[thepossum]

Dear all

I'm relatively new to SAYC and even newer to 2/1 (6 months or so) after years of ACOL. The major problem I seem to have sometimes is that 2/1 can limit responses or even rebids sometimes compared to systems that aren't game forcing at 2/1 level. I know there is the forcing NT etc but sometimes I would like to bid suits at 2-level without going via NT and other times I occasionally find my rebids somewhat constrained too. I'm not experience enough to know about documented limitations and ways around it, and wish I had some more specific examples but I am learning using the GIB CC, 2/1 books and sites, and the GIB bid descriptions and often feel quite stuck for a bid. YOu either have to take a gamble and push your hand 3 or more points or sometimes risk missing a good contract by being cautious and playing by the convention. One issue I really have is that I often feel I am pushed or left in NT trump cpntracts rather than exploring suits enough. That is my biggest concern and I seem to have missed many beautiful suit (particularly minors) due to the obsession with majors and NT

any thoughts from 2/1 proponents or critics

regards P

PS I am trying to play full GIB 2/1 in the robot games
PPS I'm not trying to make excuses for my play limitations but I would rather be in a good easy minor game (or even slam) than a tricky 3NT with problem entries and strange distributions that may make many overtricks. Ive observed that on many occasions. Top hand is a minor slam versus 3NT + 3/4

[dokoko]

I like to play 2/1 structures.

That said I don't think it's an effective method with most casual partners.

You pay a price by making it more difficult to bid invitational hands. If your follow-up after a 2/1 response is only so-so, you don't get enough compensation on the game and slam hands.

[smerriman]

Every system has limitations. 2/1 makes some sequences far simpler, at the cost of making others more difficult. The same applies to lots of conventions regardless of the underlying system.

In saying that, firstly GIB has many many many issues with it; so the fact it gets things wrong doesn't necessarily mean that is an issue with 2/1. Secondly, you really need to come up with a specific list of sequences you are having difficulty with, since you may well simply be misunderstanding how they work in 2/1.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2018-October-30, 02:13, said:

Every system has limitations. 2/1 makes some sequences far simpler, at the cost of making others more difficult. The same applies to lots of conventions regardless of the underlying system.

In saying that, firstly GIB has many many many issues with it; so the fact it gets things wrong doesn't necessarily mean that is an issue with 2/1. Secondly, you really need to come up with a specific list of sequences you are having difficulty with, since you may well simply be misunderstanding how they work in 2/1.

OK, I will try to list them

My first problem is the Soloway jump shift where I believe it is too restrictive. 17+ points is very high. Opposite an opening bid I would like to jump shift on 14+ points so I often have to push that. I will try to list issues as they come up. Sorry my post was so generic. My main issue is that I often seem to be stuck for a bid other than just at the 1 level with a suit or NT which can be far too weak for a strong hand. In other systems I would force to game on 13 points opposite an opening bid without a jump shift requirement of 17+. We just wouldnt know yet if the game was a suit or NT.

A recent hand where everyone bid 4H. My play was useless (as I say I dont make excuses for my limitations) but the majority hands were at least a 6S contract but the system did not get us there and we all end up in 4S. Many people made 4+3, the majority made 4+2, or 4+3.

Here is the hand and please ignore my play and bidding but nobody bid it. This is a slam hand. My play may be beginner level but I am comparing myself with better players

---

[smerriman]

.. you're losing the first two tricks in hearts. If there's a system which gets you to slam, I'd suggest avoiding it

If playing new minor forcing like GIB does, and you had a hand with 6 spades where you wanted to investigate slam, you can start with 2♣, then rebid your spades. That sets spades at a lower level than 4♠ (which is a signoff here). That would theoretically allow you to start cuebidding, notice the heart issue, and stop. GIB doesn't understand cuebidding so this probably wouldn't work, but that's an issue with GIB, not 2/1. With a human it's probably even better to play two way checkback, which makes things even easier.

(But for your hand, I don't think you want to be looking for slam. Your partner has the absolute best possible hand he can have, and slam is still no hope).

