Two Over One

 

The "Two Over One" (or 2/1) style of bidding is used in conjunction with 5-card majors and the Forcing No Trump.  Using this style a start such as 1♥ 2♣ or 1♠ 1♥ shows a pretty good hand, stronger than might be required in the Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) method.  Many play the 2/1 response as absolutely forcing to game, others that it is almost forcing to game (for example, some would play that 1♥ 2♣, 2♥ 3♣ is non-forcing).  An integral part of the 2/1 method is the Forcing No Trump, used as a catch-all bid for hands which are not strong enough for a 2/1 bid.
 

                                          3rd May, 2006                   Board 17       None Vul

 

 

We hesitate to say whether South had a bigger problem at her first turn or second turn.  Starting at the beginning, in the framework of a 2/1 style, what do you think of South's 2♣ response?  Here are our observations:

        (a)  In a 2/1 system, 2♣ is forcing to game, and, opposite the rotten hands that partners open

              these days, this hand does not have enough stuffing be sure of a game contract

        (b) The value bid is 1NT (forcing, and planning to invite with 2NT on the next round)

        (c)  However, if we bid the No Trump first, we will probably be playing it from the wrong side, as Hearts

              is our most likely weak spot, and it would be nice if they led up to Partner's honor holding

        (d)  Therefore, we would overbid a tad with 2♣, maximizing our chances of playing in the right contract

               from the right side, at the risk of sometimes getting too high.

 

Now that we've got beyond South's first bid, we come to the problem at hand which is her second bid.  Here are your options, choose wisely:

        2NT:  Surely not!  We overbid originally to avoid wrong-siding the contract, surely we do not intend

                   to overbid and wrong-side the contract!

        3♦:     This would normally show 4-card support, but we are stuck for good bids here.

        2♠:     Likewise, this would normally show 3-card support, but we are in something of a bind.

 

We prefer 2♠, could live with 3♦, and vigorously repudiate 2NT!

                                2nd May, 2007                       Boards 14 and 24

 

                                Board 14                                             Board 24

                               ♠ KQ942                                             ♠ K8

                               ♥ Q9                                                    ♥ AK873

                               ♦ 32                                                     ♦ JT

                               ♣ AQT6                                              ♣ A852

 

              South   West    North   East                 West    North   East     South

                                                  Pass                1♥        Pass    2♦        Pass

              1♠        Pass    2♦        Pass                ??

              ??

Let’s assume that the featured pairs are playing 2/1 as forcing to game.  In that case, what are your rebids with these two hands?

 

The first point to make is that most 2/1 pairs require that a bid of 3♣ shows extra values.  If that is the case, then the left hand clearly does not qualify.  And the right hand?  It’s a bit closer, but not quite up to snuff in our opinion, especially as the suit is so poor.

 

If not 3♣, then what?  If we cannot bid 3♣ (for lack of values) then we need a “neutral” or “emergency” bid whenever we don’t have a sixth card in our major, and when we don’t have stops in the unbid suits.  There are two schools of thought, maybe with a little bit of grey in the middle.  One style is to bid 2NT as “neutral”, not guaranteeing stops, simply nothing better to say (so, playing this method, rebidding our major would show a 6^th one).  The other school of thought is for 2 of the major to be the “neutral” bid, not guaranteeing a 6^th card, it’s a bid that could be made with a 5-card major and a hand that is unsuitable for a 2NT rebid.

 

The latter style is the most popular nowadays, so let’s assume that method.  In that case, what next?  On the left hand, nobody would argue too vehemently with the “neutral” rebid of 2♠, but our own preference would be 2NT.  True, we don’t have both the unbid suits completely stopped, but it’s pretty close, and there is a lot to be said for making a limiting bid in these auctions.  2NT shows 12-14.

 

On the right hand, again we’d bid 2NT, even though we have 15 HCP’s.  This time we do have both the unbid suits stopped.  Yes, we could jump to 3NT, showing 15-17, and wouldn’t argue the point strenuously one way or the other, except to say that we would prefer stronger black suit holdings for that jump.

 

                                          13th December, 2006        Board 8      None Vul

 

 

In this Two Over One auction, does 2♠ show a 6^th Spade?  That all depends on the partnership bidding style, here are two schools of thought:

-         Yes, 2♠ (usually) shows a 6^th Spade, and with only 5 Spades opener will usually find another rebid;

-         No, 2♠ does not show a 6^th Spade … for such partnerships, a rebid at the 3-level shows extras, so rebidding 2♠ here is “neutral” and may be made with only 5 Spades and no other convenient bid.

 

So, back to West’s rebid.  We would bid 2♠ whichever method we were using!  We cannot rebid 2NT with nothing in the unbid suits, it hardly seems right to bid that crummy Diamond suit even it it does not show extras.  So we’d rebid 2♠, even if Partner does expect us to have a 6^th Spade, it seems like the best description of the hand.

