[mikl_plkcc]

Is it useful to
- always distinguish between 3-card and 4-card raises?
- show 3-card raises immediately?
- use artificial bids to show different strength and length?

Meanwhile, I've thought of the following. Is it playable?

1♥ -
2♥: 6-9 points, 3 ♥s
2NT: 10+ points, 3 ♥s
3♣: 6-9 points, 4 ♥s
3♦: 10+ points, 4+ ♥s
3♥: 0-5 points, 4 ♥s
3♠, 4♣, 4♦: splinter
4♥: 0-9 points, 5+ ♥s

After 1♥ - 2NT,
3♥: not enough to accept a 3-card limit raise
4♥: enough to accept a 3-card limit raise

After 1♥ - 3♣,
3♥, 4♥: sign off
3♦: bid 3♥ if 6-7, 4♥ if 8-9

After 1♥ - 3♦,
3♥: not enough to accept a 4-card limit raise
4♥: enough to accept a 4-card limit raise
others: cuebid

I hate Jacoby 2NT because it needlessly gives too much information to the opponents. I hate forcing 1NT because it removes a safe harbour.

Am I giving up too many natural bids?! Moreover, is it always good to play in 4 of the major rather than 3NT once an 8-card fit is found?

[Free]

What I do in a "2/1 GF except rebid" partnership:
- For quite some time we've been experimenting with a bid that combines invitational raises with minimum GF raises (3+ cards). For us this is 1♥-2NT or 1♠-3♣. Opener will usually place the contract without giving away extra information. He can jump to game knowing that responder won't have slam interest, and if he declines the invite responder just bids game. There's also an opportunity to look for slam or an alternative strain (OM or NT). This is very useful imo.
- For weaker hands the distinction between 3 or 4 card raise can be important. For stronger hands we use relays (starting with 1M-2♣) so that's not applicable.
- Very weak 3 card raises bid 1NT, which isn't 100% forcing. When having lots of losers, it's better to play 1NT rather than 2M although there's a fit. If opener has an unbalanced hand, he'll rebid 2m and we can brake with 2M.

Having said that, there's a trend to have fewer raises. I use this approach in a precision partnership and like that a lot:
2♣ = GF relay, can include raises with slam interest
2M = constructive 3M
2NT = INV 4+M
3M = mixed 4+M
4M = can be preemptive or with minimum GF
1NT = includes weak 3M or INV 3M raises
Remark about 1NT: if opener passes and responder has an INV, we can play 1NT instead of 3M, which is usually very comfortable.

[fromageGB]

In my view :
Yes, yes, and yes.
Yes.
No, and not always. If you can play in NT when a 3334 opposite a 3532 it can gain, but you probably won't determine that in a non-relay system.

You seem to be playing Bergen raises in a similar way to me, and I think they are worthwhile. You lose the ability the show some variety of minor hands if you play 2/1 GF, but you get it back if you allow 2/1 then rebid not GF.

[Zelandakh]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2013-February-12, 05:32, said:

I hate forcing 1NT because it removes a safe harbour.

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-12, 08:27, said:

You lose the ability the show some variety of minor hands if you play 2/1 GF, but you get it back if you allow 2/1 then rebid not GF.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the OP is not playing 2/1.

To mikl, whatever else you do you should change your follow-ups to the 2NT and 3♦ responses. These are truly horrible. You need to have Opener save space in case Responder has a big hand and wants to conduct a cue auction.

[glen]

Q. always distinguish between 3-card and 4-card raises?
not always, in particular a 4-card raise that is a 4-3-3-3

Q. show 3-card raises immediately?
yes

Q.use artificial bids to show different strength and length?
yes, using natural bids is not enough

Q. Is it playable?
yes, except if 1M-2NT and 1M-3♦ are unlimited, then 1M-2NT;-4M and 1M-3♦;-4M takes space away from proper slam investigation

Q. Am I giving up too many natural bids?
no

Q. is it always good to play in 4 of the major rather than 3NT once an 8-card fit is found?
no

[mikl_plkcc]

If I change the rebids after 1♥-2NT and 1♥-3♦ to the following,

1♥ - 2NT
3♣ = game forcing with shortness (void or single) somewhere (3♦ to ask)
3♦ = game forcing with no shortness, afterwards, 3NT = balanced hand with full stoppers in at least 2 side suits, pass or correct
3♥ = not willing to accept an invitational raise, afterwards, 4♥ = sign off; 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ = cuebid
3♠, 4♣, 4♦: cuebid
3NT = balanced hand with full stoppers in at least 2 side suits, no slam interest, pass or correct (responder can still cue-bid afterwards)

1♥ - 3♦
3♥ = not willing to accept an invitational raise
3♠, 4♣, 4♦ = cuebid
3NT = forcing to 4♥

is it good for use?

