fromageGB

Assuming the 3♣ is a six card suit, which it commonly is for a WJO, leader would need 2 honours in his doubleton club for the suit to be blocked. Is this likely? 22% or whatever is not what I would call "often". Or am I mistaken? Edit - I am mistaken as to which side is on lead! But perhaps with a gap in his honours, south will lead low.

Not unusual, but not "standard" : transfers. After opposition overcall in suit or NT, response to 1♣, etc. Slightly unusual: some transfer walsh responses/continuations ; a shortage 1♦ opening (6 card or shortage elsewhere).

I don't think there is any difference in shown hcp, but 3♦ has more diamonds than 2♦. That makes it "stronger".

I am neither a top player nor expert, but allow me to say that while I support the expressed views on the support double, I take double here as penalty. At least "co-operative penalty". With the North hand I would take it out to diamonds. With the South hand I would not double, but pass.

A variation on the above : 1♣ (1♦) 1♠ p 2♣ p 2♦ p 2♥ p 3♦* p 3♠ p 4♠ 3♦ played as not natural, but a general forcing bid. Opener has to bid something, and spades is the best option.

My partners would bid spades with 5+ and a game hand, so there is no good fit. While 3NT may work with a very lucky hand, it is not likely. 3♦ would show longer diamonds. This leaves a choice of 3♠ on a presumed 4-3 fit with likely 4+ spades on top of partner's 4, or pass. As partner must have good values for his bid, I think the gain from passing is preferred.

I replied to the poll without looking at the OP, so assumed standard puppet stayman which rules out smolen. Hence I took the normal agreement of transfer to hearts then spades to be 45xx GF. With smolen, it might be 5 hearts general slam invitation. However, I don't think this is "standard" as played by "the typical pick-up partner", and don't think there is a standard. I play 2NT 4♦ as 55xx, either just game or slam-going, but if that is not standard then there is a good argument that transfer to hearts then 3♠ is 55xx either GF game or slam-going, while transfer to either major then 4 of the other is a single 5 major slam invitation. Is that standard? Edit - no, that doesn't make sense. What is standard?

We have an agreement that responder will transfer to a major on a 4 count with a 5 card suit, but I have not been tempted to lower that. While it can work in some cases, it can prove problematic. Not only when partner has a strong hand and reverses, or bids such as Frances's 3♦, but also when he has a 6 card club suit and rebids 3♣. If you have a useless 2 count you are now expecting near zero matchpoints and cannot recover. Having said that, 1) when opener reverses, pass if you can. If I am sub-minimum, my partner will probably not have a game hand, opening 1♣. If you bid again, even by giving preference to clubs, you are probably on a zero if partner continues. 2) after 1♣ 1♦! 1♠(natural and presumably denying 3 card support?) you have the safety of a little more room, so as well as pass, 2♣ may be an option, praying he will pass. I would not rebid 1NT. This is as you suggested in your second post, but surely 2♣ cannot be exclusively sub-minimum, as what else would you rebid with an 8 count 2524 shape, for example? 3) after your 1NT(17-19 bal) I would transfer to the major, rather than passing. We do play 1NT=17/18, and have stayman and transfers after this. A 5-2 fit works well when the 5 card suit is dummy.

I think this weak hand / strong hand captaincy stuff is a load of nonsense. Who knows which hand is the weaker or stronger until one hand has described itself? When that happens, the OTHER hand is usually the captain, whether weaker or stronger.

For me a key point is that while putting a spoke in their methods may cause them to have a less accurate auction, if they end up playing in the inevitable 4M or 6M. or 3NT or whatever it is that is the contract in the rest of the room, an intervention is nothing but an assistance to them. If there are 30 hcp in their hands, and you are likely to have most of the others, then you have steered them into the right finesses, and by the distribution you have shown, the right plays. To make this not true, you need to overcall with 2♠ not just on ♠KJT92 ♥AJ ♦J983 ♣74, but also on ♠T9632 ♥J3 ♦7643 ♣74. Do you? Even then the spade length may be a clue to their play, so mingle it with ♠9632 ♥J73 ♦743 ♣742. Now you will not be helping them. However, a few calls to the director and you are likely to be hauled in for psyching.

