[Antrax]

I learned this as "modified DONT" which makes as much sense as calling it anything, since it has roughly two bids that are similar to DONT. In any case, two questions:
a) Does this have a "real" name?
b) Is it any good?

Over strong 1NT, in direct or balancing:
2M - natural
2m - 5m + 4 card major (2♥ is then pass/correct by advancer)
2NT - both minors
X - relay to 2♣. Overcaller then passes with long clubs, bids 2♦ with long diamonds, or bids 2H to show 5/4 or better in the majors (either way)

[aguahombre]

The big plus, IMO, is 2M being natural. Can live with whatever meanings are attached to X, 2C, and 2D as long as we don't screw with 2M.

Call it "Antrax", who cares? You gotta explain the bids in actual terms anyway.

[Antrax]

Ideally I'd be able to Google it to learn more. Googling "Antrax" normally yields that book from the Shannara series.

[aguahombre]

I think it was Bluejack about a year ago who linked us with a cache of the names of a whole bunch of variations for defenses to a strong notrump ---complete with what the bids were for each "name".

[fromageGB]

Bluejack's site http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm gives "Meckwell" for this, but does not define the suit lengths. I prefer 2m to be 4m + 5anyM, but agree 2M should be natural 5+.

I think X to take out to 2m is near useless, as it does nothing to prevent opps finding a major fit, so played "Vertigo" where X was both majors or 5m + 4M. This worked well 80% of the time, but 20% forced you to the 3 level with no sensible fit, so I am now trying X as just both majors. This allows you to always find the best major fit, which I think is important when it can be unequal majors. Why play in a 4-3 when you can have the 5-3?