skjaeran

2NT for me too.

1♠ is appropriate here for me. 4♠ isn't totally sick - far from. Agree with Josh's last comment regarding adding the ♠J.

I've two possible ways to bid this hand after 1♠-1NT: Either rebid 2♦ (transfer) followed by 3♠ (unless partner jump in hearts). Or, preferably, rebid a conventional GF 2NT followed by 3♠ unless partner shows 4c hearts (or more) (over 3NT from pard I rebid 4♠).

You may think about it as a void splinter? I think Harlad f.e use to differ between single and void splinters, but I don`t know if he does so in this sequence. But anyway if it was not explicit forbidden, this is Exclusion KCB. 3♠ would be a void splinter for me here, a jump to 3♥ would strongly suggest a spade singleton GI (1♦ is unbalanced unless 5332 18-19 for me). 4♠ is Exclusion BW - there's no other possible meaning.

I don't understand some arguments here about 15-17NT getting less overcalls than weaker ranges. To me it's just the opposite - there's a lot of hands I hold where I regularly overcall stong 1NT (14-16 or stronger) where I'd be very reluctant to overcall a 13-15NT and never consider a bid over a weaker range. You have to get in over opps strong 1NT as often as possible to disrupt their constructive sequences on hands you can't bid vs a weak NT, where you've got to cater for your own constructive issues.

I don't need Suitplay for this sort of problems. I just ask Helgemo, he'll give the correct answer in a couple of seconds.

On the first one I think passing is most often the right decision. However, the downside (3♠x making) is horrible, and the upside of 3NT (it makes) is so big, that I believe bidding 3NT is the long time IMP winner. Thus I'm in the 3NT camp. On the 2nd hand it's an easy pass.

I prefer 1♠ over XX here, but I don't think that's the main problem with your auction. After having XXed, your partner shouldn't introduce that empty suit over 2♥, he should support your diamonds and rebid 3♦. Btw, you might also have rebid 2♣ instead of 2♦, showing more of your shape. Then your partner wouldn't be tempted to introduce spades at all.

Looking at both hands I'd prefer to play 4♠ here. But I'm pretty sure we'd get to 4♥ after a 1♥ opening by south.

Pass, easy IMO. Parnter's got a minimum t/o double. They can easily make this. But will go down a part of the time. Saving at the 6-level is ridiculous.

I'd definitely open this in 1st, 2nd and 3rd seat. In 4th seat it's marginal IMO, but I'd open most of the time, not always.

This is an automatic 1NT playing 15-17 IMO. I'd never consider downgrading it. The only card I think might be bad here is the ♣J. The rest is fine. QJ combo, AJ combo, AQ combo. I even hold the beer card. B)

This is an easy 2♣ rebid for me.

Well, if someone would get the idea to rebid 3NT over my reverse with this powerhouse, I'd quit the partnership forever after the event. I really can't imagine missing the grand on these two hands.

Against competent opponents I pass.

If it's the systemic rebid with this hand it's no psyche. Of course it's alertable. I've tried that style once, and won't suggest you play like that.

What's wrong with a t/o double by west over 2♥? That surely must be better than 3♣ by far. That's the flexible call and keep all three suits in the picture. I'd open 1♣, not 1♦. Agree that 3NT is an impossible bid over 3♣.

Pass. 1NT might easily be our best spot, and only a 2♥ response from partner is really good for stayman. Just envisage playing in a 4-2 diamond fit.

I know of several versions of xyz. This isn't among them.... Strongly prefer 2♥ to show less than a serious invite here. I play wjs, so 2♥ would be constructive-light invite.

I'd make a direct 3♦ overcall - this doesn't show much values in our methods (2♠ would show a strong ♦ overcall).

I bid a practical 4♠.

I support....the passers.

Play negative doubles and some version of lebensohl/rubensohl.

AKQxxx will do.

Even playing transfer advances, where 2♦ shows ♥s, I think this hand just is too week to make a bid. The value of the ♦K in front of opener is dubious. And except from that card you haven't got much here.