If penalty double is the obvious answer, then 3NT should be the alternative. As 1NT is not forcing, 2♠ is a 6+ card suit, and when this is overcalled by a vulnerable passed hand, that hand probably does not have any spades worth talking about. His bid has improved my hand : I may have a couple of heart tricks, the club looks good for an entry, and I have a couple of spades for obvious finesses through North. 9 tricks looks a good possibility, and it is likely to score more than hearts going slightly off. While a diamond lead may not be a good start, it could be a risk worth taking. But I am not an expert, of course, so what I may do has no bearing :)

Even more comfortable for me is system on playing transfer walsh, so X shows 4+ hearts. (There is another bid for invitational+ 44 both majors.) It just depends on your methods. Playing natural I would be happy to double with any 4 card major and then support clubs if partner bid the wrong one.

Maybe you haven't quite got your head round this. Opener did not want to look for slam, and he bid 3NT to play. Responder is unlimited, and his distribution and holdings are unknown. If responder merely bids the minor to say "I am interested in slam", how is opener going to know what is useful or not? Of course responder is the one who needs to take control.

And thank you, Zel, for your explanations. I have played kickback for many years (but with simpler replies than RKCB, because as you always have the same space available you do not need the compression and possible ambiguity that RKCB gives) and have solid agreements for that, but you have added the minor suit slam try conditional ace ask. You are right, the same method applies in varied circumstances. The "conditional question" sometimes differs : if we have responder introducing 4m after a 2NT sequence that failed to find a major fit, then the question as we play it is "do you have 3 card support", and on other hands if one side shows a long minor then bids 3NT to play, the question is "I have support, do you fancy a slam?" The method, though, is the same. The next step is negative to the question (then 4NT is natural, but the next step would ace ask regardless), but a positive makes his normal ace reply steps starting at the step above (which would be the "normal" reply for the "normal" ace asking bid). Very useful, simple, and easy to apply. I, too, have found kickback very beneficial, not marginal. It is worth any intermediate player trying it and formulating his partnership agreements. It is just a pity that there is no simple consensus on the treatment for potentially ambiguous situations - particularly the adjacent suit scenarios.

The problem with the first is that while opener CAN ace ask, it is responder that wants to do the asking, and can make sensible decisions as to outcome. If do not want to use 4♦ as asking, then I think you need to use clubs as either minorwood or conditional ask. If you use higher suits, or 4NT, you are taking up space which may lead to ambiguous answers or inability to Q ask, for example. If you extend the ace responses further up the scale, then king asking is impossible. You also run into the problem of lack of certainty - "is that bid an ace ask in these circumstances, or is it a cue bid?" Or "is that 4NT ace asking in diamonds or spades?" As the circumstances are rare, the scope for catastrophic error increases. My preference is to have simple rules that always apply, even if they are not optimal in all circumstances - eg in post#5 where I use 4♥ as ace ask in diamonds when 4♦ may be better. Rather than try for perfection, I think you need something that always applies - whether it is a flat "if it can be natural/ace asking, it is", or with some agreed exceptions.

Interesting to see the summary so far : auction 1 - 2 ace ask - ace ask natural - natural natural - natural (but when ace asking, different to the above naturals) ace ask - natural It somewhat emphasises your need to make partnership rules/guidleines/agreements, because if you happen to take a different view to partner on one of these hands it is likely to make a very significant difference !

As cyberyeti says, "whatever you agree", but you have to have guideline agreements. Mine say 1♣ 1♦ 3NT 4♦ is ace ask in clubs. 3NT says good hand, good clubs, so there is no need for responder to take it out to play in 4♦ (assuming 1♦ is natural). Even if leaving it in may be a gamble. However, you could argue that the same applies to taking out to 4♣ to play, which means that 4♣ should have a meaning. My preferred partnership will play this the same as our normal minor slam try, a conditional ace ask with Zelandakh's continuations. (You may say that as 4♣ can ace ask in clubs anyway there is no need for 4♦ to be ace asking in clubs too, but there is that little squeeze on space after a 4♦ denial that might make a difference. I think there is a case for 4♦ to be a similar slam try conditional ask in diamonds, but I don't have that agreement, and 4♥ would be ace asking.) For the second auction we play categorically that 4♦ is natural. Partner has shown his long clubs with 3♣, so a hand that would ace ask will do so at this point. Incidentally we would apply the same logic as before to 4♣ ("why take it out?") so that 4♣ would be conditional ace ask in clubs, but obviously very conditional, as it did not ace ask the round before.

