[Elyk25]

Can someone explain the main differences between Standard American and 2/1? I've been playing primarily Standard American, but I have yet to really see the real difference in bidding between the two systems when playing with the GIB Robots or a few partners that play 2/1. I know the core difference deals with the responders bids at the 2 level, but is there any more common things I should be aware of when playing with a partner who bids 2/1 so I don't confuse them?

Also I guess this falls under my question of general differences, but with less than 12+pts, how should the responder act in 2/1 (especially if they have 10/11+ and can't bid their good suit)? How is the establishment of partscore contracts affected in 2/1 by these special bids at the 2 level?

Thanks!!!

[Vampyr]

 Elyk25, on 2015-July-19, 22:37, said:

Can someone explain the main differences between Standard American and 2/1? I've been playing primarily Standard American, but I have yet to really see the real difference in bidding between the two systems when playing with the GIB Robots or a few partners that play 2/1. I know the core difference deals with the responders bids at the 2 level, but is there any more common things I should be aware of when playing with a partner who bids 2/1 so I don't confuse them?

Also I guess this falls under my question of general differences, but with less than 12+pts, how should the responder act in 2/1 (especially if they have 10/11+ and can't bid their good suit)? How is the establishment of partscore contracts affected in 2/1 by these special bids at the 2 level?

Thanks!!!

Many on here believe that there is a complete system called "2/1", but I'm not sure there is wide agreement as to what it is. In England when people want to play 2/1GF they generally tack it onto the rest of their system, making only the changes necessary to incorporate the 2/1GF.

I think that your auctions playing 2/1GF will not be as good when responder cannot force to game. But it seems to me that playing SA-style 2/1s is a lot harder than playing Acol-style 2/1s or GF 2/1s, so your auctions will be at least more comfortable.

As to your specific questions, IMO your openers should be pretty sound so that responder can force to game fairly light. Some play that 2♥/1♠ and/or 2♣/1♦ is not GF. This helps a lot when you are playing 1NT semi-forcing (opener can pass with a weak NT) because you could miss a decent ♥ game after a 1♠ opening. Others play some sort of invitational jump-shift (of course the danger of this is obvious) and some have very fancy agreements after 1NT forcing. Or (I guess) jump after opener's rebid, again with the danger of getting too high with a misfit.

I do not think that responder can force to game after bidding 1NT forcing, but I am probably wrong here. This would be too big a drawback. But it might be hard and not allow responder to properly show his shape early.

LOL I hardly ever play 2/1GF so don't take my comments as set in stone.

[rhm]

 Vampyr, on 2015-July-19, 22:57, said:

LOL I hardly ever play 2/1GF so don't take my comments as set in stone.

Well said. I can agree completely with this.
Opener did not ask for your prejudices.

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

The major differences between 2/1 and standard are:

1. In 2/1 GF, a 2/1 bid establishes an absolute game force
2. Many hands that would make a 2/1 response in standard or Acol start with a forcing NT bid
3. I am of the opinion that 2/1 GF works better with a more conservative opening style than standard. (If you open on crap, either your 2/1 responses are incredibly rare OR you end up in a lot of miserable 3NT games)

[rhm]

2/1 follows a common trend in bidding theory.
Force to game early to make optimal use of bidding room therafter.
No need to jump around thereafter for fear of being dropped otherwise.
Bid slowly to select the right strain and level.
Jumps after a game force are not done to show extras but to show a specific feature of a hand hard to describe otherwise.

For example opener has a light opening with 5-5 in the majors, responder a game force

In SAYC the bidding might go:

1♠-2♣
2♥-3NT
???

In 2/1 the bidding would go:

1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♥

and opener having shown his hand can accept whatever responder does now.


In SAYC

1♠ - 2♣
3♠

shows 6 spades and more than a minimum opening to force to game

In 2/1

1♠ - 2♣
3♠

might show a solid or semi solid suit, which can be trumps even when responder is short in spades.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

SAYC is a very well defined system. SAYC specifies almosts everything you need to have agreements about, such as which conventions you play, in which situations stayman and transfers apply, whether a new suit in response to an overcall is forcing, which carding you play etc.

