fromageGB

You could well be right, and then it is not worth bidding 3♠ in the absence of competition if you have a 7/8 count with no shortage. In that case, for a useful game invitation and acceptance, the 3-level bids could be showing the shortage with a 9/10 count, which you may call a mini-splinter, and there is also room to have 9+ with no shortage. As there is no room for everything, a 7/8 non-specified shortage can jump to 3♠ with a reasonable expectation of making. Is the following simple "Bergen-replacement" playable? 1♠ ... 2NT = 13+, may include shortage to be shown later 4 new suit = 11/12 shortage 3♣ = 9-10 shortage in diamonds or hearts (3♦/♥ invites game with that shortage, but 3♠ = no interest) 3♦ = 9-12 no shortage (3♥ invites for 11/12) 3♥ = 9/10 club shortage 3♠ = 7/8 unspecified shortage (3NT asks for slam purposes) I don't like actually bidding the shortage, as that encourages a cheap X to invite competition in the short suit.

Then responder with an 8 count is forced to reply, or you miss 3NT, so you end up at the 2NT or 3 level with no super fit on a combined 20 count. Come back Gazzilli, all is forgiven.

A question for you experts : if 2♦ is forcing, what do you bid with a far weaker 12 count 2542/2551 hand? I can't imagine you bidding 2♦ non-forcing with this. (Just trying to understand ...)

I think this suffers from the serious problem that you have now allowed much more room for opponents to speak. 3♣ is hardly a preemptive raise when it cuts out nothing. Good discussion, and I think I'll stick to my preemptive 1♠ : 3♦ = 7-10 (♥ asks for good/bad) 3♥ = 11/12 3♠ < 7 (@jogs I think 4432 should not be excluded. @PK I sympathise with your just one try, but I have found many games with 3♦, rather more frequently I suspect than you have found slams. If you are trying for slam, you have plenty of room above 3♠)

Tempo issues? If the intention is to give no signal, playing parity lavinthal with "the lower, the stronger the signal", I can't see how it is more difficult to play a high card than it is playing a middling card when playing magnitude lavinthal. After my initial perusal of dummy I will have already worked out what cards I must keep in the form of guards, and what cards I may be able to easily spare, so when the time comes that a signal is needed, it will take no time to recognise a free card. I can't imagine it will take long to determine whether a card is odd or even. I speak without experience : as it does not seem to be against regulations here, I am about to start playing this.

As a major is (normally) not promised by responder, and if there is one it will not be long, I don't think a multi type X defence (single major or good hand) is really viable. On reflection, I would prefer it not to be a takeout of a specific major because they have shown no major and you are less likely to have such a hand. Maybe it should not show diamonds, because again, responder can often have them and indeed has no other long suit, so holding diamonds over the 1♦ bid is not so frequent as it is over, say, a transfer. Moreover, if I have long diamonds, then a 2♦ call is better as it is disruptive. This leads me to think (now like the majority) that my X should be a general balancedish takeout, equivalent to me opening a non-shortage 1♣. Partner bids a 4+ card major if opener passes, but uses our standard defence to their overcall of our 1♣ if opener bids. OK, neither of the OP choices ! : "One of us thought it should show diamonds and one of us thought it should show 4-4 (4-3) in the majors" :P As to 1NT, I don't like Raptor when they have not bid a major because it is silly to scramble a minor non-fit at the 3 level when you don't have the major fit - I use Raptor only when they have bid a major, so your major is defined. Both minors is a possibility.

Don't agree with this. I know people who are not idiots who play 1♦ denies a 5 card major (they don't call it Montreal relay) and I consider it better than bidding a major with 4 or 5, particularly when weak. Of course it does not have the advantages of Twalsh, but it does have the benefit for many of being considerably simpler. If you are going to have an agreement to be used against this convention than Ken's seems a good idea.

