[jillybean]

Ive been learning the 2/1 responses to partners 1M openings;

1M:2M "constructive" 8(7)-10 3 card support
1M:1N 2x:2M weak
1M:1N 2x:3M eactly 3 card support 10-11
1M:3M 6-9 4 card support

What do you do with 10-11 4 card support, 2m then 3M?

Also, the experts tend to skip over the most basic concepts and for obvious reasons, Im not criticizing here. Does 2/1 game force only apply when partner opens a major, 1♦:2♣ is not game forcing?

[Stephen Tu]

It's not standard in 2/1 to play 1M-3M as 6-9 4 cd support. Without discussion, 10-11 4 cd support tends to be assumed. You just bid 1M-2M with 3 and 4 cd support and that strength range.

If you are playing some form of Bergen raises, using 1M-3M as weaker (3-7- tends to be more common than 6-9), you use other jump bids to show the stronger raises, usually 3 of a minor. This precludes you from using 3 of a minor as invitational though, so then you either play 2/1 followed by a rebid of the minor by responder as invitational only (Lawrence 2/1 style as described in his workbook), or you have a hole in your system & tend to overbid on the invitational hands.

An alternative is to modify your 2nt raise to show limit raises as well as GF raises, which is doable.

So search for material on Bergen raises, also FredG's 2/1 articles offer an alternative scheme.

[kenrexford]

There are various schemes, of course. Default, I believe, is to put the 6-9 4-card raises in with constructive unless a better scheme exists.

My personal preference is for 3♣ to catch a lot of 4-card limit+ raises, for one under (3♥ to agree spades) as a "limix," meaning a limit raise created by shortness, or 2 honor covers and a short suit, with 3-L as semi-preemptive.

But, then the ACBL Bulletin saw fit to give Karen month after month to tell us that good bidding means not having any tools at all to trouble our fragile brains, so maybe we should just have 2M as 6-9, 3M as 10-12, and 2NT as 13+.

[blackshoe]

I like Hardy raises:

1M-1NT(F)-2m-2M: 10 losers, 3 trumps, or 9 (usually) losers, 2 trumps
1M-1NT(F)-2m-3M or 1M-1NT(F)-2M-4M: 3 card balanced limit raise, 9+-12- HCP, 8 losers (usually)
1M-2M: 8-9 losers, 3-4 trumps, 5+-9- HCP.
1M-2NT: 15+-unlimited, 4 trumps, slam interest, may be unbalanced
1M-3C: 9+-12-, 4 trumps, no shortage, or 3 trumps w/shortage
1M-3Under: "Under Jump Shift", 3 of the suit directly under trumps, AKA "GF Limit Raise" (don't blame me, that's what Hardy called it) 9+-12-, 4 trumps, side shortage (3M asks about the shortage) usually 6 or 7 losers
1M-3M: 0-5 (roughly), 4+ trumps, 8 losers
1M-3Over: "Over Jump Shift", 3S/1H or 3NT/1S, 12+-15-, 4 trumps, side shortage (next step asks), probably 6 or fewer losers
1M-4C: Inverted Trump Swiss, 12+-15-, 4 trumps, no shortage, 2 of the top 3 trumps
1M-4D: Inverted Trump Swiss, 12+-15-, 4 trumps not good enough for 4C
1M-4M: 0-8 (roughly), 5+ trumps, probably side shortage, probably 6-7 losers

Along with this:

1M-1NT-2any-4M: preemptive raise (1M-4M) with a side A or K
1M-2m-2newSuit-3M: GF 3 card raise, better than 7 losers, probably some slam interest
1M-2m-2newSuit-4M: "picture bid", 4 trumps, 5 card minor, doubletons in the side suits, probably a weakness in one or both side suits for slam purposes, 7 losers or better.
1M-2m-2newSuit-3M: 3 trumps, 5 card minor, slam interest, invites cue bidding, 6 losers or fewer.

