Greetings everyone, and a first try.

[kenberg]

I am really happy to see this forum. I have long thought it would be useful to have a place where we can discuss problems that arise.  Frequently we are unsure of what partner intends.

Yleexotee has recently written up a spreadsheet on suggested default agreements. His choices are not always the choices I would make, but nonetheless I can happily play them with the benefit that everyone is on the same page. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jO2sp_kWS5DJRveNIEZ0HNprxDUyzTcNgsd1ex-A-9U/edit#gid=864562715
I really advocate looking through this. Of course everyone can play what they want, but often neither partner is quite sure what they are playing.
 
I will give two examples from recent play.

Here is something that came up in Hoki's tourney today (April 5).

The deal is on my left, I hold

JT98
KQ
A762
Q82

We are vul, if it matters.

The bidding begins
Pass 1S  Pass ?
Ok, this is worth a limit raise to 3S.
BUT
Perhaps partner will take 1S-3S as Bergen?
I solved the problem by borrowing a point or so and bidding a Jacoby 2NT.
All was well, 4S making.

This happens often.

Here is a hand from the other day:
This time I am in third seat, everyone vul.

AKQ843
54
JT
A74

 P     P    1S    P
3D   P     ?

Ok, we have agreed to play Bergen. But by a passed hand? Well, what else could 3D be? But reverse Bergen or straight Bergen? Well, I should have a good shot at 4S no matter which, so I bid it. Making 5.

There was some friendly discussion after this one. Partner, yleexotee, had only three spades but just under an opening bid and we had not had enough discussion for him to be sure what I would take as what. So, in much the same way as I did in the first hand above, he took a practical approach.  BillHiggins, a kib, commented that many use Drury. I do so myself, but I know the coyote doesn't.

Comment: Whatever the relative merits of Bergen, or Drury, or neither after a third hand opening, clearly you do not want to be using both Bergen and Reverse Drury. If you do, then after a third hand 1S, the calls of 2C, 2D, 3C, 3D all show spades. That's overkill. So choices have to be made. And it's best if we agree.

The two examples that I gave above worked out fine. But sometimes the confusion is insurmountable.

So I am thanking Joe (ylee...) for writing his document and I am  suggesting that people consider using it as as a default when there has been no opportunity for discussion. I'm not fond of Bergen, I like Drury, I am ok with either, but what I really like is to know which one, if either, we are playing. And when. On over a double, for example?

Again I am really glad to see this Forum and I hope we can have many productive discussions.


Enjoy
Ken

[OliverC]

Nice one, Ken!

Sitting around watching Opps discuss their system for 10 minutes isn't much fun. Similarly Bidding can be a bit of a mine-filled bog if you have no idea what gadgets partner plays. This initiative to give 2/1 players a framework from which to work is great.

[kenberg]

We will see where this all goes, but I'll say a couple more things about simple variants on the situation described above.



Suppose we have gotten far enough that we agree we are playing Reverse Bergen. The uncontested auction begins 1H-3C-?


The first case:
What would 3D by opener be? A simple answer: It means that opener is not a bare minimum, but not sure he wants to be in game. So 1H-3C-3D-3H is passable, the 3C was just barely worth 3C. No doubt other meanings could be ascribed to 3D, but this one seems natural to me. I think of it as one of the selling points for the Reverse Bergen call.

The second case: Again uncontested.
P-1S
Is P-1S- 1NT still forcing?  Mostly the forcing NT was invented to take care of problems arising from 1S-2C/D/H being game forcing. It has other pluses, but it has drawbacks.

In the case at hand, partner held
JT7
AKT6
Q732
J9
Had I been a first or second position 1S opener, 1NT seems right. But I was third position so we, perhaps,  have to worry whether I might pass 1NT.
My thoughts:
This is a Drury hand if we are playing Drury. So I think that Drury players could get along fine by playing that P-1S-1NT is passable. Without Drury, I think P-1S-1NT should still be played as forcing. I am far from certain about this.
We were (well, I think we were) not playing Drury so then I think 1NT is still forcing. As it happened, this time, I had
AKQ843
54
JT
A74
so it didn't matter: P-1S-1NT-3S-4S.

Oddly, we got 6+ imps on this. Everyone (almost) was there but some did not make it. There are nine tricks on top and the 10th can come either from ruffing a club or establishing the diamond Q.

Anyway, I am hoping we discuss some basic points along these lines. We have to know whether 1NT by a passed hand is forcing. If we are playing Bergen we have to know which version (as Bergen originally wrote it, there are other features that are seldom played). We have to know if it is on over a double. Some play BROMAD (the B is still for Bergen) after the X, and that changes things.

With face to face partners, these things usually get discussed naturally. Maybe over a beer, or coffee, or whatever, but they get discussed. Online, often I have no idea what partner intends. So I am hoping this will clear the air a bit.

[OliverC]

Pass - 1
1NT - ??

