[kereru67]

I'm looking for something more descriptive than prescriptive. The authors can have their own opinions of course, but I'd like a book that describes alternative approaches too. I know only the most basic stuff, that 2/1 after a major (not usually 1♦-2♣) is game forcing and needs about 12 hcp, and that 1NT is a 1-round force made on any hand that doesn't qualify for a raise, a 1-level suit response or a 2-level game force (opener may have to rebid in a 3 card minor).

[mike777]

You might start with Eric Rodwell's 2/1 book.

Many other titles out there.
Mike Lawrence..

See
Baron/Barclay bridge book supply company.

[P_Marlowe]

kereru67, on 2026-January-20, 19:23, said:

I'm looking for something more descriptive than prescriptive. The authors can have their own opinions of course, but I'd like a book that describes alternative approaches too. I know only the most basic stuff, that 2/1 after a major (not usually 1♦-2♣) is game forcing and needs about 12 hcp, and that 1NT is a 1-round force made on any hand that doesn't qualify for a raise, a 1-level suit response or a 2-level game force (opener may have to rebid in a 3 card minor).

I would add, that
#1 Rodwells book was co authored by a wellknown Bridge teacher, who has published a lot of educational stuff on her own.
I dont know, if they discuss alternativ approaches.
#2 That the more modern 2/1 approach is to play a semiforcing NT instead of a forcing NT response to a major suit opening.
#3 If you decide, that you like the forcing NT, and it is working, as most things do, it has plus and minuses as always, but it is working, there is also the approach to switch the meaning of 1S / 1NT after a 1H opening, to make the response structure symmertic similar to the response structure after a 1S opening.
... This will be Kaplan Inversion, google it, I found a thread, but after screening it, I deleted the link.
I think this it is a sensible modification, and I also think 100% forcing NT is playable, forcing in all seats, I would not have issues to play it, there are other conventions that I would have more issue with.

In general I would recommend to stick with a given approach, e.g. the suggested way the book is outlinning and give it a try, and only after some time start modifying.

[DavidKok]

I recommend reading Larry Cohen's website. It has excellent extensive notes and discussions on pretty much everything related to 2/1 GF.

[mycroft]

There are many good books on 2/1, many referenced here and others (Hardy, Seagram, ...)

A perennial issue with bridge books in general is "here's The Way to do it" (another being "there are odd hands that don't work well with The Right Way, but we'll only show one to make you think they're ignorably rare"). Unfortunately, that means it will be hard to get "alternative approaches" except by reading multiple books that show the alternatives.

Having said that, any of the modern ones (Seagram or Grant and Rodwell are good because they're written by teachers rather than bridge experts, and are therefore easier to understand for people not yet immersed) will be good as an introduction.

Hardy and Lawrence are the two "pillars", but they both clearly show their age now (and aren't written for "new players"; they both are aimed at "people who have been playing Goren forever". If you don't know who (or what) Goren is, they shouldn't be your first book).

I absolutely agree with Larry Cohen (bridge expert turned teacher, and it shows), but I'd feel better learning from his book (note: haven't read it!) than his website just for "organization" reasons - once you understand the basics, absolutely go to his website for specific issues!

Specifically to your comments, originally 2/1 GF was only 1 Major - 2 minor. 1♠-2♥, and 1♦-2♣ remained "10+, 5+, forcing only to 2NT". 1♠-2♥ became always GF 20 years ago, and 1♦-2♣ about 10. Whether it's right or not, it's *much easier*. Don't worry about the times when a non-GF 2/1 would be helpful until *well into* your bridge career (10 000 hands or so).

Another good website would be Robert Todd's Adventures in Bridge. I don't see a "learn to play 2/1" there, but I did read his seminar manual once, and it was very good. And I'm sure his lectures were even more so.

[kereru67]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I had a look at Hardy, one thing I found very off-putting was his advocacy of Gerber, a convention I actively hate and use only in very rare situations (i.e. when the number of aces is literally the only thing I care about, a situation that occurs maybe once every 5 years). That might have something to do with going to a club where people have been taught "4♣ is always ace asking" and give you a Gerber response when you're trying to pre-empt in clubs....

[mycroft]

You're not going to find a book that doesn't recommend Gerber over NT openings. I might agree with you on its usefulness, but you can't sell it to the masses. So we try to remind them that a) there's always a more useful meaning for 4♣ in a suit auction; and b) only very rarely do you care only "how many aces"; and hope they don't overuse it.

For those who consider Gerber "baby food", there are lots of alternatives you can bolt on. NT auctions are effectively independent of 2/1 anyway, except for your choice of range.

I wouldn't suggest Hardy in general, however, for the reasons I mentioned above (a little complicated for a first step, assumes you have several years of standard, written in 1975 and the world has moved on (partially due to him!) - although the latest seems to have been 1990, according to this old BBF thread (read through that, too...).

Actually that thread does bring up a reference that hasn't been mentioned here - Bridge World Standard. Updated regularly (though last time was 2017), and keeps somewhat abreast of "general expert opinion". Downsides: extraordinarily descriptive - it won't *teach you* 2/1, it simply gives "the answer"; and like SAYC, it's a camel (elephant designed by committee), explicitly (they poll their readers every few years to decide what choice of options will become "standard"); and if Hardy is "a little complicated for a first step"... Upside, at least for you - if you look at the poll behind the latest version of BWS, you'll see the available options, which you then can use to make different decisions than the committee if you prefer an alternative.