If East would have bid 3♠ as a weak hand, but thought he had to bid 4♠ because of the undisclosed length, then the consequences endorse the hog's comment. So this perhaps implies a share of the blame, for agreeing bad methods.

Taking the above as a given*, then a weak hand such as East, that was intending to show weak support by rebidding 2♠, must here bid 3♠ as a weak hand. 4♠ therefore implies extra strength so East is to blame. * but how is a kibitzer certain of this?

Start by thinking about partner's hand. What does he need for this bid? I would say 2♠ is a typical opening hand with 5 or 6 spades, but not a particularly strong hand, as that could make a different bid, such as doubling first and then bidding spades, or jumping to 3♠, or whatever your method would be. As it is not that strong, I would rule out looking for a slam. The question then is do we want to be in game. Giving partner a 12 count and 6 spades, you can see a 10 card fit with 21 hcp at initial evaluation. That seems to be in the game zone. Give him 13 points and a 5 card suit, and that is 22 with a 9 card fit and this is borderline game values. Would he bid with weaker hands than this? Not much weaker, I would say. Could he be stronger than this? Certainly, he could be quite a bit stronger and not strong enough to make a stronger overcall. This indicates that we should bid game immediately, because if we just invite game he could well pass when game was there. Game in NT is possible, as there could be 9 running tricks, but may not be desirable on a club lead. Spades is better. Finally, for a spade contract, what about the intermediate cards you have, the T98s? These are wasted. You will not be setting any heart tricks up, and trumps will be drawn before your spades come into play. So should you downgrade the hand? Not really. You cannot see where the 10 tricks will come from, but as partner is probably short in hearts, you will probably be ruffing a club and solidifying his minor honours. So cross fingers and bid 4♠. It may be too high, but the risk of inviting with 3♠ is also high.

All of the above points to the same thing: one hand has described itself, so that partner knows its distribution and strength. Partner takes control. Sometimes you have a situation when both sides show extras and then one hand is in a situation to invite the other to continue, but this is not common. You should not get to a situation where both hands are undescribed, so that there is a fight over control.

I am not sure 2♣ is the answer, if this shows a 5 card suit. After all, it is the same system problem if responder is 4144 shape. If it starts 1♦ 1♠ 1NT 2♣, is this simply nmf/checkback without actually showing a club suit? If it is, then after 2♠ you can rebid 3♣ to show genuine clubs. This allows partner to bid 3♦ with 5, 3♥ needing help for NT, 3♠ meaning a lot of help in hearts is needed, 3NT meaning happy with hearts. Does that do it? If so, you can keep to inverted minors denying a 4 card major.

Pretty much the same as at any other points of the compass.

I play forcing NT with a limited 2♠, so X is penalty and shows values plus some heart length, as I play it. Playing non-forcing (which I don't), then it is not so clear for me, but if 1NT can be passed, and 2♠ is to play, while responder may perhaps be wanting to make a spade game invitation, conceivably wanting X for that, there is also the need to cater for, say, a 10 count with 4 hearts, and this would seem more common. So I would think penalty also. Maybe forcing/non forcing NT does not come into it. Perhaps it depends on whether 2♠ is limited to say a 14 count or whether it can be stronger. If it could be 16, then there are reasons in both treatments to make it spade game invitation.

Not at all. This is not a strong splinter and does not imply slam interest, as I have 4♣ as a weak splinter and a stronger hand with a shortage starts with 2NT and shows the club shortage on the second bid. That would imply slam interest or possible suitability. A weak splinter just describes the hand so that partner may go slam seeking if strong enough with no wasted clubs, or can make a judgement in a competitive situation. He knows I have less than game strength in terms of high cards. Of course my bids are based on an unlimited 1♠ open, and if I played a limited spade I may well have different methods. If I did not have 2 strengths of splinters, then this hand warrants a game invitational bid, such as a limit raise, but for me a splinter shows this hand, while a limit raise implies a bit more strength and less distribution. Sometimes the splinter may take you too high, but other times it helps to have the distinction. (I don't have 3♣ available for a mini-splinter.)