[amre_man]

I have read where 2/1 is or has already become more popular than SAYC. I've done some reading and find it difficult to follow. As the bots play a version of 2/1 would playing with bots assist me in learning this system? Do the bots play a variation of 2/1? If so what are the distinctions?

[inquiry]

 amre_man, on 2012-July-21, 17:33, said:

I have read where 2/1 is or has already become more popular than SAYC. I've done some reading and find it difficult to follow. As the bots play a version of 2/1 would playing with bots assist me in learning this system? Do the bots play a variation of 2/1? If so what are the distinctions?

GIB (the bots) does play a version of 2/1. You can check out its version at this link...

Gib system notes


I am unsure how much you can learn by playing with them, however. There are plenty of online notes, and in fact, complete descriptions of 2/1. Maybe you should google some of them. I hear Karen Walker has a nice "Get started" description, but I have to admit to never reading any of them other than Fred Gitelman's improving 2/1 articles (part i and ii) which are little dated now.

The main trick to 2/1 GF is to figure out the auctions after a forcing 1nt response, and the follow ups. The auctions without the 1nt response to one of a major in 2/1 are much easier than in SAYC.

Good luck.

[Mbodell]

I think you could also try looking at the vugraph and/or kibitzing pairs that play 2/1. I agree with Inquiry that in 2/1 it is the 1nt forcing bids that are the most confusing. And further, it is the wrinkles where not everyone plays all things the same in "2/1" that are also different (just like if two people agree strong nt, they may not be on the same page what 2♠ over 1nt opening means without further discussion; if you agree 2/1 with someone you may not be on the same page what 1M-3m means or what 1M-1nt-2♦-3♣ means or what 1M-1nt-(2m)-X means etc.).

Probably the best way to learn is to form a 2/1 partnership with someone (especially someone better than you) and play it with them.

[pigpenz]

probably the best books are Max Hardy's books on 2/1 and Aces Scientific by Bobby Goldman.
Max later editions #3 are probably easier to read just from the way the print is (fonts etc)

[Antrax]

I'd like to anti-recommend Hardy. He's comprehensive but I found him to be a very difficult read, technical and dry with very little emphasis on why things should be what he suggests.

[nigel_k]

I don't mind Hardy's writing, but maybe I am used to reading a lot of turgid stuff. We can't all be Mike Lawrence. My main issue with Hardy is that I don't agree with some of his ideas.

[SteveMoe]

Larry Cohen has published a series of articles on his website at: http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/
and also at Bridgewinners.com at: http://bridgewinners...hor/larry-cohen

Larry is lobbying fo a simple version of 2/1 that all bridge players should learn instead of SAYC.

[pigpenz]

 nigel_k, on 2012-July-22, 14:17, said:

I don't mind Hardy's writing, but maybe I am used to reading a lot of turgid stuff. We can't all be Mike Lawrence. My main issue with Hardy is that I don't agree with some of his ideas.

no but over the years before he died he did update things, Aces Scientific is far superior.
My only complaint about Hardy's original books were they just weren't easy to read, I don't know wether it was the font or just the way it was laid out.

[Quantumcat]

Play with GIBS - you can always hover your mouse over their bid to find out what it means, and you can hover your mouse over your own bids to find out what they mean. As long as you have a general idea of the principles you can learn the specifics doing that.

You could also learn by watching vugraphs - most people playing anything non-precision is at least loosely based on 2/1. Ignore their 1-club auctions and wait for a 1-major opening - watch what they do and ask yourself why are they doing that?

[kenberg]

One thing to ponder before selecting a course of study: Many times a convention is useful but so is the natural meaning. When push comes to shove, which way do you jump? Hardy tends (or once so tended, I have not read him lately) far more toward artificial than does Mike Lawrence. This leads me to prefer Lawrence. He has a CD on 2/1, I recommend it.

I think part of the choice involves whether you plan to settle in with one or two partners, or you want to be ready to play with many.

If you have been playing SAYC online I imagine that you have had partners who say they play SAYC but have their own, and sometimes quite weird, interpretation of what that means, and they don't budge from it. It will be the same with 2/1.

[barmar]

Here are some Usenet threads discussing the differences between Hardy and Lawrence approaches:

https://groups.googl...dge/ZcBS8ubYb04
https://groups.googl...dge/UyvWKTriArQ

[CarlRitner]

Mike Lawrence has a CDROM called Two Over One that covers the meat of the system. I found it to be clear and easy to read, and easy to follow.
He has a few ideas that are different than the way I learned the system, but he usually convinces me that his way works at least as well.

http://www.michaelslawrence.com/

Definitely worth taking a look.