 

                                          5th July, 2006                    Board 15      N-S Vul

 

 

This is a classic problem in 2/1 bidding, in fact E-W had an identical situation last week.  Should South raise Clubs?  And if not, what should she do?  Here are the choices:

(a) Rebid 2NT ... no, not really a choice with that Jx in Diamonds;

(b) Raise Clubs ... the trouble with this is that Partner might get excited and go slamwards, expecting more from us than an ugly shapeless hand with just 3-card support;

(c) Bid 2♥ ... this is our choice, but it does require that you have the agreement that a major suit rebid by Opener, after a 2/1, does not guarantee a 6-card suit.  We try to avoid that 2♥ rebid on a 5-card suit, but sometimes, as here, it's the best alternative.

 

                                          25th October, 2006           Board 15      N-S Vul

 

 

Two questions here.  Does a 3♠ bid in this situation show a good Spade suit?  Or does it show a 6^th Spade and extras?  In a 2/1 Game-Forcing scenario, the emphasis here is on hand-type, not hand-strength.  In other words, 3♠ shows good Spades, but could be made on a quite minimum hand.

 

So far, so good, but now we get a bit more controversial.  What constitutes a good suit?  We are probably in a minority on this one, but we think that the jump to 3♠ should be used to show:

            A suit that does not expect to lose more than one trick opposite a singleton, nor does it expect

            to lose a trick on the 3^rd or 4^th round of the suit, when playing opposite a singleton.

 

How does this work in practice?  Consider these holdings:

            ♠ AKQJT3                  More than adequate!

            ♠ KQJT32                  Just about adequate

            ♠ AQJT32                   Likewise

            ♠ QJT9876                  Not adequate, two losers

            ♠ AKQ983                  Quite unsuitable.  Most of the time, opposite a singleton, this suit will lose just

                                                one trick, but that loser is a slow loser … if we show a great suit, and Partner

                                                takes control in a  slam auction, she will be quite disappointed when our

                                                second loser in 6♠ turns out to be the J♠.

 

The point we are trying to make is that our holding should be such that Partner knows what to do when holding a singleton in our strong suit, especially as it appertains to slam bidding.

 

                                          7th February, 2007           Board 18      N-S Vul

 

 

We are in a game-forcing auction alright, but which game?  Or slam?  At this point we simply don’t know, so what is the bid which will best help Partner?  We can think of 3 possibilities:

-         4♣?     We haven’t yet done justice to our fine Club suit, should we show our 5^th card in the suit?  We don’t think so, this bid has the disadvantage of taking us past 3NT.  Having said that, it will certainly be the winner if Partner has a bit extra and we belong in a 5-3 Club slam.  But we prefer to give priority to finding the right game before hunting for slam.

-         3♥?      Partner will assume that we are looking for a Heart stop and will no doubt trot out 3NT if he has one but has no significant extra values.  3♥ also gives Partner the chance to give belated support for Spades.

-         3♠?      This would be our choice.  Partner can still bid 3NT if her hand is appropriate, but 3♠ does more justice to the strong Spade suit.  There’s a good chance that the right spot will be 4♠ on a 5-2 fit, and we should tell Partner that our Spade suit is good enough to rebid, either 5 good ones or 6 of them.

 

On the actual deal, 4♠ turns out to be the only making game, so let’s pat ourselves on the back for bidding 3♠ and giving our side the best chance to reach it.

 

                                          16th May, 2007                 Board 4      Both Vul

 

 

 Let’s assume that 2♣ is game-forcing (though the arguments that follow apply equally well if it is not game-forcing).  The question is simply this:  “What kind of a hand is required to make a jump to 3♠?”

 

We’ll do this in two parts, here’s Part 1.  Does the 3♠ bid show extra values?  We do not think extras are necessary for the bid.  That jump is all about the Spade suit, there’s no need to jump in a forcing auction just because we have extra values.  That’s not to say that a jump to 3♠ denies extra values, by the way.  As we said, it’s about the Spades, not the points.

 

OK, here’s Part 2.  What kind of a Spade suit does 3♠ show?  Solid such as AKQJxx?  That’s a possibility, but it won’t come up very often.  How about AKQxxxx?  This suit is very good, of course, but could well have a slow loser opposite a singleton or void.  No, our own preference is a suit which does not have the likelihood of a slow loser opposite a void.  These would all qualify:

            AKQJTx(x)

            AQJTxx(x)

            AKJTxx(x)

            KQJTxx(x)

When it comes to showing a “good” suit, it’s those intermediate cards which are important, and which make the suit playable opposite shortness.  Minor details such as the absence of the Ace or King or Queen can always be resolved later with Roman Key Card.

 

                             7th December, 2011                 N-S Vul

 

 

© BES, Inc

All Rights Reserved