[aguahombre]

Young for sure.

Typical wisdom and deportment for a teenager, definitely.

But, "no longer with us" is not clear. I see her upvotes on the posts of others from time to time.

[han]

I agree with Bunny that opener made 2 bad bids and responder 1. However, the 3C was the worst bid to my mind. I would give opener 40% of the blame, and responder 60%.

[jillybean]

peachy, on 2011-July-04, 15:57, said:

I accidentally upvoted instead of clicking "Reply" to one of jillybean's comments here. No biggie of course but I usually wait for something I wholeheartedly agree.
Anyway, it is a good thing to agree on follow-ups after it starts 1D-2C in a 2/1 system where 2C is a natural GF call. One that I like is that opener's first responsibility is to confirm whether he/she has 5 or more diamonds; If "no" on that, then show 4-card majors up the line, and this does not promise extras/reverse; If "no" on majors, then bid 2NT with both majors stopped, unless also have 4-card support for clubs in which case usually support clubs first before NT. Agree on what is the most important and under which conditions but the key IMO is to rebid 2D if opener has more than four of them.

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-July-04, 17:03, said:

I recommend using the method by Max Hardy ( author of 2/1 GF ) who had studied the 1D - 2C! ( GF ) sequence.
It is simple and logical and removes much of the guesswork or re-inventing.
After Responder's 2C!, Opener's first obligation is to rebid 2D with 5+ card suit. [ Edit: After 2D, the entire 2-level is still available to find a 4-4 Major fit. With less than 5 cards Diam , Opener rebids 2M with a 4 card Major or 2NT w/o one ... or 3C w/4+ support ] .

East West
1D - 2C!
2D - 3Hjump ( splinter, agreeing Diam, and denies 4 cards Spades )
4D! ( Minorwood ) - 5C ( 4th step = 2 + dQ )
6D

I much prefer the Hargreaves approach where 2M shows extra's (King more than a minimum) , 2N shows both majors stopped and does not
deny a 4cM, 2♦ is the catchall, often with a minimum and often 4 or 5♦.

So all in all, I think I'd bid 2N again but choose 3♦/3♣.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2011-July-05, 23:11, said:

I much prefer the Haegreaves approach where 2M shows extra's (King more than a minimum) , 2N shows both majors stopped and does not
deny a 4cM, 2♦ is the catchall, often with a minimum and often 4 or 5♦.

So all in all, I think I'd bid 2N again but choose 3♦/3♣.

One basic idea in 2/1 G.F. bidding is using space efficiently at the lower levels to establish strain. Showing an extra King in an unbalanced hand can come later. Showing an extra King in a balanced hand is impractical because 1NT would have been opened.

The time-honored approach described by twoforbridge and attributed to Hardy is effective. There are variations attributable to Walsh, Smolen, and other West Coast theorists of that era which might or might not be slightly better (such as the 2NT rebid showing exactly 4=4=3=2).

Hargreaves is a pretty smart guy, but I think his approach might be better suited to weak NT users and/or those who don't consider 2C/1D an absolute G.F.

[Free]

Both deserve some blame, but West deserves more blame than East imo. He had a very clear 3♦ rebid, 3♣ is really awful. Opener's bids were also strange imo, the hand isn't as suited for NT as you'd like. There's no reason to play NT in the East hand (some example holdings: ♠Qx, ♥QTx+,...), so I'd prefer 2♦ rebid to start with. Bidding 3NT in the OP's auction is understandable, not to give away too much information with a partner that basically denied a 4 card ♦ support.