THE CASEY TWO OVER ONE BRIDGE BIDDING SYSTEM: 6th EDITION 2024

By Ken Casey

This book contains an innovation that makes it much easier to bid slams. This innovation will enable the bridge community to dramatically increase its bidding of grand slams.


This book incorporates the 2/1 Game Force bidding system for major suit opening. This book also expands the Game Force system to partners holding 5 spades and an opening hand. The forcing response when R has 6-12p and a spade response is modified to show if O has 3-card spade support. The traditional 2/1 system is modified by the mechanics of a fast arrival convention to show game-level points. In addition, a simple worthless suit convention using a single bid is employed to show a worthless suit as opposed to the more complicated control system used in traditional 2/1.


For minor suit openings, the book presents a simple method for using reverses. The book also shows how to use the Jacoby Transfer mechanism to show R’s 5-card major. The book then shows how R can effectively use inverted minors to hamper the opponents’ bidding. The book next shows how to bid overcalls of a 4-card heart suit to hamper the opponents from finding their spade suit. The book outlines the Kantar slam bids and shows how to locate the trump Queen after a 4NT bid. Finally, the book shows how to improve slam bidding using the Minorwood convention.


Ken has published 5 core books on how to play bridge: “Beginning Bridge” (5th ed. 2023), “Tournament Bridge for Intermediate Players (5th ed. 2021), “Advanced Bridge” (4th ed. 2021), “Bridge Defense” (4th ed. 2020) and “Bridge for Notrump Contracts” (4th ed. 2020).


Ken served as a Russian interpreter during the Vietnam War and then spent over 30 years practicing as a tax attorney. Ken also has an MBA in accounting and a CPA.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jan 17, 2024
• ISBN: 9798369412084

Ken Casey

Ken served as a Russian interpreter during the Vietnam War and then spent over 30 years practicing as a tax attorney. Ken also has an MBA in accounting and a CPA.

Book preview

Copyright © 2024 by Ken Casey.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 01/17/2024

