[katonka]

I do not understand this two over one system. lets say my pard opens one spade with 12 points. I hold 1 spade, 6 hearts, 3 clubs and 3 diamonds, and a total of 10 points. According to two over one, if I say two hearts over his one spade, I am forcing to game. what am I suppose to bid and how does that work?

[Cyberyeti]

You bid 1N which goes up to 12 ish points, partner very rarely passes (some people never pass). Some people playing 2/1 use weak jump shifts, so 3♥ is weak, but I suspect a 10 count is too good for most of them. The upper range for 1N probably depends on how sound your opening bids are.

[steve2005]

There is a third option for jump shifts, the Limit Jump Shift.

That would be 3♥ with a hand with 10-12 hcp, 6♥ and no ♠ fit. You would also use 3♣/3♦ for INV hands with a minor.

The cost is you give up strong jump shifts (which aren't really needed in 2/1), weak jump shifts (which often get you into trouble) and Bergen raises (I wont express an opinion on these)

[katonka]

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions. I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand. I notice that a lot of the turneys call for this system. wonder why.

[hrothgar]

katonka, on 2014-June-02, 13:05, said:

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions. I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand. I notice that a lot of the turneys call for this system. wonder why.

Could you explain a couple quesitons I have about SAYC?

1. How do you show a GF raise with a minor?
2. What does the auction 1S - (P) - 2NT show?

[steve2005]

hrothgar, on 2014-June-02, 13:15, said:

Could you explain a couple quesitons I have about SAYC?

1. How do you show a GF raise with a minor?
2. What does the auction 1S - (P) - 2NT show?

1. you cant directly. The only way is if you can use fourth suit forcing and then raise

2. 13-15 hcp
edit 2 is wrong thought 1!c-2N was question

This post has been edited by steve2005: 2014-June-02, 20:16

[Cyberyeti]

katonka, on 2014-June-02, 13:05, said:

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions. I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand. I notice that a lot of the turneys call for this system. wonder why.

I normally don't play either SAYC or 2/1 (I'm an Acol player or 1972 precision club), and all systems have their advantages and disadvantages (well yes some have no advantages, but all mainstream systems have at least some redeeming features). 2/1 is very good when you have a game force, and less good when you have a hand worth a 2/1 in acol or SAYC, but not worth a game force.

[masse24]

steve2005, on 2014-June-02, 13:34, said:

1. you cant directly. The only way is if you can use fourth suit forcing and then raise

2. 13-15 hcp

Actually...playing SAYC, 1♠ - (P) - 2NT =
"If responder jumps to 2NT over a 1♥ or 1♠ opening, that is Jacoby 2NT, asking
opener to show a singleton or void. If opener has no short suit, he shows his
hand strength;
1♠ — 2NT
3♣, 3♦, 3♥ = singleton or void in that suit. Other bids deny a short suit.
4♠ = minimum hand.
3NT = medium hand (15–17).
3♠ = maximum hand (18+)
4♣, 4♦, 4♥ = 2nd suit
Responder follows up by attempting to sign off in game, bidding 4NT Blackwood,
or cuebidding if still interested in trying to cooperate with opener in making the
slam decision."

Quoted from the SAYC System Notes: SAYC System Notes
Edited to fit the question/response.

[P_Marlowe]

katonka, on 2014-June-02, 13:05, said:

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions. I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand. I notice that a lot of the turneys call for this system. wonder why.

The differences between SAYC, that has 2 over 1 response promises a 2nd bid (assuming I reading the SAYC booklet correctly) and a
2 over 1 game forcing system exist, but are marginal.
If you play Lawrence style, a 2 over 1 response is GF, unless responder repeats his suit, i.e. with your example hand you could make
a 2 over 1 response of 2H and still check out in 3H.