[bluenikki]

kereru67, on 2026-January-20, 19:23, said:

I'm looking for something more descriptive than prescriptive. The authors can have their own opinions of course, but I'd like a book that describes alternative approaches too. I know only the most basic stuff, that 2/1 after a major (not usually 1♦-2♣) is game forcing and needs about 12 hcp, and that 1NT is a 1-round force made on any hand that doesn't qualify for a raise, a 1-level suit response or a 2-level game force (opener may have to rebid in a 3 card minor).

I may be missing something, but are you assuming there is an understanding of the meaning of common auctions that is held by a majority of players who say they play 2/1 game forcing? I am skeptical of that, even for the first two rounds of a noncompetitive auction.

[DavidKok]

Rather than a standard, I think the question is on an overview of the options, maybe with a discussion on their relative merits. In a world without consensus such an overview should still be attainable (and is very useful).

[mycroft]

I still think the big (American) difference is, after 1M-2m, what calls by opener show extras.

And yes, the other G-word (Gazilli) shows up here, in spades (well, in clubs, I guess).

But the difference in mood is palpable, between:

• D18/19 standard (shape is all, worry about extras later; funny enough, most who play this haven't heard of "serious/frivolous 3NT" or "Last Train". No, I don't know how they stay out of 13 opposite 13 with all Aces and Kings slams either);
• D2 standard (well, standard when I was there; going past 2M shows extras; yes, that means you rebid 2M on 5 a lot and have to deal with that, but even with a minimum GF, 5-2 fits shouldn't be too horrible, and you can bid 3NT on the third round; and, I'm learning,
• 1990s D16 (which I don't yet understand, but seems to be a combination of the two; 2NT being the "sacrificed" bid instead of 2M).

The other big one these days (BWS included) is "forcing vs semi-forcing 1NT, and where the 3-card LRs go".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-January-22, 11:33, said:

I still think the big (American) difference is, after 1M-2m, what calls by opener show extras.

And yes, the other G-word (Gazilli) shows up here, in spades (well, in clubs, I guess).

But the difference in mood is palpable, between:

• D18/19 standard (shape is all, worry about extras later; funny enough, most who play this haven't heard of "serious/frivolous 3NT" or "Last Train". No, I don't know how they stay out of 13 opposite 13 with all Aces and Kings slams either);
• D2 standard (well, standard when I was there; going past 2M shows extras; yes, that means you rebid 2M on 5 a lot and have to deal with that, but even with a minimum GF, 5-2 fits shouldn't be too horrible, and you can bid 3NT on the third round; and, I'm learning,
• 1990s D16 (which I don't yet understand, but seems to be a combination of the two; 2NT being the "sacrificed" bid instead of 2M).

The other big one these days (BWS included) is "forcing vs semi-forcing 1NT, and where the 3-card LRs go".

With all due respect for a big and apparently growing country/continent, this debate reads a bit like history, except for the other G-word?
All ships except semi-forcing strong 1NT, shape showing 2 level rebid, Non-serious 3NT and indifferentiated first/second level control-bids sailed a decade ago, over here at least.

[DavidKok]

I think internationally this is not so clear. Over here shape first 2/1 is not standard, and I know that internationally many players use a F1NT.

[mycroft]

If I had to sit down at the table and agree "2/1, [1] over their NT, [2] after weak 2s, 1430 and UDCA" with a reasonable player in ACBL land, I'd be guessing, unless I know they're from Ontario:

• 1NT unilaterally forcing
  
• shape rules
  
• if they don't play Serious 3NT, they're very unlikely to pass (and it might be right if they do!)
  
• gamble on cuebid style, but 1st/2nd probably won't hurt
  
• nobody knows how to play Last Train (myself included. willing to learn, but only from someone with years of experience and better judgement than me), most haven't heard of it

But I bet I'd be wrong on one of those. pretty much flat odds on which one.

OP wanted "discussions and alternatives". Good for them; realizing OTBS doesn't actually exist, and being willing to decide for themself which alternatives in the box work for them, is a sign of a "thinks bridge" player. Just warning them that they won't find that in a bridge book; the only way is to get multiple and see what each think is "the way", and analyze the arguments when it's different.

[blackshoe]

Basic 2/1 system options:
1) 2/1 is always game forcing, as advocated by Eric Rodwell.
2) 2/1 is game forcing unless responder rebids three of his suit on the second round, as advocated, iirc, by Mike Lawrence.

I like 1). I've played both.

Just because somebody says "4♣ is Gerber" in a book doesn't mean you have to play it. I have played South African Texas responses to 1NT and 2NT (4♣ transfers to hearts, 4♦ transfers to spades) just to wean partner from Gerber. I've also played that 4♣ is Gerber only as a direct jump over 1NT or 2NT. I had one partner tell me "4♣ is always Gerber". I replied "then I guess you better look for another partner." He dropped it.