Dear Ed & Peter,

What are your thoughts on answering 2♥ as bust, 0-3 points no king. 2♦ as game forcing and the responder to the 2♣ opener cannot pass until you have reached 3 of a major or 4 of a minor to allow the 2♣ bidder to describe his hand.

Thank you
Judy mcNeilly

Reply Ed Hoogenkamp (South)

Dear Judy,

This is new to me. At first sight it looks OK to me. Some observations though:
- Knowing partner is 0-3 with no king, helps a lot in certain situations (opener can even pass 2♥ sometimes...)
- If opener has hearts, the contract will be played by the weak hand after the weak response (heart will be played more often than diamonds), not good.
- I assume you open 2♣ with any 8⁺ tricks (20⁺ HCP?) hand.
Your last remark is not clear to me. If 2♦ is game forcing why can partner of the opener pass three in a major or 4 in a minor? (Our Editor for the English language Derek Broughton enlightens us: Fwiw, this is very common in North America – I think it's from Audrey Grant.  And no, you can't pass 3 of a major — but might stop in 4 of a minor and we expect 9⁺ tricks, 22⁺HCP).
To me it seems more logical to play 2♦ as game forcing, so no one passes until game is reached.

I assume the idea is to have maximum bidding space with the strongest hands, a sound principle.

Agree on the following: after a 2NT rebid by opener: system on. This means: Puppet Stayman, Transfers (and the rest you play on a 2NT opening). So, although it seems silly: 2♣ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♦ = transfer to hearts.
Playing it like this is by far the easiest. No misunderstandings.

These are my thoughts. Peter surely will have more to contribute. (He thinks a lot, over there in Norway, waiting for the snow to melt...).

Un saludo, greetings from Barcelona

Reply Peter van der Linden (North)

Dear Judy,

To be honest, I try hard to understand the question (which is not very clear I think, sorry). I think you're referring to the responses to a 2♣ opening. Meaning:

¹ Strong, artificial

Is this your suggestion:
- 2♦ is game forcing
- 2♥ shows a very bad hand, 0-3 HCP, no king?

If so, this is an interesting thought. The idea is, as far as I know, new in this situation. The idea of keeping the bidding as low as possible in a game forcing situation however, is a known one (take for instance the Principle of Fast Arrival).
But you add (to the 2♦ response): '...and the responder to the 2♣ opener cannot pass until you have reached 3 of a major or 4 of a minor to allow the 2♣ bidder to describe his hand...' This is a contradiction to: '2♦ is game forcing' — Ed mentions this as well (but: see Derek Broughton's remark — in italics — in Ed's answer).

Anyway, the idea of reserving the cheapest bid for game-forcing hands, is indeed a sound idea. The problem, however, is what to do with the weak ones! 2♥ as very weak, as you suggest, has the disadvantage mentioned by Ed: the wrong hand will end up being declarer much more often than after a standard 2♦ response. Furthermore you will have to cope for slightly less weak hands, hands on which game is neither guaranteed nor impossible; you may reserve 2♠, but that is one more chance of ending up in the wrong hand...
Still, I like the idea behind '2♦ is game forcing'. Perhaps there are ways of avoiding the mentioned disadvantages?

En hils, greetings from Orkanger.