[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 12:09, said:

The reason we have decided on second round jump = forcing is to avoid bidding problems such as holding 13 points and 3-card support and no way to force, for example, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥ has to be a 3-card GF for us because we play 4SF as invitational+ at the 2-level (I know some styles always start with a 2/1 bypassing 4-card ♠ suit holding a GF hand, that 1/1 then jump is invitational, and 2/1 then jump is GF (the jump isn't needed if 2/1 is GF), to avoid this ambiguity, but I prefer bidding 4-card suits up the line, so a 2/1 will deny 4 ♠ unless 5m4S. A style which regularly bypass 4-card suits require extensive use of gadgets to recover skipped 4-4 fits, which is too complicated for me to play. By never bypassing suits, we can have useful negative inference about the hand shape.). If this sequence is invitational, our 4SF has to be GF, and I think that 4SGF is worse than 4SF1 at the 2-level for the purpose of locating our best fit. We have adopted a gadget for a 3-card limit raise in a major as well.

And I don't intend our 4SF as exactly invitational at the 2-level (our agreement is that 4SF is 4 spades at 1-level, F1 at 2-level, GF at 3-level), the 4SF bidder can bid on the show GF strength.

My judgement was that my hand was enough to invite in case of a 5-3 major fit, but not strong enough to play 2NT, due to the 2 doubletons adding 2 distributional points, and NT hands are evaluated using HCP only.

The standard approach with 4 spades and 3 card heart support would be

#1 raise openers suit with less than inv. values to the 2 level
#2 bid spades, followed by by making a jump raise to the 3 level
#3 use FSF to create a GF seq followed by bidding hearts, if opener
showes min., fast arrival applies

This approach is the same for either FSF as GF or inv.+.
....................................................................
If opener opens with a minor, opener can and should show a fragment,
i.e. secondary support, if holding more than min.
I would also argue, that responder showes a suit oriented hand, if
he showes support for openers minor, i.e. 5422 / 5431 shape.

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-26, 14:38, said:

YMMV if you play in France where I understand they are allergic to raising majors on 3.

I would say all of Europe except maybe UK.
But the prevelant system choices (4-card diamonds, XYZ, etc) are tuned to minimize the cost of this allergy and maximise the benefits.

[mikl_plkcc]

 P_Marlowe, on 2025-April-26, 14:39, said:

The standard approach with 4 spades and 3 card heart support would be

#1 raise openers suit with less than inv. values to the 2 level
#2 bid spades, followed by by making a jump raise to the 3 level
#3 use FSF to create a GF seq followed by bidding hearts, if opener
showes min., fast arrival applies

This approach is the same for either FSF as GF or inv.+.
....................................................................
If opener opens with a minor, opener can and should show a fragment,
i.e. secondary support, if holding more than min.
I would also argue, that responder showes a suit oriented hand, if
he showes support for openers minor, i.e. 5422 / 5431 shape.

I first read about responder second round jump as forcing from the following study 5M81

http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm

And I was convinced that Goren was right so this is what we have agreed now, and it allows us to simplify our rules that we won't get confused about the strength between the sequences 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 18:02, said:

I first read about responder second round jump as forcing from the following study 5M81

http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm

And I was convinced that Goren was right so this is what we have agreed now, and it allows us to simplify our rules that we won't get confused about the strength between the sequences 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥

I am not going to argue with Pavlicek, but my interpretation is, if you read it carefully FSF is excatly inv.
The forcing jump raise was also advocated by Roth.

Anyway:

As I said, I am never going to claim claim, that something is unplayable.
But I will give you a quote, Stansby / Martel were a World Class Level partnership, and used the weak NT, For a time her
partnership was the only partnership in N/A (read only very few other as well), that used the weak NT. They were (very) successful.
I think the partnership no longer is active, Stansby (?1) died 1-2 years ago, but it could also be Martel.
But asked, if he would choose to play the weak NT again, if he had the chance, Stansby (?!) said No.
Why? It was hard, to get their system going alone, lots of pairs worked on on the theory of strong NT systems, they had to do it
alone, and did. Changing later was not really an option, it would have invalidated the work they had invested.

It requires lots of in depth discussion and general knowledge.
You mentioned, you messed it up. This was a memory lapse, but depending how much you play, if you usually play (maybe) inferior B,
e.g. with the Robots, or with other players, and only rarely (superior) A, if A happens, you will quite often mess it up.
And you will also mess up auctions, if you happen to B.

