bilalz

too hard, almost as if it was a made up hand because the spots, suits, position and vulnerability conditions could not be more challenging. Hopefully one of these will point to the right answer when faced with such a hand. As it is, I am stumped. So I will base it another factor: the tendency of my opponents to compete/overcall/sacrifice/penalize. If I am unlucky enough to have even that condition unhelpful, unknown opps and additionally the state of the match not helping me make a choice (I would be damn right shocked if I find myself in this state), my preferences are in this order: pass, 1C, 1H, 3C when playing standard system. Its any easy 2C opening in a strong club system.

maybe I should phrase it better but many might have understood what I meant. I meant the very unlikely 3nt on (12)13-14 balanced with p. And would only do it where I knew a top score on the board was needed. I think it is clear from my post that my overwhelming choice would be pass as the situation described is not very common but does happen once in a while.

#1 is too hard, I keep changing my opinion. Too many factors: the spade spots look nice, my opening bid has already indicated a good lead, must protect my shape, the juicy penalty can go either ways... So I suspect it would end up a table feel/state of match decision on most days. One more thing, many of us would find it easier to pass this away from the table and with the benefit of a lot of thinking time to consider the implications on the score, so maybe pass is the superior option, not that I am likely to find it at the table. #2 is a pass for me at these colors unless I feel I really need a game swing.

Mostly agree with what the others said but I must say at your play was not that bad either OP, and I can't claim that I would never make the same play myself in this sequence (strange as it is). A lot of it would depend on the table feel, and if I know about the bidding habits etc. of both N and S, how I was playing that day, AND which one of N and S I like more :) Interesting hand though. cheers

I would take partner to task if I am not in game with those cards, the intermediates, the QJs and tens, 25 hcps. Not all games make (play diamonds up like the others have said and move on to the next board if you get 8 tricks instead of 9, not even worth a sigh much less a discussion) and anyone who thinks they should not be in game on the bidding is just too passive to understand that its a bidders game. Heck I'm happy being in game after seeing all 26 cards and am astounded at the suggestion that its a bad idea just based on the bidding. On the other issue, I'm opening 1C regardless of our agreement for 4-4 minors given the difference in the quality of my minors (should always prefer to help partner with the lead if it comes to that and a small lie is pretty easy price to pay on this hand).

I start on the sequence of coughs I have decided with partner to show the void(s) in my hand.... it is a long never ending sequence in this case...

Yes sorry. I will change it in the OP.

Once again I turn to the superior wisdom and experience of you folks to fill a gap in our system. I saw a hand on bbo this morning (Cavendish Pairs, cross IMPs) where it went 1c (3s) Dbl 4h all pass. On some tables it went 1c (2s) Dbl 3h 4h. Most declarers ended up in 4H. Opener had 3424 shape with AQxx of hearts and Qxx of Spades (the other cards I do not remember but nothing unusual anywhere). The doubler had Jx KTxxxx A xxxx. The hand got me thinking and searching for common agreements about what doubles and bids mean after partner has opened and there is a preempt right after that. There seems to be plenty of literature and blog posts on defense against normal preempts but a quick google search came up empty on this particular (and rather common) scenario. Are all doubles forcing takeouts? and how do you show extra strength from either hand? Your thoughts (the hand above is just an example to start off the discussion, please broaden to specify what you would do with a range of hands against a range of preempts)?

