skjaeran

Even playing very constructive weak twos I wouldn't get too excited with this hand. Might miss game vs a perfect fitting hand.

Bidding: 1♣ - 1♥ (trf) 1♠ - 4♣ (void) 4♦ - 4NT 5♥ - 6♠

I always wondered that as well. But, I think the idea is that the bid is a forcing bid. Actually, I'm used to calling that convention Josephine, not GSF (which I too think is an extremely stupid name....)

Another heart. No, 3 fewer hearts and another club. :D Yeah, yeah, but assuming 3♥ was natural... :D

3♠, NF for me (constructive-light invite).

Playing Bergen (or something similar), it's easy to bid the south hand. If not, I think it's very close between a limit raise and a constructive raise, probably closer to the latter. But at the table my mood would be the deciding factor.

I used to play: pass=8-14 BAL x=15+BAL 1♦=0-7 1M=natural 8-14 1NT=15+ unbalanced 2♣=8-14 ♦ or both M 2♦=8-14 ♥ or ♠+m 2♥=8-14 ♥+m 2♠=8-14 NAT Vulnerable pass and 1♦ switched On competitive hands we normally won 5-7 IMPs when opps opened 1♣.

I don't think this is a much discussed issue. If you play 2NT as a strong balanced hand in the balancing position (you really need to IMO), you've got only one bid to show a 2-suiter (provided you keep all suit bids natural, which you really should too IMO). Then using the cuebid as any 2-suiter makes sense. Undiscussed I'd assume Michaels with whoever I sat down to play with. (In direct seat I prefer 1M-2M to show the other major + clubs.)

3♠ for me. The contract least likely to be doubled, and least likely to encourage partner too much. (Not that it's obvious we'll be playing there.)

Agree with all that 2NT is called for. It's important to fight for the partscore.

The bridge player who'd pass this hand doesn't exist. Pass isn't a LA, so you're free to double (or make some other bid).

Another heart.

If I have a bid showing 5-4+ or 5-5 I'd not use it with a 6-card major. 2♠ is also a misbid IMO, the hand has far too much potential for that. I might open this 4♠ (or 1♠).

3NT. Might be bad, but huge upside.

I'd lead ♥Q.

3♠. Unanimous?

The law actually says "may DEMONSTRABLY" have been suggested, which is something quite different than "may have been suggested".

I'd open this 1♣ in most partnerships. Playing a light opening style. In a previous 5-year partnership, this hand was a clear pass. So it's a style issue.

Not 2NT for me. Close between the reds.

1NT

3NT. Don't need more than Axx x Txx AKxxxx or similar to make.

I'm used to raising with a sound opening here. This hand is stronger than that. ♦xxx is a devaluing factor, but I'll still raise to 3♥.

I'm working at the Norwegian Bridge Fedaration's office, and the federation is a subscriber. I've never registered any problems, BW arrives on schedule here.

With a minimum, partner would raise hearts directly with 1354, in my methods. If partner rebids 2♥ over the 2♦ preference, you thus have an easy raise to game.

4♥, the most probable game. The ♥T is a huge card playing in hearts.