The FSF implication is only one example.

[mikl_plkcc]

So what are the sequences 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♥, 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, 1♥-1NT-2♦-3♥, 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥ mean in the method if they are not played uniformly as jumping to game force, in a 2/1 not game forcing Standard American system?

Another a further question:
In Standard American, what is the range of 1♦-2♣-2♦? Why is it forcing? Does it change if the responder is a passed hand?

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 02:47, said:

So what are the sequences 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♥, 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, 1♥-1NT-2♦-3♥, 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥ mean in the method if they are not played uniformly as jumping to game force, in a 2/1 not game forcing Standard American system?

Most people these days play 2nd round jumps by responder as invitational by default after a 1-over-1 response. The first one, 1h-1s-1nt-3h, is ambiguous, it might be forcing if an xyz/2-way checkback system is in force, or if 1h-1s-1nt-2h is defined as invitational by the logic "wouldn't do this on 2cd h ever, and a non-invitational heart raise would always do 1h-2h and not mention spades".

After a 2/1, not playing 2/1 GF (which I wouldn't recommend currently to anyone playing in America, including beginners), a jump after a 2/1 creates a GF because the 2/1 itself shows inv values, so jumping subsequently shows additional values beyond inv = GF. So your 4th sequence is GF, the last is NF in "not 2/1".

Quote

Another a further question:
In Standard American, what is the range of 1♦-2♣-2♦? Why is it forcing? Does it change if the responder is a passed hand?

Range is not defined. It's forcing because a 2/1 promises a rebid even if not playing 2/1GF. Responder is at the minimum supposed to be able to sensibly rebid 2nt NF, 3c NF, or 3d NF. If passed hand, it's possible to modify this with discussion but I wouldn't assume anything by default.

[P_Marlowe]

on a side note: If you play FSF as exactly inv., than it makes sense to include weaker hands into the
set of hands that use FSF, a possible 8 is certainly valid option (... depending on what ever), this will help
with certain auctions to decide, which partial is better, or discover some close games, that make due to the
fact, that both sides are max., but cannot make a move using trad. methods.

[mikl_plkcc]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-27, 04:34, said:

Most people these days play 2nd round jumps by responder as invitational by default after a 1-over-1 response. The first one, 1h-1s-1nt-3h, is ambiguous, it might be forcing if an xyz/2-way checkback system is in force, or if 1h-1s-1nt-2h is defined as invitational by the logic "wouldn't do this on 2cd h ever, and a non-invitational heart raise would always do 1h-2h and not mention spades".

After a 2/1, not playing 2/1 GF (which I wouldn't recommend currently to anyone playing in America, including beginners), a jump after a 2/1 creates a GF because the 2/1 itself shows inv values, so jumping subsequently shows additional values beyond inv = GF. So your 4th sequence is GF, the last is NF in "not 2/1".

Range is not defined. It's forcing because a 2/1 promises a rebid even if not playing 2/1GF. Responder is at the minimum supposed to be able to sensibly rebid 2nt NF, 3c NF, or 3d NF. If passed hand, it's possible to modify this with discussion but I wouldn't assume anything by default.

My head is now exploding trying to understand what range each sequence means, and the implication of changing if 2/1, Checkback Stayman or New Minor Forcing, 4th suit artificial, etc., is invitational+ or game forcing which can be switched independently - if these are game forcing game and slam auctions are more accurate but invitational auctions are sacrificed, if these are invitational we may then well find close games / better partial others can't find. And also if we always bid 4-card suits up the line or skip suits under certain circumstances, which will then need to different inferences for different sequences.

Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-27, 04:34, said:

After a 2/1, not playing 2/1 GF (which I wouldn't recommend currently to anyone playing in America, including beginners), a jump after a 2/1 creates a GF because the 2/1 itself shows inv values, so jumping subsequently shows additional values beyond inv = GF. So your 4th sequence is GF, the last is NF in "not 2/1".

Why won't you recommend people playing 2/1 non-GF Standard American now? The main weakness of 2/1 GF is Forcing 1NT, unless you use conventions to remove the invitational hands with a long suit and with 3-card support from the 1NT response. With Forcing 1NT, it is very hard to compete / raise correctly after opener rebids a minor (as it can be as short as 2!), or when the long minor is shut off by the opponents overcalling.

Also there are different styles of 2/1 game forcing as well, if a reverse shows extras, if a suit rebid guarantees 6, and if a 2NT rebid shows stoppers / the range of it which also explodes my head trying to make them all coherent.

