[FrancesHinden]

 phil_20686, on 2011-December-05, 08:04, said:

A more common example is when you can play 1N instead of 2N when I open with KQTxx AJx Axx xx and it goes 1S-1N AP, when in std it might go 1s-2c-2s-2n AP.

If you are playing 2/1 GF you can't pass on this hand after 1S - 1N (unless you need a sound 13 HCP to open). You will miss boring solid 3NT games. And in fact on your 'std' auction I wouldn't be in 2NT, I'd be in 3NT. Take away the king of spades and you have a valid point.

[1eyedjack]

Here is a hand that I kibbed a few weeks ago. I think that slam should probably be reached even with a non-gf2/1 method (as was employed at the table). And yet I feel that it is easier to find, with greater confidence, playing 2/1:

IMP
3D = 4th suit

---

[aguahombre]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-December-05, 16:18, said:

Here is a hand that I kibbed a few weeks ago. I think that slam should probably be reached even with a non-gf2/1 method (as was employed at the table). And yet I feel that it is easier to find, with greater confidence, playing 2/1:

IMP
3D = 4th suit

---

I don't believe that hand was bid by either school of thought.

Meaning certainly not the 2/1 GF style, and not likely by the NGF people who have given any thought at all to followups and rebids.

That 4th suit 3D bid shouldn't have been necessary in either method, with support for both hearts and spades.

[jmcw]

Here are a few sequences that I play in GF 2/1 that MAY have advantages vs a NF approach. Other 2/1 advocates may have other preferred treatments.

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N = 12/14 OR 18/19.
1M>>2m>>2M>>3N = 15/17.
1M>>2m>>2N = As above.
1M>>2m>>3N = As above.
1M>>2m>>3M = A solid suit.
1M>>2m>>3m = A high honor in the m AND non minimum.
1M>>2m>>2any>>3M = Good trumps (KQx min) AND a "real" minor suit with 17+.
1M>>2m>>any>>4M = minimum values good trumps AND NO outside control in the unbids.
1M>>2m>>any>>2M = Often the start with a slam going hand when a M suit fit exists. Note that neither hand has been limited.
1M>>2m>>2new>>4th suit = Never needed as a force.

I'm not sure how std bidders handle these hand types perhaps they will comment.

[phil_20686]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-05, 14:56, said:

If you are playing 2/1 GF you can't pass on this hand after 1S - 1N (unless you need a sound 13 HCP to open). You will miss boring solid 3NT games. And in fact on your 'std' auction I wouldn't be in 2NT, I'd be in 3NT. Take away the king of spades and you have a valid point.

Sorry this was meant to be a 12 count in a semi forcing set up.

[Cascade]

I will try and document the differences in my non-GF 2/1 system. There are a few variations since we play a weak NT.

 jmcw, on 2011-December-05, 23:05, said:

Here are a few sequences that I play in GF 2/1 that MAY have advantages vs a NF approach. Other 2/1 advocates may have other preferred treatments.

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N = 12/14 OR 18/19.
1M>>2m>>2M>>3N = 15/17.

We play

1M>>2m>>2M>>2N as forcing

There are a some of variations here:

1. Our 2M is limited and therefore better defined since stronger hands need to jump. This would seem to give us an advantage on the weaker hands as we are in the some position with more information about opener's hand. There would be a disadvantage on the stronger hands that need to jump and therefore make our 3M rebid less well defined. Some of this disadvantage will be clawed back as the 2/1 players still need to resolve this uncertainty about the range after this start.

2. The difference between 2N and 3N depends not so much on our strength as on our desire for additional information. It would appear there are swings and roundabouts here. Sometimes our 3N will hide information from the opponents that the 2/1 players freely give away. Sometimes opener would rather have been giving some additional information and unsure what to do over 3N.

3. Occasionally with a balanced 12 count we will Pass, yes Pass 2S. It is very occasional. When we judge right obviously this is an advantage and when wrong a disadvantage. With those hands we also have the option of inviting game by raising spades. Again this will be advantageous when we judge to stay out of a bad game.

