[helene_t]

There is one thing in Hardy's book that I fail to understand.

1♣-1M
1NT-2♦*
is NMF, yet he did play Walsh. With a weak hand with 4M6♦ you could make a "funny jump" of 3♦, but with 4M5♦ you would have to pass 1NT. Presumably,
1♣-1M
1NT-2♣*
is to play. So the rule is that a new minor is forcing while an old minor is to play. Shouldn't it be the other way round? When p opens 1♣ and we have a weak hand with diamonds, opps could be stuck for a bid with a clubs stack and 1N would be awkward. OTOH if we have a weak hand with a fit for partner's minor, opps would have bid something (the other minor, for example, or a t/o double). So 2 of opener's minor as "to play" seems less useful than 2 of the other minor.

I'm aware that most of you prefer CBS or 2-way CB or whatever, but my question is, if you want something simple and/or something emphazising low-level partscores, wouldnt it make more sense to play "old minor forcing"?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

it certainly makes sense to play 2C as forcing,
but I would not call it "Old Minor Forcing".
Just change the opening to 1D, and again you still
would like to bid 2C as forcing, instead of 2D.

For that matter, using always 2C as forcing /
artificial bid is CBS.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bhtf]

hello all
not sure of truth but i think nor 2C nor 2D are "playable"
against operand ops. but only after eventual Double of 1NT.
then i play all them forcing.
in walsh style i like that after 1m-1M-1NT :
2♣ is limit or FG
2♦, with M 5+, is weak or good shape FG
then direct and fast 3♣ or 3♦ = good limit six, with major only four
thanks for not "burning" me, lol
have a good day all