[nige1]

Scottish international, John Matheson, studies bidding theory. He's enthusiastic about the new ideas advocated by top Italians and Americans. He feels that aspiring players might as well adopt a modern version of 2/1, rather than attempt to re-invent the wheel. Nevertheless, he sometimes advances radical ideas of his own. For example ...
When partner rebids a suit, should 2NT be forcing (as a general rule).

---

John also likes 2N F/1 after partner's 2-level overcall. Comments?

---

[helene_t]

Depends on how the rest of the system looks like, obviously.

But after partner rebid bis suit, stopping in 2NT shouldn't be a priority. This may be different if you play a style in which partner will regularly rebid 5-card suits, but hey, hopefully we don't play that

After the overcall it's different. One opponent has shown opening strength so we won't have GF strength so often, and since the overcall can easily be a 5-card, we may need to stop in 2NT when overcaller declines the invite. Besides, a notrump contract is often best played in responder's hand. So if we have some other way to bid a hand that would like to make a natural forcing 2NT bid, I like the non-forcing 2NT bid. Also, when we have a hand for a natural 2NT bid, a notrump contract is usually best played in our hand, so a natural nf 2NT bid is nice.

[akwoo]

After 1♦-1♠-2♦, I agree you need an artificial forcing bid, principally to look for 3 card support (but then you might as well have other uses for it).

Having that be 2♥, 2N, or 3♣ all have their advantages and disadvantages (and it might depend on whether you're playing reverse flannery after the 1♦ opener).

After (1♥)-2♦-(P), there is some reason to have some form of Good/Bad 2N, but as a general force, I don't see why 2♥ isn't good enough.

[Bad_Wolf]

Played 2N after major rebid as art GF for years. A big winner.

[Zelandakh]

In the first auction, it is completely reasonable and perfectly logical to play that a 2♥ rebid shows any invite and others are game forcing. This works particularly well if you are also playing Reverse Flannery. Against that, there are other, related auctions where making the artificial call the invite makes things much more complicated, so on balance it is much simpler to do it the standard way, with the next free call being an artificial game force and others being natural and invitational.

It seems on the surface that a similar trick would work for Auction #2 but the additional requirement of a preemptive raise makes it all rather awkward. In this case, it is much easier to come up with a workable method using transfer advances, which are imho not more complicated or more likely to be forgotten. So while I am sure I could come up with some kind of workable structure here, it seems to me that the result will not be an improvement on existing methods that are already available.

It would be interesting to see his full structures though - I am always open to new ideas and approaches. I would agree with the general suggestion that there are many aspects of standard bidding that remain due to inertia rather than because they are actually good.