[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2021-December-13, 10:11, said:

Very few will have the agreement that 2♣ might be a weak hand that wants to force to game. I would argue that if that really is the agreement then it would be sufficiently unusual that an explanation should make reference to that fact that the bid is forcing to game, but is not necessarily strong.

I don't think that the EBU's Blue Book has everything right, but I think that 2.B.4 is useful in defining forcing:

Blue Book said:

2.B.4 ‘Forcing’
means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear

I think it would be a more useful definition if it stopped after the first sentence
Two more usual and useful ways of qualifying "Forcing" are:
a) conditionality ("unconditional", "conditional, can be cancelled by double negative"...)
b) minimum contract ("forcing to repetition of first suit", "forcing to game"...).

If the agreement was that the opening showed a strong hand, I can see the issue you raise (our regulations define a strong hand as 16+HCP, which is crude but at least clear). But that is not the case, the agreement is unconditionally forcing to game, meaning that in an unopposed auction the partnership will always contract to at least 3NT, 4M or 5m. 3NT is clearly based on opener's HCP strength, 4M or 5m may be more about shape. This is simple bridge logic and should not require explanation IMO.