[straube]

 Vampyr, on 2014-June-03, 15:37, said:

Some players play 2/1 GF only when it is a minor over a major. So 1♠-2♥ is not GF and neither is 1♦-2♣. I don't know how popular this approach is.

This happens to be the opposite of what Meckwell plays. 1S-2H is extremely preemptive and if 2H handles GI+ then you have a real nightmare when opener has no forcing but temporizing rebid (such as 2S) available.

[Vampyr]

 straube, on 2014-June-03, 23:47, said:

This happens to be the opposite of what Meckwell plays. 1S-2H is extremely preemptive and if 2H handles GI+ then you have a real nightmare when opener has no forcing but temporizing rebid (such as 2S) available.

Interesting. I guess that an advantage of the method I mentioned is that you can play 1NT as semi-forcing instead of forcing, so that a weak NT facing a balanced 10- can stay at 1NT.

But I don't speak from experience; it has been many years since I played 2/1GF on a regular basis.

[Zelandakh]

I have to admit I have never heard of playing 1♠ - 2m as nat GF and 1♠ - 2♥ as INV+. Many pairs play 1♠ - 2♦ as INV+ with hearts though, albeit not usually in combination with a standard 2/1 structure. On the other hand playing 1♦ - 2♣ as INV+ has a long history and indeed I have read that the original 2/1 system applied only over the majors leaving this sequence as non-GF. Similarly, you can play 1NT as semi-forcing by adjusting the NT range down to 14-16. A number of pairs do this and it has fewer issues than losing the GF on 1♠ - 2♥.

[mike777]

 straube, on 2014-June-03, 23:47, said:

This happens to be the opposite of what Meckwell plays. 1S-2H is extremely preemptive and if 2H handles GI+ then you have a real nightmare when opener has no forcing but temporizing rebid (such as 2S) available.

guys they play strong club

[beatrix45]

 katonka, on 2014-June-02, 13:05, said:

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions. I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand. I notice that a lot of the turneys call for this system. wonder why.

SAYC is better for matchpoints. 2/1 is better for IMPs because it often creates an extra level of bidding below game (but in a game force) where you can cue bid and investigate slam. Examples:
1♠-P-2♣-P
2♠-P-3♠-P
or
1♠-P-2♥-P
3♥-P-

Now, there is an extra level available for cue bidding. This allows some hands where both opener and responder have 'a little extra' to show it. Once in a while it enables them to bid a hard-to-reach slam. No much help in MP's, but a real difference maker at IMP scoring.

[helene_t]

Beatrix: The second auction you give is forcing in SAYC. A two-level response by an unpassed hand promises a rebid unless opener jumps to game.

The first example you give may or may not be forcing - the SAYC booklet is not clear about this.

[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-June-03, 02:30, said:

Let me see if I can sell you on the theory. When responding to that 1♠ opening you might have a weak hand, or an invite, or a game force - 3 ranges. Now think of bidding space - there is as much space after 1NT as all of the responses from 2♦ up altogether.

This is only true if you never stop below game.
It makes little sense when grouping weak and invitational hands.
Besides, I have seen opponents interfere over your weak hands. If your LHO is going to bid 2♠ the number of sequences available to you are exactly the same, whether you respond 2♦ or 1NT previously.
I prefer 2/1 but it is a tradeoff. The arguments are complex and can not be simplified.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-June-04, 03:06, said:

I have to admit I have never heard of playing 1♠ - 2m as nat GF and 1♠ - 2♥ as INV+.

I like to play 1♠ - 2m as GF and 1♠ - 2♥ as INV but non-forcing..
If you want to cater for invitational hands you want to stop low when opener is minimum and does not fit. Note, that SAYC does not, if two over one is forcing and responder does promise another bid.
But of course if 1♠ - 2♥ is not even forcing, game forcing heart hands have to go somewhere. I put them into 1♠ - 2♣ whereupon opener bids 2♦ with all balanced or semi-balanced hands.
It works quite well.

