[Oceanss]

Hi all. I have recently learned basics of 2/1 (and not too well). A friend I met at BBO, very good player, true expert, is kind enough to be willing to help me improve my game. But more we go, more “clashes” between us happen, because he is an old-school and I only know “modern” approach.
Would you please help me with your answers to clarify couple of questions? Thanks in advance!


Question 1: I learned to respond to partner's opening with good 5+ and always “Support with support”.
If my partner opens 1H, and there is an overcall, as 1S or 2C, I would bid 2H with hand like ♠Qxx ♥Kxx ♦JTxx ♣xxx.
If opponents were silent, I would raise to 2H thru 1N, to show 5-7 raise.
Partner says that hand is just not good enough for any raise. Would you agree?


Question 2:

---

Options are 2H (what's range of this call?); 3H (only preemptive or LTT ?); 3S (splinter); 4H (do I need 5th trump?); 3C (limit+ hand that doesn't promise H support).
How should I evaluate this hand?
And if opponents were silent, and you played reversed Bergen raises, what would you bid?


Question 3: How good should responder's hand be to bid on 2 level after an overcall?
Auction A:

---

Does this 2H "promise" second bid? Should N bid 3H?

Auction B:

---

I read X as either p has not 5h; or if he does, he does not have 10 points; or he has very good hand with hearts and longer clubs. So when 3H bid came, I just could not understand what he had, nor what I should do there.
Responder's hand was: ♠xx ♥AKQTx ♦xx ♣Jxxx, and his argument is that 2-level bid in this kind of auctions shows an opening hand, while I thought only 10 is enough with relatively good heart suit; forcing just one round.

I hope I did not break some rule for posting several different questions in one post. Thank you for your replies.

[MrAce]

2/1 system and its rules apply when opponents are silent. When they interfere, the calls made have nothing to do with 2/1. For example

1♥-(2♣)-2♥ is not constructive.

1♥-(1♠)-1 NT is not forcing

1♥-(1♠)-2♣ is not game forcing but forcing 1 round (9+ hcp with a good suit) Unless you play negative free bids.

Basically, when opponents interfere, whether you play sayc or 2/1 or Acol or Goren, the methods used are not related to the main system you are playing.

On your Q1= 2♥ does not promise a good 2♥
On your Q2 = 2♥ does not promise another call. Responder can pass if opener raises to 3♥ for example.
On your Q3 = X and then bidding 3♥ shows 6+ cards ♥ and inability to start 2♥ previously (less than 9 hcp) unless you play negative free bids.

[apollo1201]

Hi Oceaness and welcome.

The general approach with my partner (and shared by a relatively large number of good players in my country) is that when the auction gets competitive, strength can be a little shaded. And 2/1 stops.

On question 1, esp NV vs V, I'd raise. A bare minimum, dubious defensive values and flat but it fits the 6-10. V vs NV, I'd pass it as I do not want partner to overcompete. But give me a doubleton, or more usefufl 6 HCPs and I'd bid.

On question 2 where S seems to have disappeared, the overall lack of strength and probably wasted C values would rule out any constructive bid. 4H (because of the void, it is genrally considered ok with 4 trumps only) is probably a way to shut out the opps out of their potentially losing 4S if the suit splits 5440 eg... If LHO has 6 or 7 of them, they are probably bidding anyway but partner will know what to expect from you (very little defence, long trumps).

On question 3, we agree a good 5-cd suit and 9 HCP can be enough (again, to express asap your hand). So opener who wants to go for game can't bid 3 which is passable. And on the last sequence it shows sth like a good weak two and no strong desire to play D. In all cases, I'd push to game with opener's hand. But all this depends on your agreement with partner on how weak you can be of course

[Jinksy]

MrAce, on 2016-July-22, 04:09, said:

On your Q2 = 2♥ does not promise another call. Responder can pass if opener raises to 3♥ for example.
On your Q3 = X and then bidding 3♥ shows 6+ cards ♥ and inability to start 2♥ previously (less than 9 hcp) unless you play negative free bids.

You've split Q3a and b, and skipped the actual Q2

Oceanss: On the actual Q2, I would bid 4♥. On everything else (possibly including this), I agree with Timo (MrAce).

[ggwhiz]

1. A raise when your partner knows it can look like this is a valuable tool to put pressure on their auction and you will bleed matchpoints and imp partscore swings to the majority that play this way without it.

2. 2♥ followed by 3♥ if available in my partnership. It's too strong to pre-empt, the club opening lead makes it unattractive for the 4 level and they are either always bidding a large spade fit or walking into partners trump stack.