If you play a 2 over 1 response as round forcing only, i.e. responder could pass a 2S rebid by opener, than the advantage of
2 over 1 is, that you have an easier time to generate game forcing auctions to explore the right game / and to explore slam possibilities.
The cost being, that some hand pairs opening bid vs. inv. strengh get harder to bid, usually will basically force to game on the inv. hands,
i.e. do some overbidding.
This is ok at IMP scoring, and a bit problematic at MP scoring.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[katonka]

I thank you all for your responses and help. Very good information

[Stephen Tu]

katonka, on 2014-June-02, 13:05, said:

thank you both for your responses. I understand what you are saying but just don't like either of your solutions.

If not playing the invitational jump shift, then the standard approach is to bid 1nt followed by 3♥. What's your strong objection to this?

Quote

I do not understand why players like this system better than the standard SAYC that works so well and is so easy for a pard to understand.

Is SAYC really so easy on 2/1 auctions?
There are quite a few issues:
- the biggest is that although there is a pamphlet/ACBL publication, maybe 90% of the BBO players have never really studied it. So it's a guessing game whether partner is adhering to the published system or not. For example, is 1s-2h-2nt forcing? According to the pamphlet, 2/1 guarantees a rebid, so it is. But I guarantee you playing with randoms you are likely to get passed on this sort of sequence with some frequency. A lot of people really don't understand the difference between "SAYC" and "SA". SA is a general term for a family of systems, whereas "SAYC" is a specific variant of an SA system that was devised by the ACBL. But many use the terms interchangeably, they were never taught the difference. Another often blown auction is 1c-p-2nt. This is forcing in SAYC, but could easily be passed by a random.
- played exactly as written, the ranges are really out of whack, especially if one opens most 12s. If 1s-2h-2nt is forcing, but 2nt can also be a minimum, then you get to 3nt with something like 12 opposite 11 which isn't really ideal. These are the sort of things you get when there is system sparsely documented and devised by committee. There are other troubling things like the lack of a forcing minor raise.
- general problems with SA that 2/1 is designed to cater to, mainly more forcing bids below 3nt, to explore for best game, slam. 1s-2h-2s, what if you want to set spades as trumps, and look for slam? 2/1 you can simply bid 3s, SA if you don't have a hand suitable for 2nd round splinter (4m, which partner might not understand since SAYC doesn't officially have splinters anyway), you have to bid an ambiguous 3m and support spades later, which gets murky. Or if you have your 1633 hand, you can't bid 3h which would be NF, again have to bid a minor fragment. Sometimes you'd like to bid a forcing 2nt after something like 1s-2h-2s-?, to find out more about partner's hand, like side minor, but with SA you have to jump to 3nt to GF, and partner can't afford to move over that.

2/1 introduces some complexities of its own, but at least you don't get dropped in a partial with slam on playing with a new partner.

[Zelandakh]

Let me see if I can sell you on the theory. When responding to that 1♠ opening you might have a weak hand, or an invite, or a game force - 3 ranges. Now think of bidding space - there is as much space after 1NT as all of the responses from 2♦ up altogether. One option here would be to play 1NT as one range, 2♣ as another and 2♦ and up for the rest. Unfortunately that is not only artificial and complex, it also starts running into space issues for the last range. So a better solution is for the 1NT response to show 2 of the 3 ranges and 2♣♦♥ then show the third. The easiest way of arranging things this way is for 1NT to be weak + invitational and the 2 level responses to be game forcing.

What this shows is that the 1NT response in SA methods including SAYC is simply underused. This is also true, incidentally, for the 1♣ opening. In each case we want to use our cheapest call more often (providing we can do so without interference destroying our auction). Not doing so makes the bidding system less efficient and, at the end of the day, less accurate. And this is the reason why the majority of expert pairs are now playing some form of 2/1.

Now tt does not follow that 2/1 is the only way. There are alternative ways of increasing the frequency of the 1NT response and compensating elsewhere. But if you just think about bidding space and hand types you should be able to see quite quickly why 2/1 is actually quite a good idea and that SAYC perhaps does not work quite as well as you think in certain cases.