What I find strange is, that the whole debate centers around the issue whether all two over one sequences should be game forcing or not.
Few seem to consider mixed approaches. Of course there are systems, which did this in the past, Ultimate Club for example.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

 rhm, on 2014-June-12, 02:30, said:

This is only true if you never stop below game.
It makes little sense when grouping weak and invitational hands.
Besides, I have seen opponents interfere over your weak hands. If your LHO is going to bid 2♠ the number of sequences available to you are exactly the same, whether you respond 2♦ or 1NT previously.
I prefer 2/1 but it is a tradeoff. The arguments are complex and can not be simplified.

When answering someone that does not understand 2/1 it is not only possible but also necessary to simplify the arguments. I post quite a lot in N/B and am used to doing this.

It is true that interference complicates matters and that the opponents are likely to bid over weak hands. That is one reason my own choice is to group invitational and GF hands together and use immediate change of suit responses as natural and weak. But that has its own issues and is not particularly relevant to the OP.

 rhm, on 2014-June-12, 02:41, said:

I like to play 1♠ - 2m as GF and 1♠ - 2♥ as INV but non-forcing..

This makes more sense since 1♠ - 2♥ now holds fewer hand types than 1♠ - 2m whereas in the system we were discussing it held more. You could also play all of the 2 level response to 1♠ as natural and invitational, grouping the weak and GF hands together in 1NT. There are many workable possibilities here.

 rhm, on 2014-June-12, 02:41, said:

What I find strange is, that the whole debate centers around the issue whether all two over one sequences should be game forcing or not.

There are a few structures around that do this and I think straube has used one of these for example. I quite like keeping the 2/1 responses to 1♠ of the same type because it helps with the homogeneity of the 1NT response. A classic mixed structure is for a 2♣ response to be a GF relay with 2♦ as INV+ with hearts. Then 1NT handles the rest. It happens less often with natural responses though.

[beatrix45]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-11, 06:29, said:

Beatrix: The second auction you give is forcing in SAYC. A two-level response by an unpassed hand promises a rebid unless opener jumps to game.

The first example you give may or may not be forcing - the SAYC booklet is not clear about this.

You might want to find a better SAYC booklet. If a single raise is forcing in these two auctions, then you will find yourself in a lot of games where the opener has a hand worth 12-13 'points' (e.g. dummy points) opposite a hand worth 10 'points'. A combined 22-23 'points' usually won't offer a satisfactory play for game. Using the single raise as invitational in these auctions is logical and has always been considered normal.

[Zelandakh]

Ypu misunderstand beatrix. Helene wrote about the auction 1♠ - 2♥; 3♥, which is indeed forcing in SAYC. If Opener instead had a minimum opening they would have rebid 2♠, which is itself forcing, and then their next call would be 3♥. That becomes the non-forcing raise.

Rather than criticising, go back and re-read the SAYC booklet. It is the case that the majority of players who say they play SAYC just do not understand how the system works. This auction is a classic case of that. This is one of the differences between the specific system known as SAYC and the more general collection of agreements (with many local variations) that might be described as Standard American.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-June-12, 06:27, said:

Ypu misunderstand beatrix. Helene wrote about the auction 1♠ - 2♥; 3♥, which is indeed forcing in SAYC. If Opener instead had a minimum opening they would have rebid 2♠, which is itself forcing, and then their next call would be 3♥. That becomes the non-forcing raise.

Rather than criticising, go back and re-read the SAYC booklet. It is the case that the majority of players who say they play SAYC just do not understand how the system works. This auction is a classic case of that. This is one of the differences between the specific system known as SAYC and the more general collection of agreements (with many local variations) that might be described as Standard American.

I think that auctions involving 2/1 are much more difficult in SA or SAYC than in 2/1GF or Acol-type systems. It seems you must produce and categorise long list of auctions, and may still sometimes be endplayed into bidding game.

The auction discussed above is a case in point, when opener needs extra values to raise partner's suit, even when holding excellent support. (By the way, am I correct in assuming that opener would rebid 2NT with a weak NT and that this would not be forcing?)

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2014-June-12, 06:43, said:

(By the way, am I correct in assuming that opener would rebid 2NT with a weak NT and that this would not be forcing?)

