Bokchoix

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I understand that there are hands partner might have where a game is on. But is that happening often enough that I should go fishing with an 8 count opposite a minimum opener? I could equally propose he might have a hand like ♠xx ♥ xx ♦ KQJxxx ♣ AKx - perfectly in keeping with a rebid of 2D but which is going to be painful when I bid 2H and he takes a shot at 3NT because he figures me closer to a 10-12 count. I guess my take-away is that while my 2H bid would be forcing, partner should not get too excited about it?

♠K J 9 8 6 ♥A 8 7 3 ♦10 5 2 ♣8 Playing Matchpoints, Standard American bidding, my partner opened 1D and with the hand above, I bid 1S. Partner responded 2D (we agree this shows 6 cards). At this point, my partner might have 4 hearts, might have 3 spades. If I bid 2H now, we would find our heart or spade fit. If pard has neither, I can correct 2NT to 3D, or pass 3D if that is his choice. However, I considered that bidding 2H now, a new suit, would be forcing and therefore would be telling partner I have more strength than this, and might propel him to a poor 3 level or even game contract if his minimum 2D response was nevertheless decent. I elected to pass, as we had found a nice fit and I was not interested in inviting game opposite a hand only good enough to rebid 2D. Partner felt I should have looked for the major fit, and tells me he would not expect extra strength from me. So, in general terms, would 2H by me have promised extras, or can it be construed as attempting to improve the strain and not showing anything more than a minimum? And with my hand in question, would 2H be a good rebid? And now that I think of it, would a rebid of 3H be game-forcing in this auction?

Thank you

I have been reading Mike Lawrence's 2/1 Workbook and thinking of working through it with my partners to see if we want to adopt his methods. Currently we play 2/1 (self-taught in my case 20 odd years ago from Hardy's yellow and black books), with all 2/1 auctions as GF, and with opener's repeat of his major guaranteeing 6 cards - both different to Mike's method. Our system is a lot looser than I would like and hoping to have subsequent bid meanings better defined throughout our auctions. But I suddenly realised, this book was written in 1987, and my copy is a 2004 edition. Does Mike Lawrence still advocate the style of 2/1 and is it generally considered a sound way to play 2/1? Or would I do better finding a book by a different author if I want to find something to thoroughly inform my partners and I on a solid 2/1 method? Thanks!

Thank you everyone for your ideas - and to smerriman, yes I did.

I have a question about bidding, after responder bids 1 over 1 and opener rebids 2NT. Playing ACBL 2/1 with 15-17 NT. So for example, 1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT (opps silent) If responder now bids 3♦ or 3♥, is it more useful to play these as accepting the game invite, and showing shape, or would these bids be more useful as a way of showing a weak distributional hand trying to avoid NT, i.e asking the opener to pass or correct? If responder instead raises to 3♣, or rebids 3♠, are these best suited as forcing bids or attempts to play there? And add in the spice of some competition... 1♣ (P) 1♥ (1♠) 2NT (P) ? Should any of 3♣, 3♦, or 3♥ be forcing or simply attempts to play? The auction that prompted my entire question was... 1♣ (1♠) X (2♠) 2NT (P) ? ...which is not quite the same as prior examples but I think the negative double is functionally equivalent to a 1 level response and the 2NT rebid is therefore showing invitational strength (feel free to correct me if necessary). Should we prefer to use 3♦ by responder in this sequence to ask opener to pass/correct, or is it more useful as a game-going bid and shape-showing? I have always believed that any bids beyond an invitational 2NT "should" be game-forcing, but I don't remember how or when I was taught that (if indeed I ever was). I am less interested in 'who was right and who was wrong' but more for a recommended consistent treatment in all the above cases which we should think about adopting. Thanks for any ideas!