SteveMoe

As others, 3N not 3♠. Once control bidding starts jumping to 6♣ is irresponsible. 4♠ will precipitate 5♣ (poor trumps partner) and we are (Safe) in a poorer scoring game. That's the risk of overvaluing the North hand.

The actual hand illustrates the weakenss of the double - we will miss our best play anytime partner had 3♥s, and we might do OK if s/he has Hx.

4♥ rebid has a Last Train flavor - I will pass 4♠ and respect partner's choice.

South's doubl is poorly judged for reasons mentioned above. However I do not think North should pull. Discipline here means if South wanted to play 3♣ they would have bid it instead of doubling. Full breakdown shared by both partners.

After 1m-1M-2m responder needs a GF bid to enable slam exploration at low levels. To do this, the bid of the 3rd suit is forcing but does not guarantee as many as 4 cards. Imagine: ♠KJ10 ♥AKJxxx ♦Axx, ♣x. Responder's 2nd bids are invitational (3♦, 3♥), forcing(4♦) or to play(4♥ or 5♦). 2♠or 3♣ should be "3rd suit forcing" - these might be natural 4+ card suits but do not have to be. Therefore you would bid 2N with no ♥ tolerance and fewer than 4♠s. Partner will rebid 3♦ or 3♥ as game forces. (3♣ by partner should show 4=5=1=3 or 4=5=0=4 and be GF). Assuming partner rebids 3♥ as in the example hand above, your next bid will be 3N. Partner will know you have 0-1 ♥s and soft values. Partner might still continue with outside controls yet unbid. Notice that your ♠ values are duplicated and not pulling full weight. Partner can now bid 4♦ to show 3-card support and slam interest. With 3-card support and only game interest partner would bid 4♦ instead of 3♠ (yes this foregoes 3N).

Does 1♦- 1♠ 2♦- 3♣ 4♣ - 5♠ feel like it misrepresents the value or key question left on this hand? If partner returns to 6♣, you can offer 6♦. Partner should not take 3♣ as natural in this auction initially (see 3rd suit forcing p55-56). Also BWS 2001 states: After a one-level suit response and opener’s simple same-suit rebid: (a) a third-suit bid that is a reverse or a three-level bid is forcing to game;

At IMPs, a positive score is the focus. Doubling is flexible. At Match Points I would likely choose 3♥.

Open 1N and smile convincingly when partner transfers me into ♠s. :)

If they buy it in NT or ♦s you want ♠ partner can lead to. If you are on lead, then you want a hand with a good lead against ♥s. In the HCP race they already have 18 so this bid is not without risk. However most play support doubles so likelihood of a penalty at the 1 level is vanishingly small. A good 8 (HCP primarily in ♠s) is OK. they are a their respective minimums, then partner had an opening hand with wrong shape to bid/double. Likely means s/he holds ♦s.

Modern tendency is to lead a Major even from a short suit against the 1N-3N auction. While your inference on ♦ length is probably right, I am not sure playing for the ♣ finesse is the best use of dummy's entry. I would cash ♣s and hope they open the majors for me. I'm rpobably duckin the 2nd round of ♦ when they are continued.

Trump lead as my 4 spots are too weak to try pumping declarer. A passive lead here is good as declarer must work to find the missing honor cards. Can't wait to see dummy.

Voted other because this is a perfect opportunity for Balance of Power Double. We own more than half the deck. South has 3 cards in both their suits (at the 3 level doubler needs only 2 - rule of 23/32). Given your methods, passing seems appropriate as partner will likely never have enough for 4♠. 3N is unilateral. Indeed opening 1N eliminates these issues.

I lean toward a penalty pass too. If I have to bid I am bidding 2♥ not 1N. 1N should show distributed values. For all we know we own the ♥ suit. Besides, we should work to have partner declare NT. Over partner's expected 2♠ response, 3♥ would show a real suit and allow us to play 3N or 4♥ when right. I've had Easts overcall on 4 cards many times. This hand has nice intermediates but I would not upgrade it to a positive response.

♥ finesse is 50% chance. Taking top 2 ♥s then playing for ♥Q hand to hold 3 or 4 ♦s appears to count out as: 33% (♥Q falls in 2 rounds) + 67%(36% 3-3♦s + 24% ♥Q has 4♦s) = 72%. Cashing top trumps and pitching ♣ loser on long ♦ is better line. BTW I would have ruffed the 3rd♠ after cashing 2 top ♥s before playing ♦ to dummy.

In spite of the nice intermediates, the 2nd hand counts to 8 losers and has no source of tricks if partner wants to play NT. The first counts to 6.5 losers, adjusting for the excess of top honors over Quacks. I would always bid the first as full value. 7 controls (21 control equivalent HCP) suggeest this hand is stronger than a mere 15. (Deck has 40 HCP. Max Hand has 37 HCP. Deck has 12 Control Points [A=2, K=1]. Ratio HCP to Cntl Points = ~3 to 3.3) Bergen offers a good HCP adjustment: A: 4.5 K: 3, Q 1.5 J 0.75 10: 0.25

7 1/2 to 8 losers. 4♠ would be automatic with red suits reversed. Now there's a higher risk that partner has wasted values in ♦s. IMPs will cause me to bid 4♠. At MPs I bid 3♠. This hand is not a Limit Raise - Missing an A or K somewhere.

7♣ would never occur to me. If 2♠ natural then 3♠; if 2♠ Michaels, then 4♥ at 2nd turn.

4♥. Let them guess.

Over 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣= slam interest showing Strong values opposite min opener, and a natural honor fragment or Hxxx+ suit in ♣s. No need to 4th suit forcing denying ♣ stop. 2N would be slam negative with partial stop in ♣s. 3N would be balanced strength (15-17) with ♣stopped. On this hand, I strongly prefer 3♣. N can rebid 3♠. South's 4♦ now shows a self sufficient suit and captaincy. North can bid 4♥ (2nd round control) and 6♦ will be reached.

w/Expert partners I play: Texas only if jump 3M GF Natural 3N to play (usually partial stopper+) 4om GF Natural 4mQbid - 44 Major with severe m shortness 0/1 Double - negative - but w/2-3 m cards. 4M to play Therefore w/55M we start w/3♠ and rebid 4♥ w/5=4 we bid 3♠ then qbidm over 3N. w/4=5 we bid 3♥. If opener has 4♠s s/he can bid 3♠ Playing 4♦ as 55 is ok but opener can't cuebid below game...