Cohen versus Stewart

There is an article in the May 2013 edition of the Bridge Bulletin which pits Larry Cohen against Frank Stewart in "2/1? Help or Hindrance."

While I certainly come down on the side of Cohen and 2/1, I think both sides have made a few questionable assertions.

In my opinion, one of the major benefits of playing 2/1 is that it's easier. Yes, you read that right (Cohen agrees). In fact, many 2/1 auctions are simply a question of patterning out – no thinking or judgement required. Yes, there are styles of 2/1 that require more judgement, such as requiring that a "high reverse" by opener (e.g. 1♥ 2♦ 3♣) shows reversing strength. But most of the time, for example you just sit down with an unfamiliar partner and agree "2/1", you rarely have to worry about such subtleties.

So, I find it very strange that most (all?) bridge teachers of novices start them off in completely the wrong direction by teaching them "standard." How can so-called Standard American be considered "standard" when 80% of tournament players (according to Cohen) are playing 2/1?

I admit that I'm a little biased. When I first learned to play bridge it was lunchtime bridge at work, a close relative of "kitchen bridge." Bidding was natural. The more you had the more you bid. But within a few months I had graduated to duplicate. One of the most popular systems in those days was Kaplan-Sheinwold, essentially 2/1 with weak no-trumps.  So, I never really was "corrupted" by this "SA" nonsense.

Let's dissect SA for a moment. It's essentially a hybrid (bastard might be more a propos) of Goren (four-card majors) and Roth-Stone (five-card majors) with perhaps a bit of K-S thrown in (for example if you play inverted minors). In other words, it's neither fish nor fowl. I'll go further to say that it encourages really bad bidding because minimum balanced openings with 12 or 13 high card points will frequently be forced to open a bad three-card minor. This is also true of course for 2/1 if you're playing a strong no-trump.

But I do wonder about some of Larry's examples of troublesome SA auctions. Surely, a tenet of SA is that a two-over-one response promises at least one more bid, with the possible exception of a sequence where opener rebids 2NT. So, I can't imagine having to worry about the auction 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ being passed out. Still, there must be some misguided souls who would pass here, otherwise Larry would not mention the possibility.

I'm also surprised that Larry should advocate a semi-forcing 1NT. Surely, the forcing 1NT (by an unpassed hand) is a cornerstone of 2/1? I have written previously (for example, The Forcing 1 Notrump) about the benefits of being able to show a game-going hand that does not want to suggest a slam by starting with 1NT. Obviously, you can't do that if 1NT isn't 100% forcing.

But these are relatively minor quibbles compared with my thoughts on Frank's contribution. He makes a comment which I believe shows a shocking misunderstanding of the 2/1 style. In an auction which begins 1♠ 2♣ 2♥, he says "I suspect many Easts in 2/1 would bid 2♠ 'to save space.' Well, if I were West with such mangy spades, wild horses couldn't get me to cooperate in a slam hunt opposite a tepid preference" [my emphasis].

What he seems to miss is that East bidding 2♠ after an initial 2♣, promises three card support (not a tepid preference). Not only that, it shows (at least if you play my style) a hand that will willingly cooperate in a slam hunt, and with good clubs too (else East could have started with a 1NT response and then jumped to 4♠).

He also points out that with both partners potentially making minimum bids at all opportunities, how does a partnership know how to get to slam? Again, this seems to miss the point. As soon as a fit is discovered, one partner or the other can make a control-showing cuebid. Normally, there will be plenty of space available for these types of slam tries. It's true that some delicacy is now required. I have written about this issue before in Slam Tries. One solution is to employ either serious (or frivolous) 3NT. The other solution is to discuss the situations when a control bid demands another control bid. Admittedly, neither of these approaches is covered in the 2/1 texts, but the concepts are not difficult either.