A heart as this is likely to be partner's suit, and he has more values than I. Partner will not assume I have any heart honours. Hopefully he can see them all, but his length and strength will tell him I am not trying to set up my long suit, but am leading his. The 9 because if we are playing lavinthal signals it may deter a club return for the second lead through dummy. As partner knows it is not my suit, I would lead a low x if my Ace was in clubs.

As it is a double of a bid that does not show diamonds, by default I take the double to show diamonds. Surely if you have a major or two, you can afford to wait.

In a natural bidding system, not all bids have to mean what they say on the can. Artificial bids ARE allowed, and it would be extremely difficult to play without some. If someone espouses a 2NT call, for example, it is only fair to explain what it means, how it is handled and what the continuations are. Then all we natural system players can see if it would benefit or hinder our way of doing things. How else do we learn of many things without reading about them here and elsewhere?

AWM : also what if opener rebids lower than 2M, say 1♠ 2♦(not GF) 2♥? 2♠ shows 2 cards, but 3♠ is GF, so 2♠ may be either 2 or 3 card?

It is not everyone's style, but we bid 2♣ rebid as 15+ saying nothing about clubs (but denying 4 card spade support). 2♦ reply is any hand with 8 hcp (upgrade a fancied 7), and with a weaker hand responder bids 2♥ usually, or 2♠ or 3m to play with 6 and heart shortage. After the 2♦, opener rebids naturally, but a bid at the 3 level would be 17+ and thus GF, while a bid of 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT is 15/16 and may be passed. On this hand North bids 2♠ to show 3, and South with a 7 loser and probable cross ruffs is probably good enough to bid 4♠. If you judge it only good enough for 3♠ (definitely too good to pass) then opener with his prime controls bids 4♠. So 1♥ 1♠ 2♣! 2♦! 2♠ 4♠. With one partner, while still playing the above, we play Kaplan inversion where 1NT is the first bid to show 5 spades, which makes it easier if North was weaker, but on this hand all roads lead to 4♠.

I think you are way too strong to pass, but maybe that depends on how weak your 2♣ open could be. 3♠ is perfect, as you are forced to bid with this strength, and you have an ace there. Opener is going to play in hearts. He would not bid like that if spades were in the frame.

Yes. This is simple and easy to understand/remember.

Herein is a problem. If you agree to play "sound" (ie 13 hcp) openings then, as this post also says, you also need to play "light" in third seat. Much better when learning to play "middle of the road" openings than can apply in any seat. I would suggest a rule of thumb that any 12 count opens, and any 11 with a 6 card suit or two 5 card suits.

For a 2/1 with a forcing NT with a decent 5 card suit and 3 card support: Less than invitational : If your 5 card suit is spades, 1♠ then 2♥ If your 5 card suit is hearts, 1NT then 2♠ unless opener bids hearts If your 5 card suit is a minor, immediate 2M Invitational : As above, but then 3M, or 4M with shortage in 4th suit (Alternatively, you may have a partnership agreement on another method, such as an initial 2M+2, or 2♣ followed by 2M) GF: You can bid 2/1, then just bid naturally until you are in game. Support M at second turn with 3 cards. Jump to 4M with minimum GF, 3 cards, good suit, nothing useful outside. What you do with strong GF hands after the 2/1 depends on your treatment of opener rebids showing or denying extra strength. I don't know of a way to show a good 5 card suit in an invitational hand with 3 card support. You choose either to show your 5 card suit (if you play 1NT then 3xy (or immediate 3xy) as invitational) or your 3 card support.

Don't make mistakes, and make the right inferences !

