our 1♣ opener)

Paul

[ArcLight]

In his book "At The Table" Bobby Hamman wrote that he prefers 4 card majors to 5 card majors. What are the advantages of each? I thought 4 card majors (Acol) allow a more decriptive minor bid, and are better at preempting, because opening 1 spade with 4 spades uses up some bidding space.

[keylime]

2/1, IF both partners spend the time needed, is a pretty solid system. Problem is it is often misused. Example is this:

Qxx
Kxxx
Kxx
Kxx

After an opening one of a major bid, I saw a lot of people bid a forcing bid with this hand. They all went down at four of a major or 3NT.

2/1 is definitely a sound opening method. However, its raise structure is very much open to debate (i.e. 1M-3M being weak, 1m-2m being forcing one round or GF, and then the proverbial 1D-2C start).

[flytoox]

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:04 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 5 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

I disagree. If you can bid 1M-2m NON-forcing, it's a much bigger gain. Using relays to investigate full distribution is still a better slamapproach as well...

I am not saying that a precision 2/1 GF is better than relaying. I am saying that a Precision + 2/1 GF is better than SA + 2/1 GF.

Eric

C'mmon, Precision with 2/1 gf is better than relay. Why retreat Eric?

[helene_t]

2/1 with semi-natural 1m and strong 1NT is intrinsically conservative, so you will loose more part-score battels than necesarry. Also, with the forcing 1NT response your contract will rarely be 1NT. This suggests that learning 2/1 may not be worth the effort if you play matchpoints. That being said, 2/1 is not necessarily difficult to learn. The forcing character of a call is easier to recall in 2/1 than in other (semi)-natural systems. Also, if you have to start with a (semi)-natural system you may benefit from learning 2/1 which makes it relatively easy to change to e.g., Precision or Polish Club. My main problem with 2/1 is that the people who play it usually combine it with a lot of conventions that I would prefer not to play.

4-card major is more fun because the system usually doesn't dictate which of two 4-cards to open and whether to support with a 3-card.

I don't think short minor suits are theoretically sound, although it may be difficult to agree on an alternative since natural 4-card major is probably worse, in particular at IMPs. Short minor suits enjoy protection from the regulators, though. As long a 1♣ shows a 3+-card clubs you don't have to alert it and the oponents are not allowed to use confucing interference against it.

[EricK]

flytoox, on Sep 7 2004, 10:10 AM, said:

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:04 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 5 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

EricK, on Sep 5 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, having a 2/1 bid GF works much better if you have limited openings. So playing precision with 2/1 bids as GF gives you the best of both worlds.

Eric

I disagree. If you can bid 1M-2m NON-forcing, it's a much bigger gain. Using relays to investigate full distribution is still a better slamapproach as well...

I am not saying that a precision 2/1 GF is better than relaying. I am saying that a Precision + 2/1 GF is better than SA + 2/1 GF.

Eric

C'mmon, Precision with 2/1 gf is better than relay. Why retreat Eric?

I also wasn't saying that Precision with relaying is better than Precision with 2/1. So I had no position to retreat from!

Now if you want my honest opinion...

I'll have to think about it a bit longer.

Eric