[jtfanclub]

Bergen raises seem to be becoming standard in 2/1, so 1♥-3♥ is the weakest action, then 1♥-3♣, and finally 1♥-3♦ is so strong nobody every stops below game (well, nobody at my level ever stops below game). Can't stand 'em myself, but they're pretty popular.

1♦-2♣ is a separate agreement from other 2/1 bids. Many people play 1♦-3♣ as invitational and 1♦-2♣ as GF. Many more people play 1♦-2♣ as invitational.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Jul 27 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Bergen raises seem to be becoming standard in 2/1, so 1♥-3♥ is the weakest action, then 1♥-3♣, and finally 1♥-3♦ is so strong nobody every stops below game (well, nobody at my level ever stops below game). Can't stand 'em myself, but they're pretty popular.

1♦-2♣ is a separate agreement from other 2/1 bids. Many people play 1♦-3♣ as invitational and 1♦-2♣ as GF. Many more people play 1♦-2♣ as invitational.

I had a partner once suggest to me that we play 2 over 1. I agreed. Then he told me that in 1♦-2♣, the response is never game forcing. Unfortunately, he told me this on the way home after the tournament. EVen more unfortunately, I think he still believes it.

[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, on Jul 27 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

Bergen raises seem to be becoming standard in 2/1

False!

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Jul 27 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

Ive been learning the 2/1 responses to partners 1M openings;

1M:2M "constructive" 8(7)-10  3 card support
1M:1N 2x:2M weak 
1M:1N 2x:3M  eactly 3 card support 10-11
1M:3M  6-9 4 card support

What do you do with 10-11 4 card support,  2m then 3M?

Also, the experts tend to skip over the most basic concepts and for obvious reasons, Im not criticizing here. Does 2/1 game force only apply when partner opens a major, 1♦:2♣ is not game forcing?

1) You do need to decide if 2/1 is 100% game force or not, huge debate even among true experts......
2) You need to decide on basic major and minor suit raises......huge debate even among true experts.
3) Just my opinion but I would start with what is an opening one level bid in first or second seat and agree.......example.....6 card suit with minimum hcp but shape or more hcp etc.....whatever,,,etc............then agree what a 2/1 bid looks like......If nothing else in the bidding, for me anyway, it really helps if I know what an opening one level bid in first or second seat looks like...
4) whatever you decide I remain convinced being able to count and think about the hands in defense or declarer play will be most important....


Check out Mike Lawrence or BWS website for starters.......experiment...see what you prefer..........

[blackshoe]

Some play that 1♦-2♣ is absolutely FG. Others play that it's forcing to game unless responder rebids the suit (which shows length in clubs, invitational values, and no fit for opener's suits). Still others, Max Hardy among them, suggest that if responder rebids clubs twice, 4♣ can be passed, but the first rebid (3♣) is still forcing. For my money, none of these is perfect. I suppose the second one is the one I like the best, though.

[andy_h]

This all depends upon agreement. Playing with a pick-up I would just assume 1M-3M as a limit raise.

But I would say the sequence of going via 2m then jump to 3M is definitely not a 4 card limit raise - that is also dependent upon agreement (for example, picture jumps).

Playing with a pick-up I would also assume 1D-2C is GF. Some play it as GF except rebid.

[jtfanclub]

rogerclee, on Jul 27 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 27 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

Bergen raises seem to be becoming standard in 2/1

False!

Thank God!

[mikeh]

Hi jb

Just when you thought it was getting easier, you learn that there is NO standard consensus on major suit raises in 2/1

Oh well.

For what it is worth, my suggestion is that the easiest adaptation for you, based on what you have learned so far, is to incorporate some form of Bergen. To make matters worse, not everyone plays Bergen the same way!

Bergen uses jumps to 3♣ and 3♦ as 4 (or more) card support and either a constructive raise or a limit raise. I think he suggests 3♣ constructive and 3♦ limit, but many (including myself) prefer to invert these... 3♣ invitational and 3♦ constructive. Frankly, even tho I have a preference, I don't think that there is much to choose between them, but the important point is to always ask a new partner, who has agreed to play Bergen, which approach they use: 'So 3♣ constructive, 3♦ limit, or the other way around?'.

