Siegmund

In that auction I would feel like responder took captaincy and 4D demanded cuebids, so kickback would cease to be an option for opener, barring some agreement swapping the meanings of 4NT and one of the 4M cuebids. (But if you want to know how responder asks for aces one bid sooner...um... that's a tough question too. But being forced to show aces specifically rather than by number isnt such a bad thing.) Disclaimer: I am not a regular kickback user - partly because I am a serious cuebidding addict and partly because I see so many threads where kickback causes accidents.

When you've got 5 of your own suit, the preference is compellingly better - you still have one chance left of getting to a 5-3 fit. Even with 2 hearts and 4 diamonds you may be willing to bid 2H when you are hoping to hear from partner again (i.e. you are near-maximum and/or have 5 spades.)

Put me down for that too. Distribution matters, when you've got a nice fit and guaranteed entries. Now, maybe your partnership agrees to put some game-forcing hands through 1NT and if so thats OK (he DID jump to 4M after a minimum rebid from you), but I do think responder has a game force and then some.

I give attitude T1 if I can't beat an ace or king, and I would assume it is standard to do so. I think there's some question what signal to give if dummy puts up a queen and it holds.

So it's only we matchpoint addicts who are passing? I admit it's not a 100% clearcut action especially if partner is light.

Different people have different agreements and there is a wide variety of styles. Personally I'd be very offended if a pickup partner responded 1NTF on any of these (pretending you have a 9-loser hand when you have 11 is a good way to go down two in whatever final contract opener propels you into, on the first two; the last is closer to mainstream on strength but I dislike suppressing the 4-card spade suit, so it's actually the one of the three that offends me worst, causing us to never mention the suit I'd be happiest to see us play in.) I am sure there are people who have methods to cope with them - presumably Gazilli to avoid getting too high, and F*****ry to avoid the danger of missing a spade fit - but I have a feeling many people who respond very light don't have any special methods. Re question 2, I would want to be, but I know I'd be disappointed, in just about any jurisdiction. ...under such a regulation there would be an interesting argument as to whether the 1NT bid that concealed support for opener's major was natural, though the rebid would clearly be.

Two modest overbids on the same hand usually results in a bottom, with no one person to blame for the disaster. In light of a couple similar threads I tend to put more blame on the 3NT bidder, since we see a lot of shapely 11/12/13 counts taking action over weak twos. If 3NT bidder had only one diamond stopper (as in the 3-3-4-3 hand with K8xx diamonds in the other thread) it'd be easier to blame him, but AQxx does look mighty nice. The idea of "Lebensohl only over 2M" is new to me (I've had a lot of partners ask to play leb over weak twos, and never had anyone mention the possibility of treating 2D differently from 2M), and I can see a case for it. Though in my book, one of the great values of Leb, Good/Bad, and other such conventions is that it removes the temptation to make a 2NT bid which is always going to be the wrong contract anyway :)

For me this is maybe half a trick shy of a 3NT bid, and I would consider pass the normal/obvious call, with 3NT as a swingy alternative, and double not on the list.

If a penalty pass fails because opener had an 8-card suit to the KQ at equal vulnerability AND responder turned up with 3 working tricks... gee, seems like that means pass is clearly right and is usually going to net a 500-point set, with no guarantee a 4D bid is going to produce a game.

Pass, and I feel very strongly about it. I hate being in 2NT. It is true that you will occasionally do 10 points better in NT. (And my answer might be influenced some by what 2C-then-2NT would mean.) Second question, 3NT and I feel even more strongly about it.

A close pass at IMPs that will occasionally go sour; a much clearer pass at MPs.

No strong feelings between CT and Dx. But it's the wrongest time to lead a major against 3NT that there is.

High spade seems normal to me. If you ordered me to lead a non-spade I would give serious consideration to a diamond, on the theory that 1C-then-1NT limits declarer to at most 3 diamonds. If this is an "up the line" partnership the diamond becomes more appealing since dummy won't have 4 or 5 diamonds.

S9 and no second choice, for me. Partner's X commands me to try to hit his suit which I'd do here by leading spades anyway; but he didnt know I was so weak that I was going to do that anyway. There might be such a thing as a player who is experienced enough that he's supposed to understand logical alternatives, yet new enough that a fourth best heart is a logical alternative, but it strains my imagination.

