skjaeran

Depending on vulnerability I'd either make a penalty double whith that hand or bid 2♦ showing both majors. Following up with bidding or forcing to game next after 2♦.

Here I double, showing 5c♥ and ♦ tolerance.

I hope not. :) I have a lot of trouble bidding those hands, a 1-3-4-5 hand with 5 cards in opponent's minor. Doubling is...dangerous. There is no natural bid available for a strong hand with the opponent's minor in SAYC. Passing is fun, but often makes it even worse if you have a very strong hand. So, in a case like this, I like an X after calling (or Xing) TWICE to be penalty. How do you bid those hands? You either pass or overcall a natural 2♣ if your suit is strong enough. :) Alternatively you overcall 1♦ and rebid a natural 2♣.

If we're 16 up 6♣ is an obvious call now. The chance for losing 16 or more is almost non-existent after that bid.

Me neither. 4♠ is what I've got now as partner bypassed 3NT.

With my regular partner I bid a non-forcing 1NT.

We've got more hearts than clubs between our hands, probably two more. So I'd not be too concerned about a club ruff in 7♥. I'd be far more concerned about a heart ruff in 7♣ (even without a double) or a trump loser there. I can't fathom a hand for partner where we'll go down in 7♥ avoiding a ruff, so I'll raise.

Both 1♥, 3♥ and 2♦ is possible for me.

Normally 1♠, but 2♠ is OK too. 2♥ wouldn't enter my mind at all.

Really? I'm glad I'm neither in the 'sick' nor 'dead' camp then. :P

Agree.

I'd like the ♠T to overcall 1♠ here. So the alternatives are pass and 1NT. It's close, but I'll go with the passers.

Four hearts. You only think I'm kidding. It's a Ken Rexford bid, as I like to think of it, though I'm sure he'd disavow it... A 3♠ bid, vulnerable, in the pass out seat, should have at least 6 spades. But partner didn't open 2 spades. As my partners tend to be somewhat...aggressive about opening 2♠ second seat, there are two possibilities for why partner would pass a 6 card spades suit: 1. He has poor honors in the suit. But then, would he really bid it at the 3 level? I wouldn't. 2. He has 6 spades and 4 hearts, since we wouldn't open a weak 2 with 4 cards in the other major. So...I bid 4 hearts. Actually, I like the thinking. Me too, I vote for 4♥.

I definitely agree with this. I very seldom make a natural bid in another suit instead of supporting with 4cM support. But this definitely has to be the hand for it. I'll support ♠ next, at the 5-level if need be. No 'problem' at all - partner should be in a good position.

Agree with what all have said so far. Pass over 2♥ should be rather obvious. Frances, Mike and bid_em_up made good comments to why and what you need to take another bid.

When I know I've made a good decision in a difficult position - whatever that might be. Of the items on the list partner opening 1NT is OK, since we have reasonably good methods there and partner is a good declarer.

3♦ would be natural and forcing (ie a strong red 2-suiter), thus 4♦ is a splinter agreeing clubs.

As Han and Mike I'd lead the ♦T. Hope partner can win the ace and be able to diagnose the ♥ ruff from my "impossible" lead.

♦5.

Agree wiht all Justin said.

An imbecile has an IQ between 35 and 55, an idiot below 35.

Is this true? I always thought one of the advantages of SAYC was that you can make a descriptive bid then invite in spades. I've got no idea whether this sequence is defined as forcing in SAYC. But I'm of the very strong opinion that is SHOULD be forcing in any natural method. And of course 1♠-2♥-3♣ is GF.

Agree with Justin and Mike. This hand isn't even close to a strong jumpshift, 1♠ is obvious. After partner rebid 2♥, showing 6 of them, I'll just keycard and bid the grand here.

Hand evalutation is a complex area. LTC is in fact a useful toy. But of course you use a huge variety of tools. Including hcp, fit, honour placement, controls, interiors, etc. Most of the time this is sub-conscious; I just count my hcp and can see if it's a good or bad 13-count, and later up- or downgrade as the bidding develop.

I agree that's a faint possibility, but I'd not expect anyone to do that at equal vulnerability. At favourable that explanation would be more likely.