Thank you all. I must admit that I made a mistake because the actual bidding was 2c 2d 2h 2s 3h 4d which sort of sidetracked the discussion as to what 2nt meant (I think that discussion was useful as well, as would be a discussion on what 2s bid would mean). Despite the ambiguity of what "standard" is, I think it is useful to know what the majority would do so partnerships can always discuss when they want to use slightly different sequences. Here this hand was given to me as an example of LTTC during an exchange over whether we should use LTTC or not and in my view this is not LTTC and neither is it the best use of space to bid 4M-1 as LTTC. Serious 3nt is better for me. I would think 2S also is not a positive bid according to standard bidding methods and merely a relay and 2d is just waiting normally (these are incidentally the methods we play so I find the characterisation of 4d as LTTC wrong). The hand in question is from a book by Barry Rigal: Dutch ladies. World Cup 17 QF. KJT, AQJTXXX, A, AK and Qxx, Kxx, jxxx, xxx. 2c, 2d, 2j, 2s, 3h, 4d, 6h. The author obviously knows that somehow this bid is LTTC according to the conventions and the response structure of the pair in question but it is hardly a standard use of LTTC. And the 3H rebid for me does not show the very strong hand that OH has (again, according to 'standard' methods). Funnily enough the hand is such that it helps to reach a slam if there was a bidding misunderstanding where 4d was taken as king of diamonds. Also, what do you all think of the slam try by the responder, what if opener jas KJT in clubs and singleton Ace in spades? Especially since they do not seem to have specific suit asks in their locker to explore the spade suit http://www.pitbulls.shawbiz.ca/Coaches%20Corner/Slams/KCB%20-%20Specific%20Suit%20Asks.htm Once again I am grateful that so many of you take the time out to give your insights.

IMO 3nt can not be natural either way because, as pointed out above, if 2nt was natural we have a fit, and if it was negative then how come we suddenly have the strength to play 3nt. Out of interest, what would the standard meaning of a 2s bid would be in the sequence 2c 2d 2h 2s (I'm assuming some kind of Kokish relay, but does it show strength?) and any reason to call a 4d bid now as LTTC after 2c 2d 2h 2s 3h 4d? Thanks a lot for the answers. I realize that it can be a bit annoying to try to answer such a question without any knowledge of the agreements but that is precisely the point here. I stressed that absent any agreements or explanation of the various bids, which equates to standard methods amongst pick-up partners (lets assume very well skilled partners so LTTC is known to them along with other conventions like serious nt), 4d is a normal control bid and not LTTC but I was accused of arrogance, when I would simply like to know if I am wrong in my understanding of LTTC in general.

I asked because nothing was explained to me about any of the bids having a special meaning and it was claimed that 4d was LTTC. I, in my limited knowledge, claimed that as long as the bids are standard, it can not be LTTC and should be a normal control with heart as trumps. My reasoning being that explicit slam interest is not indicated and responder is hardly squeezed for other bids (serious 3nt being one of them as it can not really be a natural bid after this sequence). Thank you for the answers. Hope I get some more too, especially about my understanding of LTTC. And for anyone who faces this sequence while sitting on bbo across a partner with nothing but standard agreements.

According to standard methods, can you please say what 4d in this sequence is: 2c 2d 2h 2nt 3h 4d Many thanks in advance.

Interesting replies. I am wondering you any of you play Acol (opener's major can be 4 cards) and if the treatment for 3 card or 4 card support is the same? At the moment we use the cheaper of the two bids (cue or 2nt) as game forcing and the other as INV+. I guess we could use the game forcing bid and then follow it up with a 3nt to indicate a 3 card support with game forcing values and stopper. The 3 card support invitational hand is still tricky but we rely on judgement to upgrade or downgrade or use the bid that allows atleast one partner to ask for stopper.

Thanks Haka. Hopefully I get some more replies as well and then I can decide but yours is pretty decent already I must say.

We play Acol (opening and bidding 4 card suits up the line). We have 1c-2c and 1d-2d as game forcing bids (they deny 4 card majors). For the sake of completion, we use criss-cross (1c-2d and 1d-3c) for unbalanced invitational hands and 1m-2nt for balanced invitational hands. What I hoping someone can help us with is some sort of system of continuations to explore our hands further (mostly to reach slams in minors but also avoid the odd bad 3nt spot) as we have plenty of space left. Kaplan bidding (showing major suit stoppers) seems primitive and unnecessary as we have already shown game forcing values, maybe someone has some relay system to show distributional hands. You can assume IMPs scoring if that makes a difference. We will play this both at IMPs and MPs but team matches are more important as we all know. Many thanks in advance.