There are no point restrictions on Soloway jump shifts. (Yes, GIB mentions a point range, but it assigns all sorts of arbitrary points ranges; you don't need to obey them and sometimes they make no sense). However, you should only be using them on very tightly defined hands; since you can already force to game with a 2/1 you need a good reason to waste a lot of bidding room. Hands suitable for a jump shift are very rare (which is why many people don't play them).

[The_Badger]

Jump shifts showing strong(ish) hands opposite opening hands shouldn't be made with hands that have a mediocre to nearly good trump suit, I feel. The 6322 shape, lack of intermediates, and KQ9xxx suit would put me off jumping in Acol, let alone SAYC or 2/1. Paul Soloway, the multiple world and national championship player, who gave his name to this convention must have a very good reason why he set it to 17+. Obviously distribution and suit quality can be taken into consideration when you jump shift with ♠AKQJtx ♥xx ♦Atxx ♣x, but not with the South hand as in the hand diagram.

[sfi]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 00:55, said:

One issue I really have is that I often feel I am pushed or left in NT trump cpntracts rather than exploring suits enough. That is my biggest concern and I seem to have missed many beautiful suit (particularly minors) due to the obsession with majors and NT

Game in NT requires 9 tricks, while minor games need 11 tricks. That's a big disadvantage, so by default you should be aiming for 3NT when you have the minors, unless you have strong evidence to the contrary.

The big problem with 2/1 is when responder holds a 10-11 point hand with five hearts. It's hard to find 5-3 fits and get to game when it's right. Some pairs introduce conventions to try and fix this hole, but most people just accept it.

[steve2005]

What I see as limitation of 2/1 GF
Cant play on 1NT which is often the hardest contract to defend in MP. Could use 1NT semi-forcing to allow 1N as a contract.
For invitational hands need to use 1NT forcing which can involve complicated sequences
Often hard to show a hand with extras which makes slam bidding problematic. Serious/non-serious 3NT helps with this
With misfit and minimum values after a 2/1 GF no way to put brakes on and stop short of game

That said the list for SAYC or Standard American would be much longer!

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2018-October-30, 02:13, said:

Every system has limitations. 2/1 makes some sequences far simpler, at the cost of making others more difficult. The same applies to lots of conventions regardless of the underlying system.

In saying that, firstly GIB has many many many issues with it; so the fact it gets things wrong doesn't necessarily mean that is an issue with 2/1.

I would add that GIB's version of 2/1 is far from standard. Probably more than half the players in the world play 2/1, but many of them have never even heard of Soloway jump shifts, Jacoby 2NT or inverted minors, nor do these conventions fit particularly well into the framework of 2/1.
If you play a lot with GIB robots you need to understand how they bid, but don't assume that the many complications (and some virtues) are inherent in 2/1.

[hrothgar]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 00:55, said:

Dear all

I'm relatively new to SAYC and even newer to 2/1 (6 months or so) after years of ACOL. The major problem I seem to have sometimes is that 2/1 can limit responses or even rebids sometimes compared to systems that aren't game forcing at 2/1 level. I know there is the forcing NT etc but sometimes I would like to bid suits at 2-level without going via NT and other times I occasionally find my rebids somewhat constrained too. I'm not experience enough to know about documented limitations and ways around it, and wish I had some more specific examples but I am learning using the GIB CC, 2/1 books and sites, and the GIB bid descriptions and often feel quite stuck for a bid. YOu either have to take a gamble and push your hand 3 or more points or sometimes risk missing a good contract by being cautious and playing by the convention. One issue I really have is that I often feel I am pushed or left in NT trump cpntracts rather than exploring suits enough. That is my biggest concern and I seem to have missed many beautiful suit (particularly minors) due to the obsession with majors and NT

any thoughts from 2/1 proponents or critics

If you don't like 2/1, play something else.

Having solved this problem, I will now turn my sights to Israel/Palestine....

On a more serious note

1. 2/1 is the dominant system played by serious partnerships on BBO. Even if you don't like to play it, you need to learn how to play against it.

