[jillybean]

I'm in New Zealand at the moment. While there are many expert players in this little country, the local club has many players who are stuck playing ACOL, counting points, losing trick count and taking on odd ball conventions such as CRO http://www.redcliffe...RO%20Gerber.pdf

There are a couple of players I have been playing with who are ready to move to the dark side, and others who are interested.
If I remember when I was taught "SAYC", I was so hung up on rules and points and trying to master a system that had so many deficits, I felt I couldn't take on another system until I had mastered "SAYC". These players are in the same rut. Getting out of the system, point counting and rules approach made the game so much more interesting, exciting and successful.

Most of the players are not playing pure ACOL, they open 5 card majors and play a strong NT.

I think it would be best to introduce 2/1 but I'm interested to hear other opinions?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 14:21, said:

I'm in New Zealand at the moment. While there are many expert players in this little country, the local club has many players who are stuck playing ACOL, counting points, losing trick count and taking on odd ball conventions such as CRO http://www.redcliffe...RO%20Gerber.pdf

There are a couple of players I have been playing with who are ready to move to the dark side, and others who are interested.
If I remember when I was taught "SAYC", I was so hung up on rules and points and trying to master a system that had so many deficits, I felt I couldn't take on another system until I had mastered "SAYC". These players are in the same rut. Getting out of the system, point counting and rules approach made the game so much more interesting, exciting and successful.

Most of the players are not playing pure ACOL, they open 5 card majors and play a strong NT.

I think it would be best to introduce 2/1 but I'm interested to hear other opinions?

2/1 is, imo, a very good idea. The nice thing is that, unlike say a big club system or old-fashioned 4 card major Acol, they don’t need to change their opening bids at all.

They do need to learn forcing or semi-forcing 1N, and I’d stay away from the 2C response being either game force or a 3 card major raise. In fact, I’d stay away from Bergen, etc, until they’re comfortable with the 2/1 concept.

Good luck



Oh.....and don’t teach them to respond 1S on xxx🤪

[jillybean]

I am focusing on the 1nt forcing bid which I think is the biggest shift for players.
I introduce it as showing 1 of 3 hand types;

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)
2. A 3 card (10-11 ish) raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 3M)
3. A weak hand wanting to play in their own suit (1M 1nt 2m pass/correct)

A number of players are using "Bergen" but still play 1M 3M as invitational and other oddities.

I had a type 3 hand the other day. We were in a competitive auction after 1M (P) 1nt (X), my partner passed my 3m bid and we played in the optimal contract.
A big plus for us made all the more sweet by silencing the people who has been telling me my partner needed to master Basic Acol before learning new stuff.

mikeh, on 2021-March-27, 14:39, said:

Oh.....and don’t teach them to respond 1S on xxx🤪

I'll try to remember.

[LBengtsson]

the dark side is ACOL it must be a islands thing, new zealand, australia, british. does any other country play this system? most winning bridge countries play 5M, and have done before I were born.

if they are opening 5M, 15-17Nt then its not ACOL, more similar to SAYC.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2021-March-27, 14:39, said:

2/1 is, imo, a very good idea. The nice thing is that, unlike say a big club system or old-fashioned 4 card major Acol, they don’t need to change their opening bids at all.

They do need to learn forcing or semi-forcing 1N, and I’d stay away from the 2C response being either game force or a 3 card major raise. In fact, I’d stay away from Bergen, etc, until they’re comfortable with the 2/1 concept.

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 15:26, said:

I am focusing on the 1nt forcing bid which I think is the biggest shift for players.
I introduce it as showing 1 of 3 hand types;

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)
2. A 3 card (10-11 ish) raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 3M)
3. A weak hand wanting to play in their own suit (1M 1nt 2m pass/correct)

A number of players are using "Bergen" but still play 1M 3M as invitational and other oddities.

