nigel_k

This is technically correct, but you are also entitled to know the laws of bridge. That, plus the knowledge that partner is barred for one round, is enough to work out that he doesn't have an opening bid without relying on any other information. So I don't think there is a legal problem with psyching in that situation, though I wouldn't do it just because it doesn't feel right to create a major problem for opponents that they never would have had if partner had acted legally. It's also not entirely safe because partner is silenced for one round only.

Disliking hearts is not a reason to pass. You will improve the contract more often than make it worse. For example I would bid 1NT with xxx - xxxx KJxxxx but would pass with Jxx xx xxxx KJxx.

I would never pass as opener using this method. Responder has to pass if weak with two four card suits. That covers a lot of hands and 1NT will play very badly on all of them. A suit contract will usually play better even if opener is 4333 and sometimes they cannot double. Also sometimes responder will have a good hand and be happy to pass the redouble (760 >> 180). My experience with weak NT is that it's best to always run unless you expect to make or go close. The hands where 1NT costs less than two of a suit are a minority and you don't have enough information to tell if you've struck one of them.

Ok then I reluctantly pass.

The first is a guess but I think the odds favour bidding 6♣. If partner has either ♥Q or ♦K there's likely be some play via a finesse or squeeze and it may well just be cold. The second I would double assuming partner needs shape to pull at this level.

The double is a reasonable choice if you think both 2NT and 3♠ are non forcing. Definitely not a SEWOG.

If you have a cashing heart and partner cannot overruff dummy then declarer has A Ax AKJxx KQxxx. That means, North chose not to open 2♣, didn't cash ♠A before playing a club, and didn't cash a top diamond to cater to stiff Q. All of those are possible but the combination of all of them seems unlikely. I would rather play declarer for something like Ax A AJxxx KQxxx. I would not have bid the way North did but it wouldn't surprise me at all in a club game.

Slam is quite likely if partner has six clubs, but I'm not sure I want to even invite slam in NT if he doesn't. A hand like x KJx QJxx AQxxx would easily be enough to accept a quantitative 4NT. Assuming no detailed discussion I would bid 3♦ followed by 4♣ and hope partner understands I have this hand when I didn't support clubs earlier. Partner will have to take it from there or we will play 4NT.

Probably East should have bid 3♥ instead of 2♥ but there is no way he can just leap to game opposite a redouble. West has more than enough to bid game at the end and deserves most of the blame.

Is that standard? I have always just played that it asks for an unusual lead and partner has to figure out which one.

I prefer to use double here to penalize or at least suggest it, maybe Kxxx xxx Qx Axxx. It's matchpoints and they are vulnerable. Partner should usually pull with a stiff heart and four spades, and pass otherwise.

Double and then bid is a strong action so you are definitely worth a raise. I would just sign off if partner invites though. Opposite a trial bid, I think you just show where your values are so either 2NT or 3D would be fine with this hand.

I agree with the Hog re 2♥ vs 3♣. But West has seriously underbid and that is the primary cause of the problem here.

I would double with the first hand. If partner can only bid three of a major, 3NT is enough. Otherwise I will bid slam. Not perfect, but I expect to reach more good slams than bad ones compared to just bidding 3NT.

If I played this as natural I would definitely use transfers and I don't think you need any specific agreement for just this situation. If they play transfers after a 2NT opening and after a 1NT overcall then South needs to disregard the UI and bid as if they are playing them here.

I would also treat it as natural, expect that partner shouldn't expect anything in spades if I double. If he does bid spades over the double I can pass, but the double could on 2245 or similar shape as well.

I chose 1♠ and would not use Michaels with 6-5 unless there was a large difference in suit quality. Not a factor in my choice under these conditions, but I don't believe it's worth using Michaels vulnerable with a weak hand at all and would just play it as intermediate or better.

I don't like it at all, but I am some way off what I would need for anything other than pass.

Paradoxically, I think people can really improve in this area by spending more time on analysis at the end of play, with all four hands exposed. You get a lot better at identifying the layouts where your play will matter and mentally discarding the ones where it doesn't, which greatly simplifies the task of deciding which layout to play for. Often just trying to write down the alternative layout you were playing for will be enough to show that it was inconsistent with the bidding and previous play.

3♣ looks right to me unless it is invitational. Then you have to pass I suppose. I have only ever played semi-forcing NT but I would bid the longest minor always in this situation and maybe even 2♦ sometimes with 5233 shape if the clubs are not very good.

I would not like to play a method where South is required to reopen on this hand. But I agree with pass by North. The two are not inconsistent because North can expect South to reopen with a double very often and it's only a small to medium loss in the small number of cases where they get to play undoubled.

I would act in the balancing seat only. Vulnerability is more of an issue when holding hands that are too flat or have soft values. High card strength requirements alone needn't vary much with vulnerability.

If you are going to penalize them at a low level, at adverse vulnerability, when you have a known eight card major fit, you are going to want a trump stack and even then might not work out. So I definitely disagree with double if it suggests penalties, and I don't understand it on this hand if not. I think 3♥ is enough. Partner can also see the vulnerability.

Pass, though partner may need that drink mgoetze is getting him. It really doesn't sound like partner has very many diamonds. He could well have four (or more) spades and three hearts since opponents are not bidding those. Even in the case where partner is 4324, we might find LHO with 2452 and RHO with 5314.

2♠ is enough. Partner will need perfect cards for game to be better than a finesse, and it will very often be worse than that even opposite a maximum. There is a risk that opponents balance and make something, but they haven't bid so far and it will be at 2♠ with our side having no guaranteed fit so it's reasonable to just hope they choose to stay out.