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

857254

CONTENTS

THE TWO-OVER-ONE GAME FORCE

SYSTEM FOR 5-CARD MAJORS

1:THE 2/1 GAME FORCE SYSTEM

2:THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE TRADITONAL 2/1 STYLE

3:THE NON-APPLICATION OF THE CASEY 2/1 SYSTEM

4:THE CASEY GAME FORCING 1♥-2♠ CONVENTION

5:THE FORCING 1NT RESPONSE WHEN R HAS 6-12P

6:THE CASEY FAST ARRIVAL CONVENTION

7:THE CASEY WORTHLESS SUIT CONVENTION

8:THE CASEY 2/1 GAME FORCE SYSTEM

MINOR SUIT OPENINGS

9:AN OVERVIEW OF CASEY TWO OVER ONE

10:THE 1♣ OR 1♦ OPENING: 12-14+P

11:RESPONDER’S REPLY

12:THE OPENER’S REBID

13:THE 1NT OPENING: 15-17P BALANCED

14:THE 2NT OPENING: 20-21P BALANCED

15:THE STRONG 2♦ OPENING: 20-21P UNBALANCED

16:THE STRONG 2♣ OPENING

THE CASEY CONVENTIONS

17:THE CASEY DIRECT RAISE CONVENTION: NO TEMPORIZING

18:THE CASEY-JACOBY TRANSFER (CJT) TO SHOW R’S 5-CARD MAJOR

19:THE CASEY-JACOBY 2♠ TRANSFER TO SHOW DIAMONDS & 11+P

20: THE CASEY REVERSE

21:THE CASEY OVERCALL

22:CHARTING THE CASEY BIDDING SYSTEM

COUNTING AND BIDDING CONSIDERATIONS

23:USING BERGEN POINTS INSTEAD OF GOREN POINTS OR HIGH CARD POINTS

24:BEST BIDDING COMBINATIONS

25:INTERFERENCE BY THE OPPONENTS

SLAM CONVENTIONS

26:THE CASEY SLAM CONVENTIONS

27:THE CASEY TRUMP QUEEN CONVENTION WITH THE TRUMP Q & 3 KEYS

28:THE CASEY-MINORWOOD KICKBACK CONVENTION AND THE KANTAR KING-ASK BID

29:THE KANTAR SLAM BIDS AS MODIFIED BY CASEY 2/1

30:SHOWING A VOID

MISCELLANEOUS BIDDING SITUATIONS

31:DOUBLES

32:CUEBIDDING THE OPPONENT’S SUIT

33:COMMON BRIDGE CONVENTIONS IN SAYC

34:OTHER USEFUL CONVENTIONS

35:PROCEDURAL RULES

36: IRREGULARITIES IN BIDDING

37:PLAYING IN A TEAM EVENT

38:FILLING OUT THE CONVENTION CARD

39:HAND RECORDS

40:DUPLICATE BRIDGE SCORING

41:OVERALL SCORING

42:SIGNALING COUNT

43:THE SUIT PREFERENCE SIGNAL

44:PROBABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PART ONE

THE TWO-OVER-ONE

GAME FORCE SYSTEM

FOR 5-CARD MAJORS

CHAPTER 1: THE 2/1 GAME FORCE SYSTEM

My opinion on Precision is that combining five-card majors with a forcing club is like trying to mix oil and water, and it has serious structural defects.

Howard Schenken’s Big Club (1968)

THE HISTORY OF THE 2/1 SYSTEM

Due to the success of the Italian Blue Team in the 1950’s, who used a strong artificial club system, other teams started experimenting. In the 1960’s, Alvin Roth and Tobias Stone developed the Forcing Notrump bid. Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold enhanced the Roth-Stone system, capitalizing on some of its best features. The principal features were 5-card majors (instead of the predominate 4-card major system), negative doubles and the Forcing Notrump response to a major suit opening.

In the 1970’s, the partnership of Richard and Rhoda Walsh, John Swanson and Paul Soloway developed the 2/1 game forcing system, which was initially called the Walsh convention. Max Hardy was the first professional player to thoroughly describe the 2/1 system. Then came Mike Lawrence, Paul Thurston, and Audrey Grant along with Eric Rodwell.

Of today’s leading duplicate players, the majority play some version of the 2/1 system. Your ability to play 2/1 will increase the number of potential partners willing to play with you.

THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE 2/1 SYSTEM

The system is designed to set up a forcing auction if the responder’s first bid is a new suit at the two-level over an opening major suit bid. For example, 1♠-2♣; 1♠-2♦ or 1♠-2♥, all show that responder has 13+p with at least 4 cards in the minor suits and 5 cards in the heart suit. In each of these sequences, the partnership is committed to game. The main advantage of the 2/1 system is that it saves bidding space. After making the 2-level response, the responder does not have to jump to show forcing values. Because the auction can stay low, the opener and responder have more room to exchange information below game level and more ways to evaluate slam possibilities.

Another advantage of 2/1 is that it shows R’s point count, allowing O to become the captain of the auction. R shows his point count, either 6-10p, 11-12p, 13-15p, or 16+p. Suppose O opens 1♠. If R has 6-12p, R bids 1NT (a forcing bid) or raises O’s suit to 2♠ (with 3-card support & 6-10p). After R’s 1NT response, O will bid 2♥ with a 4+ card heart suit. If O does not have a heart major, O bids the longer minor or bids 2♣ with a tie.

Suppose O rebids 2♣ after R’s 1NT response over O’s 1♠ opening. With 6-10p, R bids 2♥ or 2♦ with a 5-card heart or diamond suit. With a 5-card club suit, R passes O’s 2♣ bid with 6-10p. With no 5-card suit, R gives a preference to O’s spade suit by bidding 2♠, provided R has 2 spades; otherwise, R passes O’s 2♣ rebid with only 4-card club support.

If R has 11-12p, R should raise O’s 1♠ bid to 3♠ with a 3-card spade suit. After R’s 1NT response, R should raise O’s 2-level minor rebid to the 3-level with a combined length of 8 cards and 11-12p, i.e., R should bid 3♣ over O’s 2♣ bid with a 5-card club suit and should bid 3♦ over O’s 2♦ bid with a 4-card diamond suit, e.g., 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♣. With a 6-card suit, R bids his suit at the 3-level with 11-12p, e.g., 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♦ (showing 6 diamonds & 11-12p). Otherwise, R should bid 2NT to show 11-12p.

With 13-15p, R bids 2♥ over O’s 1♠ bid with a 5-card suit or 2♣/2♦ with a 4-card minor suit. If O supports R’s suit, O shows 16+p (slow arrival) by raising R’s suit to the 3-level, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 3♣ or 1♠-2♥; 3♥. If O has 13-15p and no support for R’s suit, O bids 2NT. If O has support for R’s major suit, O raises R’s major suit to the 4-level (fast arrival). If O has support for R’s minor suit, O can either raise the suit to the 5-level (fast arrival) or bid 3NT, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 2NT-3♣; 5♣.