[Zelandakh]

That would be a big improvement. You might also find it helpful to look up some threads on Serious/Frivolous since both hands are essentially unlimited here. You could also consider using the 3NT response to improve your splinter structure. Two common possibilities:

3♠ shows a normal splinter somewhere - 3NT asks (you lose cue bids over the spade splinter)
3NT = stronger spade splinter
4m = stronger splinter

and

3♠ shows a normal splinter raise with an unknown singleton
3NT = splinter with spade void
4m = splinter with voin in the minor

I personally play the second of these reversed. That is, 3♠ shows an unknown void. This gains on frequency count but loses on information leakage. I do not need the first because I show the stronger splinters via a different route. That route would also be available to you since you have the 2♠ response "free". If it is of interest:

1♥ - 2♠ = mini-splinter or stronger splinter raise (shortage unknown)
2NT asks, then
3m = mini-splinter
3♥ = spade mini-splinter
3♠ = strong splinter with side void
3NT = strong splinter with spade singleton
4m = strong splinter with singleton in the minor

Obviously you can reverse the singleton/void steps here too if desired.

Once you are settled on a final structure, my suggestion would be to test it, first with deals aimed towards this and then against real opponents. One thing you might find, for example, is that the loss of space you have with the 3♦ response hurts your slam bidding too much. In that case you might find it better to switch the bids around a little, perhaps making 2NT the stronger 4 card raise. To some extent that will depend on how complex your slam methods are (how much the loss of space hurts) and how often you "support with support" rather than bidding around a strong raise. My guess is that you will notice a major difference here against a game-forcing 4+ card 2NT raise with good follow-ups. Whether the possible gains you get elsewhere are enough to make up for that is a question for you. What you have is certainly playable but I doubt it is optimal.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, I hadn't spotted that 2NT and 3♦ were unlimited.
My 3♦ is specifically 11/12 hcp, so for me your replies seemed normal. (I use 2♠ as a GF 4+ support (or 2NT over 1♠)). As Zel says, I think with 3♦ unlimited you are now cramped, in that you have a whole level of bidding less to explore with, compared with a 2M+1 bid. Over 3♦ opener perforce rebids 3♥ with a hand that is minimum, and now responder has to start with 3♠ to make any inquiries. Better to start inquiries with 2♠, or 2NT if you prefer.

You say you hate Jacoby 2NT because it gives information away, but unless you exchange information you will be struggling to reach the slams that are not obvious. If you don't like "original Jacoby" continuations I don't blame you, but many people have their own. My choice is for BOTH responder and opener to show a shortage - if there is one- below the level of 3M, and then continue with a non-serious 3NT (actually 3♠ when hearts are trumps) and/or a serious cue bid if appropriate. Some think long side suits (a source of tricks) are more useful, or you can do both by including the 4 level below game. Invent your own.

Incidentally, as you are at an early stage of designing your sequences, I would give thought to symmetry as it makes things much easier if the bidding is identical over both 1♥ and 1♠. If you have a bid that has an artificial meaning, such as your Bergen 3♣ 4 card raise over 1♥, let it be 3♦ over 1♠. Think of it as 3M-2. And your J2N or non-serious 3NT can be in fact 2M+1 or 3M+1. All your continuations are then the same. You have exactly the same amount of room, whichever major.

If you wish to forgo the possibility of inquiries and keep your 3♦ as is, a reasonable continuation set would be
3♥ = minimum, to play opposite an invitation
3♠ = non-serious acceptance, ie accept game but no more than, say, a 16 count
... over this responder just bids 4♥ unless he has a very strong hand, in which case he cue bids
3NT+ = 17+ (say) cue bid.
... over this responder cooperates with a cue bid regardless
However, you do have a problem in that responder can be a lot weaker than usual (10hcp instead of 13 hcp for example) so you need a method that allows a 17-20 opener to not go to slam without responder having extras.

Your revised continuations over your 2NT look playable, but again I would keep a non-serious 3NT in the picture to help define responder's and opener's strength better.