2. 2/1 is the dominant system played by North American experts. As such, it probably has the most active community working to improve it. I believe that most recent books on bidding are grounded in 2/1.

3. I don't like 2/1 very much. (I prefer to play some pretty weird stuff) If you want to branch out in a different direction, it is possible. But it will require a lot more work.

4. See #1. Start by learning 2/1

[thepossum]

Thanks all

However I'm not putting up more examples since people analyse and critique the hand rather than discussing the issues I have found with the system. And I am always going to disagree with people who say a slam isn't there when 13/15 players make 6 or 7

My biggest issues are the total dominance of NT contracts when often a superior minor contract is there and also that it tends to be too conservative in its approach. I have observed this over six months and possibly hundreds or thousands of hands

PS also this isn't a GIB thread

PPS Also remember I'm no novice or beginner at bridge so please don't treat me as such. I'm just familiar with different philosophy and approach

PPPS I am by no means attempting to criticise someone like Paul Soloway. I used to watch him, Bob Hamman, Zia Mahmoud and others 40 or so years ago on TV when learning bridge. Their enthusiasm and attitude to the game was one thing I loved to watch. It's just a different system with different counts and I need to get used to it

[smerriman]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 14:48, said:

However I'm not putting up more examples since people analyse and critique the hand rather than discussing the issues I have found with the system. And I am always going to disagree with people who say a slam isn't there when 13/15 players make 6 or 7

I really don't understand this at all.

a) The hand you posted isn't anything to do with 2/1. It would be bid exactly the same if 2/1 responses weren't forcing to game.

b) What do you think the limitations of the system are in the examples you posted? As mentioned, you can easily explore for slam on the first hand by bidding 2♣, or whatever choice of forcing bid you have at the two level. 4♠ says "I want to play 4♠, and I don't want to play slam". I don't see any limitations of the system there.

Also as mentioned, there are no point restrictions on Soloway jump shifts, so there are no limitations there. 2/1 just makes these sequences easier, since you can force to game without having to jump shift - allowing the jump shift to be much more descriptive.

c) A good bidding system should avoid slams where good opponents can cash the first two tricks. If you disagree with that.. then I guess just bid Blackwood and hope. But giving you ways to avoid this isn't a limitation of the system.

[Stephen Tu]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 14:48, said:

However I'm not putting up more examples since people analyse and critique the hand rather than discussing the issues I have found with the system.

It's hard to discuss issues you think you have with the system without example auctions where you think a problem exists. And if the examples are showing that you don't really fully understand either the goals of bidding, or the principles of the system, are you really good enough to critique the system yet?

Quote

And I am always going to disagree with people who say a slam isn't there when 13/15 players make 6 or 7

13/15 making 6 or 7 because the robot finds the wrong lead on a normal auction where everyone stays in game is a far, far different thing from 13/15 players *voluntarily bidding the slam* and making it. If nearly everyone is bidding the slam and making it, most of the time the field is right and you should have gotten there. If people just *happen* to make 6, because the layout of the cards is lucky (3/3 finesses work), or because the lead is wrong at every table (because robots are on lead, and their lead style happens to choose poorly on this hand type), that doesn't mean you are supposed to be there. If you don't learn this lesson, you will continually find yourself trying to bid slams that are like <= 20% to make, then wonder why 80+% of the time you are recording a terrible score for being the only person in slam going down.

This example is NOT a hand you want to be in slam on. A scientific auction would pinpoint the heart weakness, and the computer should find the heart lead. If you just randomly blast to 6, likely the computer should find the heart lead more attractive than against 4. Certainly any human would lead the heart automatically from a KQ holding vs a slam, probably they are leading it vs 4 also (computer apparently thinks human intuition is wrong vs 4, perhaps it is right on average but not this particular hand). Furthermore, even if you are fortunate to avoid the heart lead, you *still* have to guess the diamond Q in addition. That's only a 50/50 proposition. If you don't learn that you don't want to be in slam on hands like these, even though slam happened to make at most tables in practice when they stopped in game like normal people, you'll lose many, many, many more IMPS and MP than you gain.