3♦ as an upper end constructive raise by me, 3♣ limit by my partner. The club holding is not under the same threat on a free run but my partner is Aggressive. I don't mind either.

3. Ten ish or less depending on diamond support and honor location on this hand. Same reason as to bleeding results to the field if you need more.

Constructive but does not promise a second bid on my card. It often just sets up the max defense.

3♥ in flash for me. Max of 2 spades and 1 club to lose outside the red suits, leads and switches set should they outbid us and sets partner up to make the next decision with better but not foolproof accuracy.

That's the final contract. Missing a few games on perfect fits is the cost of doing business, winning at a higher frequency on the rest with an aggressive approach.

Playing with a variety of modern vs old school partners is tricky (to say the least) but can be done starting with a meta rule of underbid with this one and overbid with another. My answer to the reverse Bergen question could well be limit, constructive OR pre-emptive with certain casual partners.

[rhm]

All your questions have nothing to do with 2/1 because 2/1 does not treat them and different to standard natural systems.

Question 1:
I agree with your partner, but only just and many would disagree. In my opinion there has to be a lower limit for a single raise.
Where you put this limit is a matter of hand evaluation, but it is not only a matter of points.
3334 is poor support and the poorer your support is the less urgency is there to stretch. If I held Qxx support in a 4315 hand and no other honor I would raise.

Question 2:
4♥. No second choice. That's how real support looks like.

Question 3A:
2/1 does not apply after intervention. I would raise to 3♥ and would not consider it forcing. 3♦ would not occur to me.

Question 3B:
In standard partner shows a hand not strong enough to bid 2♥ immediately. He had enough to bid 2♥, which is forcing in standard but not game forcing and it does not promise a second bid.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

Q1
(Opps passing) I agree with you and suspect your partner might have no qualms here. Forcing NT/next step allows you to have 2 ways to bid 2♥ so you can happily have different bids for different strengths.
(Opps bidding 2♣) I agree with your partner. If you have only one bid, playing it as wide ranging puts too much strain on it.

The answer is of course to have two ways to bid 2♥ after interference. I prefer transfers, starting with X, so 2♦ being a "transfer to hearts" is the full strength raise, and a direct 2♥ is the weaker version. You can then keep the same strengths that you use without interference. With another partner I play no transfers, but X is the strong raise to 2♥ and 2♥ is again weaker.

Q2
For me this is not strong enough for a splinter, and as I would bid 4♥ over opps 3♠ I bid 4♥ now without much thought.

Q3A
While 2♥ is forcing, in my view that does not apply after intervention, as responder has another bid anyway. But 3♥ is a good bid now, a voluntary raise.

Q3B
I can understand partner's thoughts. An initial 2♥ forces you to the 3-level, so playing as it as an opening hand is a simple rule that will not go far wrong. A 3♥ now must be a 5 card suit and almost opening so with your hand 4♥ is easy.
Of course, if an initial 2♥ can be this weak, then that is playable too. Your partner would probably bid this hand 2♥ himself if your suit was spades and you were not forced to the 3-level.

(If you had decided to play transfers after overcalls, then transfers stop at 2-opener-suit, so again 2♥ is natural and forcing.)

[johnu]

Oceanss, on 2016-July-22, 03:56, said:

If my partner opens 1H, and there is an overcall, as 1S or 2C, I would bid 2H with hand like ♠Qxx ♥Kxx ♦JTxx ♣xxx.
If opponents were silent, I would raise to 2H thru 1N, to show 5-7 raise.
Partner says that hand is just not good enough for any raise. Would you agree?

Assuming partner is really an expert (and the jury is out on that question), he's not just old school, he may be from the Jurassic school. And even in Jurassic days this should have been a raise.

[Oceanss]

I thanked all and I do appreciate all the answers here & hope for some more.

johnu, on 2016-July-22, 15:56, said:

Yet, all that speak as this johnu are not in any meaning welcomed or helpful

[rmnka447]

Q1 - I'd raise to 2 ♥ with the given hand. You may get nailed, but the modern tendency is to raise with support. The raise takes up bidding space and may make it more difficult for the opponents to find their best spot. I agree that without interference a forcing 1 NT followed by 2 ♥ is best. After an overcall, you have some other bids (3 ♣ cue) to start showing stronger raises, so most players make direct raises a little more aggressively.

Q2 - Systematically, I'd probably make a 3 ♥ with most of my partners as a preemptive raise with 4 ♥ per our agreements. I think the 4 ♥ bid suggested by many of the posters is very imaginative and probably better, don't know I'd find it at the table though.

