RSClyde

I would have bid 4♠. I'm much more worried about my LHO than I am about my partner. Saying partner will know when to reopen: There are LOADS of hands where partner can't find a call at this level. I'm the one who's 6-5. So I'm going to pass and hope partner can jump back in on some weak no trump? (I need no more than that) For that matter, what if it's their game that's making and 4♠ is a good save? I'm for keeping lots of flexibility at this level to find frequent games and good saves rather than pie-in-the-sky slams. If partner has a clear advance, this hand isn't terrible: it has lots of tricks opposite a spade fit. There are those who say that insisting on partner giving us rope means missing slams. But people who don't bid on hands like these miss slams too. Imagine partner reopens with a double after you pass. Now what? 4S now feels like an underbid: I mean giver partner AKxx, Ax, KQx, Axxx and 7S is cold but he can't bid again. So what pass and then jump in spades when partner reopens? So by that formula we can never play 4S: which is surely right a great deal of the time.

I can't believe that "pass" is getting votes.

I don't understand players who won't just bid 3♥ the first time with such hands: I get that this isn't the point of the post but still.

I would double. 2nt might work. Pass is out of the question with doubleton spade and a 15 count.

3♥ may end up working the best, but I have my doubts about it being "obvious".

I will never understand people who don't want to bid no trump with Qx. That's such an important holding to right side. I once had the following conversation with a partner after he failed to ask me for a stopper in a suit opting to just bid no trump himself instead. Me: You had doubleton queen right? Him: Yes. Me: Well I think you made the right bid. (upon reflecting on the hand) Wait were you QJ? Him: Yes. Me: Ok I take that back I hate the bid. Regardless of such musings, I believe in always telling partner when I have a balanced hand.

I once made a weak jump overcall on a 17 count.

This reminds me of what a pro I know always says (in reference to carding but it applies here): Partner doesn't tell you what to do, he tells you what he has, you have to figure out how to use that information.

Then why doesn't he just bid 6♠?

I think he has slow spades behind the dummy. I'll just lead a trump. The lightner interpretation requires partner to have oodles of cards in 2 suits. I'll agree partner has a void... in clubs! I don't understand statements like "partner wants a spade lead" or "partner is asking for a spade lead". What is partner's hand where a spade lead is right? On the other hand perhaps the ace of diamonds (never the king) is better than a trump. In case dummy has 11 cards in 2 suits and declarer AK of hearts. I expect I'll be overruffing declarer soon anyway. The ace of diamonds only loses when declarer can set up his own hand instead of the dummy. There's no reason to believe that's the case. I think partner's double is encouraging me: we'll probably beat this don't try something crazy: like some bizarre under lead looking for a spade ruff. You may think this sounds backwards but how would you defend 6C holding - Jxxx AKQxxx xxx if partner didn't double? ...and what if you knew that the spade suit was dead?

I passed RKC once. I had opened 1H and partner and I contacted a spade fit and he key carded: I had a 14 count with 0 keys, not even the Q. He was a good sport about it. I agree with the OP's reverence for at least thinking about taking a position, however I think that the preceding description of the hand was terrible.

South was sleeping through this auction. Suppose partner's hand is AKxxx of both minors. Wouldn't you want to be in 6♦? I mean partner doesn't have to be this good, though he can't be terribly worse, but can't we at least bid 3♦ over 3♣? As far as North, I never understand this imperative to mastermind the auction. If he was much bigger than this he'd insist on slam. But as it is he doesn't even bother to look for it. Why not 3♠ and then raise 3nt to 4nt? Opener is still allowed to have extras.

I definitely play double of 2♥ on that auction as penalty. It just can't be safer to enter the auction now than at the one level. The problem on an auction like this is that you don't know if anyone has a fit. That's why if you get in early, partner can simply decide if he wants to take a call. But by waiting, you force partner in at a higher level. If you're talking about an auction with a clear fit then that's fine (like when hearts are raised), but here partner could have all 5 outstanding hearts.

Yes

Well I mean you're robbing peter to pay paul. Yes by doing it this way you miss the general game try with the constructive raise but you have one for the limit raise, reverse them and the opposite is the case. My partner and I play the 3♦ over 1♥ is a good limit raise and that 3♣ could be heavyish constructive, to handle this problem. With spades we play that 3♦ could be lighter.

I'll just bid 6♠. Even here it's not terrible and this is one of the worst hands we could have caught. If they don't lead a club it turns into a good contract. If they do then I'll need to pick up trumps and have either 4-4 diamonds or the heart on: not great but like I said, this is the worst hand when they find the best lead.

If you're talking about my comment, I'm not sure where you got that I said they weren't useful. Infrequency is reason enough to consider that there may be a better use for a bid.

I always forget that there are people who play strong jump shifts.

I'm not sure I see the wisdom of this double with 18-19. Partner has very little and you'll get picked apart trying to defend all by yourself. I mean I suppose if you have a very easy hand to lead from and can virtually count 7 tricks that's fine. But if you just have a slew of cards which comprise sensitive holdings, the hand will be hard to beat. I mean how do you plan on setting 1nt with AJx, KJxx, AQ, KJxx?

You need a new partner

With the second hand I just splinter. Generally if I don't splinter then I don't have one, or I have a captaincy hand.

My partnership style to interfere with very light action at these colors with shortness in their suit. We make a take out double on a 1444 7 count. When partner passes I have a strong inference that he either has very little, or that they are in a truly terrible spot or some combination, so I'll pass. I think the lack of a good descriptive call makes pass all the more attractive: even if 1nt rates to be right, we're kind of heavy for it. Doubling first and then bidding 2nt is more than a little disgusting.

Asking if you should be in 7 on this hand is clearly silly. However I don't agree with the rest of your thought. Contracts where a killing lead is not found can still be good bridge. What if the only way to beat a normal contract is to lead from AQxx? But even if we're not talking about those kinds of hands, "they may not find it" is part of the game. Suppose partner opens 5♦ and you hold xxx AKQx Kx AKxx If partner has a stiff spade you're home (or on a rare day the K/A). If that's all you have to go with then it's just a guess what's right: probably pass. But you have the extra chance that they may not find a spade lead anyway. Since it was probably pushing 50% anyway, this has to push it over the top. Furthermore in other situations, good tactical bidding can minimizes the chance of the right lead. It's not always just dumb luck when you "get away with it". The other day my partner made a conventional club raise of 2♥ which was doubled for a lead. I was pretty sure that this wasn't the right lead and so I took the slightly aggressive (not egregious) route and bid 3nt. I had KTxx of hearts and Ax of spades. It turns out, as suspected, a spade lead beats me, but aren't I allowed to use the fact that the leader heavily rates to lead a heart?

I read Harris's book some time back. Yes I think that is his point, though we have departed from this topic for more general discussions it would seem. He isn't so interested in who's to blame, but rather in what to do. His point is that moderation is not the end game for humanity because there are problems with it which he outlines and I won't go through here. To be clear I heard him say in an interview that moderation is definitely better than fundamentalism: adding that no one flies a plane into a building because they're a moderate.

That the earth revolves around the sun is part of heliocentric theory. The very point of my post was that the word "theory" in a scientific context, can include things which we accept as facts. Thus "it's a scientific fact and not a theory" is a false dichotomy.