Then 1M 3M becomes preemptive... the range should depend in part on vulnerability.. in my partnerships, 3M at favourable will NOT be as good as 6 hcp.

There are (in my view) hands that hold 4 trump that can and should be bid 1M 2M. Give me a 4333 poorish 7 count, and I will prefer to single raise.. not good enough to bid to the 3-level constructively and wrong to preempt both because of shape and strength. But these are rare.

BTW, Bergen is off in competition and off by a passed hand (use some combination of drury and (optional but useful) fit-showing jumps).

As for 2♣/1♦, as others have noted, there is no consensus here either. It is certainly playable as forcing to game unless responder rebids 3♣. It is also playable to use it as gf, with a jump to 3♣ over 1♦ showing the hand that would have bid 2♣ then 3♣ nf.

If 2♣ is not gf, you need to discuss whether opener's 2M shows enough extras as to establish a gf opposite an invitational hand.. I like 2M to show about a King extra, and that would make 3♣ forcing.. but many fine players prefer that 2M not show extras at all.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Jul 28 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Hi jb

Just when you thought it was getting easier, you learn that there is NO standard consensus on major suit raises in 2/1

Oh well.

For what it is worth, my suggestion is that the easiest adaptation for you, based on what you have learned so far, is to incorporate some form of Bergen. To make matters worse, not everyone plays Bergen the same way!

Bergen uses jumps to 3♣ and 3♦ as 4 (or more) card support and either a constructive raise or a limit raise. I think he suggests 3♣ constructive and 3♦ limit, but many (including myself) prefer to invert these... 3♣ invitational and 3♦ constructive. Frankly, even tho I have a preference, I don't think that there is much to choose between them, but the important point is to always ask a new partner, who has agreed to play Bergen, which approach they use: 'So 3♣ constructive, 3♦ limit, or the other way around?'.

Then 1M 3M becomes preemptive... the range should depend in part on vulnerability.. in my partnerships, 3M at favourable will NOT be as good as 6 hcp.

There are (in my view) hands that hold 4 trump that can and should be bid 1M 2M. Give me a 4333 poorish 7 count, and I will prefer to single raise.. not good enough to bid to the 3-level constructively and wrong to preempt both because of shape and strength. But these are rare.

BTW, Bergen is off in competition and off by a passed hand (use some combination of drury and (optional but useful) fit-showing jumps).

As for 2♣/1♦, as others have noted, there is no consensus here either. It is certainly playable as forcing to game unless responder rebids 3♣. It is also playable to use it as gf, with a jump to 3♣ over 1♦ showing the hand that would have bid 2♣ then 3♣ nf.

If 2♣ is not gf, you need to discuss whether opener's 2M shows enough extras as to establish a gf opposite an invitational hand.. I like 2M to show about a King extra, and that would make 3♣ forcing.. but many fine players prefer that 2M not show extras at all.

This may be a matter of terminology, or it may be an actual difference of opinion.

It is my understanding that the 3 of a minor Bergen Raises are (1) limit with 4 cards and (2) a mixed raise (not a constructive raise) with 4 card support. I usually play 3♣ as the mixed raise and 3♦ as the limit raise, as there is less need to use the intervening bids as a type of forward going bid over a limit raise than there is over the mixed raise. The mixed raise is 6-9 (or 6-10) HCP with 4 or more cards - the same strength as a standard single raise of a major.

Of course, it is also my understanding that a single raise playing Bergen is 6-9 (or 6-10) HCP and three cards support (or 4333 with 4 card support).

I have never known constructive raises to be a part of 2/1. I have played 2/1 with many partners over the past 30 years and constructive raises have never been mentioned.

Maybe this is an East Coast thing.

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

I have never known constructive raises to be a part of 2/1. I have played 2/1 with many partners over the past 30 years and constructive raises have never been mentioned.

