[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-04, 11:46, said:

I'm thinking of strength but

OMG !

I have just sent this auction to my current "best" partner and asked Shape or stoppers?

Her answer: stoppers

My other best partner:
That bidding sequence denies a 5 card diamond suit and promises a 4 card spade suit.
With a 4 card major and 5 card or longer diamond suit, opener should show shape.

Maybe I will keep the third opponent after all

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-04, 11:46, said:

I'm thinking of strength but

OMG !

I have just sent this auction to my current "best" partner and asked Shape or stoppers?

Her answer: stoppers

My other best partner:
That bidding sequence denies a 5 card diamond suit and promises a 4 card spade suit.
With a 4 card major and 5 card or longer diamond suit, opener should show shape.

Sigh 😔

[steve2005]

awm, on 2026-September-02, 15:32, said:

No one plays 1nt forcing over 1♦ as far as I know. The usual combination if you want 2♣ response game forcing is:

2nt = invite, around 11 balanced no 4M.
3♣ = invite with 6+♣
Inverted minor raises

You can move some things around if you're willing to use an artificial 2♥ and/or 2♠ response..

What he said, it's simple and natural
Other people changing all sorts of bids is fine for them
but people usually are better off keeping it simple

ps. there are people who play 1NT forcing but it is extremely complicated and not very many people do it.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-September-04, 16:05, said:

Sigh ��

It is impossible to go through all of these sequences with a new partner; you only find out as they come up.
The good news is that we have a better chance of handling it than others who haven't even thought of it.

[mikeh]

steve2005, on 2026-September-04, 19:57, said:

What he said, it's simple and natural
Other people changing all sorts of bids is fine for them
but people usually are better off keeping it simple

ps. there are people who play 1NT forcing but it is extremely complicated and not very many people do it.

I’ve never seen anyone play 1D 1N forcing. That isn’t to say that nobody does it, but I’ve played against a great many methods so it must be rare…for good reason. I do, in my main partnership, play 1C 1N as game forcing, but it’s actually not that complicated provided one plays transfer responses to 1C

[DavidKok]

I have played 1♣-1NT and 1♦-1NT as GFR before. I think it's not very good, but it was fun.

[Zelandakh]

DavidKok, on 2026-September-05, 00:48, said:

I have played 1♣-1NT and 1♦-1NT as GFR before. I think it's not very good, but it was fun.

As I have pointed out on here many times, making your primary GFR 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT is just much more efficient than using the direct 1NT response. You can improve it a little more beyond that by switching to an unbalanced diamond. Using 1NT as a GFR over a 1♣ opening (nearly twice as many hand types) just seems like a really bad idea.

As far as 2-over-1 follow-up structures go, there used to be some debate here about Hardy vs Lawrence but as I have not seen any such threads for a while, perhaps one or the other has won out in America. It's not a system I personally play with anyone, so I am not even close to an authority, but my recollection is that the 1♦ - 2♣ auction was a bit of a flash point between the 2 approaches. That might explain the differences of opinion expressed here.

[DavidKok]

But it makes 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♣); ? much more difficult, since 1♥ no longer shows hearts. There are benefits but also costs. On most deals I do not want to use my GFR - either the deal is competitive (and it is off in competition), or I won't have the values, or I have a strong hand that is better off showing than asking.
The hand types in 1♣ are a mixed blessing for GFR. We've right-sided potential NT contracts opposite the balanced hand, and will only use the GFR when we wish to ask rather than tell. It would be easy enough to swap this into a Dutch Doubleton 1♦ response instead, but I think this just makes it worse.
I agree that allocating the cheapest bid to a prelude of GFR makes the GFR sequence better. However, this fails to consider any cost to reallocating the current meaning of the bid, here showing a major suit.