[rbforster]

So far I've been playing 2/1 GF in my strong club system, where 1M is 5+ ~9-15 points. It works fine and it's easy to teach since almost everyone already knows the 2/1 system and just has to learn to have a few more points to game force.

I've been wondering about what people think about 2/1 GF or other 2/1 methods specifically in the context of a limited opening bid system. I can imagine at least 4 types of agreements for natural new suit 2/1 bids:

• Game Forcing, more or less the same as you play in a strong 2♣ system
  
• "Standard" forcing one round, but maybe only to 2M or 2N
  
• Invitational but non-forcing (opener to bid on with a maximum)
  
• Non-forcing, and not particularly constructive either

I surveyed a number of precision systems, and they had a wide range of treatments. Some used 2/1 GF, some used "Standard," and a few used NF 2/1 bids. I don't think I saw anyone playing the invitational-but-non-forcing version. I wonder if this is more out of familiarity with the methods, rather than a careful consideration of the issues. (There were also some non-natural treatments too, like 2♣ as an artificial GF and 2♦ as an artificial invitation.)

What are people's thoughts on which style of 2/1 makes the most sense in opposite a limited opener?

[hrothgar]

I think that you have two main considerations:

1. Local system regs
2. The minimum range of the limited constructive openings

Lets assume that you're playing 1M = 9-15 HP as you noted. Personally, I wouldn't want to play 2/1 GF. Simply put, if you're opening 9 counts, then the bulk of your constructive openings are going to be showing (roughly) 9-11 HCPs. In turn, this impacts the system in two ways:

1. Responder will (rarely) have sufficient strength to establish an immediate game force
2. Responder needs to have a lot of bidding space available to explore for a reasonable part score

I think that you would do much better using either a transfer response system or some combination of Natural and Non Forcing 2/1s and relays.

Of course, if you're living in North America you're ***** out of luck

[awm]

I like the "standard american" style of 2/1 forcing but not always game force. Basically:

1. I agree with hrothgar that "2/1 GF" is much better in a system with sound openings. The lighter you open, the more likely partner will have the annoying "forcing notrump" hand and the less likely partner has the stuff for an immediate GF.

2. I have not been impressed with methods using non-forcing 2/1 and invitational or better relays. The issues seem to be that it's not clear exactly when to pass the 2/1 (if you require six cards and less than invite for the 2/1, then passing is common but the 2/1 bids are too rare to be particularly useful; the more you open up the range of hands making the 2/1 bid the less likely you are to scramble to the right spot). The "inv+ relay" itself often misses a side-suit fit which might even result in a good game (assuming opener's priority is to show strength and not shape) or just gets you too high (if opener's priority is to show shape and not strength), as well as being very vulnerable when opponents crash the auction (yes, I agree that opponents who bid willy-nilly on anything will get penalized more often than not, it's when the opponents actually have something like a sound weak two bid that they crash the auction and your results suffer).

3. Transfer methods work reasonably well, although there are still some issues with exactly when you break the transfer. You're also sometimes left out of luck when you have some balanced hand that doesn't really want to transfer to anything.

If I couldn't play the "standard american" style responses (albeit when I play this responder is usually heavier to compensate for the light opening) then I'd want a game-forcing relay combined with other 2/1 bids invitational (so like 2♣ GF relay, 1NT semi-forcing, and other two level bids natural and forward going).

[dake50]

Try Herbert negative for non-GF; freeing others for suit-showing GF.

[helene_t]

I play 2/1 GF in some Precision partnerships, but then we don't open all 10-counts and usually don't open with 9.

Some random thoughts:
- If the opening range is narrower than standard you may not need the forcing 1N response.
- It is attractive to use a single raise as a barage. Anyone for 2♣=GF relay, 2♦=contructive raise?

[glen]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2007, 03:01 AM, said:

Anyone for 2♣=GF relay, 2♦=contructive raise?

Yes.

