2-Over-1 ForcingContents:
Raising Opener's Major Non 2/1 Responses to Partner's Opening Bid Forcing 1NT, continuations 2/1, continuation - after 1-(P)-2//-(P) Another Idea Problems with 2/1 IntroductionTo really get a good understanding of 2/1, see Marty Bergen's articles in ACBL's Bridge Bulletin,
In our web pages,
means a Diamond or a Club bid. 2-Over-1 Forcing ("2/1") is a convention with the following specifications:
Since a 2/1 bid forces a partnership to game, responder should have a hand which could make game opposite partner's opening bid. This would ideally be a responding hand with 13+ HCP, although a highly distributional hand could have fewer HCP. For example, in the March 2021 Bridge Bulletin, p. 63, 1 is opened and we are told to respond 2 with
In the Aug.2022 Bulletin, p.57, Bergen says to bid 2 over 1 with T3 62 T97 AKQJT4 (only 10 HCP) and says "Force to game and hope for the best." Conforming 2/1 auctions include 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2.
The only other essential part of 2/1 is the Forcing 1NT over 1 (but not over 1). Forcing 1NT is a separate convention used with 2/1. In fact, some people play 2/1 using Semi-Forcing 1NT. That is the extent of the 2/1 Forcing convention. To the bids shown in this document are also available additional (and separate) conventions such as limit raises, Inverted Minors, Jacoby 2NT, 4th Suit Forcing, etc. For a discussion of why 2/1 is not a "system," click here Although 2-Over-1 Forcing is usually just called 2/1, it should not be confused with a SAYC 2/1 bid which can be made with 10-12 points. If, for example, you are a passed hand and respond 2 to partner's 1, you have bid 2/1, but you are not playing the 2/1 Convention. You are promising as few as 10 HCP. In the rest of this document, a reference to 2/1 is meant to be 2/1 Forcing and not the 10-12 point 2/1. Although sometimes called Game Forcing, 2/1 is often played as forcing only as far as the 4 level, meaning that 4 can be passed out. It also can optionally be played that if a player makes a weak response such as a simple rebid of his suit, responder can pass. This should not be confused with a simple raise of partner's suit once the 2/1 GF has been established. For example, after 1-2, 2-3, opener cannot pass, no matter how bad his hand, because there is no limit on what responder may have. The whole point of 2/1 is to establish a game force at a low level, so a simple raise is actually a stronger response than a jump to game. When this bidding took place in a tournament and opener passed, he ended up in 3 making 7. Playing 2/1 Game Forcing clarifies the bidding early for game-strength hands without having to worry about opener passing out one of your bids short of game, but it means that you cannot make a 2-level response with just an invitational hand. For this reason, Forcing Notrump is usually played with 2-Over-1. This requires opener to bid again so that responder can clarify his hand when weak. Some play Semi-Forcing Notrump, where opener can pass with a balanced minimum hand. Raising Opener's Major
With 3 trumps, not 4-3-3-3 shape, opener rebidding on the 2 level and... With 4+ trumps and... Never make a 2/1 response with 4-card support for opener's major.
Non 2/1 Responses to Partner's Opening Bid
If opener bids 1 and responder bids 1, 2/1 is off since the 1 bid can be made with anything from 6 points up and thus there is no game force. For this reason, Larry Cohen recommends that if responder has 4 Spades and 4+ Clubs or Diamonds and 13+ points, he should bid the minor to establish a 2/1 game force; otherwise, just bid 1. However, in the Sept. 2018 Bridge Bulletin, p. 39, #7, with the hand KT87 QJ86 K A742, in response to an opening bid of 1, everyone bid 1, not 2. No explanation was given. In the April 2022 Bridge Bulletin, p. 43, #3, has the hand T983 Q83 K AJT75 and 7 of the 15 experts bid 1N over 1 rather than 1 with the 10 high spade suit. Also, they all had in mind making a 3-card limit raise by jumping to 3 next even though the KD is stiff and not really worth 3 HCP. In the July, 2022, Bridge Bulletin, p.57, the hand J642 5 AJT976 53, is too weak to bid 2, and if 1 is bid and opener bids 2, then a bid of 2 would be Fourth Suit Forcing. The only alternative appears to be a bid of 1N, then a 2 bid over 2 would not be FSF. However, with only 6 HCP, the usual alternative after opener has bid 2 suits is to either pass the 2nd suit or correct to the 1st one. However, in the article, Marty Bergen says that bidding 2 over 2 is a weak bid showing long diamonds. He goes on to say that if opener rebids hearts, it will mean he has 6 of them, so responder can then pass. Other experts say that in this sequence, opener may sometimes rebid his opening major with just five cards and a minimum, meaning that you could end up in a 5-1 fit. Still this risk seems no worse than the alternatives and often opener will have the six-card suit. 3 Artificial Game Force: In the Feb.2017 Bridge Bulletin, p.37, The Bidding Box, both pairs playing 2/1 had KT643 A8 KQ7 AT9 and bid them the same: 1-1, 2-3 . Some people play that 2/1 is only on over 1 of a major, but if you play that