MFA

South should definitely not double 3♣. With that hand I would expect 3♣ to make most of the time. Partner is a passed hand. If he has a typical ♠AKJxx out, where will our 5 tricks come from? The question should be if south dares to compete to 3♠ or not. Being vul at mp it does seem rather dangerous. North's bidding can't be criticized.

I would try 6. Based on my values - not really because it is mp. Playing in diamonds and not notrumps looks right when partner insists. With high card strength in both black suits he should often bid 3NT instead of 5♦. He must have some useful values or it would be a little silly to bid so high in an uncontested auction.

Reminds me of my favourite convention. I play strong club, and I like a 1♠ overcall showing "13 cards". That is when the opponents play the convention, of course. Suicidal.

Another one of the crazy misfits from Oostend. I fully agree, not close at all. At our table it went 2♥-4♦-P-4♠ P-P-X-5♣ X- all pass. I don't know if partner should have doubled 4♦ also. It seems sensible enough to me to wait and hear what advancer is going to do. Teammates bid: 2♥-4♦-X-5♣ X- all pass

4♥ is way too optimistic. Responder needs specifically ♣K+♠Q+1A. And still there is a problem with the fourth club and if spades are 4-1. I would sign off after 4♥. Opener will have a void a significant percentage of the time. Simply because it takes a very strong hand to have a slam try with a singleton, and those hands are rare.

2NT = exactly 15 balanced hcp. What else can you do, if you play 12-14 NTs and precision 1♣? Played that in a fairly serious event once. It came up twice, and responder had 2 & 1 hcp those times, but we were above average anyway, since the opponents got preempted out of game one of the times.

The deal is real. It's from the European championships. We have had a whole bunch of crazy distributions so far. 9 cards suits a number of times, extreme two-suiters, etc. Two more from just yesterday: ♠-, ♥AK, ♦AKQTxxxxx, ♣xx Partner opens 1♠, ty very nice. ♠-, ♥AJ98xx, ♦AKQxxx, ♣A. Partner has ♥Kxx and ♦T9x. But of course, both diamonds and hearts are 4-0, lol. Wonder what has happened to the card dealing program. ;)

What is that stinky ♦9? ♦KQ95? Really? Potentially blocking the suit? ♦KQT9? Making it tough for partner (who has already then played a strange ♦6 from ♦A65 - where I would expect the 5)? If we put up the jack and lose to ♦A6 it will often not be critical. Same if east has ♦AT6.

5♠. Never put an eight card suit down in dummy. Oh, wait...

Pass. Obvious. Unless you like minus scores.

If this is in your 1NT range you open 1NT. Simple. Generally lowering the limit a little for opening 1NT has a lot of merit. If one likes to open balanced 11 counts with any excuse, the 1NT rebid will have a broad interval unless we include a lot of the best 14s in the strong NT. Not really a matter of upgrading, just playing 14½-17 NTs. Or 14.3-17 NTs. Or whatever.

I have a very strong preference for 3♦ being NF. So important to be able to introduce new suits without fearing that the bidding must go on forever. Imps or mp. A decent 5-5 should bid 3♦. The actual rare monster hand is then a problem but only a small one. I'd try 3♥ but 4♦ is also possible.

Passing partner's 3D bid is the best way of securing a new partnership. I find it unbelievable to even think of passing that bid. All I can say is that your vulnerable 2 level overcalls do not resemble mine. I guess you mean 3-level overcalls. But yes, there must be quite a difference in style, since pass is not a close decision for me. Partner's usual hand type is 12-16 hcp and a reasonable or better 6 card suit in diamonds. 3NT seems far away on this misfit. If I bid on I'm essentially gambling on finding partner with 3 card hearts AND enough for game. Very unlikely.

Pass. I don't quite have the values for double. Partner is allowed to take it out - it shows transferable values. I would have passed 3♦. Bidding 5♥ would be absolutely crazy.

I will be playing for Denmark in the open series.

I agree that south is stuck with his RKC-bidding in spite of the wrong explanation, but that north should be allowed to "undo" his 6♥ and pass 6♣X. South is stuck with 4NT because it is a solo effort unrelated to the explanation - meaning that there was no damage (yet, north is damaged later in the bidding). Therefore it is unnecessary to judge if south was "wild or gambling" with 4NT, and we can conclude that both sides should have the same score. In 6♣ declarer will get 9, 10, or 11 tricks, depending on the lead. 9 is probably a bit more likely than the others. But if no weighted scores are allowed in the jurisdiction, I would rule 6♣X 11 for both sides - feeling I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the nonoffending side (NS). If weighted scores are allowed I would rule 1/3 6♣X-3, 1/3 6♣X-2 and 1/3 6♣X-1, again for both sides.

I would surely bid 1NT. I don't think this is the right line of thinking. But even if we follow it, then either partner has only 3 diamonds and it is a disaster in 3♦ or he has 4 and we have a reentry to the hand on the fourth round. (I assume the minors were reversed, and we have ♦Jxxx ♣xxx, not ♦xxx ♣Jxxx)

Right, this is a trap I think we should be very aware of.

I don't understand the term "usually GF"?! If it is not GF, I would adjust. If it is GF, I would let adjusting depend on the result of a poll. Personally I would bid again as south opposite a GF hand. Partner's 4♥ should indicate a minimum hand with bad trumps, but that is not a big surprise when I have KQT myself. There has to be a sufficient percentage of passers for pass to be a LA.

I don't see a problem with the 2♦ overcall. I think it's fine. That hand has potential if it hits a fit and we are NV vs VUL. I'd much rather bid 2♦ with that than some of the solid 5card suits we have had recently. Those hands had no future, this one does. We are delighted if partner can raise. Regarding advancer's hand. If we never support partner with a fit we are taking a position. None of the two doubles are unlikely as such to work out well, but sometimes it just explodes when partner is minimum and unbalanced and we don't support, and on this layout it just did.

Initially we also have to cater to our own contract. There are no guarantees that the opponents will bid again. AQ in partner's suit and an ace is really huge. Give partner a spade stopper and ♦Kxxxxx. That was already 8 tricks towards 3NT and he should have much more than that.

His actual example is not so good. I have never had opponents who bid so timidly. Both of them had a clearcut second bid. It's not realistic that we have this nice and quiet auction to 4♥ with twenty total tricks, lol. Doubling with this hand type is fine in general. OP's hand has just too concentrated and sharp values, so I prefer 3♠. xxx, KJxx, Jxx, AQT and you could easily sign me up for a double instead of 3♠.

I disagree with double. ♥Axxx is not important in comparison to our strong support. Not a surprise that the auction explodes as it often does when we have unshown support. I play transfers and would have bid 3♣ as a good raise. Without transfers I would have bid 3♠. My hand is very suitable for 3NT, so underbidding with 3♦ is certainly out.

No.

1. X. Seems strange that partner can bid 5 over 5 but not overcall 1♠ or 2♠. 2. X then 3♦. 3. 4♦. Tempted to bid more. If partner has a doubleton heart I probably disagree with his balance (even though with this hand I'm delighted of course). 4. 6♣. 5. 5♣ but I don't think I understand the methods.