NickRW

Although I know I'm "peeing in the wind", beginners, at least, would be better advised to learn how to cue first and leave 4NT as natural. The numbers of players (many having years and decades of experience) who do not know when Blackwood is inappropriate and do not know what to do about it is one of the worst things in bridge.

I agree. My invites over a weak NT are 11 or 12 - but 11 counts need to at least be reasonably good - and 12 counts, if they're good, then I take matters into my own hands by just bidding the game. This "11 count" is worth about ten and a half.

Without in any way wishing to deflect your indignant wrath, in the very unlikely event that a) p does have a near yarb' and b) that opps have probably not one but two aces/kings hidden behind small cards, 3♣ is still not a bad opening. (And better than 1♣, albeit not as good as a clairvoyant pass)

IMO, though rare, if you don't open this 3♣ in 4th, then you may as well redefine your 4th seat pre-empts to show some sort of Acol 2 or other strong hand (because you surely must never be using the pre-emptive meaning)

As the others have said, you'll do best in the long run to pass. Change the spade jack to the queen and it is a harder problem. Change it to the King and you'll want to be in game (even though you'll sometimes be wrong)

I know this "normal" in the sense that most people would. I remain to be convinced that opening balanced 11s and poor 12s is +EV to your overall system.

This is a matter of style and partnership agreement. The hand has 17hcp, 6 controls and a good 5 card major. On the other hand the heart jack looks like a weak card. Consequently, if your style is to hardly ever upgrade, then 1NT is in order. If you upgrade fairly freely, then by all means consider this hand too good for 1NT. IMO, the latter style is best, but even so it is borderline.

Absent discussion, I would think it is "to play", but as others have said, it has various possible meanings. Sufficiently many and sufficiently often used that I wouldn't put my partner in a quandary absent that discussion.

Responder has enough cards to bid at the 3 level, therefore there is no reason to suggest that he/she has suppressed a longer minor on the first round.

I think this depends on the company you keep (and maybe where in the world you are). At my local club I'd wager that most people would think it was penalty. In better company most would think it was strength based - i.e. a direct 3S would have been merely competitive, probably based on a 6th spade, not much in the tank by way of high cards and not invitational.

Realistically there are too many vital features of the North hand for South to find out for South to captain this auction. If South concentrates on showing features with say 3D over 3C and 4H over a probable 3H rebid, now North can start to envisage great things.

Surely it was South who invoked Blacky

IMO 1♥, then re-enter with X if needed

You have to play bridge before worrying about what partner may or may not construe about your signals. Playing the 10 is not playing bridge.

The discussion about whether to splinter or not in this thread is, in one sense, quite academic as it should be noted that the grand is still on if responder had 2 clubs instead of 1, when the splinter would not have been an option anyway. But that a third club scuppers chances. Anyone whose system allows them to differentiate between 1, 2 and 3 clubs deserves their grand.

I thought of 2C-2D-3D-5C, but dismissed it on the grounds that some of my partners would not recognise it and probably pass. With others, if they produced that 5C rebid on me, I'd take it as a splinter and bid on, but my fingers would be crossed under the table. Some of these 2C sequences come up so rarely as to effectively never come up and therefore do not get discussed - with much justification - there are other things for a partnership to work on which will give greater results.

Short answer is most partners and I would not bid it. 6D every day of the week, 6NT maybe, but to bid 7D with the tools we have in the box, we'd have to have reason to be swinging.

Yes and take the money

Yes.

I can't remember ever holding a hand like this in 4th seat and seeing 3 green cards on the table. Probably you can construct a layout where it would happen, but it seems sufficiently unlikely to effectively be an academic question.

Re the restricted choice aspect of this, surely they cancel one another out. One player could have started with T9, the other could have started with JT7. So it is strictly a 50/50 bet. Your real choice comes from your assessment of whether South would have risen (or not) at trick two from KJ7

I've played with partners who expect pass, 2S and 3S with this sort of hand. It all depends on which of them is sitting opposite. With a pickup partner, I guess I would probably pass this balanced trash on the grounds that it is least likely to get me into trouble.

To be exact, I think the teaching is 1H with 4=4 majors, except 4=4=1=4 shape which is opened 1C. Given the rebid policy which is taught with it, it is a reasonable strategy - except that it gets a bit yuck when the hearts are weak as here. (But nothing is perfect in all situations - those who prefer 1D [which includes me] would be less happy with our preference if the red suits were reversed)

I'm not so sure it is an "old" standard. A lot of us here prefer 1D on hands such as this, but the people who are here are not the typical club player. And many people are not going to entertain passing what is quite a reasonable 12 count either - add a random jack and I'd wager you wouldn't too.

Few here are going to quibble. We're possibly a little tired of the discussion though