it is on over 1 too, then the 3 artificial game force could also be used over 1-1, 2 and over 1-1, 2/. The 3 bid above was made with a 5-card spade suit, but at the 2016 Reisinger, Bramley-Hamman had bidding that went like this 1-1, 1-3 which was noted as "game force, 4 spades". The Marty Bergen article referenced at the start of the document, says: Invitational Jump-Shifts: In the April 2024 Bridge Bulletin, p. 56, Robert Todd discusses 3/1 Invitational Responses: Over 1, 1, or 1 bidding 3 of a lower suit shows 6+ in the suit (and in BidBase, we specify 2 of the to 3 honors), 9-12 HCP, and tends to deny 4 of the other major. It also denies 2+ of opener's major. Todd uses 9-11 HCP, but this implies that a 2/1 bid would be made with 12 HCP. BidBase requires 13 HCP to bid 2/1 because these days experts are opening with 10-12 HCP and forcing to game with a combined 22-24 HCP in matchpoints seems risky. Todd's recommended rebids by opener (using 1-3 as an example) are 3 = Diamond stopper trying for 3N. 3 = 5-5 or more in the majors. 3 = Good 6+ card suit. 3N = To play. 4 = Slam try in clubs. Of course the above would have to be adjusted for responses other than 3 and opening bids of 1 and its responses. Because this requires partnership agreement, this sub-convention must be activated in Bidbase to be used. Using XYZ After 1: If opener starts with 1, the XYZ convention can be used. XYZ is on only after opener has made his 2nd bid on the 1 level, such as 1-(P)-1-(P)-1 or 1NT. See the link above for more about XYZ. Forcing 1NT, continuations
Opener's responses to 1N:
18+ HCP: Not jumping with 15-16 HCPs:
The question is whether to bid 2H, running the risk of missing game facing a moderate hand, or to force to game by jumping to 3H. I make the simple rebid of 2H. My plan is to advance with 3H over a 2S preference, getting my extras across nicely. This is the first I've seen that a jump to 3 is game forcing. Other top experts make such a bid to show 17+ HCP, but not forcing to game. Wolff intends to bid 3 over 2 anyway, so he must be making the distinction that an immediate jump to 3 would be forcing to game while a delayed 3 would not be. But if an immediate 3 is not game forcing, then it makes more sense to bid it immediately to avoid the risk of partner's passing 2H with a hand which could make game. Karen Walker's 1NT Forcing page
One of KW's specs is to bid 2N (over 1N) with 17-18 "points" with a (semi-)balanced hand since distribution is not counted in NT bids, this would seem to be 17-18 HCP . BB has an entry as just described even though at first it seemed that 16-17 HCP (semi-)balanced hands would have been opened 1N in the first place, but on further reflection, not all of such 1 hands are opened 1N. For example, some experts say not to open 1N with hands with an "xx" major because partner with a 3-4 HCP hand and 5 cards in the major may transfer to it and pass. Bids by responder after opener has made a second bid below 2N (usually a bid of 2)
2/1, continuation [after 1-(P)-2//-(P)]
By responder after opener's response to 2/1: By opener after responder's 2nd bid:
Another Idea...The following is from Simon Stocken on BridgeWinners.com
2 over 1 after a 1 opening has 3 [bids] to show GF hands (excluding those with 4 card support) After a 1 opener there are two GF bids (2 and 2). These 2 over 1 sequences rarely occur, so on grounds of frequency it can be argued proponents of traditional 2 over 1 are 'wasting' useful bids. A method that is becoming more popular is as follows: Over 1
2 = 8+ points, 5+ hearts 2 = 8+ points good spade raise 2 = < 8 points, 3-card raise Over 1
2 = 8+ points, good heart raise 2 = < 8 points, 3-card raise After the 2 response there are various options (which can get complicated). The structure involves showing minimums early and transferring into an unbid major. The advantages are considerable:
Problems with 2/1As mentioned early in this file, 1N is not forcing over 1. This can make responding to a 1 opening very difficult with a hand like KT Q84 Q95 AJ873. The 12 HCP hand is not strong enough to force to game with 2 when opener may have as few as 11 HCP, but a non-forcing 1N may get passed out by the same 11 HCP opener. One solution is make 1N forcing even over a 1 opening, but this may result in having to bid clubs on the 3 level, if at all. Alternatively, BidBase normally requires 13 HCP for responder to force to game, but we could play that 2 could be bid with 12 HCP and a good 5-card suit. Finally, we can bite the bullet and just bid a non-forcing 1N and trust partner not to pass it out with a minimum if there is any reasonable alternative. This difficulty is not just limited to opening 1. Take this hand: K8 K5 T743 KQ654 with opener's hand being A952 AQJT62 62 3 and bidding going 1-1N, 2-P. Responder has 11 HCP and opener could have as many as 14-15, so responder can't pass. He could make an invitational bid of 3, but an invitational 3 is usually recommended. Since in this case opener has a bare minimum, he should sign off in 3. With more HCP, he should bid 4. Double Dummy Analysis for this deal shows that 3 makes and all is well with good partnership understanding.
|