The modern approach to improving our bidding structures (especially in competition) is to add transfers to our methods. This gives us more space and allows us to communicate more efficiently. When we play a system like McCabe, designed to give us more ways of raising partner and show support, we already have a useful structure. If we add transfers to this structure, we gain even more space for communication.
The most complicated 2/1 GF auctions are the ones that start 1♦ – 2♣. Actually, these can be some of the most difficult auctions in all of bridge. These auctions can lead to lots of complexity and confusion about the meaning of bids on the 2nd and 3rd round of the bidding. Many pairs have played in 3-3 Major suit fits after the auction began with 1♦ - 2♣, thinking they were headed to a much better fit. Let’s look at what agreements we need to make with partner and then see how these affect our follow-up bidding.
When we play the version of 2/1 GF that uses “2-Major Waiting” (meaning that Opener can rebid their suit without promising a 6th card), then we gain the ability to “right side” a NT contract when we have a balanced hand without a stopper in one of the suits. But, by having 2-Major be a waiting bid we make it harder for us to show our 6-card suit. Let’s see how we can add a gadget to help give us better rebid options to describe our hand.
When we choose to adopt the alternative approach to our 2/1 GF responses, “2♦ showing a 5+card suit, 2♣ being “could be short as 2 cards”, then this changes our reasonable options for rebids by the Opener. It is important that we have good agreements with partner about how this approach changes our rebid agreements. Let’s look at the hands that are simplified by these agreements and problems that are created.
There is not just one version of a 2/1 Game Forcing bidding system. There are a variety of conventional rebids that are additions to a fundamental 2/1 GF system, but there are also some fundamental response agreements that can be adjusted. One of these is the length that we promise when we respond in a minor suit at the 2-level. In the standard 2/1 system a 2♥ response shows at least a 5-card suit, a 2♦ response shows at least a 4-card suit, and 2♣ usually shows a 4+ card suit (occasionally it could be a 3-card suit). Let’s look at these responses in detail as well as an alternative response structure where we require 5 cards to bid 2♦ and then must use a 2♣ response with a large variety of hands.
The modern approach to improving our bidding structures (especially in competition) is to add transfers to our methods. This gives us more space and allows us to communicate more efficiently. When we play a system like McCabe, designed to give us more ways of raising partner and show support, we already have a useful structure. If we add transfers to this structure, we gain even more space for communication.
When partner open the bidding with 1-minor and our RHO makes an overcall of a suit, then we need a way to describe our hand to partner. The traditional Responder tools are negative double and positive freebids, but in some auctions, there are other approaches that use transfers to give us a better way to compete as Responder. Unfortunately, we don’t have a transfer structure in every auction (when they overcall 1♠, we have very few good systems) but hopefully there will be more and more interesting development in this area of bidding theory.
When the opponents open the bidding with 1-Major then we need to compete in the bidding and do so quickly and accurately. In order to do this week need good agreements with partner, especially about the meaning of cuebidding the opponent's suit. Let's make sure we have good agreements in these situations.
