fromageGB

In that case - 1♣ (1♥) X! (2♥) - opener's double is again exactly 3 card support, the same as it would be without LHO's bid, ie 1♣ (p) 1♥! (2♥).

In general use, a low lead, while saying you want the suit led back, also denies an honour holding from which by agreement you would lead an honour. A high lead means "I would like you to switch rather than lead this suit back for my sake, as my holdings lie elsewhere" but of course that is not a command. A middling card means that you don't really mind at all what partner leads when he gets in. You either have scattered values in various suits, or you have nothing.

(1♥) 1NT raptor = 4 spades + 5(+) unspecified minor (1♦) X : because I play natural 1NT over a minor. If all pass apart from partner who bids hearts I bid spades and by inference show the clubs. (Edit: this has to be only 4 spades, but clubs could be longer.) (In both cases I would bid 1♠ with 5xx5.)

This is not a bad idea. While I do play the method, I seem to not use it for the extreme suits including spades, only when the extreme major is hearts, ie I use the 3♣ bid only over a 1♠ open, when you are likely to want to compete to 3♥ if that is the fit. It does seem foolish to cause the level to go unnecessarily to 3♠ over their potential 2♥ contract.

Losing the ability to show a major may not be so important if you play Raptor 1NT overcall, the absence of which implies partner does not have 4 cards in the other major. If partner could have them, then I would not choose a method that gave up the ability to find it with a double (or agreed other equivalent). Our agreements are that if it goes 1m (1M) ? then 2NT is natural, but not after (1M) 2m (2M) where they have supported the suit. In this case you can use transfers starting with 2NT, so you have 2 ways to bid 3m, directly or via a transfer, keeping a double as takeout. This is your option 4 in post #3, and it works happily for me.

If 4NT is your only ace asking bid, it is asking in diamonds. Partner would not jump in diamonds with a spade suit. Very clear.

I'm happy playing this - I call it questem - and if you do sometimes forget, as I did early on and make a weak jump overcall in the minor, it is not a disaster.

How? I read "overcalls have a good suit or advantageous distribution". If I have AT and the 1NT hand is not a psyche, then I conclude partner does not have a good suit. Ergo he has a good distribution, and decent diamonds is likely given East's lack of support on a poor heart holding. On re-reading, it could be that the description applies to only 8 hcp hands, and not to 9 or more, in which case I withdraw the suggestion! However, I do think that game is much more likely their way than ours, and they are more likely to bid it if we force them into it or I show very long hearts. 2♥ asks for competition, but you are going to get it anyway. I will be "forced" to bid 3♥ next time.

Their fit is probably not in diamonds, as partner has them. He does not have good hearts. Defence looks good. Pass is possible, but makes it easy for them to find their suit. I bid 2♥, and perhaps if they do have game they do not find it. 2♥ at any vulnerability. My concern is that we do do not have game as my hand is so poor, but they might, and bidding aggressively to show the fit may force them into it. With poorer hearts and more strength outside, I am happier to bid 3/4♥ and hope I push them too high.

Spades is a critical suit it would be best not to bid, I agree, but diamonds has also not been bid. 2NT may be dangerous, as opener may have a balanced hand and perhaps partnership style may bid this way with a 5 card heart suit. 3♣ paradox is better.

Back to the hand. Of course with this hand you will bid anyway, whether 2♥ was forcing or not. But assume it is forcing one bid, and you have not agreed to play Kokish (or an automatic 2♠ continuation). Is there not a case for playing paradox responses, to cater for opener having an unspecified 2-suiter? Bid the suit you do NOT want to play in? Here on this hand you bid 3♣, so that opener plays the hand. Now whatever opener chooses as his second suit you can raise to game. All else being equal, it is better for opener to be playing the contract rather than you, as could happen if you bid spades. Is this another time for paradox responses?

I fully agree that 2♣ is F, but it was the "G" I object to. The 2♥ continuation I too would take as forcing, but not GF. If you bid the next step then opener can describe his 2-suiter. A 3-suiter is best managed with a different opening in my view. But 2♣ automatically GF, or 2♥ automatically GF after a double negative? Certainly not.

When one of my clubs was restricting to level 3, I played twalsh under 2012 orange book 12 D 1 : "All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention". Nobody argued. If a club decided (as within its rights) to ban twalsh then I would no longer play there. If the EBU decided to ban it nationally then I would take up knitting.