Q3A - I'd be expecting a little more with a 2 level free bid over an overcall -- more like 11-12+. The problem is that you may be driving partner to the 3 level if no fit exists for your suit. No matter what the strength it should show at least a good 5+ card suit. So with the given opening hand, It's right to raise to 3 ♥.

Q3B - Your analysis is right, bidding 3 ♥ after making a negative double shows less than the values for a direct free bid of 2 ♥. So here I'd pass expecting partner to have somewhere between 8-10 and probably 6 ♥. Note that responder has another possible call after 2 ♣ -- Pass. Pass followed by a ♥ bid if opener makes a reopening double shows ♥ length and an even weaker hand.

[Vampyr]

Oceanss, on 2016-July-22, 20:58, said:

I thanked all and I do appreciate all the answers here & hope for some more.

Yet, all that speak as this johnu are not in any meaning welcomed or helpful

So how does a potential respondent determine whether or not you want to hear their opinion.

[The_Badger]

Oceanss, on 2016-July-22, 03:56, said:

Hi all. I have recently learned basics of 2/1 (and not too well). A friend I met at BBO, very good player, true expert, is kind enough to be willing to help me improve my game. But more we go, more “clashes” between us happen, because he is an old-school and I only know “modern” approach.
Would you please help me with your answers to clarify couple of questions? Thanks in advance!

hi Oceanss,

When Johnu says: Assuming partner is really an expert (and the jury is out on that question), he's not just old school, he may be from the Jurassic school. And even in Jurassic days this should have been a raise.

You reply: Yet, all that speak as this johnu are not in any meaning welcomed or helpful

And Vampyr says: So how does a potential respondent determine whether or not you want to hear their opinion?

I will add, as a valid question, how do you know that this friend you met on BBO, a very good player, a true expert, is indeed that? I am not trying to be confrontational, please believe me, but trying to clarify a point here.

You say, "But more we go, more "clashes" between us happen, etc..." Mmmm...

I wonder if he a very experienced card player, but has not keep up with modern constructive bidding theory, or the intricacies of certain bids, and is actually stifling you with his outdated "knowledge".

The reason I say this as I find many people on BBO who say they are "expert" or "advanced", and on the surface they look exactly that, with a multitude of conventions on their profile, but when you see them bid opposite you and put down dummy, you think "Why didn't you bid so-and-so, or don't you know fourth suit forcing is forcing to game, etc. etc."

The point I'm making is that maybe he is undermining, not necessarily deliberately, your natural confidence and enthusiasm for the game, and that's why you have posted these hands on the forum as you are not sure yourself if this 'bridge relationship' is actually working.

I'm just hope you're not paying him money for his 'advice', except if he is a certified player where you can actually verify his achievements and experience.

[Oceanss]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-23, 08:21, said:

I will add, as a valid question, how do you know that this friend you met on BBO, a very good player, a true expert, is indeed that? I am not trying to be confrontational, please believe me, but trying to clarify a point here.
....
The point I'm making is that maybe he is undermining, not necessarily deliberately, your natural confidence and enthusiasm for the game, and that's why you have posted these hands on the forum as you are not sure yourself if this 'bridge relationship' is actually working.

All questions you raised are more than just valid and fair, and without insulting anyone. You even sound as with a genuine concern for a new player, I thank you
Truth is we all meet so many fake experts at bbo. This player just plays so very well, it's pure pleasure watching him play, nm whom he pards. Even tho bboskil is long inactive, rates him 2369; I haven't seen many with that rating.
He is an elderly person, that likely learned bridge 50+ years ago, retired from live bridge some 15+ years ago; and now only plays for distraction at bbo. So, quite the contrary, his profile is not full of conventions, and most new ones he does not even want to discuss. He insists, for my sake, to “unlearn” some modern tendencies as opening trash (which I was very guilty of), be disciplined with preempts, among other things. He talks of quick and playing tricks, Rules 2 and 3, solid openers, 26 pts needed for major game etc. Maybe some would think this as very intolerant, I just read it as “good old school”, which I am unfamiliar with.
I posted these question, because I am very willing to try different approach. I can open solid and quit responding with 5 pts only, but I feel unable to accept NOT TO raise with 6 pts + support as in hand 1 for example. So I needed to check how other people think. Up there were different answers to that question1, not all as “i raise no matter what” which was how I thought, and they made me think, which was the point of the whole post.
He gives me advices for no charge at all, but if I come to conclusion that our “clashes” and differences in systems or approach in general are just too big, I do not want to waste his time, and abuse his good will. It just would be unfair and disrespectful.