Quite possibly more than two separate questions. But, for the two most obvious questions: With cards suitable for both a heart bid and a spade bid, hearts first, to leave room for partner, is my preference (but you will occasionally hear people who are firm believers in 'show support first' or 'unbid suit first.'; with a pickup partner I would never assume that we show min/max. With a regular partner you can agree to do so in a sensible way -- and by sensible I mean making use of 2N and 3C, NOT leaping to 3D/3H/3S automatically. Leaping to e.g. 3H and wasting a whole level of bidding space is IMO worse than waiting one more round of bidding to resolve strength.

Sure seems to me like the right answer has to be "depends on methods." It just happens most of the respondents are accustomed to a method where 2m-first is the way their whole system is designed. I prefer a 1M-first style, personally, but that's ONLY in the context of some firm agreements about how 4-5s, 4-6s, are shown and distinguished from 5-5s. Playing with a solid unknown in a SA or 2/1 or "didnt discuss anything at all' context I would certainly assume 2m-first is what partner expects.

Put me down for pass the first time and pass the second time too, though I will admit that the case between passing 2C and bidding 2D isn't 100% clear. In my book, if you DO for some reason bid a subminimum 1NTF over 1S, it is with the idea of praying partner bids ANYthing but spades.

Sorta makes me wish I played 2N as Two Places in this auction, but I don't usually have that agreement available. Endplayed into pass. If I have to express an opinion about a 3H bid I would rank it fourth, behind pass, double, and 2N (even unusual hoping partner understands a correction of 3D to 3H), though.

I really enjoyed 14-16 NT when I played it (in a polish-style club system, some years ago), and felt it was a winner when it went against the 15-17 field. Oddly, the reason I quit playing it was when I started playing a souped-up form of checkback stayman, and decided I was quite happy to open all my 11-14s with 1C. The semiforcing notrump issue does seem like a good reason for the 14-16 NT, since that's a sequence where opener's balanced 14 is a real problem hand, whereas comparing 1N vs 1C-1M-1N ont he other hands is more or less a wash.

Mine would probably go ...2H-2S-4S, though it could very well just go 1S-2C-4S since there's no reason to investigate a slam. North might be happier playing a good old-fashioned jump to 3D to show a maximum pass, long diamonds, and either promising or strongly implying spade support.

Without agreements, 4C may well be the best 3rd bid you can find. With agreements, I bid 3D over 3C: if I liked hearts, I would bid 3H to set trumps, if I hated both suits I would retreat to 3NT, if I bid a new suit I am inviting partner to investigate the possibility of 6C. Whether 1N-2D,2H-3C,3D-3H is a cue in support of the agreed clubs or just showing a 6th heart, I dont know. But it does save one whole level of bidding before we have an accident involving 4NT.

A lot seems to depend on the meaning of 3S. In my view, we had an FSF exchange in which both partners refused to bid notrump and diamonds were agreed; I think that means 3S (or any bid other than 3N or 5D by West) is a move toward slam. In that context, perhaps East can cue his CK now, or perhaps East has to go to 4H now in their style and West should subside; but even if we accept the auction as far as 4H, West bidding spades twice is pretty much going to guarantee that East thinks there is no spade loser. If I had to point to one bid that guaranteed reaching a failing slam I would point to West's 4S.

4S cue 4N natural for me. (And I would not be shocked to hear somebody play 4C is G-ber rather than natural in this auction - our club length is normally limited by failing to raise them on the previous round.)

If you have the specific agreement that a double of 5H means "I changed my mind, I don't want a heart led," then you have a reason to go ahead and lead a heart. Lacking that agreement (and even with my regular partner I dont have that agreement) I voted for a club.

My agreement is similar to agua's, and with a pickup partner above a certain level I would gamble on partner defaulting to that style of agreement , i.e., I expect partner to have a minimum response with a long diamond suit, not values for 3NT (unless perhaps I have Ax/Kx of diamonds and a couple other tricks, hoping to make 3NT by peeling 7 diamonds plus two aces.)