I had a similar situation a couple of years ago with my provincial club playing mainly Italian 4-card majors (luckily with strong NT and sound natural logic) or home-grown "intuitive" extensions of this to 5-card majors, plus strong club systems with canape'. For some reason they weren't competing well

I agree that a direct transition to 2/1 is the way to go, but I would seek to chart out a clear system simple enough for most to play effectively.
For me that means 1NT semi-forcing, stay away from Bergen or similar, all 2/1 bids including 1♦ 2♣ unconditionally game forcing.
I don't agree that 1M-1NT is anywhere near the biggest shift, but then I would never choose to teach it as fully forcing or include any kind of raise.
The real challenge in my experience is teaching them to decide early whether to commit or not to an unconditional game force and then to respect it and take full advantage.
The next is to convince them that LoTT more or less works and that 1M 3M is playable with weakness, at which point 1M-2N starts to make sense.

[jillybean]

Thanks, I have never played a semi-forcing 1nt/1M by an unpassed hand in a 2/1 system.
How does it work?

[mycroft]

You're allowed to pass a hand that, opposite a 3-card limit raise, wants to play 1NT.

Yes, I know, that's not really helpful - especially teaching new forcing NT players who haven't been able to learn that judgement yet. It does help if you open 5M332 quacky 11s though...

[TylerE]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 15:26, said:

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)

Please no. This is brain damage that doesn't need to be passed on to another generation.

[Douglas43]

Maybe you should start by asking them what is most important to them? Are they serious competitive players who want to be the best they can? Or are they primarily social players who are only prepared to put in so much work?

Adopting a new system has an adjustment cost, and can take a toll on memory. It may be better to play a sub-optimal system well than an optimal system poorly.

Let us assume that 2/1 is indeed currently the world's best bidding system. And I think that particularly at teams of 4, played by good players who are thoroughly comfortable with the system, it probably is. Even in the UK, when you look at England / Scotland / Wales international teams, you will see that most pairs are on 2/1.

The Isle of Man gets to play every four years in a Commonwealth teams event, which is good for us as we get a chance to be duffed up by proper internationals. A couple of years prior to the Gold Coast, the pair who had been our most successful in Glasgow switched to 2/1, They are both friends of mine and won't mind me saying that they had a terribly disappointing event. One reason was that, despite them putting in a lot of work on 2/1, their opponents knew their system inside out; so they were "taking coals to Newcastle"*. Meanwhile our Acol pairs had the advantage of the randomising effect of playing contracts on different sequences and possibly the other way up, which is what you want as an underdog, and of opponents occasionally thinking "WTF?" (Was That Forcing?).

I would say the same if you were proposing to convert them to playing 4cM and 12-14 NT.



* In the 19th century Newcastle-upon-Tyne was a significant port for sending coal to other parts of the UK.

[the hog]

If I lived in New Zealand, 2/1 is one of the last systems I would learn or teach. Jilly you are talking about the home of Symmetric Relay and you want to teach these players a pretty ordinary system? Teach them Precision instead.

[the hog]

Oh Jilly, maybe you should learn Acol. It is a hugely fun system and can be very effective.

[nullve]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 15:26, said:

I am focusing on the 1nt forcing bid which I think is the biggest shift for players.
I introduce it as showing 1 of 3 hand types;

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)
2. A 3 card (10-11 ish) raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 3M)
3. A weak hand wanting to play in their own suit (1M 1nt 2m pass/correct)

1. 1M-1N; 2m-2M contains, but does not exclusively show, the weak raise (~ 5-7 total* points, 3(+) M). Responder may also be showing preference with ~ 5-9 hcp and 2M3-C, even so-called false preference with ~ 8-9 hcp and 2M4C. 1M-2M is a raise with ~ 8-10 total* points.
2. More precisely, Responder is showing ~ 11-12 total* points and 3 M.
3. 1M-1N; 2m-2R(R<M) needs to be used more flexibly than this now that 2m can be on a 3c suit (or even doubleton in the case 1♥-1N; 2♣)

You forgot that the most common hand type, which is

(new) 3. ~ 5-(bad)12 hcp (good enough for a positive response, not quite good enough for a GF 2/1 response), 2- M and if M=♥ then 3- S spades.

* Here total points include support points.

[nullve]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 15:26, said:

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)

TylerE, on 2021-March-28, 01:07, said:

Please no. This is brain damage that doesn't need to be passed on to another generation.

Again, the weak raise (~ 5-7 total points (not necessarily 5-7 hcp)) is only included in 1M-1N; 2m-2M. And the constructive raise shows ~ 8-10 total points (and not necessarily 8-10 hcp).

