[awm]

Which agreements would you consider "expert standard" for 2/1 GF? Lots of check-boxes here, keep in mind you can pick more than one! Let me know if there are other common style things I'm missing.

[Mbodell]

Some possible other things (Maybe some of these aren't style and are just convention choice? Not sure where to draw the line)

picture jumps vs fast arrival vs something else
serious, non-serious, or no special 3nt
cue bid styles
last train
fsf 1r or to game and the (1♣-1♦-1♥-(either 1♠ or 2♠) auctions)
imbergmen, lebensohl, or something else over reverses
what system over 1x-1y-2nt
XYZ versus 2-way nmf versus 1-way nmf versus natural or others
nt ranges (variable or not, 15-17, 14-16, 12-14, etc.)
support doubles
1430 versus 3014 versus regular blackwood - all with or without kickback

[Phil]

Adam, great poll! it took me less than a minute to complete so its not too long at all. Mods - please consider this for its own forum.

This is start of a partnership checklist that could be filled out quickly (who wants to develop a app to generate a cc? ).

Several minor quibbles:

1. I would add 1m - 2♥ as 11-12 balanced along with 2♠ as a mixed raise.
2. Clarify 1m - 1M - 2M as 'balanced' - is this your style of 4333 or could it be 4432? Many will only do this with a stiff.
3. Maybe clarify rebid style with 1345 when partner bids our stiff - does 2m tend to show 6 or could 1N include a singleton?
4. Big difference between 1M - 2♣ and 1M - 2♦, and what a raise should promise.

MBodell's list is good too, but I think we should focus on majors + minors here, so take out the comp bidding.

As poll choices become clearer, we can drill down into more detail. For instance, I see that inverted minors (surprise) is 100%, so I can see a follow-up poll containing the choices:

- 1m - 2m - 2m +1 = weak NT?
- 1m - 2m - 2N = forcing?

The biggest challenge is keeping choices internally consistent, and highlighting conflicts.

etc..

[MrAce]

This is one hell of a great check list for every partnership imo. Especially for those who are about to partner and do not have long experience with each other. And I am intending to use this in a project that I have been thinking long time now, regarding "BBF Events" which are basically the BBF vs JEC that I started and BBF Indy events. Both of which are being handled by Diana and we owe her some help and make it worthwhile.

Thank you Adam for the well thought list.

Back to the poll. Given that you are asking "Expert Standard" in your topic title, I do not know what is standard for experts and whether they should have one when it comes to such agreements. I know experts have a common approach and sort of standard when they face positions/auctions that requires judgement in bidding or play compared to non experts. But when it comes to systemic agreements...I am not quite sure if they have a standard. Experts play usually with their regular partner and their guide is their agreements rather than standards.. Pro experts play with their clients and they play whichever makes their client comfortable. After all, I believe it is not the choice of these agreements that made them an expert. Imho an expert should be flexible and able to work with all of these agreements if he needs to, in order to get the best out of the partner.

So if you are OK with me answering the poll by guessing what is the most common assumption by both pick up experts who just sit and about to play a session of mp or imp event, then I will answer. But I doubt this is what you are seeking for. Or is it?

[awm]

I'm looking for something like "what do most good 2/1 players in your area play" but what MrAce said ("what would you expect in a pickup partnership with a good player if you agree 2/1?") is fine too.

[Jinksy]

I've added my votes, but given that 2/1 is comparatively rare in the UK, they might be quite meaningless. They mostly reflect the general agreements I'd expect playing eg Acol or 2/1 with a strong pick-up partner mapped into a 2/1 context, so might be misleading if you're hoping for this to form any sort of guideline. Happy to delete them if you want.

[mycroft]

I would say there are a number of things that are "check if you have time, because it's about half-and-half" in this area, in addition to what I selected would be "Calgary A Standard 2/1":

- Flannery
- 2-way Drury
- Constructive M-raises
- whether you'd get yelled at or only looked at funny if you raised 1m-1M on 3.

Some might ask about Bergen as well.

I'd also add:

1♦-3♣ and 1♣-2♦ limit raise (yes, 1m-2m is not only inverted, but Absolutely GF)
over 2♣, 2♦ promises a control, 2♥ denies
p-1M; 1NT still forcing? Almost forcing?

Calgary A standard also includes agreements on ace-asking bids and NT structure that I would just assume without asking. If I were wrong, it would be because they think their brand of baby food is "standard" as opposed to "0123, DONT".

[MrAce]

awm, on 2015-July-22, 08:18, said:

But what MrAce said ("what would you expect in a pickup partnership with a good player if you agree 2/1?") is fine too.

I answered in the light of above quote. In this context, I'd expect 2 experts to assume from each other, the choice that does not require further agreements how to continue the bidding. For example, I play 1M-3m invitational for over 2 decades as I said in BBF previously. But I chose it to be wjs here and that is what I'd expect if pd made this bid and I personally would try to avoid making this bid at the table. Both intermediate and strong options, even when they are understood by pd as we intended, may have accidents and/or more assumptions in continuation.

[awm]

Seems like we can draw the following conclusions:

1. Major suit auctions

2/1 absolute GF seems the strong consensus; no getting out in 3m or 4m
Fairly even division between 1NT forcing and semi-forcing (maybe a regional thing?)
Fairly even division between 1M-3m natural invitational and some sort of raise (Bergen maybe); no votes for strong and few votes for weak.
High reverse shows extras, but raising responder does not. Mixed opinions on whether the 2♠ reverse shows extras. Rebidding 2M can be five.
No consensus on whether the fourth suit is natural or artificial in 2/1 auctions (I think this is a regional thing).
No consensus on whether the 2♦ response shows five or four-only (i.e. what to do with 3442/3343).
Constructive raises seem not very popular.

2. Minor suit auctions

2/1 includes inverted minors and direct splinters over minor suit openings. Inverted minors won't include a 4-card major.
The style where 1♦-2♣ is GF and 1♦-3♣ is invitational seems popular (I had thought this was a regional thing).
1♣-1♦-1M promises an unbalanced hand, but less clarity about 1♣-1♥-1♠.
Weak jumps to 2M.
Not much consensus on methods after 1♦-2♣.
Most open 1♦ with 4432 and with 4-4 minors, but not with 4-5 minors.

-------------

One thing that seemed a bit odd to me was that Walsh style was so popular.. yet there were so few votes for 1♣-1♦-1M-2M showing three-card support, or showing a GF. My assumption had been that playing Walsh, responder would not bid 1♦ when holding a four-card major unless game forcing, so logically 1♣-1♦-1M-2M cannot be a "simple raise" on four card support. I guess this bid just "doesn't exist" for a lot of players?