I think most people who use 2/1 (or Precision, for that matter) will play this as forcing, regardless of the fact that Responder is a passed hand. The reason is that the Forcing 1NT says absolutely nothing about the shape of Responder's hand. They might be sat there with a yarborough, void spades and 7-card Hearts, for all Opener knows.

[bAbsG]

Great forum idea Oliver!

In a friendly game with an untested partner, can't I just ask to the table what the bid means?  I applaud Joe's 2/1 framework and appreciate the time that he has put into designing it.  But at the moment if I were in the midst of bidding, having looked at his 2/1 system sheets out and finding them overwhelming at first glance, I would not be opening the URL and trying to figure out what my partner meant by his bid.  I would rather just chat "Bergen?" and discuss afterwards.  Just me.

[OliverC]

Hi Babs,

Welcome to the Forum!

In a pick-up game, you're absolutely right, few would object to your doing exactly that. I think part of the idea of Joe's framework, though is to give you more confidence what your gadgets and methods are before you start. Sometimes it's a matter of knowing what you have on your plate before you choose how to eat your spaghetti.

For example:

Partner opens 1NT and you're not sure whether you play 4-way transfers or not, which means you're not sure what 1NT-2NT means. If you ask "4-way Xfers, p?" and they say "No" and you now bid 2NT, they're left thinking "Did she hear me right?", because they're left thinking you maybe wanted to transfer, but actually you were wondering whether or not you had to go through 2 Stayman to invite to 3NT

That's perhaps not an ideal example, but hopefully you see what I mean.

I can't disagree with what Joe is trying to achieve, but don't forget you're speaking to someone who teaches a system where we have a precise agreement...

1 - (X) - 1 - (1 )
No - (No) -

...as to what Opener's Pass means over the 1 overcall (it's an Asking bid in Diamonds)

[kenberg]

I think allowed questions depend on the circumstances. We often have a "friendly table" and sure, you can ask. Otoh, while I certainly think Hoki's tourney is a "friendly tourney", still  it is a tourney and I think the accepted style is to not ask and just take your lumps. At any rate, I think getting too loose takes some of the fun out of the game.

Here is something that happened today. The opps had an rkc auction, I think they agreed on 0/3 versus 1/4, anyway the response was 0/3. Passed out in 5S making 7. I had no keys and I almost injected a comment' You guys sure you want to pass" but I didn't.  With regular partners I have an agreement to keep this from happening. But here what could be said? "My response is 0/3 and, hint, it's not 0"?

I see no reason why "friendly tables" with all the conversation in the world cannot exist, but I am hoping we can also start to get make it less necessary.

Oliver mentions that his OCP has precise meanings. Exactly. I am sure there are lots of good things about super precision, but one thing that strikes me right off s is that that many many auctions have a laid out meaning. I doubt that even Meckwell never have a misunderstanding and they have been playing together for what, forty years? Perfection is not for mortals. But we can do better. Even if we 2/1 folks do not reach, or approach, what OCP has I think we could do better.

And the thing is, saying "Bergen" really does not always suffice. That's one reason that I often try to not play Bergen in pick up. The same applies to many conventions.
 
Anyway, I am sure this sort of discussion appeals to some more than others. I am hoping it catches on, at least a bit.

Added: Maybe this will show what I am thinking. My preference n 2/1 is that 1H-2m-2S shows extras, while 1D-2C-2M does not. But Joe has none of them showing extras. I think that there is something to be said for just having this written down. and then, as a default, that's what I do. Mostly it doesn't matter but it is good to know which choice has been made.   

[bAbsG]

Thanks Oliver and Ken.  Good examples and I agree with both of you.

[OliverC]

Hi All,


Ken, I wasn't trying to compare 2/1 with Super-Precision, because they're totally different kinds of animals, just making the point that I sympathise with Joe's aims in trying to set a basic 2/1 standard that people can try to follow when playing with other IAC Members. There's nothing remotely wrong in aiming for that.

[kenberg]

Oliver, I didn't take any thing you said  as criticism, not at all,  and I doubt Joe would.
My thinking was more that OCP sets a good example for having a bunch, a large bunch, of defined sequences.
I see 2/1 as having many paths. If I am going to play with someone often, then we can hash these things out.
For just a few boards, say I am a sub, I think the fewer conventions the better. Up to a point at least.
Somewhere in between, with someone I hope to play with repeatedly but where time or distance or whatever keeps us from extended discussion, then having something like Joe's notes can be useful.
When I first learned bridge, rubber bridge, everyone played Goren. When I started playing duplicate, someone told me I should learn Max Hardy's Five Card Majors Western Style. Later a partner and I played,  using Bergen. Currently, and for quite a while, I am a Mike Lawrence fan. It matters less what you play than that you and partner are playing the same thing. I think Michael Rosenberg, and probably about a zillion other people, have also said such things. I just got back from a club game where we play Standard American.

The infinite variety of bridge makes  it a great game.

[OliverC]

It matters less what you play than that you and partner are playing the same thing. I think Michael Rosenberg, and probably about a zillion other people, have also said such things.
...
The infinite variety of bridge makes  it a great game.

I agree 100%