Quote

My biggest issues are the total dominance of NT contracts when often a superior minor contract is there and also that it tends to be too conservative in its approach.

Are you talking partials or games? There's a heavy bias for both humans and bots in trying to get to 3nt instead of 5m, because 9 tricks is easier than 11 quite often. And at MP furthermore 3nt+1 or +2 will render 5m making into a terrible score. Systems are thus heavily geared toward getting to 3nt, with 5m as the game of last resort. And at the partial level, the prevalence of 5 cd major systems makes minor partials harder to bid since partner's minor length is often unknown, might have 5 cds but may only have 3. So yes, sometimes you play 1nt when 2m would have been easier. But on the other hand, particularly against tougher competition, you will find that you will not often be left unmolested to play 2m. The opponents may balance into their 2M, and you find that you have to bid *3m* to win the contract. And sometimes 1nt makes 1, while 3m goes down 1, so it was better to be in 1nt even if 2m would have been a more cozy spot.

Some examples would be nice where you feel 2/1 is letting you down.

Quote

PPS Also remember I'm no novice or beginner at bridge so please don't treat me as such. I'm just familiar with different philosophy and approach

Your example posts and theories indicate you are still at the novice level. E.g. thinking you have to jump shift immediately with non-descript GF hands rather than just making a low 1 round force.

[smerriman]

PS - I found the hand you posted. Nobody else bid slam. If you get to 6♠, the robot will lead a heart and you'll go down - losing over 10 IMPs to the field.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2018-October-30, 16:41, said:

I really don't understand this at all.

a) The hand you posted isn't anything to do with 2/1. It would be bid exactly the same if 2/1 responses weren't forcing to game.

b) What do you think the limitations of the system are in the examples you posted? As mentioned, you can easily explore for slam on the first hand by bidding 2♣, or whatever choice of forcing bid you have at the two level. 4♠ says "I want to play 4♠, and I don't want to play slam". I don't see any limitations of the system there.

Also as mentioned, there are no point restrictions on Soloway jump shifts, so there are no limitations there. 2/1 just makes these sequences easier, since you can force to game without having to jump shift - allowing the jump shift to be much more descriptive.

c) A good bidding system should avoid slams where good opponents can cash the first two tricks. If you disagree with that.. then I guess just bid Blackwood and hope. But giving you ways to avoid this isn't a limitation of the system.

OK, it was a bad example of the NT and C limitations but it was the first example of what I saw as a limitation of the 2/1 point counts for a 2 level jump shift. That is part of the system I am playing and the convention card I am playing. The point count required is 17+ total points. Whether that is a limitation of the system or the description of the system, others can comment but in the absence of trying to play to system and using previous experience and my natural inclinations I would have jump bid 2S in the above example. Isn't that a different system approach. Of course we could add up the different meanings to opening bids and responses and maybe 17+ is correct for the possible openings.

My issue about NT is that (while I know they are often desirable for fewer tricks and 10 extra points) that there have been many examples of a choice between a NT part score and a minor game, where the minor was not even explored. Similarly minor slam vs NT game situations have occurred. If a good solid minor suit in a distributional hand plays well in NT it can play even better in a suit contract. I've seen/played some terrible distributions in NT, voids, long minors that weren't even mentioned etc. This is obviously due to the priority given to NT over minors. I dont know if that is systemic or GIB

I'm not trying to criticise the system. I quite like is general approach and am getting used to the 5-card majors and GF approach. However sometimes I still feel somehwat stuck trying to follow system rather than making what to me would be more natural bids.

I will try to post examples rather than hands, since people will critique my play (which I know is limited) rather than the issue I'm trying to address.