[P_Marlowe]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-June-03, 01:38, said:

<snip>
... A lot of people really don't understand the difference between "SAYC" and "SA". SA is a general term for a family of systems, whereas "SAYC" is a specific variant of an SA system that was devised by the ACBL. But many use the terms interchangeably ...
<snip>

2 over 1 is also the name of a family of systems, so you cannot be assured about

Stephen Tu, on 2014-June-03, 01:38, said:

<snip>
2/1 introduces some complexities of its own, but at least you don't get dropped in a partial with slam on playing with a new partner.
<snip>

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Responder having 10 points and 6 hearts is not a problem - just bid 1NT and then 3♥ at your next turn. If the heart suit is really bad it might not work out well, but playing SAYC you would respond 2♥ and then bid 3♥ which shows the same - except that the 1NT response gives opener the space to bid a minor suit at the 2-level. Also, suppose opener is 6-1 in the majors and responder 6-2. In SAYC it might go
1♠-2♥
2♠-3♥
pass
and you are in the wrong fit because opener's 2♠ bid doesn't show six spades, it just denies the values to bid anything else. In 2/1, it might go
1♠-1NT
2♠-?
and responder at least has the chance of getting it right by passing or raising spades. (Of course, if opener has 3 hearts, rebidding hearts would work better so you win some and lose some. But if you have an invitational immediate 3♥ bid available, you could agree that that bid denies spade tolerance while the delayed 3♥ bid shows spade tolerance).

Actually, it is worse if responder has five hearts and 10-11 points. It often goes
1♠-1NT
2♣-2NT* (too strong for 2♥ and not enough hearts for 3♥).
Some 2/1 pairs play some convention to find a heart fit here and some insist that opener must show a 3-card hearts at his 3rd turn unless he is weak enough to pass 2NT. But most 2/1 pair don't find the hearts fit in this auction.

Yesterday at the club a decent pair had this auction:

1♠-2♣
2♥-3NT
pass

Opener had a 10-count with 6-4 in the majors. Responder a balanced 13 count. Playing SAYC (well they probably don't play SAYC but something similar), responder couldn't rebid 2NT because that wouldn't be forcing. He could have bid 3♦ (fourth suit forcing) but that wouldn't have helped much since opener's 3♠ bid would then just deny a diamond stopper, not promise six spades.

In 2/1, the auction might have gone
1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♠-4♠

[dlks]

I read this subject with great interest because like the original poster, katonka, I played SAYC in its full sense for many years and was fairly happy with the results. Over time, I added additional (non-SAYC) conventions like Bergen raises and Inverted Minors because I came to see how important hand shape is. But I realized that my preferred partnership methods only worked well when we either opened the bidding at 1NT or above or when we had the hands for using a conventional response; we weren't consistently finding the right contracts when one of us opened with a simple 1-level suited bid and the responder had a vanilla hand. We were missing bidding makeable games, and we were too often overbidding or playing in the wrong strain when we didn't have enough strength for game. My excellent bridge teacher on BBO (no ads here) had acceded to my wishes to start lessons playing SAYC, but he was pleased to hear that I wanted to check out the Two-over-One Game Force system. I now love it and wish I had learned it years ago.

I shouldn't actually call what I play "the" 2/1 GF system. There is no official or universal way to play 2/1 beyond a few basic tenets, and even those are subject to partnership agreement. The more I studied what the experts wrote about 2/1, the more I realized that they all play it differently. My confusion over the multitude of different treatments led me to write this poem last year, which pretty well sums it up:

Personal Thoughts on Learning 2/1
Donna Sherman August 2013
Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, Rodwell,
Thurston, Holland.... Ring a bell?
All of them experts, of this I am sure.
As to their differences, there is a cure!
Talk to your partner! Work out a plan
for 2/1 bidding. Then, when you can,
play it and play it and play it some more.
Tweak your agreements. Open the door
to debate and discussion and changes in methods.
If that doesn't work, at least you tried. Find another partner.

