Blofeld

I'd double reasonably aggressively on this shape, but not this light. And an ace or two would help, as it reduces the chances that they make 3 overtricks ... I suppose AAK with this shape would be about minimum for me to double.

I think that playing SAYC 2♣ is more than a 1-round force -- it promises a rebid. With this style you've got an easy 2♠ rebid. If you are playing that 2♣ is just a 1-round force, then the rebid is a little more interesting, as if you bid 2♠ you may sometimes be left there and miss a good game. Nonetheless I still think 2♠ is the best choice -- anything else will force us to game and I think if partner was going to pass 2♠ then game is more likely to go down than to make.

Yes. Yes it is.

Even though double isn't much worse than 1♠, it doesn't follow that it will have a large body of proponents. I don't think double is silly but I do think that a goodish majority of people will prefer 1♠, even if only by a small margin.

I think the problem is that partner isn't really showing a minimum, Kathryn. A minimum is usually happy to pass. Partner's bid primarily shows good clubs, but I think it could be up to about a 17 count. I might double 3♠. But probably I'd just pass.

On the first hand I think I'd open 4 or 5♦ in 1st seat, but might pass in 2nd. On the second hand you might try to show both suits. If you don't want to sell out to 4red you could open 3♣ and then bid 4♠ if you get the chance. But I'm not convinced by this plan.

The problem with making a cue is that you don't mention your suit ... I'd expect a cue to be a strong hand with something like typical takeout double shape.

4♠, but XX would be my first choice of psyche.

4♥ and pass.

I think this is a little unfair on the English ... say rather that some people don't require much for a two level overcall; I'm English and it wouldn't even occur to me. On the balancing problem I pass, on balance.

Switch the red suits and I bid.

I wouldn't mind if anyone did this against me. But then I don't think there's any UI passed from my refusing a claim; I'll always do it if there are lines with neither strictly better than another (in the sense that it will always take more tricks) which take different numbers of tricks, and declarer doesn't state a line[1]. [1] I initially wrote "if there's no 100% line and declarer doesn't state a line", but I don't think this is quite true. If declarer appears to be claiming on a long suit breaking, or on the next lead from the defence not being ruffed, and there's no other possibility, then I'm happy to accept.

Good hand to pass. Least of evils.

I usually err on the side of bidding too much, but I admit that I pass the North hand over 3♣ here.

I don't see how 3♦ can be preemptive as that would leave you with no invitation in ♦s. I also think that 3♦ is fine as responder - sure, you're at the heavy end for this and have great diamonds, but you have nothing outside, and in standard methods I'd expect all the other options to be game forcing, which seems a bit of a position on this hand. I don't mind opener's 2♦ bid either - if partner passes you're unlikely to have game, and if partner bids then you can bid enthusiastically without overstating your hand as it was limited by the NF 2♦ bid. However, that plan fell apart when passing partner's 3♦ bid ...

Raise and pass, in that order.

4♥, just so I don't have to explain myself. Seriously ... what other call is there?

I'm confused. You list double as an option, but it looks like partner was the last person to bid.

You have three bids (4NT, 5♦, 4♥) to show slam interest. Why add another one and make a natural hand (not so rare as you imply, I think) unbiddable?

If I'm playing Money Bridge, and the hand quits because my opponent is being too slow, is there any way to see the hand record afterwards?

Partner will never bid slam if we bid 5♠ now. I think pass is forcing, and am happy to pass. If partner has a weak tactical hand rather than the balanced ~19 count then clearly she won't accept the slam try; no harm done.

As so often happens I find myself agreeing with Arend.

What Arend said.

But the IMP/board is not consistently in the same direction ... in fact it's going to be pretty random. I can't imagine preferring anything to cross-IMPs. Though a wider field of comparison would be good, if possible.

4♠ looks obvious enough that I suspect I've misunderstood what partner's 2♠ bid meant after the double.