I appreciate everyone's points and am still a beginner at 2/1 struggling against my older instincts

And of course, yes, there is no slam there provided the lead is different in a slam situation. So lets put it down to everyone playing a substandard opponent which doesnt pick the right lead against game So I will start another thread about why the leads are often so wrong

regards P

EDIT. OK. Here is a situation (out of my head) based on the above. Partner opens 1C or 1D on 13 points with 3 Spades. I have 11 HCP and 2-3 distributional with a good 5-6 Spades. I would like to bid 2S but system requires 1S doesn't it. This only promises 4S and 6+ points and is not forcing. So I must make another artificial forcing bid, say NT

Related example. I have often bid 1NT hoping to bid a suit at level 2 (based on system) and have been left in 1NT.

Neither of these are very desirable to me when 2-3 major is easily there

But I will read more about the system and not rely on point descriptions. However almost every system I read seems to have 17 points for a jump shift. Has every system changed. I don't recall bridge counts being like that. I'm sure I learned that I could jump with 13+ points and a good suit or good flat hand with 4 (PS thats a different system). Invitational or forcing to game and gives options of suits and NT

[smerriman]

I think the biggest thing you need to think about is - why do you *want* to jump shift?

If you bid 1♠, whatever partner responds, you have low-level forcing continuations (NMF et all over 1NT, third suit forcing over 2♦, fourth suit forcing over 2♣, and so on) if you decide you don't want to sign off in game.

If you jump shift, your next bid is going to be at the three level. You're not going to learn as much about opener's hand, and you're going to have a lot less time to find the optimal contract - which is why people only use them in very specific situations that can't be described well by starting with 1♠. This current hand can be described well in all cases by starting with 1♠.

Note there are also some strong hands with 17+ points where you still don't want to jump shift - because it's more important to have the extra room to bid.

[smerriman]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 17:19, said:

EDIT. OK. Here is a situation (out of my head) based on the above. Partner opens 1C or 1D on 13 points with 3 Spades. I have 11 HCP and 2-3 distributional with a good 5-6 Spades. I would like to bid 2S but system requires 1S doesn't it. This only promises 4S and 6+ points and is not forcing. So I must make another artificial forcing bid, say NT

1♠ is 100% forcing, whether you are playing 2/1 or not (unless you are a passed hand - and even then opener will only be passing in very very rare situations where 1♠ is likely to be the best contract). 1NT is not forcing over a minor opening; it shows a weak hand and no 4 card major.

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 17:19, said:

Related example. I have often bid 1NT hoping to bid a suit at level 2 (based on system) and have been left in 1NT.

I'm not sure which auction you're referring to here - eg if partner opened a minor, you won't be missing a major fit since you would have bid the major. But it sounds like you may have misunderstood what 1M shows.

Thinking 1♠ is not forcing may well explain everything else in this thread! (And that was the purpose of prior replies - figuring out where your misunderstanding was - so please don't get put off posting by anything )

[sfi]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 17:19, said:

OK. Here is a situation (out of my head) based on the above. Partner opens 1C or 1D on 13 points with 3 Spades. I have 11 HCP and 2-3 distributional with a good 5-6 Spades. I would like to bid 2S but system requires 1S doesn't it. This only promises 4S and 6+ points and is not forcing. So I must make another artificial forcing bid, say NT

Here is a major misconception that will impact much of how the system works. 1S is forcing and unlimited, just as it is in Acol, Standard American and many other systems. Even if you have a Soloway jump shift available, the 1S response is not limited to fewer points than a 2S shows - it just shows a hand that isn't described well by 2S.

Given the hand you describe, the bidding might start:

1C - 1S
1NT

and now you need to have an agreement about 2C checkback, New Minor Forcing or similar convention to show a invitational-forcing hand with long spades. 3S is available either to show an invitational or forcing hand, but you need to agree which.

Or it might start:

1C - 1S
2C

Now you might be able to bid 3S, invitational, or 2NT, after which partner might accept and bid 3S along the way to show three-card support. If you want to force, you typically have to start with something like 2D before bidding spades. Again, these are things all partnerships with any discussion will have talked about.

But it all starts with a 1S bid on your hand, which could be 5 points, 23 points or anywhere in between.

