[1eyedjack]

So as to avoid skewing the results I would appreciate if you only vote if you are familiar with UK standard methods, wherein a 2♣ response to 1♦ is NOT game forcing, nor even promising another bid over a 2♦ rebid by opener. I am not, for instance interested in those who vote "constructive at any form of scoring" and artificially inflate the vote count for that entry simply because they would never countenance responding 2♣ on less than GF values. Of course, by all means feel free to pile in with comments whether you vote or not.

Please also feel free to add in the comments whether your vote differs according to whether your preferred method (given the constraints specified) differs from what you believe would be standard.

[helene_t]

If this is preemptive then any invitational hand that can't bid 2N would have to reverse into a major. This is impractical since opener could easily have a 4-card in the major in which case he would raise.

Also, the auction doesn't really tempt to balance. After all, 2♦ could be a 5-1 fit.

So I vote constructive which has been the intention of most (not all) of the players I have seen make this bid so far.

[FrancesHinden]

To be honest, it has never occurred to me that this auction is any different from 1M - 2m - 2M - 3M: it shows invitational values, usually with three trumps.

It's horrible to have to warp all your invites into 2NT, 3D is often going to be a much safer contract.

I think 3D is between (roughly)

xx
Kxx
Kxx
A109xx

and

Kxx
x
Qxx
AQxxxx

(which is pretty close to a game force)

With four trumps, UK standard methods would have responded 2D or 3D the previous round.

[EricK]

This has got to be constructive else you have no bid for constructive unbalanced hands. Also, I think that pre-emptive is hardly ever going to be useful as on those hands you would often have had a 1M or double overcall by 2nd hand or a double by 4th hand.

[brianshark]

This is constructive at all forms of scoring, even playing 2/1 not promsing a rebid.