[Caitlynne]

Question 1

I think your partner is so wrong that I feel that you MUST change your opinion that your partner is even a good player (let alone a "true expert").

Yes, you have marginal values, but this means you are faced with the prospect of telling your story now or forever keeping your mouth shut. Which will it be? Well, you have an awfully important message to tell - you have support for partner's major - and you can tell it at the 2 level which is about as economically as you can tell that message under the rules of the game. Thus, you should raise. If you were playing with me, I would be very angry with you for failing to raise.

By the way, I do not particularly like the approach of going through (a forcing) 1NT to show a 3 card raise with less than constructive values (e.g., 5-7 points). It is theoretically problematic for several reasons - but that is a topic for another rather long essay.

Question 2

I think the "textbook" bid is a preemptive raise to 3H. What is paramount here is stopping the opponents from finding their spade fit. For that reason, you might choose to push with 4H despite lacking a fifth heart card. (I am not advocating that, but rather just noting that it is a reasonable decision.)

Notice that your hand has some defense as you have strong club values sitting behind whatever length and strength the opponents have in clubs. So that is the counter argument against preempting aggressively.

Fy the way, the 3S splinter bid is absolutely positively a TERRIBLE choice! Not only is your hand far too weak for a game forcing raise, but it would very likely help the opponents find their spade fit.

If West had passed instead of overcalling 2C, I would raise to 3H (weak/preemptive in the Bergen style) or maybe even 4H. What I would not do is make a constructive 4 card raise inasmuch as there is only one likely cover card (the King of clubs) among my assets. Constructive raises should always have at least two (potential) cover cards. Jacks are never considered cover cards.

Question 3

Auction A. Yes, unless you are playing negative free bids there, 2H promises another bid unless partner raises hearts. Regardless, opener must show his/her 3 card heart support. Doing so will eliminate many potential problems for partner when partner is strong. Support with support!!!

Auction B. First off, the negative Dbl means that South is stuck for a bid but wants to bid. In this situation, South will nearly always have at least 4 hearts and, in general, South will not have 5+ hearts with enough strength to bid 2H (generally a good 11+ HCP). So, given this, your 3D bid is quite reasonable (though I would like to be playing Lebensohl – aka Good/Bad 2NT – here). So is your partner’s 3H bid. Since you have shown a good hand with a good 6 or 7 card suit, partner should never bid hearts for the first time at the THREE LEVEL as an escape from diamonds; rather, 3H should be forward going - showing a good 5 card suit, a tolerance for diamonds, and slightly less than enough to have bid 2H at his/her first turn. It asks for a raise to game with 3 card support and for some other descriptive bid otherwise (the default being a retreat to 4D). And this is exactly what partner has.

[akwoo]

What's your ultimate bridge goal?

Are you aiming to be good enough to reliably beat up on average players, or are you aiming to be competitive on a regional/national level?

Conservative bidding (and play) can be very successful against average players. You play the cards better, and they make plenty of unforced errors for you to capitalize on.

On the other hand, if you're up against players that don't make too many unforced errors, you need ways of getting them to trip up. Otherwise you just get eaten alive in competitive situations where your opponents don't have to guess but your teammates (or a significant part of the field) do.

[Stephen Tu]

Caitlynne, on 2016-July-23, 15:29, said:

Question 1

I think your partner is so wrong that I feel that you MUST change your opinion that your partner is even a good player (let alone a "true expert").

Yes, you have marginal values, but this means you are faced with the prospect of telling your story now or forever keeping your mouth shut. Which will it be? Well, you have an awfully important message to tell - you have support for partner's major - and you can tell it at the 2 level which is about as economically as you can tell that message under the rules of the game. Thus, you should raise. If you were playing with me, I would be very angry with you for failing to raise.

By the way, I do not particularly like the approach of going through (a forcing) 1NT to show a 3 card raise with less than constructive values (e.g., 5-7 points). It is theoretically problematic for several reasons - but that is a topic for another rather long essay.