4. Some of these we handle with

1S>>2m>>3S>>?? at this point responder has more information than the corresponding 2/1 auction to 2S but at the cost of being a level higher. This information maybe helpful or we may regret having used the bidding space.

Quote

1M>>2m>>2N = As above.
1M>>2m>>3N = As above.

As noted we open these hands 1NT in the first case and the 18-19 hands we go through a Mexican 2♣. The 15-17 hands we would open our major and rebid 2NT. Responder's hand would be less well defined but this is hardly a disadvantage as responder is in control. Responder is at an advantage over your 2/1 auction as we are one-level lower. We do play four-card majors so there is occasionally an unresolved issue about the major suit length.

Given that we might have uninformative auctions like 1NT 3NT or 2♣ 2♠; 2NT 3NT with these hands we will at times have an advantage. Occasionally we may miss a good fit by this strategy.

There are other times suited to our methods where we may have an advantage of the 2/1 auctions.

However there are also times where with these hand types we will have disadvantages by having not bid our suits.

Quote

1M>>2m>>3M = A solid suit.

We bid these hands identically but have less information as the 3M rebid also caters to non-solid suits with extra values.

Quote

1M>>2m>>3m = A high honor in the m AND non minimum.

I am not exactly sure what hands you have in here.

With a diamond fit and extra values we can splinter - more information at a small cost to bidding space.

Without a shortage we bid 3NT or 4m. These show extra values at a cost of bidding space. So unless your 3m raise denies a singleton we are at a definite disadvantage here.

Its not clear to me what happens with a minimum and without a high honour. Obviously these hands will be adding a load to one of your lower rebids, presumably 2NT or 2M.

Quote

1M>>2m>>2any>>3M = Good trumps (KQx min) AND a "real" minor suit with 17+.

Same auction but responder delivers less information. We are at a disadvantage.

Quote

1M>>2m>>any>>4M = minimum values good trumps AND NO outside control in the unbids.

Identical auction and information.

Quote

1M>>2m>>any>>2M = Often the start with a slam going hand when a M suit fit exists. Note that neither hand has been limited.

You say often the start with a slam hand but it must also be the start with a game force hand that does not fit a more descriptive bid like the previous one.

Most of these hands we have to bid 3M. This costs us bidding space.

Quote

1M>>2m>>2new>>4th suit = Never needed as a force.

Used as a force.

1M>>2m>>2new>>3m is NF
1M>>2m>>2new>>3new(raise) is NF

Therefore this needs to handle forcing single suiters and forcing raises of opener's second suit as well as other hands with no clear direction.

Quote

I'm not sure how std bidders handle these hand types perhaps they will comment.

To me it appears there are obvious wins and losses for your style of these hands. It is unclear whether the wins out number and out perform the losses.

Some of the losses for our style may be diminished in that there is still two levels to investigate slam and we may well be able to exchange sufficient information in that space to bid to the best contract.

[JLOGIC]

 han, on 2011-December-03, 06:07, said:

Given a sensible system, it is very hard to construct a pair of hands where you can't bid to the optimal spot seeing both hands.

This is an excellent point is overlooked when people compare systems. I used to call kenrexford out on this when he was promoting his style, knowing both hands you can make a reasonable auction to the right contract in 2/1 auctions no matter what system you play. He always claimed not to cherry pick hands, and I agree that he didn't, you could give him any slam hand and he could find the right spot in his system, and explain why if you changed the hnd a little the auction would be different. He was doing nothing wrong, other than ignoring the fact that many times you have some judgement calls/guesses, and knowing what contract you're trying to bid to, you'll never get those wrong.

In the real world, sometimes a player will sometimes have to guess, and will sometimes go wrong. A better system will make this happen less often.

[kenrexford]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-December-06, 05:00, said:

This is an excellent point is overlooked when people compare systems. I used to call kenrexford out on this when he was promoting his style, knowing both hands you can make a reasonable auction to the right contract in 2/1 auctions no matter what system you play. He always claimed not to cherry pick hands, and I agree that he didn't, you could give him any slam hand and he could find the right spot in his system, and explain why if you changed the hnd a little the auction would be different. He was doing nothing wrong, other than ignoring the fact that many times you have some judgement calls/guesses, and knowing what contract you're trying to bid to, you'll never get those wrong.

