kgr

3♥ would have been forcing. But 3♥ would show a 4c♥? Can 4♥ not be a 3c♥ and a suggestion to play in 4-3?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk9hakt86542dq5ca]133|100|[/hv] (1♣)-4♥-(Pass)-Pass (DBL)-Pass-(4♠)-Pass (Pass)-??? Rem: Scoring is mix of butler and MP's

1♣-1♠ 2♥-3♦ 4♣-4♥ 3♦ is 4th suit and GF (we play 2NT Lebensohl with weaker hands) Is 4♥ control for ♣ or is 4♥ a suggestion to play? ...and more general: do you have general rules for this?

I was North and this was also my thought. Partner can also have for his 4♠ bid: ♠KQJxxxx ♥x ♦AQx ♣Ax Then 5♠ is in danger. Or: ♠KQJxxxx ♥ ♦AJx ♣Axx Then 5♠ needs a ♥ lead

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sahaqxxdxxxxcqxxx&s=skqjxxxxhkdajxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♥!)-Pass-(3♥)-4♠ All Pass 2♥=Muiderberg: weak with 5c♥ and 4c minor 3♥=preempt (with 0 pts this time) Should we have reached 6♥? (We got a ♥ lead and made +3 after LHO discarded wrong)

1♥ 1♦-1♥-1♠=4c♥

With my previous partner, I played that 1♥ shows ♠ and 1♠ shows ♥. I didn't have any real advantage, other then that opener can play more.

Pass and if partner reopens with DBL: Pass again

Yes, needs to take first trick with the A or the Q to have 2 entrees for finessing trumps (Ruffing 3rd ♥ being the 2nd). ..bidding was me with Jack. (I'm trying to practice counting opps shape better)

I also did bid 2♣ and bidding continued: 1♥-(1NT)-Pas-(Pas) 2♣-(DBL)-2♥-(Pas) Pas-(DBL)-2♠-(DBL) All Pass 2♠x did go min 2 and that was expensive at IMPs. Now I'm not sure anymore if bidding 2♣ is a good idea Vulnerable at IMPs. Partner had a weak: 5=2=4=2, he could have passed 2♥x for min 1 (The ♥'s were 3-3, but partner feared a 5-1)

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq862h75dkq74c976&s=saj7hakjt2dcaqt54]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2C-2D 2H-2NT 4C-4D 4H-4NT 5S-6C All pass LHO leads ♠3. How do you play this?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxhajtxxdakcjxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥-(1NT)-Pass-(Pass) ?? Note about partner's options over 1NT iso his pass: DBL: penalty 2♣: ♦ or 4cM and 5cminor 2♦: ♥ support 2♥: ♥ & ♠ 2♠: ♠ (We play the same as over a weak 1NT opener. Certainly not best after a 1NT overcall) ...partner could have signed off to all suit at 2-level, but not ♣ Does your choice change when green or at MP's?

This was the other hand [hv=s=sjxhqxdkqxxxckjtx]133|100|[/hv]

Thinking about it: Is this useful. We already have the same meaning in a slow pass? ...Or we can play reverse-slow-pass, that will give less TD Calls.

As I said: I don't know partner's hand. But maybe he was not strong enough to reverse. ...I'll ask him what he had.

(1♣)-Pas-(1♦): - Dbl = weak 4-4 (could be 4-3) - 1NT = good 4-4 - 2♣= 5♥ + 4♠ - 2♦ = 4♥ + 5♠ (1♣)-Pas-(1♥/♠): - Dbl = 4-4 - 1NT = preference for ♦ - 2♣= preference for major. (1♦)-Pas-(1♥/♠) (and similar with only 2 options: - Dbl = no preference or preference for lowest suit - 1NT = preference for highest suit. I would think that this is most effective when not vulnerable, against weak players that don't DBL enough, don't take advantage of the additional info the get, and are disturbed by the intervention and bid too high. But maybe it is also useful at less strict conditions.