[spotlight7]

thepossum, on 2018-October-30, 17:19, said:

OK, it was a bad example of the NT and C limitations but it was the first example of what I saw as a limitation of the 2/1 point counts for a 2 level jump shift. That is part of the system I am playing and the convention card I am playing. The point count required is 17+ total points. Whether that is a limitation of the system or the description of the system, others can comment but in the absence of trying to play to system and using previous experience and my natural inclinations I would have jump bid 2S in the above example. Isn't that a different system approach. Of course we could add up the different meanings to opening bids and responses and maybe 17+ is correct for the possible openings.

My issue about NT is that (while I know they are often desirable for fewer tricks and 10 extra points) that there have been many examples of a choice between a NT part score and a minor game, where the minor was not even explored. Similarly minor slam vs NT game situations have occurred. If a good solid minor suit in a distributional hand plays well in NT it can play even better in a suit contract. I've seen/played some terrible distributions in NT, voids, long minors that weren't even mentioned etc. This is obviously due to the priority given to NT over minors. I dont know if that is systemic or GIB

I'm not trying to criticise the system. I quite like is general approach and am getting used to the 5-card majors and GF approach. However sometimes I still feel somehwat stuck trying to follow system rather than making what to me would be more natural bids.

I will try to post examples rather than hands, since people will critique my play (which I know is limited) rather than the issue I'm trying to address.

I appreciate everyone's points and am still a beginner at 2/1 struggling against my older instincts

And of course, yes, there is no slam there provided the lead is different in a slam situation. So lets put it down to everyone playing a substandard opponent which doesnt pick the right lead against game So I will start another thread about why the leads are often so wrong

regards P

EDIT. OK. Here is a situation (out of my head) based on the above. Partner opens 1C or 1D on 13 points with 3 Spades. I have 11 HCP and 2-3 distributional with a good 5-6 Spades. I would like to bid 2S but system requires 1S doesn't it. This only promises 4S and 6+ points and is not forcing. So I must make another artificial forcing bid, say NT

Related example. I have often bid 1NT hoping to bid a suit at level 2 (based on system) and have been left in 1NT.

Neither of these are very desirable to me when 2-3 major is easily there

But I will read more about the system and not rely on point descriptions. However almost every system I read seems to have 17 points for a jump shift. Has every system changed. I don't recall bridge counts being like that. I'm sure I learned that I could jump with 13+ points and a good suit or good flat hand with 4 (PS thats a different system). Invitational or forcing to game and gives options of suits and NT

Game in a minor is about 5% of games bid by good pairs.


Using New Minor Forcing or the XYZ convention will solve many(most) of you auctions beginning with you replying one major to an opening bid.


If you do not like 2/1, Acol or a number of other systems are available.


If forcing to game or jump shifts is a problem, you are likely to still have problems when not playing 2/1.

When I played ACOL, 16+HCP was the standard for a jump shift "if the shape and HCP" also met certain standards.


Blue Team Club uses jump shifts with 12+ with good suits. They also have many other ways to describe their hand.


You really do not want to bid slams with two quick losers in a suit.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2018-October-30, 16:41, said:

I really don't understand this at all.

a) The hand you posted isn't anything to do with 2/1. It would be bid exactly the same if 2/1 responses weren't forcing to game.

b) What do you think the limitations of the system are in the examples you posted? As mentioned, you can easily explore for slam on the first hand by bidding 2♣, or whatever choice of forcing bid you have at the two level. 4♠ says "I want to play 4♠, and I don't want to play slam". I don't see any limitations of the system there.

Also as mentioned, there are no point restrictions on Soloway jump shifts, so there are no limitations there. 2/1 just makes these sequences easier, since you can force to game without having to jump shift - allowing the jump shift to be much more descriptive.

c) A good bidding system should avoid slams where good opponents can cash the first two tricks. If you disagree with that.. then I guess just bid Blackwood and hope. But giving you ways to avoid this isn't a limitation of the system.

PS Anyway,there is not much point in me discussing minor issues with bidding systems since my bidding is not usually the problem. It is my play that lets me down.