Blofeld

By suit and rank; suits alternate red/black but otherwise go wherever happens to be convenient when I'm sorting.

I bid 2♦. I don't think the auction will die here, and if it does there's no guarantee that we've missed anything. This will hopefully maximise my chances of being able to properly describe my hand.

I don't think we can conclude much about their ability from this bid. No options look particularly appealing here, and pass certainly seems a reasonable option. Double will lead to failing spade/diamond contracts too often, 4NT is kind of silly, and there's no guarantee 5♣ will make. I might bid 5♣, but I'm afraid I don't think pass is silly. So the conclusion that I reach is "the strongest statement we can make is that the player is not stronger than me". [obviously, not being better than myself, I can't make that judgement call, but there it is]

It's close to the border between a pass and a double. I think I double.

I pass. I'm worried about partner getting overboard if I bid now. Passing could well be a mistake now. Hidden continuation:

5♥ is clearly not a serious option. 4NT just misrepresents the hand. I'd like to pass, but I've got too much stuff. So by elimination, double it is. Not very pretty, but has several ways to work.

A 2/1 may promise a rebid, but I think you have an easy one.

As I was taught puppet stayman, 2♥ would deny four hearts but not promise four spades. There's plenty room enough to disentangle the two.

Actually, back-of-the-envelope calculation shows I'm talking rubbish. So scratch that. I just have a very bad intuitive idea of which slams we want to be in. :(

Obviously you want to be in slam, but I'd guess the expected IMP loss from not being there is only 2 or 3. Maybe I'm overestimating the chances that the opponents find the club lead.

The bidding looks normal. Mild slam invititation rejected. The slam isn't even that great.

Because it's going to be much easier for opponents to find their ♥ fit over 3♥ than over 4♠. 4♠ is normal. Sometimes another bid would work better, but I think 4♠ rates to be best in the long-term.

Conditions don't sound justified enough to warrant anything but the normal 2NT, I think. And if there won't be a 2♣ opening at the other table because of system (is this the case?), there may already be a swing on the hand.

Someone put a purported proof of the Goldbach Conjecture up today ... But anyway, I don't think it's more famous than than the Riemann Hypothesis (and it doesn't even compare in terms of importance).

So do you never open 3♥? This seems a pretty bizarre statement. I think 3♥ is normal. It isn't the paragon of a 3♥ bid, but it's a lot closer to that than it is to anything else.

Opening doesn't even occur to me.

Roland: Interesting. I hadn't thought about follow-ups like that. Would you still bid 2♣ on this hand if you reversed the minor suit holdings?

With nobody vulnerable (best colours at which to compete), I don't want to pass this. I'll double.

2♣, treating the diamond suit as a 4-carder. I think that either bid will work out wrong a good fraction of the time.

I think part of the problem is that your hand B isn't a GOSH - it has 3-card support for both unbid suits! Try the same hand with the majors reversed.

Not giving dimensions for the pennies makes it easier to spot the solution via a symmetry argument. Still cute.

This feels borderline between 1♠ and 2♠. I think I'll bid 2.

I'd rather bid 6♠ than 4♠. We've shown no values at all (haven't even promised 4 spades!) and partner has forced to game. The splinter with no room for a last train call should have a slightly better upper range than otherwise, too. I think slam is likely to have good play. Even if the ♥A is somewhat wasted if partner has a void, I'm not too worried (though this would make a case for 5♥). I'll bid 4NT.

(I don't have the time to post a properly explained solution now; someone else is welcome to, or I shall in a couple of days. Some comments, in hidden text:) Challenge: What's the best you can do with three people, and three possible hat colours?

Surely that's not quite right? If you believe the player might have deliberately dropped it, perhaps? Or if you believe that they could have known dropping it would advantage their side?