In contrast, 2/1 is just the principle that a 2-level non-jump shift by an unpassed hand in response to a 1-of-a-suit opening is game forcing. As a consequence of this, the 1nt response to a major suit opening is wide ranging (up to a bad 12 count), and most play it as forcing. But everything else is something you will have to discuss with partner.

Therefore it is difficult to compare the two. Some 2/1 pairs may play something very similar to SAYC, while others play something very different.

But 2/1 players tend to play quite a lot of conventions, and they tend to like treatments that are more modern than SAYC. So if you just agree to play "2/1", partner may well assume that you play Drury, Lebenshohl, support doubles, ingberman, walsh, inverted minors and UDCA carding.

"Standard American" is a rather vague concept but usually refer to something slightly more primitive than SAYC.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2015-July-20, 05:57, said:

SAYC is a very well defined system. SAYC specifies almosts everything you need to have agreements about, such as which conventions you play, in which situations stayman and transfers apply, whether a new suit in response to an overcall is forcing, which carding you play etc.

"Standard American" is a rather vague concept but usually refer to something slightly more primitive than SAYC.

More primitive, or less? The Yellow Card was introduced as a "simple system" card for No Fear events.

[Vampyr]

 rhm, on 2015-July-20, 03:25, said:

Well said. I can agree completely with this.
Opener did not ask for your prejudices.

I am sure that OP would welcome discussion of the advantages and the disadvantages. If I have mentioned more of the latter, so what?

[mycroft]

Many years ago, I was told: whatever your preferences, learn 2/1. That way, at the partnership desk, at least you know your 2/1 partner will be playing all the stuff required to make a standard system work: a forcing minor suit raise, some form of checkback, 4SF, negative doubles, and so on. Potentially even transfers and some form of lebensohl after a strong NT. Play them in your standard system as well, of course.

Now, it's kind of assumed that even with Standard, you play something for all of that. Well, maybe not *all*. However, around here, it's more bias than system: if you can't play 2/1, you just can't play.

Which is why I frequently get shocked looks from people when we actually pass a 2/1 below game, given that in all three of my most-played systems, 2/1 is *almost*, but not absolutely GF.

Note: Nobody plays SAYC, even the ones who do. If nothing else, 1♥-(3♣)-X is takeout.

Really, though, the benefit of 2/1 GF is that a lot more of your auctions are defined, even if they're suboptimal. It's also really really nice when you can make a call looking for slam and know it won't get passed even if your partner doesn't know what you're doing yet. And you just don't win all that many partscores in uncontested auctions, and once they interfere, 2/1 is (usually) off, so you aren't really as far behind by concentrating on game-v-slam rather than best partscore-v-game or slam.

[helene_t]

 mycroft, on 2015-July-22, 16:41, said:

Many years ago, I was told: whatever your preferences, learn 2/1. That way, at the partnership desk, at least you know your 2/1 partner will be playing all the stuff required to make a standard system work: a forcing minor suit raise, some form of checkback, 4SF, negative doubles, and so on. Potentially even transfers and some form of lebensohl after a strong NT. Play them in your standard system as well, of course.

For the partnership desk, the important thing is that there is a system which is sufficiently well defined that you can just play it without much further discussion.

Suppose p suggests 2/1 and you agree. This may tell you that partner knows some advanced treatments but it doesn't tell you which ones (RKC0314 or RKC1430? Fast or slow lebensohl? NMF, XYZ or CBS? 1- or 2-way Drury?). It doesn't tell you whether partner will assume those treatments undiscussed, either.

If p is born before 1940, maybe you can agree to play Goren. In theory you could agree SAYC but in practice nobody knows SAYC very well. Still, if you don't have time for elaborate discussions, SAYC will give smaller risk of misunderstandings than 2/1.

And that is all that matters. No amount of optimal gadgets can make up for two or three system mixups per sesion.