Partner has no idea what I have. I have some slam interest, but it is possible:- that this is only opposite a max and good fitting hand of partner; Eg: QJxx=Ax=xxxx=xx vs x=Kx=AKxxxx=AKxx (Maybe this is better example to bid ...4♦...5♦?) - It is possible that I'm interested in 6 or 7. If partner takes control then he will never know if he should bid 7? Eg: QJxx=Ax=AKxxx=Kx (If partner takes control, then he will know that we have all keys, but not that we can make 7?) 5♦ means: "I have no control in ♠ or in ♣"; but it also means(?): "I don't have a good enough hand to bid 4NT" NOTE: I did bid 5♦ at the table, so probably I'm not best placed to argue with you against a 5♦ bid :lol: ....and thanks for the support for the 5♦ bid because I thought it was very bad :lol: Partner claimed after the lead. So his min must have been something like with a Club lead: A Kxxx QJTxxx AJ It is difficult for him to continue over 5♦?

More specific: My partner did bid 4♥ control. - I thought that he bid 4♥ control because he was missing a ♠ or a ♣ control and therefor I did bid 5♦. - But in fact: missing a control was not the reason for my partner's 4♥. He did bid 4♥ because he didn't want to take leadership of the hand. Which is logic because he already described his hand better then I did. (In the actual hand he did not have the extra's to take control of the hand, but probably he will very rarely take control after this bidding?) - Having ♦AK in my own hand should be more an indication of not bidding 5♦, because - not having ♦AK - it will be difficult for partner to continue over 5♦. Regards, Koen

I did bid 5♦ because I thought that partner missed a control because he started cue-bidding, but he rather missed the extra's (and ♦AK) to bid more. After the opening lead partner claimed for +2. I was now convinced that 4NT is better than 5♦. Not sure yet if 5♥ is still better. (the claim and card folding was fast, and it wasn't the right moment to ask for a better look at partners hand :P , so I don't know partners exact hand)

[hv=n=sqxxhkjxxxdkxcaxx&s=sajhaxdaqxxckjtxx]133|200|[/hv] These were the actual hands according to my partner. Should the bidding be different (my partner didn't like 4NT quantitative)?

I'm sure that I did misbid this one and a better place would probably be the beginner list......But this is a good way for not forgetting. [hv=d=n&s=sqxxxhaxdakxxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♦-1♠ 3♦-4♦ 4♥-?? All bids are rather standard 1♦=4+♦ 3♦=Good hand with 6c♦ (14 pts is possible...but probably not with ♦AK in my hand) 4♦=forcing (slam interest) 4♥=Italian cue (1st/2nd control). If partner is missing a control then 5♦ is the best bid. If he is missing the extra's to bid 4NT then 4NT - RKC 4130 - is the best bid (and do you continue then over 5♣?). What should it be?

My partner wanted me to pass with a half stop in ♥ and to run without a stop. This wasn't clear for me and I passed. (We hadn't agreed this; and in fact I thought that pass over 1st ♥ DBL already denied a stop) We got a ♠ lead (??) and partner took this with ♠A and played a ♣ taken by West who played ♥J .... for -3. (6 ♥'s and ♣A). I don't know partner's exact hand, but he says that 3NT would have made if I had ♥J. (not sure if this is true with a ♥-lead).

1H-2C-2D-2NT would be NT hand with limit (11 pts) and not forcing. In our system we don't have another option than bidding 3♦. 3♦ could even be 4-4 in the minors and a hand not suitable to bid 2NT or 3NT (no ♠ stop or too strong). With 3145 hand I would not bid 3D if slam is unlikely and if 3NT is best played in my hand. I think I would bid 3D with eg: Ax=xx=Axxx=KQxx ...3NT is probably ok given our system. (and the comments given by you show the advantage of 2/1)

Wait a minute! Are you allowed to use a call to mean what it is meant to mean? :) It is allowed by the laws, but it doesn't really fit in our system :)

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skxxhajtxxdxxckjx&s=saqthxdakqxcat9xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥-2♣ 2♦-3♦ 3NT-4NT 5♣-6♣ 2♣=GF ♣ OR 3c♥ and limit+ 2♦=12-14 with 5c♥ OR strong with ♦ 3♦=reverse 3NT=12-14 Do you agree with 4NT quantitative or is South hand too strong?