Maybe this is an East Coast thing.

I have four different editions Max Hardy's 2/1 game force.
1 Major -2Major was constructive 3 card support 8-10hcp

originally he played
1major-3 major showed support with singleton
3nt was then mathe asking bid for singleton

originally his books were entitled

Western Five Card Majors
two over one style

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 28 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Hi jb

Just when you thought it was getting easier, you learn that there is NO standard consensus on major suit raises in 2/1

Oh well.

For what it is worth, my suggestion is that the easiest adaptation for you, based on what you have learned so far, is to incorporate some form of Bergen. To make matters worse, not everyone plays Bergen the same way!

Bergen uses jumps to 3♣ and 3♦ as 4 (or more) card support and either a constructive raise or a limit raise. I think he suggests 3♣ constructive and 3♦ limit, but many (including myself) prefer to invert these... 3♣ invitational and 3♦ constructive. Frankly, even tho I have a preference, I don't think that there is much to choose between them, but the important point is to always ask a new partner, who has agreed to play Bergen, which approach they use: 'So 3♣ constructive, 3♦ limit, or the other way around?'.

Then 1M 3M becomes preemptive... the range should depend in part on vulnerability.. in my partnerships, 3M at favourable will NOT be as good as 6 hcp.

There are (in my view) hands that hold 4 trump that can and should be bid 1M 2M. Give me a 4333 poorish 7 count, and I will prefer to single raise.. not good enough to bid to the 3-level constructively and wrong to preempt both because of shape and strength. But these are rare.

BTW, Bergen is off in competition and off by a passed hand (use some combination of drury and (optional but useful) fit-showing jumps).

As for 2♣/1♦, as others have noted, there is no consensus here either. It is certainly playable as forcing to game unless responder rebids 3♣. It is also playable to use it as gf, with a jump to 3♣ over 1♦ showing the hand that would have bid 2♣ then 3♣ nf.

If 2♣ is not gf, you need to discuss whether opener's 2M shows enough extras as to establish a gf opposite an invitational hand.. I like 2M to show about a King extra, and that would make 3♣ forcing.. but many fine players prefer that 2M not show extras at all.

This may be a matter of terminology, or it may be an actual difference of opinion.

It is my understanding that the 3 of a minor Bergen Raises are (1) limit with 4 cards and (2) a mixed raise (not a constructive raise) with 4 card support. I usually play 3♣ as the mixed raise and 3♦ as the limit raise, as there is less need to use the intervening bids as a type of forward going bid over a limit raise than there is over the mixed raise. The mixed raise is 6-9 (or 6-10) HCP with 4 or more cards - the same strength as a standard single raise of a major.

Of course, it is also my understanding that a single raise playing Bergen is 6-9 (or 6-10) HCP and three cards support (or 4333 with 4 card support).

I have never known constructive raises to be a part of 2/1. I have played 2/1 with many partners over the past 30 years and constructive raises have never been mentioned.

Maybe this is an East Coast thing.

I wouldn't know about an East Coast thing: I have been on the west coast all my bridge-life...

I certainly learned Bergen without any mention of 'mixed raise', but I've never really read anything by Bergen, beyond glancing at a couple of articles in the ACBL Bulletin.

And I have played 2/1 with some pretty good partners over the years, and most of them prefer constructive or what we sometimes call semi-constructive.

Of course, as a long thread pointed out here, months ago, you really don't have much clarity when you simply say '2/1?'. That's a starting point for system discussion, not a destination (or even much of a map..sort of like giving an address by starting with 'I live in Canada'.

[jillybean]

Arrrggg another bottomless pit Ive stumbled into. I think I’ll wait until I have a regular partner who already plays Bergen and use their method, but no harm in trying to understand a little in the meantime I guess.

The 1♦/2♣ question came up in SAYC too and this is a great thread.

http://forums.bridge...opic=18928&st=0
Im no longer having those 1♦:2♣ 3♣ auctions