In his auction 1♠ 2♦ 3NT, he says that one player thought that 3NT showed "a powerhouse" and the other did not. But anyone who has read any book on 2/1 knows that a jump in a game-forcing sequence has a special meaning. Given that opener's 2NT rebid shows either a minimum balanced hand or a maximum balanced hand, there can only be one possible meaning for 3NT left: a medium balanced hand (15-17). So it seems that neither Frank nor his partner really knew the basics of 2/1. You can hardly blame the system for that!

So, is 2/1 (with 15-17 no-trumps) the best system out there? No, I don't think so. On theoretical grounds, I think that both K-S (or, if you like, 2/1 with weak no-trumps) and Precision are technically superior systems. But, 2/1 is certainly a lot easier than Precision and therefore a much better candidate for teaching beginners (which no-trump range to play is more a question of personal preference and familiarity).

Having said that, I will note that I've had all my best results playing with my favorite partner – and we play 2/1 with 15-17 no-trumps.

A Dummy's Guide to 2/1 Auctions

I've never really understood why people think 2/1 is difficult.  In particular, why do bridge teachers still teach "Standard American" which is a hotch-potch of a system?  One of the problems is that there really aren't any good, readable, comprehensive books.  Maybe the Rodwell and Grant is good but I haven't seen it.

One of the issues is the forcing 1NT.  That, and the related sequence 1♥ p 1♠, needs to be described first (part 1 of a hypothetical book) because it is perhaps the least intuitive part of the system.  But the auctions that start with a 2/1 sequence are simplicity itself (part 2).  The other sections are not really part of 2/1 per se but might be included for completeness: there are the minor suit openings, including inverted minors and reverses, and notrump openings (parts 3 and 4); there are gadgets such as Jacoby 2NT, splinters, new minor forcing, etc. (part 5).  Part 6 might be about judgment, hand evaluation, inferences, etc.  Parts 7 and 8 would cover slam bidding and competitive bidding.

Here's my summary of part 2 (all you really need to know about non-competitive 2/1 sequences).

• Priorities are [starting with responder's first bid, assuming a game-going hand]:
• (a) support partner with four cards (there are various ways to do this);
• (b) show your own pattern (or continue showing);
• (c) support partner with three cards;
• (d) show stoppers for notrump if a, b, c, don't apply;
• (e) otherwise, bid the unbid suit ("fourth suit") if you don't have it stopped (or you have a holding like Ax);
• Showing your pattern:
• Bid suits in length order (longest first);
• Rebidding a suit shows extra length (except opener's first rebid of a 5-card major may be used to show a minimum hand with no other good rebid);
• A jump rebid shows a solid suit;
• Rebidding a second suit shows at least 6-5 if the sequence was a reverse and at least 5-5 otherwise;
• Jumps in new suits always show support for partner's just-bid suit and shortness in the named suit;
• There are no "preferences" in 2/1 bidding, at least not until we get to the four level;
• All bids below 3NT are forcing, and once a suit has been supported, all bids below game are forcing.

There are also various secondary agreements that you may or may not want to adopt (these all relate to 2/1 sequences):

1. Responder's rebid of 3NT indicates a balanced 15-17;
2. Opener's rebid of 2NT indicates a balanced hand suitable for notrump play in the 18-19 range or in the "wrong" range for an opening 1NT (e.g. if you play 15-17 1NT openers, then a 2NT rebid shows 12-14 or 18-19);
3. Opener's rebid above 2NT promises "extras" [in my opinion, this promises at least a good 14 hcp, some would promise more];
4. Opener's reverse promises "extras" [in my opinion, this promises at least a solid 12 hcp];
5. Responder's jump to 4 of opener's major shows a "picture bid", with all (or most) values in the suits bid;
6. With 6-4 distribution, opener rebids the major if a bare minimum [i.e. less than a solid 12 hcp];
7. 1♦ p 2♣ is not 100% game-forcing;
8. 1M p 2m p 2x p 3m is not forcing.

That's about it.  It's really very simple.  There's very little need for judgment or fudging (once the 2/1 sequence has been initiated).  You just follow the list of priorities.