[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on Aug 28 2010, 01:03 AM, said:

EDIT: btw in Poland it was standard some time ago to play 2NT as forcing and asking in this sequence (you showed ♠ support and shortnesses after that). I think this sucks but many players here like it and still play it. It was recommended in "polish club 2000" by the way.

Funny, as far as I can tell 2N forcing is becoming more popular in USA than it used to be, but still kind of a fringe agreement. I love it personally.

[bluecalm]

And yet another option is:
2NT = transfer to 3♣, one of the following:

1)to play in 3♣ (weak hand 4+♠-6+♣)
2)game forcing 2suiter ♠ and ♥ or ♣
3)slam try with solid/semi solid ♠ suit (you bid 3NT/4m after accepting the transfer)
4)strong slam try in ♦ with shortness

This one is taken from Ambra.

Polish version was ask about shortness/♠ support. Answers were as follows:

3♣ = club shortness
3♦ = spade shortness
3♥ = heart shortness
3♠ = spade support but no shortness
3NT = no shortness and no ♠ support.

Pick your poison, I prefer natural 2NT

[Codo]

Funny how many people still play that 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 2 ♦ 2 ♥ shows hearts. it is bizarre but it funnily works...

[hanp]

Codo, I don't know how often you have said that whatever you play "works". I believe it to take that you are content playing what you play, not that you have actually taken an effort to see how well you did on the hands where this agreement came up. I also suspect that when you have a GF hand like AJxxxx KJx Ax xx and you get into trouble because you can't bid 2H, you don't file that hand under the heading "2H natural didn't work this time". Am I correct or do these statements have more content that I assume?

[Codo]

Han, yes it is just my way. I am the only one who bids majors he actually possesses. I actually invented this idea.

Look after the examples in the recent BB books to see that better players then you and me are surprisingly doing the same.

It is not problem free? It does not work on any given hand? Now, what a surprise.
I happily concede that not all hands are biddable with the methods I prefer.

Your approach does always work? It is so easy to find out whether you hold a 4/4 or 5/3 heart fit or a 5/3 spade fit and/ or stoppers in clubs. Wow. Impressive.

For your example hand: If you play some very old and ancient stuff like nmf you bid 3 club and you can find out whether you have stoppers in the unbid suits and or a 5/3 fit in spades.

So if you claim that this does not work, may you say me where?

If he holds nothing in hearts and clubs, he will rebid diamonds or raise spades.
If he holds stuff in both suits, he bids 3 NT.

Give partner
Kxx, Axx,KQJxxx,x and he rebids 3 spade (if he plays a stlye where he cannot raise 1 Spade with this hand...)

Give him
Kx, xx,KQJxxx,AQx and he bids 3 Heart showing a club stopper, denying a heart stop. You can gladly bid 3 NT.

Give him

Kx, AQxx,KQJxxx,x and he rebids 3 Diamonds and after your 3 HEart- showing a stopper- he bids 3 Spade, denying anything in clubs.

Isn't this hand type a problem for your approach? How do you find out that you do not have a heart fit and at the same time find out whether 3 NT or 4 Heart or 4 Spade or even 5 Diamond is the superior game?
F.e. compared to x, AQxx,KQJxxx,Kx or x, AQxx,KQJxxx,xx

So, where exactly is your problem with the ancient approach that 2 ♥ shows 4 hearts?

[gwnn]

JLOGIC and other advocates of the treatment how does playing 2N forcing affect the range of hands of the 2H rebid?

I'm not currently playing either of them (2N forcing or 2H semi-artificial) but I'd like to learn.

[mgoetze]

(deleted)