I am surprised that I have not come across this concept. For the first discard to indicate a suit preference for one of the other suits, Lavinthal(McKenney) is the most popular round here. This suffers from the fact that to signal for the highest ranking suit, a high card must be thrown, and this is not usually a good idea. The improvement on this that some people play is revolving discards, because then there is always the option of throwing a low card in a low ranking suit. However, sometimes you cannot spare a card in that suit, perhaps because you are keeping length with dummy to avoid giving a free trick there. Another common problem with high or low signalling is misinterpretation. It can be difficult to find a low card when the 8 is your lowest. Even without that, a card that is high or low in the context of your hand may seem the opposite to partner, perhaps because declarer has all the low cards concealed. Why don't people play parity suit preference? Remembering the expressions "even-up" and "odD Down", you can play parity revolving, where an odd card means "go down" cyclically, while an even card means "go up". Playing parity lavinthal, an even card means the higher ranking of the other two suits, while an odd card means the lower ranking. (There is now no advantage in playing one or the other, both are equally as effective.) One advantage is that you can always signal with low cards, not needing to waste a high one. Even more important, there is no ambiguity : a 6 is always even, whether partner may think it high or low. If you wanted to, or course, you can add modifications such as a 2,3 or 4 are neutral cards, implying no signal, or a low card followed by a higher on the second discard cancels the initial unintentional signal, but whatever, it seems superior to play parity rather than magnitude as the signal. Why is this not done? Why have I not come across it? (You may prefer to play Italian odd/even or Dodds, or something similar, but that is a different question.)

3♣ without thinking too much, playing your methods. I play 1NT absolutely forcing, and surely if you do, this is "1NT as a forcing relay" is it not? But not if it implies an invitational+ hand. My minor rebids are uglier than most, as my 1NT open excludes a 5 card major, so we only pass 2♦ with at least 4 in length more than spades. If your 1NT may include that, then I would prefer opener's 2♦ rebid to show 4, as ArtK78 said.

Surely it depends on whether your 1♥ could be any weaker. Mine couldn't, so I bid 3♥ to say so. Let partner make the wrong decision!

If you don't have the ability to show a strong hand with 4SF, maybe because it shows directional choice/uncertainty rather than strength, and you are in the situation where partner bids 3NT, you can use 4♣ as artificial. If for example North has not shows any particular point range, 4NT quantitative is a bit meaningless - what is good and what is bad? How does he know exactly how good you are to make that judgement? Back in old days I successfully used 4♣ here as a point count ask with simple step responses starting with a 12 count. (12 or fewer bids the first step, 13 the next, etc.) Very crude, and I am not saying it is a good method, but if it is something you can add on without fundamentally altering your style to do things better, consider it. The idea is that if partner is happy in a freely bid 3NT, your additional values mean that a response up to 4NT is reasonably safe to play in 4NT, and if higher, you bid the slam. It's no help with distribution, but partner has already made that decision.

The most common partnership agreement I know (from when I played multi) is a sound opening bid in an unspecified major, with partner's double of their eventually bid major as values with support for the other, but if there was no agreement I would assume double of 2♦! showed diamonds.

Not everyone plays strong jump shift or fit jumps to an overcall. I see no reason why you can't play that if you play forcing non-jumps in a suit below opener's. I would argue that a weak jump shift will occur much more often than a fit jump, so it could be the better treatment, particularly at the OP matchpoints where frequency is paramount.

I'm a bit out of the mainstream here, but we play system on after a potentially short club, with value adjustments to compensate for the fact that overcaller can be a bit lighter. So 1♠ forcing next step then rebid 2♠ to play, being a weak 6+ suit. Partner may be expecting a little more strength, but that is unlikely to hurt. So specify methods unless you want distorted results! Over a 1♦ open, it is different, and here I am stuck with pass, hoping to correct if given a chance, as 1♠ is natural and forcing as I am a non-passed hand.

I'll bid 2♦. It looks like opener has only 5 spades and some clubs, and responder notably did not bid hearts second time round, suggesting I think no more than 4. He rates to be balanced. Yet partner does not have 4 hearts, so he is 43xx weak, and is bidding the cheapest suit praying that you rescue him to your 5 card suit if you have one. If he is 33 in the minors then obviously diamonds is better, and it is also better if he is 24. The downside is that 2♦ will be bad if opener has a singleton, but then so probably will 2♣.