If a partner has a worthless suit and 16+p and there is an agreed suit, the partner should bid the worthless suit after the agreement, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 3♣-3♥ (showing 16+p and a worthless heart suit). A new suit after agreement is always a worthless suit, showing 16+p; it is never a search for a new suit fit. If R has all the suits covered, R bids 4NT (or 4♣, Minorwood), instead of bidding a new suit. If R has only 13-15p, R bids 3NT. This gives O the chance to bid 4NT with 19+p.

THE GREAT DEBATE: THE CASE FOR & AGAINST 2/1

The May 2013 Bridge Bulletin Bidding Box contains a debate on page 28 between Larry Cohen and Frank Stewart on the merits of 2/1 versus SAYC. Frank Stewart’s main argument is that 1NT will often be a better contract than 2♥ or 2♠ when R has only 2-card support for O’s suit.

Most of Larry Cohen’s arguments focus on the fact that once R makes a 2/1 bid, all bids thereafter are forcing to game. In SAYC, a direct bid of 2NT by R or a raise of O’s suit to the 3-level are two examples where R’s bid is non-forcing. Jumps in an old suit are never forcing, e.g., 1♥-3♥. Let’s take 3 examples in 2/1 that show the advantages of 2/1. The first example deals with a situation in SAYC where R wants to support O’s 2nd suit by raising O’s 2♥ bid to 3♥. In SAYC, R’s raise is non-forcing. O is likely to pass if he thinks R holds 11-12p, instead of 13+p.

Bidding using SAYC

Larry’s concern is that R cannot raise O to 3♥ in SAYC and make it a forcing bid as he could in 2/1. In SAYC, O’s 2♥ rebid shows 13-18p (showing 5-4 in the majors takes precedence to showing O’s points). In SAYC, R is forced to show a fit in hearts since O may have 16-18p. R cannot raise O’s bid to 4♥ since O may have only 13p (unless R revalues his hand, adding 1p for the spade doubleton). Likewise, O cannot raise R’s 3♥ unless he knows that R has 13p. In this hand, O is likely to pass R’s 3♥ bid. With the ♠Ace onside, O wins 4 spades, 4 hearts and two minor Aces.

Bidding using SAYC

This is a case where R needs a forcing bid to ascertain whether O has a 6-card spade suit or a 5-card heart suit. In SAYC, R’s 2NT bid is not a forcing bid. The solution in SAYC is for R to use FSF (Fourth Suit Forcing), instead of a 2NT bid, by bidding 3♦. If O has 5 hearts, O will bid 3♥ and if O has 6 spades, O will bid 3♠.

In my previous books, I agreed with Frank Stewart. I have now become a convert to the 2/1 system. I found that my bidding system became unduly complicated, compared with the 2/1 system. Everyday more and more people are adopting 2/1. I have now incorporated it into my bidding system, with a slight modification, which I call Casey 2/1. In Casey 2/1, the opener does not use the 2/1 convention unless the opener has a 5-card major. Also, R’s 2♠ response is now a game-forcing 5-card spade suit with 13+p. Finally, cuebids are used to show 16+p but instead of showing a control, the cuebid shows a worthless suit. If the responder has a control in the worthless suit, the responder simply bids slam in the agreed suit.

GRANT & RODWELL’s 2/1 GAME FORCE SYSTEM

The best book written on 2/1 is Grant and Rodwell’s book, 2/1 Game Force. They discuss the typical variations and suggest their favorite version. For example, is R’s 1NT response always forcing? The answer is that you can play semi-forcing 1NT. In this convention, O can pass R’s 1NT response with a 13p hand and poor major suit. What if O opens 1♥, R bids 1NT and O rebids 2♠; what does O’s 2♠ rebid mean? According to Grant & Rodwell, this bid is a reverse, showing 17-21p and 4+ spades. What if the bidding sequence is 1♥-1NT; 2NT? O’s rebid shows 18-19p and a balanced hand. What if the bidding sequence is 1♥-1NT; 3♣? O’s rebid shows a jump reverse of 18-21p with 4+ clubs. What if the bidding sequence is 1♠-1NT; 3♥? O’s rebid shows a jump reverse of 19-21p with 4+ hearts.

