akhare

I would rather come in now than guess what to do over 1N+.

Seems tailor made for a 3♠ FSJ if you play them.

Lower the boom -- it would take something exceptional like a club void and KQ of ♠ on my left for 4♠ to make.

With the bland shape, make the call that shows a mixed raise with 4+ trumps.

My initial thought is ♠A, intending to give pard a ruff. Of course, the best laid plans may not survive the sight of dummy B-).

Casting my vote with the unblock bloc :D. We might be headed for a 0 if declarer has AT9x or something similar, but surely pard would lead low from QJxxx?

1♠ -- IMO, the void, outside Ace and the soft defensive values in clubs argue against opening this any higher. That said, it's easy to see how others might evaluate it differently and open it at the 4-level.

X -- the hand is limited by the 2♠ bid and this should show a little extra defense and unwillingness to sell out under the conditions.

3♣ for me.

3♣ for me.

4♥, only if I know it won't get partner too excited. The wasted Q♦ soft ♣ values and 8 trumps seem to argue against pressing on.

Pass -- if this suit wasn't good for 4♥, surely we aren't considering 5♥ with it now.

Given East's third hand opener and MPs, X seems OK.

Seems like E-W declared 4♥ after East opened 1N (11-13), right? In other words, the auction starting with East as the dealer was: 1N (11-13) - (2N)* - 4♥ (intended to be a transfer to ♠) - AP *: Actually ♥+♣. North labeled it "not natural" and later thought that it showed the minors. However, the meaning wasn't established during the auction because E-W chose not to ask

I might try 4♣ or 4N. The advantage of the latter is that it's less likely to be misinterpreted.

It's indeed impossible to cater to all combinations. The trick one signal conveys the ability to withstand the OS and nothing else. Naturally, one can develop nuances (for example giving count when dummy comes down with Qxx(x) on the opening lead of A from AKxx), but these aren't part of the original scheme. IMO, other schemes like leading A for attitude and K for count (and variations thereof) are better, but YMMV.

The Fantunes system always came across as codified EHAA to me. It's possible that the origins are completely different, but the 1 and 2-level bids seem very EHAA-like.

One might argue that it's better to come in now with 5♣ / 4N rather than guess over pard's presumed 4♠ in the balancing seat. IMO, it's a close call between 4N / 5♣...

Zelandakh's suggestion to remove the ♦ canapé hands from 1M might be useful here. Since 1M - blah - 2D sequence would show a 5+ card major, the 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N sequence can presumably handle the 4♥-5♣ hands. The 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ sequence will still be ambiguous in terms of relative length and the 1N response might contain problematic non-invitational hands like 2(54)2. Perhaps, you can extend Adam's suggestion and play the 2D opening as 5+♠ and 4 minor (assuming it's GCC legal)...

I think a lot of people are going to find the post very confusing. Like Chris, I am assuming that the hand with 3 spades made the takeout X. IMO, the X was flawed and it comes down to a choice between an initial 2♣ / 2♦.

My guess would be a ♦, but given the title, perhaps it's right to lead the ♦T catering to declarer's A9 and dummy's Jxxx?

In the past paragraph about Smith Echo, David Bird's book mentions a hybrid reverse Smith echo where opening leader's partner plays high-low to (sometimes?) encourage continuation of the opening suit. The purported advantage is that both players follow up the line on declarer's suit all the time (unless giving count) and the high-low functions as a wake up all. In regular reverse Smith echo, both players play low-high to encourage continuation of the opening lead (or deny interest in a switch) and a high-low by either side actively encourages a switch. Does anyone know how this hybrid scheme works? Is it just inverting the high-low by opening leader's partner to emphatically ask for continuation of the opening lead (and therefore low-high is either neutral or asking for a switch)?

3♠ for me -- X and then bid would show a stronger hand.

This is the classic MUD (middle up down) scheme of leading. The main argument against it is that's supposed to be difficult to read, but the latest Bridge Bulletin had a supporting article. IMO, it's good to have the flexibility of occasionally leading 2nd best even when playing 3rd and 5th, but others may convincing arguments on why it's wrong.

+1 -- except for the annoying need to pre-alert, it works pretty well. Our adaptation to lead low from 8x and below (to account for coded T/9), but it's not strictly necessary.