bucky

Obviously the most important part is to have agreement on what it is (regardless of what others play). But as far as I know, the default meaning for 1X-4NT is ace-asking. I don't remember ever having a hand for that bid, but it makes sense to me -- if you want to RKC, you can set the trump first, using whatever forcing raise is available to you.

I think that is absurd. 2♠ is drop-dead only because responder failed to jump for fit-showing or splinter, so the negative inference is enough for the opener to not want to try for game versus a passed hand. In SAYC, 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ is pretty much drop-dead too, does it make 1NT a psychic control bid?

At this vulnerability, I would just bid 5♣ initially. Sure we could miss (grand) slam if partner has the right cards, but with 12 cards in minors, I don't expect we have all the room to constructively bid to slam anyway.

But in his framework, 2♣ is not a psychic control bid, and 2♠ doesn't say "I psyched." I mean, if ALL LR+ hands have to go through 2♣, then you have a point. But I assume there exists hands that would do fit-showing or splinter, so 2♣ is not the only way to show good raise, therefore it cannot be used for psychic control.

Instead of guessing the heart situation (for some reason, my success rate in guessing 2-way finesse is always below 50%), I'd rather bet on RHO holding ♦K. My plan is to eliminate diamonds and force opponents to play heart for me. And I'd better be right. The only reason partner bids this way (TWO levels higher than the normal call) is his (blind) trust in my declaring ability.

4♠ is a terrible bid. Maybe your partner forgot your agreement of playing 2/1 system. 7NT is not a good contract either, certainly much worse than 7♠. Honestly, I am content in getting to a small slam. Simple sequences like 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3NT 6♠/6NT would work.

Ruff the opening lead, then play a low diamond from hand?

Probably yes. It is important to be able to show BOTH majors, unless opponents already showed one.

Why would I worry too much about partner bidding 4♠ over 4♥? The 4♥ bid doesn't promise spade support, does it?

What is a rule of 6-4-6?

I think this convention bears no relationship with the Michaels bid suggested in the title.

Well said. Raising on this hand is taking a huge position.

Pretty clear 1♠. I want to show my 4-card spades at a conveniently low level. I am not going to bid again unless forced. My KQ tight in hearts are not ideal, but they are far from being useless. Certainly much better than, say, QJ tight. I also have some shape, no huge wastage in diamonds. This hand should play quite well if we have spade fit.

Who has stiff ♠K? LHO or RHO?

Amazing pass from North. Was 2♦ a transfer bid, or showing single unknown major suit? (it doesn't matter for this hand, I am just curious...)

On a non-diamond lead, you may survive even 4-1 trump break. On diamond lead, you would be able to guess diamond honor position unless LHO underleads from the ace and RHO holds the Q (or the lead is a singleton diamond). As the possibility of diamond lead is not high, and certainly much lower for underleading DA, I expect this contract to make at least 70% of time.

Agree with the sequence between you and your clone. It should be very simple. I am not sure about your statement regarding the actual interpretation of 2♣. It is possible that: 1♥: normal opening 2♣: intended as drury but undiscussed 2♦: natural (took 2♣ as natural) 2♠: game try (took 2♦ as showing full opener) 3♦: natural (took 2♠ as natural, probably forgot partner was passed hand at this point) 3♥: sign-off (took 3♦ as counter game-try) 4♣: DEFINITELY forgot partner has passed initially (and probably didn't view 3♥ as NF) 4♠: excited by 4♣ and proceeded to overbid the hand AGAIN And the wheel went past the point of no return...

Well, calling attention on this hand is not just for the benefit of the NS involved, it is for the fairness to other pairs as well...

This type of question is a manifest of why I think 2/1 system is not for casual partnership. Just agreeing to play 2-over-1-game-force is not good enough (actually not even close to being good). You need LOTS of discussion and agreements to take advantage of the system.

Can I assign 100% for both? The cuebid after double is often based on 3-card in partner's suit. But 3♥ should change this message. With only 3-card hearts and no clear direction (but too good to pass 2♥), South should've followed up with 3♦. Therefore North has a clear 4♥ bid. Of course that doesn't mean South is less guilty: had North not held ♥K, game is still good, so South should insist on game. And we arrive at a familiar pattern again: it takes two to reach the disaster.

Assuming 2♣ is drury, then 2♦ has to be artificial. It is not playable to use 2♦ as natural in conjunction with the drury convention.

Talking about the expert opinion, what is the consensus here? What does the cuebid show, and how high does it force to?

Try Mike Lawrence's Complete Book on Takeout Doubles. The scenario (advancer cuebids in response to partner's takeout double) is covered in details. Apparently there are good materials in other chapters of the book as well. I think if everyone reads that book, then 90% of bad takeout doubles today will be remedied.

Just curious, did your partner indeed misplay the diamond for down 1? I thought he was just trying to bring up your blood pressure in first 3 tricks (note that none of these actually cost anything, unless hearts were 4-0 AND spades 8-0)...

The funny thing is, I cannot even guess which side the random expert partner sat...