If you're thinking about playing 2/1, look for its benefits in preserving bidding space so you can find both the right strain and the right level at which to play without zooming right past your best contract. No more strong jump shifts where you're already at the 3-level without knowing about a fit or stoppers for NT. No more guessing whether your partner's 2-level response is merely invitational or if he has a bigger hand. No more opening bidders having to desperately hunt for a 1-round-forcing bid -- if an unpassed partner has made a 2/1 response after a pass by his RHO, ALL bids are forcing to at least game. You show your shape, you show your stoppers, and you are much more likely to end up in the right contract than when playing other standard American systems.

Forgive me for not addressing any of the previously posted issues about how to bid specific hands. Two-over-One GF is a system that different partnerships will tailor in different ways. You need to work with your partner to decide what rebids work for you.

Happy bidding! Donna Sherman

[diana_eva]

My experience is pretty similar to Donna's. I started with sayc, learned more treatments in time and then kind of naturally moved over to 2/1 because it covered better some sequences and worked better with some treatments I liked. I don't understand the passion some people put in advocating one over the other (not talking about BBFers here, even on BBO I hear over and over again statements like "there's no such thing as a sayc expert" or similar). I clearly remember there was a moment when I was thinking "is it worth switching? I'm doing so well with sayc, i finally feel i *got* it".

[ShirleyMqz]

2/1 works well when you have a game forcing hand. Once you have made the 2/1 bid you don't have to worry about being dropped short of game, so you can take time to find the correct contract, and to explore slam possibilities while you are still at a comfortable bidding level. In Standard American you are often forced to jump to game and you lose valuable bidding space. For example, the auction 1S-2H-2S-3H could be droppped; if you have a game-going hand you either have to jump to 4H (losing the possibility of playing 3NT) or invent some other suit to bid (which could get unpleasant if partner takes your second suit seriously).

But there is a cost, and the kind of hand you are talking about is it. Hands in the 10-12 point range are more difficult to handle in 2/1 than in SAYC because you are forced to go through 1NT forcing rather than bidding your suit immediately. If partner rebids his spades or if the opponents interfere you may never get to show your suit, which may be your best strain even if partner would rebid his suit (6-3-2-2 shape for example), or which may be the lead that partner needs to make if the opponents play the hand. If I were holding that hand I'd be more comfortable after the auction 1S-P-2H-3D than after 1S-P-1NT-3D.

[frisbee]

Quote

Yesterday at the club a decent pair had this auction:

1♠-2♣
2♥-3NT
pass

Opener had a 10-count with 6-4 in the majors. Responder a balanced 13 count. Playing SAYC (well they probably don't play SAYC but something similar), responder couldn't rebid 2NT because that wouldn't be forcing. He could have bid 3♦ (fourth suit forcing) but that wouldn't have helped much since opener's 3♠ bid would then just deny a diamond stopper, not promise six spades.

In 2/1, the auction might have gone
1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♠-4♠

Especially when playing your favorite version of 2/1, if you insist that you must open a very BAD 6-4 hand with 1♠, then rebid 2♠ to try to limit your hand immediately instead of rebidding 2♥. Remember that you are playing 2/1 and not Standard American. Give Partner a chance to find the best contract. With a GOOD 6-4, you would rebid 2♥. I suspect there are more extensive discussions of the GOOD/BAD 6-4 philosophy elsewhere in the forums.

[Vampyr]

Some players play 2/1 GF only when it is a minor over a major. So 1♠-2♥ is not GF and neither is 1♦-2♣. I don't know how popular this approach is.

[mike777]

A well known weakness of 2/1 is playing nt f or sf. If you add in the somewhat light openings or lighter opening bids that makes 1nt handle even more type of hands.


In general I find this is less of an issue but still it is something you choose to live with or not. At some point you choose to live with certain system holes or uncertainty, hoping to gain on most other deals.

As time goes on you might feel that playing and defense becomes a bit more important at the table to focus on. But debating systems is always fun.