[mycroft]

Not sure about Stephen, but when I was learning bridge in 198mumble, my teacher said "you can play a good non 2/1 GF system. You need all the tools 2/1 does, and sometimes it's just harder, but you can do it. But we're learning 2/1 because when you go to the partnership desk, if you get a player who can play 2/1, you can assume they have all the tools. If you get someone who can't, you can't."

In the time I've played, that statement has not changed, except to be more so - if you get a 2/1 player at the desk, you can assume they have *most of* the tools needed to make standard work well. If you get someone who can't play 2/1, you can assume they don't have a significant number of those tools; frankly you can't assume they can play.

I wonder about the theoretical soundness of teaching beginners 2/1 (and never standard), but the practical soundness is 100% there; if they can get their heads around 1NT forcing, they'll be much better off at the end of the beginner lessons than if they didn't play 2/1, in terms of people at the club they can play with. Yes, it's that straight up - there are people who have played for 5+ years and have *never* not played 2/1 GF.

[mike777]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 16:24, said:

My head is now exploding trying to understand what range each sequence means, and the implication of changing if 2/1, Checkback Stayman or New Minor Forcing, 4th suit artificial, etc., is invitational+ or game forcing which can be switched independently - if these are game forcing game and slam auctions are more accurate but invitational auctions are sacrificed, if these are invitational we may then well find close games / better partial others can't find. And also if we always bid 4-card suits up the line or skip suits under certain circumstances, which will then need to different inferences for different sequences.



Why won't you recommend people playing 2/1 non-GF Standard American now? The main weakness of 2/1 GF is Forcing 1NT, unless you use conventions to remove the invitational hands with a long suit and with 3-card support from the 1NT response. With Forcing 1NT, it is very hard to compete / raise correctly after opener rebids a minor (as it can be as short as 2!), or when the long minor is shut off by the opponents overcalling.

Also there are different styles of 2/1 game forcing as well, if a reverse shows extras, if a suit rebid guarantees 6, and if a 2NT rebid shows stoppers / the range of it which also explodes my head trying to make them all coherent.

Please don't let your head explode.
I hope the following helps.

1.2 over one auction,=game force
2. Forcing NT auction = part score.

Slam auctions don't worry about yet
Invitational auctions don't worry about Yet.

You need to start somewhere. Part score and game force auctions get you the majority of auctions.

Over time you can learn the nuances

Don't worry be Happy

Good luck.

[mikl_plkcc]

 mycroft, on 2025-April-27, 17:14, said:

Not sure about Stephen, but when I was learning bridge in 198mumble, my teacher said "you can play a good non 2/1 GF system. You need all the tools 2/1 does, and sometimes it's just harder, but you can do it. But we're learning 2/1 because when you go to the partnership desk, if you get a player who can play 2/1, you can assume they have all the tools. If you get someone who can't, you can't."

In the time I've played, that statement has not changed, except to be more so - if you get a 2/1 player at the desk, you can assume they have *most of* the tools needed to make standard work well. If you get someone who can't play 2/1, you can assume they don't have a significant number of those tools; frankly you can't assume they can play.

I wonder about the theoretical soundness of teaching beginners 2/1 (and never standard), but the practical soundness is 100% there; if they can get their heads around 1NT forcing, they'll be much better off at the end of the beginner lessons than if they didn't play 2/1, in terms of people at the club they can play with. Yes, it's that straight up - there are people who have played for 5+ years and have *never* not played 2/1 GF.

And sometimes when I am matched with a player who only plays 4-card majors I am so confused that when does a raise guarantee 4, and when it may be done with only 3-card support, putting the responsibility on the opener for the 5th card, whereas in a 5-card major system fit finding is much more scientific.

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 16:24, said:

Why won't you recommend people playing 2/1 non-GF Standard American now?

It's just easier to explain to newer players, what bids are forcing, which aren't. 2/1 it's easy, you just tell them don't stop until you reach game. You never in theory have to worry about being dropped in a partial when on for slam. If you play 2/1 not GF then you run into the problem of even more historical variants (e.g. does 2/1 promise a rebid or not, or promises rebid only on certain sequences), then you have to teach exactly which types of sequences show inv only and can be dropped, which sequences now show extras and convert the auction to GF etc.
2/1 GF also has advanced nuances to be taught, but beginners can at least grope around after the 2/1 and at least they'll get to reasonable games most of the time, though they will miss some of the sharper low HCP slams and will overbid/misbid to bad slams sometimes also. But at least they score fewer accidents of +200 in 3M making 5 or +180 in 2nt.