In the real world, sometimes a player will sometimes have to guess, and will sometimes go wrong. A better system will make this happen less often.

Yeah, well I still have the last laught from that 2-slams round in Philadelphia! I think you got 8% for your small slam and 8% for our small slam. LOL

[Vampyr]

 Cascade, on 2011-December-06, 02:22, said:

Occasionally with a balanced 12 count we will Pass, yes Pass 2S. It is very occasional. When we judge right obviously this is an advantage and when wrong a disadvantage. With those hands we also have the option of inviting game by raising spades. Again this will be advantageous when we judge to stay out of a bad game.

After 1♠-2m-2♠? We pass this all the time.

[dburn]

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

[kenrexford]

 dburn, on 2011-December-06, 10:23, said:

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

That's a huge question. It depends on methods, and there are a lot of vcariations here.

For me, for example, 2♠ establishes a fit. So, I'd bid 3♥ (two of the top three in both hearts and spades, no diamond controls, none of the top three clubs, no stiff or void in clubs, and assuredly not three of the top four hearts) and probably show almost all of my hand in one bid. The exsact pattern would be known to be 5422, with the only questions remaining being whether I have a third top spade or the diamond Queen.

[mike777]

 dburn, on 2011-December-06, 10:23, said:

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

2s is a slam try for me so easy 3h now.

this is not some random 5-2 fit for me.

[Jinksy]

 phil_20686, on 2011-December-05, 08:04, said:

Your missing the key point - you are only losing where partner has a weak hand and the opponents cannot bid. This is really quite rare in expert bidding. In fact I would say that in over half on auctions where you have invitational auctions the opponents will get into the auction. When the points are close to 50-50 you are living in a dream world if you imagine you are having the auction to yourself.

But we're only talking about auctions where you don't have a primary fit, which is going to reduce the amount of competition by a fair bit. And about auctions which specifically start with 0-2 passes, a bid and a direct overcall. While I agree you'll see a lot of competition on part score auctions, a lot of that is balancing, and maybe 1/4 is after bid-pass-bid.

Quote

Sometimes you gain because partner kept the bidding lower when he has, for example, and invitational NT hand. When I open 1 spade and partner responds 2N with Qx KQx xxxx KJxx, as is common in old school acol, I am not well placed when partner has

AKxxx Axx - AQxxx

if partner bid 1N, and I could bid 3C GF 5-5 I am much happier.

You seem to be comparing best with worst. Does anyone still play 1M P 2N as natural? When I'm playing 2/1 NGF, I'd bid 2C on that hand, and opener has a simple 3D splinter. Meanwhile I don't know what system allows you to have 3C as 5-5 GF in 2/1, but it's more sophisticated than anything I play (the Gazz variants I've read have 3C as a 5-5 limit bid)...

Quote

A more common example is when you can play 1N instead of 2N when I open with KQTxx AJx Axx xx and it goes 1S-1N AP, when in std it might go 1s-2c-2s-2n AP.

You might - though why doesn't the 'opps compete in part score auctions' logic apply here? I'll bet you get to play in 1N more often with NGF - 1M with the actual hand you gave rather than the one you meant, 1N all pass.

[han]

 dburn, on 2011-December-06, 10:23, said:

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

I think most here would bid 2NT, showing exactly 5-4-2-2 shape. This is assuming that 2S shows 3-card support, I don't dare to say anything about a style where it does not.

I play that 3m shows 3-4 cards in the bid suit, 3H shows 5-5, 3S shows 6-4 and 4m shows a void with six spades. I don't have an agreement about what 3NT shows.

[gnasher]

 dburn, on 2011-December-06, 10:23, said:

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

I don't often play 2/1, but I think this should be a 3♠ bid. I'd expect that with 5431 you bid the fragment, with 6-4 you either splinter or bid 3♠; with 5422 and a hand that might want to play notrumps you bid 2NT.

[aguahombre]

 dburn, on 2011-December-06, 10:23, said:

Suppose that your hand is:

♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32

What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

 han, on 2011-December-08, 15:40, said:

I think most here would bid 2NT.

 gnasher, on 2011-December-08, 16:55, said:

I think this should be a 3♠ bid.

