[GreenMan]

chasetb, on 2014-January-15, 12:55, said:

I would say that they aren't play 2/1 GF, as both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence agreed that 1♠ - 2 new suit and 1♥ - 2 minor are always GF.

I think this is not right, at least in the early days; Lawrence advocated 2/1 GF Except When Suit Is Rebid. IIRC his was the name most prominently associated with that school of thought, vs. Hardy's with 2/1 Always GF. I had Lawrence's 2/1 book, and my partnerships relied on it extensively.

Quote

I know the XYZ comment wasn't aimed at me, but only the few Precision players and the top players around me (Pittsburgh being the closest major city) play XYZ. Most play NMF, one or two play CS, and the others live in the stone age of bidding.

Most everyone I know plays at least simple NMF, but the 2-way version is gaining ground; I think of 2-way NMF, XYZ and CS as much more like one another than like old-style NMF.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2014-January-15, 13:16, said:

Most everyone I know plays at least simple NMF, but the 2-way version is gaining ground; I think of 2-way NMF, XYZ and CS as much more like one another than like old-style NMF.

I would definitely separate out XYZ rather than NMF, since it is used over suit rebids. Although over a NT rebid it is similar to 2-way checkback.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 13:20, said:

I would definitely separate out XYZ rather than NMF, since it is used over suit rebids. Although over a NT rebid it is similar to 2-way checkback.

I just consider that the 2C/2D structure makes them more alike than different. YMMV.

(It reminds me of Kaplan's observation from a Vugraph session: "Nobody in this tournament can bid diamonds to show diamonds anymore. We lost the club suit in the 1950s. Now the diamonds are gone, and hearts are sinking fast.")

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 13:15, said:

Could 2♦ have been a weak 2 in hearts as well?

No. 2♥ was a weak 2 in hearts

[chasetb]

I thought XYZ and 2-way Checkback were the exact same. I know they are both different from New Minor Forcing, and all are different from Checkback Stayman. For simplicity, CS is better than NMF, because you do save space and I can remember only once or twice being able to stop in 2♣ using NMF, and neither time did it gain me a top. I prefer XYZ because you can describe pretty much any hand you have.

In his Workbook on the Two Over One System I think you are right in that Lawrence did say 2/1 GF except suit rebid. I am pretty sure that he changed that in later years for the 1M - 2 lower suit bids, but kept it for 1♦-2♣. He might still advocate what you say over a semi-forcing NT (he pushes 1NT Forcing as of now, hence GF), but I have been wrong before.

If it's worth anything, I far prefer 1x - 2♣ as GF except suit rebid, and the other 2/1 auctions as GF.

[Vampyr]

chasetb, on 2014-January-15, 14:46, said:

I thought XYZ and 2-way Checkback were the exact same.

No; 2-way Checkback is only used after a 1NT rebid. "Checkback" is short for "Checkback Stayman".

[wank]

chasetb, on 2014-January-15, 14:46, said:

I thought XYZ and 2-way Checkback were the exact same.

yes, correct

[Vampyr]

wank, on 2014-January-15, 15:19, said:

yes, correct

LOL This shows why a convention name is never acceptable as an explanation to opponent. I believe that the difference between the two conventions is as I described above; obviously other people understand the terms differently. I didn't know this.

[GreenMan]

chasetb, on 2014-January-15, 14:46, said:

I thought XYZ and 2-way Checkback were the exact same.

Checkback allows opener to skip over a 4cM and rebid NT with a balanced hand; that's where the name comes from, since responder can "check back" to see if opener has, e.g., 4♠ after 1♣ 1♥; 1NT. This leads to significant differences in how responder handles some hands between checkback and XYZ. 2-way CB is quite similar to 2-way NMF except that opener can respond naturally to a 2♣ rebid instead of being forced to bid 2♦, as 2wNMF normally has it.

Of course everyone has their own twists and flavors, but I believe the above describes how most people play these respective conventions.

[fromageGB]

Around here in NE England I think Acol and Benji are the most common by a long way, with 12-14 usual but that varies between 10-16 (usually a 3 or 4 point range). I don't think there is any aspect of "Acol" that you can rely on, other than 1♦ will be a minimum 4 card suit and 2/1 is not GF. Certainly 5 card spades, or 5 card both majors, are fairly common, and while clubs is usually 4 I wouldn't bank on it. As for Benji, it means no more than Acol with weak 2s in the majors and artificial strong 2 minors. But that doesn't matter, it is sufficient description, if you want a description. I don't think you do, other than as a possible warning of unusual bids.