[DavidKok]

I fully agree with the earlier comments recommending 2/1. I think from a system design perspective it has hit an incredible sweet spot in the tradeoff between simplicity and effectiveness.

I'm personally not a fan of sound simple raises, but it hardly makes or breaks the system. Although I would add that if you are going to teach this to others it does put additional strain on learning the methods. I would leave it out.

As always I strongly recommend Larry Cohen's website. His bridge knowledge and presentation skill are both world class, and he asks and answers precisely the questions beginner 2/1 players have. And all for free too, in the learning center!

Lastly some discussion on system consideration:
In 2/1 a two over one response is (obviously) game forcing. I think one of the best questions to ask when deciding on a flavour of 2/1 with your partner is "how do we raise a major suit opening?". There are a few different possible structures, and these essentially nail down most of the 2/1 system.

• Direct raise 'simple' (6-9), limit raise through 1NT (both forcing and semiforcing is fine) then jumping to 3M, game forcing either through a delayed 2/1 auction (bid your second suit first) or Jacoby 2NT if you have a balanced hand.
  
• Direct raise 'constructive' (8-11 or so), simple raise through 1NT (this works better with a forcing 1NT, and not so much with a semiforcing 1NT) then 2M which can be false preference with only 2, game forcing same as above.
  
• From the previous century: direct raise simple, direct double raise limit, 2/1 delayed raise or Jacoby 2NT for GF hands.
  
• From a strange epoch in the previous century: direct raise simple, limit raise through 1NT, direct double raise GF splinter, Jacoby 2NT GF no-splinter.
  
• (Do not try this at home, this is what I personally play) direct raise simple, limit raise with 2NT, game forcing with a delayed 2/1 auction where 2♣ does not promise a real suit.

In addition of that a large number of players introduce Bergen raises (3♣ 6-9 with 4(+) support, 3♦ 9-11 with 4(+) support, the overlap is not a typing error) so that the above options guarantee exactly 3 card support. Modern expert standard is to forego Bergen raises (they give opponents an easy opportunity to make a takeout double or lead-directing bid for your otherwise fine sharp games or 3M partscores) and play the direct jump to 3m as a NF natural bid, 9-11 points, typically a good 6-card suit and probing for 3NT. These hands would otherwise have to be bid with a 1NT response, which can be awkward.
I think most of these are very playable. Personally I would recommend the very first option without Bergen Raises for learning the 2/1 system - it is simple and effective. As you can see limit raises are a bit of a sore spot in 2/1, but it's not much worse than standard. But maybe it is not surprising I like that option - after all that is how Larry teaches 2/1, and how I was taught it initially.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 15:26, said:

I am focusing on the 1nt forcing bid which I think is the biggest shift for players.
I introduce it as showing 1 of 3 hand types;

1. A weak raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 2M). 1M:2M constructive (8-10)
2. A 3 card (10-11 ish) raise in partners Major. (1M 1nt 2m 3M)
3. A weak hand wanting to play in their own suit (1M 1nt 2m pass/correct)

A number of players are using "Bergen" but still play 1M 3M as invitational and other oddities.

I had a type 3 hand the other day. We were in a competitive auction after 1M (P) 1nt (X), my partner passed my 3m bid and we played in the optimal contract.
A big plus for us made all the more sweet by silencing the people who has been telling me my partner needed to master Basic Acol before learning new stuff.


I'll try to remember.

The forcing 1N is not as limited as you suggest, unless you consider something like xx AQJxxx Kxx xx a ‘weak’ hand.

Now, there are ways to distinguish between non-invitational and invitational hands. Thus, in one partnership I play that 1S 3D is an invitational hand with long hearts (using 3H as a 4 card limit raise of spades), but that’s not the sort of thin* you want to be teaching players learning 2/1.

I think you have to be upfront with your students in saying that the forcing notrump response is the most difficult part if 2/1. The strongest part is the ability to create an immediate gf by way of the 2/1 response....and they have to learn how to use the bidding space so created. The corollary is that the 1N response now includes a much wider range of hands than they ever previously held for 1N.