Once R bids at the 2-level (a 2/1 bid), does O’s 2NT rebid guarantee a stopper in the unbid suits, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 2NT? The answer is no. O’s 2NT rebid simply shows that O has no 4-card club support and no other 4-card side suit, probably a hand with 5-3-3-2 distribution. Suppose that the defense has a diamond suit after O’s 2NT rebid. The defense may be able to reel off 4 diamonds, but the diamonds may be divided 4-3, the suit may be blocked or the defenders may not lead the vulnerable diamond suit, so 3NT may still be the best bid. Does O’s rebid of his opening major shows a 6-card major. The answer is yes. A 2-level bid shows a 6-card suit (but not 16-18p). Grant & Rodwell would never jump to show strength since the partnership is committed to game.

Does a control bid show first or 2nd round control, or both? The answer is both 1st or 2nd round control. Should you stop the control-showing process when you reach game? Their answer is yes unless one partner has 19+p and continues the control process because he has a vulnerable suit (one with no controls).

Should O ever jump in a new suit after a 2/1 bid? The answer is no since the partnership is committed to game. Should the Reverse Drury convention be used when partner opens in the 3rd seat? The answer is yes since 2/1 does not apply in such situation, i.e., when the responder is a passed hand. For example, if O opens 1♠ in 3rd position (which could be a light bid) and R has 11-12p with spade support, R should bid 2♣ (Drury). In reverse Drury (the most popular version), O then rebids 2♠ to show no interest in game. The foregoing is just a sampling of the excellent advice Grant and Rodwell dispense in their book. It should be noted that there is no standard 2/1 system. Each author has his own variations, as is true in my Casey 2/1 style.

HARDY VERSUS LAWRENCE VERSUS THURSTON STYLE

There are many variations in the 2/1 style, even among the main gurus and teachers in the system. See Max Hardy, Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century, Mike Lawrence’s Workbook on the 2 Over 1 System, and Paul Thurston’s Bridge: 25 Steps to Learning 2/1, as well as his book entitled Playing 2/1: The Rest of the Story.

Some people will tell you that they play Hardy style, Lawrence style or Thurston style. In Hardy’s and Thurston’s systems, O’s rebid of his major suit guarantees a 6+ card suit whereas with Lawrence it does not. In Lawrence’s and Thurston’s systems, a reverse shows extra values whereas in Hardy’s, it does not.

If R bids a minor, e.g., 1♠-2♣ or rebids his minor, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♣, is it forcing to game? Hardy and Thurston say yes, while Lawrence says it is just invitational. Lawrence says a 2-over-1 response is just one of the ways you can show game values. Lawrence says O’s rebid of his suit does not guarantee 6 cards, e.g., 1♥-2♦; 2♥. Hardy says it usually guarantees 6 cards. Lawrence says O’s rebid of 2NT promises stoppers in the unbid suits, e.g., 1♥-2♦; 2NT. Hardy says it does not promise stoppers in the unbid suits.

Does O’s 2-level reverse rebid show extra values, e.g., 1♥-2♣; 2♠? Lawrence and Thurston say yes while Hardy says no. Does the forcing 1NT response deny opening-bid values? Lawrence says yes while Hardy says no. Is the auction 1♦-2♣ forcing to game? All 3 writers say yes. If R rebids his minor, is it forcing, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♣? Both Lawrence and Hardy say yes. Does O’s rebid after a 2/1 response show points? Thurston says yes, whereas Grant & Rodwell say no. Does a raise of R’s major show points, e.g., 1♠-2♥; 3♥? Hardy and Thurston say yes while Grant & Rodwell say no. Does a raise of O’s major by O show points, e.g., 1♠-2♣; 2♠? Hardy and Thurston say yes while Grant & Rodwell say no. The gist of the above is that there is no one traditional 2/1 system. All the teachers have variations on the system.

If O makes a jump raise in the Hardy-Thurston model, O shows a good 16-18p, e.g., 1♠-2♥; 4♥. If O makes a jump to 2NT, O shows a balanced 18-19p, e.g., 1♥-1♠; 2NT. If O jumps to game from R’s one-level major, O shows 19-21p, e.g., 1♥-1♠; 4♠. If O jumps to game in his own 6+ card suit, it also shows a 19-21p hand, e.g., 1♠-1NT; 4♠. Again, if O jump shifts into a new 4-card suit, it also shows 19-21p, e.g., 1♥-1NT; 3♣.