1♥-?
-- 2♣: GF relay
-- 2♦: game interest+ raise
-- 2♥: 2+♥s, no game interest

1♠-?
-- 2♣: GF relay
-- 2♦: transfer to ♥s
-- 2♥: game interest+ raise
-- 2♠: 2+♠s, no game interest

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 27 2007, 04:15 AM, said:

2. I have not been impressed with methods using non-forcing 2/1 and invitational or better relays. The issues seem to be that it's not clear exactly when to pass the 2/1 (if you require six cards and less than invite for the 2/1, then passing is common but the 2/1 bids are too rare to be particularly useful; the more you open up the range of hands making the 2/1 bid the less likely you are to scramble to the right spot). The "inv+ relay" itself often misses a side-suit fit which might even result in a good game (assuming opener's priority is to show strength and not shape) or just gets you too high (if opener's priority is to show shape and not strength), as well as being very vulnerable when opponents crash the auction

Couple comments here:

First: you are perfectly accurate when you comment that there is a trade off between the the number of hand types shown by the 2/1 response (which impacts the frequency) and the ability of opener to accurately judge what to do. Playing the style that I prefer, a 2/1 shows one of two hand types.

1. A single suited hand with 6+ cards in the bid suit (and 0-2 card support for opener's major)

2. A two suited hand with 5+ cards in the bid suit, 4+ cards in a side suit, and 0-2 card support for opener.

I won't claim that the methods are perfect. I'd certainly prefer a situation in which 2/1 occured a little more frequently, but such is life. For what its worth, I've played arround with a number of other styles. The only other one that really caught my fancy was using a 2/1 to show a two suited pattern with 4+ cards in a bid suit and 4+ cards in a higher one. So if I made a 2/1 in Clubs, I could (in theory, have 4 Clubs and 5+ Diamonds or 5+ Clubs and 4 Diamonds)

For example, after a MOSCITO style 1♦ opening (promising 4+ Hearts),

1♥ = game invite relay
1♠ = 4+ Spades
1N = Natural and non-forcing
2♣ = Two suited with Clubs and Diamonds (0-3 Hearts)
2♦ = Single suited with Diamonds (some might prefer to use this as a constructive Heart raise)

After a MOSCITO type 1♥ opening (promising 4+ Spades)

1♠ = Game invite relay
1N = Natural and non-forcing
2♣ = Two suited with Clubs and a Red suit
2♦ = Two suited with Diamonds and Hearts
2♥ = Single suited with Hearts
2♠ = Spades

I've consider trying to blend this scheme with a transfer 2/1 system, however, I'm not sure that I want to deal with all the modifications that would be necessary to the relay structures. (A step response to a 1M opening would need to incorporate the hand types normally shown by a NNF 1NT response)

Second: As for your comment regarding the game invitational relays. I think that its useful to remove as many hands as possible from the GI relay that

1. Have game invitational values AND
2. Have a 3+ card trump fit AND
3. Are unbalanced

from the game invitational relay.

For example, if I am playing MOSCITO

A 2NT response to a 1♥ opening shows 4+ card spade support and game invitational values

A 3m response to a 1♥ opening is a fit showing jump, promising three card Spade support and 6+ cards in the bid minor.

Removing this hand types from the relay lets use jam the bidding when we have a fit (and presumably where the opponents have a fit). Equally significant, it makes it a bit more dangerous for the opponent to interfere in our relay sequences. If our GI relays tend to deny a major suit fit, we're going to be a bit better positioned to penalize the opponents.

[keylime]

I like 2♣ - G/F and other bids - constructive but not forcing.

Since you're playing limited bids, your 1M-4M hands are a wider cross-section since your minimum picture bids would go in here.

I agree with my peers here that the SAYC 2/1 is superior.

[Echognome]

I never really liked the game invitational relays, although I'm sure they are useful on total misfits. I prefer having a combination of a game forcing relay, a transfer to the other major (or bidding 1♠ natural), a non-forcing NT (to keep the auction alive on distributional hands) and an invitational bid without support. However, in order to have all of those, I needed transfer openings. It went something like this:

1♦ (4+♥) - ?

1♥ GF Relay
1♠ Natural F1R (Inv or worse)
1N Natural NF
2♣ Inv, <3 ♥
2♦ Inv, 3+♥
2♥ 3-4♥, <Inv (6-9 roughly)
2♠ Mini-Splinter (unknown shortness)
2NT Minors, Inv
3♣/♦ Inv jump shift (no supp shown)
3♥ Pre-emptive
3♠ Unknown Void Splinter
3NT-4♦ Splinters
4♥ To Play (but could have values)

However, when I moved to designing a midchart system for the acbl, one of those bids had to go. It ended up being the 1N bid. Thus, 1♥ was 5+ hearts, 1N became the GF relay, and the rest remained as it was. Seemed to work well if you figured out all of the follow-ups. Since the 1-suited Invites went through some other bid, the 2-suiters could go through 2♣. One could always reverse this of course, but I liked to have the safety of a long suit when jumping initially. The 2-suited hand could always back off after bidding 2♣ on a misfit.

