fromageGB

I think the biggest mistake is South's double, given that his strength should be discounted somewhat by partner's propensity to overcall with very little. Another factor is that North could well have doubled or used raptor with 4 spades. 2♥ is more descriptive of the hand, and I prefer 2♦ to double.

If we are talking gadgets, this sort of problem is one of those that made me switch to transfer walsh, where the replies distinguish between 2/3 card support, and 4 card. Without that, I think you are good enough to make a forward move, and 2♦ gives the most possibilities. The worry is that opener's probable 3♦ rebid (on a 3145 shape) pushes me to 4♣ which is a little high for comfort, so I probably reject that idea and bid 3♣. Especially if my 2♦ bid were not forcing.

Be fair, look at the plus side. You have 7 honours : more than half your hand are honour cards. Of the non-honours you have more "good ones" than "bad ones" (5 and 6 are neutral). So it's a good hand. Moreover, you have 13 cards! You may not have noticed that the year is '13, and the date of 24/7 (or 7/24) makes 31 when you add them up, and that's the reverse of 13! Maybe you forgot to take all this into account.

If I had an invitational 54xx I would double for penalty, but I am not an expert, as experts are never allowed to double for penalty. ;) If double forces a relay of 2♠ by agreement then there must be an agreement about whether a direct 3♦ or a delayed 3♦ is GF or weak. It could be either.

Even some of those of us who don't open 1♥ on 11 unless it is a 6 card suit still make a 3♦ bid on 11/12 HCP. There is nothing to stop responder bidding game over opener's sign-off, and having such strength in the 3♦ means that when you bid 2♠ (Jacoby 2NT) you are known to be stronger. This can help in the slam zone.

FWIW, Kokish does not depend on having a 2D waiting (weak or strong). I play 2D negative and 2H positive, and therefore the Kokish 2NT via 2H happens only after a negative. This is where the 2-point ranges are critical, to enable partner to make a game decision. Over a positive you are game forcing anyway, but the NT bids are now 3 point range. After 2D, 2NT = 22/23, 2H then 2NT = 24/25, 3NT = 26/27 After 2H, 2NT = 22-24, 3NT = 25-27. Another aspect of the Kokish relay is to enable opener to show 2-suited hands, and in this light 2NT is also a relay over opener's 2S rebid.

Slam suggestion 55 minors with spade void, but not much use. More interestingly, we have no meaning for 2NT 4NT as the opening is a 2-point range. Others may have a use? We use 3NT as a transfer to clubs, because that leaves room for ace asking. But 4NT?

Not firm ground, but possibly. It certainly doesn't make sense to me for 5♣ to be natural after 4SF - you could have just bid 5♣ rather than 2♠. But 2♠ could have been a try for help in NT, and having discovered help not forthcoming and a 10 card minor opposite you may want to play game in clubs. However, you could have rebid 4♣ for that. In that case what does 5♣ mean? It could be exclusion, agreeing diamonds. Some might think 4♣ was a stronger hand, though, than 5♣ natural, where 4♣ invites a 4♦ ask. If this latter is in partnership style, then it is risky. As Mike says, try it, and use it as a discussion point.

Actually, with my "system orientated" partner, I play the conditional ace ask as Zel suggests (following an earlier Zel post!) in other situations, but not in this. Opener has the hand that can decide whether 12 or 13 tricks are for the taking, not responder. Therefore it needs to be opener that asks. 4♣ natural is better in my view. If playing 4NT for aces, as the OP implies, I would jump cue bid with a trick better than a minimum positive, but playing kickback as I do, 4♣ could also be the stronger hand. The 3♦ bid is a fine idea, but needs specific partnership agreement with a "system orientated" partner. With a normal partner I am sure 3♦ would be taken to be natural. You don't want partner raising it to game.

If playing an unbalanced (shortage) diamond 3♣ seems the obvious rebid. Too strong for 2♣ which would be passed with a hand stronger than responder's. If not, then 2♥ gives you a chance to bid 3♣ next time. (I pass if responder bids 3♦.)

