[awm]

There are a number of auctions in 2/1 where you basically revert to playing standard:

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦: After the overcall, the 2♦ bid is not necessarily game forcing.

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - Pass - 2♥: As a passed hand, the 2♥ bid is not game forcing.

1♦ - Pass - 2♣: Since there is no forcing 1NT response to 1♦, not all 2/1 players consider this game forcing.

1♣ - 1♠ - Pass - 2♦: Some style differences, but certainly 2♦ reply to an overcall is not game forcing.

In all these situations it helps to know "standard american" bidding in order to know what's forcing, what shows extras, etc. This gives a reasonable incentive for bridge teachers to start with standard american.

[fromageGB]

This doesn't seem to be an argument for teaching standard american, as isn't this the same in any natural system? Does knowing SA help you any more that knowing acol or SEF? Bidding after passing, or after an overcall, can and should be taught in conjunction with any basic system.

[awm]

fromageGB, on 2014-May-03, 09:16, said:

This doesn't seem to be an argument for teaching standard american, as isn't this the same in any natural system? Does knowing SA help you any more that knowing acol or SEF? Bidding after passing, or after an overcall, can and should be taught in conjunction with any basic system.

The point is that standard american (or acol, or SEF) gives you a structure you can use in these auctions. 2/1 GF does not. So if you are going to learn 2/1 GF, you basically have to learn standard american (or acol, or SEF... i.e. a system where 2/1 is NOT always GF) as well. Thus it's simpler to teach one of these systems first.

In fact most modern bridge teachers (in the US anyway) are more familiar with 2/1 GF than with any form of standard american. They teach standard american first because it gives you these structures that you'll need in many auctions.

[rhm]

awm, on 2014-May-03, 11:23, said:

The point is that standard american (or acol, or SEF) gives you a structure you can use in these auctions. 2/1 GF does not. So if you are going to learn 2/1 GF, you basically have to learn standard american (or acol, or SEF... i.e. a system where 2/1 is NOT always GF) as well. Thus it's simpler to teach one of these systems first.

In fact most modern bridge teachers (in the US anyway) are more familiar with 2/1 GF than with any form of standard american. They teach standard american first because it gives you these structures that you'll need in many auctions.

A strange argument and I do not believe it to be true either. It sounds to me it is long time you last played more than a couple of boards with a beginner.

Competitive bidding is different and beginner need first a sound foundation in constructive bidding they can handle reasonably.
For example where I play, negative free bids at the two level are in vogue, so there is no relationship to either 2/1 or any other natural system still played today.
I won't go into the merits of this approach here compared to what is played in the US predominantly, only even if new suits are played as forcing the analogy with SA is superficial.
Different sequences are considered forcing after constructive bidding in SA than in competitive sequences, jump shifts are usually not played as strong after an overcall when new suits are considered forcing, hands bidding 2♥ after 1♠ and an overcall of 2♣ differ often from what is required for a 2♥ bid over 1♠ even in SA.
I could go on...

Yesterday I played with a player at BBO, who called himself an expert. Of course he was no expert, but no beginner either.
The bidding went

1♥--2♣
2♥--3♦
3♥--4♣
Pass

I made 12 tricks.
Now 4♣ is considered forcing in any natural system I know, but the point is in 2/1 such disasters just do not happen as frequently.

Rainer Herrmann