[mycroft]

"Many years ago:" that would be 1986 or 7. At that point in the evolution, the cool stuff in SAYC (which was designed to be "experts could all play this in the late 70s") had percolated down to *most* duplicate players in my area, but anything more than that was "that new-fangled stuff" that "why should we have to play against?". I would suggest that 80% of the A players in my area could play 2/1 (whether they regularly did or not), and about 40-50% of the non-As.

At that point, effectively, "learn 2/1 so you get a partner that can play standard well" is sensible.

At this point, I totally agree with you. But 30 years of bridge evolution does change things, even in the ACBL.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2015-July-23, 09:39, said:

"Many years ago:" that would be 1986 or 7. At that point in the evolution, mthe cool stuff in SAYC (which was designed to be "experts could all play this in the late 70s") had percolated down to *most* duplicate players in my area, but anything more than that was "that new-fangled stuff" that "why should we have to play against?". I would suggest that 80% of the A players in my area could play 2/1 (whether they regularly did or not), and about 40-50% of the non-As.

At that point, effectively, "learn 2/1 so you get a partner that can play standard well" is sensible.

At this point, I totally agree with you. But 30 years of bridge evolution does change things, even in the ACBL.

Interesting. I distinctly recall the YC to be designed not for experts, but for people who wanted to play, and play against, a simple system. Naturally it was produced by a committee, with each member presumably insisting on one or two conventions you couldn't do without. So it's not really as simple as it was intended to be,

[akwoo]

 helene_t, on 2015-July-23, 04:12, said:

For the partnership desk, the important thing is that there is a system which is sufficiently well defined that you can just play it without much further discussion.

Suppose p suggests 2/1 and you agree. This may tell you that partner knows some advanced treatments but it doesn't tell you which ones (RKC0314 or RKC1430? Fast or slow lebensohl? NMF, XYZ or CBS? 1- or 2-way Drury?). It doesn't tell you whether partner will assume those treatments undiscussed, either.

If p is born before 1940, maybe you can agree to play Goren. In theory you could agree SAYC but in practice nobody knows SAYC very well. Still, if you don't have time for elaborate discussions, SAYC will give smaller risk of misunderstandings than 2/1.

And that is all that matters. No amount of optimal gadgets can make up for two or three system mixups per sesion.

You miss the point here. The point is NOT that, AFTER you've been paired by the partnership desk, saying "2/1" to your partner will lead to better understandings. It's that, BEFORE being paired, telling the partnership desk that you play 2/1 will lead (on average) to your getting a better partner, because, on average, people who play 2/1 are better players, and the partnership desk tends to pair people who play 2/1 with others who play 2/1.

Also, with a "SAYC" player, I have to ask about fourth-suit forcing, Jacoby 2N (even though that's supposed to be part of SAYC), support doubles, responsive doubles, and how high for negative doubles. Then I have to ask about all the other things on your list for 2/1 players.

I might quibble with your 2/1 list - RKC1430 is standard here, and fast denies is standard for Lebensohl. Checkback and Drury does have to be asked about, as does leads and carding, how to handle very weak hands after a 2♣ opening, and how to transfer to diamonds after a 1N opening. The most important thing you've left off your list is whether a rebid above 2M (after 1M-2m) shows extra strength or not (and hence whether a rebid of 2M shows a 6th card or not). But that's also the only item that is hard to settle in 30 seconds.

[Zelandakh]

 mycroft, on 2015-July-22, 16:41, said:

If nothing else, 1♥-(3♣)-X is takeout.

I was surprised to find out that one of the best pairs at my local club play this double as penalty, so, while I would agree that takeout is better, it would be wrong to suggest that everyone out there plays it that way.

On the comparison of 2/1 against a traditional 5 card major system, one of the biggest benefits comes in slam auctions. For beginners that are often reluctant to bid a hand to the full, this benefit is reduced. Conbine that with the additional artificiality that is often used and I think I/A players get much more from 2/1 than newer players. The main benefit of 2/1 for N/B players is a clearer understanding of which bids are forcing. That is obviously very important but I think it is better to learn how to force (or stop) using "normal" methods to help progress further. That said, I have nothing against 2/1 and consider it a fine system.

