bluenikki

As mentioned, the crucial background question is what the partnership agreement is about the difference between (1♠) - P - (2♦) - X and (1♠) - P - (2♦) - 2NT . As it is, the only possible hand for the second double is 1=4=3=5 or 0=4=4=5 where the diamonds are strong enough to punish a 3♦ runout of a penalty pass. No such hand _should_ be possible, but it is not a law of nature that the opponents must have their bids.

"Using different routes to describe the same shape based on suit quality is nice but places a lot of strain on the system, and doing so in anticipation of a good 7-card fit is masterminding." I would have said that EXCLUDING 7-card fits is masterminding.

With the original hand, the only game might be 5♣ on a 6-1 fit. Showing the poor hearts won't get you there. With the hypothetical, the only game might be 4♥ on a 4-3 fit. How will you get there if the 3♥ is not taken as suggesting a possible strain? Or is it your point that _because_ 2/1 is not quite GF, you can't describe this hand. I certainly agree with that!

With a singleton or void, you should strain to intervene over a weak notrump. (Lacking shortness, you should strain _not_ to.) Provided my partnership agrees with that philosophy, I'd overcall two _clubs_ in absence of a convention.. Of course, I'd prefer to be playing "Kelsey," where 2♣ shows red shortness, with 3+ in every suit but the short one.

♣ Compare the hand with the one where the hearts are AQJx and the clubs A10xxxx. Should they be bid the same? You think so. I do not. When 2♣ is not forcing to game, you _must_. That is _bad_. Why would you do it voluntarily?

So you think it is iOK to bid the same way as when you exchange the heart 10 with the club queen. Seems nuts to me.

No, apparently it also means the opponents can't make a highlevel contract

If not playing 2/1 gf, you are forced to rebid 3♥, suppressing the main feature of the hand. the _strong_ 6+ ♣. The purpose of 2/1 is to let you describe your hand, I thought. Foolish me.

Hope? Hope???

The problem with the overcall is not that it may be passed out. It is that when advancer keeps the bidding open, you won't have anything sensible to do.

But the 2♣ advance to a double could equally well be a topless suit. When doubler rebids 2♦, it will not occur to your example hand to suppress the hearts a second time. So the flu honors will still be unrevealed.

I am not sure what you are asking. I personally would have advanced 2[hearts, not because it is the major, but because it is the higher of touching suits.The 2♦ advance should have worked well though. The problem was South's 2♠. 3♦ would not be an underbid. Where did they think the cue would get them?

I assume the splinter means "do not think of slam unless you have 14 outside my shortness." But I bid 4♣ anyway. I probably wouldn't at the table.

3♣ showing weakness is aid and comfort to the enemy.

Sometime in the 70s, Bob Ewen, describing Michaels in one of his books, said you bid 3♣ , pass-or-correct. The Bridge World's review protested: One of the few things the reviewer thought was consensus was that 2NT asked for intervenor's minor. The problem here is that you want to _pre-empt_ in intervenor's minor. So I guess it's got to be 4♣. On the theory that if 3NT could _possibly_ be to play, it is.

4♠ should *not* be routine with a spade void. In fact, it should demand slam facing second-round diamond control.

Such as rebidding 2♦

Or again it can be vital to avoid helping declarer locate honors.

It is lowEST from strength. Granted, partner will often not be able to tell that the 6 is not lowEST. But declarer may not be able to falsecard effectively. And may forget to even if they could.

I think that's an inferior agreement in general. (Because you may not want partner to break either of the other two.) But defending a slam it's suicidal.

As far as I am concerned, a weak 2 cannot have 3 keycards. And certainly a responder to that weak 2 cannot ask when they have only 1 keycard themself.

It doesn't matter what the mod is. Blackwooder assumes the lower value, no matter how unlikely that seems. Blackwoodee must continue over the sign-off when holding the higher value. To protect against committees, that should be on the convention card. "Forcing to slam facing 3+ keycards." The problem comes when the reply coincides with the trump suit, because the above rule would make Blackwooder pass if 2 keycards may be missing.

But in SAA your partner gets to know there is a source of tricks. Remove the heart ace from the south hand. In 2/1 you would have to conceal the main feature of the hand.

If it's 4 small, that still leaves 3 losers. And you will probably have to give up the lead twice. And the more spade honors they have, the less help you get elsewhere.

Your winners are slow. So if partner has no spade help, you'll need to avoid a spade lead. Of course, in that situation, a spade lead will often beat 2NT as well, so I don't know how to put that into the analysis.