[bobbywjch]

I play reverse in this sequence as not showing extra. it's important for partner to know that you have 5+!D when you rebid 2!D, so when you do not, you bid your 4 card major.

[kenrexford]

If I play 2♣ GF, I prefer:

1. IDEAL: Opener's rebids do not show extra strength, but they are transfers, to gain space when a fit is found. However, this is best when 2♣ is GF and artificial.

2. SECOND BEST: I prefer 2♦ to be waiting if 2♣ is GF, to allow other calls to show extras.

3. THIRD BEST: No extras shown. However, I prefer this style when 2♣ might not be GF if rebid 2♣. When this is used, however, I like the new calls to be "questionable," and 2NT GF even if Responder was not GF. 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠ could result in a stop at 3♣, but not 2NT.

[han]

Arend and I have experimented with several response structures to a gameforcing 2C response.

We used to play something artificial with 2D = minimal unbalanced. This worked well when it came up but we found that we didn't have enough calls left to deal with the other hands.

Then we switched to 2D = any minimum with other calls showing extras (some artificial). This worked well when we had extras but it could be cumbersome when we had a minimal response. Bidding 2D with all minimal balanced and unbalanced hands seemed too much.

Now we play:

2D = minimal, often balanced but could have long diamonds.
2H, 2S = natural, unbalanced, does not show extras.
2NT = 6+ diamonds, at most 2 clubs, extra values.
3C = 4+ clubs, extras values.
3D = 6+ diamonds, 3 clubs, extra values.
3H/3S = minimal splinter.
3NT = 4-4-4-1 exactly, 15-17 pts.

Note that we do not open 1D with 17-19 points. We have artificial follow-ups to a few of these calls.

We did a fair amount of practice bidding with all three of these sets of agreements. I think we both found that this last set of agreements worked much better than what we had before. The fact that it is so natural is an added benefit.