BART is a powerful device for sorting out various strengths for responder, but again it’s probably too much to teach at the outset (plus I play two very different versions of BART, and I know there are others, so you’d need to decide which version to teach). I’d warn them that all systems have hand types with which the system struggles, and 2/1 is no exception. There are ways to lessen the problems, but you’re going to teach that only (if at all) after they get comfortable with the basics.

Or you could just say that jumpshifts into 3x, where x is lower than partner’s opening suit show roughly 10-12 with a good 6 card suit and (if opener bid 1M) fewer than 3 cards in opener’s suit. That takes a huge strain off of 1N, at the cost of losing other uses for the jumpshift.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2021-March-28, 08:45, said:

BART is a powerful device for sorting out various strengths for responder, but again it’s probably too much to teach at the outset (plus I play two very different versions of BART, and I know there are others, so you’d need to decide which version to teach). I’d warn them that all systems have hand types with which the system struggles, and 2/1 is no exception. There are ways to lessen the problems, but you’re going to teach that only (if at all) after they get comfortable with the basics.

I always thought that if you wish to delve into BART and LISA it is worth looking at Gazzilli as an alternative. I don't really know which choice gives more bang for the buck (or which choice gives more bang, or costs more bucks). The main message is that these are optional additions improving an awkward situation in standard 2/1, but the system functions just fine without. I do not consider any of these part of an introduction level explanation of 2/1.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, there is some interesting content I will consider for my own game, I will share the link to Larry Cohen's site.

Of course I am not converting the entire bridge club to 2/1, there is a handful of serious players who are interested in learning.
There are others who are playing 5 card Majors who likely won't come over to the dark side but are interested in some tune ups such as
1M 2M 3M is not the only way to make a game try. And then there are the die-hard ACOL players such as my almost 90 year old parents, whom when I ask why are they playing 2C 20-21 and 2D 22+ say "because that is the system".

I always start by saying, there are many different ways to play this game, the important thing is to agree with your partner.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-March-28, 08:45, said:

The forcing 1N is not as limited as you suggest, unless you consider something like xx AQJxxx Kxx xx a ‘weak’ hand.

Now, there are ways to distinguish between non-invitational and invitational hands. Thus, in one partnership I play that 1S 3D is an invitational hand with long hearts (using 3H as a 4 card limit raise of spades), but that’s not the sort of thin* you want to be teaching players learning 2/1.

I think you have to be upfront with your students in saying that the forcing notrump response is the most difficult part if 2/1. The strongest part is the ability to create an immediate gf by way of the 2/1 response....and they have to learn how to use the bidding space so created. The corollary is that the 1N response now includes a much wider range of hands than they ever previously held for 1N.

BART is a powerful device for sorting out various strengths for responder, but again it’s probably too much to teach at the outset (plus I play two very different versions of BART, and I know there are others, so you’d need to decide which version to teach). I’d warn them that all systems have hand types with which the system struggles, and 2/1 is no exception. There are ways to lessen the problems, but you’re going to teach that only (if at all) after they get comfortable with the basics.

Or you could just say that jumpshifts into 3x, where x is lower than partner’s opening suit show roughly 10-12 with a good 6 card suit and (if opener bid 1M) fewer than 3 cards in opener’s suit. That takes a huge strain off of 1N, at the cost of losing other uses for the jumpshift.

Yes, using the bidding space is critical and is I think, why I love 2/1. These players tend to splinter or bounce into 4C (CRO), even with a void.
I need to keep it fairly simple, for their sake as much as I don't want to be trying to convey something I'm not comfortable with.

I like your jumpshift approach. I have more or less removed JS from my system but this looks like a great use of it.

[Zelandakh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-28, 09:09, said:

I like your jumpshift approach. I have more or less removed JS from my system but this looks like a great use of it.

The biggest advocate of invitational jump shifts on BBF was always Justin. When the 2 best players in a group are both suggesting the same thing, it is generally a good idea to look into it seriously; especially if you are not using the bidding sequence for anything else (such as Bergen).

[jillybean]

Update; A couple of the newer players here who "needed to learn the basic ACOL system" are now rocking it and achieving 60% games. Regardless of the results, there is still push back from players who think 2/1 is complicated with "no benefit".

Of course it's not 2/1 per se, it's the basic concepts of games tries, opener's rebids, cue bidding, co-operative bidding that has improved their game, and is surely transferable to any system.