I don't think you have to be so adamant here. The hand is pretty bad, 4333 with low ODR. You have to draw the line somewhere. Do you still raise without the T of diamonds? J of diamonds? Q of S? Raising will get your side overboard some percentage of the time. Not raising will leave your side underbid some percentage also. Many times it won't affect things one way or another (e.g. you raise opps just compete higher and make it, or if you pass they raise anyway, or you pass, partner doubles then you support). The lighter you raise the wider a range you have. This gives partner more chance to go wrong when he has a marginal game try, you go down in 3 when if you had passed it goes p-p-x-p-2h making 2. OTOH failure to raise hurts if partner has a hand that is good enough to blast game and it makes, or partner has a hand to bid 3 over their partial which makes but can't if you didn't show support. But if partner expects you to have a bit more (which you will on average, clearly this has to be at least somewhere near the bottom of our range if it's a raise), he's also going to blast game and go down some percentage of the time when passing would have led you to going plus lower. Or may compete for the partial when defending would have been better. I'd have to see some sims to see which scenarios really are more likely. It might well vary depending on form of scoring and vulnerability.

I personally raise, but if partner thought it was a pass I wouldn't feel so strongly about it and just shrug it off no matter what the result was. If the Q of spades were the Q of hearts instead I'd be more insistent on raising.

As for the forcing NT with flat 6, again this will have some mix of good results and bad results. Personally I prefer f1nt first with 4-6 rather than 5-7, raising with 7+, i.e. semi-constructive direct raises as in the "Washington Standard" book, but I don't feel super strongly about it.

Quote

Auction A. Yes, unless you are playing negative free bids there, 2H promises another bid unless partner raises hearts.

I think free bid in competition not promising another bid if partner raises, rebids their first suit, or bids NT (new suit by partner F1) is more common than raise-only-NF over the free bid.

[jogs]

Oceanss, on 2016-July-22, 03:56, said:

Question 2:

---

Options are 2H (what's range of this call?); 3H (only preemptive or LTT ?); 3S (splinter); 4H (do I need 5th trump?); 3C (limit+ hand that doesn't promise H support).
How should I evaluate this hand?
And if opponents were silent, and you played reversed Bergen raises, what would you bid?

This hand is a problem for everyone. The value of your hand is dependent of your partner's spades. If you are playing Flannery this hand is marginally better than if you aren't playing Flannery. I think 2♥ is a minor underbid. 3♥ may be right. 4♥ is likely an overbid. My splinters show a singleton and only a singleton. I hate both 2♣ and 2♦ though those bids may work out well.

[The_Badger]

Hi Oceanss,

Thanks for your reply I admit I was concerned about your situation, but good to know that he is genuine. But Akwoo's post really sums up the predicament you're in perfectly.

akwoo, on 2016-July-23, 16:34, said:

What's your ultimate bridge goal?

Are you aiming to be good enough to reliably beat up on average players, or are you aiming to be competitive on a regional/national level?

Conservative bidding (and play) can be very successful against average players. You play the cards better, and they make plenty of unforced errors for you to capitalize on.

On the other hand, if you're up against players that don't make too many unforced errors, you need ways of getting them to trip up. Otherwise you just get eaten alive in competitive situations where your opponents don't have to guess but your teammates (or a significant part of the field) do.

The only thing I can add is that I get the feeling that you enjoy playing with this player. If so, be prepared to have two different bridge heads. One where he is playing with you: the solid, reliable, disciplined approach, based on his experience; and a different one when playing with other players: a bit more feisty and competitive. There's nothing wrong with that. All partners are different and you sometimes have to adjust your game according to their personality.

Just as an extra consideration, and this is my personal opinion only, I feel that you have to be upfront with him and show him the replies to your post (if he hasn't seen them already). It's only fair. You're questioning what he's telling you in the context of the modern game, not undermining his considerable experience that you already know.

Can you imagine Charles Goren and Zia Mahmood having a discussion about bridge? They wouldn't stop disagreeing! But Charles Goren might accept that bridge has evolved over the years to a point unrecognisable from his day. And that's it: bridge evolves, bridge changes. I wonder what Charles Goren would make of Fantunes?

Good luck.

[msjennifer]

My answers:
Q1. ---Agree with your partners argument.
Q2-----Four Heart.
Q3------A) Three Heart
B) Four Heart
No new explanation needed for any.

[ggwhiz]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-24, 01:30, said:

I wonder what Charles Goren would make of Fantunes?

Many years ago a friend of mine played with an old timer returning to tournament bridge. When they got to negative doubles, filling out a card the guy said "no".

He asked him about his previous playing career and the guy said:

I first had a really good partner but he moved to Toronto. Sami Kehela
Then I was doing really well with my next partner but wouldn't you know it, he moved to San Francisco. Peter Pender

My friend said: Negative doubles are overrated anyway.

They play casually to this day and it wasn't that long until I played against "the guy" and he was playing 10-12 notrumps with a card like a chinese menu.