I believe you are both correct. 3S is a good idea with that hand; everything is in the majors with no control in the minors. Quite picturesque, leaving partner room to sign off in 3NT or take over for spades at whatever level.

[mike777]

I would rebid 3s without the KH so easy 3h as I said.

AKJxx..QJTx..Qx..xx

I like my hand as I have more than a minimum so 3h but as we see 3 different responses to a very common auction.

This may have something to do with some play 2s as a slam try while others are thinking 3nt as a choice of game contract.

[phil_20686]

 Jinksy, on 2011-December-08, 15:09, said:

But we're only talking about auctions where you don't have a primary fit, which is going to reduce the amount of competition by a fair bit. And about auctions which specifically start with 0-2 passes, a bid and a direct overcall. While I agree you'll see a lot of competition on part score auctions, a lot of that is balancing, and maybe 1/4 is after bid-pass-bid.



You seem to be comparing best with worst. Does anyone still play 1M P 2N as natural? When I'm playing 2/1 NGF, I'd bid 2C on that hand, and opener has a simple 3D splinter. Meanwhile I don't know what system allows you to have 3C as 5-5 GF in 2/1, but it's more sophisticated than anything I play (the Gazz variants I've read have 3C as a 5-5 limit bid)...



You might - though why doesn't the 'opps compete in part score auctions' logic apply here? I'll bet you get to play in 1N more often with NGF - 1M with the actual hand you gave rather than the one you meant, 1N all pass.

We are talking about auctions where your primary fit is not in the suit you open. That is hardly uncommon. Minor suit slams are among the biggest gains in 2/1 where I can have 1s-2m-3m as a forcing raise. Also, you would 2/1 in many cases with 3 card support (a primary fit) and many people advocate a style where on some hand you 2/1 with four or more card support - a hand like Jxxx x xx AKQxxx would be a 2/1 in clubs in many styles of 2/1,

You have a point regarding 2N invitational. its a terrible bid in that structure, but many people would bid it. Most structures can be made playable if you are willing to have a high degree of sophistication. A system like precision is basically unplayable without artificial follow ups. 2/1 works reasonably well with a basically natural follow up structure - doubtless one reason for its popularity, while allowing increased sophistication in GF hands, and an increased role for judgement in delicate auctions. I play 1M-1N-2N as GF.

One area of consistent weakness in NGF 2/1's is auctions after 1S-2H; now I would argue that even in 2/1 you need sophisticated follow ups here, but if you want to bid 3H as NF, you are giving up a huge number of sequences.

I strongly beleive that uncontested auctions that end in 1N are an irrelevance in the long run. The number of imps traded are miniscule. I like to be well placed in 3/2 and 3/3 auctions. For me that means openeing suits, so I play a 5551 opening structure. It means giving partner a good mix of preemptive mixed and constructive raises. I think the number of imps traded in uncontested partscores, which is basically what you are suggesting are important, are miniscule compared to the hands where I can have a delicate forcing auction to a 5-2 major fit. Or where I can locate a good minor suit fit and avoid 3N, or where I can locate a good slam. 2/1 makes all of those things easier. The downside is that I lose a imps in accuracy on invitational hands, and I lose imps occasionally if partner has an 9-11 with a suit in which we have a good fit and for some reason this would be impossible to locate after a forcing NT. Or at least more difficult to bid accurately. I really dont think many imps are traded on these losses.

[jogs]

Slam bidding is better defined in 2/1.

1M - 2m, 2M

In SAYC it's not clear whether this auction is forcing. In 2/1 it's forcing.

1M - 2m, 3M

In 2/1 good suit, good hand. In SAYC good hand, may or may not be good suit.
Responder doesn't know if xx is sufficient support in SAYC.

[aguahombre]

 jogs, on 2011-December-08, 22:46, said:

1M - 2m, 3M

In 2/1 good suit, good hand. In SAYC good hand, may or may not be good suit.
Responder doesn't know if xx is sufficient support in SAYC.

You are getting beyond the difference in concepts, and into your preference for partnership agreements in the two styles.