When Is the 2/1 Game-Force "Off"?

2/1 is tantalizingly simple in theory, yet complicated in actual practice.

Everyone generally agrees that a 2/1 response isn't game-forcing if the opponents interfere over the opening bid, or responder is a passed hand. Let's start with those scenarios first.

When the opponents act over the 1-level opening bid, a 2-level response is no longer game-forcing:

West 1

North Double

East 2

South

West 1

North 1

East 2

South

East is only competing in these auctions. This is a matter of pragmatism. North's interference reduces the likelihood of East holding game-going values.

When opener is in 3rd or 4th seat, a 2-level response by responder is not game-forcing either. For instance:

	West K52 AK873 A764 5				East A6 QJT KJ52 9876
	West 1		North Pass Pass		East Pass ?		South Pass

As a passed hand, East cannot possibly have the 13+ points necessary to force to game. A 2/1 response can therefore be used for something else. In this particular auction, East might use 2 as Two-Way Reverse Drury to show a 3-card limit raise.

This is where things get murky.

Numerous books have been written on 2/1. Unfortunately, authors typically share their individual beliefs about game-forcing exceptions without explaining other styles.

What follows is my attempt to document a very fragmented landscape.

Optional approach #1: 100% Game-Forcing

This is straightforward. Whenever the auction begins with a 2/1 sequence, your side must bid game.

Teachers who specialize in introductory lessons (e.g. Audrey Grant, Larry Cohen) tend to advocate 2/1 as 100% game-forcing, the two exceptions above notwithstanding. I imagine this is the easiest approach for beginners to grasp.

However, this school of thought often neglects to mention its shortcomings. Sometimes your side will have 26+ points but no makeable game. It happens.

	West AK653 KJ62 J8 84		East Q AQ 532 KQJT752
	West 1 2 3NT		East 2 3 Pass

Say that East's 2 is a 100% game-force. West silently suffers at his third turn. Rebidding either major would show extra length, so he suggests 3NT instead. East, fearful of going higher with limited controls, passes. This is not a happy contract.

If you adopt the 100% "always on" approach to 2/1, bidding accuracy will be sacrificed on the altar of memorability.

Optional approach #2: Off if the auction stalls in 4/

This exception is espoused by several experts. From Max Hardy's "Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century":¹

There is one exception to the game force. If responder bids, rebids and rebids again in the same minor suit and the opener has no fit, the auction can stop at four of the minor suit. With no apparent fit, the bidding side must have some place to play, and in this auction, four of responder's long minor is probably the best place.

If we revisit the above hands with Hardy's recommendation in mind:

	West AK653 K962 J8 84		East J AQ 532 KQJT752
	West 1 2 31 Pass		East 2 3 42

1. Fourth Suit Forcing without a diamond stopper
2. Denying a diamond stopper

This time West takes a scientific approach to investigating 3NT. East, lacking major-suit support and a diamond stopper, retreats to clubs. West is then allowed to pass.

Optional approach #3: Off if the auction begins 1:2

Mike Lawrence has dubbed 1 : 2 the "black sheep" of 2/1.² And Marshall Miles has gone so far to say, "A 2 response to 1 should not be forcing to game."³

Why? Because conventional wisdom says that you need 29 points for 5 or 5. So when the partnership holds concentrated strength in the minors, it's harder to find a plausible game.

While Miles acknowledges that this isn't a common approach, here is a hypothetical auction.

	West 653 KJ4 AKQ642 8		East T9 AQ3 J AQJ9754
	West 1 2 ?		East 2 3

West and East have good values but the hands are a misfit. If you play 2/1 as absolutely 100% game-forcing, then West should close his eyes and bid 3NT here. Maybe North will lead a spade. Maybe not. Somebody is going to be upset after this hand.

There is another option for West. Depending on partnership agreement, West can bid a more scientific 3 to show a heart stopper. This strongly encourages East to bid 3NT with a spade control. But without one, East can return safely to 4. End of auction.

Optional approach #4: Off if opener rebids his suit three times

This is another uncommon exception espoused by Marshall Miles, who provided the following example in "Modern Constructive Bidding":

Opener 1 2 3

Responder 2 3

To quote Miles: "Responder could have a good 14 points and intend to force to game, but if he has no heart stopper and a singleton or void in spades, what game is likely to make?"⁴

If you choose to use this rule, it may be necessary to integrate it with your preempt style. There may be limited hands that opener might have which could not open 3 (or 4) directly.

Optional approach #5: Off if responder rebids a minor opposite a misfit

This outdated treatment was promulgated by Mike Lawrence in his classic "Workbook on the Two Over One System." When responder has a minor one-suiter, the partnership is allowed to stop if there is no fit.⁵ For instance:

West 1 2

East 2 3

West 1 2

East 2 3

As a caveat, I am only documenting these auctions for the sake of completeness. Lawrence has since departed from this method. He now recommends using invitational jump shifts by East instead.

¹ Hardy, Max. Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century. Poughkeepsie, Vivisphere Publishing, 2000.
^{2, 5} Lawrence, Mike. Workbook on the Two Over One System. Louisville, Devyn Press, 1987.
^{3, 4} Miles, Marshall. Modern Constructive Bidding. Toronto, Master Point Press, 2005.