[awm]

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people make claims that a light opening bid will "almost never be worth a game bid opposite a single raise." People use this kind of claim to justify methods like raising on bad hands with doubleton (since parnter won't go to game), or playing constructive raises (so the single raise gives hope of game), or passing partner's 4+ major suit opener with three card support and single raise values.

Statistically, if your opening range changes from 11-20 to 8-15, the chance of a reasonable game bid over a single raise goes from about 40% to about 20%. So yeah, it decreases, but it's quite far from "almost never."

[helene_t]

awm, on Aug 28 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people make claims that a light opening bid will "almost never be worth a game bid opposite a single raise." People use this kind of claim to justify methods like raising on bad hands with doubleton (since parnter won't go to game), or playing constructive raises (so the single raise gives hope of game), or passing partner's 4+ major suit opener with three card support and single raise values.

Statistically, if your opening range changes from 11-20 to 8-15, the chance of a reasonable game bid over a single raise goes from about 40% to about 20%. So yeah, it decreases, but it's quite far from "almost never."

My experience is the opposite but that may just be an effect of my wicked style:

Playing standard, a 1M opening is in principle 12-19 but with a very good 16-count I might open 2♣. So the upper limit of of appr 19 points will not be grossly exceeded after re-evaluation after p raises.

Playing Precision, a 1M opening is in priciple 11-15 and we take that quite litteral, even a very good 14-count is still just a 1M opening.

Of course if your criteria for the single raise is the same, say 7-10 support points, in both cases, you're more likely to have game after such a raise if playing standard than if playing Precision.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Statistically, if your opening range changes from 11-20 to 8-15, the chance of a reasonable game bid over a single raise goes from about 40% to about 20%. So yeah, it decreases, but it's quite far from "almost never."

This depends on your upgrade style. If you upgrade strong 15 counts not eligible for jumps/reverse (max 5-5s with the points in the suits, monster single suiters, 6H5S max), the what problem hands are you left with after a 2 card or garbage raise to 2M? Only the max 5-5s, with the other hands having a 6+ card suit.

Peter

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 28 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people make claims that a light opening bid will "almost never be worth a game bid opposite a single raise." People use this kind of claim to justify methods like raising on bad hands with doubleton (since parnter won't go to game), or playing constructive raises (so the single raise gives hope of game), or passing partner's 4+ major suit opener with three card support and single raise values.

Out of curiousity, who precisely is making this claim?

From the sounds of things, you're talking to folks who

1. Have substantially lowered the strength requirements for an opening bid
2. Have not adjusted the strength requirements for a single raise

Personally, this doesn't make any sense to me and I question whether the folks you're talking to have any real experience with ligh opening systems. (Please note: I am assuming that you aren't playing some kind of 2 way raise structure where an immediate raise to 2M shows a "bad" raise to 2M and a raise to 2M-1 or some such shows a "good" raise to 2M. If you have enough bidding space available to get away with this type of scheme a purely preemptive raise has a bit more going for it)

Lets assume that we have a standard MOSCITO auction like

1♥ - 2♠ (1♥ = 4+ Spades, 2♠ = 3 card "value" raise)

I WANT the the 1♥ opener to be able to make an intelligent exploration for game. Accordingly, the 2♠ response promises sufficient values that opener can safely explore for 4M with a suitable max. (Responder needs to promise enough values that 4M has good play if responder has a suitable max and 3M is safe is responder has a minimum).

Playing MOSCITO, the value raise to 2M promises (roughly) 7 - 11 HCP. Its entirely possible that the partnership could make game on pure power. There are also lots of hands where the partnership should be exploring in case they have a double fit, useful shortage or some such. Following the value raise, Opener has the following rebids available:

1. Bid 2NT to show game invitational values with a 6+ card Spade suit and shortage

2. Bid 3♣ to show game invitational values with either 5+ Spades and 4+ Clubs OR a single suited hand with no shortage

3. Bid 3♦ to show 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds

4. Bid 3♥ to show 5+ Spades and 4+ Hearts

This entire situation seems analagous to yesterday's example where a 1st /2nd seat pass denied 10 HCP while a third seat 1NT opening promised 10-12 HCP. Its all fine and dandy to preempt, but I don't want to play a system where I have large amounts of dead bidding space that can't be intelligently defined.