Quote

The main weakness of 2/1 GF is Forcing 1NT, unless you use conventions to remove the invitational hands with a long suit and with 3-card support from the 1NT response. With Forcing 1NT, it is very hard to compete / raise correctly after opener rebids a minor (as it can be as short as 2!), or when the long minor is shut off by the opponents overcalling.

There's usually not much competition after 1M-1nt-opener's rebid, because people tend to compete on the first round of the auction, rather than waiting. If the 1nt response is overcalled, with shape/better hands you can still bid long 6+ suits or make takeout doubles if warranted.

You don't have to play forcing NT, semi-forcing NT is used by many.

Quote

Also there are different styles of 2/1 game forcing as well, if a reverse shows extras, if a suit rebid guarantees 6, and if a 2NT rebid shows stoppers / the range of it which also explodes my head trying to make them all coherent.

This is true, but to an even greater extent with 2/1 not-GF.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 16:24, said:

<snip>
Why won't you recommend people playing 2/1 non-GF Standard American now? The main weakness of 2/1 GF is Forcing 1NT, ...
<snip>

Playing 2/1 GF

#1 You can play semiforcing NT, which is gaining traction
#2 You can agree that the inv. limit raise 1M - 3M only showes 3+
#3 You can agree that the gf raise 1M - 2NT only showes 3+
#4 You can agree that reverses show add. values, and that the major suit does not promise 6

If you find #2, #3 limiting you can makes those bids show 4+ by add conv.

[helene_t]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 02:47, said:

So what are the sequences 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♥, 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, 1♥-1NT-2♦-3♥, 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥ mean in the method if they are not played uniformly as jumping to game force, in a 2/1 not game forcing Standard American system?

Another a further question:
In Standard American, what is the range of 1♦-2♣-2♦? Why is it forcing? Does it change if the responder is a passed hand?

Since you are in the UK (disclaimer: I haven't played much in London, my experience is mostly from the North of England), there may be no coherent local understanding of what "SA" means if it is not 2/1 GF. Some pairs say that play SA (or even "SAYC") but in my experience this almost always means that the forcing character of 2-level responses is either murky, or just Acolish. I would never assume that "SA" in England meant something similar to SAYC, BWS, Goren, Lawrence or other well-documented non-2/1 SA dialects.

That said, without discussion I would take the jump 3M on responder's second turn to be invitational if responder has shown some 5+ points in first round, but possibly forcing if responder has shown more than that. Even in Acol, I have played
1X-2y
2z-3X
as forcing in some partnerships, and I really think it should be forcing in any strong-NT system, but that's just me.

In many casual partnerships I have not known how forcing a 2/1 response is. This is certainly also the case in 2/1 partnerships because even though "2/1 is GF" may sound simple, it doesn't tell you how forcing a 2/1 response is when there is intervention, or when respoonder is a passed hand. Obviously it also doesn't tell you how forcing a response to an overcall is.

In my current partnership I have had a lot of misunderstandings about the forcing character of various bids in convoluted auctions. It is something that takes a lot of time and a lot of discussion to sort out. But ultimately it may not be so important. My impression from your posts is that it is much more critical for you to focus on declarer play and on competitive auctions. Probably also defence (you have't written that much about that but almost everyone loses a lot of points in defence).

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-27, 17:48, said:

And sometimes when I am matched with a player who only plays 4-card majors I am so confused that when does a raise guarantee 4, and when it may be done with only 3-card support, putting the responsibility on the opener for the 5th card, whereas in a 5-card major system fit finding is much more scientific.

Good thing that responding 1M to a 1♣ or 1♦ opening promises 5 card support or this could also get really confusing

[awm]

In general the standard is that:

1. Rebidding a known suit at the lowest level shows (or could show) a minimum hand. In some cases it's just a preference and not a real fit.
2. Jump-rebidding a known suit shows extra values. However, it's normally not forcing (unless we are otherwise in a force from context).

Obviously you can have special agreements with partner that take precedence over the above.

If you play a strict interpretation of SAYC (standard american yellow card), then responder's 2/1 in a new suit promises a rebid unless opener's rebid is at the game level. This means sequences (with opponents passing) like 1♠-2♥-2♠ and 1♠-2♥-2NT and 1♠-2♥-3♥ are forcing. If you have a very minimum hand you must not rebid anything above two of opener's suit, making two of opener's suit a catch-all which handles all minimums (and some awkward hands with extras). The way you stop is generally for responder to rebid 2NT or three of his suit after this rebid.

