|
By Fred Gitelman
A significant percentage of Zone Bridge
players put 2/1 Game Force (or 2/1 GF, or simply 2/1) at the tops of their convention cards, but the majority seem to play SAYC or Goren. If you were to go to a Bridge club or tournament in North America, however, I would expect you to see that more than half of the partnerships are playing 2/1. My bidding system of choice is based on 2/1 Game Force. This series of articles is an introduction to 2/1. You can probably adapt what you see here directly into whatever system you play, provided that you play five-card majors. 2/1 does not work with four-card majors. 2/1 should be thought of as an "extension" to SAYC or Goren (as opposed to a completely different system in its own right).
I should mention that it would really take an entire book (several good ones have been written) to describe the 2/1 Game Force system in proper detail. This series of articles will be merely a broad overview of that system, its advantages, and disadvantages.
In my view, there are two reasons you should consider learning to play 2/1 Game Force:
- It is easier to play than SAYC or Goren.
- It is more effective than SAYC or Goren.
Remember that these are only my views. Other experts might disagree with one or both of the above.
The first thing that you should know about 2/1 GF is that it really only applies in one situation (this is why 2/1 should be seen as an extension of SAYC or Goren as opposed to a whole new system of bidding):
Opener
1 Major
|
|
Opponent
Pass
|
|
Responder
2 Lower Suit
|
That is, your side opens 1 of a major, next hand passes, and your side responds with 2 of a lower-ranking suit. For example:
Opener
1 
|
Responder
2 
|
or
|
|
Opener
1
|
Responder
2 
|
In each of these auctions responder's bid is called a "two over one." In Goren and SAYC, a 2/1 response shows a good hand, but these bids can be made on as little as "a good 10 points or so" -- that is, on invitational hands. For example:
5 4
A Q J 4 3 2
K 5 4
7 6
|
and
|
|
K 9 8
4 3
A J 3
K 9 8 7 6
|
Are perfectly acceptable "Goren or SAYC 2/1s" in the two respective auctions above.
In 2/1 Game Force, the 2/1 response is defined as (you guessed it): Forcing to Game.
That means that responder's 2/1 creates a situation whereby the partnership is forced to bid to at least game.
Note that 1 D - 2 C is also a two-over-one response. Some partnerships also play that this sequence is forcing to game. For the purposes of these articles, however, I am only going to consider 2/1s following a major suit opening.
The two main implications of playing the 2/1 response as forcing to game are:
- You can't make a 2/1 on an invitational hand anymore. When you make a 2/1, the partnership is forced to game, so you need extra high-card values. Invitational hands (those in the range of 10 to 12 points) are not strong enough to force to game opposite partner's opening bid. You pretty much need a solid opening bid of your own to make a 2/1 response when playing this system.
- The 1 NT response has to take up all the slack. You now bid 1 NT with hands in the 10- to 12-point range. As the 1 NT response now has an effective range of 6 to 12 points, most 2/1 players choose to play this bid as forcing -- that is, the opening bidding cannot pass.
Every system has its weak spots. The main weaknesses in 2/1 GF are a consequence of the wide-ranging 1 NT response (6 - 12, instead of 6 - 10 in Goren or SAYC). I will discuss some of these problems and what can be done about them in my next article in this series.
For now we will focus on the positive aspects of playing 2/1 GF. Have a look at these auctions:
Opener
1
2
|
Responder
2
?
|
Opener
1
3
|
Responder
2
?
|
Opener
1
2 NT
|
Responder
2
?
|
|
|
|
In SAYC or Goren, is responder allowed to pass in these auctions? There are probably no definitive answers here. Depending on whom you asked (and in what part of the world they live) you would get different answers. In 2/1 GF, there are never any problems like these. Responder cannot pass, because his 2/1 already forced the partnership to game. This is one of the main reasons for my earlier assertion that 2/1 is easier to play than SAYC or Goren -- you can never have a bidding misunderstanding about the forcing or non-forcing nature of such auctions.
Responder's ability to establish an early game force is very useful on a hand like:
K 5
6 5
A Q J 10 9 3
A 7 2
Your partner opens 1 Spade and you respond 2 Diamonds. Your partner rebids 2 Spades. What now?
The first question you should ask yourself is "Where am I going with this hand?" The answer is "at least game"; you have no idea which trump suit (if any) is best. The correct contract may be anywhere from 4 Spades, opposite?
For example:
A Q J 10 9 3
Q 4
5 4
K Q 3
. . .to 7 D, if partner is holding:
A 8 7 6 5 4
A 2
K 8 7
K 4
You could also belong in 3 NT, opposite; say:
Q 8 7 6 4 3
A J 10
3
K Q 10
In SAYC you would have to rebid 3 C on this hand as a temporizing force. By temporizing force, I mean that you are not bidding Clubs because you have a Club suit; you are bidding Clubs because you need more information. 3 Clubs is forcing, and your "natural rebid" of 3 Diamonds would not be. This concept sometimes works well (it would probably result in the right contracts being reached with all 3 of the above examples for opener). Sometimes, however, a temporizing force will lead to disaster. For example, if the opener held:
J 9 7 6 4 3
K 7
K
K Q 10 9
How can he not support Clubs? - The best contract of 3 NT has just been passed.
The problem with notion of the temporizing force in this auction is due to the fact that it can be based on several types of hands:
- A hand that is too strong to make a non-forcing rebid in the 2/1 suit (like the above example)
- A strong hand in support of the major opened
- A natural bid (that is, a real 2-suiter)
- A probe for 3NT
When the bidding is already at the 3-level and responder can still have a wide variety of hand types, there is trouble. The problem of the temporizing force (a necessary part of Goren and SAYC) is one of the best reasons to play 2/1. Playing 2/1 GF, with the problem hand:
K 5
6 5
A Q J 10 9 3
A 7 2
You can make your natural rebid of 3 Diamonds and not worry about partner passing - your initial response of 2 Diamonds has already forced the partnership to game. I hope you find the notion of rebidding A Q J 10 9 3 vs. A 7 2 as appealing as I do! To be sure, there are still occasions where it is necessary to manufacture a temporizing force even playing 2/1. In my experience these occasions are quite rare.
Here is another example of the same principle:
K 9 8 7
K Q J 7 6
A
7 6 5
Partner opens 1 Spade, you respond 2 Hearts, and partner rebids 2 Spades. If partner has as little as. . .
A 10 6 5 4 3
A 4
7 4 3
A 2
you rate to take all 13 tricks in Spades (and in Notrump). If, however, partner was dealt this stronger hand. . .
A Q J 10 4 3
A
K Q 7
Q 9 8
you don't want to be any higher than the 4-level.
Playing SAYC or Goren, you would either have to jump to 4 Spades with responder's hand or go through the contortions of a temporizing force. Neither of these solutions is particularly satisfying. In 2/1 GF, you rebid a forcing 3 Spades with responder's hand and get the benefit of having set the trump suit with the entire 4-level left to exchange information (via cuebidding, for example).
I hope I have convinced you that there are some strong advantages to playing 2/1 GF (as opposed to SAYC or Goren). Don't rush out and play the system just yet, however! My next article will discuss some of the disadvantages of 2/1 GF and how best to deal with them.
If you have any questions about this article and would like to send mail to Fred Gitelman, please e-mail Zidea.
|