CHAPTER 2: THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE TRADITONAL 2/1 STYLE

Because the Grant-Rodwell style is so popular, I shall label it as traditional 2/1. Grant & Rodwell’s book 2/1 Game Force is by far the best 2/1 book on the market. Nevertheless, it suffers from a few defects, which I have corrected in my version, Casey 2/1.

THE FIRST DEFECT: TRADITIONAL 2/1 DOES NOT APPLY TO R’s 2♠ BID

The first defect in traditional 2/1 is that it does not apply to game-forcing 2♠ bids by R that show 13+p. In other words, traditional 2/1 fails to apply to a situation where O holds 5 hearts and R holds 5 spades. This means you are subject to the non-forcing rules of SAYC. Casey 2/1 easily solves this problem by having R bid 2♠ with 13+p and a 5-card spade suit. I call this the Casey Game Forcing 2♠ convention.

One might think that letting R respond 2♠ might cause a misfit. However, the partnership will never end up in a spade contract unless there is a 5-2 spade fit, which is really no different than ending up in a 5-2 heart fit when there is no better fit. If O happens to hold 5 hearts and a singleton spade and R bids 2♠, O simply rebids 2NT. This bid is certainly no worse than playing in a 5-1 spade fit or a 5-1 heart fit. If R holds a singleton heart, R has no choice but to show his 5-card spade suit. If R holds a doubleton heart and 5 mediocre spades, R should pass, knowing that a 5-2 heart fit is better than the possibility of ending up with a 5-1 or even 5-0 spade fit.

THE 2ND DEFECT: TRADITIONAL 2/1 DOES NOT APPLY TO R’s 1♠ RESPONSE

The 2nd defect is that the traditional 2/1 does not apply to bids by R of 6-12p with a 4-card spade major. These bids are played under the SAYC system. This means that 50% of the major distributions are not taken into account in traditional 2/1. The problem with this arrangement is that the partnership must resort to the SAYC bidding system whenever O opens 1♥ and R holds 4 or 5 spades with no support for O’s hearts. The worst deficiency in SAYC is R’s inability to show a 5-card spade suit on R’s first response.

The Casey 2/1 system solves this dilemma by adopting the Casey 5-3 Spade Fit convention. In this convention, after R responds 1♠ to O’s 1♥ opening, O bids 1NT to show 3-card spade support. Otherwise, O rebids at the 2-level in the same manner as if R had bid 1NT as his response. Because O will show a spade fit at the one-level, there is no danger of R raising to 2♠ without a golden 8-card fit. After O’s 1NT rebid, R bids 2♠ to show 5 spades and 6-10p or bids 3♠ to show 5 spades and 11-12p.

THE 3RD DEFECT: TRADITIONAL 2/1 APPLIES TO 1♦-2♣ SEQUENCES AS WELL AS MAJOR OPENINGS

The 3rd defect in traditional 2/1 is that the system is not restricted to major suit openings. In traditional 2/1, if O opens 1♦ and R responds 2♣, R’s 2♣ response is considered a game forcing bid of 13+p with a 5-card club suit. In SAYC, if O opens 1♦ and R bids 2♣, R’s bid shows 11+p. Casey 2/1 tracts the same bidding sequences as SAYC, whenever O opens a minor or bids notrump. The traditional 2/1 application of 1♦-2♣ adds a level of confusion which is unnecessary.

Traditional 2/1 also does not apply if the responder’s right-hand opponent overcalls at the one-level or doubles. Suppose O is in the S seat and R is in the W seat. If S opens 1♥ and W doubles or bids 1♠, traditional 2/1 does not apply. There is no cogent reason for this non-application of traditional 2/1. In Casey 2/1, the game force system applies whether or not responder’s right-hand opponent has overcalled at the one-level or doubled.

THE 4TH DEFECT: R MUST 1st TEMPORIZE WITH 3-CARD SUPPORT IN O’s MAJOR

The 4th defect in traditional 2/1 is the requirement that R cannot make an invitational raise immediately with 3-card support and 11-12p. The ACBL recommends that R raise O’s opening major to the 3-level only when R has 4-card support. R is supposed to temporize with 3-card support by first bidding 1NT or by bidding a minor suit at the 2-level and then raising O’s major at the next opportunity.