1) Yes, 3♠ stronger than 4♠, but if spade support is not good, perhaps 2NT would be better than 4♠ in case opener has a second suit. You can always bid 4♠ later. 2) Do you want to be able to play in 4♣ when you have a positive to a 2♣ open? I don't, so as opener is single suited I would bid 4♣ with club support so that opener may cue or ace ask. If I had a hand a trick better than a minimum positive, with club support I would jump (say 4♦) as a cue.

When I and many people around me played the multi, this was the standard way to invite game with a spade holding, but not hearts. That said, it may be better to have 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT as the invitation, because I don't think a natural 2NT would be useful. 3♠ could be a useful preempt, because LHO with hearts would have passed on the previous round. But simplicity ruled.

Agreed, but Eagles is learning near London UK, it seems, and I suspect the 1♠ open may be 4 cards. (May it be?) If so, bidding this hand the same as you would a 9 or 10 count is risking trouble. If partner goes higher you may be turning your average into a bottom.

Of course! How else can you play it?

Decisions like this depend on system. If 1♠ is 4 card, then partner may get too excited when you raise (what would you do with a 9/10 count?). If 1♠ is 5 card, then 2♠ is OK.

but maybe not in this forum.

I need a bit more. I may open 1♣ (twalsh) if I had both majors, but otherwise a poor 11 does not qualify. You have to draw the line somewhere for partnership understanding and decision.

I don't play Landy, but would think this is dangerous. Partner may bid spades when he is 55xx if that is his better suit.

Perhaps it depends on what the 4♥ means. Ace asking in diamonds? Lead request. Long solid suit? ♠/♣ 2-suiter. Splinter? Sacrifice suggestion.

There are reasons for bidding 2♠. 1) North may have a 7 count, but opponents are not even inviting game, so South (you) must have a pretty good hand. So North bidding something is an OK idea. However, you must be aware that his values may be light, and do not attempt to look for game. 2) If he bid 2♣, you bid your longer major, and if you have a 2344 shape you will bid hearts. Do you really want to play a contract on a 4-3 fit? A 5-2 fit is better, and because of this I as North would bid 2♠. If you had equal length and would bid 2♦ over ♣, then he would bid 2♠ anyway. 3) If you end up in defence when opener bids his long diamonds over a 2♣, North certainly does not want you to lead away from your heart honour, assuming the Landy bidder must have one. On the contrary, North would welcome a spade lead.

Normal auctions wouldn't get higher than 2♥, would they? Playing a weak NT or 1♣ when a strong NT, I would have thought responder not good enough for a game invitation. If you are tempted, it can only be because of the ill-advised wide-ranging NT.

If someone, somewhere, has actually played this method, I'm sure they would have dropped it as soon as it came up, so I can't see what possible advice there could be other than "don't play it".

I'm not, I'm pleased to be of some help :) It seems your method cannot identify the shortage in a low range hand, and then decide to play in 3♠ or 3NT depending on the answer. But the key thing for many people is simplicity. You have a point that it may be better not to disclose a shortage if it is not relevant. Incidentally, this is not the method I play, as my preferred weak 2 in the majors may be 5 or 6 card, and the replies are simply 2♠ 2NT : 3♣ = weak 5 3♦ = weak 6 3♥ = strong 5 3♠ = strong 6 We did come up with something more complicated that we sometimes forgot, so we dropped it. Similarly as we do not bid a weak 5 when vulnerable, we could have something different for that occasion, but decided that there were more important uses for our limited memories.

What I meant was exactly as Zel put it - and put it better! Your agreement is contrary to the regulation. On the 2♣ point, though, the specification part 2b does mean that you CAN have an agreement that 2♣ is a traditional strong hand or a sub-minimum (ie psyche) hand that will not have long clubs. Whether it CAN have long clubs depends on how you read the regulation. If your specification is "unspecified near game force hand, or any hand less than 10 hcp" then the wording of the specification does not mention a club suit. Does this specification include holding four clubs? I think I would say that hands that conform to the specification might include four clubs, but the specification does not include holding at least four clubs, so any "psyche" is therefore not a psyche, as it is part of a permitted and disclosed agreement.

My understanding was that you are not allowed to add a non-prescribed version to your agreements, disclosed or otherwise.