On handling invitational hands, the simplest is to respond 1NT (assuming no suit to bid at the one level) and then make a forward-going move on the second round. Many pairs also include immediate responses that cover some of these hands directly, so-called intermediate jump shifts, or do the same with weak hands (weak jump shifts) allowing 1NT followed by a new suit to show values. Given the conventions available, you can deduce that there are some genuine issues here and the chances are that a pair playing a simple 2/1 system will get some silly results from time to time. This is basically the price you pay for those beautiful 2/1 auctions.

[fromageGB]

It's a minefield.

As Helene said, while 2/1 is GF and 1NT is (usually) forcing, "everything else is something you will have to discuss with partner".
Vampyr said "some have very fancy agreements after 1NT forcing", and even if they are not fancy, people have very different understandings. Zelandakh suggests invitational hands can respond 1NT and make a forward going move after that, but to many, a "forward going move" will be interpreted as a weak long suit signoff.

In my view 2/1 needs more discussion than SA, where you are less prone to have catastrophes. Helene summed it up with "(nothing) can make up for two or three system mixups per session". 2/1 with a new partner is tricky unless you have had a couple of hours to go over things, so is best for regular partnerships.

[hrothgar]

 fromageGB, on 2015-July-26, 04:39, said:

In my view 2/1 needs more discussion than SA, where you are less prone to have catastrophes. Helene summed it up with "(nothing) can make up for two or three system mixups per session". 2/1 with a new partner is tricky unless you have had a couple of hours to go over things, so is best for regular partnerships.

Balanced against this, while SAYC is a (reasonably) well defined system, in practice no one actually knows what the system is so you are screwed either way

[Vampyr]

If the Yellow Cards are widely available then a pair might just need a few minutes to look it over, less if they have played the system before. Otherwise th problem is that there is no "basic" system that everyone recognises. Here you can specify "old-fashioned Acol" and add a couple of things like transfers and weak twos and just agree that any methods not specified are not being played. For a pickup or first-time partnership, this is pretty safe and will not result in any spectacular disasters, even if it is not optimal,

The LMBA have a "Palmer Bayer" card that is a very basic system with a few choices you can make. You could use this card with virtually anyone in England, and once you made the few choices available everyone would know what the base system was.

Personally I prefer rubber-bridge methods with casual partners.

[mycroft]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-July-25, 09:23, said:

 mycroft, on 2015-July-22, 16:41, said:

If nothing else, 1♥-(3♣)-X is takeout.

I was surprised to find out that one of the best pairs at my local club play this double as penalty, so, while I would agree that takeout is better, it would be wrong to suggest that everyone out there plays it that way.

Context is king, is it not? I didn't say whether takeout or penalty is better (after all, the day I *did* play negX->2♠ (not playing SAYC), the best player in the room bid 3♦ on trash and went for a cold-zero 1100). What I said, however, was:

 mycroft, on 2015-July-22, 16:41, said:

Note: Nobody plays SAYC, even the ones who do. If nothing else, 1♥-(3♣)-X is takeout.

The point being that even people who agree to play SAYC - don't know the card, and wouldn't want to play some of the stupidities on it even if they had. They just assume that what they play is YC. From the point of view of the partnership desk, this is a problem, because even with a fixed system, you're *still* going to get the odd mixup.

Another quote of note:
"You're told your opponents play SAYC, but all that means is that they can find the letters 'S', 'A', 'Y', and 'C' on their keyboard."
- Adam Beneschan, on r.g.b. (lo these many years ago)

[BillPatch]

 akwoo, on 2015-July-23, 19:03, said:

....
I might quibble with your 2/1 list - RKC1430 is standard here....

Where are you? No location is noted on your Forum bio. Chez moi(Central Ohio) we play both versions of Key Card. Kantar, the expert who keeps on writing new editions of the book on key card, recommends using both,choosing between the two using a system dubbed by Bridge World as Molson. ("Two beers in one.") Asked by Jeff Rubens whether it was harder to remember, Kantar said no. I agree with Kantar.

Agree with the rest of your list.