Temporizing with a minor suit bid can sometimes cause ambiguity. For example, suppose O opens 1♥ and R with 3-card heart support bids 2♦. Now suppose that O raises R’s diamond suit to 3♦ and R then bids 3♥. Is R’s 3♥ bid a raise of O’s 1♥ opening or is it a control bid showing 16+p and a diamond fit? Grant & Rodwell assume that it is a raise of O’s hearts.

In Casey 2/1, if O opens with a major and R has 3-card heart support, R should immediately bid 2♥, 3♥ or 4♥ with 6-10p, 11-12p or 13-15p respectively (the Direct Raise convention). R does not need to temporize to show a 3-card suit.

It is quite true that R’s hand has a higher value with 4-card support than 3-card support. Casey 2/1 solves this problem by giving R an additional point for his 4-card support. The Bergen point count system has quantified the 4-card support by giving an extra point for the 9th card in the suit and another point for the 10th card in the suit (i.e., 5-card support). The extra point is justified by the fact that the opponent’s trump Queen will drop 40% of the time with a 2-2 split. Also, R’s 4th trump may be useful in obtaining a 2nd ruff without drawing all of the trumps.

THE 5TH DEFECT: TRADITIONAL 2/1 FAILS TO ADOPT THE FAST OR SLOW ARRIVAL CONVENTION

The 5th defect in traditional 2/1 is that 2/1 fails to adopt the fast or slow arrival convention (hereafter fast arrival). Suppose O opens 1♠ and R bids 2♥, showing 5 hearts and 13+p. O holds 3 hearts. Should O rebid 3♥ or 4♥. Max Hardy and Paul Thurston would raise R’s bid to 4♥ with 13-15p (fast arrival) but would only bid 3♥ (slow arrival) with 16+p. Grant & Rodwell would always bid 3♥, based on the fact that the 3♥ bid only shows support and not support with 15+p. The problem with Grant & Rodwell’s approach is that you sometimes need to show a fit at the same time you show your 16+p hand by cuebidding. This is what I call the cooperation problem, discussed later.

The Casey Fast Arrival system also applies to minor suits. For example, if O opens 1♠ and R bids 2♦, O’s raise to 3♦ shows a fit and 16+p. With a fit and 13-15p, O should bid 2NT, e.g., 1♠-2♦; 2NT-3♦ (showing 5♦s). In a major suit, a raise to the 3-level shows slow arrival whereas in a minor suit a raise to the 3 or 4-level shows slow arrival.

THE 6TH DEFECT: TRADITIONAL 2/1 APPLIES CUEBIDDING TO SHOW A CONTROL, INSTEAD OF LACK OF A CONTROL

The 6th defect in traditional 2/1 is the cuebidding process to locate a vulnerable (hereafter worthless) suit. The use of controls (via cuebidding) is way overrated. If you want to know whether your partner has an Ace in a particular suit, a control will not help you since a control may be either a 1st round control (showing the Ace or a void) or a 2nd round control (showing the King or a singleton). The problem with traditional 2/1 is that you cuebid a suit to show a control, which means you may have to bid all 4 suits in order to determine that the partnership has a worthless suit.

The Casey 2/1 system solves this problem. Instead of cuebidding to show a control, you cuebid to show lack of a control. For example, suppose O opens 1♠ and R responds 2♥. O raises to 3♥ to show 3-card support and 16+p (slow arrival). Using Casey 2/1, R bids 4♦ to show lack of a control and O, likewise having no diamond control, signs off at 4♥. Using Grant-Rodwell’s cuebidding, R would cuebid 4♣ (showing a control) and O would bid 4♥ (showing the lack of a diamond control. R would then pass O’s 4♥ bid. Both methods solve the worthless suit problem, but the Casey 2/1 system does it in one step, rather than the more cumbersome 3 or 4 step process.

CHAPTER 3: THE NON-APPLICATION OF THE CASEY 2/1 SYSTEM

THE NON-APPLICATION OF CASEY 2/1 TO O’s 1♦-2♣ SEQUENCE

In traditional 2/1, the only application of the 2/1 system other than a major suit opening is the auction 1♦-2♣. This sequence shows a 5-card club suit and 13+p. As in all 2/1 situations, it does not apply if the opponents intervene (which is quite common) or the responder is a passed hand. If O bids 1♦ and R has less than 13p, R bids as if 2/1 does not apply. Using a bifurcated approach for hands with 13+p or 0-13p makes the system far too complicated.

R’s response of 2♣ to O’s 1♦ opening does not deny a 4+ card major.