No. The response at the 2-level promises a rebid unless opener jumps to game, so any non-game rebid, including 2NT, is forcing. With a minimum balanced hand you bid like you would if you where playing weak nt: rebid your suit and pass responder's subsequent nonforcing bid, which could be 2NT or a repeat of responder's suit.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2014-June-12, 06:43, said:

(By the way, am I correct in assuming that opener would rebid 2NT with a weak NT and that this would not be forcing?)

That is one of the cases that has conflicting points within the booklet. As I recall Adam says that the system works more smoothly if 2NT shows extra (18-19) and you rebid 2♠ also with the weak NT hand. Using the 2♠ rebid in this way is also done in SEF and Forum D so is not unreasonable. It is contentious though because the booklet also states that a minimum NT rebid shows 12-14 balanced and that is surely the default. Bridge logic would say that that would then not be forcing but the booklet does not state this anywhere (that I know of).

[beatrix45]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-June-12, 06:27, said:

Ypu misunderstand beatrix. Helene wrote about the auction 1♠ - 2♥; 3♥, which is indeed forcing in SAYC. If Opener instead had a minimum opening they would have rebid 2♠, which is itself forcing, and then their next call would be 3♥. That becomes the non-forcing raise.

Rather than criticising, go back and re-read the SAYC booklet. It is the case that the majority of players who say they play SAYC just do not understand how the system works. This auction is a classic case of that. This is one of the differences between the specific system known as SAYC and the more general collection of agreements (with many local variations) that might be described as Standard American.

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC. On the 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ example I suppose one could agree to temporize with 2♠ holding a minimum hand. It seems playable, barely. It might actually give some advantage at IMP's, or not. However, nobody I ever heard of seems to have proposed it or even thought of it.

Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-12, 06:52, said:

With a minimum balanced hand you bid like you would if you where playing weak nt:

Except for the not having opened 1NT...

[Vampyr]

 beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC. On the 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ example I suppose one could agree to temporize with 2♠ holding a minimum hand. It seems playable, barely. It might actually give some advantage at IMP's, or not. However, nobody I ever heard of seems to have proposed it or even thought of it.

Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

The booklet was presumably produced by the ACBL in conjunction with the yellow cards.

[Zelandakh]

 beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC.

Adam is awm and he is a particularly knowledgeable forum member regarding the SAYC system (and some others for that matter). The ACBL SAYC booklet can be found here. A relevant quote from it (bottom of page 4):

Quote

NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand.

Finally, many players claim to play SAYC but few of them actually do so. It might just be that the system you play is in fact not SAYC but one of the many variations of Standard American that acquire this label. I think it is unnecessary for me to comment on the rest. There is plenty on BBF for me to learn from and I daresay I sometimes look a little silly...but I suspect not in this thread so far.

[fromageGB]

 beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

Beatrix, you will learn with experience that this is an extremely ill-judged comment. Zelandakh is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable and respected members of this forum. He is one of the best in understanding concepts, and showing how they can be used in different circumstances. You would do well to read his contributions and learn from him.

[1eyedjack]

 katonka, on 2014-June-02, 10:57, said:

I do not understand this two over one system.

The fundamental premise that underpins 2/1 systems is the use of a forcing 1N response to a (5+ card) 1-Major opening bid. The logic is that 1N is the optimum spot on a minority of hands, and much of the time there is little discernable difference in the merits of 1N v 2 of your best suit fit (which you expect to find after 1N forcing).

Once you make a bid forcing, you can increase enormously the range of hands that can be contained within it, and in so doing take some pressure off other responses (ie to make them game forcing). That increased accuracy is commonly regarded as outweighing the occasions when 1N is best

There is of course a price to be paid, and that price is the inability to play in 1N after 1M opener. That is not an insignificant flaw, particularly at MP scoring, and some partnerships allow for the possibility that 1N might be passed in limited circumstances. If that is a systemic possibility by agreement then you may have to restrict the hand types accordingly.

A problem is that when 1N is the right spot, the partnership seldom has enough information so to be able to conclude on an informed basis at the point when the decision is required. It is certainly unreliable for opener to make a unilateral decision on that front purely because he has (say) a balanced hand in context. When evaluating the price to be paid in having 1N forcing, you need to consider not just the frequency of 1N being the right contract, but also the frequency of accurately so assessing when a non-forcing 1N response is made.