XYZ is almost unheard of, NMF not common, and checkback is used but called "crowhurst", even though not as Crowhurst intended.

A few play a strong club, reducing in numbers I feel, faster than the reduction in club membership numbers. More are playing 2/1 now, but it is not common. As for what 2/1 means, I think it is scarcely better defined than Acol. I give my methods the label "2/1", but my 2-level responses to 1♣ are not GF, and 2♣ is the only GF over 1♦. I seem to be the only one in the area playing transfer responses to 1♣ (trying hard to remedy that), but I have come across the (unnamed) montreal relay. For the 2/1ers, 1NT forcing seems more common than not forcing. The 2-level opening bids are all over the place.

I don't think it matters what description you may apply to a bidding method/system. It used to matter more before the days of announcements and alerts, and I think they should be extended. I have to alert a 1♦ (eg) response, but rather than go through the motions of getting a question and giving an explanation, why can't I just announce? It's not as if I am giving partners UI, as I think they know that bid! And if they had forgotten, somehow, an alert will tell them just as much.

[blackshoe]

My take, in general, as to "defining characteristics":

1. "Standard American": 5 card majors, strong NT, "strong" (but they often don't really know what that means) 2♣, weak twos in the other three suits (occasionally a different meaning for 2♦, usually Flannery), 2/1 response promises a rebid. Jump shift responses may be strong or may be weak (one or the other, not two-way). Transfer responses to 1NT

2. "2/1": 5 card majors, strong NT, "strong" (but they often don't really know what that means) 2♣, weak twos in the other three suits (occasionally - more often than in SA - a different meaning for 2♦), 2/1 response either GF or GF unless the suit is rebid. Variant: In 1♦-2♣, the response is not GF, but does promise a rebid. Jump shift responses usually weak.

3. "Precision": 5 card majors, weak or intermediate NT (but some play it as strong, 1♣ is F1, 2♣ is natural, NF. Openings other than 1♣ (up to 2♦) are limited. 2♦ art, 3 suited.

4. "Acol": 4 card majors, weak NT, potentially weak 2/1, 2♣ strong and GF, other twos strong, but slightly weaker than 2♣.

5. "Romex": 5 cards majors, 2/1 GF unless the suit is rebid, artificial and F 1NT, 2♣ artificial and GF, 2♦ artificial, GF if opener has diamonds, weak twos in the majors, Suit openings at the one level are limited by the 1NT opening to roughly 18 HCP.

If what you play fits one of these, you're playing that system, even if you have variants elsewhere. You can play inverted minors or not, it's still SA or 2/1 or whatever. However, if you tack on RCO twos or some such in place of weak twos, you're not playing one of these systems, you're playing something else.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2014-January-15, 15:46, said:

2-way CB is quite similar to 2-way NMF except that opener can respond naturally to a 2♣ rebid instead of being forced to bid 2♦, as 2wNMF normally has it.

This difference does not apply here where NMF is not played, so the term 2-way checkback will include a number of variations.

fromageGB, on 2014-January-15, 17:01, said:

XYZ is almost unheard of, NMF not common, and checkback is used but called "crowhurst", even though not as Crowhurst intended.

I thought that in Crowhurst you gave strength information along with shape?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 20:49, said:

4. "Acol": 4 card majors, weak NT, potentially weak 2/1, 2♣ strong and GF, other twos strong, but slightly weaker than 2♣.

Acol twos are pretty rare these days. I would not push a system out from under the Acol umbrella if it included weak twos.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 22:32, said:

This difference does not apply here where NMF is not played, so the term 2-way checkback will include a number of variations.

Yeah, IMO it would be reasonable to refer to the whole shootin' match as 2-way checkback with separate names for the different variations, since it's all pretty much the same concept, but that doesn't seem to be how it's gone. I guess we could call it all the Crowhurst Complex or something, in the grand tradition of naming things after people who played something else.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2014-January-15, 17:01, said:

I don't think there is any aspect of "Acol" that you can rely on, other than 1♦ will be a minimum 4 card suit

You definitely cannot rely on this either - 5 card major Acol is typically 5533.

fromageGB, on 2014-January-15, 17:01, said:

As for Benji, it means no more than Acol with weak 2s in the majors and artificial strong 2 minors.