[inquiry]

An additional problem with weak 2/1 opening bids (I open with less than 9 hcp fairly often) besides the 2/1 response forces too much, but it is the range of opening hands between 1x opening bid and 2C opening bid.

I like very light natural opening bids within a 2/1 like complex. I use a couple of gimmicks to make up for the very light opening bids...

1) I open ACOL two bids in a major with 2C and use paradox responses so that I can play theoretically in 2H or 2S if necessary

2) I open ACOL two in a minor 2D within teh context of multi 2D

3) I open "strong 3 suiters" 2C, but strong is very, er, questionable (16 hcp is enough)

4) I open strong 2 suiters with Misiry (long story, but strong isn't all that strong here either).

To this I add 1M-2C as a three way bid. It can be three card raise constructive up to limit raise, it can be balanced 11-12, or it can be true 2/1 GF with 5+ clubs. Other 2/1 are GF. I also use a gazilli like 2C rebid by opener after 1M-1any to show opener with a good hand, so openers other non-jump rebids are weak. In this context, I use 2H/2S to show a minimum opening hand (guestimate 8 to 14 hcp) with the bid major and four plus clubs. The gazilli-thing and these major opening are from bbo yellow RITONG (the 2C bid is called ritong 2C).

This works for me.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Aug 28 2007, 03:00 AM, said:

Statistically, if your opening range changes from 11-20 to 8-15, the chance of a reasonable game bid over a single raise goes from about 40% to about 20%. So yeah, it decreases, but it's quite far from "almost never."

20%!

Where the heck did you find these magic stats?

I seriously doubt that 40% of hands playing SAYC or 2/1 bid game after 1M-2M. In fact, I'd be willing to put money that the number is closer to 20% than 40%.

Playing Precision, I don't have any problem bidding 2 spades after partner opens 1 spade and the next player X's, when I have a weakish hand with 2 card support. Nor do I have an issue with passing 1 spade with a 2-3-4-4 8 count.

Apparently, this is very foolish of me, since I'm missing all these games, or something. Funny though, I don't remember 1/5th of those hands ending up with us missing game. Seems like something I'd remember.

[awm]

There is at least one post in this thread that suggests to me a belief that "precision 1M openings won't make game opposite a single raise." This post did not belong to hrothgar.

In fact I would hope that most long-time strong clubbers would be well aware that the auction 1M-2M-4M remains fairly frequent even if the single raise has a standard range (like 6-9).

Some very quick simulation results follow. Say we look for hands with five or fewer losers. These hands are likely to make reasonable game bids over a single raise, or at least be worth a game try (single raise normally nine losers, nine losers opposite five losers is supposed to make ten tricks, although obviously this will depend on location of values and location of opponents cards).

If opener has 11-20 hcp and 5+♠ opposite partner with 3+♠, opener has five or fewer losers on 35% of hands.

If opener has 8-15 hcp and 5+♠ opposite partner with 3+♠, opener has five or fewer losers on 15% of hands.

Both these percentages will obviously go up if we assume that we don't open all hands at the bottom end of the range. The "40 and 20" numbers I gave earlier were from memory of a previous similar trial where I had more convoluted requirements for what constitutes a light opening bid (basically rule of 18 with a higher lower limit for 5332 shapes, which is what I play with several regular partners) as well as using "12 hcp or rule of 20" for standard openings instead of "11-20."

[rbforster]

Thanks for some numbers on the odds Adam.

I certainly agree that with an appropriate redefinition of the "constructive" range opposite a light precision 1M opener, game will be on a non-negligible fraction of the time. For example, my 1M opener is basically 10-15 (Rule of 18 plus higher standards for 8-9 hands). We play 1M-2M promises about 7-9 points and usually only 3 card support (Bergen raises also). After this, opener will often just jump to game with a strong hand and a 6 card suit. We have 2-way game tries as well.

I certainly wouldn't want to give up my chances at game in this situation just to include some constructive hands with 2 card support.