Many Standard American players (even some who claim to play SAYC) do not play a strict interpretation of SAYC and will treat 1♠-2♥-2NT and 1♠-2♥-3♥ as non-forcing. However, it's pretty universal in Standard American that opener's two-level suit rebid is forcing one round (1♠-2♥-2♠ is forcing). This is a difference between Standard American and Acol (at least, old-fashioned Acol) where opener's suit rebid was not forcing. While the Acol approach lets you stop in 2♠, it also creates a problem when opener has 6+♠ and mild extras (3♠ takes up way too much space and should probably promise a decent suit) or some other hands with extras where you don't want to commit to notrump (lacking stoppers).

For some of the sequences mentioned:

1♥-1♠-1NT-3♥: Invitational to game with a heart fit (typically 4+♠, 3♥, 10-11)
1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥: Invitational to game with a heart fit (as above)
1♥-1NT-2♦-3♥: Does not really exist since 1NT would deny a heart fit; perhaps this shows doubleton heart honor and a great fit for diamonds or something. Of course, if 1NT was forcing or "semi-forcing" this would be 3♥ and 10-11.
1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥: Simple preference with two hearts and a minimum 2♣ bid (like 10-11 points)
1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥: Game force with 3+♥ (it shows extras, and since we already showed 10+ points "extras" beyond this is enough for game)
1♥-2♣-3♥: Game force with 6+♥ (it shows extras, and since partner has 10+ points "extras" is enough for game)

Note that in SAYC, 1♥-3♥ is invitational and only shows 3+♥, so there's no reason to start with a 2/1 bid or 1NT on this hand type (with spades you might try 1♠ to find a possibly-better fit there). Of course some "Standard American" players might play something different from this.

[awm]

While 2/1 has become a de facto standard in the US, there is a problem with teaching beginners 2/1 first. The issue is that you still come across 2/1 sequences that are not necessarily game forcing (for example in competition or where responder is a passed hand) and you need to know what your bids mean in these sequences. So 2/1 players effectively need to know how to bid over both a GF 2/1 and a "not always GF" 2/1, whereas Standard American bidders need only the latter.

[Stephen Tu]

awm, on 2025-April-28, 07:08, said:

While 2/1 has become a de facto standard in the US, there is a problem with teaching beginners 2/1 first. The issue is that you still come across 2/1 sequences that are not necessarily game forcing (for example in competition or where responder is a passed hand) and you need to know what your bids mean in these sequences. So 2/1 players effectively need to know how to bid over both a GF 2/1 and a "not always GF" 2/1, whereas Standard American bidders need only the latter.

I don't agree with this argument. This is because competitive auctions have to be learned differently anyway, because for example, SA 2/1-not GF uncontested usually uses "promises a rebid" style as you stated, but the standard in competition is decidedly different, it's usually that for 2/1 in comp (e.g. 1s-(2d)-2h), a rebid is not promised as the bid can be made on somewhat lighter hands (some pressure to get a descriptive bid in before 4th hand's possible raise), and opener must jump or cue to show extras.
So it's not like "learn SA 2/1 not GF, contested auctions work identically so you don't need to learn anything different".

[awm]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-28, 08:51, said:

I don't agree with this argument. This is because competitive auctions have to be learned differently anyway, because for example, SA 2/1-not GF uncontested usually uses "promises a rebid" style as you stated, but the standard in competition is decidedly different, it's usually that for 2/1 in comp (e.g. 1s-(2d)-2h), a rebid is not promised as the bid can be made on somewhat lighter hands (some pressure to get a descriptive bid in before 4th hand's possible raise), and opener must jump or cue to show extras.
So it's not like "learn SA 2/1 not GF, contested auctions work identically so you don't need to learn anything different".

I don't play my 2/1s in competition the way you describe (in fact my style is almost identical to my non-GF 2/1 style), and I have noticed that people who do play this way land in trouble pretty often. It's quite straightforward to double with long hearts and less than 10 points (planning to rebid hearts later) and this will typically work out better than extending the range of the 2♥ bid and stumbling around when opener has a bit extra. Anyway, even if you think the "same as without competition 2/1 non-GF" style is not best, it's certainly quite playable and simplifies matters significantly when teaching new players.