It is a little more than this. The 2♦ opening is specifically stronger than the 2♣ one and includes unbalanced GF hands, while the 2♣ opening covers Acol 2-type hands. The balanced ranges within these 2 openings varies considerably. When the 2♣ opening is used as the biggy, that is Reverse Benji. It is worth noting that Benji 2 bids are also very popular in France and Germany, probably even more so than the UK. SO if you ever see "Acol with SEF Twos" you can read that as identical to Benji Acol.

It is also worth noting that these terms change over time. Back in the day, Acol with a weak NT and 1♠ - 2♥ promising 5 were specifically part of Baronised Acol and not seen as Acol by the larger populace. This is similar to the idea that 2/1 automatically includes all of the add-on pieces. Systems develop and improve but if you are playing an older or simpler version that does not (to me) mean you are not playing a form of the system itself.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 22:32, said:

I thought that in Crowhurst you gave strength information along with shape?

As played here, it seems that the opener suit rebids at the 2-level are 12-14, and higher bids are 15/16. Natural apart from 2♦ (delayed support = 3 cards) and strength showing : just as you said. 2♦ means 12-14 without the ability to bid a major. However, according to Bridgeguys, Crowhurst has 2♦ as max 13, and may have 3 card major support. Also, 2♥ new suit could be 16.

Which is the real Crowhurst, I don't know. Maybe Bridgeguys has it wrong. Was Crowhurst the one who popularised the silly concept of a 12-16 1NT rebid? Maybe he liked going off in 2NT on a combined 21 count misfit.

[Zelandakh]

Crowhurst reportedly did not like opening 1NT with a small doubleton and this was the solution to the resulting rebid problem.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2014-January-16, 05:24, said:

As played here, it seems that the opener suit rebids at the 2-level are 12-14, and higher bids are 15/16. Natural apart from 2♦ (delayed support = 3 cards) and strength showing : just as you said. 2♦ means 12-14 without the ability to bid a major. However, according to Bridgeguys, Crowhurst has 2♦ as max 13, and may have 3 card major support. Also, 2♥ new suit could be 16.

Which is the real Crowhurst, I don't know. Maybe Bridgeguys has it wrong. Was Crowhurst the one who popularised the silly concept of a 12-16 1NT rebid? Maybe he liked going off in 2NT on a combined 21 count misfit.

We use it 15-bad 19, and 15-17 or 15-18 is common alongside a weak no trump. There are variants, some people bid 2N with most or all maximums, some (including us) bid at the 3 level.

Our scheme of responses: (we open the minor with 4m4M32)

1♣-1♥-1N-2♣-?

2♦ 15-16, not 3♥, not 4♠
2♥ 15-16 3♥, may have 4♠
2♠ 15-16 4234
2N 17-bad 19 3334
3♣ 17-bad 19 5♣ may have 3♥
3♦ 17-bad 19 4♦ may have 3♥
3♥ 17-bad 19 4324
3♠ 17-bad 19 4234

[MickyB]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 11:34, said:

I would say no, because lighter 2/1s are, possibly, the one thing that does define Acol.

In which case, it's questionable whether Acol with a strong NT actually exists any more. I believe that, back in the days when it was popular, a 4♠4♥ weak NT would open 1♠ and rebid 2♥ [non-forcing, even over a 2m response], otherwise light 2/1s don't work with strong NT and four-card majors.

Quote

In contrast, I think that the "2/1 System" is defined by a lot of things, such as 5-card majors, strong NT, 3 weak 2's, transfers over NT openings, NMF (or else 2-way checkback) and a number of other conventions and treatments.

I would assume these things if I agreed "2/1" with a decent pick-up on BBO; However, if oppo in an EBU event announced they were playing 2/1 before the round started, I'd only assume 5-card majors, strong NT and three weak 2s - and any of these could be overridden by saying "2/1 with a multi" or similar.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 22:35, said:

Acol twos are pretty rare these days. I would not push a system out from under the Acol umbrella if it included weak twos.

Depends where you are, "Acol with a multi" and strong 2s in the majors with a multi to cover major weak 2s and some strong options is quite common round here.