If you are not playing a "complete" method, but gradually adding things in as you can cope with them, then you must accept there is no sensible way to show a number of hands. This is one. If you have a particular agreement on what 2♥ is after a stayman denial, then surely you ignore the 5th heart and bid 2♣ followed by 2NT. As you said in post #10.

5♥ As we have no natural meaning for this, it is ace asking in diamonds ! Joke.

Two posts with different content created by one click is intriguing. I guess I could have two replies ready and click both in a brief interval, but if you're being level with us, what was the content of your intended one post ? I guess the answer to the OP is to bid 2♠ and pass at the same time... :P

While 2♠ may be "obvious", 3♦ is a candidate that may prove better for when opener is 2-suited, and would have opened spades with both majors. That would be my choice if not playing Kokish.

If I'd shown that negative by a redouble, no way is a mere 2♥ GF. I am sure many of us that do not play strong 2s play a 2♣ as possibly a trick less than game.

A very important point you raise here. For me a weak 54xx or 45xx hand responds 1NT, but my methods are predominantly geared to finding major fits at all strengths, as my main game is MPs. If I were playing IMPs I'd probably want different methods, and would then also include 5 card majors in a 1NT open!

To assign a meaning to the jump to 4♠ I think you also have to consider what a cheaper bid would mean. If you play nothing artificial it makes sense for a jump to game being minimum, and support at a lower level being stronger. If you play that a simple preference could be shorter than expected for a bid at that level, then you can play that a cheap support is shorter than normal, ideally looking for an alternative contract while unable to bid anything better. You can combine these in your examples: 1♠ 2♣, 2♥ 2♠ = only 2 card support, nothing much in diamonds, but willing opener to bid NT if he has only 5 spades and some diamonds 1♠ 2♣, 2♥ 3♠ = 3+ card support, 16+ or thereabouts, encouraging opener to cue if suitable 1♠ 2♣, 2♥ 4♠ = 3+ card support, 13-15 or thereabouts Similar logic can apply whether opener shows a second suit or not. On the other hand, if you play something artificial like non-serious 3NT, then any strength hand can support with 2♠, knowing that you can use your artificial convention to deny/show strength at a later stage. That means a jump to 4♠ can carry specific information, such as not just a non-serious hand, but one that has nothing to show should partner otherwise be seeking to cue bid. The distinction between the auctions depends merely on what the alternatives are.

I hate to disagree with you, but I think the first sentence is wrong. My understanding of last train is that its use neither denies nor shows that control, whereas the one-under denial definitely shows it. I see last train as useful in a situation where you do not want to or have not had the room to explore all the controls, sort of a serious NT at a higher level. When you do have room, then the real advantage of one-under denial in the suit beneath trumps is a way of showing control without implying additional strength. You can still be a minimum for your pre-cue bidding. This in turn allows the partnership the use of cue bids in a co-operative slam try, where the initial cue bidder may be willing to go slam only if partner has a few extras that he has not been able to show yet. With this agreement, if partner is in this position of making the final cue and has that control, he can make it when minimum, allowing you to ace ask (or show aces) if super strong, but sign off if not. If he has it and has some extra value, he will respond with aces or ask himself. Conversely, if you (the initial cue bidder) are in the position of making the final one-under and have that control, you have the option of asking/telling aces when unilaterally asking, but making the final one-under to show it as as a co-operative suggestion confirming all controls. Whether or not you view the benefits of discovering controls as more important than giving away information is a separate matter. I do agree with the last sentence, and when partner is unlimited, 3NT as non-serious is arguably a better use of the bid. However, if partner has limited his hand, non-serious is no use to anyone, and one-under denial 3NT comes into its own.

One-under denial cue bids in its pure form. Works well.

I'll shoot this down. Of course you have metarules that depend on system. You need one when playing kickback for example ; is a bid of 4y natural or ace asking? Maybe that's not what you meant.

I'm not talking about a takeout double, or a support double, but after a round or so. 1♥ pass 1NT pass 2♥ double = penalty, but 1♥ pass 1NT pass 2♥ pass pass double = takeout. You can no doubt come up with obvious contrary sequences, but when in doubt, it's good to have a metarule. I don't think it forces undercompetitivity (a suggested penalty can be taken out in the same way that a takeout may be left in). The two seats are not the same. If your gappy heart suit is sat on by LHO's bid heart suit, it will not take as many tricks as when the suit is on your right.

One I like is that a double sitting underneath opponents's bid is takeout, double sitting on top of it is penalty. Obvious exceptions. I don't play with mikestar13.