Jboling

For me, new minor forcing is variation of Checkback Stayman/Chrowhurst, with the distinguishing feature being that you use a bid in a new minor as forcing instead of 2♣ always. In the current situation 1♣-1♠-2♣ a 2♥ bid would also be forcing, although it is not a minor. The reason for that is that it is a new suit by an unpassed responder. The same does not hold for opener, a non-jump and non-reverse new suit, no matter if it is a major or a minor, is nonforcing. Or would you apply NMF to opener also? Back to the original problem, what does responder do with 5+♦ and 4♠ and invitational strength? I think that it could go like this 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦ = roundforcing, 2+♦ and 4+♠ 1♣-1♠-2♣-2NT = natural invitation 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♦ = 5+♠-4+♦, GF 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-2NT = 4♠-5♦, inv 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-3♦ = 4♠-6+♦, inv Or the last two could just describe the heart stopper situation. Responder denied 4♠ and 5+♦ with GF strength with his 1♠ bid. Another issue which seem to be unclear is whether 2♥ is fourth suit forcing or natural and thus maybe even nonforcing?

There is a case for 2♦ being artificial in this case, but I think it then would be called Bourke relay (lowest new suit after 1x-1y-2x). The correct response in that case would be 2♠, promising 2 cards. 2♦ would be NMF in the sequence 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦. So I do not think 2♦ was intended as artificial in the current poll. My vote goes still to 2♠, sounds least encouraging to me, and partner has promised 5+♠ (unless otherwise agreed). With 3 card support and a good hand one can jump to 3♠. If 2♥ would be fourth suit nonforcing then it would be perfect, but it sounds like maximum with fitting honors in partners suits, and/or solid club suit, and asking for a stopper for 3NT.

I agree with the others that openers 3♦ rebid is nonforcing, so the given openers are clearly in the upper range of the bid. This brings Gazzilli to my mind, I have read somewhere that you can play Gazzilli after minor openings also, but I have never seen how it would work. Gazzilli is an artificial forcing 2♣ rebid after a major opening and 1♠ or 1NT response. After that responders 2♦ rebid is artifical 8+. As a result, all other bids by opener and responder are limited by the inability to bid the forcing bid. But using openers rebid 2♣ and responders rebid 2♦ as artificial forcing seems a bit awkward after a minor opening, especially in the auction starting 1♣-1♦. So I have thought about that one could use the lowest new suit rebid as forcing for both opener and responder. For responder it would usually mean a bid in the fourth suit. For example in the current case 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥ 2♣ = natural or a 17+ hand, forcing 2♥ = 8+, artificial GF against the strong hand. After this openers 2♠ and 2NT rebids would be limited, higher bids would be GF. The given openers would bid 3♦. But this is just an idea in progress, maybe someone can fill me in on how to really play Gazzilli after a minor opening?

Forgot to mention that 2♣-2♦ should probably be almost forcing. 2♦ is limited by the inability to bid the gameforcing 2NT, but it can be used for checking if pard has the right major, and then deciding if an invitation should be done. So it is probably quite safe for opener to pass if he intends to decline all invitations, and if he has diamonds of course.

Anyone heard of or played such a convention? Opening 2♣ with two alternatives, a. balanced hand with 17-18 points (could also be 18-19 or 19-20, whatever fits best into your system) b. weak 5-5 two-suiter, major+other It seems to work, the responses are pass = weak, (4)5+♣ 2♦ = all hands that does not fit into other bids. Opener bids cheaper major with a 5-5 and 2NT with a balanced hand. Opener may user higher bids to show 6-5 or better, 2♦ usually includes some strength (about 7-14) 2♥/♠ = to play, against both handtypes 2NT = asking, GF, normal Wilkosz responses (3NT free for balanced alternative) 3♣ = invitational three-suiter, short spades higher = as in Wilkosz, not sure if one should use 4-level bids. 2♣-2♦-2♥-? 2♠ = pass or correct higher = natural, should probably be invitationally oriented. Could probably develop some paradox-like stuff. 2♣-2♦-2[NT]-? 3♣ = Stayman 3♦ = to play, all other rebids are natural GF It has a lot common with standard multi, so maybe multi-Wilkosz could be allowed where multi is allowed? It could be used even in a natural system, all you need is to use 2♦ as strong.

Sorry, I was unclear, this was an example of where a 3/1 would be more accurate than standard 2/1, where you bid 1NT with the IJS hand. Then a non-jump bid in a new suit on the 3 level is weak (at least in the systems I have seen), and you would have to bid 2NT also with a 6 card suit to show your strength. My personal preference is also semi-forcing 1NT. But my aim with this system was primarily beginners, who could gain from a system with little conventions and intuitive and well limited bids. They could then focus on improving bidding logic instead of remembering conventions. Game forcing 2/1 is definetely simpler than 10+ 2/1, and 2/1 GF is a good base for practicing your bidding logic, when all you have to remember is to not pass a bid below game. And a nonforcing 1NT is also simpler than forcing or semiforcing 1NT. And you can fill in the gap in between with 3/1 as IJS and 2NT covering the rest; it has its flaws but so has all systems. The main problem is probably as Gerben said the invitational hands with 4-5 hearts after 1♠ opening, and it is probably best solved by bidding 1NT instead of 2NT. But that can wait until one are ready to add Jacoby 2NT to ones system. On the other hand, you could also gain something by having sequences like 1♠-2NT-3NT, when you get a unbid-major-lead into your 5 card suit. And you also gain in competive situations when 1NT is better limited. And most important, beginners will gain a lot if they avoid misunderstandings. PS. I was not my intention to add two-level IJS to the system, its easier if they are strong IMO. So you would need the term invitational 3/1 to distinguish it from IJS.

Thanks for the responses! The system was not supposed to be a perfect system, but a very simple one. And you will get problems with certain distributions. There are distributions that give problems when using semiforcing or forcing 1NT. The invitational 3/1 does solve some problems too, for example 1♠-1NT(forcing)-2♥-oops, 3♣ and 3♦ are no longer invitational, have to bid 2NT. Jari

When thinking about a simple 2/1-based system that could be taught to beginners, I came up with the following. It could also be useful for pickup partnerships, there's lot to be won by avoiding misunderstandings. 1. Natural openings 2. 2/1 response game forcing 3. 3/1 response invitational, promising a 6 card suit. Max Hardy uses this in his 2/1 version for 1♦-3♣, so that 1♦-2♣ can be game forcing. You can extend it to major openings. 4. 2NT response natural invitational 5. 1NT response natural non-forcing 6. Some basic conventions as Stayman, Blackwood, 2♦ negative after 2♣ opening, and probably 2NT asking after weak twos. 7. Everything else is natural. Wouldn't that be simple but still quite effective? One could maybe call it 3/1, as it doesn't include 1NT forcing. You need Fourth Suit Forcing, negative doubles, and some version of Checkback to bid effectively, but these are probably not for beginners. Inverted minor raises could also be added to that list, but it is probably not as important. Note that it works together with both 5 card and 4 card major openings, as long as 1NT response is non-forcing. Jari Boling, Turku, Finland.